11-22-2014, 04:34 PM
When Amber sat down in the first half against UTexas, Stanford seemed to switch to more effective driving for shots. At least it was more effective in the sense that UTexas started committing a lot of fouls. I believe it was because they weren't able to deal with the style of play.
We started the second half in much the same fashion. But then we seemed to quit forcing the fouls, just as we had several of their players with 3 fouls. I felt that if we had kept it up for 5 more minutes, we'd have had UTexas in real foul trouble with maybe 10 minutes left.Â
UTexas was called for 7 fouls in the first 13:50 before Amber was called for her 3rd foul. UTexas was called for 7 fouls in the next 6:10. They were called for 4 more in the first 4:06 of the second half until Amber came back in (15:54). They committed just 9 more in the remaining 15:54 of regulation. So, with Amber on the floor, UTexas committed 16 fouls in 29:44 (a rate of 24.4 fouls per 40 min); With Amber on the bench, UTexas committed 11 fouls in 10:16 (a rate 48.2 fouls per 40 min), almost twice the rate.
If Texas had played for even 5 more minutes at this double foul/minute rate and gotten about 3 more fouls (than they did) as indicated by this rate, they would have been in more severe foul trouble (I believe 1 player was out and two had 4 fouls at the end of regulation).
Getting your opponents into foul trouble doesn't work well if you only do half the job, or even 3/4 of the job.
I believe using the faster players as we were during this 10 minutes might be a better way to deal with teams with larger, good athletes. Doing half the job didn't get it done.
Notes:
Just for comparison sake, Stanford had 7 fouls in the first 13:50, 3 in the next 6:10; 3 in the first 4:06 of the 2nd half, 3 in the remaining 15:54. The refs didn't seem to go crazy calling fouls during that 10 minutes.
If you're looking at the bottom line only, we outscored Texas by 2 to 4 points during that 10:16. (3 points officially; 4 points if you count from the end of the foul shots Amber's foul created.)Â That's not surprising considering the differential number (5) of fouls.
I only looked at the fouls in regulation. During this time, only 1 or 2 fouls (all by UTexas) might be considered as intentional. Removing those fouls would make my point stronger, so I left them in. Intentional fouls in overtime would only add noise so I didn't consider overtime at all.
We started the second half in much the same fashion. But then we seemed to quit forcing the fouls, just as we had several of their players with 3 fouls. I felt that if we had kept it up for 5 more minutes, we'd have had UTexas in real foul trouble with maybe 10 minutes left.Â
UTexas was called for 7 fouls in the first 13:50 before Amber was called for her 3rd foul. UTexas was called for 7 fouls in the next 6:10. They were called for 4 more in the first 4:06 of the second half until Amber came back in (15:54). They committed just 9 more in the remaining 15:54 of regulation. So, with Amber on the floor, UTexas committed 16 fouls in 29:44 (a rate of 24.4 fouls per 40 min); With Amber on the bench, UTexas committed 11 fouls in 10:16 (a rate 48.2 fouls per 40 min), almost twice the rate.
If Texas had played for even 5 more minutes at this double foul/minute rate and gotten about 3 more fouls (than they did) as indicated by this rate, they would have been in more severe foul trouble (I believe 1 player was out and two had 4 fouls at the end of regulation).
Getting your opponents into foul trouble doesn't work well if you only do half the job, or even 3/4 of the job.
I believe using the faster players as we were during this 10 minutes might be a better way to deal with teams with larger, good athletes. Doing half the job didn't get it done.
Notes:
Just for comparison sake, Stanford had 7 fouls in the first 13:50, 3 in the next 6:10; 3 in the first 4:06 of the 2nd half, 3 in the remaining 15:54. The refs didn't seem to go crazy calling fouls during that 10 minutes.
If you're looking at the bottom line only, we outscored Texas by 2 to 4 points during that 10:16. (3 points officially; 4 points if you count from the end of the foul shots Amber's foul created.)Â That's not surprising considering the differential number (5) of fouls.
I only looked at the fouls in regulation. During this time, only 1 or 2 fouls (all by UTexas) might be considered as intentional. Removing those fouls would make my point stronger, so I left them in. Intentional fouls in overtime would only add noise so I didn't consider overtime at all.