[qwerty49]

Well, I do think this was a very embarrassing game from a team that can, and has, played way better, just two days ago.  And maybe staff could have prepared a bit better and called a few timeouts to stop those 14-0 and 15-0 runs in the first half.

It didn't help that this was arguably Alanna's worst game offensively in a long while.  You can say it didn't matter in the end, but don't forget that a strong game inside from Alanna early on probably puts Hebard in foul trouble.

Maya was pretty inconsistent and Lacie seemed hesitant to shoot (those two air balls didn't help). The two of them plus Alanna were a combined 7 for 32.

This was kind of a reversion to the bad old days where we passed the ball around the perimeter seemingly waiting for a sixth player to get open for a shot.  Props to Oregon for playing a good defensive game.

I know it was the kind of moment that is drilled into the players' heads time and time again, but when we are down 30 and our PG is instructed to dribble the clock down for the last shot of the 3Q, it just didn't seem right.  And the fact that we turned the ball over on that play made it worse.

At least we can now see the gaps that have to be closed before we can consistently compete at the level of a FF team.  

But jeez, we took 82 shots, they took 79, and we lost by 40 at home.  Ouch.

[qwerty49]

Well, I do think this was a very embarrassing game from a team that can, and has, played way better, just two days ago.  And maybe staff could have prepared a bit better and called a few timeouts to stop those 14-0 and 15-0 runs in the first half.

It didn't help that this was arguably Alanna's worst game offensively in a long while.  You can say it didn't matter in the end, but don't forget that a strong game inside from Alanna early on probably puts Hebard in foul trouble.

Maya was pretty inconsistent and Lacie seemed hesitant to shoot (those two air balls didn't help). The two of them plus Alanna were a combined 7 for 32.

This was kind of a reversion to the bad old days where we passed the ball around the perimeter seemingly waiting for a sixth player to get open for a shot.  Props to Oregon for playing a good defensive game.

I know it was the kind of moment that is drilled into the players' heads time and time again, but when we are down 30 and our PG is instructed to dribble the clock down for the last shot of the 3Q, it just didn't seem right.  And the fact that we turned the ball over on that play made it worse.

At least we can now see the gaps that have to be closed before we can consistently compete at the level of a FF team.  

But jeez, we took 82 shots, they took 79, and we lost by 40 at home.  Ouch.

[UltimateCard]

Holly Rowe was remarking on how angry Tara was after the first Oregon run at the beginning of the game. I wonder how she's feeling after this embarrassing rout. We played as if we felt like we didn't deserve to be on the same court as the Ducks. No confidence at all in running our offense or shooting the ball

It was clear from watching the bench at the first time out that the game wasn’t going the way Tara had drawn it up. Kiana was yanked twice in the early going (Lindy patted her on the back to comfort her) and her stat line for the game was uncharacteristically sparse - only 3 FGA! We made a bit of a run to get within 6 (IIRC) and then they switched to a 3-2 zone we couldn’t solve. Never got our offense in gear, couldn’t get stops, and the snowball just kept growing. They especially shredded our defense off the high screen multiple times for open looks and easy buckets. The Ducks had not won in Maples since their first visit in 1987. Clearly, they were not intimidated and have the look of a championship team. We need to bounce back like how we did after the loss at Cal. Compared to last season, we are better but younger. One step back, two steps forward...

[UltimateCard]

Holly Rowe was remarking on how angry Tara was after the first Oregon run at the beginning of the game. I wonder how she's feeling after this embarrassing rout. We played as if we felt like we didn't deserve to be on the same court as the Ducks. No confidence at all in running our offense or shooting the ball

It was clear from watching the bench at the first time out that the game wasn’t going the way Tara had drawn it up. Kiana was yanked twice in the early going (Lindy patted her on the back to comfort her) and her stat line for the game was uncharacteristically sparse - only 3 FGA! We made a bit of a run to get within 6 (IIRC) and then they switched to a 3-2 zone we couldn’t solve. Never got our offense in gear, couldn’t get stops, and the snowball just kept growing. They especially shredded our defense off the high screen multiple times for open looks and easy buckets. The Ducks had not won in Maples since their first visit in 1987. Clearly, they were not intimidated and have the look of a championship team. We need to bounce back like how we did after the loss at Cal. Compared to last season, we are better but younger. One step back, two steps forward...

[CompSci87]

Oregon's 3-2 zone killed Utah when they played. Lots of players with long arms and quick hands. Utah was throwing long skip passes around the perimeter that the receiver could barely catch and that yielded nothing. I remember thinking at the time that we must have something better against the 3-2 in our zone offense. But sadly we were often doing the same today. Sometimes we'd at least get the ball inside, but that often went nowhere too.

