WBB: UCLA 79 Stanford 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: UCLA 79 Stanford 69 (/thread-18941.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: UCLA 79 Stanford 69 (/thread-18941.html)
RE: WBB: UCLA 79 Stanford 69 - BosCard - 02-08-2020
(02-08-2020, 08:41 AM)81alum Wrote: I really should not do write ups after late games--I woke up this morning and fixed half a dozen spelling and grammatical errors. I'm just not used to staying up so late, really :P
The rebounds situation was remarkable, and it makes our loss hard to understand. In the first half we were out rebounded 26-15, UCLA had 9 O-boards to our 10 D-boards. They were getting almost half their misses.
But in the second half we turned that completely around. We did out rebound them 30-12. They had only 2 O-boards compared with our 15 D-boards. They were one-and-done almost the whole half. Meanwhile we had 15 O-boards of our own to their 10 D-boards. We were getting MORE than half our misses.
Despite our appalling rebounding in the first half, we were down only 5 points. And despite our superb rebounding in the second half, we fell another 5 points further behind in that half. Why?
It is NOT that we shot worse in the first half. We went from 34% to 39% shooting. So that improved too.
There are only two things I can point to. We went from 5 turnovers in the first half to 9 in the second half. And while our overall shooting improved, our three point shooting plummeted from 6/10 to 2/13.
I actually don't think the coaches anticipated UCLA's shooting being this good. At the chalk talk it was clear that there had been a lot of emphasis on rebounding precisely because they thought there would be a lot of misses out there be had.
I also doubt that we anticipated our own shooting being so poor. Our losses are more typically losses in which we shoot better than the opponent but lose the turnover and/or rebounding wars. Well, last night we took 8 more shots than UCLA did, but made 3 fewer. Our shots were simply of lower quality, which is a testament to UCLA's defense and our lackluster defense.
At the end of the game when Tara was directing the fouling game and doing offensive/defensive subs, it was illuminating that Prechtel was coming out on defense and Belibi was going in. Despite her blossoming on offense, Tara must still see Prechtel as a defensive liability when it comes to defending quicker players like Onyenwere. Dodson would have been perfect to defend Onyenwere. Although Dodson was often offensively challenged, her defense on posts was becoming quite good by the end of last year. Williams plays good defense, but she expends a lot of energy doing so and it takes a toll on her. Carrington had always been one of our very best defenders--strong, quick, and long enough.
UCLA is highly athletic at all positions, and we only had two Hulls to go around.
I am not so sure our shots in the second half were low quality, I just think we didn't make them. Prechtel had a poor shooting night (5 of 17, including 0 for 6 from three) but she had a number of good shots in the second half that she should take (around the rim or open threes) that just didn't fall for her.
RE: WBB: UCLA 79 Stanford 69 - BobK - 02-08-2020
Lots of good shots for us became misses some bad misses. Sadly ucla made those shots
Interesting Brown played so much in the first half
RE: WBB: UCLA 79 Stanford 69 - Phogge - 02-08-2020
Only have watched a little this season. My take is that Stanford has a bunch of very good players with potential but not a night-in, night-out takeover star. Not that many in the universe but if they come up with a talent like the girl at UO then lights out. I realize that this is next to impossible.
RE: WBB: UCLA 79 Stanford 69 - Jskass - 02-08-2020
My two cents from seeing the game in person:
1. experience beat inexperience. Basically we looked like freshmen plus Williams (though yes Brown is coming along nicely and deserves more time to enable Williams to rest). Too many turnovers and poor decisions -- even the long-armed Hulls were out of sorts.
2. our rebounding did improve after Q2 but not our shooting. So many missed layups and so many shots were short - it appeared there were MANY uncalled shooting fouls. Felt like the refs didn't call fouls on UCLA until very late in the game, even though there were some obvious ones including over the backs (rebounding) on 33. They didn't call her until she slammed a player to the ground.
3. we seemed complacent. Even when we were up 18-12 in Q1 it was almost all Kiana Williams' shooting. Felt like I was watching a new version of Chiney and the Chinettes (with everyone just leaving it up to the star).
4. why can't we press?
5. I would hate to admit it but felt like Cori Close did the better coaching job - strategies, substitutions.
Wake up call and gut check for all but yes agree it's so hard to look at the bench and see Carrington, Jones and Dodson who would all be starting for nearly any team in the country and would make all the difference here. Praying for their health and hoping that Carrington and Dodson not vying for a red shirt but hope to play this year. Jones in a serious brace which allows no movement -- much tighter than Nadia's, which supports movement.
