The CardBoard
WBB: Washington 87 Stanford 82 - 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: Washington 87 Stanford 82 (/thread-6718.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

Re: WBB: Washington 87 Stanford 82 - Jskass - 02-10-2014

the fallout is we fell from 3 to 6. We'll need a brobdingnagian bounceback and rest of the season along with some luck (others in front of us showing their imperfections) to get a #1 before end of the season. I think this is a real wake up call (though I thought the Wazu game should have been). Time to regroup, and further mix up the starting lineup towards aggressive play?

Re: WBB: Washington 87 Stanford 82 - BostonCard - 02-10-2014

(02-10-2014, 11:33 AM)Jskass link Wrote:the fallout is we fell from 3 to 6. We'll need a brobdingnagian bounceback and rest of the season along with some luck (others in front of us showing their imperfections) to get a #1 before end of the season. I think this is a real wake up call (though I thought the Wazu game should have been). Time to regroup, and further mix up the starting lineup towards aggressive play?

Most years, the difference between teams ranked 3, 4, 5, and 6 is not all that great.  The higher ranked teams may get some preferential consideration with regards to where they are sent, but being the lone top team from the West usually means our assignments are somewhat idiosyncratic; often we will get assigned close to home, even if we aren't a top seed, but when we are shipped out, it is far away.  The key is avoiding an elite eight match-up with UConn and maybe Notre Dame.  Beyond that, I wouldn't worry too much if we are a top seed or a two seed in our region.

BC

Re: WBB: Washington 87 Stanford 82 - chimera - 02-10-2014

We will not see UConn until the Final Four if we get there.  UConn is all but assured the top #1 seed, which with the geographic way the women's game seeds the tournament, they will get the regional nearest them.  We host a regional at Maples and are guaranteed to be in our own regional.  All the other top teams are eastern except Baylor and I don't think Baylor is in line for a #1.  If we are a #2 seed we will get the lowest #1 seed in our region, so no UConn and no ND unless something crazy happens to those teams between now and then.  Next season they go back to predetermined regional sites so this year is unique in that schools bid to host.  That hasn't happened in several years and won't happen again after this year.

Re: WBB: Washington 87 Stanford 82 - Roberton3 - 02-10-2014

(02-10-2014, 11:33 AM)Jskass link Wrote:the fallout is we fell from 3 to 6. We'll need a brobdingnagian bounceback and rest of the season along with some luck (others in front of us showing their imperfections) to get a #1 before end of the season.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.  The two computer rankings I've seen (Massey and Sagarin) still put us at #4, even with the second loss.  And ESPN's latest bracketology (updated today) still has us as a #1 seed.

Re: WBB: Washington 87 Stanford 82 - Jskass - 02-10-2014

and with tonight's loss by Duke, who knows? Either way, given that we host the regionals, we should be the determinants of our own destiny -- based upon how we play. Seems like just yesterday when we were pondering Lili's fearless play (vs. TN) -- let's hope being smacked around woke everyone up and made them ANGRY. I'll be there Friday and hope there's ENERGY.

Re: WBB: Washington 87 Stanford 82 - SusanC - 02-11-2014

How much of a factor was the quality, or lack-there-of, of the officiating?

Re: WBB: Washington 87 Stanford 82 - 81alum - 02-11-2014

(02-11-2014, 02:57 PM)SusanC link Wrote:How much of a factor was the quality, or lack-there-of, of the officiating?
That is hard to say.  I've certainly witnessed much worse officiating in games we have won.  And  Kelsey Plum fouled out--so the calls did not all go against us.

On the other hand, Washington did get 31 free throws to our 20, which is very suspicious given the constant hacking at Chiney.  Allowing that much contact helped them shut down the inside game which forced us to attempt so many three point shots.  On the other hand,  the poor officiating did not make us miss those shots! If we hit our usual percentage then we would not be talking about poor officiating.

Re: WBB: Washington 87 Stanford 82 - Jskass - 02-11-2014

I'd agree -- it was the usual (especially on the road) "let's let people take shots at Chiney and not notice" but we played half asleep until the last 2 minutes, with no sense of urgency or guard penetration. We need to bring our A game every time, not just the opponent.

