WBB: Stanford 73 Cal 40; Stanford 79 Cal 65 - 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 73 Cal 40; Stanford 79 Cal 65 (/thread-18825.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 73 Cal 40; Stanford 79 Cal 65 (/thread-18825.html)
RE: WBB: Stanford 73 Cal 40; Stanford 79 Cal 65 - M T - 01-13-2020
[Readers: Blank lines multiply in this version of MyBB, as implemented here. They weren't there when I posted.]
THIS POST IS ABOUT STANFORD@CAL. It would be my preference that we continue to have different threads for different games, even if two consecutive games are against the same opponent. I see no advantage to putting them as a single thread. The two games were very much different and should be treated separately.
(01-09-2020, 11:18 AM)81alum Wrote:
The other massive equalizer was that Cal had 18 points off free throws while we had 4. This is a big clue. My guess is that we tried to defend them the same way we did no Friday, and these refs called the game much more tightly--preventing our very close defense from having the same effect.
I disagree. The refs made bad calls, and I did feel the calls were lopsided, but I wouldn't call this game as called tightly, or even just against us. (It has been my impression that fewer fouls are being called this year, but I haven't decided whether that is general, or just the games I watched.)
(01-09-2020, 11:18 AM)81alum Wrote: In terms of +/-, Williams was far and away the most outstanding player at 24. Lexie, Fingall, Jones, and Lacie all had good ratings in the mid teens. No one else--even Prechtel--came close to those five.
I wouldn't put much trust in +/- of a single game. Prechtel clearly had a positive impact on the game, so you can ask why didn't she shine in that statistic. The starters (plus Jones, minus Belibi) got a lot of positive impact from that first quarter (as they should): +9 in 10 minutes. Anyone who mostly played after that is part of the +5 in 30 minutes. (Even if you take +/- for a season, the players that start for a dominant team will benefit from their playing time being shared with the other good players.)
That said, I do think Williams was the most critical in the game. Clearly Jones was important. The Hulls contributed very well. Fingall, not so much, not even on defense. (Granted, if Fingall did a great job on blocking out -- which she may have but I didn't notice it much -- she could have contributed to our very strong rebounding numbers, even if she didn't pull down many rebounds herself.)
I thought how we played the press was weak. Williams lost the ball in the backcourt once. We didn't punish them for the press. (We tried once, but Jones went down the middle of the lane, which allowed the sole defender the opportunity to block Fingall when she got the ball. At least one other chance of a 3 on 1 was passed up by one of the Hulls.)
We didn't play the officials as Cal did. I don't remember any flops, or any blatant moving screens by Stanford. (I'm glad we didn't, but that did impact several foul calls in Cal's favor.) Speaking of that, how often do you see an illegal screen called on the ball handler (when she wasn't dribbling!)?
---
Our offensive scoring was relatively even (with a bump for the 3ptrs of Q3)
S 18-18-26-17.
C 09-20-19-17
We got a ton of points in the paint, 52 (to their 20).
Even if you credit all their FTs as "in-the-paint, but delayed", we still beat them handily in the paint.
We got 35.4% of the rebounds under our basket, and 82.8% under their basket - dominating.
RE: WBB: Stanford 73 Cal 40; Stanford 79 Cal 65 - BobK - 01-13-2020
I thought the officials were fine
Tara praised Fingall’s defense
We broke the press for layups several times. Thought we did great against the press
Sorry :)
RE: WBB: Stanford 73 Cal 40; Stanford 79 Cal 65 - mbdude - 01-13-2020
(01-12-2020, 11:53 PM)81alum Wrote:(01-12-2020, 11:16 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: I was only able to watch the 2nd and 3rd quarters and I couldn't really get a sense of the flow of the game.My interpretation is that we tried to play much the same style of defense as we did on Friday, but the refs on Friday called it loosely and the refs today called it tight. Playing an aggressive, handsy, close defense shut down the Cal offense last time, but today it generated a boatload of fouls. Not only did the points from the free throws keep Cal in the game, the style of officiating made us change the style of defense, and Cal was able to get into more of a rhythm scoring. As to why Tara heaped all the minutes on five players--she must have felt that Williams, Lexie, Lacie, Fingall and Jones were doing the best defensively. When you look at the +/- scores, the five with the most minutes were also the +/- leaders by a large margin. Prechtel--despite her fabulous 9 minutes, was well behind the other five in +/-, and no one else was close.
