WBB: Stanford 78 Colorado 69 - 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 78 Colorado 69 (/thread-17212.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: Stanford 78 Colorado 69 (/thread-17212.html)
RE: WBB: Stanford @ Colorado Friday 8pm - 81alum - 01-25-2019
(01-25-2019, 07:47 PM)M T Wrote:Not sure, MT, I think it might be both. Missing the layups should not be related to the altitude. Let's hope we correct this in the 3rd quarter. Correcting it in the 4th quarter was too late at Gonzaga.(01-25-2019, 07:38 PM)BobK Wrote: The team can’t shoot straight . Getting great looks for their misses though. If that helps not
I came in late. Were we shooting left/right, or just can't get the distance right with the air pressure?
Dijonai is 0/8.
RE: WBB: Stanford @ Colorado Friday 8pm - M T - 01-25-2019
(01-25-2019, 07:52 PM)BosCard Wrote: And we really miss Maya/Nadia. Jerome gets pulled for Coffee but Coffee is such a liability on defense. She can't move laterally and so guards just dribble around or shoot short jumpers at will.You'd think she could help on rebounding, but no.
A five-footer can push her out of the way.
And she has no hands. If it is contested, she won't get the ball. If she gets the ball, she gets stripped.
I hate to say it, as I appreciate her effort, but her performance usually is a negative.
We need to be more aggressive. We only have 3 fouls while they have 9 (3 players with 2; they only have 8 players). If we can get a few more fouls on the key players, that might be the determiner.
Zeroing in on the threes is of course critical.
percentage wise, Colorado has a small advantage on rebounds.
Bogus foul at the start of the 3rdQ by a ref who was blocked out. Bah!
My streaming has been really poor. About 4MB/s at the best, but about 480p quality. It just dropped out for about 3 minutes.
(I'm at work and I know my wired connection is not the issue.)
RE: WBB: Stanford @ Colorado Friday 8pm - BobK - 01-25-2019
The real Anna Wilson. So great to see
RE: WBB: Stanford @ Colorado Friday 8pm - martyup - 01-25-2019
Great to see the wheels come off of Colorado. We're up 12 at the end of the 3rd.
RE: WBB: Stanford @ Colorado Friday 8pm - 81alum - 01-25-2019
A 32-12 third quarter was just what the doctor (er...Tara) ordered.
RE: WBB: Stanford @ Colorado Friday 8pm - JJJ - 01-25-2019
Just surfed in and heard we outscored them 32-12 in 3Q!?
RE: WBB: Stanford @ Colorado Friday 8pm - 81alum - 01-25-2019
(01-25-2019, 08:28 PM)JJJ Wrote: Just surfed in and heard we outscored them 32-12 in 3Q!?Yes, remarkable. I'll go through the play by play later to figure out exactly how it was done. A stunning reversal from the first half. Making a few treys certainly helped, but we also got several steals leading to fast break points.
RE: WBB: Stanford @ Colorado Friday 8pm - CompSci87 - 01-25-2019
We went with only one post for a while, I'm not sure for how long, but it looked good against Colorado. Alanna/Dijonai/Lexie/Kiana/Anna.
RE: WBB: Stanford @ Colorado Friday 8pm - mbdude - 01-25-2019
(01-25-2019, 08:23 PM)BobK Wrote: The real Anna Wilson. So great to see
Yep, she looks a lot more confident now
RE: WBB: Stanford 78 Colorado 69 - 81alum - 01-25-2019
Write up done at the top.
We can't give Utah a first half like that one and expect to win.
RE: WBB: Stanford 78 Colorado 69 - BobK - 01-25-2019
We shot about 60% in the second half
Coffee didn’t play in the 2nd half
Those two things help. Plus Smith what 21 in the second half
Utah Beat cal
RE: WBB: Stanford 78 Colorado 69 - BostonCard - 01-25-2019
Here's your third quarter...