Re: WBB: Washington 87 Stanford 82 - 81alum - 02-11-2014

The press conference is up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAMuCer4jnA&feature=youtu.be

Tara: 
Quote:"We didn't shoot the ball well, and I can live with that.  But we did not defend them worth a lick.  Very disappointing from my perspective."

Quote:"We weren't attacking the basket the way we needed to."



Re: WBB: Washington 87 Stanford 82 - BBGuru - 02-12-2014

(02-11-2014, 08:23 PM)81alum link Wrote:The press conference is up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAMuCer4jnA&feature=youtu.be

Tara: 
Quote:"We didn't shoot the ball well, and I can live with that.  But we did not defend them worth a lick.  Very disappointing from my perspective."

Quote:"We weren't attacking the basket the way we needed to."


My thoughts are:

"Overall we were out-played."---TVD.

I guess this is deemed to be primarily the players' loss.

I agree our guards needed to attack the basket much more aggressively but our shooters got a lot of good looks. They just missed. Also if the first option is to get the ball to Chiney and the second option is to kick it out to the set shooters, I wonder if they actually have the latitude to be spontaneous and decide the play has broken down and now it's time to attack. We also need more screens! They should be a natural part of the offense.

Again we seem to live and die by the 3 which theoretically seems sound since according to Stanford's Game Notes:

"Lili Thompson (43.9) leads the Pac-12 in 3-point field-goal percentage while Bonnie Samuelson (41.7) is third, and Karlie Samuelson (40. ) is fifth."

I guess it makes sense to rely on our great 3pt shooters but when the team is being well-guarded by aggressive defenders and those shots don't fall we need to have an already established alternate plan.

Re: WBB: Washington 87 Stanford 82 - 81alum - 02-12-2014

(02-12-2014, 09:04 AM)garvin link Wrote:The announcers said Sarah James was a late scrub from the lineup. Was she hurt or ill?
Sara was dressed and on the bench but kept her warm ups on the whole game.  I do not know why she was kept out of the game. 

My speculation is that given her proven defensive abilities, that she would have been inserted had she been physically able to perform.  That and the strange pattern of starting her but giving her extremely limited minutes convince me that there is something going on that we don't know about.  Tara is legendary for revealing little to nothing about her players' physical status.  (E.g., it was not until after Toni medically retired that we ultimately learned the whole story about her concussions.)


Re: WBB: Washington 87 Stanford 82 - 81alum - 02-12-2014

(02-12-2014, 09:04 AM)garvin link Wrote:I thought the perimeter defense was appalling -- a lot of Washington's shots, especially in the first half, were great looks by wide-open players.
In the press conference Tara remarked that "We couldn't leave anyone." That little comment is revealing.  Leaving an opposing player open is often necessary in a "scouting report defense."  Tara's teams shut down Maya Moore and Brittany Griner by pulling defenders away from other players to shut down the opposing stars.  Clearly the defense we employed against Washington was trying to identify which of the opposing players to concentrate on stopping and which to leave open.  Ideally, you leave open the worst shooting player and dare them to take the shot.

This strategy does not work when "unfeatured" players on the other team are capable of scoring effectively when the defense on them sags off.  That is exactly what happened at the three point line with Mercedes Wetmore.  We were focused on their star Jazmine Davis and did slow her down a little--she was 0/3 from three--but Wetmore we left wide open and she went 3/5 from three.  It looked incredibly embarrassing when she took her treys and was completely alone.

But Wetmore had taken only 34 three point shots all year, and while she was a respectable 38%, she certainly did not seem to be the threat that Davis and Plum presented--each of whom is making treys at about the same % but each of whom has taken 150+ shots.  So I can see why the scouting report said to put more focus on covering Plum and Davis even if it meant sagging off of Wetmore. 

But Wetmore obviously went into the game with the idea that she was going to take three point shots--she set up for catch-and-shoot treys every chance she could get.  She looked like Bonnie out there.  The Stanford gameplan seems to have played right into the Washington gameplan.  Wetmore probably had quite some time to psychological prepare herself to be a featured three point shooter in the Stanford game, and she came in and shot just as if it were practice.  In fact, given that her defender almost never was in her vicinity, it might as well have been practice.

Balanced scoring is the death of scouting report defenses, and every Washington starter scored at least 13 points.

