[OCcardinal]

One of the live stats that shows a problem with stats is the "Stop %: Stop Percentage estimates the rate of defensive possessions where the opposing team did not score"
For Brink, her Stop Percentage was 133.3% (shades of 1972).

I think Stop % is a comparison of a defender's stops per minute to the opposing team's possession's per minute (per player).  Since Brink's stops per minute exceeded the Belmont players' average possessions per minute it pushed her stop percentage above 100%.  If I'm analyzing it correctly, I think it means she completely shut down the equivalent of 1 and 1/3 of Belmont's players while she was on the floor.  So pretty impressive.

[OCcardinal]

One of the live stats that shows a problem with stats is the "Stop %: Stop Percentage estimates the rate of defensive possessions where the opposing team did not score"
For Brink, her Stop Percentage was 133.3% (shades of 1972).

I think Stop % is a comparison of a defender's stops per minute to the opposing team's possession's per minute (per player).  Since Brink's stops per minute exceeded the Belmont players' average possessions per minute it pushed her stop percentage above 100%.  If I'm analyzing it correctly, I think it means she completely shut down the equivalent of 1 and 1/3 of Belmont's players while she was on the floor.  So pretty impressive.

[81alum]

One of the live stats that shows a problem with stats is the "Stop %: Stop Percentage estimates the rate of defensive possessions where the opposing team did not score"
For Brink, her Stop Percentage was 133.3% (shades of 1972).

I think Stop % is a comparison of a defender's stops per minute to the opposing team's possession's per minute (per player).  Since Brink's stops per minute exceeded the Belmont players' average possessions per minute it pushed her stop percentage above 100%.  If I'm analyzing it correctly, I think it means she completely shut down the equivalent of 1 and 1/3 of Belmont's players while she was on the floor.  So pretty impressive.

This is really important.  So much attention is (rightfully) paid to Brink's offensive skill--but she may be even more important on defense than she is on offense.

[81alum]

One of the live stats that shows a problem with stats is the "Stop %: Stop Percentage estimates the rate of defensive possessions where the opposing team did not score"
For Brink, her Stop Percentage was 133.3% (shades of 1972).

I think Stop % is a comparison of a defender's stops per minute to the opposing team's possession's per minute (per player).  Since Brink's stops per minute exceeded the Belmont players' average possessions per minute it pushed her stop percentage above 100%.  If I'm analyzing it correctly, I think it means she completely shut down the equivalent of 1 and 1/3 of Belmont's players while she was on the floor.  So pretty impressive.

This is really important.  So much attention is (rightfully) paid to Brink's offensive skill--but she may be even more important on defense than she is on offense.

[SkiBum80]

One of the live stats that shows a problem with stats is the "Stop %: Stop Percentage estimates the rate of defensive possessions where the opposing team did not score"
For Brink, her Stop Percentage was 133.3% (shades of 1972).

I think Stop % is a comparison of a defender's stops per minute to the opposing team's possession's per minute (per player).  Since Brink's stops per minute exceeded the Belmont players' average possessions per minute it pushed her stop percentage above 100%.  If I'm analyzing it correctly, I think it means she completely shut down the equivalent of 1 and 1/3 of Belmont's players while she was on the floor.  So pretty impressive.

This is really important.  So much attention is (rightfully) paid to Brink's offensive skill--but she may be even more important on defense than she is on offense.

I'm not familiar enough with that stat to know if it captures one of Brink's impressive defensive skills that seems hard to quantify but is palpable. That is, her ability to intimidate and alter shot selection. As the opposition gets in close in the paint some of them just shy away and move it back out, even if Brink isn't right hovering right over them. They feel her presence.

[SkiBum80]

One of the live stats that shows a problem with stats is the "Stop %: Stop Percentage estimates the rate of defensive possessions where the opposing team did not score"
For Brink, her Stop Percentage was 133.3% (shades of 1972).