9:41 Quinessa Caylao-Do missed Layup. 28 - 36
9:39 Quinessa Caylao-Do made Free Throw. 28 - 37
9:39 Quinessa Caylao-Do missed Free Throw. 28 - 37
9:17 DiJonai Carrington missed Three Point Jumper. 28 - 37
9:00 DiJonai Carrington made Layup. 30 - 37
9:00 DiJonai Carrington made Free Throw. 31 - 37
8:38 Quinessa Caylao-Do missed Jumper. 31 - 37
8:34 Annika Jank missed Layup. 31 - 37
8:25 Kiana Williams made Layup. 33 - 37
8:08 Quinessa Caylao-Do missed Three Point Jumper. 33 - 37
8:01 Lacie Hull missed Three Point Jumper. 33 - 37
7:54 Kiana Williams missed Three Point Jumper. 33 - 37
7:38 Mya Hollingshed missed Jumper. 33 - 37
7:16 Kiana Williams made Three Point Jumper. Assisted by Alyssa Jerome. 36 - 37
6:56 Quinessa Caylao-Do missed Layup. 36 - 37
6:38 DiJonai Carrington missed Layup. 36 - 37
6:12 Quinessa Caylao-Do missed Layup. 36 - 37
6:05 Annika Jank made Layup. 36 - 39
5:56 Alanna Smith made Three Point Jumper. Assisted by Kiana Williams. 39 - 39
5:40 Quinessa Caylao-Do made Jumper. 39 - 41
5:32 Alanna Smith made Layup. Assisted by Kiana Williams. 41 - 41
5:18 Mya Hollingshed made Three Point Jumper. Assisted by Quinessa Caylao-Do. 41 - 44
5:06 DiJonai Carrington made Free Throw. 42 - 44
5:06 DiJonai Carrington missed Free Throw. 42 - 44
4:59 Anna Wilson made Three Point Jumper. Assisted by Alanna Smith. 45 - 44
4:45 Quinessa Caylao-Do made Free Throw. 45 - 45
4:45 Quinessa Caylao-Do missed Free Throw. 45 - 45
4:29 Annika Jank missed Jumper. 45 - 45
4:09 Alanna Smith made Three Point Jumper. Assisted by Lexie Hull. 48 - 45
3:53 Mya Hollingshed missed Three Point Jumper. 48 - 45
3:36 DiJonai Carrington made Free Throw. 49 - 45
3:36 DiJonai Carrington missed Free Throw. 49 - 45
3:13 Anna Wilson made Layup. Assisted by Kiana Williams. 51 - 45
2:51 Alexis Robinson missed Three Point Jumper. 51 - 45
2:32 Lexie Hull made Layup. 53 - 45
2:03 Kiana Williams missed Layup. 53 - 45
1:44 Anna Wilson made Layup. 55 - 45
1:32 Lesila Finau missed Layup. 55 - 45
1:18 Lexie Hull made Layup. Assisted by Kiana Williams. 57 - 45
0:58 Alexis Robinson made Free Throw. 57 - 46
0:58 Alexis Robinson made Free Throw. 57 - 47
0:58 Alexis Robinson made Free Throw. 57 - 48
0:50 Alanna Smith made Three Point Jumper. Assisted by Kiana Williams. 60 - 48
0:02 Kiana Williams missed Three Point Jumper. 60 - 48
0:00 End of 3rd Quarter 60 - 48
An 11-3 run in the first 4 minutes to tie it up, and then a 15-4 run in the last 5 minutes to take the big lead.
BC
RE: WBB: Stanford 78 Colorado 69 - 81alum - 01-26-2019
(01-25-2019, 10:19 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Here's your third quarter...
