[81alum]

Now that the full stats are out, I see we shot 23% in the first half and 46% in the second half.  Washington went from 31% to 38%.  So while the defenses wore down a bit as they always do, leading to a somewhat more offensive second half, our increase in offensive output has to be explained by a lot more than Washington just wearing down.  In the first half Amber and Lili each had 2 points apiece.  The Washington defensive plan was working perfectly.  In the second half Amber had 12 and Lili had 13.  They did get to the rim a bit more but they mainly got their pull-up midrange jumpers working.  That is the same pattern as the Utah game.  I am not sure if this was the result of a scheme or a halftime adjustment or a collapse in the Washington defense against gap penetration.  I would like to know, if any of you have insight.  It would be nice to start our games with that kind of success.

Here is something else that is remarkable:  we had 20 points in the paint compared with Washington's 12.  Those mostly came from guards getting to the rim.

A shocking gap was that we had 19 second chance points compared with Washington's 2.  Their coach even remarked about that at halftime, but the problem got worse for them in the second half.  In fact, Washington did not have a single field goal off of a second chance in the game.

Where did all those second chance points come from?  We had 13 offensive rebounds on 45 missed shots--with that many misses we were bound to get some O-boards.  (Kaylee had 4 of them and McPhee 2 but the rest were widely scattered with no particular pattern.)  In looking over the play-by-play, the posts quite often missed when they tried immediate follow-ups on those offensive rebounds, and when they passed out they did not pick up immediate assists either, but they got new clocks and extended the play.  A lot of our free throws came off of fouls we picked up after getting offensive rebounds, and a few two and three point jumpers did too.  The typical pattern of getting an immediate layup after a O-board was not there--McCall and Kaylee each had one such put-back.

Another interesting stat:  Kelsey Plum was 6/16.  Amber was also 6/16.  The two lefty guards famous for favoring one direction over the other both wound up with identical stats--but this was a major reduction in Kelsey's normal output and it was not for Amber. 

Also, while the announcers kept talking about Washington's depth, Washington played relatively few players and we played more.  They had 6 players with 10+ minutes and one more with 5+.  We had 7 players with 10+ and 2 more with 5+.  I think we wore them down a bit more than they wore us down.

The press is pointing out that we have held our last 9 opponents to fewer than 60 points in each game (including the two losses in Tennessee), while we started the season allowing our first six opponents all to score more than 60--sometimes much more.  At the beginning of the season we talked a lot about "up tempo" offense.  I think it is now clear that Tara has decided against the up tempo part, and that this has in turn led to a slower paced game and (sometimes) a more effective defense. 

Finally--were those new glasses for Bird?  They looked nice--playing to the Nerd Nation meme!

[81alum]

Now that the full stats are out, I see we shot 23% in the first half and 46% in the second half.  Washington went from 31% to 38%.  So while the defenses wore down a bit as they always do, leading to a somewhat more offensive second half, our increase in offensive output has to be explained by a lot more than Washington just wearing down.  In the first half Amber and Lili each had 2 points apiece.  The Washington defensive plan was working perfectly.  In the second half Amber had 12 and Lili had 13.  They did get to the rim a bit more but they mainly got their pull-up midrange jumpers working.  That is the same pattern as the Utah game.  I am not sure if this was the result of a scheme or a halftime adjustment or a collapse in the Washington defense against gap penetration.  I would like to know, if any of you have insight.  It would be nice to start our games with that kind of success.

Here is something else that is remarkable:  we had 20 points in the paint compared with Washington's 12.  Those mostly came from guards getting to the rim.

A shocking gap was that we had 19 second chance points compared with Washington's 2.  Their coach even remarked about that at halftime, but the problem got worse for them in the second half.  In fact, Washington did not have a single field goal off of a second chance in the game.

Where did all those second chance points come from?  We had 13 offensive rebounds on 45 missed shots--with that many misses we were bound to get some O-boards.  (Kaylee had 4 of them and McPhee 2 but the rest were widely scattered with no particular pattern.)  In looking over the play-by-play, the posts quite often missed when they tried immediate follow-ups on those offensive rebounds, and when they passed out they did not pick up immediate assists either, but they got new clocks and extended the play.  A lot of our free throws came off of fouls we picked up after getting offensive rebounds, and a few two and three point jumpers did too.  The typical pattern of getting an immediate layup after a O-board was not there--McCall and Kaylee each had one such put-back.

Another interesting stat:  Kelsey Plum was 6/16.  Amber was also 6/16.  The two lefty guards famous for favoring one direction over the other both wound up with identical stats--but this was a major reduction in Kelsey's normal output and it was not for Amber. 

Also, while the announcers kept talking about Washington's depth, Washington played relatively few players and we played more.  They had 6 players with 10+ minutes and one more with 5+.  We had 7 players with 10+ and 2 more with 5+.  I think we wore them down a bit more than they wore us down.

The press is pointing out that we have held our last 9 opponents to fewer than 60 points in each game (including the two losses in Tennessee), while we started the season allowing our first six opponents all to score more than 60--sometimes much more.  At the beginning of the season we talked a lot about "up tempo" offense.  I think it is now clear that Tara has decided against the up tempo part, and that this has in turn led to a slower paced game and (sometimes) a more effective defense. 

Finally--were those new glasses for Bird?  They looked nice--playing to the Nerd Nation meme!