Boring? I could agree to "not exciting", but I think the team and fans probably all found it fun, not boring. It seemed the team played almost perfectly in the first half, except that it was against a team without defense. But, even then, one can look at Stanford\'s defense.
And, for the team, I\'m sure all the subs enjoyed being able to get good playing time, and the starters enjoyed that vicariously. Actually, by the mid-point of the second half, I felt the subs were getting burned out. They\'ve been used to coming in for maybe 5 minutes, but they had to play 3x as long today.
6 players in double figures (with one more on the brink) and Nneka wasn\'t one of them! The 47 bench points beat the USF game by 2. The starters played just 46% of the minutes. Only one sub played less than 10 minutes. Oregon\'s 32 fouls were the most this year, as were Stanford\'s 32 FT and 45 FTA. The surprising number to me was that Stanford was credited with only 4 fast break points. The starters were 16 of 29(55%) FG (12 of 19 in 2pt range).
I really do feel Tara\'s been able to develop the depth on her team better than ever before. Stanford can play well with the obvious 4 plus any one of 4 more. Barring a 1998-style injury disaster, Stanford should be in the final four without too much worry.
After VG\'s comments about Sarah B.(I\'ll spell it with an "h" as that\'s how it is in the roster, and distinguishes her from Sara J.) needing hand strength, I watched that aspect of her game more attentively today. I think hand strength is clearly part of it, but I think a bigger problem is not having what we used to call soft hands. Her fingers are too tense and so the ball tends to bounce a bit off her fingers, and she tends to hold it with her finger tips. With soft hands, the hand cradles the ball more quickly, and then you can clamp down on it with all your hand strength in case someone swipes at it.
------
Regarding the aggressive play... If it doesn\'t kill you... I think it is better to go through this now with the PAC-10 teams than in, say, the Elite 8. If anything, the Pac-10 doesn\'t play normally as rough as some of the other conferences. This should better prepare Stanford.
I don\'t really think that the physical play of Washington contributed directly to shooting 5% for 3-pt shots, but it probably contributed to shooting 6 more 3\'s than average for the total number of shots, which did hurt. I\'m wondering if it wasn\'t weak decision-making not to try to get the ball inside more -- our TO were normal, our fouls were normal, their fouls were much higher than normal.
Wash. had 1 more foul when we first played them, when we beat them by 29 pts. It would seem the strategy didn\'t work then. But Gonzaga had a lot of fouls against us, and that was a too-close game as well (only a couple of extra 3s over average). In Tempe, ASU fouled Stanford a lot and only lost by 18 after previously losing by a gazillion with about half as many fouls. Interestingly, DePaul ties for the fewest fouls against Stanford this season.
So this strategy seems about as useful as putting up a lightning rod in the desert, hoping for a strike to get enough juice to start your car. A really long shot, but if the stars come together...
------
In the past, I\'ve tracked ratings and RPIs to try to figure out how Stanford compared to other teams (and I\'ve had my share of Rodney Dangerfield complaints). This year, it hasn\'t seemed worth it. The top 3 teams seemed obvious, and seemed destined for the final 4. That\'s tracked pretty well, if you overlook Stanford\'s falling flat on its face at DePaul. If you add in Tenn, then they played a nice set of games against each other:
Stanford (at home) beat UConn. UConn (at home) barely beat Baylor. Baylor (at home) beat Tenn. Â Tenn (at home) barely beat Stanford.
Fortunately, none of the those teams are from Indianapolis. Â (I\'m going to miss the Pac-10 format of home and away games against each opponent!)
I have no doubt that Stanford should make it to the final 4. I would give the edge to Stanford against any other team on a neutral court if there are no injuries. But the game winner isn\'t always the team that is better overall, it is the team that is better that night. If Stanford again hits a good team that shoots 66% and we shoot 37%, they\'ll be heading home.
------
Ho hum, just another day for the Farm. I stopped by the softball game after the WBB. For the day:
#1 W Swim&Diving: Pac-10 champ. meet win;
#1 W. Water Polo win, win over #9;
#1 W. Tennis win;
#2 WBB: win (clinch conf. title);
#2 M. Swim&Diving: Divers competing in conf. champ.
#4 M. Gym: win over #7;
#4 MVB: win over #3;
#6 M. Track: MPSF conf champ. meet win;
#8 Baseball: loss to #3;
#8 M. Tennis: loss to #9;
#16 W. Softball: win over #24, win;
#21 W Track: 3rd in MPSF conf;
MBB: win;
Synchro. Swimming: win
Amazing!
