[washingtonismoney]

The refs have enabled the 59ers, but I'm concentrating more on our poor awareness. The players just don't seem very aware -- they've left shooters open, seem to be unaware of potential box-out opportunities when the rebound is loose, don't leak out to punish the 59ers' aggressiveness on the offensive boards, have been dribbling down blind alleys...a number of plays that suggest a loss of fundamentals/basketball IQ/whatever cliche you want to use.

They're also unprepared to match the 59ers' intensity. The blue and gold contingent is playing helter-skelter, a style that's susceptible to a controlled team punishing them. This is the type of team a VanDerveer team typically punishes; not this time. It's very odd.

EDIT: one other thing. I've missed a large portion of the second half, but at the end of the previous round of this game, we were running a fantastic handoff series where Ogwumike stood around the 3pt line and handed off to Orrange, who hit the angle at full speed (with Ogwumike rolling to the center.) I haven't seen it at all this game. It's very strange, because IIRC it worked every time last game.

[washingtonismoney]

The refs have enabled the 59ers, but I'm concentrating more on our poor awareness. The players just don't seem very aware -- they've left shooters open, seem to be unaware of potential box-out opportunities when the rebound is loose, don't leak out to punish the 59ers' aggressiveness on the offensive boards, have been dribbling down blind alleys...a number of plays that suggest a loss of fundamentals/basketball IQ/whatever cliche you want to use.

They're also unprepared to match the 59ers' intensity. The blue and gold contingent is playing helter-skelter, a style that's susceptible to a controlled team punishing them. This is the type of team a VanDerveer team typically punishes; not this time. It's very odd.

EDIT: one other thing. I've missed a large portion of the second half, but at the end of the previous round of this game, we were running a fantastic handoff series where Ogwumike stood around the 3pt line and handed off to Orrange, who hit the angle at full speed (with Ogwumike rolling to the center.) I haven't seen it at all this game. It's very strange, because IIRC it worked every time last game.

[Yellowlab]

I think the last game I attended at Maples, prior to this season, that ended in a Stanford loss was the FSU game.  It has been quite a ride.  I can't quite believe that they are now on a two game home losing streak.

I agree with Garvin about the officiating.  I could literally hear the slap on a player's wrist on one possession right in front of the official, but the result was a no-call and a Stanford "turnover."

Having said that, can someone please explain to me what this team is even trying to do on offense?

[Yellowlab]

I think the last game I attended at Maples, prior to this season, that ended in a Stanford loss was the FSU game.  It has been quite a ride.  I can't quite believe that they are now on a two game home losing streak.

I agree with Garvin about the officiating.  I could literally hear the slap on a player's wrist on one possession right in front of the official, but the result was a no-call and a Stanford "turnover."

Having said that, can someone please explain to me what this team is even trying to do on offense?

[M T]

I stayed for the Fast Break Club discussion afterwards, where Amy took questions for a while, and then Tara came out late ("I was talking to my boss"  My thought: Hey! It's not that bad!)  C.al beat us.  Not the officiating (although in my opinion, when the calls go against you, you get hesitant; when they go for you, you get emboldened).  Only one true senior on the game.  Chiney's a great talent, but she can't do it all.  The other girls have to step up.  We weren't aggressive enough.  That was one of the goals of the game, but clearly C.al won on aggression.
Amy mentioned more players by name. (Jos has to be more involved in offense; Toni was not taking open shots when she got them.  We're not finding targets for picks.  Mikaela hasn't played much until this year, and wants to be on the wing, but we need her inside.) Tara described the team as not having the talent that we've been used to, and trying to do the best we can with who we have.  She mentioned that many of our players have had supporting roles and they need to take on scoring themselves.

Both coaches mentioned that we will be hosting the conference leader, UCLA, on Friday, and they are playing quite well.  (Shudder... It would be terrible to lose a 3rd straight home game.)  Both appreciated the crowd, but I was a bit disappointed it wasn't a sellout.

Chiney came out at one point, and said "We'll figure it out".  Good for her, but I'd like to know from the coaches, "How?".


