The CardBoard
WBB: Stanford 68 Baylor 63 - 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: Stanford 68 Baylor 63 (/thread-16990.html)

Pages: 1 2

RE: WBB: Stanford 68 Baylor 63Sat noon - M T - 12-15-2018

Great game by Stanford.  It is so good to see them play this way.  As well as Shannon played against Baylor, I'd rather our big girls not take a  Coffee break.

I'm glad Kim Mulkey was feeling enough better to do both her trademark squat  and  her foot stomping,  albeit standing on the court as always.

The officiating was really poor.  Besides all the bad calls (often by officials that can't see  from  where they were), in the first half, it appeared that Tara requested  the officials review the foul  when the one  Baylor  player knocked two Stanford  players to the ground, and it appeared that the officials declined to do so, contrary to the  rules.
Quote:A head coach may request a monitor review to determine if an
unsportsmanlike or contact disqualifying foul occurred. When an
unsportsmanlike or contact disqualifying foul is not assessed, a timeout
shall be charged to that team.

Notable bad calls:  3Q  9:13. Kalani Brown was  clearly moving into the path of Alanna.  She  continued moving across  her path even after contact  was made.  3Q 8:43 was a bad  call but not horrible.  Fingall was stationary before  contact but was there only a fraction of a second before  contact.  The  baseline official waited for the other official to signal something, and then  had to choose to call it  one way or the other  because  she had blown her whistle. (Notice  the  Baylor player heading towards Stanford end after the whistle  but  before the signal.)  3Q 4:36 OOB  given to  Baylor incorrectly.

I couldn't believe how long the officials took to review the 3pt by Coffee and the charge that Alanna took.  Those should have been really short.


Both  Stanford & Baylor played inefficiently in the final minutes. Stanford tried a shot at one point with 20 seconds on the clock.  With 3 timeouts, down 7, Baylor  threw up long 3s with about 45 seconds left  (not to mention the turnover).  With 37 seconds left, Stanford was allowed to walk the ball  slowly  down the court and drain time.    Even when Stanford had the ball on the  sidelines with 8 seconds left, I thought we'd  see a foul  before the inbounds and a timeout (1st of  3) to get the ball to Baylor's end, and repeat.
Stanford didn't score in the last  3 minutes.

RE: WBB: Stanford 68 Baylor 63Sat noon - 81alum - 12-16-2018

(12-15-2018, 07:09 PM)M T Wrote:  The officiating was really poor.  Besides all the bad calls (often by officials that can't see  from  where they were), in the first half, it appeared that Tara requested  the officials review the foul  when the one  Baylor  player knocked two Stanford  players to the ground, and it appeared that the officials declined to do so, contrary to the  rules.
Quote:A head coach may request a monitor review to determine if an
unsportsmanlike or contact disqualifying foul occurred. When an
unsportsmanlike or contact disqualifying foul is not assessed, a timeout
shall be charged to that team.

Notable bad calls:  3Q  9:13. Kalani Brown was  clearly moving into the path of Alanna.  She  continued moving across  her path even after contact  was made.  3Q 8:43 was a bad  call but not horrible.  Fingall was stationary before  contact but was there only a fraction of a second before  contact.  The  baseline official waited for the other official to signal something, and then  had to choose to call it  one way or the other  because  she had blown her whistle. (Notice  the  Baylor player heading towards Stanford end after the whistle  but  before the signal.)  3Q 4:36 OOB  given to  Baylor incorrectly.
Pac 12 Bay Area replays the game this morning at 10am. 

From the stands, there were a number of egregious calls, but at least they didn't all seem to go Baylor's way.

I recall one out of bounds call that went against us that seemed  very obviously wrong.  Eager to see it on TV to find out if it was just my angle courtside.

Highlights are up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=paghMh4lzpI

RE: WBB: Stanford 68 Baylor 63 - qwerty49 - 12-16-2018

Ouch — 9 of 21 from the line?! I hope this is not another year where FT shooting is spotty. I would be very happy if we could shoot 70% from the line. (I remember seeing a stat that the average for college hoops is around 68%).  Having said that, we are at 63.6% for the year while our opponents are at 73.9%. And the best way to stop runs like Baylor had in the 4Q is to make those FTs.

Looking at the season stats, all our bigs, plus Carrington and Brown, need to improve this part of their game. (Off a small sample, one bright spot is that the Hulls are a combined 6 for 6.)

Tara must know that there are specialists they could hire to come in and coach FT shooting. Hey maybe even just show clips of Mr Clutch, aka Chris Hernandez.