9:41 Quinessa Caylao-Do missed Layup. 28 - 36
9:39 Quinessa Caylao-Do made Free Throw. 28 - 37
9:39 Quinessa Caylao-Do missed Free Throw. 28 - 37
9:17 DiJonai Carrington missed Three Point Jumper. 28 - 37
9:00 DiJonai Carrington made Layup. 30 - 37
9:00 DiJonai Carrington made Free Throw. 31 - 37
8:38 Quinessa Caylao-Do missed Jumper. 31 - 37
8:34 Annika Jank missed Layup. 31 - 37
8:25 Kiana Williams made Layup. 33 - 37
8:08 Quinessa Caylao-Do missed Three Point Jumper. 33 - 37
8:01 Lacie Hull missed Three Point Jumper. 33 - 37
7:54 Kiana Williams missed Three Point Jumper. 33 - 37
7:38 Mya Hollingshed missed Jumper. 33 - 37
7:16 Kiana Williams made Three Point Jumper. Assisted by Alyssa Jerome. 36 - 37
6:56 Quinessa Caylao-Do missed Layup. 36 - 37
6:38 DiJonai Carrington missed Layup. 36 - 37
6:12 Quinessa Caylao-Do missed Layup. 36 - 37
6:05 Annika Jank made Layup. 36 - 39
5:56 Alanna Smith made Three Point Jumper. Assisted by Kiana Williams. 39 - 39
5:40 Quinessa Caylao-Do made Jumper. 39 - 41
5:32 Alanna Smith made Layup. Assisted by Kiana Williams. 41 - 41
5:18 Mya Hollingshed made Three Point Jumper. Assisted by Quinessa Caylao-Do. 41 - 44
5:06 DiJonai Carrington made Free Throw. 42 - 44
5:06 DiJonai Carrington missed Free Throw. 42 - 44
4:59 Anna Wilson made Three Point Jumper. Assisted by Alanna Smith. 45 - 44
4:45 Quinessa Caylao-Do made Free Throw. 45 - 45
4:45 Quinessa Caylao-Do missed Free Throw. 45 - 45
4:29 Annika Jank missed Jumper. 45 - 45
4:09 Alanna Smith made Three Point Jumper. Assisted by Lexie Hull. 48 - 45
3:53 Mya Hollingshed missed Three Point Jumper. 48 - 45
3:36 DiJonai Carrington made Free Throw. 49 - 45
3:36 DiJonai Carrington missed Free Throw. 49 - 45
3:13 Anna Wilson made Layup. Assisted by Kiana Williams. 51 - 45
2:51 Alexis Robinson missed Three Point Jumper. 51 - 45
2:32 Lexie Hull made Layup. 53 - 45
2:03 Kiana Williams missed Layup. 53 - 45
1:44 Anna Wilson made Layup. 55 - 45
1:32 Lesila Finau missed Layup. 55 - 45
1:18 Lexie Hull made Layup. Assisted by Kiana Williams. 57 - 45
0:58 Alexis Robinson made Free Throw. 57 - 46
0:58 Alexis Robinson made Free Throw. 57 - 47
0:58 Alexis Robinson made Free Throw. 57 - 48
0:50 Alanna Smith made Three Point Jumper. Assisted by Kiana Williams. 60 - 48
0:02 Kiana Williams missed Three Point Jumper. 60 - 48
0:00 End of 3rd Quarter 60 - 48
An 11-3 run in the first 4 minutes to tie it up, and then a 15-4 run in the last 5 minutes to take the big lead.
BC
That Kiana Williams trey at 7:16 was the first of the day, before which we had gone 0/16. Just in the first couple of minutes of the quarter, Lacie, Dijonai and Kiana all missed treys. But after Kiana made that basket, it really seemed to open the floodgates. Seeing a teammate get her range really is contagious--we have seen that again and again over the years. Alanna made her very next trey after clanking them all first half, and she went on to drain two more without a miss. And Anna Wilson got into the act with a trey of her own two--making five three point shots in that quarter that went down. We didn't miss another three until Kiana did with 2 seconds left in the quarter.
Three point shooting is a fascinating study in group psychology. What are the odds that we would miss 16 in a row and then make 5 in a row? It absolutely has to be connected to some subtle range-finding that is influenced by observing your own successful shot and the shots of your teammates. I wonder if a sports psychologist could teach players to "find their range" by observing the successful shots of their opponents, too? Maybe not, since you are facing the wrong way.
In addition to finally getting our three point shooting going, the other major change that happened doesn't show up on that particular play by play readout. We had a series of steals leading to fast break points late in the quarter--probably preceding those three layups in a row. That has to be credited to improved defensive intensity.
RE: WBB: Stanford 78 Colorado 69 - 2006alum - 01-26-2019
Does anyone know if basketballs bounce and move through the air differently at higher altitudes? I ask because I used to live at close to 4K altitude and played tennis, and a tennis ball bounces noticeably differently at high altitude compared to sea level. It was always a bit of an adjustment to play on the coast, and vice versa for those who came to us. I wonder if that could explain our first half misfires, even at the margins? At least in tennis, it definitely took a bit of an adjustment.
