WBB: Stanford 55 Arizona State 44 - 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 55 Arizona State 44 (/thread-19029.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 55 Arizona State 44 (/thread-19029.html)
RE: WBB: Stanford 55 Arizona State 44 - 76lsjumb - 03-01-2020
(03-01-2020, 02:33 PM)81alum Wrote: As for the ending of the game, I would not be too down on the team for the 4th quarter run on us. Once we were up by 22 I am sure that Tara told the team to run the clock down on every possession. When you have 10 seconds in the half court to execute, you are not going to be as successful as if you take the first good open shot in your possession. Several of those turnovers came on desperation passes at the end of the shot clock. But so long as we were taking 25 seconds off the clock for every 2 points we gave up we were gong to win. Would it have been better if we had executed our offense more successfully? Of course. But we did what the coaches wanted us to do the most--win the game by draining the clock. We did not actually need any more points to do that so long as we made every possession a long one.
Thank you for explaining so clearly why UConn has won so many national championships in the last 25 years and we haven't won any. I hope that changes with this group of players [and recruits].
RE: WBB: Stanford 55 Arizona State 44 - 81alum - 03-01-2020
(03-01-2020, 02:46 PM)76lsjumb Wrote:I think UConn has won more championships over those years because they usually had better teams than we did--not because Tara made errors in strategy. Geno also likes to run up the score on opponents in a way that Tara never has--not that that was a factor in today's game. If we had played very well we would have consumed clock AND scored. But we could have done worse--neither consumed clock nor scored, which was the only way to blow a 22 point 4th quarter lead. Tara was just being very conservative in the 4th to guarantee a win after our recent two losses.(03-01-2020, 02:33 PM)81alum Wrote: As for the ending of the game, I would not be too down on the team for the 4th quarter run on us. Once we were up by 22 I am sure that Tara told the team to run the clock down on every possession. When you have 10 seconds in the half court to execute, you are not going to be as successful as if you take the first good open shot in your possession. Several of those turnovers came on desperation passes at the end of the shot clock. But so long as we were taking 25 seconds off the clock for every 2 points we gave up we were gong to win. Would it have been better if we had executed our offense more successfully? Of course. But we did what the coaches wanted us to do the most--win the game by draining the clock. We did not actually need any more points to do that so long as we made every possession a long one.
Thank you for explaining so clearly why UConn has won so many national championships in the last 25 years and we haven't won any. I hope that changes with this group of players [and recruits].
And yes, I think the future looks bright. I'm not sure really who we are losing next year other than Fingall, but the entering class promises to help us right away, as this year's freshmen have. And with Haley returning and who knows....maybe Wilson and maybe Carrington...next year's team could be the most talented overall in a decade or longer.
By the way, UCLA is pasting Utah, so it is looking increasingly like we will play the Oregon State/WSU winner in the quarterfinals on Friday.
RE: WBB: Stanford 55 Arizona State 44 - TheFarm07 - 03-01-2020
(03-01-2020, 03:02 PM)81alum Wrote:(03-01-2020, 02:46 PM)76lsjumb Wrote:I think UConn has won more championships over those years because they usually had better teams than we did--not because Tara made errors in strategy. Geno also likes to run up the score on opponents in a way that Tara never has--not that that was a factor in today's game. If we had played very well we would have consumed clock AND scored. But we could have done worse--neither consumed clock nor scored, which was the only way to blow a 22 point 4th quarter lead. Tara was just being very conservative in the 4th to guarantee a win after our recent two losses.(03-01-2020, 02:33 PM)81alum Wrote: As for the ending of the game, I would not be too down on the team for the 4th quarter run on us. Once we were up by 22 I am sure that Tara told the team to run the clock down on every possession. When you have 10 seconds in the half court to execute, you are not going to be as successful as if you take the first good open shot in your possession. Several of those turnovers came on desperation passes at the end of the shot clock. But so long as we were taking 25 seconds off the clock for every 2 points we gave up we were gong to win. Would it have been better if we had executed our offense more successfully? Of course. But we did what the coaches wanted us to do the most--win the game by draining the clock. We did not actually need any more points to do that so long as we made every possession a long one.