Re: WBB: Washington 87 Stanford 82 - BBGuru - 02-12-2014

(02-12-2014, 10:45 AM)81alum link Wrote:[quote author=garvin link=topic=9533.msg83770#msg83770 date=1392221060]
I thought the perimeter defense was appalling -- a lot of Washington's shots, especially in the first half, were great looks by wide-open players.
In the press conference Tara remarked that "We couldn't leave anyone." That little comment is revealing.  Leaving an opposing player open is often necessary in a "scouting report defense."

This strategy does not work when "unfeatured" players on the other team are capable of scoring effectively when the defense on them sags off. 

Balanced scoring is the death of scouting report defenses, and every Washington starter scored at least 13 points.
[/quote]

Your entire post is spot-on. Scouting report defense works great for most teams. But what happens when you face a coach who scouts your scouting report defense and has an answer for your every move?

Our players looked lost when the plan didn't work and people who weren't supposed to score, scored. Over and over. That's why we have to be able to adjust our strategy to the game at hand, regardless of what we watched on scouting reports.

We sagged off Moriah Jefferson at UConn and that worked at the time, but she can now hit the three so it won't work if we meet them again.

Re: WBB: Washington 87 Stanford 82 - 76lsjumb - 02-12-2014

(02-12-2014, 11:47 AM)BBGuru link Wrote:[quote author=81alum link=topic=9533.msg83775#msg83775 date=1392227122]
[quote author=garvin link=topic=9533.msg83770#msg83770 date=1392221060]
I thought the perimeter defense was appalling -- a lot of Washington's shots, especially in the first half, were great looks by wide-open players.
In the press conference Tara remarked that "We couldn't leave anyone." That little comment is revealing.  Leaving an opposing player open is often necessary in a "scouting report defense."

This strategy does not work when "unfeatured" players on the other team are capable of scoring effectively when the defense on them sags off. 

Balanced scoring is the death of scouting report defenses, and every Washington starter scored at least 13 points.
[/quote]

Your entire post is spot-on. Scouting report defense works great for most teams. But what happens when you face a coach who scouts your scouting report defense and has an answer for your every move?

Our players looked lost when the plan didn't work and people who weren't supposed to score, scored. Over and over. That's why we have to be able to adjust our strategy to the game at hand, regardless of what we watched on scouting reports.

We sagged off Moriah Jefferson at UConn and that worked at the time, but she can now hit the three so it won't work if we meet them again.
[/quote]

Interesting.  These posts [with which I tend to agree] seem to suggest a slightly different take, perhaps, than "...we were outplayed."  Maybe more like: "...we were outcoached."?  At least, in a different universe -- that is, the men's b'ball team universe of the past few seasons -- I'm pretty sure the consensus would have been that we were outcoached.

Regarding Sara James, I had to run an errand in the middle of the game and switched on KZSU for a few minutes, during which time I thought the announcer made a comment about Sara's minutes being limited due to persistent issues from some medical procedures with respect to her legs last season.  Disclaimer:  I may have misheard, and/or the KZSU person may have misspoke, so this may be entirely wrong.

Regarding defensive intensity, a few home games back -- but I can't specifically recall which one -- Alex Green got some minutes during which I thought she played some of the quickest, most aggressive defense I've seen from any of our guards all season.  I kept wondering on Sunday why she didn't get any time until the very end [and then just for foul duty].

Re: WBB: Washington 87 Stanford 82 - 81alum - 02-12-2014

(02-12-2014, 01:01 PM)76lsjumb link Wrote:Regarding Sara James, I had to run an errand in the middle of the game and switched on KZSU for a few minutes, during which time I thought the announcer made a comment about Sara's minutes being limited due to persistent issues from some medical procedures with respect to her legs last season.  Disclaimer:  I may have misheard, and/or the KZSU person may have misspoke, so this may be entirely wrong.
I had heard something very similar to this but did not know it was public, but if the radio announcers are talking about it I guess it is.  I think Sara may even have had some knee surgery in the off season, but I am not really sure. 

After Toni stopped playing, Tara openly talked about using Sara as our most effective perimeter defender--and there was a build-up in the press before the Michigan game in the NCAAs.  Sara shut down Kate Thompson, one of the nation's best three point shooters, who went 0-6 in that game.  Never had Sara's prospects seemed so bright. 