And, for the team, I\'m sure all the subs enjoyed being able to get good playing time, and the starters enjoyed that vicariously. Actually, by the mid-point of the second half, I felt the subs were getting burned out. They\'ve been used to coming in for maybe 5 minutes, but they had to play 3x as long today.
6 players in double figures (with one more on the brink) and Nneka wasn\'t one of them! The 47 bench points beat the USF game by 2. The starters played just 46% of the minutes. Only one sub played less than 10 minutes. Oregon\'s 32 fouls were the most this year, as were Stanford\'s 32 FT and 45 FTA. The surprising number to me was that Stanford was credited with only 4 fast break points. The starters were 16 of 29(55%) FG (12 of 19 in 2pt range).
I really do feel Tara\'s been able to develop the depth on her team better than ever before. Stanford can play well with the obvious 4 plus any one of 4 more. Barring a 1998-style injury disaster, Stanford should be in the final four without too much worry.
After VG\'s comments about Sarah B.(I\'ll spell it with an "h" as that\'s how it is in the roster, and distinguishes her from Sara J.) needing hand strength, I watched that aspect of her game more attentively today. I think hand strength is clearly part of it, but I think a bigger problem is not having what we used to call soft hands. Her fingers are too tense and so the ball tends to bounce a bit off her fingers, and she tends to hold it with her finger tips. With soft hands, the hand cradles the ball more quickly, and then you can clamp down on it with all your hand strength in case someone swipes at it.
------
Regarding the aggressive play... If it doesn\'t kill you... I think it is better to go through this now with the PAC-10 teams than in, say, the Elite 8. If anything, the Pac-10 doesn\'t play normally as rough as some of the other conferences. This should better prepare Stanford.
I don\'t really think that the physical play of Washington contributed directly to shooting 5% for 3-pt shots, but it probably contributed to shooting 6 more 3\'s than average for the total number of shots, which did hurt. I\'m wondering if it wasn\'t weak decision-making not to try to get the ball inside more -- our TO were normal, our fouls were normal, their fouls were much higher than normal.
Wash. had 1 more foul when we first played them, when we beat them by 29 pts. It would seem the strategy didn\'t work then. But Gonzaga had a lot of fouls against us, and that was a too-close game as well (only a couple of extra 3s over average). In Tempe, ASU fouled Stanford a lot and only lost by 18 after previously losing by a gazillion with about half as many fouls. Interestingly, DePaul ties for the fewest fouls against Stanford this season.
So this strategy seems about as useful as putting up a lightning rod in the desert, hoping for a strike to get enough juice to start your car. A really long shot, but if the stars come together...
------
In the past, I\'ve tracked ratings and RPIs to try to figure out how Stanford compared to other teams (and I\'ve had my share of Rodney Dangerfield complaints). This year, it hasn\'t seemed worth it. The top 3 teams seemed obvious, and seemed destined for the final 4. That\'s tracked pretty well, if you overlook Stanford\'s falling flat on its face at DePaul. If you add in Tenn, then they played a nice set of games against each other:
Stanford (at home) beat UConn. UConn (at home) barely beat Baylor. Baylor (at home) beat Tenn. Â Tenn (at home) barely beat Stanford.
Fortunately, none of the those teams are from Indianapolis. Â (I\'m going to miss the Pac-10 format of home and away games against each opponent!)
I have no doubt that Stanford should make it to the final 4. I would give the edge to Stanford against any other team on a neutral court if there are no injuries. But the game winner isn\'t always the team that is better overall, it is the team that is better that night. If Stanford again hits a good team that shoots 66% and we shoot 37%, they\'ll be heading home.
------
Ho hum, just another day for the Farm. I stopped by the softball game after the WBB. For the day:
#1 W Swim&Diving: Pac-10 champ. meet win;
#1 W. Water Polo win, win over #9;
#1 W. Tennis win;
#2 WBB: win (clinch conf. title);
#2 M. Swim&Diving: Divers competing in conf. champ.
#4 M. Gym: win over #7;
#4 MVB: win over #3;
#6 M. Track: MPSF conf champ. meet win;
#8 Baseball: loss to #3;
#8 M. Tennis: loss to #9;
#16 W. Softball: win over #24, win;
#21 W Track: 3rd in MPSF conf;
MBB: win;
Synchro. Swimming: win
Amazing!