RE: WBB: UCLA 79 Stanford 69 - 81alum - 02-08-2020
(02-08-2020, 01:24 PM)Jskass Wrote: My two cents from seeing the game in person:I agree with your analysis of the game.
1. experience beat inexperience. Basically we looked like freshmen plus Williams (though yes Brown is coming along nicely and deserves more time to enable Williams to rest). Too many turnovers and poor decisions -- even the long-armed Hulls were out of sorts.
2. our rebounding did improve after Q2 but not our shooting. So many missed layups and so many shots were short - it appeared there were MANY uncalled shooting fouls. Felt like the refs didn't call fouls on UCLA until very late in the game, even though there were some obvious ones including over the backs (rebounding) on 33. They didn't call her until she slammed a player to the ground.
3. we seemed complacent. Even when we were up 18-12 in Q1 it was almost all Kiana Williams' shooting. Felt like I was watching a new version of Chiney and the Chinettes (with everyone just leaving it up to the star).
4. why can't we press?
5. I would hate to admit it but felt like Cori Close did the better coaching job - strategies, substitutions.
Wake up call and gut check for all but yes agree it's so hard to look at the bench and see Carrington, Jones and Dodson who would all be starting for nearly any team in the country and would make all the difference here. Praying for their health and hoping that Carrington and Dodson not vying for a red shirt but hope to play this year. Jones in a serious brace which allows no movement -- much tighter than Nadia's, which supports movement.
Dodson and Carrington would not compete for a redshirt since they are in different classes. Dodson's extra season of eligibility would come not next year but the following year.
But there might be competition for a Stanford scholarship if Wilson and Carrington are both awarded an extra year of eligibility. We know that Wilson applied for a redshirt year, was denied, and appealed, but we don't know if the appeal was successful. Carrington will have a slam dunk case for a year if she doesn't play more this year. There is one Stanford scholarship available for next year. Obviously Tara could not give it to both of them. That would not necessarily prevent one of them from grad transferring like Marta.
I don't really know how likely it is that Anna's appeal will be successful, but that would obviously have a lot to do with outcomes.
We also don't know what Carrington's plans are. After half a dozen surgeries, perhaps she just wants to preserve whatever cartilage she has left for life after basketball. If she feels that she is finished, then we might see her yet for a few games this year as soon as she can go. If on the other hand, she wants a whole year, then maybe she would not return this year even if able.
Tara in the past has been reluctant to grant redshirts. She gives them readily if an extra scholarship becomes unexpectedly available, but I don't think she has deliberately withheld recruiting to save scholarships for redshirt players. Her philosophy seems to be to give as many young women a Stanford education as she can. But she does give them out when a scholarship unexpectedly becomes available. Ruef was preparing to pay her own way for a 5th year (and an Engineering MS!) until Aly Beebe medically retired, opening a scholarship.
RE: WBB: UCLA 79 Stanford 69 - crackpot - 02-08-2020
Kills me to say it, but I, too, thought Close won the coaching game. During Q1, nearing the 3 minute mark, and the Bruins are sucking wind. Stanford is up by 6 or so, and Close is reminding the refs that they haven't yet take the under-5 timeout. Whistle, timeout, and the Bruins come back to make it close. She used her timeouts with perfect timing last night.
This game reminded me a lot of the Colorado game--physicality that would not be tolerated in the men's game, and same head ref (Brenda Patoja). Not fun to watch, even if my team comes out with a W.
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. UCLA Friday 8pm - standfan - 02-08-2020
(02-07-2020, 09:17 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Whatever slump Kiana might have been in has ended with a bang. She has 11 points in the first quarter.
BC
Kiana was 9-22. IMO she drove into double teams at the basket far too often with poor results. Given her stature and the athleticism and physicality of the UCLA players, we could have taken better shots (including long threes by Kiana).
RE: WBB: UCLA 79 Stanford 69 - here4WBB - 02-08-2020
I'm new to sports commentary, but I do appreciate learning from you all! I'm wondering about Fran Belibi, it seems she has not found her groove yet. She seems tentative on the court and yet I'm sure she's ferocious when confident. I also agree with the comments re. our defense -- defense has changed in the Pac 12, it's a different game from 10 or even 5 years ago and we don't do well in the face of the close physicality.
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. UCLA Friday 8pm - BostonCard - 02-08-2020
(02-08-2020, 04:32 PM)standfan Wrote:(02-07-2020, 09:17 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Whatever slump Kiana might have been in has ended with a bang. She has 11 points in the first quarter.