I think Stop % is a comparison of a defender's stops per minute to the opposing team's possession's per minute (per player).  Since Brink's stops per minute exceeded the Belmont players' average possessions per minute it pushed her stop percentage above 100%.  If I'm analyzing it correctly, I think it means she completely shut down the equivalent of 1 and 1/3 of Belmont's players while she was on the floor.  So pretty impressive.

This is really important.  So much attention is (rightfully) paid to Brink's offensive skill--but she may be even more important on defense than she is on offense.

I'm not familiar enough with that stat to know if it captures one of Brink's impressive defensive skills that seems hard to quantify but is palpable. That is, her ability to intimidate and alter shot selection. As the opposition gets in close in the paint some of them just shy away and move it back out, even if Brink isn't right hovering right over them. They feel her presence.

[81alum]

Bosgana's performance today was...mixed.  In the first quarter I thought she played brilliantly.  She made a beautiful cut to the basket to score our first basket, got a couple of assists and several rebounds, scored a layup after an O-board, and put another basket down with a fast break layup. 

But in quarters 2,3, and 4 she did not score a point.  She took it to the basket and missed several layups, and the jumpers did not go down either.  Also no more assists.  If she could have four quarters like the first she would be a superstar.

I wonder why Iriafen got only 26 minutes.  Brink was at 25 but she had some early fouls.  Iriafen did not.  Tara did not seem to want to play them simultaneously as much as she might have.   I can see not wanting a big to go 40, but why only 26?  Any theories?

Today, Ogden looked pretty good, and Agara came down to earth.  Freshmen are going to bounce around, inconsistently.  But we saw a few more reasons to like Ogden today.

[81alum]

Bosgana's performance today was...mixed.  In the first quarter I thought she played brilliantly.  She made a beautiful cut to the basket to score our first basket, got a couple of assists and several rebounds, scored a layup after an O-board, and put another basket down with a fast break layup. 

But in quarters 2,3, and 4 she did not score a point.  She took it to the basket and missed several layups, and the jumpers did not go down either.  Also no more assists.  If she could have four quarters like the first she would be a superstar.

I wonder why Iriafen got only 26 minutes.  Brink was at 25 but she had some early fouls.  Iriafen did not.  Tara did not seem to want to play them simultaneously as much as she might have.   I can see not wanting a big to go 40, but why only 26?  Any theories?

Today, Ogden looked pretty good, and Agara came down to earth.  Freshmen are going to bounce around, inconsistently.  But we saw a few more reasons to like Ogden today.

[M T]

I wonder why Iriafen got only 26 minutes.  Brink was at 25 but she had some early fouls.  Iriafen did not.  Tara did not seem to want to play them simultaneously as much as she might have.   I can see not wanting a big to go 40, but why only 26?  Any theories?

Sunday, Wednesday, Friday, Sunday
        ^You are here


P.S. The streak is at 8. ;-)

[M T]

I wonder why Iriafen got only 26 minutes.  Brink was at 25 but she had some early fouls.  Iriafen did not.  Tara did not seem to want to play them simultaneously as much as she might have.   I can see not wanting a big to go 40, but why only 26?  Any theories?

Sunday, Wednesday, Friday, Sunday
        ^You are here


P.S. The streak is at 8. ;-)

[liveoak]

Bosgana's performance today was...mixed.  In the first quarter I thought she played brilliantly.  She made a beautiful cut to the basket to score our first basket, got a couple of assists and several rebounds, scored a layup after an O-board, and put another basket down with a fast break layup. 

But in quarters 2,3, and 4 she did not score a point.  She took it to the basket and missed several layups, and the jumpers did not go down either.  Also no more assists.  If she could have four quarters like the first she would be a superstar.

I wonder why Iriafen got only 26 minutes.  Brink was at 25 but she had some early fouls.  Iriafen did not.  Tara did not seem to want to play them simultaneously as much as she might have.   I can see not wanting a big to go 40, but why only 26?  Any theories?