Questions I didn't ask:  What does Tara think our chances are of winning the conference?  If our players aren't as talented, are C.al's player's more talented that Stanford?  If we can't get our players to be aggressive, are we being outcoached in at least this respect?

Some initial thoughts of my own:  C.al whooped us.  It wasn't just out-positioning us for the ball.  We were getting balls taken from our hands.  They were beating us to spots.  We didn't seem to have a particular offensive plan.  (Yes, washingtonismoney, I don't remember seeing any handoffs to a curling Amber.)  There were few plays that got 3 point shots.

Down 8 at the half (thanks to a late foul call), Stanford never threatened again.  We made a little push, but rather impotently.  We simply couldn't stop their offense because we couldn't keep them off the boards.  Even if we came down with it, they would likely as not, take it away from us.

The aggression, apparently at a level that didn't warrant many fouls being called, resulted in more rebounds, tie balls, steals after we rebounded, our turnovers, and worse shots for us (ie, lower %).

A quick glance at the stats... The rebounding numbers weren't as bad as I thought (Amy said blocking out was an emphasis & they did better).  The interesting thing I see is FTA.  While the fouls were about the same (didn't we do a poor job of fouling at the end? First one to foul was Jos to get her 4th), C.al got a lot more FTA.  We did squeak by ahead of C.al of FT%.  Our FG% was a little better than C.al's, but it was held down by 2 for 12 from the 3PT line.  C.al shot a respectable 3PT%.

Amber's scoring was only in the first half, but I noticed several shots by C.al that she should have been guarding.  Jos had a lackluster first half but seemed to play up to half her potential in the second.  Chiney would up 1 rebound short of a double-double.  C.al was doing what we've done for years: throw up a shot from outside, just so they can get the rebound & put-back.

Sara was put in after the first foul.  I thought she did well again, but isn't as experienced yet as the other players (3 turnovers).  She's got the hustle and the attitude to take it to them.  Apparently she tweaked her ankle, and didn't come back in until very late in the 2nd.  (I don't understand why she wasn't used more in the first game.)

As Tara pointed out, Bonnie is just too small (weight-wise) for this opponent.

[M T]

I stayed for the Fast Break Club discussion afterwards, where Amy took questions for a while, and then Tara came out late ("I was talking to my boss"  My thought: Hey! It's not that bad!)  C.al beat us.  Not the officiating (although in my opinion, when the calls go against you, you get hesitant; when they go for you, you get emboldened).  Only one true senior on the game.  Chiney's a great talent, but she can't do it all.  The other girls have to step up.  We weren't aggressive enough.  That was one of the goals of the game, but clearly C.al won on aggression.
Amy mentioned more players by name. (Jos has to be more involved in offense; Toni was not taking open shots when she got them.  We're not finding targets for picks.  Mikaela hasn't played much until this year, and wants to be on the wing, but we need her inside.) Tara described the team as not having the talent that we've been used to, and trying to do the best we can with who we have.  She mentioned that many of our players have had supporting roles and they need to take on scoring themselves.

Both coaches mentioned that we will be hosting the conference leader, UCLA, on Friday, and they are playing quite well.  (Shudder... It would be terrible to lose a 3rd straight home game.)  Both appreciated the crowd, but I was a bit disappointed it wasn't a sellout.

Chiney came out at one point, and said "We'll figure it out".  Good for her, but I'd like to know from the coaches, "How?".


Questions I didn't ask:  What does Tara think our chances are of winning the conference?  If our players aren't as talented, are C.al's player's more talented that Stanford?  If we can't get our players to be aggressive, are we being outcoached in at least this respect?

Some initial thoughts of my own:  C.al whooped us.  It wasn't just out-positioning us for the ball.  We were getting balls taken from our hands.  They were beating us to spots.  We didn't seem to have a particular offensive plan.  (Yes, washingtonismoney, I don't remember seeing any handoffs to a curling Amber.)  There were few plays that got 3 point shots.

Down 8 at the half (thanks to a late foul call), Stanford never threatened again.  We made a little push, but rather impotently.  We simply couldn't stop their offense because we couldn't keep them off the boards.  Even if we came down with it, they would likely as not, take it away from us.

