Stanford WBB: Stanford 69 UC Davis 56

Stanford WBB: Stanford 69 UC Davis 56 - 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: Stanford WBB: Stanford 69 UC Davis 56 (/thread-25267.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

RE: Stanford WBB: Stanford 69 UC Davis 56 - crackpot - 11-14-2024

I haven't yet rewatched the game, but every time Brooke got whistled last night I was stunned. What was it that she was doing that Davis was not doing? Davis was so handsy it made me want to scream. And don't even get me started on the elbows--even during the tip-off!

RE: Stanford WBB: Stanford vs. UC Davis, preview and game thread - BostonCard - 11-14-2024

(11-13-2024, 09:35 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Live by the three…

BC

We shot 5/20 (25%) from the 3, several of the misses were of the in-and-out variety. Had we shot 8/20, which would have been very good, but still a much lower percentage than the first three games, it would have been a 78-56 win (ignoring second order effects), which would have felt like much less of a close game.

This is the challenge with being three-point dependent; although most advanced analytics say that the expected value of a three point shot is higher than a two point shot in most circumstances, it does increase the variance, so a bad shooting day is going to affect you more.

For math geeks:
Imagine a team that shoots 45% from 2 and 33% from 3. The expected points are 0.9 pts from 2 and 1 from 3. But the SD around that is ±1 .41 points from 3 and ±0.995 from 2, so you are more prone to particularly bad days of shooting if you shoot a lot of threes and are unlucky.

RE: Stanford WBB: Stanford 69 UC Davis 56 - SkiBum80 - 11-14-2024

(11-14-2024, 11:31 AM)mbdude Wrote: in my opinion Leopolo hinders the offense not a viable 3 pt shooter so the defense still plays off her. also seems much slower.
rather see Harriel at point, and Ogden or Clardy start

I think last year Coach Tara liked using Lepolo so much (when not injured) cause of her ball control.
Not a lot of turnovers. Just bring it up, dish off to a big or a wing. Maybe you're done for that possession.
Her defense a mixed bag, could argue was/is tenacious, maybe, but also can be shot over by opponent especially if switched off onto by a screen.
On D this year her stats show no steals, so not impressing in that regard.
And this year is more emphasis on everyone needs be a scoring threat, so I agree others may be better options.
Coach Paye might agree somewhat too, as Lepolo playing time is not a lot, is 8th on team.

(11-14-2024, 11:54 AM)BostonCard Wrote:
(11-13-2024, 09:35 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Live by the three…

BC

We shot 5/20 (25%) from the 3, several of the misses were of the in-and-out variety. Had we shot 8/20, which would have been very good, but still a much lower percentage than the first three games, it would have been a 78-56 win (ignoring second order effects), which would have felt like much less of a close game.

This is the challenge with being three-point dependent; although most advanced analytics say that the expected value of a three point shot is higher than a two point shot in most circumstances, it does increase the variance, so a bad shooting day is going to affect you more.

For math geeks:
Imagine a team that shoots 45% from 2 and 33% from 3. The expected points are 0.9 pts from 2 and 1 from 3. But the SD around that is ±1 .41 points from 3 and ±0.995 from 2, so you are more prone to particularly bad days of shooting if you shoot a lot of threes and are unlucky.

Good points.
One second order effect hard to quantify (I have not tried) is the reduced chance of getting an Off Rebound when you shoot a 3 compared to a 2.
I would guess the chance is slightly higher for the 2 than the 3.
Cause the 2 shooter, being closer to the rim, might be more likely in the rebound play than the 3 shooter.
Also 3's have a higher chance of no defender being super close in coverage, compared to 2's, meaning that defender is significantly closer to the rim than the 3 shooter.
But I would guess a third order effect, is who is the shooter.
If it is one of our bigs, then the difference is likely more noticeable.
In other words, I guess the lowest chance of an Oboard when Maxime or Nunu taking the 3.
Cause your best rebounder is almost entirely out of the rebound play.

RE: Stanford WBB: Stanford 69 UC Davis 56 - martyup - 11-14-2024

(11-14-2024, 12:07 PM)SkiBum80 Wrote: Coach Paye might agree somewhat too, as Lepolo playing time is not a lot, is 8th on team.

So, why is she starting? Harriel is playing excellent D and is a weapon on offense. Clardy is quicker than Lepolo and is also a weapon on offense. I respect KP and I assume she is starting Lepolo for team unity and cohesion. I think that as the season progresses, Lepolo will be dropped from the starting lineup. Unless, that is, that her play improves significantly.