Today, Ogden looked pretty good, and Agara came down to earth.  Freshmen are going to bounce around, inconsistently.  But we saw a few more reasons to like Ogden today.

I thought Bosgana drove well to the basket and was unlucky to miss the layins - she was also blocked once. The ball wasn't coming to her in the second half. 

I think that Tara doesn't want to wear Cam and Kiki out, so she is careful to give them rest. This makes Cam able to dominate a game like she did in the second half today. I think that against small teams Tara will play either Cam or Kiki but not both. In my view, this keeps one of our posts from having to cover a quicker player on the wing. On offense, having a single post will allow the other players to spread out more. If the defense collapses on our post, she can pass out to an open player on the wing. We saw what it was like last year when we had Haley and Cam playing together down low and I think Tara is trying to avoid that.

---

Worst announcers ever.

I'm not quite ready to give them that award quite yet, but vast improvement is certainly possible. 

There must be something about the FloHoops announcers - the pair that did the Stanford games two years ago when they were in the Bahamas must have been student announcers that studied at the School of Basketball Cliches. I turned the sound off after 5 minutes.

---

Bogana, Demetre, and Ogden all had useful points in the first half and I believe they have no points in the second.  Brink has been terrific but we are becoming one dimensional.  Jump sitting at 1-10 and reluctant to shoot now.  I think maybe all of Iriafen's points were in the first half too.  We need people not named Brink to score.

The pattern is now clear: Brink, Iriakin, sometimes (e.g., against ND) Jump, and a few points contributed by three or four others, two starters and two second teamers. I repeat: Stanford is not deep. We have three reliable scorers against decent D, becoming one or two against great D. Let's see what happens against FSU. Can't rely on Brink to bail us out every game. Others have to step up. Will they? The jury is still out but a consensus is emerging.

I think our success this year will depend on how soon the freshmen are able to be meaningful contributors. Agara has looked good and Ogden took a step up today. Clardy playing significant minutes at point guard, IMO, could really help Stanford.

[liveoak]

Bosgana's performance today was...mixed.  In the first quarter I thought she played brilliantly.  She made a beautiful cut to the basket to score our first basket, got a couple of assists and several rebounds, scored a layup after an O-board, and put another basket down with a fast break layup. 

But in quarters 2,3, and 4 she did not score a point.  She took it to the basket and missed several layups, and the jumpers did not go down either.  Also no more assists.  If she could have four quarters like the first she would be a superstar.

I wonder why Iriafen got only 26 minutes.  Brink was at 25 but she had some early fouls.  Iriafen did not.  Tara did not seem to want to play them simultaneously as much as she might have.   I can see not wanting a big to go 40, but why only 26?  Any theories?

Today, Ogden looked pretty good, and Agara came down to earth.  Freshmen are going to bounce around, inconsistently.  But we saw a few more reasons to like Ogden today.

I thought Bosgana drove well to the basket and was unlucky to miss the layins - she was also blocked once. The ball wasn't coming to her in the second half. 

I think that Tara doesn't want to wear Cam and Kiki out, so she is careful to give them rest. This makes Cam able to dominate a game like she did in the second half today. I think that against small teams Tara will play either Cam or Kiki but not both. In my view, this keeps one of our posts from having to cover a quicker player on the wing. On offense, having a single post will allow the other players to spread out more. If the defense collapses on our post, she can pass out to an open player on the wing. We saw what it was like last year when we had Haley and Cam playing together down low and I think Tara is trying to avoid that.

---

Worst announcers ever.

I'm not quite ready to give them that award quite yet, but vast improvement is certainly possible. 

There must be something about the FloHoops announcers - the pair that did the Stanford games two years ago when they were in the Bahamas must have been student announcers that studied at the School of Basketball Cliches. I turned the sound off after 5 minutes.

