[Papa John]

The Stanford men continue their busy nonconference schedule with a game versus Valparaiso. As mentioned in another thread, the team-until-recently-known-as-the-Crusaders is coached by none other than Stanford legend Matt Lottich, who is now in his sixth year as head coach. The Beacons (as in beacon of light) are off to a rough start with losses to Toledo and University of Illinois-Chicago. Mike Montgomery is scheduled to be the analyst on TV, so I look forward to hearing some stories and reflections about Lottich the player.

Some Stanford-Lottich nuggets from the Valpo athletics website:

Lottich still ranks tied for 11th in program history in career made 3-point field goals (169) and tied for eighth on Stanford’s single-season chart for made 3s with 79 in 2002-03. To this day, he also owns the ninth-best 3-point field goal percentage by a freshman in program history at .407 in 2000-01.

Under the direction of head coach Mike Montgomery, Lottich’s teams went a combined 105-24 (.814) over his four-year tenure, including a 30-2 mark his senior season. The Cardinal reached the NCAA Tournament in each of his four seasons and won at least one game in each season including an Elite Eight appearance his freshman year.
****************

Now those were the glory days!

Although it's been almost two decades, I'm hoping that Lottich receives a warm welcome at Maples. And I leave you with my favorite Lottich highlight:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DOQ8ASbn6o 
(if you don't have time to watch the whole clip, start at 6:40)

A relevant aside: In 2004 I didn't get Fox Sports Net, so I was on the phone with a fellow Stanford alumnus in the Bay Area who was watching the game and relaying the information to me. The excitement in the announcer's voice was nothing compared to my friend's ecstatic reaction. It wasn't until ESPN later showed the highlight that I saw for myself the beautiful creation that had emerged from the chaos of those final 17 seconds.

[Papa John]

The Stanford men continue their busy nonconference schedule with a game versus Valparaiso. As mentioned in another thread, the team-until-recently-known-as-the-Crusaders is coached by none other than Stanford legend Matt Lottich, who is now in his sixth year as head coach. The Beacons (as in beacon of light) are off to a rough start with losses to Toledo and University of Illinois-Chicago. Mike Montgomery is scheduled to be the analyst on TV, so I look forward to hearing some stories and reflections about Lottich the player.

Some Stanford-Lottich nuggets from the Valpo athletics website:

Lottich still ranks tied for 11th in program history in career made 3-point field goals (169) and tied for eighth on Stanford’s single-season chart for made 3s with 79 in 2002-03. To this day, he also owns the ninth-best 3-point field goal percentage by a freshman in program history at .407 in 2000-01.

Under the direction of head coach Mike Montgomery, Lottich’s teams went a combined 105-24 (.814) over his four-year tenure, including a 30-2 mark his senior season. The Cardinal reached the NCAA Tournament in each of his four seasons and won at least one game in each season including an Elite Eight appearance his freshman year.
****************

Now those were the glory days!

Although it's been almost two decades, I'm hoping that Lottich receives a warm welcome at Maples. And I leave you with my favorite Lottich highlight:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DOQ8ASbn6o 
(if you don't have time to watch the whole clip, start at 6:40)

A relevant aside: In 2004 I didn't get Fox Sports Net, so I was on the phone with a fellow Stanford alumnus in the Bay Area who was watching the game and relaying the information to me. The excitement in the announcer's voice was nothing compared to my friend's ecstatic reaction. It wasn't until ESPN later showed the highlight that I saw for myself the beautiful creation that had emerged from the chaos of those final 17 seconds.

[Sam Leopold]

Lottich has done some promising things with Valparaiso. He had Valpo up 6 points in the second half over Bradley in the MVC tourney final in 2020, but the Braves came back and won, punching a token ticket to a tournament that didn't happen.

The first college basketball game I attended, both at Stanford and ever, was the Oregon State home game in 2002-03.  Stanford was down big in the second half, and appeared on track for a catastrophic setback, and the crowd was quiet and restless, and then Matt Lottich caught fire, and the place went bananas.  After the game I was going absolutely ape pellets on the concourse for a good 10 to 15 minutes, screaming all manner of inane gobbledegook.  Lottich made this fan, of college basketball in general and Stanford in particular, that night with his improbable heroics.

Even amidst these doldrum days, that candle has stayed warm.  If Lottich should do the improbable again only this time as the coach on the opposite sideline, it won't be enough to turn that candle off.  But it would further dim.

[Sam Leopold]

Lottich has done some promising things with Valparaiso. He had Valpo up 6 points in the second half over Bradley in the MVC tourney final in 2020, but the Braves came back and won, punching a token ticket to a tournament that didn't happen.

The first college basketball game I attended, both at Stanford and ever, was the Oregon State home game in 2002-03.  Stanford was down big in the second half, and appeared on track for a catastrophic setback, and the crowd was quiet and restless, and then Matt Lottich caught fire, and the place went bananas.  After the game I was going absolutely ape pellets on the concourse for a good 10 to 15 minutes, screaming all manner of inane gobbledegook.  Lottich made this fan, of college basketball in general and Stanford in particular, that night with his improbable heroics.

Even amidst these doldrum days, that candle has stayed warm.  If Lottich should do the improbable again only this time as the coach on the opposite sideline, it won't be enough to turn that candle off.  But it would further dim.

[Spiny_Norman]

One of my favorite memories of watching Stanford hoops in person over the years was a performance by Matt Lottich vs. UCLA at Pauley Pavilion in 2003. He got popped in the mouth in the 1st half that required stitches in his lip. He came back and played with no less intensity than before he was injured. He made five 3 pointers, had 20 points and helped Stanford beat the Bruins 93-84. Warrior mentality.

[Spiny_Norman]

One of my favorite memories of watching Stanford hoops in person over the years was a performance by Matt Lottich vs. UCLA at Pauley Pavilion in 2003. He got popped in the mouth in the 1st half that required stitches in his lip. He came back and played with no less intensity than before he was injured. He made five 3 pointers, had 20 points and helped Stanford beat the Bruins 93-84. Warrior mentality.

[burger]

Lottich somehow has not aged a day since 2004. 

Is Ingram hurt?  Murrell started in his place
EDIT: Nope, just Haase screwing with the starting lineup again. Seems to be working. 12-1 good guys at the under 16. Valpo is missing their two best players tonight.