RE: WBB: Stanford 68 Baylor 63 - BobK - 12-16-2018

Speaking of shooting. Last night Hannah Jump scores 37 on 11 of 12 shooting. From three

RE: WBB: Stanford 68 Baylor 63 - Jskass - 12-16-2018

Yeah yeah but free throws? Just kidding - I saw her at the championship 3OT game vs. Mitty this spring and she is money!

RE: WBB: Stanford 68 Baylor 63 - M T - 12-17-2018

(12-16-2018, 03:14 PM)qwerty49 Wrote:  Ouch — 9 of 21 from the line?! ... And the best way to stop runs like Baylor had in the 4Q is to make those FTs.

I disagree.  The best way to stop runs like Baylor didn't have in the 4Q  is to make those 3PT shots.   Are you saying that you lament Stanford making 0 of 4 FT in the 4Q?    I would say I lament that Stanford hit only 2 of 5 3PT in the 4Q.   You could say we left 4 points on the floor by missing the FT, but I can say we left 9 points on the floor by missing the 3 PTs.
(Baylor's run in the 4Q was only 21 pts (for the full quarter).)

I think it is easier for opponents to stop giving FT than to stop giving 3Pt attempts.   Stanford only gave Baylor four FTA in the 4Q.  If the opponent wants to go into Hack-a-3pter mode, then so be it.  At 43%  FT, Stanford would expect to get 1.29 points per fouled 3ptr.  At 43% 3PT%, Stanford still expects to get 1.29 points per 3pt attempt.  [Stanford had 60 shots and 7 OR, giving 53 possessions.  53*1.29 = 68.37, right on the 68 points scored.  Sounds evenly balanced.]

If Stanford spent two hours a day practicing FT and doubled their poor FT% (9/21) to an outstanding 86% (18/21), they'd have only gotten 9 extra points.  But, if by spending that time on FT instead of 3 point shots, the efficiency of 3PT attempts drops, say from a good 43% (13/30) to an ordinary 33% (10/30), Stanford would have lost those 9 points.


(Absolutely, in the last minute of a close game, FT% will be critical in a close game.  But, if you can make enough points earlier, you can avoid the close games except for even better opponents.)

----------

Did I miss someone congratulating the coaches for their scouting, Tara for her game plan, and the team for executing it to near perfection?   That was the #3/#4 team Stanford beat, with two BIG, talented ladies.   Maybe this doesn't make our ladies All Americans, but they were the winners on this day.  I'll take that any day.  And, Stanford wasn't at full strength.  

Congrats to the coaches for the preparation and to the team for the execution.   Maybe the team wasn't prefect, but they were better today by enough.

Kalani Brown: 6'7"  5 points, 8 rebounds,  3 blocks Lauren Cox:   6'4"  2 points,  1  rebound (only 15 minutes)

RE: WBB: Stanford 68 Baylor 63 - qwerty49 - 12-17-2018

(12-17-2018, 12:11 AM)M T Wrote:  
(12-16-2018, 03:14 PM)qwerty49 Wrote:  Ouch — 9 of 21 from the line?! ... And the best way to stop runs like Baylor had in the 4Q is to make those FTs.

I disagree.  The best way to stop runs like Baylor didn't have in the 4Q  is to make those 3PT shots.   Are you saying that you lament Stanford making 0 of 4 FT in the 4Q?    I would say I lament that Stanford hit only 2 of 5 3PT in the 4Q.   You could say we left 4 points on the floor by missing the FT, but I can say we left 9 points on the floor by missing the 3 PTs.
(Baylor's run in the 4Q was only 21 pts (for the full quarter).)

I think it is easier for opponents to stop giving FT than to stop giving 3Pt attempts.   Stanford only gave Baylor four FTA in the 4Q.  If the opponent wants to go into Hack-a-3pter mode, then so be it.  At 43%  FT, Stanford would expect to get 1.29 points per fouled 3ptr.  At 43% 3PT%, Stanford still expects to get 1.29 points per 3pt attempt.  [Stanford had 60 shots and 7 OR, giving 53 possessions.  53*1.29 = 68.37, right on the 68 points scored.  Sounds evenly balanced.]

If Stanford spent two hours a day practicing FT and doubled their poor FT% (9/21) to an outstanding 86% (18/21), they'd have only gotten 9 extra points.  But, if by spending that time on FT instead of 3 point shots, the efficiency of 3PT attempts drops, say from a good 43% (13/30) to an ordinary 33% (10/30), Stanford would have lost those 9 points.


