The CardBoard
WBB: Oregon 74 Stanford 66 - 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: Oregon 74 Stanford 66 (/thread-19002.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

RE: WBB: Oregon 74 Stanford 66 - oldalum - 02-25-2020

(02-25-2020, 07:57 PM)jonnyss Wrote:  by the time she was pulled after just over 1 minute of playing time, she had made 2 errors, 
actually, she had made 3 errors, but a second poor pass was merely tipped and did not result in a turnover.  :)

really an amazing series of miscues in the few minutes in which Oregon went ahead toward the end of that first quarter: in addition to Belibi's, Jerome fouled Boley trying to get a rebound, then got faked out on an inbounds play, allowing the pass in close, then fouled the shot. Fingall telegraphed a pass which was almost intercepted. Lexie badly missed 3 shots: a contested layup and two open jumpers. Bad sequence!

RE: WBB: Oregon 74 Stanford 66 - qwerty49 - 02-25-2020

(02-25-2020, 07:57 PM)jonnyss Wrote:  
(02-25-2020, 02:09 PM)M T Wrote:  [quote="81alum" pid='270668' dateline='1582635711']

By the way, Belibi wasn't pulled directly after the lazy pass. She was pulled after the foul on the breakaway some 53 seconds later.

technically true though you can't replace a player until the next stoppage in play. but if you mean that by the time she was pulled after just over 1 minute of playing time, she had made 2 errors, not one, i won't argue. i love her play, but it was not her night.

She's really a tweener at this stage of her development.  Physically sturdy but still undersized for a post, not much of a back-to-the-basket game, mad hops from a running start that don't immediately translate into a paint presence.  I'm really not sure how she best fits into our offense right now.

RE: WBB: Oregon 74 Stanford 66 - UltimateCard - 02-25-2020

(02-25-2020, 10:26 PM)qwerty49 Wrote:  
(02-25-2020, 07:57 PM)jonnyss Wrote:  
(02-25-2020, 02:09 PM)M T Wrote:  [quote="81alum" pid='270668' dateline='1582635711']

By the way, Belibi wasn't pulled directly after the lazy pass. She was pulled after the foul on the breakaway some 53 seconds later.

technically true though you can't replace a player until the next stoppage in play. but if you mean that by the time she was pulled after just over 1 minute of playing time, she had made 2 errors, not one, i won't argue. i love her play, but it was not her night.

She's really a tweener at this stage of her development.  Physically sturdy but still undersized for a post, not much of a back-to-the-basket game, mad hops from a running start that don't immediately translate into a paint presence.  I'm really not sure how she best fits into our offense right now.

And let’s remember - she only started playing the sport as a high school freshman, i.e., 4 years ago! High ceiling but let’s be realistic with the expectations...

RE: WBB: Oregon 74 Stanford 66 - M T - 02-26-2020

(02-25-2020, 10:18 PM)oldalum Wrote:  Jerome fouled Boley trying to get a rebound, then got faked out on an inbounds play, allowing the pass in close, then fouled the shot.
She wasn’t faked out - she was grabbed on the upper arm and pulled out of the way.

RE: WBB: Oregon 74 Stanford 66 - 81alum - 02-26-2020

(02-26-2020, 09:49 AM)M T Wrote:  
(02-25-2020, 10:18 PM)oldalum Wrote:  Jerome fouled Boley trying to get a rebound, then got faked out on an inbounds play, allowing the pass in close, then fouled the shot.
She wasn’t faked out - she was grabbed on the upper arm and pulled out of the way.
Are we at the point where we need to admit that one of the "basketball skills" that players need to master is how to cheat and get away with it?  Or at least how to stretch the envelope of the rules as far as possible without being called?  And how to react (flop) to call attention to an opposing player's fouls?  Call this "gamesmanship" I guess.  Not that I am endorsing this--it really diminishes the game.

I wonder if our players are as crafty and as good at "gamesmanship" as our opponents?  Or is it just because I am a home fan that I see the opponents doing these things and overlook our own players?  I have heard the complaints that opposing teams excessively hold our players, push and shove, and flop for years.  Do our players do this too?

