(11-10-2024, 02:07 PM)martyup Wrote:Over half way through the 3rd Q and Gonzaga has only scored 2 points.(11-10-2024, 02:06 PM)TonyLima Wrote: Scroll up to see the halftime stats. I added them to my earlier post.
At the free throw line
Or go here:
https://stats.statbroadcast.com/broadcast/?id=555227
WBB: Stanford 89 Gonzaga 58
(11-10-2024, 02:07 PM)martyup Wrote:Over half way through the 3rd Q and Gonzaga has only scored 2 points.(11-10-2024, 02:06 PM)TonyLima Wrote: Scroll up to see the halftime stats. I added them to my earlier post.
At the free throw line
Or go here:
https://stats.statbroadcast.com/broadcast/?id=555227
11-10-2024, 02:19 PM
(11-10-2024, 01:56 PM)SkiBum80 Wrote: I wonder if we keep playing this well, maybe, possibly, by end of season we might break into the rankings?Not if the Easterners can't be bothered to watch Stanford. One of today's announcers on Stanford in the ACC: "I live on the East Coast and now I'll see them more." Homerism..... Certainly anyone such as these announcers could have and should have been watching the PAC-12 for the last decade or more.
(11-10-2024, 01:56 PM)SkiBum80 Wrote: I wonder if we keep playing this well, maybe, possibly, by end of season we might break into the rankings?Not if the Easterners can't be bothered to watch Stanford. One of today's announcers on Stanford in the ACC: "I live on the East Coast and now I'll see them more." Homerism..... Certainly anyone such as these announcers could have and should have been watching the PAC-12 for the last decade or more.
11-10-2024, 02:29 PM
67-33 through three quarters.
The only ranking that matters is the one at the end of the year. But the announcers are saying that they expect Stanford to enter the rankings… though some of that depends on ranked teams losing.
BC
The only ranking that matters is the one at the end of the year. But the announcers are saying that they expect Stanford to enter the rankings… though some of that depends on ranked teams losing.
BC
67-33 through three quarters.
The only ranking that matters is the one at the end of the year. But the announcers are saying that they expect Stanford to enter the rankings… though some of that depends on ranked teams losing.
BC
The only ranking that matters is the one at the end of the year. But the announcers are saying that they expect Stanford to enter the rankings… though some of that depends on ranked teams losing.
BC
11-10-2024, 02:29 PM
After 3 quarters, the unranked Stanford Cardinal leads Gonzaga 67-33.
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
4th quarter letdown, ragged at times, seems to have lost some of focus
Several ranked teams in the 20-25 range have Lost
(11-10-2024, 02:29 PM)BostonCard Wrote: 67-33 through three quarters.
The only ranking that matters is the one at the end of the year. But the announcers are saying that they expect Stanford to enter the rankings… though some of that depends on ranked teams losing.
BC
Several ranked teams in the 20-25 range have Lost
4th quarter letdown, ragged at times, seems to have lost some of focus
Several ranked teams in the 20-25 range have Lost
(11-10-2024, 02:29 PM)BostonCard Wrote: 67-33 through three quarters.
The only ranking that matters is the one at the end of the year. But the announcers are saying that they expect Stanford to enter the rankings… though some of that depends on ranked teams losing.
BC
Several ranked teams in the 20-25 range have Lost
11-10-2024, 02:40 PM
I love how well we are spreading out our scoring. 9 players have scored.
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
11-10-2024, 02:44 PM
One thing I want to know: Why do our cheerleaders have orange pompoms instead of cardinal and white??
One thing I want to know: Why do our cheerleaders have orange pompoms instead of cardinal and white??
11-10-2024, 02:45 PM
Our post-timeout play has been outstanding.
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
11-10-2024, 03:05 PM
Who was worried about this game? Total beatdown of a team that has always been a tough opponent. Are we that good, or are they that bad?
Final score 89-58. The team shot 46.2--54.2--94.1. They made 13 threes on 24 attempts. They now have 47 threes in 3 games. They had 19 assists on 30 made baskets with only 5 turnovers. By golly that's outstanding.
Final score 89-58. The team shot 46.2--54.2--94.1. They made 13 threes on 24 attempts. They now have 47 threes in 3 games. They had 19 assists on 30 made baskets with only 5 turnovers. By golly that's outstanding.