The aggression, apparently at a level that didn't warrant many fouls being called, resulted in more rebounds, tie balls, steals after we rebounded, our turnovers, and worse shots for us (ie, lower %).

A quick glance at the stats... The rebounding numbers weren't as bad as I thought (Amy said blocking out was an emphasis & they did better).  The interesting thing I see is FTA.  While the fouls were about the same (didn't we do a poor job of fouling at the end? First one to foul was Jos to get her 4th), C.al got a lot more FTA.  We did squeak by ahead of C.al of FT%.  Our FG% was a little better than C.al's, but it was held down by 2 for 12 from the 3PT line.  C.al shot a respectable 3PT%.

Amber's scoring was only in the first half, but I noticed several shots by C.al that she should have been guarding.  Jos had a lackluster first half but seemed to play up to half her potential in the second.  Chiney would up 1 rebound short of a double-double.  C.al was doing what we've done for years: throw up a shot from outside, just so they can get the rebound & put-back.

Sara was put in after the first foul.  I thought she did well again, but isn't as experienced yet as the other players (3 turnovers).  She's got the hustle and the attitude to take it to them.  Apparently she tweaked her ankle, and didn't come back in until very late in the 2nd.  (I don't understand why she wasn't used more in the first game.)

As Tara pointed out, Bonnie is just too small (weight-wise) for this opponent.

[Viking_Guy]

On the officiating: it was simply difficult to figure out what was being called with any consistency.  The amount of shoving and grabbing that Berkeley was allowed to get away with on their offensive boards (I can't believe how many times was Stanford called for fouls trying to hold defensive rebounding position underneath) was one thing, but the number of times much less contact was called a foul when Cal was on offense was remarkable.

But more generally:

Whatever offense we try to run, triangle, motion or pick and roll, we can't simply have 1 player as the end all threat.  In each offense, it's a similar problem: no defender on the perimeter feels like they need to honor the drive as a threat, and off-ball defenders can count on shooters hesitating when the ball gets to them.  Today, Cal overplayed the passing lanes, put pressure on the perimeter, and with the exception of some curls by Amber in the first half, never felt like they had to honor either the 3-point shot or to a lesser extent the drive. 

Yes, Joslyn needs to be more offensive-minded; this offense may be able to support Ruef as a defensive and rebounding only person, but can't support that if Tinkle also decides she doesn't need to shoot.  My general opinion?  We shouldn't be playing Tinkle and Ruef at the same time, ESPECIALLY if Tara is going to be entirely unwilling to play Picknell as a sub (is she hurt?  Because with Bonnie and Taylor getting shoved around underneath, I thought we could really use her).  Bring in Sara James if she can go, or run Amber, Toni and Jasmine Camp in the backcourt at the same time.

But another part of that is set up: again, I saw a whole lot of Chiney down low alone, and everyone else standing out on the perimeter, catching a pass, and, instead of immediately passing again or shooting, assessing whether they could feed it into Chiney.  If that was closed down, repeat.  I think if we're going to run a pick and roll, the roller has to be Chiney, because neither Tinkle nor especially Ruef is going to quickly dive to the basket if the pick defender overplays the driver.  More generally, we need to get Chiney away from the basket and try to clear some room in the lane; when she's in there, there are often 3 defenders within 3 feet of her.  Again, because other teams aren't forced to honor other players as offensive options.

If I had the energy to type up a game report, I was going to title it "Nothing fails like success."  As long as Stanford was winning, even if it was completely ugly like Tuesday, or South Carolina, the coaching staff is reluctant to change.  It takes serious willpower to make changes when the team is being "successful," even if that success is not nearly at their potential.  And they haven't really done it yet.

One other issue: I can see the dreaded "nice girls from Stanford" meme making a comeback.  The team is getting outphysicaled, outbodied, almost every time out; how many times did a Stanford foul still allow the opposing player to get a shot up?  Another reason why I would like to see something from Picknell.  And in response to "she doesn't know or run the offense well," the obvious rejoinder is "What offense?"  You're not going to win many games when you struggle to score 60 over and over again.