[burger]

Lottich somehow has not aged a day since 2004. 

Is Ingram hurt?  Murrell started in his place
EDIT: Nope, just Haase screwing with the starting lineup again. Seems to be working. 12-1 good guys at the under 16. Valpo is missing their two best players tonight.

[JJJ]

This game is fun to watch!

[JJJ]

This game is fun to watch!

[Canalejas]

That was a fun win. Nice to see Lottich again, too. That 2004 team was special.

[Canalejas]

That was a fun win. Nice to see Lottich again, too. That 2004 team was special.

[Papa John]

I only had the chance to watch the first half, which was by far the best first half that Stanford has played so far this season.

Must not get my hopes up... must not get my hopes up...

[Papa John]

I only had the chance to watch the first half, which was by far the best first half that Stanford has played so far this season.

Must not get my hopes up... must not get my hopes up...

[FarmTeam]

Season ticket holder but my first time to Maples this season. It was great to have an easy W against an overmatched Valpo team missing some key guys, but, sorry, I'm going to zag on this one. This game -- more specifically, how Haase coaches this team -- left a pit in my stomach about the upcoming Pac-12 season. Well, the pit was already there from the prior games, save a short stint in the second half against SJSU maybe, but nothing about this game changed my feelings. I admit that I've been pretty low on Haase for a couple of years now, and it's gotten to the point that I'm questioning why I'm a season ticket holder because I can already envision being driven to distraction more than ever by Haase this season. In general, I don't think Haase can coach offense out of a paper bag, and his player rotations defy understanding. Was true since he got here, and seeing it this year of course.

On the bright side, Ingram and Raynaud are the real deal. Already the best players on the team, and it's not particularly close. I marvel at Ingram's playmaking, scoring and good size, and Raynaud moves shockingly well for a 7'1" freshman and has a decent skill set to go with it. Silva wasn't great tonight, was sloppy with the ball at times, but had his moments and I like his upside. I'm still reasonably high on Jones (would it kill Haase to have the guys set screens to give him more open looks from 3?) and Delaire, and think we have some other useful guys off the bench (e.g., Angel was scorching hot tonight as was Taitz).

On the down side, Haase continues to give A LOT of minutes to guys who aren't what I'd term "Pac-12 quality" players who should be playing meaningful minutes. That's Murrell, Kisunas, Beskind and O'Connell probably in order of worst to relative best. All these guys have limited skills and athleticism and are eaten alive by good Pac-12 teams, and none should at most do more than play limited minutes off the bench. But Haase seems to LOVE these kinds of guys. They seem to be "his" kind of guys, i.e., scrappy but unathletic, and we already saw what happened with last year's late-season collapse what happens when the more talented players get into Haase's doghouse. 

By the way, Ingram barely played tonight for a guy who is clearly our best player. We didn't need him, so maybe that was why, but knowing Haase it also made me nervous. For god's sake, give the keys to the kid! If Haase doesn't, it's going to be a long season...

[FarmTeam]

Season ticket holder but my first time to Maples this season. It was great to have an easy W against an overmatched Valpo team missing some key guys, but, sorry, I'm going to zag on this one. This game -- more specifically, how Haase coaches this team -- left a pit in my stomach about the upcoming Pac-12 season. Well, the pit was already there from the prior games, save a short stint in the second half against SJSU maybe, but nothing about this game changed my feelings. I admit that I've been pretty low on Haase for a couple of years now, and it's gotten to the point that I'm questioning why I'm a season ticket holder because I can already envision being driven to distraction more than ever by Haase this season. In general, I don't think Haase can coach offense out of a paper bag, and his player rotations defy understanding. Was true since he got here, and seeing it this year of course.

On the bright side, Ingram and Raynaud are the real deal. Already the best players on the team, and it's not particularly close. I marvel at Ingram's playmaking, scoring and good size, and Raynaud moves shockingly well for a 7'1" freshman and has a decent skill set to go with it. Silva wasn't great tonight, was sloppy with the ball at times, but had his moments and I like his upside. I'm still reasonably high on Jones (would it kill Haase to have the guys set screens to give him more open looks from 3?) and Delaire, and think we have some other useful guys off the bench (e.g., Angel was scorching hot tonight as was Taitz).

On the down side, Haase continues to give A LOT of minutes to guys who aren't what I'd term "Pac-12 quality" players who should be playing meaningful minutes. That's Murrell, Kisunas, Beskind and O'Connell probably in order of worst to relative best. All these guys have limited skills and athleticism and are eaten alive by good Pac-12 teams, and none should at most do more than play limited minutes off the bench. But Haase seems to LOVE these kinds of guys. They seem to be "his" kind of guys, i.e., scrappy but unathletic, and we already saw what happened with last year's late-season collapse what happens when the more talented players get into Haase's doghouse. 

By the way, Ingram barely played tonight for a guy who is clearly our best player. We didn't need him, so maybe that was why, but knowing Haase it also made me nervous. For god's sake, give the keys to the kid! If Haase doesn't, it's going to be a long season...

[teejers1]

Season ticket holder but my first time to Maples this season. It was great to have an easy W against an overmatched Valpo team missing some key guys, but, sorry, I'm going to zag on this one. This game -- more specifically, how Haase coaches this team -- left a pit in my stomach about the upcoming Pac-12 season. Well, the pit was already there from the prior games, save a short stint in the second half against SJSU maybe, but nothing about this game changed my feelings. I admit that I've been pretty low on Haase for a couple of years now, and it's gotten to the point that I'm questioning why I'm a season ticket holder because I can already envision being driven to distraction more than ever by Haase this season. In general, I don't think Haase can coach offense out of a paper bag, and his player rotations defy understanding. Was true since he got here, and seeing it this year of course.

On the bright side, Ingram and Raynaud are the real deal. Already the best players on the team, and it's not particularly close. I marvel at Ingram's playmaking, scoring and good size, and Raynaud moves shockingly well for a 7'1" freshman and has a decent skill set to go with it. Silva wasn't great tonight, was sloppy with the ball at times, but had his moments and I like his upside. I'm still reasonably high on Jones (would it kill Haase to have the guys set screens to give him more open looks from 3?) and Delaire, and think we have some other useful guys off the bench (e.g., Angel was scorching hot tonight as was Taitz).