RE: WBB: Oregon 74 Stanford 66 - NW Bias - 02-26-2020

(02-26-2020, 11:47 AM)81alum Wrote:  
(02-26-2020, 09:49 AM)M T Wrote:  
(02-25-2020, 10:18 PM)oldalum Wrote:  Jerome fouled Boley trying to get a rebound, then got faked out on an inbounds play, allowing the pass in close, then fouled the shot.
She wasn’t faked out - she was grabbed on the upper arm and pulled out of the way.
I wonder if our players are as crafty and as good at "gamesmanship" as our opponents?  Or is it just because I am a home fan that I see the opponents doing these things and overlook our own players?  I have heard the complaints that opposing teams excessively hold our players, push and shove, and flop for years.  Do our players do this too?
Yes. Stanford players are actually very adept at drawing fouls via flops and running through moving screens to get calls. The Hull twins are among the best in the business in doing so. They are smart and try to anticipate where to make contact on a a screen to get those calls. I am a Stanford fan, but have to interject when I read that other posters really believe that the Cardinal players are not getting their share of calls. Tara's presence on the bench and the basketball IQ of the Stanford players typically results in Stanford getting more than its share of 50/50 calls. No sense in bemoaning that. We are generally more aggressive with our double teams than other teams. It pays off to be aggressive in a number of ways.

RE: WBB: Oregon 74 Stanford 66 - chimera - 02-26-2020

(02-26-2020, 12:37 PM)NW Bias Wrote:  
(02-26-2020, 11:47 AM)81alum Wrote:  
(02-26-2020, 09:49 AM)M T Wrote:  
(02-25-2020, 10:18 PM)oldalum Wrote:  Jerome fouled Boley trying to get a rebound, then got faked out on an inbounds play, allowing the pass in close, then fouled the shot.
She wasn’t faked out - she was grabbed on the upper arm and pulled out of the way.
I wonder if our players are as crafty and as good at "gamesmanship" as our opponents?  Or is it just because I am a home fan that I see the opponents doing these things and overlook our own players?  I have heard the complaints that opposing teams excessively hold our players, push and shove, and flop for years.  Do our players do this too?
Yes. Stanford players are actually very adept at drawing fouls via flops and running through moving screens to get calls. The Hull twins are among the best in the business in doing so. They are smart and try to anticipate where to make contact on a a screen to get those calls. I am a Stanford fan, but have to interject when I read that other posters really believe that the Cardinal players are not getting their share of calls. Tara's presence on the bench and the basketball IQ of the Stanford players typically results in Stanford getting more than its share of 50/50 calls. No sense in bemoaning that. We are generally more aggressive with our double teams than other teams. It pays off to be aggressive in a number of ways.

Why do our opponents shoot more FTs over the course of the season if that is true?  They have, about 30 more.  If we get more than 50% of the 50:50 calls we should be shooting more, no?  And that is for the full season, which includes the easier early games.  In conference play I wonder what the ratio is...  So we foul more than our opponents, which seems very unlikely given many of them are in high aggression mode to try to beat a team ahead of them in rankings and standings?  Does not seem to jibe with scouting report defense and what my eyes tell me.

RE: WBB: Oregon 74 Stanford 66 - M T - 02-26-2020

Beware of being tricked into responding to someone possibly setting you up.  That was a first post by a poster self-named "NW Bias"

RE: WBB: Oregon 74 Stanford 66 - jonnyss - 02-26-2020

(02-26-2020, 03:01 PM)M T Wrote:  Beware of being tricked into responding to someone possibly setting you up.  That was a first post by a poster self-named "NW Bias"

good call, thanks!

RE: WBB: Oregon 74 Stanford 66 - oldalum - 02-26-2020

(02-26-2020, 09:49 AM)M T Wrote:  
(02-25-2020, 10:18 PM)oldalum Wrote:  Jerome fouled Boley trying to get a rebound, then got faked out on an inbounds play, allowing the pass in close, then fouled the shot.
She wasn’t faked out - she was grabbed on the upper arm and pulled out of the way.
good catch! But I think it was a combination of the two.