RE: Stanford WBB: Stanford 69 UC Davis 56 - WBB fan - 11-14-2024

I agree on all the comments about concerns re Lepolo's contributions, but I also suspect that one reason her playing time is way down is that Kate has her on limited minutes, for injury recovery.

RE: Stanford WBB: Stanford 69 UC Davis 56 - SkiBum80 - 11-14-2024

(11-14-2024, 12:19 PM)martyup Wrote:
(11-14-2024, 12:07 PM)SkiBum80 Wrote: Coach Paye might agree somewhat too, as Lepolo playing time is not a lot, is 8th on team.

So, why is she starting?

Would that you had press credentials and were able to ask this in the next presser!
Though good luck on being allowed back into the next one after!

RE: Stanford WBB: Stanford 69 UC Davis 56 - martyup - 11-14-2024

(11-14-2024, 12:28 PM)SkiBum80 Wrote:
(11-14-2024, 12:19 PM)martyup Wrote:
(11-14-2024, 12:07 PM)SkiBum80 Wrote: Coach Paye might agree somewhat too, as Lepolo playing time is not a lot, is 8th on team.

So, why is she starting?
Would that you had press credentials and were able to ask this in the next presser!
Though good luck on being allowed back into the next one after!

If I had press credentials, that would not be a question I would ask because I know that no coach worth their salt would give a straight answer to it. Like I said, I respect KP and I'm sure she has good reasons to start Lepolo. As the season progresses, if Lepolo's play doesn't improve, I suspect there will be stronger reasons to make a change to the starting lineup.

RE: Stanford WBB: Stanford 69 UC Davis 56 - BillBradley - 11-14-2024

UC Davis defense was definitely better than prior opponents. Disappointing to see us struggle against them, even though we have way more talent overall. We looked very formulaic and not very creative. I think the blowouts against WSU and Gonzaga were misleading. WSU is not very good this year. Gonzaga is way down without the Truongs, Maxwell, and Hollingsworth, and they were missing 3 players as well. Those were missed opportunities to "bet the Farm" (get it).

Our perimeter players are great at catch-and-shoot 3's, but they need to be open. Last night, they weren't as open as the other games. Our guards are still very average at attacking. Lepolo is weak in this area, always has been. Harriel, Heal, and Clardy can get by their initial player, but then they struggle after that. Ogden and Bosgana are the most capable, but still have their moments. No one is really very good at drawing and kicking and we turn it over too much. Where that leaves us is in that same old spot of having to rely on a system to generate shots. We'll be successful against teams with lazy defenses, and there are many. But we will have many nights like the Davis game where it's a struggle. If any of the guards can improve enough to get us through those games, my money would be on Harriel and Ogden. Seems like KP sees it the same way.

Last note...I know the numbers might not show it, but I'm concerned about our defense. The 3rd quarter against Davis was abysmal. No way should that team drop 26 points against us. We are just so slow at times and we aren't a strong rebounding team. It's been years since we didn't have big strong posts (Cam, Kiki, Fran, Ashten, Lauren, Alanna, etc. etc.) who are relentless on the boards. Agara is the closest we have. I've been so impressed by her, but she isn't like those other posts I listed. When we run into a team with a big strong post or two, it could be ugly.

Don't want to be too much of a Debbie Downer...I actually think it will be a fun year if expectations are in check given the amount of talent we have. Ranked 15th to 25th during the season, 4th in the ACC, and a 6 seed is where my head is at. Of course, always hoping/cheering for better!

RE: Stanford WBB: Stanford 69 UC Davis 56 - M T - 11-14-2024

(11-14-2024, 11:31 AM)mbdude Wrote: in my opinion Leopolo hinders the offense not a viable 3 pt shooter so the defense still plays off her. also seems much slower.

What game did you watch? The defense didn’t play off her

RE: Stanford WBB: Stanford 69 UC Davis 56 - old spanish trail - 11-14-2024

(11-14-2024, 12:56 PM)BillBradley Wrote: UC Davis defense was definitely better than prior opponents. Disappointing to see us struggle against them, even though we have way more talent overall. We looked very formulaic and not very creative. I think the blowouts against WSU and Gonzaga were misleading. WSU is not very good this year. Gonzaga is way down without the Truongs, Maxwell, and Hollingsworth, and they were missing 3 players as well. Those were missed opportunities to "bet the Farm" (get it).

Our perimeter players are great at catch-and-shoot 3's, but they need to be open. Last night, they weren't as open as the other games. Our guards are still very average at attacking. Lepolo is weak in this area, always has been. Harriel, Heal, and Clardy can get by their initial player, but then they struggle after that. Ogden and Bosgana are the most capable, but still have their moments. No one is really very good at drawing and kicking and we turn it over too much. Where that leaves us is in that same old spot of having to rely on a system to generate shots. We'll be successful against teams with lazy defenses, and there are many. But we will have many nights like the Davis game where it's a struggle. If any of the guards can improve enough to get us through those games, my money would be on Harriel and Ogden. Seems like KP sees it the same way.

