WBB: Stanford 91 -- Utah 64 - 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 91 -- Utah 64 (/thread-22936.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 91 -- Utah 64 (/thread-22936.html)
RE: WBB: Stanford 91 -- Utah 64 - martyup - 02-11-2022
It's nice when you can give up 8 three point baskets to your opponent and still win by 27. We beat them at their own game by making 10 of 21 threes (47.6%).
RE: WBB: Stanford 91 -- Utah 64 - chimera - 02-11-2022
Utah really works their offense, screen after screen after screen. Hard work for a defense and Utah is a high scoring team as a result of that offense and a lot of good shooters. They just don't have the horses to consistently challenge top teams, or the defense. We were not horrible on defense early but not good enough for the first maybe 7 minutes. Then the D went up a notch and we pulled away. Aside from a few silly turnovers the offense was good. Spread the wealth kind of game.
Wilson had a great all around game, really worked on defense and was great with her offense too. Jones was great and uh, less than great at times. Tara seems to be sitting her when she makes a really bad turnover or two. Belibi had another very nice game. Brink was good except for some silly fouling that sent her to the bench in the third quarter I think it was. Lacie was excellent. Her offense has improved a lot. She takes timely shots and makes timely drives, is not turning the ball over much. I would like to have seen more of Iriafen, although this game was one where the defense really had to communicate and switch, work hard at following the scout so maybe it was not an idea game for a frosh to get big minutes.
RE: WBB: Stanford 91 -- Utah 64 - WBB fan - 02-11-2022
Great comments, Cardboarders. Thanks all. For me, again it was the balance that impressed me. As said above, pretty darn hard to defend with 6 people scoring double digits and others close. Who does the defense concentrate on, sag off of? Hard to know!
RE: WBB: Stanford 91 -- Utah 64 - BostonCard - 02-11-2022
Belibi 3 times
Hull 3 times
Brink 7 times
Jump 4 times
Jones 6 times
Five different players have been our leading scorer so far this year.
Also, five different players have led us in rebounds and six have been the assist leaders.
BC
RE: WBB: Stanford 91 -- Utah 64 - M T - 02-12-2022
Utah scored 31 in the first half, and 33 in the second half. Stanford scored 41 in the first half, and 50 in the second half (even with garbage time, which is getting less like garbage time). As the announcers pointed out late, Utah was 15 points below their average offense while Stanford was 15 points above their average.
Great defense & great offense, but a few sloppy moments. All teams get better through the season. But teams with great players have a higher top end.
This was the first game that was the second match-up of the season. We went from a 10-point win to a 27-point win. That increase in the margin is a good sign.
One fun thing: At the end of the game, the broadcast showed a 3 point make by Utah, and one by Stanford, each with the team's bench shown in the background.
The Utah bench jumped up to cheer when the ball went into the basket.
The Stanford bench jumped up to cheer when Jump released the ball.
RE: WBB: Stanford 91 -- Utah 64 - M T - 02-12-2022
(02-11-2022, 11:32 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Belibi 3 timesCorrection:
Hull 3 times
Brink 7 times
Jump 4 times
Jones 6 times
Five different players have been our leading scorer so far this year.
Also, five different players have led us in rebounds and six have been the assist leaders.
BC
Six different players have been a leading scorer this year.
Brink 7 times USC, Az, Portland, Indiana, So. Fl, Pacific, Utah#1
Jones 6 times ASU, Tenn, WSU, Colo, Cal, Utah#2
Jump 5 times OSU, Gonzaga#1, Maryland, Davis, Gonzaga#2
Belibi 4 times ASU, MSU, Gonzaga#1, UCLA
Lexie Hull 4 times Tex, So. Car., Ore, Utah#2
Iriafen 1 time ASU
(3 players tied for high point against ASU; 2 against Gonzaga#1; 2 against Utah#2)
3 players score more than 25 points for every 40 minutes they play.
Another 5 players score more than 10 points for every 40 minutes they play.
You could define offensive depth by how many points per 40 minutes are sitting on the bench.
The NCAA doesn't have a stat for Team Bench Points, but I'm sure Stanford would be right at the top.
Scoring per 40 minutes (> 100 min played)
Brink 26.1
Jones 16.6
Jump 16.3
Lexie 14.9
Belibi 25.9
Iriafen 29.6
Lacie 8.2
Wilson 6.8
Prechtel 12.7
JVG 13.0
Demetre 8.1
Hamilton 5.7
I was thinking the team was doing pretty well for offense & defense, until I looked back over Tara's history at Stanford.
