[81alum]

[quote author=81alum link=topic=18861.msg225822#msg225822 date=1520903353]
After Western Illinois beat us, they traveled to Gonzaga and were convincingly beaten by the Zags.  The Zags beat USF by considerably more than we did.  They beat Washington State so they seem at least the equivalent of a middle of the Pac 12 team.  Now I know all the cautions about transference not applying to sports--but Gonzaga is a good team and we will need to think of them as a major threat and not some first round scrub team.  I remember well our last-second 1 point win over South Dakota State at Maples two years ago--although that was a second round game.  That game felt a lot like the Western Illinois game, except we got lucky and won it.  We don't want to depend on getting lucky to beat Gonzaga.

Then Missouri, which as you have already pointed out, has beaten teams we failed to beat and comes in with a massive chip on its shoulder.  They will be saying to themselves "why is 10 loss Stanford hosting and we (7 loss Missouri) not?  They are not dreading playing us, they are eager to prove the committee and the polls wrong for slighting them.  The psychological boost could be considerable.

Yes, just winning the first two will be very formidable.  Getting to the sweet 16 really will be a major accomplishment for us if we manage it.  And if we do, we get Louisville--at least it isn't UConn.  It is fair for a 10 loss team to be where we are, and we need to play very well if we want to advance.  Things could have been much, much worse.

So much will hinge on how much we have improved since the Pac 12 Tournament.  Will we play more like the team that beat Oregon in Eugene, or more like the team that lost to Western Illinois right here at Maples?  I for one would be ecstatic and pronounce the season a success if get through to the sweet 16 and play a competitive game against Louisville.  And I will be disappointed if we lose in the first couple of rounds or get blown out in the sweet 16.  I think those are fair expectations, and would set us up for an improved team next year.

81, it's interesting that we've talked about the psychological components of our opponents as an added dimension to the matchup. Similarly, we've talked about which team will show up for us, the worldbeaters that swept the Oregon schools or the team that lacked the necessary willpower to overcome a Ca.l team on their senior day or the team that lost to W. Illinois.

Others feel free to chime in as well. If you were analyzing our mindset coming into the tournament as a Zags or Tigers fan, how would you assess us? You mentioned Missouri wanting to prove that they should have been seeded above us, but what about our mentality? I would hope that we would rise to the challenge and be motivated. The Stanford program hasn't suffered double digit losses very often under Tara and you think it would be our motivating factor to finish the season on a high note.
[/quote]

That is a good point, and I have been trying to understand our team's psychological state, unsuccessfully all year, I might add. 

Do you remember 2008 when Maryland was seeded 1 and we were seeded 2, and the injustice of that drove our Candice-led team to cut down the nets at Spokane?  For a team like that we all knew what our players were thinking and how they were motivated.  This year's team, however, seems much more private.  They seem to really like each other and are probably much closer than some previous teams.  Tara has said several times that she appeals to them to use their closeness to motivate them to "play for each other" so they can keep playing together.  But I frankly have little insight into why they have the let-downs against Western Illinois or at Cal but can also sweep the Oregon schools or beat UConn for a half. 

This team's ups and downs are not all explained by the varying skill of our opponents, or by injuries.  The mental state of our players has to be a major factor.  McPhee can go from 2 points in one half to 31 in the next half.  Smith can go from 8 points in the first Ohio State game to 33 points in the second.  Anna Wilson can hit 7 treys against Ohio State and then 13 in the other 20 games combined.  Carrington goes from being a dominant offensive player to a disappearing one.    Sniezek occasionally proves she really can be a very effective offensive player, and then she retreats.  All these players have shown every sign of greatness....except consistency.  I think that is what Tara meant at the season's low point when she complained that she did not have a "go-to player."  She didn't have a player she could absolutely count on, since most players seemed so erratic.

I know it isn't realistic to expect all of our players to be at their absolute best every single time they go on the court, but can you imagine what kind of team we would have if they were simply all consistent?  If they all played at 3/4 of their best every single game?