BC
Kiana was 9-22. IMO she drove into double teams at the basket far too often with poor results. Given her stature and the athleticism and physicality of the UCLA players, we could have taken better shots (including long threes by Kiana).
Yeah spoke too soon. She was having a great first quarter, with 11 points on three three pointers. But as others surmised, she ran out of gas.
BC
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. UCLA Friday 8pm - teejers1 - 02-08-2020
(02-08-2020, 05:24 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(02-08-2020, 04:32 PM)standfan Wrote:(02-07-2020, 09:17 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Whatever slump Kiana might have been in has ended with a bang. She has 11 points in the first quarter.
BC
Kiana was 9-22. IMO she drove into double teams at the basket far too often with poor results. Given her stature and the athleticism and physicality of the UCLA players, we could have taken better shots (including long threes by Kiana).
Yeah spoke too soon. She was having a great first quarter, with 11 points on three three pointers. But as others surmised, she ran out of gas.
BC
That's at least partially on coach. You have to give Kiana rest so she is not making all the fatigue-induced decisions that she did after Stanford managed to take the 2H lead. Bad shots, bad passes, too much dribbling. But Ki wasn't alone in that regard (except for the too much dribbling critique) - the entire team just puked when it took the lead in Q3.
Seeing Jones at the game - there does not appear to be any way she comes back this year.
No clue on Carrington or Dodson, but it just seems unlikely, given where we are in the season and the complete lack of signals from player or team re: return.
The band was great in post-game . . . so there was that.
P.S. I'm not giving up on this team and the Final Four. UCLA is legit; and Stanford could have won the game with a little better play.
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. UCLA Friday 8pm - 81alum - 02-08-2020
(02-08-2020, 07:22 PM)teejers1 Wrote: P.S. I'm not giving up on this team and the Final Four. UCLA is legit; and Stanford could have won the game with a little better play.
I'm not giving up either, but our road just got harder, as did Tara's chance to get past Summit.
We want to avoid being seeded 4 going into the Pac 12 tournament, or else we meet Oregon in the semis instead of the finals. I think UCLA has a clear pathway to 2,now. So it is us, Oregon State, Arizona, and ASU who are vying to be 3rd rather than 4th. And we have the toughest remaining schedule among those contenders by far.
RE: WBB: UCLA 79 Stanford 69 - chimera - 02-08-2020
I waited to post because the game bothered me a lot. I thought the officiating let way, way too much go, to our detriment. We have some leaner players who get bounced around and beat up when teams are allowed to do that. I think that's why we missed so many shots, trying to hurry to escape contact that was not getting called. It's one thing to say be more aggressive and drive, but when they do that and either get blocked legitimately (which happened) or fouled with no call (which also happened too much), what's the alternative? This would have been a game for Carrington, who is bigger and stronger than any of our other guards to take it to them on the drive.
I also thought we never quite found the answer an offense or defense against them. On offense there was way too much dribbling and point go here or go there from whoever was the point guard (Williams, Wilson or Brown mostly) that ate up shot clock and helped cause some rushed and less than wonderful shot attempts. We never defended all that well, though give the Bruins credit - they made their shots and and ran their offense pretty well no matter what we tried. We let them get way too many put-backs, especially in the first half.
I agree with whoever said above the game was probably lost right after we went ahead late third quarter but then lost the momentum with turnovers and poor shot selection. When Williams got tired she forced things and her shots stopped falling. Since she was most of our offense, that killed all momentum. To the good, when she was on early, she was magnificent. I thought at the half if we got better at rebounding we would turn things around. We did get better at rebounding but it wasn't enough when the shots stopped falling and our defense couldn't stop them from getting the shots they wanted.
I don't see how we escape the rest of the conference schedule without two or three or even more (gulp) losses, not with the gauntlet to come. Healthy we may have been a F4 team. Now? Just don't have the horses, the depth, or the experience. A shame, but nothing to do but keep plugging away. This may pay off next year when all the freshman and sophs have all this experience under their belts, but then again, we got hurt with injuries last year (Fingall going out hurt a lot) and now this season, and we never know what will be next year regarding health.