(Absolutely, in the last minute of a close game, FT% will be critical in a close game.  But, if you can make enough points earlier, you can avoid the close games except for even better opponents.)

Well, with all due respect I think your math is stretching your argument a bit.

First of all, making 2 of 5 3-pt shots down the stretch is 40% which is pretty good for beyond the arc.  It's actually a shade better than we are doing now.  I would say we met expectations there.  So, nah, you can't really say in all seriousness that we left 9 points on the table there.

But missing all 4 FTs down the stretch is not even close to being good.  Statistically, not what we would expect.  So, yes, some points left on the table.  

Now the fact that the same player missed all 4 FTs in the 4Q kind of compounds things, but my point is that we won by 5, and perhaps it didn't need to be that close with better FT shooting both earlier in the game AND down the stretch.  You yourself cite a hypothetical in which we could have had another 9 points with great FT shooting.  Yep, we would have won by 14.  Which might have been a more accurate reflection of how we controlled the game through the first three quarters.  We would have had more than a 16-pt lead going in 4Q and probably wouldn't have needed Coffee's 3 to put the game back to a seemingly comfortable 10-pt lead with 3:08 left after Baylor had whittled the lead down to 7.

IIRC Stanford did not score at all after Coffee's 3.  We missed 5 more shots and basically were pretty lucky that Baylor turned the ball over twice as well.  Had there been 2 more minutes in the game, would that 5-pt lead have been safe?  Who knows, but yes, I would surely like to have those points from just shooting FTs at an average %.  I wouldn't expect to have had more points from 3's because we shot 43.9% throughout the game from there.

So yes, more culprits than just missing FTs.  And yes, always more mathematical upside to being perfect on 3's than at the line.  But remember that FTs have other dimensions to them, which include a) getting defenders closer to fouling out, and b) stopping clock and momentum.   

I think improving FT shooting is something than can be achieved more easily than improving 3-pt shooting.  One shot requires a great deal more skill than the other.  And one happens with no defensive pressure.  We have some players who move strong to the basket and will draw more than their share of fouls, and they (and staff) should be really focused on improving that part of their game.

RE: WBB: Stanford 68 Baylor 63 - M T - 12-17-2018

(12-17-2018, 01:59 AM)qwerty49 Wrote:  Well, with all due respect I think your math is stretching your argument a bit.

First of all, making 2 of 5 3-pt shots down the stretch is 40% which is pretty good for beyond the arc.  It's actually a shade better than we are doing now.  I would say we met expectations there.  So, nah, you can't really say in all seriousness that we left 9 points on the table there.

But missing all 4 FTs down the stretch is not even close to being good.  Statistically, not what we would expect.  So, yes, some points left on the table. 

With respect, I suggest you be careful about saying to someone what they can and can't really be saying "in all seriousness".  Perhaps you might word it next time by saying something about what you believe.
Yes, I was serious, so you can figure out how I felt by your saying I couldn't be.

Should a team work on what is a minor part of the game, or what is the major part of their game?  If one 5 minute practice solved all Stanford's FT shooting issues so they scored 9 FT more per game, then I'm sure Tara would have already done it.   But, is it worth, say, an hour a week for each player?   Isn't it better to work on the parts of the game that provide more benefit?  A team doesn't want to meet expectations, they want to win.  Sure, we want our team to have great numbers everywhere, but there's only so much time to work on each aspect.  They have to budget time to work on what is of most benefit.   As fans, we may want our team to hit those half-court buzzer beaters.  Such a shot might win a game some day, but I wouldn't want the team to work on it.  I'd leave those potential 12 points on the court and work on the main part of the game.

Stanford's defensive effort was great.  I'm glad for every minute they worked on that. 
Their 3 point scoring was what carried their offense.  I'm glad for every minute they worked on that.
Their FT shooting was poor.  I'm glad for every minute they worked on their 3 point scoring.


I've never seen a game that couldn't have been better for each team if its 2pt FG & 3pt FG scoring were better.  I've certainly seen games where the losing team could have shot 100% from the FT line and still have lost.  I saw one on Saturday.   Baylor clearly won the FT shooting part of the game.  Stanford did what was needed to win the game.

As for the math, perhaps you didn't notice that Stanford shot 43% both from the 3 point arc and from the FT line.  Had they shot worse from the FT line than from the arc (say 40% FT% vs 60% 3pt%), then a  hack-the-3pt-shooter strategy might be justified.  If that had been the case, then the low FT% impacts the 3-point production.  But the low FT% didn't impact the major portion of Stanford's offense.  (I also noted that the average points scored per 3pt attempt happened to be equal to the average points scored per possession.  This isn't particularly significant, but it shows a balance between 3-pt production and overall production.  I would have expected Stanford to be more efficient in 3pt scoring than total scoring against a team with such interior strength.)