RE: WBB: Oregon 74 Stanford 66 - BostonCard - 02-26-2020

(02-26-2020, 12:37 PM)NW Bias Wrote:  I am a Stanford fan, but...

Dude you need to learn how to troll better.

BC

RE: WBB: Stanford vs. Oregon Monday 6pm - treetop11 - 02-27-2020

(02-25-2020, 09:39 AM)teejers1 Wrote:  
(02-25-2020, 01:04 AM)treetop11 Wrote:  Of course, this loss isn't the end of the world or the season for the team, and Oregon is a better team even if we had Carrington and Jones. Their top three are better than anybody we have and after that, their other players are on par with ours, other Kiana. But it goes back to being competitive. We weren't; many times our girls simply didn't hustle or go hard after loose balls. If Ionescu hadn't been ill and had a long day, she cold have gone for 40. As #4 playing #3 at home on the big stage, even if the opponent was better, the game should have see-sawed back and forth even if we eventually lost or lost by 8. I can eliminate the word piss, but the performance was still poor. And I'll bet that our players think the same, not that it was some kind of "victory" to end up only losing by 8. Hopefully, the loss will inspire them to do better and play harder moving ahead and get a shot to avenge the defeats in the P12 tournament.

I disagree with both highlighted phrases.  Sabally is a force and Ionescu is very skilled.  Hebard?  Not on same level, and I'd take Ki (even with her flaws) and maybe Lexie (with her all around game); and this doesn't include our injured players.

There is a difference between fighting hard/competitiveness and making ill-advised decisions.  The problem last night was more the latter than the former.  [The D was generally very good].  I will give you a couple breakdowns due to lack of effort (not boxing out Sabally after her missed three and letting Ionescu get one easy put back after a miss are examples), but there are always one or two of those per game.

This team is not that far off.  Push the pace; move the ball better on O; and take good shots (we had several bad shots last night, some of which were the result of not moving the ball, leading to late shot clock heaves).  Those would be the

I dismissed much of the hype about Hebard in the past, but watching her this year I became a believer. Her FG% is incredible where she makes almost every type of shot near the basket regardless of the defense. Also, she's almost automatic at the FT line. She rebounds extremely well and her defense is very solid. With bigger posts common, Hebard plays at a high level without a size advantage. 

I was shocked that we held her down and forced her to miss a number of shots. We made her a non-factor really. Her value was affirmed by Tara's press comments and the effort we made to stop her. I was disappointed that in stopping her we didn't win, but Sabally killed us instead. 

I love Ki as a top player and there is a reason she plays almost every minute - she's essential. But she's a step behind Oregon's three. She doesn't have their size for one, and second, she is less consistent. She will get in a groove and play all-world, but she also has times where she is pretty bad; bad TOs, poor shots, weak D. Oregon's players don't have as many or obvious plays. I think she deserves 1st team all conference, but that does't mean she is at the same level as Oregon's players. 

There were a number of times that I saw inadequate effort that cost us rebounds, loose balls, coverage on D, or enough aggression on O. Best way for me to explain is to compare to our MBB. They don't have the equivalent level of talent or depth, but I am awestruck watching how they fly around the court, especially on D. They close out on 3 point shooter as good as anybody (part of reason they lead P12 in 3 pt defense), yet that doesn't prevent them from defending off the dribble. They are either able to close out and still stay with a defender who tries to drive or almost every time, someone else steps in and cuts off the driver. They double, but still get back to their guy after the double. Don McLean has been really complimentary about that. Loose balls? Our guys are after them dogs on a bone, including the floor burns. Agst, Utah last night, I was fascinated at how many times our guys got on the floor to go after the ball AND avoid tie ups to eventually get the ball passed safely to a teammate. They come up with the ball and sometimes even initiate a fast break. They jump passing lanes and on O attack the basket and challenge usually bigger guys like the Utah block machine. The effort and intensity is incredible.

