01-29-2021, 11:37 PM
I'm not disagreeing with the coaching decision, but it is a vulnerability. UCLA killed us on the boards.
For years, as part of Stanford's traditional great defense, Stanford players, esp. our defensive specialists (except to some extent Anna recently) bail quickly when one of our shots goes up. The rebound comes down to the opponents. I don't see that as much for other teams. They try to block out and get their own rebounds.
It means Stanford has better transition defense, but it means we get fewer offensive rebounds than we might otherwise. When we are shooting lights out, it isn't so noticeable, but when we don't....
It also probably means Stanford practices this way. When scrimmaging, the squad that shoots, bails back on defense. The defensive rebounders don't have to fight for position or for the ball. One of our posts just brings it in, ball down at her stomach where someone can grab it, if there were someone there. She doesn't have to fight for position, or secure the ball up high.
WSU stuck around for OR and fought for the ball. UCLA did too.
Against UCLA we got just 23.3% of potential offensive rebounds while they got 46.7%. They got 11 more FGA than we did. That's 20% more shots. (+11 FGA = +14 OR, +2 fewer TO than Stanford. I was going to say -5 block differential, but that doesn't take away FGA.)
Stanford shot 50% to UCLA's 35.4%. Break it down:
UCLA was 15/43 2Pt (30 pts) + 8/22 3pt (24 points) + 16/23 FT (16 pts).
Stanford was 25/44 2pt (50 pts) + 2/10 3pt (6 pts) + 10/17 FT (10 pts)
I don't put the blame on the 6 point differential in FT, although that hurts. It is those 11 extra FGA that cost the game. (Even at 20% 3pt%, 12 more 3FGA would tie the game. However, if we had 12 more shots, I'd have wanted them to be most 2pt. At 50%, we win by 6.)
For years, as part of Stanford's traditional great defense, Stanford players, esp. our defensive specialists (except to some extent Anna recently) bail quickly when one of our shots goes up. The rebound comes down to the opponents. I don't see that as much for other teams. They try to block out and get their own rebounds.
It means Stanford has better transition defense, but it means we get fewer offensive rebounds than we might otherwise. When we are shooting lights out, it isn't so noticeable, but when we don't....
It also probably means Stanford practices this way. When scrimmaging, the squad that shoots, bails back on defense. The defensive rebounders don't have to fight for position or for the ball. One of our posts just brings it in, ball down at her stomach where someone can grab it, if there were someone there. She doesn't have to fight for position, or secure the ball up high.
WSU stuck around for OR and fought for the ball. UCLA did too.
Against UCLA we got just 23.3% of potential offensive rebounds while they got 46.7%. They got 11 more FGA than we did. That's 20% more shots. (+11 FGA = +14 OR, +2 fewer TO than Stanford. I was going to say -5 block differential, but that doesn't take away FGA.)
Stanford shot 50% to UCLA's 35.4%. Break it down:
UCLA was 15/43 2Pt (30 pts) + 8/22 3pt (24 points) + 16/23 FT (16 pts).
Stanford was 25/44 2pt (50 pts) + 2/10 3pt (6 pts) + 10/17 FT (10 pts)
I don't put the blame on the 6 point differential in FT, although that hurts. It is those 11 extra FGA that cost the game. (Even at 20% 3pt%, 12 more 3FGA would tie the game. However, if we had 12 more shots, I'd have wanted them to be most 2pt. At 50%, we win by 6.)