[81alum]

[quote author=81alum link=topic=18861.msg225822#msg225822 date=1520903353]
After Western Illinois beat us, they traveled to Gonzaga and were convincingly beaten by the Zags.  The Zags beat USF by considerably more than we did.  They beat Washington State so they seem at least the equivalent of a middle of the Pac 12 team.  Now I know all the cautions about transference not applying to sports--but Gonzaga is a good team and we will need to think of them as a major threat and not some first round scrub team.  I remember well our last-second 1 point win over South Dakota State at Maples two years ago--although that was a second round game.  That game felt a lot like the Western Illinois game, except we got lucky and won it.  We don't want to depend on getting lucky to beat Gonzaga.

Then Missouri, which as you have already pointed out, has beaten teams we failed to beat and comes in with a massive chip on its shoulder.  They will be saying to themselves "why is 10 loss Stanford hosting and we (7 loss Missouri) not?  They are not dreading playing us, they are eager to prove the committee and the polls wrong for slighting them.  The psychological boost could be considerable.

Yes, just winning the first two will be very formidable.  Getting to the sweet 16 really will be a major accomplishment for us if we manage it.  And if we do, we get Louisville--at least it isn't UConn.  It is fair for a 10 loss team to be where we are, and we need to play very well if we want to advance.  Things could have been much, much worse.

So much will hinge on how much we have improved since the Pac 12 Tournament.  Will we play more like the team that beat Oregon in Eugene, or more like the team that lost to Western Illinois right here at Maples?  I for one would be ecstatic and pronounce the season a success if get through to the sweet 16 and play a competitive game against Louisville.  And I will be disappointed if we lose in the first couple of rounds or get blown out in the sweet 16.  I think those are fair expectations, and would set us up for an improved team next year.

81, it's interesting that we've talked about the psychological components of our opponents as an added dimension to the matchup. Similarly, we've talked about which team will show up for us, the worldbeaters that swept the Oregon schools or the team that lacked the necessary willpower to overcome a Ca.l team on their senior day or the team that lost to W. Illinois.

Others feel free to chime in as well. If you were analyzing our mindset coming into the tournament as a Zags or Tigers fan, how would you assess us? You mentioned Missouri wanting to prove that they should have been seeded above us, but what about our mentality? I would hope that we would rise to the challenge and be motivated. The Stanford program hasn't suffered double digit losses very often under Tara and you think it would be our motivating factor to finish the season on a high note.
[/quote]

That is a good point, and I have been trying to understand our team's psychological state, unsuccessfully all year, I might add. 

Do you remember 2008 when Maryland was seeded 1 and we were seeded 2, and the injustice of that drove our Candice-led team to cut down the nets at Spokane?  For a team like that we all knew what our players were thinking and how they were motivated.  This year's team, however, seems much more private.  They seem to really like each other and are probably much closer than some previous teams.  Tara has said several times that she appeals to them to use their closeness to motivate them to "play for each other" so they can keep playing together.  But I frankly have little insight into why they have the let-downs against Western Illinois or at Cal but can also sweep the Oregon schools or beat UConn for a half. 

This team's ups and downs are not all explained by the varying skill of our opponents, or by injuries.  The mental state of our players has to be a major factor.  McPhee can go from 2 points in one half to 31 in the next half.  Smith can go from 8 points in the first Ohio State game to 33 points in the second.  Anna Wilson can hit 7 treys against Ohio State and then 13 in the other 20 games combined.  Carrington goes from being a dominant offensive player to a disappearing one.    Sniezek occasionally proves she really can be a very effective offensive player, and then she retreats.  All these players have shown every sign of greatness....except consistency.  I think that is what Tara meant at the season's low point when she complained that she did not have a "go-to player."  She didn't have a player she could absolutely count on, since most players seemed so erratic.

I know it isn't realistic to expect all of our players to be at their absolute best every single time they go on the court, but can you imagine what kind of team we would have if they were simply all consistent?  If they all played at 3/4 of their best every single game?