[CompSci87]

Oregon's 3-2 zone killed Utah when they played. Lots of players with long arms and quick hands. Utah was throwing long skip passes around the perimeter that the receiver could barely catch and that yielded nothing. I remember thinking at the time that we must have something better against the 3-2 in our zone offense. But sadly we were often doing the same today. Sometimes we'd at least get the ball inside, but that often went nowhere too.

[Jskass]

I was amazed how Boley could get open considering she is not quick. We can learn a lot from that game (like pick up Ionescu at half court). Kudos to Carrington for staying aggressive. Highlight of the game: spotting Haley Jones and Hannah Jump in the stands, then watching Holly Rowe interview then.

[Jskass]

I was amazed how Boley could get open considering she is not quick. We can learn a lot from that game (like pick up Ionescu at half court). Kudos to Carrington for staying aggressive. Highlight of the game: spotting Haley Jones and Hannah Jump in the stands, then watching Holly Rowe interview then.

[JohnR34231]

I was amazed how Boley could get open considering she is not quick. We can learn a lot from that game (like pick up Ionescu at half court). Kudos to Carrington for staying aggressive. Highlight of the game: spotting Haley Jones and Hannah Jump in the stands, then watching Holly Rowe interview then.

What's the old joke about a coach being interviewed after a particularly bad game and when being asked if there were any positives saying "Yeah, if there were any recruits watching, they know we need help". I wonder if Jones and Jump felt that way.

[JohnR34231]

I was amazed how Boley could get open considering she is not quick. We can learn a lot from that game (like pick up Ionescu at half court). Kudos to Carrington for staying aggressive. Highlight of the game: spotting Haley Jones and Hannah Jump in the stands, then watching Holly Rowe interview then.

What's the old joke about a coach being interviewed after a particularly bad game and when being asked if there were any positives saying "Yeah, if there were any recruits watching, they know we need help". I wonder if Jones and Jump felt that way.

[81alum]

Some highlights from Tara's post game press conference, posted on Stanford WBB facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/StanfordWBB/

"We are used to looking at the scoreboard with the numbers reversed.  We've had a lot of great games in this building and this was one of our worst.  It starts with Oregon that is an extremely talented team....they did everything that they needed to do and they did it very well.  We are disappointed.  In the beginning of the game we got some looks and didn't finish at the basket.   We had a little run it was at six, but then it was a train going down the tracks really fast.  I'm hopeful that our team will respond in a really positive way."

When asked whether a loss of this magnitude would stick with the team, she noted that the team had prepared and performed well for Oregon State, but that "there was a fast turnaround" and there "were a lot of young bodies that got pushed around."   She noted that Notre Dame last year had a 35 point loss to Louisville and continued to a national championship.  She hoped our team would take this personally and "we'll see coming out against UCLA and USC this weekend."

"They have a well oiled machine, offensively...and their defense.  We did not help ourselves.  Are we 40 points worse than them?  I'd like to think we're not, but they're very very good."  

Asked about Alanna and Kianna being visibly frustrated by their early misses.  "If you're a player, you have to finish.  You don't get style points in basketball.  The ball either goes in or it doesn't.  You have this great opportunity, a great crowd, playing against a top team, you gotta bring it.  We've been on the other side of this--a lot."  Then she named the freshmen and sophomores and noted that Oregon is an upper class group that lost games when they were freshmen and sophomores but "they have it together."   "Maya is going to have to say 'Hey, I can score in there.'  Alanna same thing."

"We knew when they came in here we would have to play an A game on offense and an A game on defense.  It wasn't an A game or B game or C game on offense or defense or rebounding.  We had to play better and we didn't."

Asked about fatigue perhaps contributing to poor shooting lately.  "I do think that young players get tired more than older experienced players."  
"Our most vocal leader is Dijonai.  These are really great people.  They are kind people.  Sometimes you wish there was just a jerk in there that would get angry.  Dijonai, Alanna, Kiana, the twins are used to winning.  I think they will come together, they will take it personally."

Asked about Maya, she noted she had just gone up against two All-American caliber players, that she had blocked some shots and gotten some rebounds, but that she is capable of scoring better and playing better defense.  She has to decide if she wants to develop into the kind of All-Americans she has been defending--she is capable of that.

"Individually and collectively, we have a lot of work to do."

