WBB: Stanford 79 Albany 35 - Printable Version

WBB: Stanford 79 Albany 35 - 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 79 Albany 35 (/thread-24618.html)

Pages: 1 2

RE: WBB: Stanford 79 Albany 35 - Softball Fan - 11-26-2023

https://twitter.com/espnW/status/1728910053367783842

RE: WBB: Stanford 79 Albany 35 - TonyLima - 11-26-2023

(11-26-2023, 04:55 PM)BobK Wrote: Ah the Dude knows all. Thanks

The Dude abides.

RE: WBB: Stanford 79 Albany 35 - OCcardinal - 11-26-2023

Despite the slow game pace, Brink's efficiency score of 41 today was the 2nd best of her entire Stanford career. She got a 42 vs Arizona in her sophomore season, but she played almost 7 more minutes in that game than she did today. Her average efficiency is way up this season (from 18.9 her sophomore season, to 21.9 last season to 30.7 so far this year). Remarkably, she's done that without cracking 30 minutes in any game so far (not even the overtime game vs Duke) and only playing 16 minutes in both the Cal Poly and Hawaii games.

RE: WBB: Stanford 79 Albany 35 - SkiBum80 - 11-26-2023

TonyLima dateline='[url=tel:1701052947' Wrote: 1701052947[/url]']

BobK dateline='[url=tel:1701042912' Wrote: 1701042912[/url]']
Ah the Dude knows all. Thanks

The Dude abides.

Lol

RE: WBB: Stanford 79 Albany 35 - TonyLima - 11-26-2023

G

(11-26-2023, 08:59 PM)SkiBum80 Wrote:
TonyLima dateline='[url=tel:1701052947' Wrote: 1701052947[/url]']

BobK dateline='[url=tel:1701042912' Wrote: 1701042912[/url]']
Ah the Dude knows all. Thanks

The Dude abides.
Lol

About time.

RE: WBB: Stanford 79 Albany 35 - 81alum - 11-26-2023

The Presser:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5xyVmPu9YU&t=1s

RE: WBB: Stanford 79 Albany 35 - M T - 11-26-2023

Brink's FT% for the game was 90%, dragging her down to 95.9% for the season.

The announcers asserted it was a great defensive effort in the 2nd half. Good, certainly. I only recall one shot clock expiration. Albany was getting shots away, maybe not the best. They were 4 of 26 in the 2nd half (3 at the start, 1 at the end). I will say Albany got fewer FT in the 2nd half than I would expect.

For those that don't notice the refs, we had both Kevin and Missy today. I'm glad it was in a game we were expected to win easily.
First, a couple of compliments. My current eyeglasses broke, so I'm wearing a slightly older pair with not quite the right prescription. At the start of the game, from the upper seats, I thought that looked like Missy. Same hair, and shoulders and movements, but she's more in basketball shape that in the previous few years, enough so I couldn't be sure it was her. Good for her And I appreciated Kevin giving high fives to the kids & the band as they exited the floor after the conga.

Q2 4:25. Missy, that defender was moving several feet when you called that charge on Agara.

Q2 3:35. Kevin, what about Appendix II, Rule 2, when you called the foul on Bosgana

Quote:A foul shall be ruled when: 5. The screener sets a screen outside the visual field of a stationary defender (“blind” screen) that doesn’t allow the defender a normal step to move.

Q3 5:54. M T, read the rules. I thought the charge should have been a block because the defender was in the painted restricted area. The rules have changed this year. The painted circle near the basket no longer applies. A defender is in the (new) restricted area only if any part of her is under the basket.

RE: WBB: Stanford 79 Albany 35 - 81alum - 11-26-2023

Highlights:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Sdc7fFOz24&t=3s

(11-26-2023, 10:16 PM)M T Wrote: .
Q3 5:54. M T, read the rules. I thought the charge should have been a block because the defender was in the painted restricted area. The rules have changed this year. The painted circle near the basket no longer applies. A defender is in the (new) restricted area only if any part of her is under the basket.

So, shouldn't they take that arc off the court, then? It is confusing having it there when it has no function. And in its place they should probably put a big black dot the size of the basket immediately under it, no?

RE: WBB: Stanford 79 Albany 35 - WBB fan - 11-26-2023

(11-26-2023, 10:16 PM)M T Wrote: Brink's FT% for the game was 90%, dragging her down to 95.9% for the season.

The announcers asserted it was a great defensive effort in the 2nd half. Good, certainly. I only recall one shot clock expiration. Albany was getting shots away, maybe not the best. They were 4 of 26 in the 2nd half (3 at the start, 1 at the end). I will say Albany got fewer FT in the 2nd half than I would expect.

