[M T]

... in the first half, OSU hung with Stanford on the boards in large part because of the rotation help from the bigs; in the second half, a more condensed defense helped Stanford outboard the Beavers something like 20-10.

Rebound count is always distorted by shooting percentage.  That's what made it seem Oregon stayed with Stanford in rebounds.

Actually, in the first half, Stanford got 32% of the chances for O rebounds and 89% of the chances for D rebounds (to OSU's 11% and 68%). That's good rebounding even for Stanford, better than last year's averages.  For an equal number of misses at each end, Stanford would have gotten 50% more rebounds. 

The second half was truly impressive:  72% on the offensive end and 75% on the defensive end.  For the game, that's 51% on the offensive end and 79%.  Last year our averages were 42% and 70% (PAC-10: 42% and 72%).

Stanford
1st:  7 OR, 8 DR
2nd:  15 OR, 15 DR
Oregon State
1st: 1 OR, 15 DR
2nd: 5 OR, 6 DR

[M T]

... in the first half, OSU hung with Stanford on the boards in large part because of the rotation help from the bigs; in the second half, a more condensed defense helped Stanford outboard the Beavers something like 20-10.

Rebound count is always distorted by shooting percentage.  That's what made it seem Oregon stayed with Stanford in rebounds.

Actually, in the first half, Stanford got 32% of the chances for O rebounds and 89% of the chances for D rebounds (to OSU's 11% and 68%). That's good rebounding even for Stanford, better than last year's averages.  For an equal number of misses at each end, Stanford would have gotten 50% more rebounds. 

The second half was truly impressive:  72% on the offensive end and 75% on the defensive end.  For the game, that's 51% on the offensive end and 79%.  Last year our averages were 42% and 70% (PAC-10: 42% and 72%).

Stanford
1st:  7 OR, 8 DR
2nd:  15 OR, 15 DR
Oregon State
1st: 1 OR, 15 DR
2nd: 5 OR, 6 DR