[81alum]

Some highlights from Tara's post game press conference, posted on Stanford WBB facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/StanfordWBB/

"We are used to looking at the scoreboard with the numbers reversed.  We've had a lot of great games in this building and this was one of our worst.  It starts with Oregon that is an extremely talented team....they did everything that they needed to do and they did it very well.  We are disappointed.  In the beginning of the game we got some looks and didn't finish at the basket.   We had a little run it was at six, but then it was a train going down the tracks really fast.  I'm hopeful that our team will respond in a really positive way."

When asked whether a loss of this magnitude would stick with the team, she noted that the team had prepared and performed well for Oregon State, but that "there was a fast turnaround" and there "were a lot of young bodies that got pushed around."   She noted that Notre Dame last year had a 35 point loss to Louisville and continued to a national championship.  She hoped our team would take this personally and "we'll see coming out against UCLA and USC this weekend."

"They have a well oiled machine, offensively...and their defense.  We did not help ourselves.  Are we 40 points worse than them?  I'd like to think we're not, but they're very very good."  

Asked about Alanna and Kianna being visibly frustrated by their early misses.  "If you're a player, you have to finish.  You don't get style points in basketball.  The ball either goes in or it doesn't.  You have this great opportunity, a great crowd, playing against a top team, you gotta bring it.  We've been on the other side of this--a lot."  Then she named the freshmen and sophomores and noted that Oregon is an upper class group that lost games when they were freshmen and sophomores but "they have it together."   "Maya is going to have to say 'Hey, I can score in there.'  Alanna same thing."

"We knew when they came in here we would have to play an A game on offense and an A game on defense.  It wasn't an A game or B game or C game on offense or defense or rebounding.  We had to play better and we didn't."

Asked about fatigue perhaps contributing to poor shooting lately.  "I do think that young players get tired more than older experienced players."  
"Our most vocal leader is Dijonai.  These are really great people.  They are kind people.  Sometimes you wish there was just a jerk in there that would get angry.  Dijonai, Alanna, Kiana, the twins are used to winning.  I think they will come together, they will take it personally."

Asked about Maya, she noted she had just gone up against two All-American caliber players, that she had blocked some shots and gotten some rebounds, but that she is capable of scoring better and playing better defense.  She has to decide if she wants to develop into the kind of All-Americans she has been defending--she is capable of that.

"Individually and collectively, we have a lot of work to do."

[jonnyss]

during the osu game, the announcers mentioned that stanford seemed baffled by the zone defense and warned that we better prepare for zone against oregon. well, we were completely unprepared. they had 3 defensive players zoning outside; we had 3 players outside on offense. we would run from side to side and end up right at the defender. we screened against the zone, but not against their player-to-player. why?

by contrast, i was struck with how sharp the oregon coaching looked. dijonai drove and split the zone 3 plays in a row; kelly graves went to man. dijonai subbed out; graves immediately went back to zone. dijonai came back in; graves went to man. sabrina o commented on it at her post-game interview: "we knew what they were going to run, and we were prepared for it."

we seemed to have no clue how to attack the zone. plus, when they went to man when dijonai was in, we rarely set screens. 

tara yanked kiana. if it was for failing to score, jeez, give kiana a break. run screens for her (and alanna) to shoot 3's! we were much quicker than oregon as a team, but it's not much use outside if your players are standing, waiting for the ball, right by the defender.

[jonnyss]

during the osu game, the announcers mentioned that stanford seemed baffled by the zone defense and warned that we better prepare for zone against oregon. well, we were completely unprepared. they had 3 defensive players zoning outside; we had 3 players outside on offense. we would run from side to side and end up right at the defender. we screened against the zone, but not against their player-to-player. why?

by contrast, i was struck with how sharp the oregon coaching looked. dijonai drove and split the zone 3 plays in a row; kelly graves went to man. dijonai subbed out; graves immediately went back to zone. dijonai came back in; graves went to man. sabrina o commented on it at her post-game interview: "we knew what they were going to run, and we were prepared for it."

we seemed to have no clue how to attack the zone. plus, when they went to man when dijonai was in, we rarely set screens. 

tara yanked kiana. if it was for failing to score, jeez, give kiana a break. run screens for her (and alanna) to shoot 3's! we were much quicker than oregon as a team, but it's not much use outside if your players are standing, waiting for the ball, right by the defender.