In looking at the box score, two stats really jumped out.
The first was PT: every starter except Belibi had 35+ minutes, and Lacie had 26. (Which also felt strange because the part I saw included that awesome stretch where Prechtel scored all of her 11 points.) But I wonder why Tara choose to limit the rotation that way. Not second-guessing, just wondering.
Second, Cal outshot us at the line, 18/20 vs only 4/6; so from the field we outscored them by 28! Were they just getting a lot of homer calls, are we a step slow on D, or what?
One other thing was that Kiana seemed to be constantly driving in but it seemed like she left a few points out there. She ended up 10/18 but I wonder if 15 of those attempts were layups.
Can someone who saw the whole game shed some light? The game seemed to have pretty uneven flow, given the outcome.
My thought is Tara was thinking ahead to Oregon game where we may see that combo often; with an injection of Jump, and Prechtel
RE: WBB: Stanford 73 Cal 40; and Sun 5 - crackpot - 01-13-2020
(01-12-2020, 04:15 PM)BobK Wrote: The MBB team and the women (tied) lead the league. When did that happen last?
With the Lopi? Or 2004 Monty’s last season ?
2014 when both teams were 2-0
But for better than that, yes, you have to go back to 2004 where WBB started off the conference 8-0, but MBB made it all the way to 14-0 without a loss.
RE: WBB: Stanford 73 Cal 40; Stanford 79 Cal 65 - BosCard - 01-13-2020
(01-13-2020, 09:36 AM)mbdude Wrote:(01-12-2020, 11:53 PM)81alum Wrote:(01-12-2020, 11:16 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: I was only able to watch the 2nd and 3rd quarters and I couldn't really get a sense of the flow of the game.My interpretation is that we tried to play much the same style of defense as we did on Friday, but the refs on Friday called it loosely and the refs today called it tight. Playing an aggressive, handsy, close defense shut down the Cal offense last time, but today it generated a boatload of fouls. Not only did the points from the free throws keep Cal in the game, the style of officiating made us change the style of defense, and Cal was able to get into more of a rhythm scoring. As to why Tara heaped all the minutes on five players--she must have felt that Williams, Lexie, Lacie, Fingall and Jones were doing the best defensively. When you look at the +/- scores, the five with the most minutes were also the +/- leaders by a large margin. Prechtel--despite her fabulous 9 minutes, was well behind the other five in +/-, and no one else was close.
In looking at the box score, two stats really jumped out.
The first was PT: every starter except Belibi had 35+ minutes, and Lacie had 26. (Which also felt strange because the part I saw included that awesome stretch where Prechtel scored all of her 11 points.) But I wonder why Tara choose to limit the rotation that way. Not second-guessing, just wondering.
Second, Cal outshot us at the line, 18/20 vs only 4/6; so from the field we outscored them by 28! Were they just getting a lot of homer calls, are we a step slow on D, or what?
One other thing was that Kiana seemed to be constantly driving in but it seemed like she left a few points out there. She ended up 10/18 but I wonder if 15 of those attempts were layups.
Can someone who saw the whole game shed some light? The game seemed to have pretty uneven flow, given the outcome.
My thought is Tara was thinking ahead to Oregon game where we may see that combo often; with an injection of Jump, and Prechtel
Wilson is a very good defensive stopper but so hard to keep Lacie off the floor given that she is also a very good defender and has the added benefit of being a good 3-pt shooter. She is the prototypical “3 and D” player that we see a lot in the NBA
RE: WBB: Stanford 73 Cal 40; Stanford 79 Cal 65 - CompSci87 - 01-13-2020
We may see more of Anna Wilson next game. She was very good at staying in front of Ionescu on the pick and roll in the Pac-12 tournament last year.
RE: WBB: Stanford 73 Cal 40; Stanford 79 Cal 65 - Jskass - 01-13-2020
After this wild weekend of WBB, we moved up from 5 to 3. Lots of dangerous schools rearranged (with heavy penalties to OR and OSU for losing to ASU, but at least ASU finally got ranked). We now have 6 of the top 25.