I'm struggling to enjoy games lately, not due to anything the team is doing or not doing, but due to how the games are officiated. Every year it seems to get more physical to the point that players are pushed, grabbed, thrown to the floor, all kinds of stuff. It's a wonder more don't get badly hurt, like Poor Da Silva in the men's game today. We are not innocent, we do our share of physical stuff, but all teams do, they have to or they will get steamrolled, which is not how the game is supposed to be played. I sit there and watch and ask myself if I am enjoying watching and too often the answer is no, it is frustrating to watch and it doesn't look fun to play either. A lot of what looks like poor shooting is not being able to finish through contact, but making players finish through contact is not a great look for the game. Missed shots, turnovers, all that stuff, much of it is at least partially caused by players basically getting (wo)manhandled all game. The officials have a tough job. Their job would be much easier if they did not allow so much contact. If players are allowed to be very physical what do you finally call? Harder to sort that out than not letting it get that way to start. I'm not sure I am going tomorrow. The state of the world and our country has me in a permanent funk and I just don't know that I can take watching USC bang our players around, which they surely will do. Games are not so much of an escape lately, rather add more stress, which I am not up to deal with right now.
RE: WBB: UCLA 79 Stanford 69 - RuralFan - 02-09-2020
Chimera, thank you so much for your post. I couldn't agree more. WBB has some difficult decisions to make. Should it emphasize skill and finesse or power and aggression. It certainly seems headed for the later. As I watch Fingall limp up and down the court with her giant knee brace, I just can't think about another USC game. For me, USC personifies power and aggression and injury.
RE: WBB: UCLA 79 Stanford 69 - crackpot - 02-09-2020
Yesterday's MBB game made it even more clear that the women's game officiating has some soul-searching to do.
It's weird that in a decade or two, we've gone from not being able to blink at an opponent without getting a whistle, then paying for it once the NCAA tourney comes because in those games the officials allowed much more physicality. I wonder if the Pac-12's "let 'em get beat up" approach is their way of "preparing" teams for the NCAA tourney.
RE: WBB: UCLA 79 Stanford 69 - 81alum - 02-09-2020
Yes, the WBB conundrum is a very interesting social issue. The debate over the direction of WBB is in my view closely linked to a debate within feminism itself. Title IX (passed in 1972) came from that branch of feminism (generally called "liberal feminism") that emphasized legal equality and the ability of women to compete on an equal footing with men in every sphere.
But feminist theory in the 1980s began to evolve in an interesting way. As 2nd and 3rd wave feminism took root, an increasing number of theorists suggested that treating women equally does not mean treating women the same as men: it means giving equal value to the qualities that women have as we would give to the qualities that men have. Sometimes the theories differed over the biological or cultural origins of those differences, but they agreed that our society had been structured to value those qualities that seemed distinct to men and devalue those qualities that seemed distinct to women.
Needless to say, this view was highly controversial and much debated, and disturbed some advocates of earlier kinds of feminism, since it was feared that taking that view would perpetuate mythology about the abilities of women.
And that brings us to basketball. There are two schools of thought about WBB and they correspond very closely with the two branches of feminism.
1) Liberal feminism emphasized legal equality. By this view, women should play by the same rules as men, and they should generally complete with the same techniques, the same aggression, the same sized ball, the same three point shooting line, the same height rim, the same strategies, etc.
2) More recent feminism emphasizes valuing women qua women. By this view, WBB should not be the same as MBB. The ball can be smaller (it is), the rim can be lower (it is not, although Geno thinks it should be, and I think he is wrong about that,) the three point line can be closer (it is.) But perhaps more important are more subtle rules. Should fouls in the women's game be called differently than they are in the men's, to encourage a style of game that is more unique to women? This is the absolute essence of the debate.
I agree with Chimera's many posts on this--I would rather see the women's game develop into something quite different from the men's game, emphasizing passing, movement, strategy, even grace. This would mean calling the game much closer and thus rewarding skilled players over strong players, rewarding deception over brawn, making the game more of a team game of strategy and tactics and less of a game about individual achievement. The ideal is for assists to nearly equal made baskets--something close defenses absolutely prevent. And if called tightly, close defenses become non viable, scoring and passing go up, and the game becomes more exciting and fluid for spectators to watch.
I still think WBB will maximize its attendance and revenues not by imitating MBB but by offering a unique and beautiful product. Fans would go to MBB expecting to see a game of power and aggression, and to WBB expecting to see a game of movement and grace, and come away from each experience entertained, but in different ways.
But sometimes I think exactly the opposite is taking place. Women, on average, are not physically as fast, or as tall, or as quick as men, nor as massive as men. A close defense, involving pushing and shoving and hacking, is therefore MORE effective against women than it is against men. If referees call the women's game identically to the men's game it produces a different result--the women's game becomes MORE defensive, lower scoring, and generally uglier, unless you have those rare women who are truly gifted in playing through all the hacks and contact, like Carrington--the exceptions who prove the rule.