[81alum]

during the osu game, the announcers mentioned that stanford seemed baffled by the zone defense and warned that we better prepare for zone against oregon. well, we were completely unprepared. they had 3 defensive players zoning outside; we had 3 players outside on offense. we would run from side to side and end up right at the defender. we screened against the zone, but not against their player-to-player. why?

by contrast, i was struck with how sharp the oregon coaching looked. dijonai drove and split the zone 3 plays in a row; kelly graves went to man. dijonai subbed out; graves immediately went back to zone. dijonai came back in; graves went to man. sabrina o commented on it at her post-game interview: "we knew what they were going to run, and we were prepared for it."

we seemed to have no clue how to attack the zone. plus, when they went to man when dijonai was in, we rarely set screens. 

tara yanked kiana. if it was for failing to score, jeez, give kiana a break. run screens for her (and alanna) to shoot 3's! we were much quicker than oregon as a team, but it's not much use outside if your players are standing, waiting for the ball, right by the defender.

All valid points.  The Princeton does not work against a zone, and so we have a different zone offense.  It seemed to work pretty well earlier in the year--but clearly not yesterday.  Yesterday conjured up memories of a few years ago when the zone gave us fits all year long.  Bad, bad memories.

I think a lot of the problem is that we are simply not shooting as well from three as we were earlier in the season.  That extraordinary shooting covered up a multitude of sins. But three point shooting has always been fickle.

[81alum]

during the osu game, the announcers mentioned that stanford seemed baffled by the zone defense and warned that we better prepare for zone against oregon. well, we were completely unprepared. they had 3 defensive players zoning outside; we had 3 players outside on offense. we would run from side to side and end up right at the defender. we screened against the zone, but not against their player-to-player. why?

by contrast, i was struck with how sharp the oregon coaching looked. dijonai drove and split the zone 3 plays in a row; kelly graves went to man. dijonai subbed out; graves immediately went back to zone. dijonai came back in; graves went to man. sabrina o commented on it at her post-game interview: "we knew what they were going to run, and we were prepared for it."

we seemed to have no clue how to attack the zone. plus, when they went to man when dijonai was in, we rarely set screens. 

tara yanked kiana. if it was for failing to score, jeez, give kiana a break. run screens for her (and alanna) to shoot 3's! we were much quicker than oregon as a team, but it's not much use outside if your players are standing, waiting for the ball, right by the defender.

All valid points.  The Princeton does not work against a zone, and so we have a different zone offense.  It seemed to work pretty well earlier in the year--but clearly not yesterday.  Yesterday conjured up memories of a few years ago when the zone gave us fits all year long.  Bad, bad memories.

I think a lot of the problem is that we are simply not shooting as well from three as we were earlier in the season.  That extraordinary shooting covered up a multitude of sins. But three point shooting has always been fickle.

[BosCard]

I thought both Hull's looked tentative on offense against the zone.  They both have the size and skill to drive the same way DiJonai was doing but they would start a drive and then abandon it by dribbling backwards.  Really good teams are going to gameplan around our best scorers and find ways to frustrate Alanna and put a lot of size on Kianna which can take them out of their offensive game.  We can't keep counting on the two of them to take most of the shots.  DiJonai understood that yesterday.  And I appreciated Maya taking her shots inside even if she missed a number of them.  We need to be a team of 5 or 6 scorers like Oregon is.

[BosCard]

I thought both Hull's looked tentative on offense against the zone.  They both have the size and skill to drive the same way DiJonai was doing but they would start a drive and then abandon it by dribbling backwards.  Really good teams are going to gameplan around our best scorers and find ways to frustrate Alanna and put a lot of size on Kianna which can take them out of their offensive game.  We can't keep counting on the two of them to take most of the shots.  DiJonai understood that yesterday.  And I appreciated Maya taking her shots inside even if she missed a number of them.  We need to be a team of 5 or 6 scorers like Oregon is.

[Jskass]

The fact that Oregon has all 5 starters averaging double digit scorers doomed us. We need to aspire to that and it will fix our wounds.

[Jskass]

The fact that Oregon has all 5 starters averaging double digit scorers doomed us. We need to aspire to that and it will fix our wounds.

[TheFarm07]

I wonder why year after year, even with new players coming in, we continually struggle against a zone defense. I feel like we've seen this issue for the good part of this decade and we occasionally "solve" it by getting hot from outside. Surely, there has to be another solution to zone defenses than just shooting threes.

I do remember that in one or two games, we manage to get some shots in from midrange. It seems Fingall's absence hurts us, in that she was able and willing to hit midrange jumpers in a soft part of the zone.

[TheFarm07]

I wonder why year after year, even with new players coming in, we continually struggle against a zone defense. I feel like we've seen this issue for the good part of this decade and we occasionally "solve" it by getting hot from outside. Surely, there has to be another solution to zone defenses than just shooting threes.