RE: WBB: Stanford 73 Cal 40; Stanford 79 Cal 65 - WBB fan - 01-13-2020
(01-13-2020, 12:49 PM)Jskass Wrote: After this wild weekend of WBB, we moved up from 5 to 3. Lots of dangerous schools rearranged (with heavy penalties to OR and OSU for losing to ASU, but at least ASU finally got ranked). We now have 6 of the top 25.
It's going to be interesting to see if the polls and NCAA give credit to the strength of the Pac-12. It looks to me as if the Pac-12 meatgrinder may not be adequately appreciated, seeing Oregon and OSU dropping so far after their loss to a strong Pac-12. Also, note that Creame's newest "Bracketology" now has NO Pac-12 team as a 1 seed. Instead, per him, we get all the #2 seeds. No one's likely to reach March unscathed in the loaded Pac-12, and it may hurt seeing come tournament time.
Will be interesting to see what happens in Oregon this week. I'll be there!
RE: WBB: Stanford 73 Cal 40; Stanford 79 Cal 65 - 81alum - 01-13-2020
So Baylor vaults us in the rankings on the strength of their victory over UConn, Oregon and Oregon State and UConn tumble below us. UCLA keeps edging up, and ASU vaults up to 18. Arizona loses only 3 slots. In brief, the Pac 12 has 6 top quality teams, any of which could beat anyone on a given day.
Looking over our best opponents, Gonzaga keeps winning. Unfortunately, since beating us Texas is 2-2, having lost to West Virginia and TCU. Ohio State is 10-6 and looks fairly ordinary. Tennessee is 6-1 since we beat them, dropping one to Kentucky but not beating anyone special. Mississippi State lost immediately after us to West Virginia but has now won 7 in a row since then.
As for my earlier remarks about officiating in the Sunday Cal game--I was not criticizing it--just noting that it was significantly different than in the Friday Cal game. If anything, the officials on Friday let too much stuff go, and that wound up working to our advantage. Sunday was probably the better refereed game. It was "tighter" than Friday but not too tight.
Great observation about using Wilson on Ionescu.
RE: WBB: Stanford 73 Cal 40; Stanford 79 Cal 65 - 76lsjumb - 01-13-2020
I'm a little stunned at the observations regarding the refereeing at Sunday's game. From my seat [above and to the right of our bench, where I had a bird's-eye view of Lacie being fitted by the trainer for her mask] that game was ref'ed atrociously.
When the obviously more talented team in a fairly rough game ends up with something like one-fifth the number of free throws [not counting the two by Brown(?) right at the end], there's something wrong. There were multiple kicked balls that simply weren't called. There were at least two clear flops -- supposedly a point of emphasis this season, at least on the men's side -- which weren't called. I believe there was one quarter when NO fouls were called on Cal [again, in a game that was obviously fairly physical]. For virtually the entire game, Cal didn't set screens so much as utilize offensive line blocking that was, on many occasions, probably more effective than our football team's OL this season.
Maybe I was at a different game, but the refs in the one I watched did a very sub-par job...
RE: WBB: Stanford 73 Cal 40; Stanford 79 Cal 65 - chimera - 01-13-2020
(01-13-2020, 04:39 PM)76lsjumb Wrote: I'm a little stunned at the observations regarding the refereeing at Sunday's game. From my seat [above and to the right of our bench, where I had a bird's-eye view of Lacie being fitted by the trainer for her mask] that game was ref'ed atrociously.
When the obviously more talented team in a fairly rough game ends up with something like one-fifth the number of free throws [not counting the two by Brown(?) right at the end], there's something wrong. There were multiple kicked balls that simply weren't called. There were at least two clear flops -- supposedly a point of emphasis this season, at least on the men's side -- which weren't called. I believe there was one quarter when NO fouls were called on Cal [again, in a game that was obviously fairly physical]. For virtually the entire game, Cal didn't set screens so much as utilize offensive line blocking that was, on many occasions, probably more effective than our football team's OL this season.
Maybe I was at a different game, but the refs in the one I watched did a very sub-par job...
I didn't notice so much on TV as I did live at Maples but sure seemed to me that Cal's offense featured a whole lot of moving screens, often two or three players clustered in an area sorta trying to screen and sorta just getting in the way. Not sure if intended or they were simply poor at running their offense. I do think we fouled them too much, too often when they were trying shots not that likely to go in.