On the down side, Haase continues to give A LOT of minutes to guys who aren't what I'd term "Pac-12 quality" players who should be playing meaningful minutes. That's Murrell, Kisunas, Beskind and O'Connell probably in order of worst to relative best. All these guys have limited skills and athleticism and are eaten alive by good Pac-12 teams, and none should at most do more than play limited minutes off the bench. But Haase seems to LOVE these kinds of guys. They seem to be "his" kind of guys, i.e., scrappy but unathletic, and we already saw what happened with last year's late-season collapse what happens when the more talented players get into Haase's doghouse. 

By the way, Ingram barely played tonight for a guy who is clearly our best player. We didn't need him, so maybe that was why, but knowing Haase it also made me nervous. For god's sake, give the keys to the kid! If Haase doesn't, it's going to be a long season...

Okay, what gives you (and burger, and maybe others here) the conviction that Silva is even as good as MOC, let alone better?
That's a serious question.
Silva had a couple bad TOs (one ending in a layup the other way) and was schooled by the opposing PG on a few consecutive possessions.  Yeah, Silva flashes a nice no-look on occasion . . . but honestly, I think some fans are blinded by the occasional eyebrow-raising play, and just ignore the brutal plays.

I'm not saying Silva won't be a better PG down the road, or isn't perhaps comparable now.  
But I'm honestly surprised at the confidence some have here in proclaiming that Silva has to start, is PG of the future, etc.
From this angle, MOC is stronger, a better defender, as good a shooter, and as good an assist man.

[teejers1]

Season ticket holder but my first time to Maples this season. It was great to have an easy W against an overmatched Valpo team missing some key guys, but, sorry, I'm going to zag on this one. This game -- more specifically, how Haase coaches this team -- left a pit in my stomach about the upcoming Pac-12 season. Well, the pit was already there from the prior games, save a short stint in the second half against SJSU maybe, but nothing about this game changed my feelings. I admit that I've been pretty low on Haase for a couple of years now, and it's gotten to the point that I'm questioning why I'm a season ticket holder because I can already envision being driven to distraction more than ever by Haase this season. In general, I don't think Haase can coach offense out of a paper bag, and his player rotations defy understanding. Was true since he got here, and seeing it this year of course.

On the bright side, Ingram and Raynaud are the real deal. Already the best players on the team, and it's not particularly close. I marvel at Ingram's playmaking, scoring and good size, and Raynaud moves shockingly well for a 7'1" freshman and has a decent skill set to go with it. Silva wasn't great tonight, was sloppy with the ball at times, but had his moments and I like his upside. I'm still reasonably high on Jones (would it kill Haase to have the guys set screens to give him more open looks from 3?) and Delaire, and think we have some other useful guys off the bench (e.g., Angel was scorching hot tonight as was Taitz).

On the down side, Haase continues to give A LOT of minutes to guys who aren't what I'd term "Pac-12 quality" players who should be playing meaningful minutes. That's Murrell, Kisunas, Beskind and O'Connell probably in order of worst to relative best. All these guys have limited skills and athleticism and are eaten alive by good Pac-12 teams, and none should at most do more than play limited minutes off the bench. But Haase seems to LOVE these kinds of guys. They seem to be "his" kind of guys, i.e., scrappy but unathletic, and we already saw what happened with last year's late-season collapse what happens when the more talented players get into Haase's doghouse. 

By the way, Ingram barely played tonight for a guy who is clearly our best player. We didn't need him, so maybe that was why, but knowing Haase it also made me nervous. For god's sake, give the keys to the kid! If Haase doesn't, it's going to be a long season...

Okay, what gives you (and burger, and maybe others here) the conviction that Silva is even as good as MOC, let alone better?
That's a serious question.
Silva had a couple bad TOs (one ending in a layup the other way) and was schooled by the opposing PG on a few consecutive possessions.  Yeah, Silva flashes a nice no-look on occasion . . . but honestly, I think some fans are blinded by the occasional eyebrow-raising play, and just ignore the brutal plays.

I'm not saying Silva won't be a better PG down the road, or isn't perhaps comparable now.  
But I'm honestly surprised at the confidence some have here in proclaiming that Silva has to start, is PG of the future, etc.
From this angle, MOC is stronger, a better defender, as good a shooter, and as good an assist man.

[FarmTeam]

Okay, what gives you (and burger, and maybe others here) the conviction that Silva is even as good as MOC, let alone better?
That's a serious question.
Silva had a couple bad TOs (one ending in a layup the other way) and was schooled by the opposing PG on a few consecutive possessions.  Yeah, Silva flashes a nice no-look on occasion . . . but honestly, I think some fans are blinded by the occasional eyebrow-raising play, and just ignore the brutal plays.

I'm not saying Silva won't be a better PG down the road, or isn't perhaps comparable now.  
But I'm honestly surprised at the confidence some have here in proclaiming that Silva has to start, is PG of the future, etc.
From this angle, MOC is stronger, a better defender, as good a shooter, and as good an assist man.

It's not so much that I'm super high on Silva at this very moment (unlike Ingram and Raynaud), but the kid is a true freshman and has shown flashes such that I think his ceiling is multitudes higher than O'Connell's. Yeah, Silva had some sloppy turnovers tonight, but I can live with it at the moment given the upside and the good things. Having said that, I'm mostly just low on O'Connell. Frankly, he's just not very good. Not a consistent playmaker and doesn't initiate the offense other than mostly to dribble it up and make a perimeter pass. When he drives into the lane too often he either forces something that isn't there (turnover) or he gets blocked. He is unathletic. His shot is spotty. His passing is meh. To be fair, I did say he was the least bad on my list of "non-Pac-12 quality" guys. He should be playing 6-8 minutes a game as a back-up for us, and it would be less than that for a genuinely good Pac-12 team.

[FarmTeam]

Okay, what gives you (and burger, and maybe others here) the conviction that Silva is even as good as MOC, let alone better?
That's a serious question.
Silva had a couple bad TOs (one ending in a layup the other way) and was schooled by the opposing PG on a few consecutive possessions.  Yeah, Silva flashes a nice no-look on occasion . . . but honestly, I think some fans are blinded by the occasional eyebrow-raising play, and just ignore the brutal plays.

