[CompSci87]

Watching them play slowdown in the fourth was not fun. But a great first 3 quarters, and a solid win!

[CompSci87]

Watching them play slowdown in the fourth was not fun. But a great first 3 quarters, and a solid win!

[martyup]

Ugly ending.  0 points by Stanford in the last 6:29 of the game.  Now let's go get revenge on the Bruins.

[martyup]

Ugly ending.  0 points by Stanford in the last 6:29 of the game.  Now let's go get revenge on the Bruins.

[BostonCard]

Ugly ending.  0 points by Stanford in the last 6:29 of the game.  Now let's go get revenge on the Bruins.

0 field goals, but we did make 4 free throws (2 each by Kiana and Wilson)

BC

[BostonCard]

Ugly ending.  0 points by Stanford in the last 6:29 of the game.  Now let's go get revenge on the Bruins.

0 field goals, but we did make 4 free throws (2 each by Kiana and Wilson)

BC

[stanford22]

Why can’t they learn how to break a press?   UCLA’s press is much better than OSU.  They can’t afford to go on these dry spells.   Lacie playing better than Lexie right now, but she has to stay out of foul trouble.

[stanford22]

Why can’t they learn how to break a press?   UCLA’s press is much better than OSU.  They can’t afford to go on these dry spells.   Lacie playing better than Lexie right now, but she has to stay out of foul trouble.

[BostonCard]

We started off with an 18-4 lead.
After that point, OSU outscored us 53-50 the rest of the way.

BC

[BostonCard]

We started off with an 18-4 lead.
After that point, OSU outscored us 53-50 the rest of the way.

BC

[BobK]

An excellent win by 11 over a very good team. Be happy I’m thrilled I was very worried and believe Oregon State with their great three shooters might prevail.

Great defense by Stanford.

[BobK]

An excellent win by 11 over a very good team. Be happy I’m thrilled I was very worried and believe Oregon State with their great three shooters might prevail.

Great defense by Stanford.

[WBB fan]

An excellent win by 11 over a very good team.  Be happy    I’m thrilled I was very worried and believe Oregon State with their great three shooters might prevail. 

Great defense by Stanford.

Totally agree with this perspective. Really impressive job defensively on Slocum and Pivec, especially Slocum, whom we couldn't handle in either of the 1st two games.

[WBB fan]

An excellent win by 11 over a very good team.  Be happy    I’m thrilled I was very worried and believe Oregon State with their great three shooters might prevail. 

Great defense by Stanford.

Totally agree with this perspective. Really impressive job defensively on Slocum and Pivec, especially Slocum, whom we couldn't handle in either of the 1st two games.

[BosCard]

An excellent win by 11 over a very good team.  Be happy    I’m thrilled I was very worried and believe Oregon State with their great three shooters might prevail. 

Great defense by Stanford.

Totally agree with this perspective. Really impressive job defensively on Slocum and Pivec, especially Slocum, whom we couldn't handle in either of the 1st two games.

Very good win but the turnovers in the 4th quarter were so ugly.

[BosCard]

An excellent win by 11 over a very good team.  Be happy    I’m thrilled I was very worried and believe Oregon State with their great three shooters might prevail. 

Great defense by Stanford.

Totally agree with this perspective. Really impressive job defensively on Slocum and Pivec, especially Slocum, whom we couldn't handle in either of the 1st two games.

Very good win but the turnovers in the 4th quarter were so ugly.

[qwerty49]

It seems like no lead is safe with this team.  But wow, they sure did play great D when they needed to.

Dodson looked like Kareem out there at the start.  Fingall was a tiger on the boards all night.  All in all, I thought the post play was pretty good tonight.  The frosh have a lot to learn but they played tough and held their own.  Of course, it helped that Jones got in foul trouble.

But gosh I just cringe watching the shot clock run down on us....

[qwerty49]

It seems like no lead is safe with this team.  But wow, they sure did play great D when they needed to.

Dodson looked like Kareem out there at the start.  Fingall was a tiger on the boards all night.  All in all, I thought the post play was pretty good tonight.  The frosh have a lot to learn but they played tough and held their own.  Of course, it helped that Jones got in foul trouble.

But gosh I just cringe watching the shot clock run down on us....

[76lsjumb]

Why is this coaching staff incapable of teaching and/or motivating the team to finish a game strong? It isn’t that they’re making frosh mistakes. Many of the miscues are being made by our experienced players. We had at least 2, maybe 3, straight shot clock violations in the last few minutes. That’s inexcusable, and a well-coached team wouldn’t make those mistakes. And this wasn’t the first time we have tanked the end of a game that we should have won going away. It’s become a routine.

Any team we face from here on out will likely be good enough to take advantage of this extremely  frustrating tendency.

[76lsjumb]

Why is this coaching staff incapable of teaching and/or motivating the team to finish a game strong? It isn’t that they’re making frosh mistakes. Many of the miscues are being made by our experienced players. We had at least 2, maybe 3, straight shot clock violations in the last few minutes. That’s inexcusable, and a well-coached team wouldn’t make those mistakes. And this wasn’t the first time we have tanked the end of a game that we should have won going away. It’s become a routine.

Any team we face from here on out will likely be good enough to take advantage of this extremely  frustrating tendency.

[BostonCard]

Actually, leading by double digits, a shot clock violation is an acceptable outcome.  You would rather score, of course, but if you don’t score, it is better to turn it over after using 30 second of clock than to chuck a ball early in the shit clock oR turn the ball over.

BC

[BostonCard]

Actually, leading by double digits, a shot clock violation is an acceptable outcome.  You would rather score, of course, but if you don’t score, it is better to turn it over after using 30 second of clock than to chuck a ball early in the shit clock oR turn the ball over.

BC

[76lsjumb]

Actually, leading by double digits, a shot clock violation is an acceptable outcome.  You would rather score, of course, but if you don’t score, it is better to turn it over after using 30 second of clock than to chuck a ball early in the shit clock oR turn the ball over.

BC

Sorry, not buying it. I agree you don’t want to throw up a bad shot early in the clock, but if you have been playing well all game running your offense to set up good shots, you should keep doing it. That actually reduces the likelihood of a turnover, because players have less of a tendency to be sloppy or tentative. Going several minutes without scoring — as we have a disturbing tendency to do at the end of games — isn’t a good thing.

[76lsjumb]

Actually, leading by double digits, a shot clock violation is an acceptable outcome.  You would rather score, of course, but if you don’t score, it is better to turn it over after using 30 second of clock than to chuck a ball early in the shit clock oR turn the ball over.

BC

Sorry, not buying it. I agree you don’t want to throw up a bad shot early in the clock, but if you have been playing well all game running your offense to set up good shots, you should keep doing it. That actually reduces the likelihood of a turnover, because players have less of a tendency to be sloppy or tentative. Going several minutes without scoring — as we have a disturbing tendency to do at the end of games — isn’t a good thing.

[bl82]

It's time to talk about Lexie's shooting and particularly what is wrong with it. She shot 47% for the first 25 games and has been just 31% for the last six games. While that's a little concerning, what really bothers me is the magnitude of the misses. So many air balls, so many shots that only hit the backboard, etc. She was our leading scorer for the first 25 games and now I'm not even convinced she is our second offensive option. What happened?

I know she works a ridiculous amount on defense and the season has likely taken a cumulative toll on her, but I wonder if there is an injury issue, if she has just lost her confidence or what. We need Lexie for the tourney and I hope that she can shake off the current slump, but I'm beginning to wonder.

[bl82]

It's time to talk about Lexie's shooting and particularly what is wrong with it. She shot 47% for the first 25 games and has been just 31% for the last six games. While that's a little concerning, what really bothers me is the magnitude of the misses. So many air balls, so many shots that only hit the backboard, etc. She was our leading scorer for the first 25 games and now I'm not even convinced she is our second offensive option. What happened?

I know she works a ridiculous amount on defense and the season has likely taken a cumulative toll on her, but I wonder if there is an injury issue, if she has just lost her confidence or what. We need Lexie for the tourney and I hope that she can shake off the current slump, but I'm beginning to wonder.

[CompSci87]

Trivia question time.

The AP story quoted on gostanford.com says:

The Cardinal is in the semifinal — against UCLA — for the 17th time after improving to 17-1 in the quarterfinals. Stanford is 16-1 in the semifinal round.

1. Where is the error in the above quote?

2. In which year did Stanford not win in the quarterfinal round?

[CompSci87]

Trivia question time.

The AP story quoted on gostanford.com says:

The Cardinal is in the semifinal — against UCLA — for the 17th time after improving to 17-1 in the quarterfinals. Stanford is 16-1 in the semifinal round.

1. Where is the error in the above quote?

2. In which year did Stanford not win in the quarterfinal round?

[BostonCard]

Trivia question time.

The AP story quoted on gostanford.com says:

The Cardinal is in the semifinal — against UCLA — for the 17th time after improving to 17-1 in the quarterfinals. Stanford is 16-1 in the semifinal round.

1. Where is the error in the above quote?

2. In which year did Stanford not win in the quarterfinal round?

1. We haven’t yet played our 17th semifinal game.
2. 2016 we were upset by Washington in the quarterfinal.

2014 was the only other time we didn’t make it to the final.
Our record in the final is 13-3 (losses in 2002, 2006, and 2018).

BC

[BostonCard]

Trivia question time.

The AP story quoted on gostanford.com says:

The Cardinal is in the semifinal — against UCLA — for the 17th time after improving to 17-1 in the quarterfinals. Stanford is 16-1 in the semifinal round.

1. Where is the error in the above quote?

2. In which year did Stanford not win in the quarterfinal round?

1. We haven’t yet played our 17th semifinal game.
2. 2016 we were upset by Washington in the quarterfinal.

2014 was the only other time we didn’t make it to the final.
Our record in the final is 13-3 (losses in 2002, 2006, and 2018).

BC

[CompSci87]

Oops, I had apparently blocked the UW quarterfinal loss out of my mind. So question 1 should have asked about errors (plural) and question 2 should have asked in which years (plural) Stanford didn't win in the quarterfinals.

[CompSci87]

Oops, I had apparently blocked the UW quarterfinal loss out of my mind. So question 1 should have asked about errors (plural) and question 2 should have asked in which years (plural) Stanford didn't win in the quarterfinals.

[TheFarm07]

Why is this coaching staff incapable of teaching and/or motivating the team to finish a game strong? It isn’t that they’re making frosh mistakes. Many of the miscues are being made by our experienced players. We had at least 2, maybe 3, straight shot clock violations in the last few minutes. That’s inexcusable, and a well-coached team wouldn’t make those mistakes. And this wasn’t the first time we have tanked the end of a game that we should have won going away. It’s become a routine.

Any team we face from here on out will likely be good enough to take advantage of this extremely  frustrating tendency.

Cut and paste -- for not only this year but for as long as I've been following the program. Tara is a tremendous coach in so many ways, but her dislike of "running up the score" may be the root cause of this. She rather play very conservatively and run off clock, even at the expense of allowing the opponent to catch up, stopping all of our momentum and derailing our offense, than to play normally and take the acceptable risk, especially being up double digits of missing a thoughtful shot if it means taking another few seconds off the clock.

I don't think using time wisely and continuing to run our offense should be mutually exclusive. We can still work off time off the game clock but still run our offense. One of the problems is that we only have Kiana as a player who can create her own shot when time runs out right now. DiJonai and Haley would have been other options to create spacing on their own or take it to the basket. If I was the opposing coach, I would focus on Kiana and make any other player take the shot in these situations, which they have learned to do.

---

Actually, leading by double digits, a shot clock violation is an acceptable outcome.  You would rather score, of course, but if you don’t score, it is better to turn it over after using 30 second of clock than to chuck a ball early in the shit clock oR turn the ball over.

BC

Sorry, not buying it. I agree you don’t want to throw up a bad shot early in the clock, but if you have been playing well all game running your offense to set up good shots, you should keep doing it. That actually reduces the likelihood of a turnover, because players have less of a tendency to be sloppy or tentative. Going several minutes without scoring — as we have a disturbing tendency to do at the end of games — isn’t a good thing.

I am totally with 76lsjumb on this one. Why are a shot clock violation or taking a wild shot/turning the ball over early in the shot clock the only options? Do our players just lose all ability to run a competent, well-run offense later on in a game? If we are in a winning situation, one could assume that meant our offense was clicking earlier in the game. Why not focus on maintaining our rhythm and focus rather than disrupting it?

Plus if you allow the opposing team to cut it down to single digits, then a couple of more missed shots/turnovers by us plus a missed call or a lucky break by them could tie the game. Why risk it? Why let opponents think they can get back in the game?

It would be one thing if there was 2 minutes left to play in the fourth quarter, but we go into this turtle mode as early as midway through a third quarter sometimes, when there's just too much time left in the game.

[TheFarm07]

Why is this coaching staff incapable of teaching and/or motivating the team to finish a game strong? It isn’t that they’re making frosh mistakes. Many of the miscues are being made by our experienced players. We had at least 2, maybe 3, straight shot clock violations in the last few minutes. That’s inexcusable, and a well-coached team wouldn’t make those mistakes. And this wasn’t the first time we have tanked the end of a game that we should have won going away. It’s become a routine.

Any team we face from here on out will likely be good enough to take advantage of this extremely  frustrating tendency.

Cut and paste -- for not only this year but for as long as I've been following the program. Tara is a tremendous coach in so many ways, but her dislike of "running up the score" may be the root cause of this. She rather play very conservatively and run off clock, even at the expense of allowing the opponent to catch up, stopping all of our momentum and derailing our offense, than to play normally and take the acceptable risk, especially being up double digits of missing a thoughtful shot if it means taking another few seconds off the clock.

I don't think using time wisely and continuing to run our offense should be mutually exclusive. We can still work off time off the game clock but still run our offense. One of the problems is that we only have Kiana as a player who can create her own shot when time runs out right now. DiJonai and Haley would have been other options to create spacing on their own or take it to the basket. If I was the opposing coach, I would focus on Kiana and make any other player take the shot in these situations, which they have learned to do.