RE: WBB: Stanford 73 Cal 40; Stanford 79 Cal 65 - CTcard - 01-13-2020
(01-13-2020, 02:47 PM)JoanBoothe Wrote: It looks to me as if the Pac-12 meatgrinder may not be adequately appreciated, seeing Oregon and OSU dropping so far after their loss to a strong Pac-12.
Of course Oregon and Oregon State didn't lose to a strong Pac-12, they lost to unranked, four-loss ASU which prior to last weekend had one quality win (Creighton).
Still, broadly speaking you are correct. Most who do rankings give relative too much weight to fewer losses rather than strength of record - though basketball not so badly as in some sports.
RE: WBB: Stanford 73 Cal 40; Stanford 79 Cal 65 - pefloresjr - 01-13-2020
(01-13-2020, 04:39 PM)76lsjumb Wrote: I'm a little stunned at the observations regarding the refereeing at Sunday's game. From my seat [above and to the right of our bench, where I had a bird's-eye view of Lacie being fitted by the trainer for her mask] that game was ref'ed atrociously.
When the obviously more talented team in a fairly rough game ends up with something like one-fifth the number of free throws [not counting the two by Brown(?) right at the end], there's something wrong. There were multiple kicked balls that simply weren't called. There were at least two clear flops -- supposedly a point of emphasis this season, at least on the men's side -- which weren't called. I believe there was one quarter when NO fouls were called on Cal [again, in a game that was obviously fairly physical]. For virtually the entire game, Cal didn't set screens so much as utilize offensive line blocking that was, on many occasions, probably more effective than our football team's OL this season.
Maybe I was at a different game, but the refs in the one I watched did a very sub-par job...
I'm with you 76LSJUMB. I was yelling at the tv over the near constant moving screens that I saw Cal commit on Sunday just as they did when I saw the game in person of Friday. Our disruptive defense on Friday caused a bunch of turnovers and stymied Cal's offense. For some reason, on Sunday, Cal was doing the same thing without foul calls but many of the same actions by Stanford resulted in foul calls. The players were visibly frustrated but did a pretty good job of just working through it. The foul disparity felt to me like Cal got nearly every benefit of the doubt and Stanford got the assumption of doubt. Not quite as bad as Lt. Drebin in Naked Gun but still influenced by the refs attempting to level the playing field for the underdog.
I know Tara would and did tell them they just had to keep playing through it, and I'm glad they did, but as a fan, I was not happy.
Cheers,
Pete F.
RE: WBB: Stanford 73 Cal 40; Stanford 79 Cal 65 - M T - 01-14-2020
(01-13-2020, 11:17 PM)pefloresjr Wrote: I'm with you 76LSJUMB. I was yelling at the tv over the near constant moving screens that I saw Cal commit on Sunday just as they did when I saw the game in person of Friday.
I presume my sarcastic comment about playing the refs was not lost on people. I believe you are right about flops in MBB, but I found no particular mention of flops in the current WBB rules. One girl flopped 3 times. The first resulted in a foul, the others were ignored.
There were some pretty egregious moving screens by Cal, but mostly Stanford avoided or minimized contact with the screener, so there was no foul to call. The TV had poor visibility on the moving screen call against Jerome as she held the ball & neither dribbled nor was called for traveling. Anyone remember that call that saw it in person? (Yes, the rules do allow calling a moving screen on the player with the ball.)
I will say that I saw missed calls (mostly grabbed arms of the ball handler) against both teams. The missed calls were spread over all 3 refs. There were questionable calls that I couldn't definitively see on TV.
By the way, the backcourt call against Cal was correct (had the ball gone in the backcourt, the player could retrieve it in the backcourt. But she grabbed it while it was still in the front court, and then she stepped on the line). I wish they'd rewrite the rule to allow that.
I wrote down notes about the officiating as I watched the recorded game. I tried to add them as a attachment, but that's another thing that doesn't work (at least for me) on the Cardboard.
Look on the bright side, with the quality of the conference this year & for the next few years, the refs should start to get used to the speed of play and the quickness of the players. We should get some better refereeing out of it -- but we pay for it as they learn.