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
Who was worried about this game? Total beatdown of a team that has always been a tough opponent. Are we that good, or are they that bad?
Final score 89-58. The team shot 46.2--54.2--94.1. They made 13 threes on 24 attempts. They now have 47 threes in 3 games. They had 19 assists on 30 made baskets with only 5 turnovers. By golly that's outstanding.
Final score 89-58. The team shot 46.2--54.2--94.1. They made 13 threes on 24 attempts. They now have 47 threes in 3 games. They had 19 assists on 30 made baskets with only 5 turnovers. By golly that's outstanding.
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
Well. That was fun. To put it mildly. Really liked Kennedy Umeh. 6 points, 1 rebound in 1 minute. Also a freshman.
Well. That was fun. To put it mildly. Really liked Kennedy Umeh. 6 points, 1 rebound in 1 minute. Also a freshman.
11-10-2024, 03:09 PM
Great game, loved the spread out scoring. Rebounding was a bit weak, tho, and that letdown in 4th was not good.
Ultimately, 10 people scored, and no one was a dominant scorer. Just, wonderfully spread out .
Ultimately, 10 people scored, and no one was a dominant scorer. Just, wonderfully spread out .
11-10-2024, 03:12 PM
Harriel and Clardy have really upped their games this year. What a pleasant surprise! Guard play makes a big difference come tournament time.
A couple of our vets seemed pretty inconsistent on offense today. Hopefully they’ll both play up to their potential when it counts.
One of the newcomers seemed a half step too slow today, but maybe that will correct itself as she gets more PT and is able to anticipate.
A couple of our vets seemed pretty inconsistent on offense today. Hopefully they’ll both play up to their potential when it counts.
One of the newcomers seemed a half step too slow today, but maybe that will correct itself as she gets more PT and is able to anticipate.
Harriel and Clardy have really upped their games this year. What a pleasant surprise! Guard play makes a big difference come tournament time.
A couple of our vets seemed pretty inconsistent on offense today. Hopefully they’ll both play up to their potential when it counts.
One of the newcomers seemed a half step too slow today, but maybe that will correct itself as she gets more PT and is able to anticipate.
A couple of our vets seemed pretty inconsistent on offense today. Hopefully they’ll both play up to their potential when it counts.
One of the newcomers seemed a half step too slow today, but maybe that will correct itself as she gets more PT and is able to anticipate.
Regarding the play with 19 seconds left in the 3rd quarter. Ogden tries an underhanded shot that goes up through the basket and then back down through it. Gonzaga rebounded it and play continued. No points were awarded to Stanford and no violation was called.
No doubt that the shot was intentional. Also no doubt that her intent was NOT to go through the basket from below.
The intent of the rule is clearly to prohibit scoring by throwing the ball up through the basket and having it fall back through. Once it goes up, it is a violation and thus a dead ball, for a throw-in by the other team. (Note that as the rule is written, if a defensive player not-by-accident, causes the ball to go up through the opponent's goal, then it is a violation and the ball goes to the offense.)
There is no excuse for the officials not to know this rule. None of the 3 called it. Poor officiating. Missy would have known it.
The 3 referees were Maj Forsberg, Chuck Gonzalez, Michael Price. Certainly Price is no novice (for instance, he reffed the 2010 NCAA semifinal match between Stanford and Oklahoma, but don't look for that box score at GoStanford.com). I don't recall Forsberg before.
I am not 100% sure what the ruling is if the ball, say, bounces off a player's shoulder and goes up through the basket and back down through it. As I read the current NCAA rules, it appears it would be counted as a basket.
Quote:Rule 9. Section 6. Kick, Fist, Through Basket From Below
Art. 1. It is a violation when a player intentionally kicks the ball, strikes it with
the fist or causes it to pass through the basket and enter the cylinder from below.
(See Rule 9-15.2.b.)
Art. 2. Kicking the ball is striking it intentionally with any part of the leg or the
foot. Accidentally striking the ball with the foot or leg shall not be a violation.
No doubt that the shot was intentional. Also no doubt that her intent was NOT to go through the basket from below.
The intent of the rule is clearly to prohibit scoring by throwing the ball up through the basket and having it fall back through. Once it goes up, it is a violation and thus a dead ball, for a throw-in by the other team. (Note that as the rule is written, if a defensive player not-by-accident, causes the ball to go up through the opponent's goal, then it is a violation and the ball goes to the offense.)
