[Treebound]

MT,
I appreciate your looking into the stats.  I do follow the team and I'm a season ticket holder.  The story the stats do not tell is that ASU is an undersized team and that we should have had a distinct advantage on the boards.  We did not. 

I think it gets back to the point made by Winflop and others, that this team needed more grit and determination to get past round 1.  Haase was close to getting them there for the UofO game.  The team played with a sense of urgency in that game and almost pulled out the upset.  We just couldn't get over the hump this year (similar to the last X years).  Not shooting well from the outside and not owning the paint and the boards, makes for a tough season.    Strength in at least one of those facets would have helped.  Next year...

[Treebound]

MT,
I appreciate your looking into the stats.  I do follow the team and I'm a season ticket holder.  The story the stats do not tell is that ASU is an undersized team and that we should have had a distinct advantage on the boards.  We did not. 

I think it gets back to the point made by Winflop and others, that this team needed more grit and determination to get past round 1.  Haase was close to getting them there for the UofO game.  The team played with a sense of urgency in that game and almost pulled out the upset.  We just couldn't get over the hump this year (similar to the last X years).  Not shooting well from the outside and not owning the paint and the boards, makes for a tough season.    Strength in at least one of those facets would have helped.  Next year...

[MustardtheBallCarrier]

TB - Your in person scouting report is accurate.  The stats show that Stanford was not a good rebounding team this year at all, ranking in the 120-140 range of DI schools in offensive and defensive rebounding rate.  But if you look at the team stats and where the team ranks relative to all other DI schools, you will see that Stanford actually rebounds better than it does just about anything else (steals being the exception, interestingly, where the team ranked 80th in steals per play).  The offensive numbers are putrid.

Points/Game - #247
Effective FG% - #263
FT% - #244
3PT% - #292
2PT% - #220
Turnovers/Play - #166


[Note that different websites I looked at had slightly different rankings, so take these for being directionally illustrative]

I respectfully submit that the issue is that there simply isn't enough skill on the roster, period.  When we get to a point where the talent gap is closer, I'm all for talking about style of play and intangibles.

The glory years Monty teams were always greater than the sum of their parts.  They played a system, they played smart and they played tough.  But they also had a baseline level of talented big men, shooting and strong guard play way beyond this year's team.

[MustardtheBallCarrier]

TB - Your in person scouting report is accurate.  The stats show that Stanford was not a good rebounding team this year at all, ranking in the 120-140 range of DI schools in offensive and defensive rebounding rate.  But if you look at the team stats and where the team ranks relative to all other DI schools, you will see that Stanford actually rebounds better than it does just about anything else (steals being the exception, interestingly, where the team ranked 80th in steals per play).  The offensive numbers are putrid.

Points/Game - #247
Effective FG% - #263
FT% - #244
3PT% - #292
2PT% - #220
Turnovers/Play - #166


[Note that different websites I looked at had slightly different rankings, so take these for being directionally illustrative]

I respectfully submit that the issue is that there simply isn't enough skill on the roster, period.  When we get to a point where the talent gap is closer, I'm all for talking about style of play and intangibles.

The glory years Monty teams were always greater than the sum of their parts.  They played a system, they played smart and they played tough.  But they also had a baseline level of talented big men, shooting and strong guard play way beyond this year's team.

[Viking_Guy]

MtBC--

That's been my thought as well; hard to judge Haase when this year's team had perhaps one player who could crack the top 7 or 8 at his position over the last 30 years.

PG - Knight, Lee, Hernandez/McDonald, Taylor/Johnson/Randle.  Heck, probably Marcus Lollie and Jarrett Mann before either two this year.
SG - Lichti, Barnes, Cross, Moseley, Brown, and others.
SF - Jacobsen, Childress, Mendez, Robinson, Grunfeld, Hill.
PF - Madsen, Keefe, Collins, Lopez, Borchardt, Wright, Haryasz.  But Reid could get up there.  Probably not crack the top-4, but up there.  Better now than Justin Davis, I think.
C - Collins, Lopez, Young, Borchardt, Haryasz.

With the SG/SF and PF/C, there's crossover.  But I don't see anyone from this year's roster cracking the top 4 at any position (with appropriate caveats for different eras, styles, opposition).

That goes doubly in comparison to the Pac-12 this year.  Beyond Travis, would any player on the roster crack the rotation for any of the top 3?  $C? C.al?  Maybe Humphrey, if he got his act together, or Marcus, as a defensive/energy substitute.  But how many of them would push for playing time in an era when 4 of the 5 players on the court need to be able to shoot from outside?

Frankly, I think the press on da Silva alone is better than any recruit not named Reid Travis in the last 5 years.  Add in Okpala as a ball-handling small forward (and remembering the number of times players trying to slash this season got their pockets picked), and a tough Aussie point guard in White, plus at least being on the list of seven top-60 recruits for 2018, and color me cautiously optimistic.

Finally, the rebounding numbers may be a bit misleading, because of the chaos caused by an inability to guard the point of attack.  The ease with which Stanford opponents got into the lane and forced rotations from our bigs all season long left Travis and Humphrey constantly having to either step up to cut off a drive or fly out at the corner 3 at the last second; not exactly in prime rebounding position.  Not to say they couldn't do a better job, but the corollary of their effort and hustle on defense is how many times the defense had to adjust in any given possession.  And most of that wasn't caused by mismatches inside.

VG

[Viking_Guy]

MtBC--

That's been my thought as well; hard to judge Haase when this year's team had perhaps one player who could crack the top 7 or 8 at his position over the last 30 years.