For those that don't notice the refs, we had both Kevin and Missy today. I'm glad it was in a game we were expected to win easily.
First, a couple of compliments. My current eyeglasses broke, so I'm wearing a slightly older pair with not quite the right prescription. At the start of the game, from the upper seats, I thought that looked like Missy. Same hair, and shoulders and movements, but she's more in basketball shape that in the previous few years, enough so I couldn't be sure it was her. Good for her And I appreciated Kevin giving high fives to the kids & the band as they exited the floor after the conga.

Q2 4:25. Missy, that defender was moving several feet when you called that charge on Agara.

Q2 3:35. Kevin, what about Appendix II, Rule 2, when you called the foul on Bosgana

Quote:A foul shall be ruled when: 5. The screener sets a screen outside the visual field of a stationary defender (“blind” screen) that doesn’t allow the defender a normal step to move.

Q3 5:54. M T, read the rules. I thought the charge should have been a block because the defender was in the painted restricted area. The rules have changed this year. The painted circle near the basket no longer applies. A defender is in the (new) restricted area only if any part of her is under the basket.

I had the same reaction on first seeing Missy. Thot it was her, but not sure, no, yes?? She really looks so much fitter, also much younger. But will it make her a better red? At any rate, good for her

RE: WBB: Stanford 79 Albany 35 - CompSci87 - 11-27-2023

(11-26-2023, 10:18 PM)81alum Wrote:
(11-26-2023, 10:16 PM)M T Wrote: .
Q3 5:54. M T, read the rules. I thought the charge should have been a block because the defender was in the painted restricted area. The rules have changed this year. The painted circle near the basket no longer applies. A defender is in the (new) restricted area only if any part of her is under the basket.
So, shouldn't they take that arc off the court, then? It is confusing having it there when it has no function. And in its place they should probably put a big black dot the size of the basket immediately under it, no?

I think MBB didn't change this rule, so the painted arc is still needed for the men.

RE: WBB: Stanford 79 Albany 35 - CompSci87 - 11-27-2023

(11-26-2023, 11:10 PM)WBB fan Wrote:
(11-26-2023, 10:16 PM)M T Wrote: For those that don't notice the refs, we had both Kevin and Missy today. I'm glad it was in a game we were expected to win easily.
First, a couple of compliments. My current eyeglasses broke, so I'm wearing a slightly older pair with not quite the right prescription. At the start of the game, from the upper seats, I thought that looked like Missy. Same hair, and shoulders and movements, but she's more in basketball shape that in the previous few years, enough so I couldn't be sure it was her. Good for her And I appreciated Kevin giving high fives to the kids & the band as they exited the floor after the conga.

Q2 4:25. Missy, that defender was moving several feet when you called that charge on Agara.

Q2 3:35. Kevin, what about Appendix II, Rule 2, when you called the foul on Bosgana

Quote:A foul shall be ruled when: 5. The screener sets a screen outside the visual field of a stationary defender (“blind” screen) that doesn’t allow the defender a normal step to move.

Q3 5:54. M T, read the rules. I thought the charge should have been a block because the defender was in the painted restricted area. The rules have changed this year. The painted circle near the basket no longer applies. A defender is in the (new) restricted area only if any part of her is under the basket.

I had the same reaction on first seeing Missy. Thot it was her, but not sure, no, yes?? She really looks so much fitter, also much younger. But will it make her a better ref? At any rate, good for her

The box score says "Officials: Melissa Barlow, Kyle Bacon, Stacie Blow" -- so it's her. She does look slimmer!

On another topic, "Blow" seems like an unfortunate name for a ref. To Blow a call isn't a good thing. :-)

RE: WBB: Stanford 79 Albany 35 - BobK - 11-27-2023

Thanks for the rule change. I yelled at Missy From my couch

RE: WBB: Stanford 79 Albany 35 - martyup - 11-27-2023

I sure hope we see very little this season of Bacon, Barlow, and Blow.

RE: WBB: Stanford 79 Albany 35 - JohnR34231 - 11-27-2023

(11-27-2023, 08:32 AM)martyup Wrote: I sure hope we see very little this season of Bacon, Barlow, and Blow.

Which law firm was that?

Let's just hope we don't see them in a game where they affect the outcome to our detriment.

RE: WBB: Stanford 79 Albany 35 - M T - 11-27-2023

(11-27-2023, 12:22 AM)CompSci87 Wrote: The box score says "Officials: Melissa Barlow, Kyle Bacon, Stacie Blow" -- so it's her. She does look slimmer!

Ooops. Thanks for the correction("Kyle").

RE: WBB: Stanford 79 Albany 35 - acerep - 11-27-2023

I just posted my report on the Albany game and the two in Nevada under Richter Reports on the Fast Break Club site, www.stanfordfbc.org. Since I just sent it in, the teaser hasn't been updated from the Duke game, but if you click on it, you'll see the new report.