So if we put on a scale of 10, the men are a 10 if you allow for the fact that it's virtually impossible to go at the highest level of intensity for 40 mins., especially in the regular season and with lack of depth. Maybe in an NCAA tournament game a team will do that. If you don't allow it, they are still a 9 and the main reason that there season has been pretty successful despite not having elite talent or depth or size. For WBB, I would give them a 7 or 7.5, an 8 at times this season. But to beat a top team like Oregon, we have to be at least a 9 and possibly a 10. So I agree with you that we aren't that far off, but without the effort (and making FTs and NOT making stupid passes), we can't make that next level to get to the top. I have thought since preseason that we would finish below Oregon in the regular season, but rise up in the P12 tournament and beat them for the title. I didn't think we could beat them 3 out of 3 or 2 out of 3, but I do think we can beat them 1 out of 3. So I do believe that Tara can get the troops ready in the P12 tourney. Of course that means (and Tara knows) that we can't afford to stumble before reaching the finals. 

i'm on record of thinking this team is a Sweet 16 team with a chance to be Elite 8 depending on match ups, breaks in the game, officiating, and other variables. It would take almost a miracle to make the final four and a miracle to win ii all, but I'll be happy with 16 and really pleased with 8. Any higher, I would simply be thrilled for the players and coaches deserving all the best.
(02-25-2020, 11:30 AM)M T Wrote:  Can you imagine what some of our posters would have said if they were fans of Oregon about their team's 2 losses???
--------
Statistics notes:
Over the last 3 quarters, the score was Stanford 58 - Oregon 56.  Oregon got their last 4 points from intentional fouls, but they also were working the clock.
8 point difference in the game, in the 3rd quarter, in the number of FT made.
Stanford impacted Oregon's rebounding, esp. offensive.
Stanford impacted Oregon's Assist to FG ratio (and total assists)
Oregon impacted Stanford's 2pt game, but that was somewhat offset by a good 3pt game.
Stanford had fewer FT & FTA (less FT%) than normal, while Oregon had marginally more.
Stanford was closer to their average scoring than Oregon was.

StanStan SeasonOreOre Season
2pt14/35
40%		19.9/40
49.8%		20/36
55.6%		23.1/39.9
58%
3pt11/29
37.9%		8.6/23.4
35.9%		7/20
35%		9.3/24.1
38.4%
FT5/10
50%		9.5/13.6
69.6%		13/17
76%		11.7/15.2
77%
OR12/38
31.6%		12.9/36.3
32.4%		8/32
25%		12.7/32.5
39%
DR24/32
75%		28.9/40.8
70.9%		26/38
68.4%		27.7/38
72.8%
PF19
(2 int)		14.61412.9
A13/25
52%		15/28.5
52.6%		13/27
48.1%		20.8/32.4
64.2%
TO12131311.3
BLK2512.8
STL67.988.5
PTS6675.17485.8

I think you  made my case that I have been saying in that  both our teams, mens and womens, have been getting beat or almost beat at the FT line (number of FTs and %) and stupid passes.

RE: WBB: Stanford vs. Oregon Monday 6pm - 2006alum - 02-27-2020

(02-27-2020, 12:36 PM)treetop11 Wrote:  There were a number of times that I saw inadequate effort that cost us rebounds, loose balls, coverage on D, or enough aggression on O. Best way for me to explain is to compare to our MBB. They don't have the equivalent level of talent or depth, but I am awestruck watching how they fly around the court, especially on D. They close out on 3 point shooter as good as anybody (part of reason they lead P12 in 3 pt defense), yet that doesn't prevent them from defending off the dribble. They are either able to close out and still stay with a defender who tries to drive or almost every time, someone else steps in and cuts off the driver. They double, but still get back to their guy after the double. Don McLean has been really complimentary about that. Loose balls? Our guys are after them dogs on a bone, including the floor burns. Agst, Utah last night, I was fascinated at how many times our guys got on the floor to go after the ball AND avoid tie ups to eventually get the ball passed safely to a teammate. They come up with the ball and sometimes even initiate a fast break. They jump passing lanes and on O attack the basket and challenge usually bigger guys like the Utah block machine. The effort and intensity is incredible.