There is no excuse for the officials not to know this rule. None of the 3 called it. Poor officiating. Missy would have known it.
The 3 referees were Maj Forsberg, Chuck Gonzalez, Michael Price. Certainly Price is no novice (for instance, he reffed the 2010 NCAA semifinal match between Stanford and Oklahoma, but don't look for that box score at GoStanford.com). I don't recall Forsberg before.
I am not 100% sure what the ruling is if the ball, say, bounces off a player's shoulder and goes up through the basket and back down through it. As I read the current NCAA rules, it appears it would be counted as a basket.
Regarding the play with 19 seconds left in the 3rd quarter. Ogden tries an underhanded shot that goes up through the basket and then back down through it. Gonzaga rebounded it and play continued. No points were awarded to Stanford and no violation was called.
No doubt that the shot was intentional. Also no doubt that her intent was NOT to go through the basket from below.
The intent of the rule is clearly to prohibit scoring by throwing the ball up through the basket and having it fall back through. Once it goes up, it is a violation and thus a dead ball, for a throw-in by the other team. (Note that as the rule is written, if a defensive player not-by-accident, causes the ball to go up through the opponent's goal, then it is a violation and the ball goes to the offense.)
There is no excuse for the officials not to know this rule. None of the 3 called it. Poor officiating. Missy would have known it.
The 3 referees were Maj Forsberg, Chuck Gonzalez, Michael Price. Certainly Price is no novice (for instance, he reffed the 2010 NCAA semifinal match between Stanford and Oklahoma, but don't look for that box score at GoStanford.com). I don't recall Forsberg before.
I am not 100% sure what the ruling is if the ball, say, bounces off a player's shoulder and goes up through the basket and back down through it. As I read the current NCAA rules, it appears it would be counted as a basket.
Quote:Rule 9. Section 6. Kick, Fist, Through Basket From Below
Art. 1. It is a violation when a player intentionally kicks the ball, strikes it with
the fist or causes it to pass through the basket and enter the cylinder from below.
(See Rule 9-15.2.b.)
Art. 2. Kicking the ball is striking it intentionally with any part of the leg or the
foot. Accidentally striking the ball with the foot or leg shall not be a violation.
No doubt that the shot was intentional. Also no doubt that her intent was NOT to go through the basket from below.
The intent of the rule is clearly to prohibit scoring by throwing the ball up through the basket and having it fall back through. Once it goes up, it is a violation and thus a dead ball, for a throw-in by the other team. (Note that as the rule is written, if a defensive player not-by-accident, causes the ball to go up through the opponent's goal, then it is a violation and the ball goes to the offense.)
There is no excuse for the officials not to know this rule. None of the 3 called it. Poor officiating. Missy would have known it.
The 3 referees were Maj Forsberg, Chuck Gonzalez, Michael Price. Certainly Price is no novice (for instance, he reffed the 2010 NCAA semifinal match between Stanford and Oklahoma, but don't look for that box score at GoStanford.com). I don't recall Forsberg before.
I am not 100% sure what the ruling is if the ball, say, bounces off a player's shoulder and goes up through the basket and back down through it. As I read the current NCAA rules, it appears it would be counted as a basket.
11-10-2024, 04:28 PM
Well that was wonderful. Good to see nearly 4000 people out for an early season game, and it was fun to see Tara's name on the court. During the game she walked over to the TV broadcasters, slowly, as she recovers from her hip surgery, and the whole time pockets of fans along her route erupted in spontaneous applause. I sit a few feet behind the broadcasters so I got a good look at her. She certainly seems happy and there is obviously a lot less tension in her face and posture. I think she is happy being a fan.
At the chalk talk Bird mentioned that we had been preparing defensively for Gonzaga all fall--though the players did not know it. I believe our defense was custom designed to disrupt Gonzaga's offense, and clearly it overwhelmed them in the first quarter. Here are a few points about it:
1) Often when the ball came inside to Ejim we rotated a player over to help Agara, sandwiching Ejim.
2) Agara was in fact the main defender on Ejim, and went out of the game and came into the game whenever Ejim did likewise. Usually she fronted Ejim to deny her the ball.