I think we did not notice how limited Sara had become this year because we all thought it was mainly because Lili was playing so very well.  But this weekend, when Lili was initially ill and then not as effective as usual, it was obvious that something was wrong with Sara or she would have played more.

Like others, I am confused about why Alex has not played more.  For that matter, I am also curious about the disappearance of Jasmine over the last two years after she played so well against UConn her frosh year.  And Roberson looked very effective on defense the couple of times we have seen her--but that might have been against weak opposition.

If this were earlier in the season I am sure we would see some more time from other guards--but this is not the time in the season when Tara usually changes her rotation.  It will be an interesting call for our Hall of Fame coach to make as we we try to recover from this poor outing.

Re: WBB: Washington 87 Stanford 82 - CompSci87 - 02-12-2014

About scouting report defense: that phrase certainly doesn't mean "find the worst shooter and sag off of her." Sagging off in that way is just one technique that the defense *might* use, and is called for only if the scouting report says there is a poor shooter. Stanford has used the sag-off technique a lot recently because there are so many teams with one or more poor shooters on the perimeter, but they don't always do it.

Generally, scouting report defense means that the coaches scout each team, find out what each opposing player does well and poorly, find out what plays they like to run, etc., and tailor the defense each game to match. I.e., try to get a catch-and-shoot 3-point shooter to drive or shoot off the dribble, try to deny the ball to a strong post, recognize what play is starting to be run and be in the way so that the first option or two won't work, etc.

Was the scouting report or the resulting defensive plan wrong on Washington? For instance, was Wetmore left open on purpose? Should we have being zoning and/or pressing, or just mixing it up, right from the start? I don't claim to know.

Re: WBB: Washington 87 Stanford 82 - 81alum - 02-12-2014

(02-12-2014, 04:20 PM)CompSci87 link Wrote:About scouting report defense: that phrase certainly doesn't mean "find the worst shooter and sag off of her." Sagging off in that way is just one technique that the defense *might* use, and is called for only if the scouting report says there is a poor shooter. Stanford has used the sag-off technique a lot recently because there are so many teams with one or more poor shooters on the perimeter, but they don't always do it.

Generally, scouting report defense means that the coaches scout each team, find out what each opposing player does well and poorly, find out what plays they like to run, etc., and tailor the defense each game to match. I.e., try to get a catch-and-shoot 3-point shooter to drive or shoot off the dribble, try to deny the ball to a strong post, recognize what play is starting to be run and be in the way so that the first option or two won't work, etc.

Was the scouting report or the resulting defensive plan wrong on Washington? For instance, was Wetmore left open on purpose? Should we have being zoning and/or pressing, or just mixing it up, right from the start? I don't claim to know.
True enough.  I was making the assumption that Wetmore was left open on purpose.  Because the alternative is an even gloomier thought.  She was SO wide open so often...with no adjustments to cover her...it is hard to believe we would be that incompetent.

Re: WBB: Washington 87 Stanford 82 - pauloalto - 02-12-2014

Sara had  compartment syndrome surgery on one or both calf muscles.

Re: WBB: Washington 87 Stanford 82 - M T - 02-12-2014

Lest anyone worry that we're reporting medical info that should be left private, Sara tweeted about her surgery 10 months ago.
    http://instagram.com/p/YTVoAaQLZE/#
She mentions it in another post I found by Googling her.  What we don't know is whether she's having more problems related to this.  I would guess the pattern of limited playing time fits what would be done if that was recommended by a doctor.

She's often been (affectionately) described as a gym rat.  While I hope she is only having temporary issues and can contribute more to the team in the near future, I more hope that this doesn't disrupt her active, physical lifestyle over the long term.

This was a condition that I hadn't heard about previously, but I see a number of reports of the same condition for a number of other athletes.




Re: WBB: Washington 87 Stanford 82 - BBGuru - 02-12-2014

Lots of good info and insight here.

I knew about the compartment surgery but I thought Tara announced everyone was finally healthy and available to play a bit ago. Perhaps she's had a setback and if so I wish her a speedy recovery. Still, I'm sure there are even more details that we don't know about that go into all the decisions that get made. We can only speculate but often it makes for good discussion, especially when independent thinking and varied perspectives are encouraged and respected.