So if we put on a scale of 10, the men are a 10 if you allow for the fact that it's virtually impossible to go at the highest level of intensity for 40 mins., especially in the regular season and with lack of depth. Maybe in an NCAA tournament game a team will do that. If you don't allow it, they are still a 9 and the main reason that there season has been pretty successful despite not having elite talent or depth or size. For WBB, I would give them a 7 or 7.5, an 8 at times this season. But to beat a top team like Oregon, we have to be at least a 9 and possibly a 10. So I agree with you that we aren't that far off, but without the effort (and making FTs and NOT making stupid passes), we can't make that next level to get to the top. I have thought since preseason that we would finish below Oregon in the regular season, but rise up in the P12 tournament and beat them for the title. I didn't think we could beat them 3 out of 3 or 2 out of 3, but I do think we can beat them 1 out of 3. So I do believe that Tara can get the troops ready in the P12 tourney. Of course that means (and Tara knows) that we can't afford to stumble before reaching the finals. 

Still haven't had time this week to watch the game, but according to Massey, for their respective leagues, our women's team is just as dominant defensively as our men's team:

Team     | Overall | Offensive Power | Defensive Power
Men      | 48 | 105 | 15
Women  | 8 |  14  | 13

So our women are better defensively among women's teams than our men are among men's. I honestly think the eye test here is just not very useful, because men are faster, stronger, leaner, longer, and taller. In other words, of course they close out better on a stationary outside shooter. 

The Oregon women's team is also the #1 rated offensive power team in the country, per Massey, so our women couldn't have had a more difficult assignment. (The men's most recent matchup, Utah, is rated 127th in offensive power, by comparison.)

RE: WBB: Stanford vs. Oregon Monday 6pm - teejers1 - 02-27-2020

(02-25-2020, 09:39 AM)teejers1 Wrote:  
(02-25-2020, 01:04 AM)treetop11 Wrote:  Of course, this loss isn't the end of the world or the season for the team, and Oregon is a better team even if we had Carrington and Jones. Their top three are better than anybody we have and after that, their other players are on par with ours, other Kiana. But it goes back to being competitive. We weren't; many times our girls simply didn't hustle or go hard after loose balls. If Ionescu hadn't been ill and had a long day, she cold have gone for 40. As #4 playing #3 at home on the big stage, even if the opponent was better, the game should have see-sawed back and forth even if we eventually lost or lost by 8. I can eliminate the word piss, but the performance was still poor. And I'll bet that our players think the same, not that it was some kind of "victory" to end up only losing by 8. Hopefully, the loss will inspire them to do better and play harder moving ahead and get a shot to avenge the defeats in the P12 tournament.

I disagree with both highlighted phrases.  Sabally is a force and Ionescu is very skilled.  Hebard?  Not on same level, and I'd take Ki (even with her flaws) and maybe Lexie (with her all around game); and this doesn't include our injured players.

There is a difference between fighting hard/competitiveness and making ill-advised decisions.  The problem last night was more the latter than the former.  [The D was generally very good].  I will give you a couple breakdowns due to lack of effort (not boxing out Sabally after her missed three and letting Ionescu get one easy put back after a miss are examples), but there are always one or two of those per game.

This team is not that far off.  Push the pace; move the ball better on O; and take good shots (we had several bad shots last night, some of which were the result of not moving the ball, leading to late shot clock heaves).  Those would be the ingredients to get the team "there."


RE: WBB: Oregon 74 Stanford 66 - chimera - 02-27-2020

I have to say that while what I think should of course not dissuade anyone from posting however they wish, I hate mixing the men's and women's teams for comparison like this.  Aside from being Stanford teams, they don't have much in common.  Different systems, different strengths and weakness, etc.  There really isn't a reason to use the men's team as a comparison.  It isn't helpful IMO and many women are tired of always having their sports compared to men's.  The men's college game is not the same as the women's.  The rules aren't even all the same anymore.