The women's game needs to be called tighter than the men's game, not looser. "Let 'em play" is a recipe for ugliness on the women's side.
Do you hear me, Missy Barlow?
RE: WBB: UCLA 79 Stanford 69 - qwerty49 - 02-09-2020
It was both literally and figuratively painful to watch #33 for UCLA, Miller, careening around out there like the proverbial bull in a china shop. She's going to hurt someone really badly playing like that. I don't think it's a case of just being clumsy either.
Back in the day, most teams in both the NBA and the NHL had "enforcers" whose primary assignment was to "discourage" players like that and protect their stars from getting mauled.
RE: WBB: UCLA 79 Stanford 69 - 81alum - 02-09-2020
(02-09-2020, 10:21 AM)qwerty49 Wrote: It was both literally and figuratively painful to watch #33 for UCLA, Miller, careening around out there like the proverbial bull in a china shop. She's going to hurt someone really badly playing like that. I don't think it's a case of just being clumsy either.As Bob noted, USC has 2 Miller-like players.
How much protective gear are women allowed to wear in a basketball game? Wouldn't it be interested if our entire squad showed up with masks, braces on both knees, and maybe some other accoutrements?
RE: WBB: UCLA 79 Stanford 69 - biketoc - 02-09-2020
Thanks to all the great posts about the game, but also about the state of WBB. As far as the game, yes there were so many foul calls not made. We sit behind the north basket and there were so many "no calls" both on shots and rebounds. (There were also many missed shots where there were no fouls committed). This was another poorly officiated game. Give credit to UCLA and Coach Close. They were prepared and didn't let up.
I think the women's game has improved so much over the last 5+ years. There were always a dozen or so good teams, but the ability of players and teams dropped off dramatically after that. Now, there are many more really good players and teams and the officiating has not kept pace. I also agree with the comment above about the game moving more towards the men's game; I don't like that trend either. I think the NBA is more of a mashup of WWE and basketball than true basketball. I don't like that so much of the game is above the rim and is all about who can push who around without getting called for a foul. I love that strategy plays such a big part of the women's game and that with the number of really good teams increasing, strategy has become so much more important. (how many of you thought we would see Tara employ a zone defense as often as she has?) It can be very frustrating to watch this awful officiating, but it is a joy to watch these young women develop from year to year and to also see a game that is much closer to the basketball that I grew up watching and playing.
A final note about Missy. What bothers me the most about her officiating is that she seems to feel the need to make calls for other officials. She often makes a call that she really doesn't have the angle on. Quite often the official that is in position and has the angle to see whether there is contact of not doesn't make a call and yet Missy blows the whistle.
RE: WBB: UCLA 79 Stanford 69 - crackpot - 02-09-2020
(02-09-2020, 11:17 AM)biketoc Wrote: A final note about Missy. What bothers me the most about her officiating is that she seems to feel the need to make calls for other officials. She often makes a call that she really doesn't have the angle on. Quite often the official that is in position and has the angle to see whether there is contact of not doesn't make a call and yet Missy blows the whistle.
Really good point. Missy came on my radar in '98 or '99 with one horrifically called game against Cal. I cannot recall *ever* seeing another official overrule her call, but she's done it plenty of times to others. Maybe she has in games I haven't watched, but...?
RE: WBB: UCLA 79 Stanford 69 - 81alum - 02-09-2020
(02-09-2020, 08:08 PM)crackpot Wrote:Does anyone remember exactly what Missy did to us in Boise, 2002, when we lost to Colorado in the sweet sixteen? I have heard stories about it but have forgotten the details. We lost 59-62. That year we were led by Lindsey Yamasaki and Nicole Powell. Many fans blamed Missy for prematurely ending our season.(02-09-2020, 11:17 AM)biketoc Wrote: A final note about Missy. What bothers me the most about her officiating is that she seems to feel the need to make calls for other officials. She often makes a call that she really doesn't have the angle on. Quite often the official that is in position and has the angle to see whether there is contact of not doesn't make a call and yet Missy blows the whistle.
Really good point. Missy came on my radar in '98 or '99 with one horrifically called game against Cal. I cannot recall *ever* seeing another official overrule her call, but she's done it plenty of times to others. Maybe she has in games I haven't watched, but...?
https://gostanford.com/news/2002/3/23/208077318.aspx