Last note...I know the numbers might not show it, but I'm concerned about our defense. The 3rd quarter against Davis was abysmal. No way should that team drop 26 points against us. We are just so slow at times and we aren't a strong rebounding team. It's been years since we didn't have big strong posts (Cam, Kiki, Fran, Ashten, Lauren, Alanna, etc. etc.) who are relentless on the boards. Agara is the closest we have. I've been so impressed by her, but she isn't like those other posts I listed. When we run into a team with a big strong post or two, it could be ugly.

Don't want to be too much of a Debbie Downer...I actually think it will be a fun year if expectations are in check given the amount of talent we have. Ranked 15th to 25th during the season, 4th in the ACC, and a 6 seed is where my head is at. Of course, always hoping/cheering for better!

Excellent points, as usual.

RE: Stanford WBB: Stanford 69 UC Davis 56 - BostonCard - 11-14-2024

(11-14-2024, 12:07 PM)SkiBum80 Wrote: One second order effect hard to quantify (I have not tried) is the reduced chance of getting an Off Rebound when you shoot a 3 compared to a 2.
I would guess the chance is slightly higher for the 2 than the 3.

Conventional wisdom is that it is easier to get an offensive rebound on a three pointer than on a two point attempt. The reason is that three pointers are more likely to result in a long rebound. However, this may be a case where conventional wisdom is wrong, at least based on this analysis by Ken Pomeroy, which suggests that among D1 schools (I think this is men's basketball), the offensive rebounding percentage for 2 point shots is 41% vs. 21% for three point shots (note, that 41% two point rebounding percentage seems high to me).

https://kenpom.com/blog/rebounding-2s-vs-3s/

That seems to be verified this analysis of NBA data:
https://stevenliao.me/post/offensive_rebounding_strategy/

there, the offensive rebounding percentage for 3's is 18%, while that for 2's depends on distance to the basket, but looks to be about 25% when you average them all up, which seems more on the mark.

BC

RE: Stanford WBB: Stanford 69 UC Davis 56 - qwerty49 - 11-14-2024

(11-14-2024, 12:19 PM)martyup Wrote:
(11-14-2024, 12:07 PM)SkiBum80 Wrote: Coach Paye might agree somewhat too, as Lepolo playing time is not a lot, is 8th on team.

So, why is she starting? Harriel is playing excellent D and is a weapon on offense. Clardy is quicker than Lepolo and is also a weapon on offense. I respect KP and I assume she is starting Lepolo for team unity and cohesion. I think that as the season progresses, Lepolo will be dropped from the starting lineup. Unless, that is, that her play improves significantly.

I seem to recall several stretches over the past few seasons where someone was a "nominal" starter to open the game and then subbed out after only a few minutes once TVD saw the flow of what was happening. I think Bosgana was in that boat for a while.

RE: Stanford WBB: Stanford 69 UC Davis 56 - crackpot - 11-14-2024

(11-14-2024, 03:30 PM)qwerty49 Wrote:
(11-14-2024, 12:19 PM)martyup Wrote:
(11-14-2024, 12:07 PM)SkiBum80 Wrote: Coach Paye might agree somewhat too, as Lepolo playing time is not a lot, is 8th on team.

So, why is she starting? Harriel is playing excellent D and is a weapon on offense. Clardy is quicker than Lepolo and is also a weapon on offense. I respect KP and I assume she is starting Lepolo for team unity and cohesion. I think that as the season progresses, Lepolo will be dropped from the starting lineup. Unless, that is, that her play improves significantly.

I seem to recall several stretches over the past few seasons where someone was a "nominal" starter to open the game and then subbed out after only a few minutes once TVD saw the flow of what was happening. I think Bosgana was in that boat for a while.

I wonder if it's the same reason Tara gave many years ago when asked why Kristin Folkl wasn't starting. She said it was because players like Vanessa Nygaard had a "bigger bank account." In other words, because Folkl wasn't playing the full year, it wasn't fair to those who were dedicated to basketball, or those who'd been playing longer for the team.

But then again, one might argue that since Harriel agreed to redshirt her freshman year at the coaches' request, she deserves a chance to start.

RE: Stanford WBB: Stanford 69 UC Davis 56 - Hieronymus - 11-14-2024

Mixed thoughts for me having just watched the game a day late.