RE: WBB: Stanford 68 Baylor 63 - crackpot - 12-17-2018

Alanna is ESPNW Player of the Week: http://www.espn.com/womens-college-basketball/story/_/id/25554999/espnw-basketball-player-week-stanford-alanna-smith

RE: WBB: Stanford 68 Baylor 63 - mbdude - 12-17-2018

Yeah. Cograts Alanna

RE: WBB: Stanford 68 Baylor 63 - qwerty49 - 12-17-2018

(12-17-2018, 06:56 AM)M T Wrote:  
(12-17-2018, 01:59 AM)qwerty49 Wrote:  Well, with all due respect I think your math is stretching your argument a bit.

First of all, making 2 of 5 3-pt shots down the stretch is 40% which is pretty good for beyond the arc.  It's actually a shade better than we are doing now.  I would say we met expectations there.  So, nah, you can't really say in all seriousness that we left 9 points on the table there.

But missing all 4 FTs down the stretch is not even close to being good.  Statistically, not what we would expect.  So, yes, some points left on the table. 

With respect, I suggest you be careful about saying to someone what they can and can't really be saying "in all seriousness".  Perhaps you might word it next time by saying something about what you believe.
Yes, I was serious, so you can figure out how I felt by your saying I couldn't be.

Should a team work on what is a minor part of the game, or what is the major part of their game?  If one 5 minute practice solved all Stanford's FT shooting issues so they scored 9 FT more per game, then I'm sure Tara would have already done it.   But, is it worth, say, an hour a week for each player?   Isn't it better to work on the parts of the game that provide more benefit?  A team doesn't want to meet expectations, they want to win.  Sure, we want our team to have great numbers everywhere, but there's only so much time to work on each aspect.  They have to budget time to work on what is of most benefit.   As fans, we may want our team to hit those half-court buzzer beaters.  Such a shot might win a game some day, but I wouldn't want the team to work on it.  I'd leave those potential 12 points on the court and work on the main part of the game.

Stanford's defensive effort was great.  I'm glad for every minute they worked on that. 
Their 3 point scoring was what carried their offense.  I'm glad for every minute they worked on that.
Their FT shooting was poor.  I'm glad for every minute they worked on their 3 point scoring.


I've never seen a game that couldn't have been better for each team if its 2pt FG & 3pt FG scoring were better.  I've certainly seen games where the losing team could have shot 100% from the FT line and still have lost.  I saw one on Saturday.   Baylor clearly won the FT shooting part of the game.  Stanford did what was needed to win the game.

As for the math, perhaps you didn't notice that Stanford shot 43% both from the 3 point arc and from the FT line.  Had they shot worse from the FT line than from the arc (say 40% FT% vs 60% 3pt%), then a  hack-the-3pt-shooter strategy might be justified.  If that had been the case, then the low FT% impacts the 3-point production.  But the low FT% didn't impact the major portion of Stanford's offense.  (I also noted that the average points scored per 3pt attempt happened to be equal to the average points scored per possession.  This isn't particularly significant, but it shows a balance between 3-pt production and overall production.  I would have expected Stanford to be more efficient in 3pt scoring than total scoring against a team with such interior strength.)

I should preface this by saying I respect your posts and cannot remember disagreeing with you to such an extent before.  So when our logic appeared at odds with one another I was confused.  Sorry for my "McEnroe moment."  I hope we can just agree to disagree on that particular point.

I guess we will also disagree on the point about spending time improving FTs.  It seems to me that after a certain amount of time and resource is spent on some basics (including examining potential flaws etc) that most of the work can be put in by a player on his/her own.  Players at all levels have been known to do this off-season.

And yes, this was a great win.

RE: WBB: Stanford 68 Baylor 63 - BostonCard - 12-17-2018

I'm inclined to agree with qwerty.  Sure, it is a truism that if we had made all five of our three points attempt, we'd have had 9 more points and made a close-ish 5 point win into a 14-point blow-out.  But 40% three point field goal percentage is roughly about what one could reasonably expect.  I mean, even the best three point shooting teams don't get above 50% (https://www.ncaa.com/stats/basketball-women/d1/current/team/118), so any improvement on 2/5 is likely to be due to statistical variation than what you can and should expect.  Moreover, three-point shooting is influenced by outside factors, such as the opposing defense.