This team's point differential (75.9-58.5), while 8th in the nation this year, is only 16th best of Tara's Stanford teams.
Last year's team was 2nd best. 2008-2013 (6 teams) all had a better differential.
Average points scored is 20th. 6 teams were better on both offense & defense.
I am confident this team has far more depth than any previous Tara team, and I could imagine an argument that it has more depth than any historical NCAA WBB team. I think Tara would start any of 7 players in a NC game, and wouldn't hesitate to put in two or three more. (Here's hoping she proves me right!)
Yet, they haven't shown yet that they are among Tara's most elite teams. That depth may yet express itself as a very strong tournament team as it can morph itself into whatever it needs to be to defeat any opponent.
RE: WBB: Stanford 91 -- Utah 64 - JustAnotherFan - 02-12-2022
(02-12-2022, 01:41 AM)M T Wrote: One fun thing: At the end of the game, the broadcast showed a 3 point make by Utah, and one by Stanford, each with the team's bench shown in the background.
The Utah bench jumped up to cheer when the ball went into the basket.
The Stanford bench jumped up to cheer when Jump released the ball.
Thanks for pointing that out. I wouldn't have noticed it otherwise. Starts at 1:50 [twitter] https://twitter.com/Pac12Network/status/1492368367897878531 [/twitter]
RE: WBB: Stanford 91 -- Utah 64 - 81alum - 02-12-2022
(02-12-2022, 01:41 AM)M T Wrote: One fun thing: At the end of the game, the broadcast showed a 3 point make by Utah, and one by Stanford, each with the team's bench shown in the background.That is fun! Now I have to go look for a rebroadcast to see that!
The Utah bench jumped up to cheer when the ball went into the basket.
The Stanford bench jumped up to cheer when Jump released the ball.
RE: WBB: Stanford 91 -- Utah 64 - BigEasyCard - 02-12-2022
3-pointers - 10 of 21 for 47.6%
Free throws - 7 of 14 for 50%
Geaux Cardinal!
RE: WBB: Stanford 91 -- Utah 64 - JustAnotherFan - 02-12-2022
(02-12-2022, 06:58 AM)81alum Wrote:(02-12-2022, 01:41 AM)M T Wrote: One fun thing: At the end of the game, the broadcast showed a 3 point make by Utah, and one by Stanford, each with the team's bench shown in the background.That is fun! Now I have to go look for a rebroadcast to see that!
The Utah bench jumped up to cheer when the ball went into the basket.
The Stanford bench jumped up to cheer when Jump released the ball.
Just look at my post right before yours. I assume that's it.
RE: WBB: Stanford 91 -- Utah 64 - M T - 02-12-2022
(02-12-2022, 11:00 AM)JustAnotherFan Wrote:Yes, the two shots at 1:50-2:03 in that clip.(02-12-2022, 06:58 AM)81alum Wrote:(02-12-2022, 01:41 AM)M T Wrote: One fun thing: At the end of the game, the broadcast showed a 3 point make by Utah, and one by Stanford, each with the team's bench shown in the background.That is fun! Now I have to go look for a rebroadcast to see that!
The Utah bench jumped up to cheer when the ball went into the basket.
The Stanford bench jumped up to cheer when Jump released the ball.
Just look at my post right before yours. I assume that's it.
RE: WBB: Stanford 91 -- Utah 64 - Spiny_Norman - 02-12-2022
This team is a lot of fun. I love watching them run the fast break. Everybody gets down court quickly, including the bigs. When they are at their best, it's like a beautifully choreographed dance, everyone in sync with a fast break layup as the finale. You might have to go back to Tara's first NCAA team with Jennifer Azzi at the point to find a Stanford team that ran as well.
RE: WBB: Stanford 91 -- Utah 64 - 81alum - 02-12-2022
This board frequently has criticized officiating, and on another thread Kyle Bacon was mentioned as missing two different endline calls.
What did you think of last nights officiating of our game: Karen Lasuik, Lisa Jones, and Tyler Trimble? I can think of one or two pretty bad calls but overall I felt the officiating receded into the background much as it should. There was that one call when I think Lexie (could be wrong) was called for fouling someone with her back while she was standing still, another on Wilson for bumping legs when she was getting around a screener. I thought both were questionable, but you have to expect a little of that with every game. How do these three rank in terms of Pac 12 officials?