PG - Knight, Lee, Hernandez/McDonald, Taylor/Johnson/Randle.  Heck, probably Marcus Lollie and Jarrett Mann before either two this year.
SG - Lichti, Barnes, Cross, Moseley, Brown, and others.
SF - Jacobsen, Childress, Mendez, Robinson, Grunfeld, Hill.
PF - Madsen, Keefe, Collins, Lopez, Borchardt, Wright, Haryasz.  But Reid could get up there.  Probably not crack the top-4, but up there.  Better now than Justin Davis, I think.
C - Collins, Lopez, Young, Borchardt, Haryasz.

With the SG/SF and PF/C, there's crossover.  But I don't see anyone from this year's roster cracking the top 4 at any position (with appropriate caveats for different eras, styles, opposition).

That goes doubly in comparison to the Pac-12 this year.  Beyond Travis, would any player on the roster crack the rotation for any of the top 3?  $C? C.al?  Maybe Humphrey, if he got his act together, or Marcus, as a defensive/energy substitute.  But how many of them would push for playing time in an era when 4 of the 5 players on the court need to be able to shoot from outside?

Frankly, I think the press on da Silva alone is better than any recruit not named Reid Travis in the last 5 years.  Add in Okpala as a ball-handling small forward (and remembering the number of times players trying to slash this season got their pockets picked), and a tough Aussie point guard in White, plus at least being on the list of seven top-60 recruits for 2018, and color me cautiously optimistic.

Finally, the rebounding numbers may be a bit misleading, because of the chaos caused by an inability to guard the point of attack.  The ease with which Stanford opponents got into the lane and forced rotations from our bigs all season long left Travis and Humphrey constantly having to either step up to cut off a drive or fly out at the corner 3 at the last second; not exactly in prime rebounding position.  Not to say they couldn't do a better job, but the corollary of their effort and hustle on defense is how many times the defense had to adjust in any given possession.  And most of that wasn't caused by mismatches inside.

VG

[donkey687]

This team returned most of their roster and only lost one player last year.  Stanford had more returning production this year than just about anyone else in the Pac12 plus was much healthier this year. We should have been better not worse this year.  I love our new coach and was glad to see Dawkins go, but it sure was a disappointing first year in my opinion.

[donkey687]

This team returned most of their roster and only lost one player last year.  Stanford had more returning production this year than just about anyone else in the Pac12 plus was much healthier this year. We should have been better not worse this year.  I love our new coach and was glad to see Dawkins go, but it sure was a disappointing first year in my opinion.

[CTcard]

I respectfully submit that the issue is that there simply isn't enough skill on the roster, period.

Still thinking this through, but ...

I think it certainly is true that there isn't enough skill on the roster. For example, shooting is a skill and the team doesn't shoot well.

What I am less sure is when "skill on the roster" is used as a substitute for "inherent talent on the roster". On that scale, I think the issue isn't not enough talent on the roster period - but rather not enough talent in enough spots and certainly not well enough developed talent.

It's hard to find any objective measure of "inherent talent", but I think I see some.
To try to make some kind of case I will do something I dislike: use recruiting rankings as a substitute (and I am going to use Scout for convenience - possibly making this even worse).
On Stanford's roster was:
Stanback = 4 star, #14 C (top 100)
Sheffield = 4 star, #18 SF (top 100)
Walker = 4 star, #24 SF
Sharma = 3 star, #30 C
Travis = 4 star, #7 PF (top 50)
Cartwright = 4 star, #10 PG (top 50)
Humphrey = 4 star, #10 C (top 100)
Pickens = 3 star, not ranked SG
Allen = 4 star, #10 SG (top 50)
Allen #2 = 3 star, #27 PG
Verheoven = 4 star, #21C (top 100)
Sanders = 3 star, #22 SG

I don't think that is so much out of line with recruiting rankings of some good Stanford teams, and one might think better than the results.

[CTcard]

I respectfully submit that the issue is that there simply isn't enough skill on the roster, period.

Still thinking this through, but ...

I think it certainly is true that there isn't enough skill on the roster. For example, shooting is a skill and the team doesn't shoot well.

What I am less sure is when "skill on the roster" is used as a substitute for "inherent talent on the roster". On that scale, I think the issue isn't not enough talent on the roster period - but rather not enough talent in enough spots and certainly not well enough developed talent.

It's hard to find any objective measure of "inherent talent", but I think I see some.
To try to make some kind of case I will do something I dislike: use recruiting rankings as a substitute (and I am going to use Scout for convenience - possibly making this even worse).
On Stanford's roster was:
Stanback = 4 star, #14 C (top 100)
Sheffield = 4 star, #18 SF (top 100)
Walker = 4 star, #24 SF
Sharma = 3 star, #30 C
Travis = 4 star, #7 PF (top 50)
Cartwright = 4 star, #10 PG (top 50)
Humphrey = 4 star, #10 C (top 100)
Pickens = 3 star, not ranked SG
Allen = 4 star, #10 SG (top 50)
Allen #2 = 3 star, #27 PG
Verheoven = 4 star, #21C (top 100)
Sanders = 3 star, #22 SG

I don't think that is so much out of line with recruiting rankings of some good Stanford teams, and one might think better than the results.

[oldalum]

I think the issue isn't not enough talent on the roster period - but rather not enough talent in enough spots and certainly not well enough developed talent.

To the extent that the talent has not been developed well enough, except for the freshmen that is probably more on Dawkins than on Haase.

[oldalum]

I think the issue isn't not enough talent on the roster period - but rather not enough talent in enough spots and certainly not well enough developed talent.

To the extent that the talent has not been developed well enough, except for the freshmen that is probably more on Dawkins than on Haase.