3) Ejim had to guard Agara, too, and picked up a couple of early fouls trying to do so. This limited her.
4) As a result of this, Ejim was held to 12 points on 4/10 shooting. That is a step down from the 27 she hung on us last year.
5) In general our defense is closer and more aggressive than last year. This led to more deflections and for the second game in a row we had 10 steals. A whole different character of defense. On the other hand, those close defenses are vulnerable to drives, and Allie Turner blew by Harriel a couple of times for layups.
Now, let's talk a bit more about offense. Many have already remarked about how spread out our scoring was, and this is true and it is a thing of beauty. But that is not the only thing that is spread out. Also spread out were our assists. Ten (10!) players had at least one assist. This is a mark of a really great continuity offense in which the ball and players are both in motion and all the players are looking for their teammates and finding the one who becomes open.
I have no idea if this level of play is sustainable or whether other coaches will find schemes to stop it, but at this point in the season the Princeton has never looked better. I have heard many times that the Princeton is best suited to teams with 5 fundamentally skilled players on the court and no particularly dominant star. It could be that we just happened into the right personnel to elevate this particular offensive scheme. Last year Tara brought back elements of the triangle to try to feed Cam and Kiki more, but that is clearly gone now.
Finally, we had only 5 turnovers for the entire game. Granted, Gonzaga is not a ball-hawking type of defense, but in recent years we wracked up many more turnovers (12 a game) just from self-inflicted wounds. Of those 5 turnovers 3 were on Nunu, and those were mainly strips around the basket. In other words, our ball handling has dramatically improved.
Fundamentally sound ball handling, disruptive defense, spread-out scoring. That makes for a win.
At the chalk talk Bird mentioned that we had been preparing defensively for Gonzaga all fall--though the players did not know it. I believe our defense was custom designed to disrupt Gonzaga's offense, and clearly it overwhelmed them in the first quarter. Here are a few points about it:
1) Often when the ball came inside to Ejim we rotated a player over to help Agara, sandwiching Ejim.
2) Agara was in fact the main defender on Ejim, and went out of the game and came into the game whenever Ejim did likewise. Usually she fronted Ejim to deny her the ball.
3) Ejim had to guard Agara, too, and picked up a couple of early fouls trying to do so. This limited her.
4) As a result of this, Ejim was held to 12 points on 4/10 shooting. That is a step down from the 27 she hung on us last year.
5) In general our defense is closer and more aggressive than last year. This led to more deflections and for the second game in a row we had 10 steals. A whole different character of defense. On the other hand, those close defenses are vulnerable to drives, and Allie Turner blew by Harriel a couple of times for layups.
Now, let's talk a bit more about offense. Many have already remarked about how spread out our scoring was, and this is true and it is a thing of beauty. But that is not the only thing that is spread out. Also spread out were our assists. Ten (10!) players had at least one assist. This is a mark of a really great continuity offense in which the ball and players are both in motion and all the players are looking for their teammates and finding the one who becomes open.
I have no idea if this level of play is sustainable or whether other coaches will find schemes to stop it, but at this point in the season the Princeton has never looked better. I have heard many times that the Princeton is best suited to teams with 5 fundamentally skilled players on the court and no particularly dominant star. It could be that we just happened into the right personnel to elevate this particular offensive scheme. Last year Tara brought back elements of the triangle to try to feed Cam and Kiki more, but that is clearly gone now.
Finally, we had only 5 turnovers for the entire game. Granted, Gonzaga is not a ball-hawking type of defense, but in recent years we wracked up many more turnovers (12 a game) just from self-inflicted wounds. Of those 5 turnovers 3 were on Nunu, and those were mainly strips around the basket. In other words, our ball handling has dramatically improved.
Fundamentally sound ball handling, disruptive defense, spread-out scoring. That makes for a win.
Well that was wonderful. Good to see nearly 4000 people out for an early season game, and it was fun to see Tara's name on the court. During the game she walked over to the TV broadcasters, slowly, as she recovers from her hip surgery, and the whole time pockets of fans along her route erupted in spontaneous applause. I sit a few feet behind the broadcasters so I got a good look at her. She certainly seems happy and there is obviously a lot less tension in her face and posture. I think she is happy being a fan.