Didn't Lacie do well with the face mask on? I hope her nose (etc) is doing ok. I hope Cal's Jazlen Green is doing ok.
RE: WBB: Stanford 73 Cal 40; Stanford 79 Cal 65 - martyup - 01-14-2020
IIRC Lacie came back in and hit a 3 with the face mask on. I wonder if she broker her nose. If so, bummer, but at least we might be able to tell them apart.
RE: WBB: Stanford 73 Cal 40; Stanford 79 Cal 65 - BobK - 01-14-2020
Officials aside I’m just glad 76 told me about Rosotis pizza in Roseville. It was so good I simply enjoyed the win. :)
RE: WBB: Stanford 73 Cal 40; Stanford 79 Cal 65 - 76lsjumb - 01-14-2020
(01-14-2020, 10:18 AM)BobK Wrote: Officials aside I’m just glad 76 told me about Rosotis pizza in Roseville. It was so good I simply enjoyed the win. :)
Very happy you enjoyed it [the pizza, not the officiating, that is : - ) ] I'm hoping to get to Riverside within the next 2-3 weeks. Who knew that Roseville might start challenging Naples as a pizza capital [...or that the Board would turn into Yelp ...] ?
RE: WBB: Stanford 73 Cal 40; Stanford 79 Cal 65 - 81alum - 01-14-2020
Wow, officiating is a sensitive topic--MT's and my remarks certainly spawned a lot of exchange.
So I'm not misunderstood, my comments really were not directed at the quality of officiating--which might have been good or bad. They were noticing the differences in officiating between the two games.
It seems that this year, Tara is using the length and depth of our team--particularly Lacie and Lexie--and the energy of Anna Wilson--to play a more aggressive style of man defense than we have seen in some time. We are playing closer and are attempting to make ordinary passes and dribbles more difficult. This is a style of defense more reminiscent of ASU in past years than of Stanford.
When playing a close man, the style of officiating really matters. Refs who allow incidental contact that doesn't seem to interrupt the flow of the game are the perfect crew for the close man defense. Refs who call that contact, on the other hand, will force you to sag off a bit. I think we had one kind of crew for the first game and a different kind of crew for the second game. This allowed our defense to be more aggressive in the first game and less so in the second game.
As for why Cal got so many fewer fouls called on it in the second game--it could reflect a referee bias as some have suggested. If so, it doesn't change my point. OUR defense got the benefit of calls in the first game that it did not get the benefit of in the second. That's all I was trying to say.
The disparity of fouls in the second game is indeed irksome.
RE: WBB: Stanford 73 Cal 40; Stanford 79 Cal 65 - BobK - 01-14-2020
Do you who posted in this tread really believe the refs are against us ? Really ?
My thought is after playing passively Friday Charmin lite a fire under them and cal offensively played much more aggressively. We were a step slow either mentally or physically
RE: WBB: Stanford 73 Cal 40; Stanford 79 Cal 65 - 76lsjumb - 01-14-2020
(01-14-2020, 01:58 PM)BobK Wrote: Do you who posted in this tread really believe the refs are against us ? Really ?
My thought is after playing passively Friday Charmin lite a fire under them and cal offensively played much more aggressively. We were a step slow either mentally or physically
Okay, I'll bite.
I don't necessarily believe that those refs were "against us," although I certainly don't rule out the possibility that some refs are biased against certain teams/coaches.
That being said, I DO believe that some refs are better [i.e., more skilled] than others, and that at least two of those at our Sunday game may not have been among those I would put in that category. I also believe that refs are [consciously or otherwise] affected by a spirited home crowd, generally to the benefit of the home team. This is particularly true on moving screens. I also believe that refs often display a tendency to "even things out," for lack of a better description, resulting in inconsistent calls being made. Not infrequently those inconsistencies clearly favor one team more than the other. I also believe that gross disparities in the number of fouls called and free throws awarded, particularly when they favor the less talented [and home] team, give rise to a presumption, which may be -- but I don't think on Sunday was -- rebuttable, that the calls were biased, even if not intentionally so.
Finally, it seems a little illogical to me that C.al had 12 fouls in Berkeley, when playing more aggressively, compared to 16 fouls at Maples, when playing less aggressively.