I do remember that in one or two games, we manage to get some shots in from midrange. It seems Fingall's absence hurts us, in that she was able and willing to hit midrange jumpers in a soft part of the zone.

[CompSci87]

I wonder why year after year, even with new players coming in, we continually struggle against a zone defense. I feel like we've seen this issue for the good part of this decade and we occasionally "solve" it by getting hot from outside. Surely, there has to be another solution to zone defenses than just shooting threes.

I do remember that in one or two games, we manage to get some shots in from midrange. It seems Fingall's absence hurts us, in that she was able and willing to hit midrange jumpers in a soft part of the zone.

Needing to hit from there is part of it for sure.

Oregon's zone is tougher than most. We usually see 2-3 with the perimeter players being small guards. Oregon played a 3-2 with length at every position. That makes it hard to get inside by passing.

Still it's disappointing we didn't seem well prepared to go up against it.

[CompSci87]

I wonder why year after year, even with new players coming in, we continually struggle against a zone defense. I feel like we've seen this issue for the good part of this decade and we occasionally "solve" it by getting hot from outside. Surely, there has to be another solution to zone defenses than just shooting threes.

I do remember that in one or two games, we manage to get some shots in from midrange. It seems Fingall's absence hurts us, in that she was able and willing to hit midrange jumpers in a soft part of the zone.

Needing to hit from there is part of it for sure.

Oregon's zone is tougher than most. We usually see 2-3 with the perimeter players being small guards. Oregon played a 3-2 with length at every position. That makes it hard to get inside by passing.

Still it's disappointing we didn't seem well prepared to go up against it.

[qwerty49]

I wonder why year after year, even with new players coming in, we continually struggle against a zone defense. I feel like we've seen this issue for the good part of this decade and we occasionally "solve" it by getting hot from outside. Surely, there has to be another solution to zone defenses than just shooting threes.

I do remember that in one or two games, we manage to get some shots in from midrange. It seems Fingall's absence hurts us, in that she was able and willing to hit midrange jumpers in a soft part of the zone.

Needing to hit from there is part of it for sure.

Oregon's zone is tougher than most. We usually see 2-3 with the perimeter players being small guards. Oregon played a 3-2 with length at every position. That makes it hard to get inside by passing.

Still it's disappointing we didn't seem well prepared to go up against it.

it looked to me that the one play that seemed to work pretty consistently for a shot was when Maya drove from the elbow, but she couldn’t finish most of them and we had no one there to rebound. (It was tough traffic in there against Hebard but the lack of touch on some of those shots was OMG-level.)

I think Maya has tremendous upside on offense but I do think this is a learning year for her.

---

[/quote]

[qwerty49]

I wonder why year after year, even with new players coming in, we continually struggle against a zone defense. I feel like we've seen this issue for the good part of this decade and we occasionally "solve" it by getting hot from outside. Surely, there has to be another solution to zone defenses than just shooting threes.

I do remember that in one or two games, we manage to get some shots in from midrange. It seems Fingall's absence hurts us, in that she was able and willing to hit midrange jumpers in a soft part of the zone.

Needing to hit from there is part of it for sure.

Oregon's zone is tougher than most. We usually see 2-3 with the perimeter players being small guards. Oregon played a 3-2 with length at every position. That makes it hard to get inside by passing.

Still it's disappointing we didn't seem well prepared to go up against it.

it looked to me that the one play that seemed to work pretty consistently for a shot was when Maya drove from the elbow, but she couldn’t finish most of them and we had no one there to rebound. (It was tough traffic in there against Hebard but the lack of touch on some of those shots was OMG-level.)

I think Maya has tremendous upside on offense but I do think this is a learning year for her.

---

[/quote]

[81alum]

I wonder why year after year, even with new players coming in, we continually struggle against a zone defense. I feel like we've seen this issue for the good part of this decade and we occasionally "solve" it by getting hot from outside. Surely, there has to be another solution to zone defenses than just shooting threes.

I do remember that in one or two games, we manage to get some shots in from midrange. It seems Fingall's absence hurts us, in that she was able and willing to hit midrange jumpers in a soft part of the zone.

Needing to hit from there is part of it for sure.

Oregon's zone is tougher than most. We usually see 2-3 with the perimeter players being small guards. Oregon played a 3-2 with length at every position. That makes it hard to get inside by passing.

Still it's disappointing we didn't seem well prepared to go up against it.

