[76lsjumb]

[quote author=MT link=topic=9175.msg78723#msg78723 date=1387356646]
Geez, you'd think that this group would only be satisfied if every starter scored 20 points each (no one with as few as 19, of course), 7 rebounds each, and kept the opponents to 20 points, making no fouls and no turnovers, and no missed free throws.

Very well said, MT.  I remain optimistic about this team and this year--more so than last year, simply because we have so much developing talent and we do not yet know how high it might rise. 

But besides the development of our frosh, the most important thing about the New Mexico game to me was the polish of Taylor Greenfield.  She does not look like she is rusty at all, and in fact looks much improved on offense than her 1st and 2nd years.  If she can continue to sustain that level of play, then the last piece of the puzzle falls into place.
[/quote]

Since I started this, I figured I'd take a chance on jumping back in...although I'm poised to jump under the desk if the shooting becomes too intense.  :)

On one level, my interest in Chiney having 30 points and no other starter having even 1 point five minutes into the second half of a game was based on the fact that, in 50+ years of watching Stanford basketball -- men's or women's -- I could not recall having seen anything close to a box score like that.

Mike then asked [paraphrasing] -- If it's working so well -- we were, after all, well out in front and, as indicated, NM apparently couldn't/wouldn't stop it -- why not keep doing it?  As far as winning this game -- or putting together a box score very likely to get a mention on ESPN -- was concerned, there's no reason at all to stop.

But that's not what spurred my initial post, as the header was meant to indicate.  It seems to me a reasonable argument can be made, in the warmup game to what is likely to be the 2d most important game of your regular season, relying heavily on a strategy that is almost certainly NOT going to work in that later game not only wastes opportunities to work on other, more viable strategies against real live opposition [rather than just against yourselves in practices] but also risks getting everyone too reliant on something that, when it doesn't work in the next game, leaves us with that old bugaboo [the "dribble around for 25 seconds and throw up a prayer" offense] or worse [forcing ill-advised passes to Chiney that get picked off before they even get close to her].  In short, the reason not to keep doing it was based on the "big picture," not just winning that game.

Indeed, I saw at least one story after the NM game suggesting that Tara hereself wasn't particularly thrilled with the other starters' lack of production. 

It seems to me that there is a lot of room on the spectrum between one player scoring all of the points and not being satisfied unless "every starter scored 20 points each."  Coincidentally, if you look Tennessee's box score from last night, they had five players in double figures [although none scored 20], including three of the starters [the other two starters had 8 and 7].  I, for one,  would be more than satisfied with a box score like that. 

Of course, if Chiney goes for 50 against Tennessee, none of the other starters scores a single point,... and we win, I'd be perfectly satisfied with that as well.  ;D

[76lsjumb]

[quote author=MT link=topic=9175.msg78723#msg78723 date=1387356646]
Geez, you'd think that this group would only be satisfied if every starter scored 20 points each (no one with as few as 19, of course), 7 rebounds each, and kept the opponents to 20 points, making no fouls and no turnovers, and no missed free throws.

Very well said, MT.  I remain optimistic about this team and this year--more so than last year, simply because we have so much developing talent and we do not yet know how high it might rise. 

But besides the development of our frosh, the most important thing about the New Mexico game to me was the polish of Taylor Greenfield.  She does not look like she is rusty at all, and in fact looks much improved on offense than her 1st and 2nd years.  If she can continue to sustain that level of play, then the last piece of the puzzle falls into place.
[/quote]

Since I started this, I figured I'd take a chance on jumping back in...although I'm poised to jump under the desk if the shooting becomes too intense.  :)

On one level, my interest in Chiney having 30 points and no other starter having even 1 point five minutes into the second half of a game was based on the fact that, in 50+ years of watching Stanford basketball -- men's or women's -- I could not recall having seen anything close to a box score like that.

Mike then asked [paraphrasing] -- If it's working so well -- we were, after all, well out in front and, as indicated, NM apparently couldn't/wouldn't stop it -- why not keep doing it?  As far as winning this game -- or putting together a box score very likely to get a mention on ESPN -- was concerned, there's no reason at all to stop.

But that's not what spurred my initial post, as the header was meant to indicate.  It seems to me a reasonable argument can be made, in the warmup game to what is likely to be the 2d most important game of your regular season, relying heavily on a strategy that is almost certainly NOT going to work in that later game not only wastes opportunities to work on other, more viable strategies against real live opposition [rather than just against yourselves in practices] but also risks getting everyone too reliant on something that, when it doesn't work in the next game, leaves us with that old bugaboo [the "dribble around for 25 seconds and throw up a prayer" offense] or worse [forcing ill-advised passes to Chiney that get picked off before they even get close to her].  In short, the reason not to keep doing it was based on the "big picture," not just winning that game.

Indeed, I saw at least one story after the NM game suggesting that Tara hereself wasn't particularly thrilled with the other starters' lack of production. 

It seems to me that there is a lot of room on the spectrum between one player scoring all of the points and not being satisfied unless "every starter scored 20 points each."  Coincidentally, if you look Tennessee's box score from last night, they had five players in double figures [although none scored 20], including three of the starters [the other two starters had 8 and 7].  I, for one,  would be more than satisfied with a box score like that. 

Of course, if Chiney goes for 50 against Tennessee, none of the other starters scores a single point,... and we win, I'd be perfectly satisfied with that as well.  ;D