I'm not saying Silva won't be a better PG down the road, or isn't perhaps comparable now.  
But I'm honestly surprised at the confidence some have here in proclaiming that Silva has to start, is PG of the future, etc.
From this angle, MOC is stronger, a better defender, as good a shooter, and as good an assist man.

It's not so much that I'm super high on Silva at this very moment (unlike Ingram and Raynaud), but the kid is a true freshman and has shown flashes such that I think his ceiling is multitudes higher than O'Connell's. Yeah, Silva had some sloppy turnovers tonight, but I can live with it at the moment given the upside and the good things. Having said that, I'm mostly just low on O'Connell. Frankly, he's just not very good. Not a consistent playmaker and doesn't initiate the offense other than mostly to dribble it up and make a perimeter pass. When he drives into the lane too often he either forces something that isn't there (turnover) or he gets blocked. He is unathletic. His shot is spotty. His passing is meh. To be fair, I did say he was the least bad on my list of "non-Pac-12 quality" guys. He should be playing 6-8 minutes a game as a back-up for us, and it would be less than that for a genuinely good Pac-12 team.

[teejers1]

Okay, what gives you (and burger, and maybe others here) the conviction that Silva is even as good as MOC, let alone better?
That's a serious question.
Silva had a couple bad TOs (one ending in a layup the other way) and was schooled by the opposing PG on a few consecutive possessions.  Yeah, Silva flashes a nice no-look on occasion . . . but honestly, I think some fans are blinded by the occasional eyebrow-raising play, and just ignore the brutal plays.

I'm not saying Silva won't be a better PG down the road, or isn't perhaps comparable now.  
But I'm honestly surprised at the confidence some have here in proclaiming that Silva has to start, is PG of the future, etc.
From this angle, MOC is stronger, a better defender, as good a shooter, and as good an assist man.

It's not so much that I'm super high on Silva at this very moment (unlike Ingram and Raynaud), but the kid is a true freshman and has shown flashes such that I think his ceiling is multitudes higher than O'Connell's. Yeah, Silva had some sloppy turnovers tonight, but I can live with it at the moment given the upside and the good things. Having said that, I'm mostly just low on O'Connell. Frankly, he's just not very good. Not a consistent playmaker and doesn't initiate the offense other than mostly to dribble it up and make a perimeter pass. When he drives into the lane too often he either forces something that isn't there (turnover) or he gets blocked. He is unathletic. His shot is spotty. His passing is meh. To be fair, I did say he was the least bad on my list of "non-Pac-12 quality" guys. He should be playing 6-8 minutes a game as a back-up for us, and it would be less than that for a genuinely good Pac-12 team.

So in your world, that means Silva for 32-34 minutes a game.  Enough said. We aren't going to agree on this topic.  At least barring a whole lot of additional information coming in.

I can't help but notice your group "not Pac 12 quality guys" and what they have in common.  Look, I'm as guilty as the next guy in accepting hoops stereotypes, and if you throw in "walk on" vs. scholie player on top of that, well . . . how does Beskind even get on the court, right?  But tell me, has Beskind looked outclassed to you in games yet?  Has he been torched on D?  And more specifically, any moreso than other perimeter players on the roster? 

There was only one perimeter guy that was repeatedly abused tonight on D, and that was your boy, Silva.  But that's okay - gonna happen sometimes, especially to newbies.  And his D wasn't horrible (unlike when the SJSU player Ingram was guarding just dribbled from the top off a screen for uncontested layups the other night - that was on Ingram or the big guarding the screener).  Valpo PG took a lot of shots and was feisty.

If you want to say Stanford is offensively challenged and needs its best 5 scorers out there . . . okay.  That would be Ingram, Raynaud, Delaire, a PG (I'd take MOC, you'd take Silva), and . . . um . . . Jones?  It wouldn't surprise me at all if in practice Murrell is a big scorer, and maybe Angel, and Taitz, too (their strokes looked sweet tonight).  The point is:  it's not like there is a Clear Cut 5, followed by 2 or 3 other guys.  The mosh pit is pretty mixed right now.  But it will get sorted out, presumably, as time goes on.

Last point:  little concerned about Delaire's body language, etc. on the court . . . and I'll just leave it at that.

[teejers1]

Okay, what gives you (and burger, and maybe others here) the conviction that Silva is even as good as MOC, let alone better?
That's a serious question.
Silva had a couple bad TOs (one ending in a layup the other way) and was schooled by the opposing PG on a few consecutive possessions.  Yeah, Silva flashes a nice no-look on occasion . . . but honestly, I think some fans are blinded by the occasional eyebrow-raising play, and just ignore the brutal plays.

I'm not saying Silva won't be a better PG down the road, or isn't perhaps comparable now.  
But I'm honestly surprised at the confidence some have here in proclaiming that Silva has to start, is PG of the future, etc.
From this angle, MOC is stronger, a better defender, as good a shooter, and as good an assist man.

It's not so much that I'm super high on Silva at this very moment (unlike Ingram and Raynaud), but the kid is a true freshman and has shown flashes such that I think his ceiling is multitudes higher than O'Connell's. Yeah, Silva had some sloppy turnovers tonight, but I can live with it at the moment given the upside and the good things. Having said that, I'm mostly just low on O'Connell. Frankly, he's just not very good. Not a consistent playmaker and doesn't initiate the offense other than mostly to dribble it up and make a perimeter pass. When he drives into the lane too often he either forces something that isn't there (turnover) or he gets blocked. He is unathletic. His shot is spotty. His passing is meh. To be fair, I did say he was the least bad on my list of "non-Pac-12 quality" guys. He should be playing 6-8 minutes a game as a back-up for us, and it would be less than that for a genuinely good Pac-12 team.

So in your world, that means Silva for 32-34 minutes a game.  Enough said. We aren't going to agree on this topic.  At least barring a whole lot of additional information coming in.

I can't help but notice your group "not Pac 12 quality guys" and what they have in common.  Look, I'm as guilty as the next guy in accepting hoops stereotypes, and if you throw in "walk on" vs. scholie player on top of that, well . . . how does Beskind even get on the court, right?  But tell me, has Beskind looked outclassed to you in games yet?  Has he been torched on D?  And more specifically, any moreso than other perimeter players on the roster? 