Last year we beat Oregon in their house, and they had mostly the same cast of characters.  We should not forget that.  And they played a tough zone--though not as effective.  How did we do it?  McPhee penetrated the zone over and over, shooting many jumpers from the elbow or, if the lane was open, taking it all the way in.  The way to kill a zone when three point shooting is off is finding a soft spot and sinking mid range, pull up jumpers from that spot.

Why are we often not very good against that?  Because we have been terrible at mid range jumpers for a long time.  We have had games when every single shot was either from the paint or beyond the three point line.  The analytics favor that--taking a two point shot that has about the same probability as a three point shot is not a good deal.  But what if the other team comes up with a defense that sacrifices the mid range jumpers to both deny the paint and hug the perimeter?  That is what Oregon has done.  And yesterday we had no McPhee to regularly penetrate, pull up, and take the uncontested 10-11 foot jumper.

I do think some part of this loss is on our coaches--you don't lose that badly without a lot of causes all contributing.  Somehow Oregon did know exactly what we were trying to do on offense.  And somehow our players were not well prepared to kill the Oregon 3-2 zone.  Yes, it was a "short turnaround" which the second game always is.  There is a pretty good chance we will meet them again--hopefully not before the Pac 12 championship.  If it is in the championship (likely unless Oregon State somehow can find a way to beat Oregon once in the next two games, or unless we take a nosedive and lose some more) it will also be on short rest.  Sigh.

[81alum]

I wonder why year after year, even with new players coming in, we continually struggle against a zone defense. I feel like we've seen this issue for the good part of this decade and we occasionally "solve" it by getting hot from outside. Surely, there has to be another solution to zone defenses than just shooting threes.

I do remember that in one or two games, we manage to get some shots in from midrange. It seems Fingall's absence hurts us, in that she was able and willing to hit midrange jumpers in a soft part of the zone.

Needing to hit from there is part of it for sure.

Oregon's zone is tougher than most. We usually see 2-3 with the perimeter players being small guards. Oregon played a 3-2 with length at every position. That makes it hard to get inside by passing.

Still it's disappointing we didn't seem well prepared to go up against it.

Last year we beat Oregon in their house, and they had mostly the same cast of characters.  We should not forget that.  And they played a tough zone--though not as effective.  How did we do it?  McPhee penetrated the zone over and over, shooting many jumpers from the elbow or, if the lane was open, taking it all the way in.  The way to kill a zone when three point shooting is off is finding a soft spot and sinking mid range, pull up jumpers from that spot.

Why are we often not very good against that?  Because we have been terrible at mid range jumpers for a long time.  We have had games when every single shot was either from the paint or beyond the three point line.  The analytics favor that--taking a two point shot that has about the same probability as a three point shot is not a good deal.  But what if the other team comes up with a defense that sacrifices the mid range jumpers to both deny the paint and hug the perimeter?  That is what Oregon has done.  And yesterday we had no McPhee to regularly penetrate, pull up, and take the uncontested 10-11 foot jumper.

I do think some part of this loss is on our coaches--you don't lose that badly without a lot of causes all contributing.  Somehow Oregon did know exactly what we were trying to do on offense.  And somehow our players were not well prepared to kill the Oregon 3-2 zone.  Yes, it was a "short turnaround" which the second game always is.  There is a pretty good chance we will meet them again--hopefully not before the Pac 12 championship.  If it is in the championship (likely unless Oregon State somehow can find a way to beat Oregon once in the next two games, or unless we take a nosedive and lose some more) it will also be on short rest.  Sigh.

[qwerty49]

I wonder why year after year, even with new players coming in, we continually struggle against a zone defense. I feel like we've seen this issue for the good part of this decade and we occasionally "solve" it by getting hot from outside. Surely, there has to be another solution to zone defenses than just shooting threes.

I do remember that in one or two games, we manage to get some shots in from midrange. It seems Fingall's absence hurts us, in that she was able and willing to hit midrange jumpers in a soft part of the zone.

Needing to hit from there is part of it for sure.

Oregon's zone is tougher than most. We usually see 2-3 with the perimeter players being small guards. Oregon played a 3-2 with length at every position. That makes it hard to get inside by passing.

Still it's disappointing we didn't seem well prepared to go up against it.

Last year we beat Oregon in their house, and they had mostly the same cast of characters.  We should not forget that.  And they played a tough zone--though not as effective.  How did we do it?  McPhee penetrated the zone over and over, shooting many jumpers from the elbow or, if the lane was open, taking it all the way in.  The way to kill a zone when three point shooting is finding a soft spot and sinking mid range, pull up jumpers from that spot.