RE: WBB: Stanford 91 -- Utah 64 - CompSci87 - 02-12-2022
I thought these officials were good. They called things tight early and didn't back down from that, encouraging a clean game. But they didn't overdo it and didn't call attention to themselves.
I watched the game replay after I got home, and I think most of the calls the crowd didn't like actually were correct. On the two calls you mentioned, I'm not sure, but even those weren't horrible.
FWIW: On the foul with back turned, in real time it looked to me like the call was for extending the arms backward (not straight up) and making contact on the shooter's arm. I thought that was a tough call but legitimate. When I rewatched it later, it looked to me like the shooter jumped into a stationary defender's shoulder from behind. That part at least shouldn't be a foul, but maybe what I thought I saw at the game up top was right too.
Anyway, as you said, you have to expect some mistakes. Refereeing is tough.
RE: WBB: Stanford 91 -- Utah 64 - M T - 02-12-2022
(02-12-2022, 11:47 AM)81alum Wrote: This board frequently has criticized officiating, and on another thread Kyle Bacon was mentioned as missing two different endline calls.
What did you think of last nights officiating of our game: Karen Lasuik, Lisa Jones, and Tyler Trimble? I can think of one or two pretty bad calls but overall I felt the officiating receded into the background much as it should. There was that one call when I think Lexie (could be wrong) was called for fouling someone with her back while she was standing still, another on Wilson for bumping legs when she was getting around a screener. I thought both were questionable, but you have to expect a little of that with every game. How do these three rank in terms of Pac 12 officials?
A blowout win usually doesn't engender looking closely at fouls, and none are game-changers. Maybe Utah feels differently. Lisa Jones rarely gets my notice for bad calls.
There were two early, consecutive offensive fouls called on Utah players who handed the ball off to someone and then got called for a moving screen on a pick. Obviously they're calling that differently this year and I've not figured out when it should or shouldn't be called. Brink's foul #1 was one I wasn't sure about, but the TV had a poor angle to see whether she got the shooter with her hands. It certainly wasn't "She got her with the body" as the announcer made up. (Brink clearly fouled, but wasn't called, on a block just before foul #1. Maybe a make-up?) At the end, there were the usual "Give the ball to the team way behind" calls that I didn't consider. (Because of Sling didn't get the game into the schedule, I didn't record it, so I can't go back and review.)
By the way, I thought the call on Lexie(?) Hull was ok. I felt she leaned back into the opponent. The TV camera angle didn't make it obvious, but the ref was where she could see the movement.
There are many occupations I wouldn't want to have. Officiating fast moving sports contests is one of them.
- You've got less than a quarter second to blow the whistle;
- You've only got two eyes;
- Something like half the fouls occur where you can't see them because a player's body is in the way;
- Sometimes each side has a complaint, but you have to call it one way;
- The convention is that the officials rarely overrule each other so mistakes don't get corrected;
- When you make a mistake, every one will see it;
- Half the audience is unabashedly prejudiced against each call or missed call;
- The official probably has a prejudice (for/against teams/coaches/players/style of play) but has to avoid that working its way into the calls.
- Some calls or non-calls have (or should have) game-changing consequences
A lot of those apply to announcers too.
But, just because it is a tough job doesn't mean that mistakes should be swept under the rug. If there were an easy way to post short clips, I'd post a few seconds of the two Kyle Bacon calls (Az@Ore; UCLA@WSU). Each decided the game, with the call against UCLA being more unforgiveable (calling something that didn't happen vs not calling something that was 50-50). (I have sympathy for Aria Barnes. Two of the refs were Missy & Kyle!)
RE: WBB: Stanford 91 -- Utah 64 - ca245 - 02-12-2022
One thing that caught my eye is how much tighter they call illegal/moving screens in WBB than in the NBA. Can’t comment on how tightly they call them in MBB, as I don’t watch MBB that much due to misfortunes of our MBB team.
RE: WBB: Stanford 91 -- Utah 64 - pefloresjr - 02-12-2022
(02-12-2022, 12:27 PM)CompSci87 Wrote: I thought these officials were good. They called things tight early and didn't back down from that, encouraging a clean game. But they didn't overdo it and didn't call attention to themselves.
I watched the game replay after I got home, and I think most of the calls the crowd didn't like actually were correct. On the two calls you mentioned, I'm not sure, but even those weren't horrible.