RE: WBB: Stanford @ Colorado Friday 8pm - JJJ - 01-26-2019
(01-25-2019, 08:38 PM)81alum Wrote:(01-25-2019, 08:28 PM)JJJ Wrote: Just surfed in and heard we outscored them 32-12 in 3Q!?Yes, remarkable. I'll go through the play by play later to figure out exactly how it was done. A stunning reversal from the first half. Making a few treys certainly helped, but we also got several steals leading to fast break points.
Thanks, and sorry, I was probably typing my comment as you were posting yours. Watched the DVR. That was fun!
RE: WBB: Stanford 78 Colorado 69 - oldalum - 01-26-2019
(01-26-2019, 01:44 PM)2006alum Wrote: Does anyone know if basketballs bounce and move through the air differently at higher altitudes? I ask because I used to live at close to 4K altitude and played tennis, and a tennis ball bounces noticeably differently at high altitude compared to sea level.The bounce of a basketball at any altitude should be the same if it is filled to the same measured (relative) pressure at that altitude (which presumably they are). The bounce depends on the difference between the internal and external pressures, which is what an ordinary pump measures (as opposed to measuring absolute internal pressure). The issue with tennis balls arises because they are filled by the manufacturer to a specific pressure near sea level, then brought to higher altitude where their pressure relative to external pressure is higher (because external pressure is lower). As a result, they bounce a lot higher. That is why you can buy specially designated high-altitude tennis balls that are filled initially by the manufacturer to a lower pressure (relative to sea level).
Higher altitude should affect the air friction experienced by a shot basketball, but I do not know whether this effect is large enough to be noticeable.
(for completeness, the acceleration of gravity is slightly lower in Boulder than at sea level, but the difference is negligible)
RE: WBB: Stanford 78 Colorado 69 - JJJ - 01-26-2019
(01-26-2019, 02:07 PM)oldalum Wrote:(01-26-2019, 01:44 PM)2006alum Wrote: Does anyone know if basketballs bounce and move through the air differently at higher altitudes? I ask because I used to live at close to 4K altitude and played tennis, and a tennis ball bounces noticeably differently at high altitude compared to sea level.The bounce of a basketball at any altitude should be the same if it is filled to the same measured (relative) pressure at that altitude (which presumably they are). The bounce depends on the difference between the internal and external pressures, which is what an ordinary pump measures (as opposed to measuring absolute internal pressure). The issue with tennis balls arises because they are filled by the manufacturer to a specific pressure near sea level, then brought to higher altitude where their pressure relative to external pressure is higher (because external pressure is lower). As a result, they bounce a lot higher. That is why you can buy specially designated high-altitude tennis balls that are filled initially by the manufacturer to a lower pressure (relative to sea level).
Higher altitude should affect the air friction experienced by a shot basketball, but I do not know whether this effect is large enough to be noticeable.
(for completeness, the acceleration of gravity is slightly lower in Boulder than at sea level, but the difference is negligible)
And this is why the CARDboard is so awesome. Learn something new every day!
RE: WBB: Stanford 78 Colorado 69 - 81alum - 01-26-2019
(01-26-2019, 08:12 AM)81alum Wrote: Three point shooting is a fascinating study in group psychology. What are the odds that we would miss 16 in a row and then make 5 in a row? It absolutely has to be connected to some subtle range-finding that is influenced by observing your own successful shot and the shots of your teammates. I wonder if a sports psychologist could teach players to "find their range" by observing the successful shots of their opponents, too? Maybe not, since you are facing the wrong way.Here is a partial answer to my own question:
https://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8719731/hot-hand-fallacy
RE: WBB: Stanford 78 Colorado 69 - M T - 01-26-2019
(01-26-2019, 02:26 PM)JJJ Wrote: And this is why the CARDboard is so awesome. Learn something new every day!
There are concepts we fans have (like "too many steps") that aren't quite what the NCAA rules use. But if you keep reading the CARDboad, we might get it right.
The bounce should be roughly the same, not because of how air pressure affects the bounce, but because the amount of bounce is part of the definition of a legal ball. (Also remember that changes in temperature can affect air pressure, flexibility of the ball material (and playing surface), and thus bounce, but the temperature should be fairly constant in indoor basketball courts. Water vapor in air can affect the weight of the ball slightly, and probably its flight. Temperature has been indicated for issues with footballs. Humidity has been indicated for weight issues with baseballs.) The weight of the ball is also defined to be in a range.