Why are we often not very good against that?  Because we have been terrible at mid range jumpers for a long time.  We have had games when every single shot was either from the paint or beyond the three point line.  The analytics favor that--taking a two point shot that has about the same probability as a three point shot is not a good deal.  But what if the other team comes up with a defense that sacrifices the mid range jumpers to both deny the paint and hug the perimeter?  That is what Oregon has done.  And yesterday we had no McPhee to regularly penetrate, pull up, and take the uncontested 10-11 foot jumper.

Excellent observation, 81.

[qwerty49]

I wonder why year after year, even with new players coming in, we continually struggle against a zone defense. I feel like we've seen this issue for the good part of this decade and we occasionally "solve" it by getting hot from outside. Surely, there has to be another solution to zone defenses than just shooting threes.

I do remember that in one or two games, we manage to get some shots in from midrange. It seems Fingall's absence hurts us, in that she was able and willing to hit midrange jumpers in a soft part of the zone.

Needing to hit from there is part of it for sure.

Oregon's zone is tougher than most. We usually see 2-3 with the perimeter players being small guards. Oregon played a 3-2 with length at every position. That makes it hard to get inside by passing.

Still it's disappointing we didn't seem well prepared to go up against it.

Last year we beat Oregon in their house, and they had mostly the same cast of characters.  We should not forget that.  And they played a tough zone--though not as effective.  How did we do it?  McPhee penetrated the zone over and over, shooting many jumpers from the elbow or, if the lane was open, taking it all the way in.  The way to kill a zone when three point shooting is finding a soft spot and sinking mid range, pull up jumpers from that spot.

Why are we often not very good against that?  Because we have been terrible at mid range jumpers for a long time.  We have had games when every single shot was either from the paint or beyond the three point line.  The analytics favor that--taking a two point shot that has about the same probability as a three point shot is not a good deal.  But what if the other team comes up with a defense that sacrifices the mid range jumpers to both deny the paint and hug the perimeter?  That is what Oregon has done.  And yesterday we had no McPhee to regularly penetrate, pull up, and take the uncontested 10-11 foot jumper.

Excellent observation, 81.

[81alum]

I wonder why year after year, even with new players coming in, we continually struggle against a zone defense. I feel like we've seen this issue for the good part of this decade and we occasionally "solve" it by getting hot from outside. Surely, there has to be another solution to zone defenses than just shooting threes.

I do remember that in one or two games, we manage to get some shots in from midrange. It seems Fingall's absence hurts us, in that she was able and willing to hit midrange jumpers in a soft part of the zone.

Needing to hit from there is part of it for sure.

Oregon's zone is tougher than most. We usually see 2-3 with the perimeter players being small guards. Oregon played a 3-2 with length at every position. That makes it hard to get inside by passing.

Still it's disappointing we didn't seem well prepared to go up against it.

Last year we beat Oregon in their house, and they had mostly the same cast of characters.  We should not forget that.  And they played a tough zone--though not as effective.  How did we do it?  McPhee penetrated the zone over and over, shooting many jumpers from the elbow or, if the lane was open, taking it all the way in.  The way to kill a zone when three point shooting is finding a soft spot and sinking mid range, pull up jumpers from that spot.

Why are we often not very good against that?  Because we have been terrible at mid range jumpers for a long time.  We have had games when every single shot was either from the paint or beyond the three point line.  The analytics favor that--taking a two point shot that has about the same probability as a three point shot is not a good deal.  But what if the other team comes up with a defense that sacrifices the mid range jumpers to both deny the paint and hug the perimeter?  That is what Oregon has done.  And yesterday we had no McPhee to regularly penetrate, pull up, and take the uncontested 10-11 foot jumper.

Excellent observation, 81.

Thanks Qwerty. 

To expand, what if Dodson could take and make shots from the elbow.  She told us last week after the Cal game that she has been practicing them but that Tara has not given her the green light yet.  How many times was she left wide open, unmolested, at the elbow with the ball?  Everyone knew she was just a ball distributor there.  But if she makes three shots in a row from that spot--as Fingall has done once or twice-- the whole defensive scheme begins to collapse.  As it did against McPhee. That is why having 5 shooters on the floor is necessary.

[81alum]

I wonder why year after year, even with new players coming in, we continually struggle against a zone defense. I feel like we've seen this issue for the good part of this decade and we occasionally "solve" it by getting hot from outside. Surely, there has to be another solution to zone defenses than just shooting threes.

I do remember that in one or two games, we manage to get some shots in from midrange. It seems Fingall's absence hurts us, in that she was able and willing to hit midrange jumpers in a soft part of the zone.