FWIW: On the foul with back turned, in real time it looked to me like the call was for extending the arms backward (not straight up) and making contact on the shooter's arm. I thought that was a tough call but legitimate. When I rewatched it later, it looked to me like the shooter jumped into a stationary defender's shoulder from behind. That part at least shouldn't be a foul, but maybe what I thought I saw at the game up top was right too.
Anyway, as you said, you have to expect some mistakes. Refereeing is tough.
Agreed. It was called pretty tight for the whole game. I thought it was a little too tight early but the officials seemed to settle in and didn't get in the way of the game. I love booing the refs over bad calls but sometimes the replay at the game or watching later shows that the refs were right. All part of being a fan. On a side note, I noticed that our soccer goalie, Katie Meyer, was pretty vocal with the refs during the game. One of the refs even came over to her later in the game and they had a few words. Looked like it was cordial, but I have never seen a ref go over and talk to a fan when motioned to by the fan. Did anybody else see that?
Two very early calls that set off Utah's coach were a couple of moving screen calls where their screener was moving toward our defender and stopped right before our defender bumped into them. Utah's ball handler would easily got free space off of those screens. I thought they were the right calls because the screens were never set or only set for an instant, leaving our defender no opportunity to get around it. I think Belibi got a similar call a little later in the first half. Those happened so fast that it was kind of tough to be sure of what was happening. Whatever it was, both teams started setting their screens better and weren't getting bogus defensive charging calls by running into the path of the defender. Does anyone who watched on tv have any input on those calls?
Great team win. They are so much fun to watch this year.
Cheers,
Pete F.
RE: WBB: Stanford 91 -- Utah 64 - CompSci87 - 02-12-2022
Quote:On a side note, I noticed that our soccer goalie, Katie Meyer, was pretty vocal with the refs during the game. One of the refs even came over to her later in the game and they had a few words. Looked like it was cordial, but I have never seen a ref go over and talk to a fan when motioned to by the fan. Did anybody else see that?
I noticed that too but didn't know it was our soccer goalie. The interaction looked friendly from what I saw of it.
RE: WBB: Stanford 91 -- Utah 64 - jonnyss - 02-12-2022
(02-12-2022, 01:04 PM)pefloresjr Wrote:(02-12-2022, 12:27 PM)CompSci87 Wrote: I thought these officials were good. They called things tight early and didn't back down from that, encouraging a clean game. But they didn't overdo it and didn't call attention to themselves.
I watched the game replay after I got home, and I think most of the calls the crowd didn't like actually were correct. On the two calls you mentioned, I'm not sure, but even those weren't horrible.
FWIW: On the foul with back turned, in real time it looked to me like the call was for extending the arms backward (not straight up) and making contact on the shooter's arm. I thought that was a tough call but legitimate. When I rewatched it later, it looked to me like the shooter jumped into a stationary defender's shoulder from behind. That part at least shouldn't be a foul, but maybe what I thought I saw at the game up top was right too.
Anyway, as you said, you have to expect some mistakes. Refereeing is tough.
Agreed. It was called pretty tight for the whole game. I thought it was a little too tight early but the officials seemed to settle in and didn't get in the way of the game. I love booing the refs over bad calls but sometimes the replay at the game or watching later shows that the refs were right. All part of being a fan. On a side note, I noticed that our soccer goalie, Katie Meyer, was pretty vocal with the refs during the game. One of the refs even came over to her later in the game and they had a few words. Looked like it was cordial, but I have never seen a ref go over and talk to a fan when motioned to by the fan. Did anybody else see that?
Two very early calls that set off Utah's coach were a couple of moving screen calls where their screener was moving toward our defender and stopped right before our defender bumped into them. Utah's ball handler would easily got free space off of those screens. I thought they were the right calls because the screens were never set or only set for an instant, leaving our defender no opportunity to get around it. I think Belibi got a similar call a little later in the first half. Those happened so fast that it was kind of tough to be sure of what was happening. Whatever it was, both teams started setting their screens better and weren't getting bogus defensive charging calls by running into the path of the defender. Does anyone who watched on tv have any input on those calls?
Great team win. They are so much fun to watch this year.
Cheers,
Pete F.
i watched on tv. the refs seemed to call that minimal moving screen both ways.
also for the second game in a row, haley got called for a "moving screen" after handing off the ball and beginning her move to another part of the court. she did get in the way of a defender, and the defender did bump into her, but she didn't appear to be setting a screen. if that's a moving screen, i don't see how bigs can move up the court making defenders step to the side while the guard brings the ball up court. happens 10-20 times a game with no call.