WBB: Stanford 60 -- Cal 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: WBB: Stanford 60 -- Cal 56 (/thread-23942.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 60 -- Cal 56 (/thread-23942.html)
RE: WBB: Stanford 60 -- Cal 56 - chimera - 01-10-2023
I had not seen the whole game live, just saw the last quarter, but got a chance to watch the rest yesterday. I did wonder about a couple of things. Belibi played well and scored when she was in during the first half, so I wonder why she did not get in at all in the second half. Also wondered why we shot so few mid-range jumpers when they were sagging off., just dribble in some, if the defender comes, now more room to pass inside and if not, an easier shot. Seems like even if those shots are not as efficient as threes or layups, if you are struggling to hit threes and get layups, mid-range might be just as efficient in that moment. As for Jones, she does take those mid-range shots, often after getting into the lane and then spinning, so I wouldn't say she is shooting them that much less than usual, or it seems not to me.
RE: WBB: Stanford 60 -- Cal 56 - BostonCard - 01-10-2023
Keep in mind that to be worth it, midrange jumpers have to be 1.5 times more efficient than three pointers. We shot 4/20 from three (20%), so we would have had to hit 30% from mid-range for it to be worth it. Our overall two point shooting was 16/42 (38%), but that includes layups. If you strip out the points in the paint, I really wonder if we were accurate enough from mid-range as to be worth it, and that is on a day when our two point shooting was pretty bad. For the year, we are shooting almost 35% from three, so the equivalent two-point efficiency would have to be 52% shooting.
Of course, there are second order effects, in that hitting a larger variety of shots forces defenders to defend more of the court, but if I am an opposing coach trying to figure out how to defend Stanford, I would focus my attention on packing the paint and stopping Hannah Jump's three point shooting and de-emphasize defending the mid-range jumpers and three point shots to players other than Jump.
BC
RE: WBB: Stanford 60 -- Cal 56 - TonyLima - 01-10-2023
(01-10-2023, 10:53 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Keep in mind that to be worth it, midrange jumpers have to be 1.5 times more efficient than three pointers. We shot 4/20 from three (20%), so we would have had to hit 30% from mid-range for it to be worth it. Our overall two point shooting was 16/42 (38%), but that includes layups. If you strip out the points in the paint, I really wonder if we were accurate enough from mid-range as to be worth it, and that is on a day when our two point shooting was pretty bad. For the year, we are shooting almost 35% from three, so the equivalent two-point efficiency would have to be 52% shooting.
Of course, there are second order effects, in that hitting a larger variety of shots forces defenders to defend more of the court, but if I am an opposing coach trying to figure out how to defend Stanford, I would focus my attention on packing the paint and stopping Hannah Jump's three point shooting and de-emphasize defending the mid-range jumpers and three point shots to players other than Jump.
BC
You and your pesky math. Many thanks. It seems to me that, at minimum, having a few players who develop the mid-range jumper is probably a move in the direction of greater offensive diversification. Lepolo, Prechtel, Demetre are names that come to mind. iriafen showed real potential, but may be more valuable playing under the hoop.
RE: WBB: Stanford 60 -- Cal 56 - old spanish trail - 01-10-2023
Jones, Iriafen and Brink are successful enuf with the mid range to shoot it when open. Jump is also but she has difficulty getting free in the key same as with her three pointer. Lepolo looks to have a mid range floater which will improve over time. Demetre and Prechtel should have mid range shots but haven't shown. Fran has shot a mid ranger in a few games but doesn't seem comfortable and is always looking to pass. Nivar has a jump shot and could well develop a consistent mid range.
RE: WBB: Stanford 60 -- Cal 56 - BosCard - 01-11-2023
Anyone think we should try another starting lineup to prevent our slow starts? Right now our 1Q offense is dump the ball into the post while the post player Brink/Iriafen is double teamed with the secondary defender sagging off Jones, Lepolo or Brink/Iriafen or all of those defenders sagging off. While Iriafen is clearly the better player, starting Demetre may put our All-Americans Brink and Jones in a better position to score.
RE: WBB: Stanford 60 -- Cal 56 - qwerty49 - 01-11-2023
(01-11-2023, 08:20 PM)BosCard Wrote: Anyone think we should try another starting lineup to prevent our slow starts? Right now our 1Q offense is dump the ball into the post while the post player Brink/Iriafen is double teamed with the secondary defender sagging off Jones, Lepolo or Brink/Iriafen or all of those defenders sagging off. While Iriafen is clearly the better player, starting Demetre may put our All-Americans Brink and Jones in a better position to score.