At the chalk talk Bird mentioned that we had been preparing defensively for Gonzaga all fall--though the players did not know it. I believe our defense was custom designed to disrupt Gonzaga's offense, and clearly it overwhelmed them in the first quarter. Here are a few points about it:
1) Often when the ball came inside to Ejim we rotated a player over to help Agara, sandwiching Ejim.
2) Agara was in fact the main defender on Ejim, and went out of the game and came into the game whenever Ejim did likewise. Usually she fronted Ejim to deny her the ball.
3) Ejim had to guard Agara, too, and picked up a couple of early fouls trying to do so. This limited her.
4) As a result of this, Ejim was held to 12 points on 4/10 shooting. That is a step down from the 27 she hung on us last year.
5) In general our defense is closer and more aggressive than last year. This led to more deflections and for the second game in a row we had 10 steals. A whole different character of defense. On the other hand, those close defenses are vulnerable to drives, and Allie Turner blew by Harriel a couple of times for layups.
Now, let's talk a bit more about offense. Many have already remarked about how spread out our scoring was, and this is true and it is a thing of beauty. But that is not the only thing that is spread out. Also spread out were our assists. Ten (10!) players had at least one assist. This is a mark of a really great continuity offense in which the ball and players are both in motion and all the players are looking for their teammates and finding the one who becomes open.
I have no idea if this level of play is sustainable or whether other coaches will find schemes to stop it, but at this point in the season the Princeton has never looked better. I have heard many times that the Princeton is best suited to teams with 5 fundamentally skilled players on the court and no particularly dominant star. It could be that we just happened into the right personnel to elevate this particular offensive scheme. Last year Tara brought back elements of the triangle to try to feed Cam and Kiki more, but that is clearly gone now.
Finally, we had only 5 turnovers for the entire game. Granted, Gonzaga is not a ball-hawking type of defense, but in recent years we wracked up many more turnovers (12 a game) just from self-inflicted wounds. Of those 5 turnovers 3 were on Nunu, and those were mainly strips around the basket. In other words, our ball handling has dramatically improved.
Fundamentally sound ball handling, disruptive defense, spread-out scoring. That makes for a win.
At the chalk talk Bird mentioned that we had been preparing defensively for Gonzaga all fall--though the players did not know it. I believe our defense was custom designed to disrupt Gonzaga's offense, and clearly it overwhelmed them in the first quarter. Here are a few points about it:
1) Often when the ball came inside to Ejim we rotated a player over to help Agara, sandwiching Ejim.
2) Agara was in fact the main defender on Ejim, and went out of the game and came into the game whenever Ejim did likewise. Usually she fronted Ejim to deny her the ball.
3) Ejim had to guard Agara, too, and picked up a couple of early fouls trying to do so. This limited her.
4) As a result of this, Ejim was held to 12 points on 4/10 shooting. That is a step down from the 27 she hung on us last year.
5) In general our defense is closer and more aggressive than last year. This led to more deflections and for the second game in a row we had 10 steals. A whole different character of defense. On the other hand, those close defenses are vulnerable to drives, and Allie Turner blew by Harriel a couple of times for layups.
Now, let's talk a bit more about offense. Many have already remarked about how spread out our scoring was, and this is true and it is a thing of beauty. But that is not the only thing that is spread out. Also spread out were our assists. Ten (10!) players had at least one assist. This is a mark of a really great continuity offense in which the ball and players are both in motion and all the players are looking for their teammates and finding the one who becomes open.
I have no idea if this level of play is sustainable or whether other coaches will find schemes to stop it, but at this point in the season the Princeton has never looked better. I have heard many times that the Princeton is best suited to teams with 5 fundamentally skilled players on the court and no particularly dominant star. It could be that we just happened into the right personnel to elevate this particular offensive scheme. Last year Tara brought back elements of the triangle to try to feed Cam and Kiki more, but that is clearly gone now.
Finally, we had only 5 turnovers for the entire game. Granted, Gonzaga is not a ball-hawking type of defense, but in recent years we wracked up many more turnovers (12 a game) just from self-inflicted wounds. Of those 5 turnovers 3 were on Nunu, and those were mainly strips around the basket. In other words, our ball handling has dramatically improved.
Fundamentally sound ball handling, disruptive defense, spread-out scoring. That makes for a win.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »