WBB: the NCAA tournament - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: WBB: the NCAA tournament (/thread-24103.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: WBB: the NCAA tournament (/thread-24103.html)
RE: WBB: the NCAA tournament - old spanish trail - 03-28-2023
(03-28-2023, 10:20 AM)BostonCard Wrote:(03-27-2023, 06:31 PM)old spanish trail Wrote: Iowa v SC could be a really interesting game. Clark is an amazing shooter. Van Lith was pretty good also. Fwiw, I think Clark and Van Lith both whine to the refs way too much. I can't think of any of our players whining much at all, if ever. Good for them.
Ref barking aside, Clark reminds me a lot of Kate Starbird. Similar size and build, and a very similar fluid motions. Clark, of course, plays PG, but I think Starbird probably could have played PG had she not been playing alongside Jamila Wideman.
BC
Starbird was a great athlete and very versatile. Agree she could have played 1-5. One thing she wasn't was a great, or maybe even good, jump shooter. Clark's jumper is amazing, Curryesque, and quite consistent. There were a few games this season when it wasn't "on", like Curry, but they were very few. She will have to be on vs So Car. :)
Baez87 - Baez87 - 03-28-2023
It takes all sorts of playing styles to please all sorts of people, especially when play is viewed as a continuum of styles — street ballers to balletic ballers, macho ballers to sissy ballers, break-the-rules ballers to strict-rules ballers. Choose your poison or choose your elixir, it all comes down to personal preference.
My own preference is informed by my experiences as a boy growing up in a basketball-loving town in Montana. When the weather was colder than hell outside, we all retreated to a hot, raucous gym to inflame our competitive home-town passions (and warm our applauding fingers). It was there that we watched our young players match their skills with players from other cities and towns from across the state.
It was pure fun! The game was played with all the skill and finesse that these teens could muster; and our team won the state championship three of the four years that I was in high school. We played against all sorts of communities from around the state — rodeo and ranch kids, small town and city kids, miner and smelter-worker kids, lumberjack and mountain kids, you name it. Many of these kids were from poor to average working-class families, some were from privilege.
The connecting element was these kids' desire to become better players and to beat the opposition. The underlying ethos that permitted the game to be played, though, was the rule of law, ie. the rulebook governing the play. Rules, plus the black-and-white-shirted referees who ensured that the rules were followed. Enforcement of the rules helped to provide a level playing field for those that wished to pit their skills, rather than their brawn, against one another.
The game was played below the rim, the coach often benched the gunner or the ball hog; it was a team sport played by team players who followed the rules (or they were relegated to watch from the sideline). Sure, there were outstanding, competitive players, but behind them, there was a team, and commitment to teamwork, an esprit de corp, which advanced the team.
The basketball court was where many young aspirants of the game learned the art of being an effective, cooperative citizen. In today's "me" or "win-at-any-cost" world, respect can be a vanishing value; fortunately for some however, it is still a model to behold.
That is why I love our women's basketball team and view with caution the team-hopping transfer portal and the ego-aspects of NIL profitability. And I’m not impressed by the macho testosterone display that has become the hallmark of men’s basketball. Maybe that is what women’s basketball is to become, as some might assert, but I see it as a fool’s paradise. The tendency for games to get out of control has never been more evident that in some of the games this year around the country that morphed into street brawls. I hope that the fights that broke out in women’s college basketball are just aberrations, and that the trend is met by a more powerful counter-wave of civility.
It is my hope that we can craft a game that melds competitiveness and cooperation within an ordered, respectful framework. That way, the game can become a microcosm of a civil society, and can inspire more humanness in its participants, both players and fans. I see this potential in the fans seated at Maples who seem to truly love our players and coaches, and who seem to truly love this simple sport inspired by someone, with time on his hands, trying to throw a ball into a fruit basket mounted on a pole.
RE: Baez87 - 81alum - 03-28-2023
(03-28-2023, 01:26 PM)Baez87 Wrote: It takes all sorts of playing styles to please all sorts of people, especially when play is viewed as a continuum of styles — street ballers to balletic ballers, macho ballers to sissy ballers, break-the-rules ballers to strict-rules ballers. Choose your poison or choose your elixir, it all comes down to personal preference.Eloquent, and your sentiments capture my own feelings precisely.
My own preference is informed by my experiences as a boy growing up in a basketball-loving town in Montana. When the weather was colder than hell outside, we all retreated to a hot, raucous gym to inflame our competitive home-town passions (and warm our applauding fingers). It was there that we watched our young players match their skills with players from other cities and towns from across the state.
It was pure fun! The game was played with all the skill and finesse that these teens could muster; and our team won the state championship three of the four years that I was in high school. We played all sorts of communities from around the state — rodeo and ranch kids, small town and city kids, miner and smelter-worker kids, lumberjack and mountain kids, you name it. Many of these kids were from poor to average working-class families, some were from privilege.
The connecting element was these kids' desire to become better players and to beat the opposition. The underlying ethos that permitted the game to be played, though, was the rule of law, ie. the rulebook governing the play. Rules, plus the black-and-white-shirted referees who ensured that the rules were followed. Enforcement of the rules helped to provide a level playing field for those that wished to pit their skills, rather than their brawn, against one another.
The game was played below the rim, the coach often benched the gunner or the ball hog; it was a team sport played by team players who followed the rules (or they were relegated to watch from the sideline). Sure, there were outstanding, competitive players, but behind them, there was a team, and commitment to teamwork, an esprit de corp, which advanced the team.
The basketball court was where many young aspirants of the game learned the art of being an effective, cooperative citizen. In today's "me" or "win-at-any-cost" world, respect can be a vanishing value; fortunately for some however, it is still a model to behold.
That is why I love our women's basketball team and view with caution the team-hopping transfer portal and the ego-aspects of NIL profitability. And I’m not impressed by the macho testosterone display that has become the hallmark of men’s basketball. Maybe that is what women’s basketball is to become, as some might assert, but I see it as a fool’s paradise. The tendency for games to get out of control has never been more evident that in some of the games this year around the country that morphed into street brawls. I hope that the fights that broke out in women’s college basketball are just aberrations, and that the trend is met by a more powerful counter-wave of civility.
It is my hope that we can craft a game that melds competitiveness and cooperation within an ordered, respectful framework. That way, the game can become a microcosm of a civil society, and can inspire more humanness in its participants, both players and fans. I see this potential in the fans seated at Maples who seem to truly love our players and coaches, and who seem to truly love this simple sport inspired by someone, with time on his hands, trying to throw a ball into a fruit basket mounted on a pole.
RE: WBB: the NCAA tournament - BostonCard - 03-28-2023
(03-28-2023, 01:12 PM)old spanish trail Wrote: Starbird was a great athlete and very versatile. Agree she could have played 1-5. One thing she wasn't was a great, or maybe even good, jump shooter. Clark's jumper is amazing, Curryesque, and quite consistent. There were a few games this season when it wasn't "on", like Curry, but they were very few. She will have to be on vs So Car. :)
Starbird was a career 39% three point shooter, and in her senior season, shot 42.5% from three. Caitlin Clark is a career 38% three point shooter; this last season she shot 39% from three. Now, to be fair, I think the three point line has moved back since Starbird played, and Clark takes (9 3PA/game), and makes (3.4 3PM/game) more and more difficult shots. Starbird is 14th on Stanford's all-time three pointers made list with 179, so that is probably going to be a little bit more than 1.3 made threes per game (she's not on Stanford's top-15 in games played, so she appeared in fewer than 136), but I can't find her stats.
Bottom line, is I am not sure that I completely agree with you that Starbird was not a good jump shooter. She's not in Clark's league, but I think three point shooting was an under-rated part of her game. We just remember her for her silky smooth dribble drives and coast to coast layups.
BC
triangle2 - triangle2 - 03-28-2023
I think it makes more sense to say that Starbird’s outside shot was more of a set shot than a jumper. That helped her % a lot but made it difficult to get the shot off under pressure. Clark’s outside shot is much more of a traditional jump shot and she’s able to get the shot off while moving.
I agree that Starbird’s outside shot was actually pretty great but because she didn’t elevate, it was easier to close out on her.
RE: WBB: the NCAA tournament - 82lsju - 03-28-2023
(03-28-2023, 04:09 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(03-28-2023, 01:12 PM)old spanish trail Wrote: Starbird was a great athlete and very versatile. Agree she could have played 1-5. One thing she wasn't was a great, or maybe even good, jump shooter. Clark's jumper is amazing, Curryesque, and quite consistent. There were a few games this season when it wasn't "on", like Curry, but they were very few. She will have to be on vs So Car. :)
Starbird was a career 39% three point shooter, and in her senior season, shot 42.5% from three. Caitlin Clark is a career 38% three point shooter; this last season she shot 39% from three. Now, to be fair, I think the three point line has moved back since Starbird played, and Clark takes (9 3PA/game), and makes (3.4 3PM/game) more and more difficult shots. Starbird is 14th on Stanford's all-time three pointers made list with 179, so that is probably going to be a little bit more than 1.3 made threes per game (she's not on Stanford's top-15 in games played, so she appeared in fewer than 136), but I can't find her stats.
Bottom line, is I am not sure that I completely agree with you that Starbird was not a good jump shooter. She's not in Clark's league, but I think three point shooting was an under-rated part of her game. We just remember her for her silky smooth dribble drives and coast to coast layups.
BC
here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Starbird
says she played in 131 games
RE: WBB: the NCAA tournament - old spanish trail - 03-28-2023
(03-28-2023, 04:56 PM)82lsju Wrote:(03-28-2023, 04:09 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(03-28-2023, 01:12 PM)old spanish trail Wrote: Starbird was a great athlete and very versatile. Agree she could have played 1-5. One thing she wasn't was a great, or maybe even good, jump shooter. Clark's jumper is amazing, Curryesque, and quite consistent. There were a few games this season when it wasn't "on", like Curry, but they were very few. She will have to be on vs So Car. :)
Starbird was a career 39% three point shooter, and in her senior season, shot 42.5% from three. Caitlin Clark is a career 38% three point shooter; this last season she shot 39% from three. Now, to be fair, I think the three point line has moved back since Starbird played, and Clark takes (9 3PA/game), and makes (3.4 3PM/game) more and more difficult shots. Starbird is 14th on Stanford's all-time three pointers made list with 179, so that is probably going to be a little bit more than 1.3 made threes per game (she's not on Stanford's top-15 in games played, so she appeared in fewer than 136), but I can't find her stats.
Bottom line, is I am not sure that I completely agree with you that Starbird was not a good jump shooter. She's not in Clark's league, but I think three point shooting was an under-rated part of her game. We just remember her for her silky smooth dribble drives and coast to coast layups.
BC
here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Starbird
says she played in 131 games
Fair enuf. That's an excellent percentage. I think I recall her 3's being more set shot than jumper. That's what's so amazing about Clark. She shoots a true jump shot. I remember Starbird more for the smooth transitions also. She was fun to watch.
RE: WBB: the NCAA tournament - WBB fan - 03-28-2023
Re Starbird, one of my favorite memories of her is in an early game of her freshman year, when she decisively swatted away (i.e. blocked) a shot. And also the game at Tennessee when she hit a fg, then converted the "and 1," followed by receiving a steal of the Tennessee inbound and immediately put up a three. Total points of six points scored in less than 2 seconds.
RE: WBB: the NCAA tournament - BigEasyCard - 03-28-2023
(03-28-2023, 06:03 PM)WBB fan Wrote: Re Starbird, one of my favorite memories of her is in an early game of her freshman year, when she decisively swatted away (i.e. blocked) a shot. And also the game at Tennessee when she hit a fg, then converted the "and 1," followed by receiving a steal of the Tennessee inbound and immediately put up a three. Total points of six points scored in less than 2 seconds.
At the risk of thread drift, Kate Starbird's six points in two seconds reminds me of 2010 when Owen Marecic scored two touchdowns in 13 seconds against Notre Dame. He followed a one-yard TD run as fullback with a 20-yard pick six on ND's first play from scrimmage after the ensuing kickoff. Today he's an Orthopedic Surgery resident at Stanford.
Geaux Cardinal!
RE: triangle2 - BillBradley - 03-28-2023
(03-28-2023, 11:37 AM)triangle2 Wrote:Thanks much. That helps a ton to understand the type of play you're talking about. I think what I've learned is that I don't react to plays like that at all, largely because I accept them as being part of the game. Maybe I don't see a men's game and a women's game, I just see "basketball". Perhaps that explains it and perhaps I should look at them through different lenses. Every one of those plays you cited, I had very little reaction to and don't see them as part of a bad evolution of the game. Same with Sherrod's play. Again, everyone sees things differently and that's totally cool. I'm not accusing or judging at all. I just now understand better what folks (or at least you) are talking about. In the end, opposing coaches are going to do whatever they can to get wins. Whether it's Dean Smith's 4-corners or Paul Westhead's pace or JR Paynes aggressive defenses, the game is going to continue to evolve and if it's anything like the men's game it's going to just get more physical.(03-27-2023, 07:03 PM)BillBradley Wrote: [quote="triangle2" pid='386819' dateline='1679967682']
[quote="BillBradley" pid='386813' dateline='1679965553']
We all see things differently, and that's OK. But from my perspective, the defenses that Stanford saw this year were "physical" and "packed in", but they were not "bully ball". That term has been thrown around on this board, but I don't agree at all that's what we're seeing in the evolution of the women's sport. I'd really appreciate if someone could show me some clips of what they mean by "bully ball". There aren't players getting clotheslined out there for goodness sake. Colorado is the team that comes up in this discussion a lot. That intimidating lineup of Jaylynn Sherod, Frieda Forman, Kyndall Wetta, Quay Miller, and Aaronette Vonleh. Really?
"Physical", in my book, is part of the game, and can be used strategically to take away advantages from other teams. And while it can be very frustrating to all of us to see our players not be able to overcome it, I don't think it's ruining the sport to see physical, packed in defenses. It's an age old strategy. I just wish we would have made more layups through the contact and we would have easily advanced in the tourney.
You asked for examples. From memory, a game to watch is the first Texas v. Stanford game in November 2021. I haven’t managed to rewatch that recently. But, I can start a list of the things that I think are worth you reviewing here:
Texas v. Stanford in the 2022 NCAA Tournament:
1. Ebo on offense with 7:45 to go in Q2. Ebo turns shoulder into Belibi on offense. Probably a venal sin but illustrates the physicality.
2. At 3:19 in the 2nd, Ebo clotheslines Lacie - no foul called.
3. At 1:36 in the 3rd, Ebo does the high elbow turn into Brink’s body - there are much more vivid examples of this move in the November game IIRC. Brink blocks Ebo!!
4. At 1:26 in the 3rd, Ebo retaliates on defense, shoves Brink to the floor.
It is also noteworthy that Brink picked up a foul in this game for shoving a Texas player out of the way in the key.
The Sherrod problem (using her as an example - I have nothing against her specifically) is that defenders are being allowed to use their arms to reach into the formerly protected space between the offensive player’s dribble hand and her body. As many recall from ancient memories of our own AAU ball days, that used to be a fairly automatic defensive foul. In the modern era, refs allow a considerable amount of reaching; now, the problem is that calling the foul becomes a judgment call where you never know if the refs are going to protect you. Perhaps this is why I’m seeing a resurgence of smaller, quick PGs with great ball skills. My perspective is that if the refs allow the reaching, then they need to make the call if the defender hits the offensive player’s arm/hand, if the defender’s horizontal arm extends (pushing off), or if more than de minimus physical contact occurs when the defender encroaches into the offensive player’s space.
Re-watching the Texas tournament game was helpful. You can see the difference between the Stanford lineup with the Hulls, and without. Lexie in particular could beat the close defender both by back cutting and by slashing to the basket. The 22-23 team simply lacked a slasher, and that really limited the team’s ability to beat Texas/Colorado style defense.
One wonders if some of the defensive slugfests in the tournament this year will result in some ‘points of emphasis’ for next season. I am guessing that the powers that be would rather see a free flowing high scoring game instead of some of the Elite 8 games where the teams struggle to get to over 50 points.
The coaching staff has to decide how to address the physicality. Brink gives as good as she gets, but this also results in her fouling out and sitting on the bench. The coaches have made these kind of changes before. In general over time, Stanford’s wings have gotten longer, and the guards have gotten more physical. (See e.g. the era of Jamilla Wideman and Milena Flores vs. Amber Orrange, Lepolo, etc.). I’m guessing that the staff has to look for more athleticism in the guard spots and more on-ball defensive tenacity without sacrificing offensive skills.
Quick follow-on, doesn't Cam play like a lot of these other players? She pushes, and hacks and throws players to the ground most every game. I know you said she gives as good as she gets and has to sit because of fouls, but wouldn't we be happy with a team composed of a players with Cam's style of play?
I wholeheartedly agree w/your comment about the Hulls and how our team this season didn't have anyone who played like that. It is great to watch that team again - totally makes me grin ear to ear - and it's a reminder of what Haley can do with those types of players around her. Really, the only player on this year's team that had the skills and inclination of a slasher was Bosgana. Still scratching my head about her lack of PT this year in favor of other players who were less inclined to attack.
RE: WBB: the NCAA tournament - joemontes - 03-28-2023
Caitlin CLARK Career Stats:
*********************
(with 1 or 2 games left in her junior season)
Total Points = 2646 (will most likely break the all-time WCBB career points)
Average Pts = 27.0
FG% = 866/1859 = 47%
3PT% = 334/884 = 38%
Total Rebounds = 695
Average Rbds = 7.1
Total Assists = 782
Average Assts = 8.0
Career Averages of 27.0 pts/game, 7.1 rebounds/game and 8.0 assists/game.
That's truly remarkable!
RE: WBB: the NCAA tournament - Jskass - 03-29-2023
Was worth trip to Seattle just to see her play in person!
triangle2 - triangle2 - 03-30-2023
Just a quick response to your comment about Bosgana. I like her too, and I’m hopeful she gets minutes next season. But, my observation is that Bosgana tended not to get a lot of minutes in games where she subbed in and missed a couple of shots. I think the players who aren’t primary scoring options don’t get a long leash if they come in and don’t produce. Bosgana so far has been streaky, with 2-3 really nice games where her shot was falling and a bunch of other games where she struggled to score. She hasn’t yet demonstrated that her 3-point shot can be a consistent weapon. I wouldn’t say that she’s an “A” level slasher, but she has shown an affinity for taking the ball to the basket and drawing the contact. I think I’ve said before that she reminds me of Sarunas Marciulionis. But Sarunas was one of those players that needed to have the ball a fair amount. I think, similarly, if you played Bosgana, you’d have to open your system up to let her take shots and live with the possibility that there would be some games where she’d go 4-13.
I see Hannah Jump as a contrast to Bosgana because Jump has shown that she can be very efficient on the offensive end. One question about Jump for next year is whether the team does better when she takes a lot of shots and scores 18-20 points, or whether she limits her shots and takes what’s available. When she waits for her spots to open up, she’s incredibly efficient. Look back at the box scores. She has a lot of games where she scores 12-15 points on very few shots. You know, something like 3-6 from 3, 1-2 from other shots, and a couple of free throws. That kind of efficiency really helps balance out the ball dominant players who need shots. On the other hand, no Haley Jones next year so someone is going to have to take more shots…
RE: triangle2 - BosCard - 03-30-2023
(03-30-2023, 12:29 PM)triangle2 Wrote: Just a quick response to your comment about Bosgana. I like her too, and I’m hopeful she gets minutes next season. But, my observation is that Bosgana tended not to get a lot of minutes in games where she subbed in and missed a couple of shots. I think the players who aren’t primary scoring options don’t get a long leash if they come in and don’t produce. Bosgana so far has been streaky, with 2-3 really nice games where her shot was falling and a bunch of other games where she struggled to score. She hasn’t yet demonstrated that her 3-point shot can be a consistent weapon. I wouldn’t say that she’s an “A” level slasher, but she has shown an affinity for taking the ball to the basket and drawing the contact. I think I’ve said before that she reminds me of Sarunas Marciulionis. But Sarunas was one of those players that needed to have the ball a fair amount. I think, similarly, if you played Bosgana, you’d have to open your system up to let her take shots and live with the possibility that there would be some games where she’d go 4-13.
I see Hannah Jump as a contrast to Bosgana because Jump has shown that she can be very efficient on the offensive end. One question about Jump for next year is whether the team does better when she takes a lot of shots and scores 18-20 points, or whether she limits her shots and takes what’s available. When she waits for her spots to open up, she’s incredibly efficient. Look back at the box scores. She has a lot of games where she scores 12-15 points on very few shots. You know, something like 3-6 from 3, 1-2 from other shots, and a couple of free throws. That kind of efficiency really helps balance out the ball dominant players who need shots. On the other hand, no Haley Jones next year so someone is going to have to take more shots…
I think it’s both a combination of the coaches pulling players who are missing shots as well as players deciding to pass up good open shots as well. Brink, Jones and Jump would keep shooting regardless. However players like Demetre or Emma-Nnopu would shoot a lot if their initial shots went in but if they missed a couple in a row they would self select into non-shooters. We need them to have Jump’s confidence in her shot thinking that the next one is always going in.
RE: WBB: the NCAA tournament - BobK - 03-30-2023
I think it’s because of defense or lack of and or how they are moving In The offense.
RE: WBB: the NCAA tournament - stopandpop - 03-30-2023
Unless Tara restructures the offense (which I doubt she'll consider) or she lands a great experienced (productive) scoring guard via the portal (which I doubt she will use), I have trouble envisioning the 2023-2024 team getting to the Sweet 16, even with a player of Brink's caliber.
Physical teams, teams that pressured us, and teams with exceptional guards who broke down our perimeter defenses and scored - gave us trouble last season and I don't see how the players coming back and newcomers will change that equation, unless their skill sets improve significantly over the summer. We were unable to get to the Seattle Regional with two All-Americans and the Defensive Player of the Year. If you step back and think about that, you realize that significant change must happen somewhere, especially with the offense that Tara likes to run.
Next March, I would love to be proven wrong on all counts.
RE: WBB: the NCAA tournament - MV72018 - 03-30-2023
(03-30-2023, 03:23 PM)BobK Wrote: I think it’s because of defense or lack of and or how they are moving In The offense.
And the grounds for thinking that, Bob? It's nice to know WHAT you "think"/believe, but it's more conducive to exchanges of viewpoints if you say WHY you "think" it.
Here are the six losses:
71-76 to SoCarolina
46-55 to USC
67-72 to UW
78-84 to Utah
65-69 to UCLA, and
49-54 to Ole Miss
It seems to me that half of those losses (to USC, UCLA, and Ole Miss) could be reasonably attributed to subpar or worse O (scoring less than 70 points, in two of them less than 50). The other three could reasonably be attributed to subpar D (the losses to South Caroline, UW, and Utah), allowing more than 70 points, in one of them more than 80. So, maybe your viewpoint has merit.
RE: WBB: the NCAA tournament - crackpot - 03-31-2023
Although the list seems Pac-12 heavy, no Missy for the tournament. Benefits LSU?
https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-women/article/2023-03-29/ncaa-division-i-womens-basketball-committee-names-game-officials-2023-womens
RE: WBB: the NCAA tournament - Jskass - 03-31-2023
She reffed I believe the CO-Iowa game last weekend so either they limit to Sweet 16 or Final Four, or they decided for another reason to include others from the PAC.
RE: WBB: the NCAA tournament - 76lsjumb - 03-31-2023
(03-31-2023, 11:00 AM)Jskass Wrote: She reffed I believe the CO-Iowa game last weekend so either they limit to Sweet 16 or Final Four, or they decided for another reason to include others from the PAC.
ESPN has other shows they also want to broadcast. Can’t afford 2 extra hours of “going to the monitor”…