On the other hand, a free throw percentage of 75% is within the realm of what can be expected, and the best teams shoot 80% from the free throw line.  Had we shot 75% on the night, it would have turned a 9/21 FT shooting night to something like 15 or 16/21, and made a 5-point game into an 11 or 12 point game.  Importantly, free throw shooting is not influenced by the opposing defense, so it ought to be more dependable.

Lastly, free throw shooting influences opposing strategy.  If you are a poor free throw shooting team, the opposing defense will start intentionally fouling earlier because it stops the clock.  So, in the extreme case, if your free throw shooting is awful, you'll get fouled very early.

BC

RE: WBB: Stanford 68 Baylor 63 - BobK - 12-17-2018

Well BC except Mulky didn’t foul. If you watched the press conference she said “I don’t believe in it”. I presume her thoughts are they make them eventually.

People should understand practice time is limited to 20 hours a week and that’s not just on the court time. You can practice on your one of course but the players also have this school thing

I’ll go with QWERTY

RE: WBB: Stanford 68 Baylor 63 - 81alum - 12-17-2018

I will echo the praise for the coaching.  That was a phenomenal job of controlling Kalini Brown and Lauren Cox.  It reminds me of the one game when Tara used Mikaela Ruef to shut down Griner (in Hawaii I believe?)  This was actually more impressive.  Of course I don't know what happened with Cox, but she played only 15 minutes.

As far as free throws, this is obviously a psychological issue and not a physical one. Any time Alanna can go 5-9 from three point range and 2-8 from free throw range you know it has to have something to do with focus and the mind playing mental tricks on itself.

RE: WBB: Stanford 68 Baylor 63 - Jskass - 12-17-2018

Agree with all the comments and still was shocked that Mulkey didn’t foul more. Maybe she also realized that eventually that would backfire as we’d bring our best FT shooters into the game. Period.

RE: WBB: Stanford 68 Baylor 63 - Griffins78 - 12-17-2018

i was surprised too. Was expecting them to start fouling us. When she didn’t I got the feeling she was accepting the loss because she was not happy with her team’s performance and would rather this be a teaching moment as a loss that would t hurt their season vs have them survive last minute by fouling and not take to heart her lessons.

RE: WBB: Stanford 68 Baylor 63 - M T - 12-18-2018

(12-17-2018, 01:34 PM)Griffins78 Wrote:  i was surprised too. Was expecting them to start fouling us. When she didn’t I got the feeling she was accepting the loss because she was not happy with her team’s performance and would rather this be a teaching moment as a loss that would t hurt their season vs have them survive last minute by fouling and not take to heart her lessons.

That was my impression as well.  Kim Mulkey knows how to stretch a game out, and she chose not to.  The foot stomp I referenced was at the end of the first quarter and appeared to be expressing her frustration with her team, not the refs or Stanford.

I'm NOT making light of the pain she must have with her back (I have a friend on an enormous amount of pain meds for the last decade or so for back issues), but if she's taking pain medication, that medication might affect her coaching style.  I've always thought of her as more intense than what I saw on Saturday.   As I said, I'm glad she's able to do more (squat & stomp) than what I saw in a game a couple of weeks earlier.
(12-17-2018, 09:40 AM)crackpot Wrote:  Alanna is ESPNW Player of the Week: http://www.espn.com/womens-college-basketball/story/_/id/25554999/espnw-basketball-player-week-stanford-alanna-smith

I'm glad for that, but I agree with the sentiment that the game ball should go to Shannon (as the coaches aren't eligible).


I didn't watch closely enough to see whether it was Alanna that did the major work at shutting down Baylor's inside game on offense.  (Did we stop the passes into the bigs, or push them out of position, or be just a little faster, or what?)  I do remember seeing her body up one of their players and thought how she was doing a good job of it, and the refs weren't calling fouls possibly partly because she was not the big one of the matchup.

RE: WBB: Stanford 68 Baylor 63 - CompSci87 - 12-18-2018

(12-16-2018, 08:47 PM)BobK Wrote:  Speaking of shooting.  Last night Hannah Jump scores 37 on 11 of 12 shooting.    From three

I happened to find the game on YouTube. It was the championship game of an 8-team tournament in Hawaii. https://youtu.be/BpJ-lVSAoq0

RE: WBB: Stanford 68 Baylor 63 - BobK - 12-18-2018

I’ve now read 11 of 13 from three. The other team vs Pinewood was very good

Smith was indeed outstanding on D. As was Coffee but the whole team was. Baylor got hot at the end 7 of 8 from the floor. But as we know now it was too late