RE: WBB: Oregon 74 Stanford 66 - jonnyss - 02-27-2020

regarding ruthy hebard. we did indeed contain her. stanford has over the years been quite good at containing star post players, usually by doubling them. doesn't work as well if the opponent has 3 or 4 other talented scorers. we often doubled hebard and wisely kept someone on ionescu and boley. that left either sabally or minyon moore wide open. unfortunately, sabally is as good a 3-point shooter as alanna smith.  based on what we saw of minyon moore at ucla, she could have scored a lot, too; but it appeared she had orders to distribute, not shoot.

RE: WBB: Oregon 74 Stanford 66 - 81alum - 02-27-2020

(02-27-2020, 08:08 PM)jonnyss Wrote:  regarding ruthy hebard. we did indeed contain her. stanford has over the years been quite good at containing star post players, usually by doubling them. doesn't work as well if the opponent has 3 or 4 other talented scorers. we often doubled hebard and wisely kept someone on ionescu and boley. that left either sabally or minyon moore wide open. unfortunately, sabally is as good a 3-point shooter as alanna smith.  based on what we saw of minyon moore at ucla, she could have scored a lot, too; but it appeared she had orders to distribute, not shoot.
At least a few of Sabally's jumpshots were open because we were paying so much attention to Hebard.  Tara notes in the press conference that part of Sabally's success was that she was not the top defensive priority.  Teams that have 3 superstars will do that to you.

RE: WBB: Oregon 74 Stanford 66 - WBB fan - 02-27-2020

(02-27-2020, 05:12 PM)chimera Wrote:  I have to say that while what I think should of course not dissuade anyone from posting however they wish, I hate mixing the men's and women's teams for comparison like this.  Aside from being Stanford teams, they don't have much in common.  Different systems, different strengths and weakness, etc.  There really isn't a reason to use the men's team as a comparison.  It isn't helpful IMO and many women are tired of always having their sports compared to men's.  The men's college game is not the same as the women's.  The rules aren't even all the same anymore.

Hear, hear!! Thanks so much for this comment. I totally agree with your comments. I also enjoy both, but watch them differently.

RE: WBB: Oregon 74 Stanford 66 - treetop11 - 02-28-2020

(02-27-2020, 05:12 PM)chimera Wrote:  I have to say that while what I think should of course not dissuade anyone from posting however they wish, I hate mixing the men's and women's teams for comparison like this.  Aside from being Stanford teams, they don't have much in common.  Different systems, different strengths and weakness, etc.  There really isn't a reason to use the men's team as a comparison.  It isn't helpful IMO and many women are tired of always having their sports compared to men's.  The men's college game is not the same as the women's.  The rules aren't even all the same anymore.

The exceeding need for some Stanford folks to always be "sensitive" and politically correct is just painful - can people just be honest instead of always wanting to give out trophies to everyone? For the record, my comments had nothing to do with comparing the MBB and WBB in terms of one being better than the other so as to diminish the other. I was pointing out the obvious facts related to specific defensive skills and implementing those skills (and importantly doing them with team work). My point is that the MBB team is basically over achieving because they are doing so well at those skills. And though I believe that our WBB is deserving to be in the top 10 as they are constituted right now, they need to be doing the same skills (and energy/intensity) as the MBB team to get to a higher rung nationally or even win the P12 since we have UO and Ucla as to beat out. 

Put it this way; how often do you see our entire rotation of players (not just 2 or 3) play with the same degree of aggression, energy, intensity, hustle, and physicality as many of our opponents? How many games are we winning basically because we have better players, better coaching, more depth? If we played as hard and fast - most all game long - like a number of our opponents, we would be in the top 3 or 5 and be right there going for a NC. That's the difference - we have top 10 talent (and great coaching), but the extra I described would make us even better e.g. liek CU was able to take us to the wire twice even though I think that we have a much better team.

RE: WBB: Oregon 74 Stanford 66 - M T - 02-28-2020

Treetop11, if that's your opinion, I have to believe you haven't been to their games.  Come by some time and watch the team.  Other than Oregon, I don't believe I've seen any opponents that keep up to our players.  As pointed out, the Stanford women have a higher-rated defense than the men's team you are comparing them to.  Our defense & offense are both high energy, high motion.