---

Bogana, Demetre, and Ogden all had useful points in the first half and I believe they have no points in the second.  Brink has been terrific but we are becoming one dimensional.  Jump sitting at 1-10 and reluctant to shoot now.  I think maybe all of Iriafen's points were in the first half too.  We need people not named Brink to score.

The pattern is now clear: Brink, Iriakin, sometimes (e.g., against ND) Jump, and a few points contributed by three or four others, two starters and two second teamers. I repeat: Stanford is not deep. We have three reliable scorers against decent D, becoming one or two against great D. Let's see what happens against FSU. Can't rely on Brink to bail us out every game. Others have to step up. Will they? The jury is still out but a consensus is emerging.

I think our success this year will depend on how soon the freshmen are able to be meaningful contributors. Agara has looked good and Ogden took a step up today. Clardy playing significant minutes at point guard, IMO, could really help Stanford.

[Hoops9092]

I skimmed the thread but how was the video/audio quality ultimately with FloHoops? Thinking about trying to catch the UCLA and next Stanford game.

[Hoops9092]

I skimmed the thread but how was the video/audio quality ultimately with FloHoops? Thinking about trying to catch the UCLA and next Stanford game.

[martyup]

I skimmed the thread but how was the video/audio quality ultimately with FloHoops? Thinking about trying to catch the UCLA and next Stanford game.

The video and audio was good.  But, the announcers were terrible.  Mute would be more informative.

[martyup]

I skimmed the thread but how was the video/audio quality ultimately with FloHoops? Thinking about trying to catch the UCLA and next Stanford game.

The video and audio was good.  But, the announcers were terrible.  Mute would be more informative.

[crackpot]

I skimmed the thread but how was the video/audio quality ultimately with FloHoops? Thinking about trying to catch the UCLA and next Stanford game.

The video and audio was good.  But, the announcers were terrible.  Mute would be more informative.

Agree. Didn't have the issues I had previously (other than finding the game itself, plus it was advertised as starting at 1:30, but started earlier). Did anyone try muting it and listening to the audio broadcast? I was thinking of trying that for tomorrow, though if it's not synced close enough that will drive me nuts, too.

[crackpot]

I skimmed the thread but how was the video/audio quality ultimately with FloHoops? Thinking about trying to catch the UCLA and next Stanford game.

The video and audio was good.  But, the announcers were terrible.  Mute would be more informative.

Agree. Didn't have the issues I had previously (other than finding the game itself, plus it was advertised as starting at 1:30, but started earlier). Did anyone try muting it and listening to the audio broadcast? I was thinking of trying that for tomorrow, though if it's not synced close enough that will drive me nuts, too.

[CompSci87]

I skimmed the thread but how was the video/audio quality ultimately with FloHoops? Thinking about trying to catch the UCLA and next Stanford game.

The video and audio was good.  But, the announcers were terrible.  Mute would be more informative.

Agree. Didn't have the issues I had previously (other than finding the game itself, plus it was advertised as starting at 1:30, but started earlier). Did anyone try muting it and listening to the audio broadcast? I was thinking of trying that for tomorrow, though if it's not synced close enough that will drive me nuts, too.

I didn't try that this time. I've done it at times in the past. If the stream that's ahead has a pause function, sometimes you can get it close to in sync by briefly pausing and continuing it until it's about right.

[CompSci87]

I skimmed the thread but how was the video/audio quality ultimately with FloHoops? Thinking about trying to catch the UCLA and next Stanford game.

The video and audio was good.  But, the announcers were terrible.  Mute would be more informative.

Agree. Didn't have the issues I had previously (other than finding the game itself, plus it was advertised as starting at 1:30, but started earlier). Did anyone try muting it and listening to the audio broadcast? I was thinking of trying that for tomorrow, though if it's not synced close enough that will drive me nuts, too.

I didn't try that this time. I've done it at times in the past. If the stream that's ahead has a pause function, sometimes you can get it close to in sync by briefly pausing and continuing it until it's about right.