There was only one perimeter guy that was repeatedly abused tonight on D, and that was your boy, Silva.  But that's okay - gonna happen sometimes, especially to newbies.  And his D wasn't horrible (unlike when the SJSU player Ingram was guarding just dribbled from the top off a screen for uncontested layups the other night - that was on Ingram or the big guarding the screener).  Valpo PG took a lot of shots and was feisty.

If you want to say Stanford is offensively challenged and needs its best 5 scorers out there . . . okay.  That would be Ingram, Raynaud, Delaire, a PG (I'd take MOC, you'd take Silva), and . . . um . . . Jones?  It wouldn't surprise me at all if in practice Murrell is a big scorer, and maybe Angel, and Taitz, too (their strokes looked sweet tonight).  The point is:  it's not like there is a Clear Cut 5, followed by 2 or 3 other guys.  The mosh pit is pretty mixed right now.  But it will get sorted out, presumably, as time goes on.

Last point:  little concerned about Delaire's body language, etc. on the court . . . and I'll just leave it at that.

[Phogge]

Two different planets tonight. One was Stanford who looked like a team that will get a little better but is marginally talented.

The other planet was UCLA/Villanova.

[Phogge]

Two different planets tonight. One was Stanford who looked like a team that will get a little better but is marginally talented.

The other planet was UCLA/Villanova.

[needle]

Beskind literally had a backcourt violation where no one else touched the ball. It was the basketball equivalent of a running back tripping over his own feet.

[needle]

Beskind literally had a backcourt violation where no one else touched the ball. It was the basketball equivalent of a running back tripping over his own feet.

[FarmTeam]

So in your world, that means Silva for 32-34 minutes a game.  Enough said. We aren't going to agree on this topic.  At least barring a whole lot of additional information coming in.

I can't help but notice your group "not Pac 12 quality guys" and what they have in common.  Look, I'm as guilty as the next guy in accepting hoops stereotypes, and if you throw in "walk on" vs. scholie player on top of that, well . . . how does Beskind even get on the court, right?  But tell me, has Beskind looked outclassed to you in games yet?  Has he been torched on D?  And more specifically, any moreso than other perimeter players on the roster? 

There was only one perimeter guy that was repeatedly abused tonight on D, and that was your boy, Silva.  But that's okay - gonna happen sometimes, especially to newbies.  And his D wasn't horrible (unlike when the SJSU player Ingram was guarding just dribbled from the top off a screen for uncontested layups the other night - that was on Ingram or the big guarding the screener).  Valpo PG took a lot of shots and was feisty.

If you want to say Stanford is offensively challenged and needs its best 5 scorers out there . . . okay.  That would be Ingram, Raynaud, Delaire, a PG (I'd take MOC, you'd take Silva), and . . . um . . . Jones?  It wouldn't surprise me at all if in practice Murrell is a big scorer, and maybe Angel, and Taitz, too (their strokes looked sweet tonight).  The point is:  it's not like there is a Clear Cut 5, followed by 2 or 3 other guys.  The mosh pit is pretty mixed right now.  But it will get sorted out, presumably, as time goes on.

Last point:  little concerned about Delaire's body language, etc. on the court . . . and I'll just leave it at that.

I didn't say Silva is a 32-34 minutes guy. There's other guys in the rotation. 40 minutes don't need to be, and aren't by Haase, literally allocated between those two. You'll note that Silva played more than O'Connell last night and I'm hopeful that was because of what I'm advocating: give the more talented frosh the chance to get minutes and make mistakes in a meaningless pre-season game because we're going to need him to have a hope of being competitive with the big boys.

I'll admit that some of my "not Pac-12 quality" is pie in the sky in the sense that that's the roster that we have. We have a bunch of guys who play that wouldn't see the floor except in garbage time for the top teams in the Pac-12, and I've been around enough decades to maybe be a little wistful about our seemingly ever-declining place in the conference. (Though, to be fair, I've been around long enough (pre-Monty) to remember when we hadn't made the tournament in 3+ decades or whatever it was). But, given the state of the roster, I'll say again that my point is a gripe about Haase that I don't think these particular guys should be playing big minutes. The roster is what it is, and we have 200 minutes to fill, so I'd like to see those types of players in sub roles playing limited minutes. If the second half against SJSU was any indication, and it may or may not be, then maybe I'll get my wish.

As far as who they are, you like lumbering, unskilled players? If you're suggesting what I think you're suggesting, my immediate love for Raynaud in the first minutes against Tarleton was that is was obvious that he moves well (i.e., reasonably athletic) and has some touch in addition to his height. Before he did anything meaningful on the court my eye-test said he could play in the Pac-12. And he has gotten better every game. Maybe in an ideal world Murrell stands in the corner and shoots open 3's that may come his way, but this isn't the NBA and Haase's offensive scheme doesn't work to create open looks for shooters. 

Yes on your comment on Delaire. I noticed it too. I'm starting to wonder if this is a Haase problem. Seriously. Not trying to be knee-jerk anti-Haase and an apologist for every disgruntled player (if that's what it is), but at what point is it the coach and not the players?

Anyway, if I'm negative it's because I have zero faith in Haase at this point, which probably doesn't come as a surprise given my long missives. :-) I'll be going to most every game and hoping for the best of course, so maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised in which case I'll happily eat my words!

[FarmTeam]

So in your world, that means Silva for 32-34 minutes a game.  Enough said. We aren't going to agree on this topic.  At least barring a whole lot of additional information coming in.

I can't help but notice your group "not Pac 12 quality guys" and what they have in common.  Look, I'm as guilty as the next guy in accepting hoops stereotypes, and if you throw in "walk on" vs. scholie player on top of that, well . . . how does Beskind even get on the court, right?  But tell me, has Beskind looked outclassed to you in games yet?  Has he been torched on D?  And more specifically, any moreso than other perimeter players on the roster? 

There was only one perimeter guy that was repeatedly abused tonight on D, and that was your boy, Silva.  But that's okay - gonna happen sometimes, especially to newbies.  And his D wasn't horrible (unlike when the SJSU player Ingram was guarding just dribbled from the top off a screen for uncontested layups the other night - that was on Ingram or the big guarding the screener).  Valpo PG took a lot of shots and was feisty.