At this point, I would actually like to see Betts more. Betts/Brink/Jones/Jump is a pretty tough group to have to defend. Iriafen is tough but IMHO she is a bit too inconsistent and actually seems slightly undersized when we have Cam roaming out by the perimeter.
RE: WBB: Stanford 60 -- Cal 56 - BostonCard - 01-11-2023
(01-11-2023, 08:20 PM)BosCard Wrote: Anyone think we should try another starting lineup to prevent our slow starts? Right now our 1Q offense is dump the ball into the post while the post player Brink/Iriafen is double teamed with the secondary defender sagging off Jones, Lepolo or Brink/Iriafen or all of those defenders sagging off. While Iriafen is clearly the better player, starting Demetre may put our All-Americans Brink and Jones in a better position to score.
Stanford scoring by quarter:
1st: 368
2nd: 340
3rd: 367
4th: 328
Evidence suggests that our first quarter is our best scoring quarter. It is also our best defensive quarter. Stanford opponents scoring by quarter:
1st: 209
2nd: 228
3rd: 278
4th: 238
At the end of the first quarter, our average score is 21.6 - 12.3.
I think we might be suffering some recency bias, on the basis of closish games against Cal and Arizona, but I don't think there is any evidence that e start slow. In fact, I think we generally start fast.
BC
RE: WBB: Stanford 60 -- Cal 56 - BosCard - 01-11-2023
(01-11-2023, 08:38 PM)qwerty49 Wrote:(01-11-2023, 08:20 PM)BosCard Wrote: Anyone think we should try another starting lineup to prevent our slow starts? Right now our 1Q offense is dump the ball into the post while the post player Brink/Iriafen is double teamed with the secondary defender sagging off Jones, Lepolo or Brink/Iriafen or all of those defenders sagging off. While Iriafen is clearly the better player, starting Demetre may put our All-Americans Brink and Jones in a better position to score.
At this point, I would actually like to see Betts more. Betts/Brink/Jones/Jump is a pretty tough group to have to defend. Iriafen is tough but IMHO she is a bit too inconsistent and actually seems slightly undersized when we have Cam roaming out by the perimeter.
I could see that lineup too. However Iriafen is a much better defender when a guard switches on to her vs Betts
RE: WBB: Stanford 60 -- Cal 56 - qwerty49 - 01-11-2023
(01-11-2023, 08:46 PM)BosCard Wrote:(01-11-2023, 08:38 PM)qwerty49 Wrote:(01-11-2023, 08:20 PM)BosCard Wrote: Anyone think we should try another starting lineup to prevent our slow starts? Right now our 1Q offense is dump the ball into the post while the post player Brink/Iriafen is double teamed with the secondary defender sagging off Jones, Lepolo or Brink/Iriafen or all of those defenders sagging off. While Iriafen is clearly the better player, starting Demetre may put our All-Americans Brink and Jones in a better position to score.
At this point, I would actually like to see Betts more. Betts/Brink/Jones/Jump is a pretty tough group to have to defend. Iriafen is tough but IMHO she is a bit too inconsistent and actually seems slightly undersized when we have Cam roaming out by the perimeter.
I could see that lineup too. However Iriafen is a much better defender when a guard switches on to her vs Betts
Good point. We just seem a smidge away right now from being a very solid Final Four team, and hopefully we'll continue to improve during conference play. I see so much upside for Betts but I think she won't really develop until this off season and next year. My main concern for her is conditioning.
For Iriafen I would like to see her add some variety to her offense; I think the high post might suit her best.
Demetre is kind of an enigma to me at this point. She came renowned as an outside shooter but she now seems to be doing the little things on defense that get people PT in Tara's rotation. She and Bosgana seem the logical choices to take Haley's spot in the rotation next year.
RE: WBB: Stanford 60 -- Cal 56 - Hulk01 - 01-11-2023
Demetre had a wonderful midrange game in high school, highlighted by a stutter step in, fade away, especially from the left side. Her height, length. and uniquely high release point made that shot unstoppable.
RE: WBB: Stanford 60 -- Cal 56 - M T - 01-12-2023
(01-11-2023, 08:45 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I think we might be suffering some recency bias, on the basis of closish games against Cal and Arizona, but I don't think there is any evidence that e start slow. In fact, I think we generally start fast.
That's what you get when you mix nerds and fans.
Thanks, BC.