VG

[Viking_Guy]

On the officiating: it was simply difficult to figure out what was being called with any consistency.  The amount of shoving and grabbing that Berkeley was allowed to get away with on their offensive boards (I can't believe how many times was Stanford called for fouls trying to hold defensive rebounding position underneath) was one thing, but the number of times much less contact was called a foul when Cal was on offense was remarkable.

But more generally:

Whatever offense we try to run, triangle, motion or pick and roll, we can't simply have 1 player as the end all threat.  In each offense, it's a similar problem: no defender on the perimeter feels like they need to honor the drive as a threat, and off-ball defenders can count on shooters hesitating when the ball gets to them.  Today, Cal overplayed the passing lanes, put pressure on the perimeter, and with the exception of some curls by Amber in the first half, never felt like they had to honor either the 3-point shot or to a lesser extent the drive. 

Yes, Joslyn needs to be more offensive-minded; this offense may be able to support Ruef as a defensive and rebounding only person, but can't support that if Tinkle also decides she doesn't need to shoot.  My general opinion?  We shouldn't be playing Tinkle and Ruef at the same time, ESPECIALLY if Tara is going to be entirely unwilling to play Picknell as a sub (is she hurt?  Because with Bonnie and Taylor getting shoved around underneath, I thought we could really use her).  Bring in Sara James if she can go, or run Amber, Toni and Jasmine Camp in the backcourt at the same time.

But another part of that is set up: again, I saw a whole lot of Chiney down low alone, and everyone else standing out on the perimeter, catching a pass, and, instead of immediately passing again or shooting, assessing whether they could feed it into Chiney.  If that was closed down, repeat.  I think if we're going to run a pick and roll, the roller has to be Chiney, because neither Tinkle nor especially Ruef is going to quickly dive to the basket if the pick defender overplays the driver.  More generally, we need to get Chiney away from the basket and try to clear some room in the lane; when she's in there, there are often 3 defenders within 3 feet of her.  Again, because other teams aren't forced to honor other players as offensive options.

If I had the energy to type up a game report, I was going to title it "Nothing fails like success."  As long as Stanford was winning, even if it was completely ugly like Tuesday, or South Carolina, the coaching staff is reluctant to change.  It takes serious willpower to make changes when the team is being "successful," even if that success is not nearly at their potential.  And they haven't really done it yet.

One other issue: I can see the dreaded "nice girls from Stanford" meme making a comeback.  The team is getting outphysicaled, outbodied, almost every time out; how many times did a Stanford foul still allow the opposing player to get a shot up?  Another reason why I would like to see something from Picknell.  And in response to "she doesn't know or run the offense well," the obvious rejoinder is "What offense?"  You're not going to win many games when you struggle to score 60 over and over again.

VG

[81alum]

I should have read this thread before I posted my write-up.  As you'll see, I agree entirely on the officiating.  It even seemed to me that the refs themselves began to feel guilty about their lopsided calls when the game was out of reach for Stanford, and began gifting us with a few calls to make up for it.  But these refs remind me of a baseball umpire who sometimes calls the low strike and sometimes doesn't.  Players could not figure out what they wanted.

[81alum]

I should have read this thread before I posted my write-up.  As you'll see, I agree entirely on the officiating.  It even seemed to me that the refs themselves began to feel guilty about their lopsided calls when the game was out of reach for Stanford, and began gifting us with a few calls to make up for it.  But these refs remind me of a baseball umpire who sometimes calls the low strike and sometimes doesn't.  Players could not figure out what they wanted.

[Renaissance Man]

One way to recognize a poorly-officiated game at any level is when the officials make a number of calls late in a game that is out of reach in an attempt to balance the totals.  This also usually indicates that they were well aware of a bias while the game was still in doubt.  This is a hallmark of bad, insecure officials.

[Renaissance Man]

One way to recognize a poorly-officiated game at any level is when the officials make a number of calls late in a game that is out of reach in an attempt to balance the totals.  This also usually indicates that they were well aware of a bias while the game was still in doubt.  This is a hallmark of bad, insecure officials.