If you want to say Stanford is offensively challenged and needs its best 5 scorers out there . . . okay.  That would be Ingram, Raynaud, Delaire, a PG (I'd take MOC, you'd take Silva), and . . . um . . . Jones?  It wouldn't surprise me at all if in practice Murrell is a big scorer, and maybe Angel, and Taitz, too (their strokes looked sweet tonight).  The point is:  it's not like there is a Clear Cut 5, followed by 2 or 3 other guys.  The mosh pit is pretty mixed right now.  But it will get sorted out, presumably, as time goes on.

Last point:  little concerned about Delaire's body language, etc. on the court . . . and I'll just leave it at that.

I didn't say Silva is a 32-34 minutes guy. There's other guys in the rotation. 40 minutes don't need to be, and aren't by Haase, literally allocated between those two. You'll note that Silva played more than O'Connell last night and I'm hopeful that was because of what I'm advocating: give the more talented frosh the chance to get minutes and make mistakes in a meaningless pre-season game because we're going to need him to have a hope of being competitive with the big boys.

I'll admit that some of my "not Pac-12 quality" is pie in the sky in the sense that that's the roster that we have. We have a bunch of guys who play that wouldn't see the floor except in garbage time for the top teams in the Pac-12, and I've been around enough decades to maybe be a little wistful about our seemingly ever-declining place in the conference. (Though, to be fair, I've been around long enough (pre-Monty) to remember when we hadn't made the tournament in 3+ decades or whatever it was). But, given the state of the roster, I'll say again that my point is a gripe about Haase that I don't think these particular guys should be playing big minutes. The roster is what it is, and we have 200 minutes to fill, so I'd like to see those types of players in sub roles playing limited minutes. If the second half against SJSU was any indication, and it may or may not be, then maybe I'll get my wish.

As far as who they are, you like lumbering, unskilled players? If you're suggesting what I think you're suggesting, my immediate love for Raynaud in the first minutes against Tarleton was that is was obvious that he moves well (i.e., reasonably athletic) and has some touch in addition to his height. Before he did anything meaningful on the court my eye-test said he could play in the Pac-12. And he has gotten better every game. Maybe in an ideal world Murrell stands in the corner and shoots open 3's that may come his way, but this isn't the NBA and Haase's offensive scheme doesn't work to create open looks for shooters. 

Yes on your comment on Delaire. I noticed it too. I'm starting to wonder if this is a Haase problem. Seriously. Not trying to be knee-jerk anti-Haase and an apologist for every disgruntled player (if that's what it is), but at what point is it the coach and not the players?

Anyway, if I'm negative it's because I have zero faith in Haase at this point, which probably doesn't come as a surprise given my long missives. :-) I'll be going to most every game and hoping for the best of course, so maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised in which case I'll happily eat my words!

[BostonCard]

Two different planets tonight. One was Stanford who looked like a team that will get a little better but is marginally talented.

The other planet was UCLA/Villanova.

Weird, because on planet earth, UCLA and Villanova played five days ago, and much of that game was pretty ugly to watch.

BC

[BostonCard]

Two different planets tonight. One was Stanford who looked like a team that will get a little better but is marginally talented.

The other planet was UCLA/Villanova.

Weird, because on planet earth, UCLA and Villanova played five days ago, and much of that game was pretty ugly to watch.

BC

[teejers1]

So in your world, that means Silva for 32-34 minutes a game.  Enough said. We aren't going to agree on this topic.  At least barring a whole lot of additional information coming in.

I can't help but notice your group "not Pac 12 quality guys" and what they have in common.  Look, I'm as guilty as the next guy in accepting hoops stereotypes, and if you throw in "walk on" vs. scholie player on top of that, well . . . how does Beskind even get on the court, right?  But tell me, has Beskind looked outclassed to you in games yet?  Has he been torched on D?  And more specifically, any moreso than other perimeter players on the roster? 

There was only one perimeter guy that was repeatedly abused tonight on D, and that was your boy, Silva.  But that's okay - gonna happen sometimes, especially to newbies.  And his D wasn't horrible (unlike when the SJSU player Ingram was guarding just dribbled from the top off a screen for uncontested layups the other night - that was on Ingram or the big guarding the screener).  Valpo PG took a lot of shots and was feisty.

If you want to say Stanford is offensively challenged and needs its best 5 scorers out there . . . okay.  That would be Ingram, Raynaud, Delaire, a PG (I'd take MOC, you'd take Silva), and . . . um . . . Jones?  It wouldn't surprise me at all if in practice Murrell is a big scorer, and maybe Angel, and Taitz, too (their strokes looked sweet tonight).  The point is:  it's not like there is a Clear Cut 5, followed by 2 or 3 other guys.  The mosh pit is pretty mixed right now.  But it will get sorted out, presumably, as time goes on.

Last point:  little concerned about Delaire's body language, etc. on the court . . . and I'll just leave it at that.

I didn't say Silva is a 32-34 minutes guy. There's other guys in the rotation. 40 minutes don't need to be, and aren't by Haase, literally allocated between those two. You'll note that Silva played more than O'Connell last night and I'm hopeful that was because of what I'm advocating: give the more talented frosh the chance to get minutes and make mistakes in a meaningless pre-season game because we're going to need him to have a hope of being competitive with the big boys.

I'll admit that some of my "not Pac-12 quality" is pie in the sky in the sense that that's the roster that we have. We have a bunch of guys who play that wouldn't see the floor except in garbage time for the top teams in the Pac-12, and I've been around enough decades to maybe be a little wistful about our seemingly ever-declining place in the conference. (Though, to be fair, I've been around long enough (pre-Monty) to remember when we hadn't made the tournament in 3+ decades or whatever it was). But, given the state of the roster, I'll say again that my point is a gripe about Haase that I don't think these particular guys should be playing big minutes. The roster is what it is, and we have 200 minutes to fill, so I'd like to see those types of players in sub roles playing limited minutes. If the second half against SJSU was any indication, and it may or may not be, then maybe I'll get my wish.

As far as who they are, you like lumbering, unskilled players? If you're suggesting what I think you're suggesting, my immediate love for Raynaud in the first minutes against Tarleton was that is was obvious that he moves well (i.e., reasonably athletic) and has some touch in addition to his height. Before he did anything meaningful on the court my eye-test said he could play in the Pac-12. And he has gotten better every game. Maybe in an ideal world Murrell stands in the corner and shoots open 3's that may come his way, but this isn't the NBA and Haase's offensive scheme doesn't work to create open looks for shooters. 

Yes on your comment on Delaire. I noticed it too. I'm starting to wonder if this is a Haase problem. Seriously. Not trying to be knee-jerk anti-Haase and an apologist for every disgruntled player (if that's what it is), but at what point is it the coach and not the players?

Anyway, if I'm negative it's because I have zero faith in Haase at this point, which probably doesn't come as a surprise given my long missives. :-) I'll be going to most every game and hoping for the best of course, so maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised in which case I'll happily eat my words!

I think your down-ness on Haase is blinding you to other, at least as equally plausible, explanations for what we're seeing.

As for the roster and prospects going forward, it's amazing what 50% from trey-land will do to how things look.  (That can't be relied on long-term, either, but at least the strokes from Angel and Taitz looked good/smooth).

And needle, Silva dribbled right side/baseline; jumped in the air with no idea what he was going to do with the ball; passed it toward the top of the key; stolen for breakaway and ultimate tap-in (after layup missed).  It was an awful "junior high" mistake, but I don't define his game with that one play.  I'm still waiting for someone to tell me when Beskind has looked outmatched athletically while on the court.  [And btw, if you're on the court long enough, you're going to get beaten off the dribble - but my point is that it's not like Beskind is a turnstile out there, at least so far . . . and certainly not anymore than others on the court.  But I'm sure the next time he gets beaten to the rack we'll read about it here].  Finally, the point here is NOT to defend Beskind as a guy who has to be on the court, the best option at 2/3 for Stanford, etc.  Rather, it's just to caution folks to actually have a non-surface reason for their disdain of him ever being on the court.

[teejers1]

So in your world, that means Silva for 32-34 minutes a game.  Enough said. We aren't going to agree on this topic.  At least barring a whole lot of additional information coming in.

I can't help but notice your group "not Pac 12 quality guys" and what they have in common.  Look, I'm as guilty as the next guy in accepting hoops stereotypes, and if you throw in "walk on" vs. scholie player on top of that, well . . . how does Beskind even get on the court, right?  But tell me, has Beskind looked outclassed to you in games yet?  Has he been torched on D?  And more specifically, any moreso than other perimeter players on the roster? 

There was only one perimeter guy that was repeatedly abused tonight on D, and that was your boy, Silva.  But that's okay - gonna happen sometimes, especially to newbies.  And his D wasn't horrible (unlike when the SJSU player Ingram was guarding just dribbled from the top off a screen for uncontested layups the other night - that was on Ingram or the big guarding the screener).  Valpo PG took a lot of shots and was feisty.

If you want to say Stanford is offensively challenged and needs its best 5 scorers out there . . . okay.  That would be Ingram, Raynaud, Delaire, a PG (I'd take MOC, you'd take Silva), and . . . um . . . Jones?  It wouldn't surprise me at all if in practice Murrell is a big scorer, and maybe Angel, and Taitz, too (their strokes looked sweet tonight).  The point is:  it's not like there is a Clear Cut 5, followed by 2 or 3 other guys.  The mosh pit is pretty mixed right now.  But it will get sorted out, presumably, as time goes on.

Last point:  little concerned about Delaire's body language, etc. on the court . . . and I'll just leave it at that.

I didn't say Silva is a 32-34 minutes guy. There's other guys in the rotation. 40 minutes don't need to be, and aren't by Haase, literally allocated between those two. You'll note that Silva played more than O'Connell last night and I'm hopeful that was because of what I'm advocating: give the more talented frosh the chance to get minutes and make mistakes in a meaningless pre-season game because we're going to need him to have a hope of being competitive with the big boys.

I'll admit that some of my "not Pac-12 quality" is pie in the sky in the sense that that's the roster that we have. We have a bunch of guys who play that wouldn't see the floor except in garbage time for the top teams in the Pac-12, and I've been around enough decades to maybe be a little wistful about our seemingly ever-declining place in the conference. (Though, to be fair, I've been around long enough (pre-Monty) to remember when we hadn't made the tournament in 3+ decades or whatever it was). But, given the state of the roster, I'll say again that my point is a gripe about Haase that I don't think these particular guys should be playing big minutes. The roster is what it is, and we have 200 minutes to fill, so I'd like to see those types of players in sub roles playing limited minutes. If the second half against SJSU was any indication, and it may or may not be, then maybe I'll get my wish.

As far as who they are, you like lumbering, unskilled players? If you're suggesting what I think you're suggesting, my immediate love for Raynaud in the first minutes against Tarleton was that is was obvious that he moves well (i.e., reasonably athletic) and has some touch in addition to his height. Before he did anything meaningful on the court my eye-test said he could play in the Pac-12. And he has gotten better every game. Maybe in an ideal world Murrell stands in the corner and shoots open 3's that may come his way, but this isn't the NBA and Haase's offensive scheme doesn't work to create open looks for shooters. 

Yes on your comment on Delaire. I noticed it too. I'm starting to wonder if this is a Haase problem. Seriously. Not trying to be knee-jerk anti-Haase and an apologist for every disgruntled player (if that's what it is), but at what point is it the coach and not the players?

Anyway, if I'm negative it's because I have zero faith in Haase at this point, which probably doesn't come as a surprise given my long missives. :-) I'll be going to most every game and hoping for the best of course, so maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised in which case I'll happily eat my words!

I think your down-ness on Haase is blinding you to other, at least as equally plausible, explanations for what we're seeing.

As for the roster and prospects going forward, it's amazing what 50% from trey-land will do to how things look.  (That can't be relied on long-term, either, but at least the strokes from Angel and Taitz looked good/smooth).

