WBB: Stanford 61 South Carolina 65

WBB: Stanford 61 South Carolina 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 61 South Carolina 65 (/thread-22751.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

lex24 - lex24 - 12-22-2021

(12-22-2021, 11:38 AM)qwerty49 Wrote:
(12-22-2021, 10:03 AM)crackpot Wrote:
(12-21-2021, 09:32 PM)81alum Wrote: We scored more points in EACH of the first two quarters than we scored in the entirely of the second half. Our offense can be "disrupted" in a way that suddenly reversed success, quite clearly. Where can one obtain the +/- for this game? I suspect it will be quite revealing about who was in and who was out during our good and poor phases.

Here you go: http://stats.statbroadcast.com/broadcast/?id=376029 Select the Visitor Stats.

Wow our +/- is downright ugly. At first I thought that was a snapshot of the 3rd Q but it appears to be the final stats? I'm not sure how they calculate EFF but Prechtel appears to have had one of the best games scoring only 3 points.

Points off TOs: 26-6 pretty much tells the story.

Always have thought +- is a relatively useless statistic. Particular for a single game.

RE: WBB: Stanford vs. South Carolina Tues 4pm - M T - 12-22-2021

I wondered about what should have been the right call regarding the lane violation near the end of the game, so I checked the rules.

The ball is live once it is given to the FT shooter. (so it wouldn't be a dead ball foul of some kind)
So many of the foul specifications talk about touching the shooter, the dribbler, etc., but there's none that specifically address before the FT is shot.

There is this rule:

Quote:d. If there is a violation first by the free-thrower’s opponent, followed by a violation by the free-thrower or a teammate:
3. If a violation by the free-thrower or the free-thrower’s teammate follows disconcertion by an opponent, a substitute free throw shall be awarded.

In terms of a lane violation, per the written rules the So.Carolina player committed a violation well in advance of anyone stepping in the lane. I've never seen it called:

Quote:9.1.i Players occupying a legal marked lane space may not have either foot beyond the vertical plane of the outside edge of any legal lane boundary, beyond the vertical plane of any edge of space (2 by 36 inches) designated by a legal lane-space mark or beyond the vertical plane of any edge of the lane until the ball is released by the free-thrower

It is clear that the So. Carolina player's foot not on the lane line was above and beyond the lane-space mark. (It is not clear to me if your foot can be behind the mark and then into another player's space (as was our player's other foot).)

Quote: 8-4 Art. 6. A player shall position one foot near the outer edge of the free-throw lane line. The other foot may be positioned anywhere within the designated 3-foot lane space.

As for a review, it seems unlikely. However, it appears that a coach can at any time ask for a review for a missed intentional foul, and the officials must do the review. Even if they find no intentional foul, they are obliged to call (or clear) other fouls that they see during the review.

RE: WBB: Stanford vs. South Carolina Tues 4pm - 81alum - 12-22-2021

Blue Hawk, while Brink did not play a good game, I was not among those criticizing her last shot. I felt much as you do that Boston was not permitting her to get layups--we had seen her deny Brink with hip and body checks with impunity. So a mid range jump shot, which was open, was not the worst possible shot.

However, I am worried about Brink's shooting. Her mid range and long range shot which was so good last year seems to be fleeting this year. I'd like to see her heat up from beyond the arc like Prechtel has done and like Brink sometimes did a year ago. And her free throw shooting has got to improve. She just is not seeing the basket well unless she is up close. I'm hoping (and expect) that this is a temporary condition.

For example, when Prectel was in, Boston in the second half came out to defend her. When Brink was in, Boston stayed close to the basket to deny layups. South Carolina was not convinced Brink could make jumpshots, and they were right in that particular moment.

RE: WBB: Stanford vs. South Carolina Tues 4pm - Blue Hawk (Mizzou) Card - 12-22-2021

(12-22-2021, 03:33 PM)81alum Wrote: Blue Hawk, while Brink did not play a good game, I was not among those criticizing her last shot. I felt much as you do that Boston was not permitting her to get layups--we had seen her deny Brink with hip and body checks with impunity. So a mid range jump shot, which was open, was not the worst possible shot.

However, I am worried about Brink's shooting. Her mid range and long range shot which was so good last year seems to be fleeting this year. I'd like to see her heat up from beyond the arc like Prechtel has done and like Brink sometimes did a year ago. And her free throw shooting has got to improve. She just is not seeing the basket well unless she is up close. I'm hoping (and expect) that this is a temporary condition.

For example, when Prectel was in, Boston in the second half came out to defend her. When Brink was in, Boston stayed close to the basket to deny layups. South Carolina was not convinced Brink could make jumpshots, and they were right in that particular moment.

Agreed. Shooting is, at times (like in third quarters on this trip) hurting us. Cameron did seem to be in a bit of a slump on this trip.

But there is hope in that. On this trip, who played above general expectations? Fran against SC. Haley in the second quarter and Ashton in the fourth quarter at Tennessee. Hannah at times. Other than that, there is reasonable (i.e. not pie in the sky) room for improvement, yet we still won one against a top ten team and took the number one team down to the wire. Both on the road in SEC country. That gives me reason for hope.

Stanford has an ensemble cast team this year. There are about nine solid potential contributors. If three or four of them have good nights, Stanford is tough to beat. That can be tough on fans (and presumably also on coaches), because we never know what to expect going into a game. But if the coaches and players can identify and ride the hot hands, we will be tough to beat, even for really good teams. Other teams might have better best and even second best players. But three through nine we are mighty solid.

If we can figure out how to handle the press, we are a mighty tough out.