NCAA WBB rules
Quote:Art. 7. The air pressure that will give the required reaction shall be stamped on
the ball. The ball shall be inflated to an air pressure such that when it is dropped
to the playing surface from a height of 6 feet measured to the bottom of the ball,
it will rebound to a height, measured to the top of the ball, of not less than 51
inches when it strikes its least resilient spot nor more than 56 inches when it
strikes its most resilient spot.
Art. 8. The circumference of the ball shall be within a maximum of 29 inches
and a minimum of 28½ inches.
Art. 9. The weight of the ball shall not be less than 18 ounces nor more than
20 ounces.
To me it seems less than optimal for the weight of the ball to vary as much as 10% (ie, +/- 5%)
and for the bounce to vary nearly 10% and still be in spec. (As for bounce, I have no idea how different the bounce height would be from the least to most resilient spot on a ball.)
The effects of the altitude are negligible on the mass of the air in the ball. The potential issue is going to be the drag on the ball. As with golf balls, the surface of the ball may impact the drag significantly. It also turns out that backspin causes the ball to go further.
I was starting down the path to do some back-of-the-envelope physics. But when I started investigating drag's effect on a basketball, I figured someone else had already done this.
I ran across an analysis that uses some NBA statistics mixed with some physical analysis (it was a follow up to this May 2015 article). It isn't a research paper, so it wasn't peer reviewed and may have errors. He begins talking about drag and altitude about 2/3 way down. But, talking about sea level, he says "The drag force should only alter the path of a free throw by about 6 inches, which is probably at the limit of the SportVU system's precision." I'm not quite sure why 6 inches wouldn't be extremely visible. If he means that the shot would be 6" shorter due to drag, then that would be immediately obvious except that the players compensate for it. If he means that the highest point of a free throw's path would be 6" higher after compensation, I think that would be pretty obvious.
Anyway, he goes on to show that the measured data shows that the shot arcs at the higher elevation sites showed less drag generally. But Cleveland seemed to have even less drag than Denver & Utah, while Boston had unexpectedly high drag than other sea level sites. (My first thoughts were wondering about effects of temperature, humidity, and circulation patterns in the venues. I remember that when the Astrodome first opened they would announce that the wind speed was 1MPH from the east, west, north, and south.)
Back to the Stanford performance... I expect everyone recognizes that the altitude is going to affect the flight of the ball. If the effect on a FT is 6", then the effect on a 3pt shot is probably 10" or a foot. (A WBB ball centered in the rim would have about 4.5" clearance all the way around.)
The players have to adapt to the difference. My belief is that Stanford didn't properly adapt. (In the TV replay of the game, I saw about 3 of the long shots that I felt were offline. The rest I thought were missed due to how far the ball went. However, don't trust those observations as I didn't make them rigorously.)
I would predict that teams that visit the high elevations have a drop in their 3pt% (on average) and that the 3pt% in the second half for visitors is better than the first half. I could hypothesize that Stanford's shooters were less flexible in their 3 point shooting than maybe they should be. I would suggest that the other 10 teams in the PAC-12 should schedule more 3pt practice time when they arrive at the mountain schools. I don't think this is something you can simulate at the home court.
For more recent & deeper analysis, you may want to look at
http://projects.rajivshah.com/sportvu/Traj_RNN.html
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.03793.pdf
http://www.yisongyue.com/publications/nips2016_trajectory.pdf
(Neither "altitude" nor "elevation" appear in the PDFs, so I didn't dig into them at all.)
RE: WBB: Stanford 78 Colorado 69 - 81alum - 01-26-2019
Interesting stuff, MT.
I don't have the patience to do this, but one test would be to compare home and away three point shooting for Colorado. They practice and play their home games at high altitude, so you would expect they would have an adjustment to make each away game. Maybe look specifically at their first half shooting in the first game of an away trip, and compare it with home shooting.
Then, as a kind of quasi control, do the same for a different team and limit the stats to all the sea level games. Is there a difference? Hmmm.....
Meanwhile, we have the elements of an interesting chalk talk question....