Thank you for explaining so clearly why UConn has won so many national championships in the last 25 years and we haven't won any. I hope that changes with this group of players [and recruits].
And yes, I think the future looks bright. I'm not sure really who we are losing next year other than Fingall, but the entering class promises to help us right away, as this year's freshmen have. And with Haley returning and who knows....maybe Wilson and maybe Carrington...next year's team could be the most talented overall in a decade or longer.
To each their own I guess, but a) I don't think being very conservative was unique to this game, it is a frequent occurrence to burn clock rather than try to put opponents away, b) I disagree with people's opposition to running up the score, if one is so worried about it, with a big lead, I rather have our B-team run our offense normally rather than our A-team go through the motions, if a team can't stop our B-team from scoring, then that is their problem, not ours; and c) it wouldn't be such a problem if we didn't struggle with these types of offenses, yes, use clock, but our execution is so bad and predictable that it's either Kiana attempting the shot or someone else throwing up a desperation shot or getting called for a travel or charge, surely we can execute or find other plays to use
(03-01-2020, 02:37 PM)oldalum Wrote:(03-01-2020, 02:08 PM)StanFanFam13 Wrote: I still love the days when we won our Pac-12 games by 20I (for one?), didn't. I agree with someone (I don't know who) who said something along the lines of, athletic competition is only meaningful if there is an appreciable risk of losing. Back in those good ole days of conference domination, we did not have a significant risk of loss for most of our conference games. No thrill in attending for me (and I didn't). Now, almost every game's worth watching!
I'll have to disagree. I enjoyed the domination we have, when it was a question of how much we would win by, rather than if we won. It was a joy watching our team run roughshed over the competition.
Yes, the competition has gotten better and a lot of programs have drastically improved, notably the Oregon schools, but we also dropped a level as well. I think our teams of the late '00s and early teens with Appel, Pohlen, Pedersen and the Ogwumike sisters would have a tougher time than they did when they played, but also would not be blown out by Oregon or lose the Arizona game like we did.
Those teams during that period was missing a mobile, scoring guard. Imagine if Kiana and DiJonai played on those teams. Kiana already scores plenty nowadays, just think about her playing the #1 on that '10-'11 squad with Pohlen, Pedersen and the Ogwumikes. She would have been the 3rd or 4th scoring option on that team and would have an absolute terror for opposing teams to defend when they already had to worry about everyone else.
Baez87 - Baez87 - 03-01-2020
(03-01-2020, 02:06 PM)TheFarm07 Wrote:South Carolina's three freshmen starters were ranked #1 and #2 at their position, and they joined two highly ranked upperclasswomen. They are loaded with top-tier talent.(03-01-2020, 01:58 PM)2006alum Wrote:(03-01-2020, 01:54 PM)TheFarm07 Wrote: I am still troubled by this team.If you're troubled by this team, I recommend you become a Duck, Gamecock, or (Baylor) Bear. Literally every other WCBB team this season has had lapses, bad nights, and shoddy stretches. And even those three teams have all suffered at least one L this season.
What's something else those three teams have in common? They are the heavy favorites for the national title. And you know why they are the heavy favorites? Because they limit their inconsistency, bone-headed plays and have the ability to put away opponents. We all want the team to win the national title, but it's not going to happen unless they fix these mistakes that are under our control.
For example, we often use youth as an excuse or explaining factor on mistakes or why the team is not performing as well as it should. South Carolina just completed conference play undefeated, beating quality teams like Kentucky, Tennessee and Mississippi State, with THREE freshmen starting. It appears that youth hasn't stopped them from having an excellent season and being a national title favorite (and probable #1 overall seed in the tournament)
Yes, we have had more than our fair share of injuries that has put us at a disadvantage. But that shouldn't explain away why we make bad passes or let teams come back from second half deficits or rely so much on Kiana on offense, especially when we are trying to burn clock.