Bad:
- too many turnovers
- they didn’t consistently move the ball well
- mediocre shooting night, though the first 2 games were not sustainable
- Stevenson concerned me in this game. 9 min, 0-1 from the floor, 1 rebound and 3 turnovers. I hope it was just an off night.

Good
- survived a random first half and a hatchet-job third quarter officiating performance
- closed the door effectively in the fourth
- Ogden and Agara

This would have been an easy twenty+ point win with a mediocre officiating team despite being a bit off all night. It is probably good to be reminded early in the year just how poor college officiating can be.

RE: Stanford WBB: Stanford 69 UC Davis 56 - Card10Fan - 11-14-2024

(11-14-2024, 12:27 PM)WBB fan Wrote: I agree on all the comments about concerns re Lepolo's contributions, but I also suspect that one reason her playing time is way down is that Kate has her on limited minutes, for injury recovery.

What is the PG situation going to be next year? You’ll have Lepolo back again, Clardy, Ijiwoye as a sophomore, and a new freshman in Swain who’s the top point guard in her class. Swain, Clardy, Ijiwoye all have a higher ceiling than Lepolo IMO. It wouldn’t surprise me if Talana is not a starter next year.

RE: Stanford WBB: Stanford 69 UC Davis 56 - joemontes - 11-14-2024

(11-14-2024, 07:44 PM)Card10Fan Wrote:
(11-14-2024, 12:27 PM)WBB fan Wrote: I agree on all the comments about concerns re Lepolo's contributions, but I also suspect that one reason her playing time is way down is that Kate has her on limited minutes, for injury recovery.

What is the PG situation going to be next year? You’ll have Lepolo back again, Clardy, Ijiwoye as a sophomore, and a new freshman in Swain who’s the top point guard in her class. Swain, Clardy, Ijiwoye all have a higher ceiling than Lepolo IMO. It wouldn’t surprise me if Talana is not a starter next year.

I concur with BillBradley's take on the realistic expectation for this team for this season,
especially after what we witnessed in their first 4 games:
"Ranked 15th to 25th during the season, 4th in the ACC, and a 6 seed in the NCAA Tournament..."

I think next season will be the resumption of Stanford's re-emergence back to its dominant norm.
Incoming elte 5-star recruits PG SWAIN and F SOMFAI are the future stars who will lead the Cardinal,
joining forces with juniors-by-then F AGARA, W OGDEN and SG CLARDY
as the most likely Top 5 players during the next two seasons ('25-'26 and '26-'27 seasons)

RE: Stanford WBB: Stanford 69 UC Davis 56 - 81alum - 11-14-2024

Press conference:

https://gostanford.com/news/2024/11/13/stanford-womens-basketball-uc-davis-press-conference

This one is worth listening to. Kate Paye is very impressive with her responses, and gives a critical, realistic and balanced assessment. Making comparisons with Tara should probably be resisted but here is a comparison I will go on a limb to make: Kate is better at press conferences, is more responsive and gives more analytical answers. She uses some of Tara's over used phrases though: "I am excited" being first and foremost.

"They taught us the offense we run, and quite frankly, they ran the offense much better than we did."

"There are some bright spots. Nunu played very well. Courtney played very well. We did well on the boards which is something we have been struggling with."

"Our team was floating for a couple of quarters and then they got the sense of urgency. Fortunately we are learning something that will help us in the long run, to have that sense of urgency from the jump ball."

"They were out in passing lanes trying to take us out of our stuff and they were successful. This will give us an opportunity to work on what we are going to do when teams are aggressive like that."

"You are not always going to play your best basketball. Winners find a way to win. I'm excited we did that."

"What Nunu and Courtney do well is attack the basket. The way they were playing us, that is what was available. Get the ball in the pinch, attack the basket, and if they foul you make your free throws. And they did that."

RE: Stanford WBB: Stanford 69 UC Davis 56 - jonnyss - 11-14-2024

lots of critiques of talana.

not what i saw.

i saw ucdavis catch us with talana out. then, as soon as she came back in at the start of the 4th quarter, we pulled ahead again.

talana runs our offense well, likely the best of our 5 point guards.

RE: Stanford WBB: Stanford 69 UC Davis 56 - BostonCard - 11-14-2024

(11-14-2024, 10:07 PM)jonnyss Wrote: i saw ucdavis catch us with talana out. then, as soon as she came back in at the start of the 4th quarter, we pulled ahead again.

And the box score shows that Lepolo’s plus/minus was +18, which means that the team was -5 while she was sitting. Now, all five of our starters were ≥+15, so it might or might not have been Lepolo’s presence, but still, we struggled when she was not on the floor.

BC