Needing to hit from there is part of it for sure.

Oregon's zone is tougher than most. We usually see 2-3 with the perimeter players being small guards. Oregon played a 3-2 with length at every position. That makes it hard to get inside by passing.

Still it's disappointing we didn't seem well prepared to go up against it.

Last year we beat Oregon in their house, and they had mostly the same cast of characters.  We should not forget that.  And they played a tough zone--though not as effective.  How did we do it?  McPhee penetrated the zone over and over, shooting many jumpers from the elbow or, if the lane was open, taking it all the way in.  The way to kill a zone when three point shooting is finding a soft spot and sinking mid range, pull up jumpers from that spot.

Why are we often not very good against that?  Because we have been terrible at mid range jumpers for a long time.  We have had games when every single shot was either from the paint or beyond the three point line.  The analytics favor that--taking a two point shot that has about the same probability as a three point shot is not a good deal.  But what if the other team comes up with a defense that sacrifices the mid range jumpers to both deny the paint and hug the perimeter?  That is what Oregon has done.  And yesterday we had no McPhee to regularly penetrate, pull up, and take the uncontested 10-11 foot jumper.

Excellent observation, 81.

Thanks Qwerty. 

To expand, what if Dodson could take and make shots from the elbow.  She told us last week after the Cal game that she has been practicing them but that Tara has not given her the green light yet.  How many times was she left wide open, unmolested, at the elbow with the ball?  Everyone knew she was just a ball distributor there.  But if she makes three shots in a row from that spot--as Fingall has done once or twice-- the whole defensive scheme begins to collapse.  As it did against McPhee. That is why having 5 shooters on the floor is necessary.

[BosCard]

Great point about mid-range jumpers 81alum.  However, I think it should be the Hulls shooting them not necessarily Maya.  Ionescu and Cazorla are both very good at stopping and hitting the mid-range jumper.  DiJonai is doing it more often which is good.  Kiana is too short and needs space to get her shot off.  Having both Hulls doing it as well could help us against the zone where we get penetration but can't get all the way to the rim.  Certainly beats passing the ball around the perimeter.  And allows Smith, Dodson and Carrington to fight for the offensive rebound.

[BosCard]

Great point about mid-range jumpers 81alum.  However, I think it should be the Hulls shooting them not necessarily Maya.  Ionescu and Cazorla are both very good at stopping and hitting the mid-range jumper.  DiJonai is doing it more often which is good.  Kiana is too short and needs space to get her shot off.  Having both Hulls doing it as well could help us against the zone where we get penetration but can't get all the way to the rim.  Certainly beats passing the ball around the perimeter.  And allows Smith, Dodson and Carrington to fight for the offensive rebound.

[CompSci87]

Good thoughts everyone. 

I hope Maya can learn better shooting touch with practice. That's one thing Nneka had right from her first day at Stanford.

[CompSci87]

Good thoughts everyone. 

I hope Maya can learn better shooting touch with practice. That's one thing Nneka had right from her first day at Stanford.

[RuralFan]

Does anyone know if the Hull sisters were good jump shooters before coming to Stanford?  They just seem to be too well trained not to have this shot in their arsenal.  It has to come from somewhere or even next year will be a problem.

[RuralFan]

Does anyone know if the Hull sisters were good jump shooters before coming to Stanford?  They just seem to be too well trained not to have this shot in their arsenal.  It has to come from somewhere or even next year will be a problem.

[qwerty49]

Does anyone know if the Hull sisters were good jump shooters before coming to Stanford?  They just seem to be too well trained not to have this shot in their arsenal.  It has to come from somewhere or even next year will be a problem.

I think the last guard we had who was money on the short jumper was Amber. This year that shot is coming mainly from DiJonai and occasionally from Kiana on a runner.

The problem with hoping that Maya will develop the elbow shot is that shot is basically a free throw and Maya is only 50% from the line.  Yes I would take that 50% on an elbow shot but FTs are uncontested.

[qwerty49]

Does anyone know if the Hull sisters were good jump shooters before coming to Stanford?  They just seem to be too well trained not to have this shot in their arsenal.  It has to come from somewhere or even next year will be a problem.

I think the last guard we had who was money on the short jumper was Amber. This year that shot is coming mainly from DiJonai and occasionally from Kiana on a runner.

The problem with hoping that Maya will develop the elbow shot is that shot is basically a free throw and Maya is only 50% from the line.  Yes I would take that 50% on an elbow shot but FTs are uncontested.