RE: WBB: Stanford 55 Arizona State 44 - 81alum - 03-01-2020
(03-01-2020, 03:09 PM)TheFarm07 Wrote: Those teams during that period was missing a mobile, scoring guard. Imagine if Kiana and DiJonai played on those teams. Kiana already scores plenty nowadays, just think about her playing the #1 on that '10-'11 squad with Pohlen, Pedersen and the Ogwumikes. She would have been the 3rd or 4th scoring option on that team and would have an absolute terror for opposing teams to defend when they already had to worry about everyone else.Agreed. Put Kianna on the 10-11 team that lost to A&M in the semis and we win that year's national championship. Several of the other teams she might have made the difference--but that year it was obvious we needed a skilled ball handler that could also score. Heck, put a mature Amber Orrange on that team and it would have made the difference too. Jeanette couldn't do it by herself, and Toni Kokenis and Sara James were freshmen, and Mel Murphy almost pulled it off for us. But put Williams or even Amber Orrange on that team and it would have been unstoppable.
Isn't counterfactual history fun!
RE: WBB: Stanford 55 Arizona State 44 - M T - 03-01-2020
Congrats to the team for a regular season that was good, in spite of so much adversity. There's a lot more that the team can do this year and I wish them luck.
I see more teams staying back on their missed shots for rebounding and pressing/harassing. If Tara could find a way to burn teams for that, it could really help. Stanford might not actually get the chance to burn them, but opponents are using those tactics to their advantage (and it DOES hurt Stanford) and it would be good if they had to give up that tactic.
I watched the last 5 minutes of Cal-Arizona. It probably hurt us that Arizona lost. I thought the refs (Missy et al) blew almost all the calls in that last few minutes. Amazing...
Speaking of bad calls, the shot-clock violation vs foul review: HUH??? A foul (defender grabbing Maya's bicep) is clearly committed with the shot clock at 1. Once it got to 0, there was no foul, so she couldn't decide that she called a foul after the clock expired. So did the ref decide there was no foul (she is not allowed to do that or to call any other foul she sees), or did she decide she was too slow to call the foul, or did she listen to the boos and so intentionally ignored the foul she called?
Also, have they changed the rules about travel when the player is on the ground with the ball. I've seen a lot of non-calls of travel when I thought it should be a travel.
RE: WBB: Stanford 55 Arizona State 44 - 81alum - 03-01-2020
By the way, in the radio interview with Kevin Danna before the game Tara said, when discussing the grad transfers of Minyon Moore and Ja'Tavia Tapley, that "I am not a fan of that. I think players should be loyal to their team." As she said that I wondered what she thought of Lili Thompson, Marta Sniezek. I also hope there is no trouble brewing with Carrington. Carrington's brother transferred so the family has the experience in knowing how it is done.
Here is a question I have wondered about. Let's say a player has a legitimate injury and has to miss a significant part of the season--so much that they would prefer to scratch the whole season and save a year of eligibility. But let's say that injury is actually healed in plenty of time for them to come back and play the latter part of the season, and they are medically cleared to play. Can they just sit out anyway and save the eligibility, or does the NCAA take account that they were medically cleared and could have played?
I can see all kinds of conflict between a coach and a player, with the coach wanting the player to play once the player is medically cleared, but the player wanting to save a year of eligibility rather than "wasting" a partial year. Perhaps Dodson considered that choice and opted to play this year. Perhaps Carrington considered that choice and opted not to. But nothing but speculation on my part. As fans, it would be nice to know who is coming back.
RE: WBB: Stanford 55 Arizona State 44 - M T - 03-01-2020
(03-01-2020, 03:09 PM)TheFarm07 Wrote: I rather have our B-team run our offense normally rather than our A-team go through the motions, if a team can't stop our B-team from scoring, then that is their problem, not ours;
I enjoyed the domination we have, when it was a question of how much we would win by, rather than if we won. It was a joy watching our team run roughshed over the competition.
As for today's game, I think Tara had too much respect for ASU to risk putting in significant subs, and the game was too important (face Oregon one game earlier, which likely would impact NCAA seeding).
However, although we slowed things down, the loss of so much of the lead wasn't turtling -- it was turnovers.
As for days gone by, I appreciated that we did so well that we got the best players. They were fun to watch.
(03-01-2020, 03:47 PM)81alum Wrote: By the way, in the radio interview with Kevin Danna before the game Tara said, when discussing the grad transfers of Minyon Moore and Ja'Tavia Tapley, that "I am not a fan of that. I think players should be loyal to their team."