And needle, Silva dribbled right side/baseline; jumped in the air with no idea what he was going to do with the ball; passed it toward the top of the key; stolen for breakaway and ultimate tap-in (after layup missed).  It was an awful "junior high" mistake, but I don't define his game with that one play.  I'm still waiting for someone to tell me when Beskind has looked outmatched athletically while on the court.  [And btw, if you're on the court long enough, you're going to get beaten off the dribble - but my point is that it's not like Beskind is a turnstile out there, at least so far . . . and certainly not anymore than others on the court.  But I'm sure the next time he gets beaten to the rack we'll read about it here].  Finally, the point here is NOT to defend Beskind as a guy who has to be on the court, the best option at 2/3 for Stanford, etc.  Rather, it's just to caution folks to actually have a non-surface reason for their disdain of him ever being on the court.

[gailtate]

Two different planets tonight. One was Stanford who looked like a team that will get a little better but is marginally talented.

The other planet was UCLA/Villanova.

Weird, because on planet earth, UCLA and Villanova played five days ago, and much of that game was pretty ugly to watch.

BC

That "pretty ugly to watch" game featured two teams, Bruins and Nova, whose chances of Dancing in late March are pretty strong. The point was the unworldly, so to speak, difference in play compared to Stanford right now.

[gailtate]

Two different planets tonight. One was Stanford who looked like a team that will get a little better but is marginally talented.

The other planet was UCLA/Villanova.

Weird, because on planet earth, UCLA and Villanova played five days ago, and much of that game was pretty ugly to watch.

BC

That "pretty ugly to watch" game featured two teams, Bruins and Nova, whose chances of Dancing in late March are pretty strong. The point was the unworldly, so to speak, difference in play compared to Stanford right now.

[treetop11]

I'm in the middle between Farm and Teejers re: PG. I agree with Farm that Silva has much more upside, but I agree with Tee that MOC is better now. What I would like to see is more of MOC and Silva on the court together; limited results have shown they are pretty good togeher. And then use Taitz and Beskind to get them some rest. 
The rest of my starting lineup would be Ingram, Reynaud, and Delaire. I agree with Farm and Tee that there is a possible attitude problem with Delaire and the recent why he hasn't been starting. But Haase needs to find a way to reach him and that may have to come off the court and not just by benching him. He's too talented not to be playing major minutes. Jones and Angel should be subs for Delaire and Ingraham when needed and Murrell should strictly be a backup for Reynaud. That should be the rotation with the rest of the bench playing only as needed. I also think we should not do wholesale substitutions, but rather just bring in one or two at most guys off the bench to give a blow to the starters or when there are foul problems.

[treetop11]

I'm in the middle between Farm and Teejers re: PG. I agree with Farm that Silva has much more upside, but I agree with Tee that MOC is better now. What I would like to see is more of MOC and Silva on the court together; limited results have shown they are pretty good togeher. And then use Taitz and Beskind to get them some rest. 
The rest of my starting lineup would be Ingram, Reynaud, and Delaire. I agree with Farm and Tee that there is a possible attitude problem with Delaire and the recent why he hasn't been starting. But Haase needs to find a way to reach him and that may have to come off the court and not just by benching him. He's too talented not to be playing major minutes. Jones and Angel should be subs for Delaire and Ingraham when needed and Murrell should strictly be a backup for Reynaud. That should be the rotation with the rest of the bench playing only as needed. I also think we should not do wholesale substitutions, but rather just bring in one or two at most guys off the bench to give a blow to the starters or when there are foul problems.

[winflop]

Watched the game this morning and I'm not putting a lot of stock in the win. Valpo is not good. They are the worst team Stanford has played to date, and by no small margin. I feel bad for Coach Lottich and I hope he rights the ship.

[winflop]

Watched the game this morning and I'm not putting a lot of stock in the win. Valpo is not good. They are the worst team Stanford has played to date, and by no small margin. I feel bad for Coach Lottich and I hope he rights the ship.

[teejers1]

I'm in the middle between Farm and Teejers re: PG. I agree with Farm that Silva has much more upside, but I agree with Tee that MOC is better now. What I would like to see is more of MOC and Silva on the court together; limited results have shown they are pretty good togeher. And then use Taitz and Beskind to get them some rest. 
The rest of my starting lineup would be Ingram, Reynaud, and Delaire. I agree with Farm and Tee that there is a possible attitude problem with Delaire and the recent why he hasn't been starting. But Haase needs to find a way to reach him and that may have to come off the court and not just by benching him. He's too talented not to be playing major minutes. Jones and Angel should be subs for Delaire and Ingraham when needed and Murrell should strictly be a backup for Reynaud. That should be the rotation with the rest of the bench playing only as needed. I also think we should not do wholesale substitutions, but rather just bring in one or two at most guys off the bench to give a blow to the starters or when there are foul problems.

I just want to first say that I don't know what, if anything, is going on.

Second, I want to distance myself from the assumption associated with "attitude problem" that Treetop bandies about.  I'm not concerned about "attitude problem" in the sense that there was one with DD last season.  It's possible, I suppose, but I have no idea.  Like I said, I don't like his body language on the court and leave it at that.  BTW, I'm not worried about Delaire getting enough PT (he'll get that, barring unforeseen things); I'm more worried about his shot selection, which is a bit shaky.

[teejers1]

I'm in the middle between Farm and Teejers re: PG. I agree with Farm that Silva has much more upside, but I agree with Tee that MOC is better now. What I would like to see is more of MOC and Silva on the court together; limited results have shown they are pretty good togeher. And then use Taitz and Beskind to get them some rest. 
The rest of my starting lineup would be Ingram, Reynaud, and Delaire. I agree with Farm and Tee that there is a possible attitude problem with Delaire and the recent why he hasn't been starting. But Haase needs to find a way to reach him and that may have to come off the court and not just by benching him. He's too talented not to be playing major minutes. Jones and Angel should be subs for Delaire and Ingraham when needed and Murrell should strictly be a backup for Reynaud. That should be the rotation with the rest of the bench playing only as needed. I also think we should not do wholesale substitutions, but rather just bring in one or two at most guys off the bench to give a blow to the starters or when there are foul problems.

I just want to first say that I don't know what, if anything, is going on.

Second, I want to distance myself from the assumption associated with "attitude problem" that Treetop bandies about.  I'm not concerned about "attitude problem" in the sense that there was one with DD last season.  It's possible, I suppose, but I have no idea.  Like I said, I don't like his body language on the court and leave it at that.  BTW, I'm not worried about Delaire getting enough PT (he'll get that, barring unforeseen things); I'm more worried about his shot selection, which is a bit shaky.