---

Actually, leading by double digits, a shot clock violation is an acceptable outcome.  You would rather score, of course, but if you don’t score, it is better to turn it over after using 30 second of clock than to chuck a ball early in the shit clock oR turn the ball over.

BC

Sorry, not buying it. I agree you don’t want to throw up a bad shot early in the clock, but if you have been playing well all game running your offense to set up good shots, you should keep doing it. That actually reduces the likelihood of a turnover, because players have less of a tendency to be sloppy or tentative. Going several minutes without scoring — as we have a disturbing tendency to do at the end of games — isn’t a good thing.

I am totally with 76lsjumb on this one. Why are a shot clock violation or taking a wild shot/turning the ball over early in the shot clock the only options? Do our players just lose all ability to run a competent, well-run offense later on in a game? If we are in a winning situation, one could assume that meant our offense was clicking earlier in the game. Why not focus on maintaining our rhythm and focus rather than disrupting it?

Plus if you allow the opposing team to cut it down to single digits, then a couple of more missed shots/turnovers by us plus a missed call or a lucky break by them could tie the game. Why risk it? Why let opponents think they can get back in the game?

It would be one thing if there was 2 minutes left to play in the fourth quarter, but we go into this turtle mode as early as midway through a third quarter sometimes, when there's just too much time left in the game.

[M T]

Congrats to Stanford for winning over OSU.  Great shooting early.   I don't know why Stanford didn't play at the end like they played early.  Maybe the other team's defense stopped that?

I surely didn't see what triggered the Technical.

It really does seem the refs contribute to the runs, for whichever team.

Did anyone else cringe at the postgame handshakes & high-fives?  That's something I'd ask the coaches about.  Why risk spreading a contagious disease that is in the Stanford community?

[M T]

Congrats to Stanford for winning over OSU.  Great shooting early.   I don't know why Stanford didn't play at the end like they played early.  Maybe the other team's defense stopped that?

I surely didn't see what triggered the Technical.

It really does seem the refs contribute to the runs, for whichever team.

Did anyone else cringe at the postgame handshakes & high-fives?  That's something I'd ask the coaches about.  Why risk spreading a contagious disease that is in the Stanford community?

[mbdude]

I still haven't seen an article about the 2 Stanford cases??? only mention of it on this board

[mbdude]

I still haven't seen an article about the 2 Stanford cases??? only mention of it on this board

[81alum]

I think the frustration with what I will call the "clock killing offense" are partly justified and partly not.  There is always a certain point in a game when your lead compared with the amount of clock that is left justifies making the consumption of clock the most important consideration.  But it is obviously preferable to consume a lot of clock and score after running off the time.  We seem to do very poorly at this.  Not only at the end of games, but also at the end of each quarter when we run the clock down to 10 seconds before starting our play--how often do we score on those plays?  Very rarely.

It seems to me that we need to work harder on those 10 second plays.  We need to execute them more crisply and with greater confidence.  True, when you have only 10 seconds left you are not going to shoot for as high a percentage as when you have an entire shot clock to find an open shot.  But can't we at least occasionally score after running down the clock? 

This gets at a weakness that we have discussed before--players who can manufacture their own shots, or shoot well even when covered (the latter is Slocum's gift.)  Those are the kinds of players who can score with little time remaining.  And Carrington and Jones were two of those kind of players.  The step back jumper that Jones had, or scoring with contact like Carrington can do--those are important skills when there is not enough time left to get open.  We need to develop other players who can do this too.  Williams can to an extent--clearly our best (and maybe only) option in those situations right now.  But that makes her easier to defend.

[81alum]

I think the frustration with what I will call the "clock killing offense" are partly justified and partly not.  There is always a certain point in a game when your lead compared with the amount of clock that is left justifies making the consumption of clock the most important consideration.  But it is obviously preferable to consume a lot of clock and score after running off the time.  We seem to do very poorly at this.  Not only at the end of games, but also at the end of each quarter when we run the clock down to 10 seconds before starting our play--how often do we score on those plays?  Very rarely.

It seems to me that we need to work harder on those 10 second plays.  We need to execute them more crisply and with greater confidence.  True, when you have only 10 seconds left you are not going to shoot for as high a percentage as when you have an entire shot clock to find an open shot.  But can't we at least occasionally score after running down the clock? 

This gets at a weakness that we have discussed before--players who can manufacture their own shots, or shoot well even when covered (the latter is Slocum's gift.)  Those are the kinds of players who can score with little time remaining.  And Carrington and Jones were two of those kind of players.  The step back jumper that Jones had, or scoring with contact like Carrington can do--those are important skills when there is not enough time left to get open.  We need to develop other players who can do this too.  Williams can to an extent--clearly our best (and maybe only) option in those situations right now.  But that makes her easier to defend.