One could imagine teams (any sport!) specializing in cherry picking grad transfers to add to their teams. Sure saves on scholarships! You get to see if a player has developed over (& not been injured) her first 3 years without having to place an early bet. As I understand it, a coach could tell a under-performing junior scholarship player that her scholarship was going to be pulled to make room for a grad transfer.
To put it another way, I think players and coaches should be loyal to each other.
To counter a player eventually transferring, a coach might make sure that her players play enough each year to burn that year of eligibility.
As we all know, Stanford WVB benefited greatly from an All-American grad transfer this past year. I have a lot of respect for her because the team did not know that she might come until she was already accepted, AND it apparently didn't matter to her that there was no scholarship for her. Even so, it seemed like a case of the rich getting richer.
RE: WBB: Stanford 55 Arizona State 44 - 2006alum - 03-01-2020
81, thanks for the interesting observations re: Tara and grad transfers. Your post reminded me to mention that a recent episode of the PAC-12 Women's Basketball podcast had a great interview with Kiana Williams about those last 10 seconds vs. Colorado. Worth checking out for that reason alone.
Also on that episode, Ashley Adamson and Mary Murphy discussed the Moore and Tapley grad transfers, and both Moore and Tapley said they asked for, and received, Mark Trakh's blessing before seeking to grad transfer. They both said he'd been nothing but encouraging for them to pursue the best opportunities for themselves for their final season of eligibility. Adamson and Murphy went out of their way to say how gracious Trakh was and how eager both Moore and Tapley were to see him when they returned to Galen for their games this season. One other mitigating factor in both cases is that Trakh did not recruit either Moore or Tapley, so I do think less loyalty is owed if the coach who recruited you left after your freshman season. Also, Moore mentioned in an interview about her grad transfer decision that she had almost no D1 interest out of HS because she'd had two significant injuries that limited playing time. She felt the grad transfer to Oregon gave her the opportunity "to play for a ring" that she'd hoped for out of high school.
Maybe I'm laissez-faire, but in both cases I think it worked out, and now U$C is forming a really terrific foundation for the future. If Trakh, Moore, and Tapley are all happy, who am I to second-guess?
(Worth noting is that another difference between our Stanford grad transfers and Moore and Tapley is that they both graduated in three years. That is different from both Lili (who sat out her senior year) and Marta (who had a medical RS her senior year with no open scholarships to return for a 5th year). I can definitely see Tara being honked if one of our rising seniors up and left for greener pastures. OTOH, it's probably harder to graduate from Stanford in 3 years than U$C, and why would you want to?)
RE: WBB: Stanford 55 Arizona State 44 - 81alum - 03-01-2020
(03-01-2020, 04:41 PM)2006alum Wrote: OTOH, it's probably harder to graduate from Stanford in 3 years than U$C, and why would you want to?)At one point it would have been. But Stanford is now allowing up to 45 units of AP credit. When I was an undergrad, AP could be used for prereqs but was sharply limited for units. But now it is possible to have a year's worth of Stanford satisfied with AP courses.
And athletes often wind up taking a lot of summer courses.
I agree that it would be foolish to think that the AP experience was anything close to the Stanford experience. But it is certainly possible to do it in three for someone in a rush.
RE: WBB: Stanford 55 Arizona State 44 - BobK - 03-01-2020
To be clear Stanford does t allow the pulling of scholarships. Also the PAc 12 says 4 years if a full scholarship
RE: WBB: Stanford 55 Arizona State 44 - qwerty49 - 03-01-2020
(03-01-2020, 05:02 PM)81alum Wrote:(03-01-2020, 04:41 PM)2006alum Wrote: OTOH, it's probably harder to graduate from Stanford in 3 years than U$C, and why would you want to?)At one point it would have been. But Stanford is now allowing up to 45 units of AP credit. When I was an undergrad, AP could be used for prereqs but was sharply limited for units. But now it is possible to have a year's worth of Stanford satisfied with AP courses.
And athletes often wind up taking a lot of summer courses.
I agree that it would be foolish to think that the AP experience was anything close to the Stanford experience. But it is certainly possible to do it in three for someone in a rush.
Wow, that is a big deal. Back in the Jurassic Age, I seem to remember I had 14 or 15 AP "credits" that didn't count toward units. Could have saved a whole quarter's tuition had they been allowed to count.
RE: WBB: Stanford 55 Arizona State 44 - WBB fan - 03-01-2020
(03-01-2020, 06:47 PM)qwerty49 Wrote:(03-01-2020, 05:02 PM)81alum Wrote:(03-01-2020, 04:41 PM)2006alum Wrote: OTOH, it's probably harder to graduate from Stanford in 3 years than U$C, and why would you want to?)At one point it would have been. But Stanford is now allowing up to 45 units of AP credit. When I was an undergrad, AP could be used for prereqs but was sharply limited for units. But now it is possible to have a year's worth of Stanford satisfied with AP courses.
And athletes often wind up taking a lot of summer courses.
I agree that it would be foolish to think that the AP experience was anything close to the Stanford experience. But it is certainly possible to do it in three for someone in a rush.
Wow, that is a big deal. Back in the Jurassic Age, I seem to remember I had 14 or 15 AP "credits" that didn't count toward units. Could have saved a whole quarter's tuition had they been allowed to count.
I was probably even farther back in the Jurassic Age than you were -- and went to another school, 3000 miles away. All my AP credits did for me was get me out of Freshman English. No credit at all.
RE: WBB: Stanford 55 Arizona State 44 - Goose - 03-01-2020
However, back in the Jurassic era one could take as many units as desired per quarter with no increase in tuition. If one scheduled carefully to make sure that all required classes could be taken, it was eminently possible, if painful, to finish in 9 quarters. You only needed to average 20 units a quarter to get 180. Unfortunately, in the Jurassic era, you actually had to take more than 180 units in some majors, so it was a bit more difficult. For sure, no Overseas Campus in that schedule. Also, finals week test time conflicts sometimes had to be worked out with the professors.
RE: WBB: Stanford 55 Arizona State 44 - 2006alum - 03-01-2020
More important from my perspective, you weren't out a single-family home down payment (ok, maybe not in SF in 2020...) for each year of attendance if you paid the sticker price. I'm pretty sure most kids today would gladly waive their AP credits in exchange for opportunity to pay the ~$2400 annual tuition that the class of 1971 had to pay to wrap up their degree, the equivalent of ~$16k in 2020 dollars...
RE: WBB: Stanford 55 Arizona State 44 - BostonCard - 03-01-2020
Going back to at least 1993, they allowed credit for APs, though from my perspective it was less of an issue than meeting the distribution and major requirements. I did have a good friend who finished in three years for financial reasons (she knew she wasn't going to be able to afford the fourth).
BC
RE: WBB: Stanford 55 Arizona State 44 - chimera - 03-01-2020
I haven't yet seen the game, but no matter how it came about, a win against ASU at their place is never easy, so congrats to the team. As far as late turnovers, I am somewhere in the middle about it. I think we could do a lot better late in game not allowing teams we are well ahead of to come back, and turnovers have been a problem late in games in that regard. But I also know that it is not untypical when a team gets up 20 or so to relax just a hair, while the opponent cranks it up in a last ditch effort, and the score can tighten. From the play-by-play, looked to me like the turnovers were annoying rather than game threatening, so not the biggest deal - in this game, although other games, yes a big deal.
Overall I'm still not sure what level this team can reach. We've had a lot of very close conference games, pulled some out, some not. Some of that is due to the tougher conference, some is due to youth, and some of it frankly, is not playing up to capabilities, even given the injury situation. We got lucky twice against CO, but I also think we were capable of much better against UCLA and should have beaten UA on Friday. Feels to me that the team is still searching for their best game. Is there another gear? We will need it, so I hope so. If we ever have a game where Williams and Lexie Hull are both on, one of our posts dominates as all have done in one game or another but none consistently, and we avoid turnovers, the offense may be enough to take down anyone, assuming the usual good defense and decent rebounding.
If Prechtel has been ill, that hurts, but it also gave Belibi room to show what she can do against a tough defensive team, so not all bad. Our post rotation is still unsettled, seems to be who they think matches up well and who they think is hot, which is ok, but hard on players since they may not get a chance to settle into a game before taking a quick seat.
Not thrilled we probably play OSU again, but no games are easy really, so just win, baby, win.
RE: Baez87 - TheFarm07 - 03-02-2020
(03-01-2020, 03:36 PM)Baez87 Wrote:(03-01-2020, 02:06 PM)TheFarm07 Wrote:South Carolina's three freshmen starters were ranked #1 and #2 at their position, and they joined two highly ranked upperclasswomen. They are loaded with top-tier talent.(03-01-2020, 01:58 PM)2006alum Wrote:(03-01-2020, 01:54 PM)TheFarm07 Wrote: I am still troubled by this team.If you're troubled by this team, I recommend you become a Duck, Gamecock, or (Baylor) Bear. Literally every other WCBB team this season has had lapses, bad nights, and shoddy stretches. And even those three teams have all suffered at least one L this season.
What's something else those three teams have in common? They are the heavy favorites for the national title. And you know why they are the heavy favorites? Because they limit their inconsistency, bone-headed plays and have the ability to put away opponents. We all want the team to win the national title, but it's not going to happen unless they fix these mistakes that are under our control.
For example, we often use youth as an excuse or explaining factor on mistakes or why the team is not performing as well as it should. South Carolina just completed conference play undefeated, beating quality teams like Kentucky, Tennessee and Mississippi State, with THREE freshmen starting. It appears that youth hasn't stopped them from having an excellent season and being a national title favorite (and probable #1 overall seed in the tournament)
Yes, we have had more than our fair share of injuries that has put us at a disadvantage. But that shouldn't explain away why we make bad passes or let teams come back from second half deficits or rely so much on Kiana on offense, especially when we are trying to burn clock.
Haley Jones was the #1 overall recruit, Fran and Ashten were #3 at their positions, and I would match up Kiana and Lexie against Harris and Herbert Harrigan any day. I would argue there's not too much difference in raw talent between our teams
RE: Baez87 - BostonCard - 03-02-2020
(03-02-2020, 02:32 AM)TheFarm07 Wrote: Haley Jones was the #1 overall recruit, Fran and Ashten were #3 at their positions, and I would match up Kiana and Lexie against Harris and Herbert Harrigan any day. I would argue there's not too much difference in raw talent between our teams
Don't know if you missed it but Jones is injured. I think we would have a decent chance against South Carolina with our entire starting line-up healthy against their starting line-up.
BC
RE: Baez87 - 2006alum - 03-02-2020
(03-02-2020, 11:57 AM)BostonCard Wrote:(03-02-2020, 02:32 AM)TheFarm07 Wrote: Haley Jones was the #1 overall recruit, Fran and Ashten were #3 at their positions, and I would match up Kiana and Lexie against Harris and Herbert Harrigan any day. I would argue there's not too much difference in raw talent between our teams
Don't know if you missed it but Jones is injured. I think we would have a decent chance against South Carolina with our entire starting line-up healthy against their starting line-up.
BC
As we've discussed in the past, there's a kind of logarithmic addition that takes place when folding in recruits farther down the rankings. The Gamecocks brought in recruits ranked 3, 4, 10, and 11; that is meaningfully better than recruits ranked 1, 15, 19, and 50. And as BC said, scratch our #1 recruit for current purposes. Right now, our only active consensus top 10 recruit is Kiana Williams (Lexie wasn't even a McD's A-A).
And it was very clear even from last spring that Aaliyah Boston was likely to be the single most impactful recruit. She is the best looking frosh post player I've seen since Breanna Stewart in terms of being able to do it all. What freshman post has a 1:1 A:TO ratio, more steals than TOs, and twice the blocks as TOs?
It's also worth noting that coaches like Dawn and Kelly Graves tend to stack recruiting classes and then have lull years with 0-1 meaningful recruits or else a significant number of sophomore or junior out-transfers. Tara has stated one of her chief missions is to always use all scholarships where possible, and very few transfer out (and even fewer transfer in to) Stanford. So that means balance, a coaching style that develops players over four years, and prioritizes seniority. It also means you won't see flash in the pan booms and busts the way SC has been over the past 6 years.