WBB: Stanford 50 -- USC 47 - Printable Version

WBB: Stanford 50 -- USC 47 - 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 50 -- USC 47 (/thread-24042.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

RE: WBB: Stanford 50 -- USC 47 - martyup - 02-18-2023

[Image: c928851f-bd3d-4995-a415-dc675ab82b0b_text.gif]

RE: WBB: Stanford 50 -- USC 47 - 81alum - 02-18-2023

(02-18-2023, 10:55 AM)crackpot Wrote:
(02-18-2023, 12:20 AM)chimera Wrote: Littleton is one of my least favorite players ever after watching this show. Whining, flinging her arms around like she was mugged when anyone was near her, all that good stuff. USC's offense is wretched and screw Gottlieb and staff for subjecting us to it. They don't shoot threes well but were canning them early to stay in the game. We got up 11 and should have pulled away a bit but got sloppy and let them make it a slog. Ick. Double ick.

Have to say, I came away from this game gaining a new least-favorite player. She was seething about her teammates in the first quarter, at one point planted at the southeast corner of the court just watching her teammates attempt to score while she just stood there staring them down. y favorite moment, though, had to be when she was performing her "I was horrifically fouled!" routine and the only player who had been near her was her own teammate. To be fair, the color combos of the uniforms last night were very confusing.

Would it be unfair to generalize about players who play for three or more programs? I can think of several hypotheses for why so many transfers, some of which are innocent, but many of which which are not very flattering.

RE: WBB: Stanford vs. USC Friday 8pm - treetop11 - 02-18-2023

(02-18-2023, 05:19 AM)M T Wrote:
(02-17-2023, 09:56 PM)old spanish trail Wrote: dont think anyone can complain about the refs so far.
Notes while I watched the recorded game:

1Q 8:28 USC 3' moving screen to allow a 3PT make.
1Q 7:30 USC slight moving screen prevents Jump from following her player, but then Jump is called for a foul on the shooter whom she isn't near. Call is by a ref whose view is blocked, so apparently reacting to Littletion's backward flop.
1Q 6:52 USC two moving screens by the same player leads to a 3pt make.
(2Q 7:30 Wandering Jones leaves her player (only 20% 3PT%) open for a wide open 3.)
(2Q 6:58 Another flop try by, you guessed it, Littleton)
(2Q 6:28 Circus shot miss by Jones with Demetre open for a 3)
(2Q 6:08 Jones fails to get out on player on a switch, allowing a long 3)
(2Q 2:27 Another USC attempted flop)
(2Q 2:15 Brink should know better than to try to rescue a ball under the opponent's goal!)
2Q 0:34.4 USC moving screen leads to a 3PT make
2Q 0:25 Brink makes an obvious moving screen
3Q 9:09 Should have been a foul on Brink
(3Q 8:24 Loose defense by Jones results in an open 3ptr by her player)
3Q 6:03 USC moving screen
(3Q 5:00 Wandering Jones lets her player hit a wide open 3)
3Q 0:16 The elbow over the head of the defender could have been called an intentional foul by Brink
3Q 0:03 Should have been a foul on USC on Jones's 2PT
(4Q 9:35 Wandering Jones doesn't pay any attention to her player who goes to get the O-board)
(4Q 8:15 Wandering Jones doesn't pay any attention to her player for about 10 seconds, leading to a wide-open 3PT miss)
(4Q 6:33 Jump gets blocked out, leading to a USC O-board)
4Q 6:24 USC Moving screen allows a 3PT miss and leads to a USC O-board.
(4Q 3:30 Jones failure to block out allows her player to get a USC O-board)
(4Q 3:25 Jones/Nivar communication failure leads to an open shot)
(4Q 3:22 Iriafen tries to block out but isn't effective, leading to USC O-board)
4Q 2:45 USC Push-off and two moving screens leads to a foul called against Stanford.
(4Q 1:58 Jones's player screens Nivar; Jones doesn't switch, leaving a wide open 3pt miss)
(4Q 1:43 Jump/Nivar miscommunication leads to an open 3pt make)
(4Q 1:05 Brink should have been called for a silly foul)

I saw most all of the things you noted and agree except didn't see the Brink elbow to the head.

(02-18-2023, 09:59 AM)cardfan1996 Wrote: It matters who is in the game with Nivar and Lepolo. Lepolo doesn’t pass the eye test and she simply doesn’t have the basketball skill or passing vision to play against a ball pressure defense.

Agnes cannot dribble and so she cannot create for herself or others which makes her a liability on offense, especially against aggressive defenses.

Hannah cannot make plays for herself or others.

Tara keeps rolling out Lepolo, Agnes and Hannah together at the same time and that has brought the offense to a standstill since November but that hasn’t discouraged Tara one bit from rolling them out there together every game.

If the weak link is rebounding then the weak link is defense too because defensive rebounding is essential to playing good defense. Oy vey

There were 3 categories of our bad rebounding:
1. Missed 3 pointers by SC with long rebounds. Those types the D almost never get, almost always turn into O rebs
2. A crowd of both D and O rebounders and fight for the ball. We lost almost all of these usually because SC was more aggressive, some legit, some should have been fouls on SC
3. 50-50 balls mostly gotten by SC being quicker and more reactive

We made it easier on #2 and #3 for SC by poor blocking out, letting SC players slip in.

(02-18-2023, 03:05 AM)qwerty49 Wrote: Came home late and watched the replay -- OMG what a root canal that was!

At one point we were up 40-29 and then we got outscored 18-10 the rest of the game. Fortunately $C was just a little worse than we were on offense.

I gotta say I'm getting less and less enamored of Lepolo. She's just getting a little too Martha-like.

OTOH Nivar really stepped up, although she lost a little aggressiveness toward the end.

Good move by Tara putting Agnes in on Littleton. I really thought that turned things around in the first half.

Best play was, again, watching Cam bring the ball up court. But watching her miss all those 3's and mid-range shots was painful.

I had high hopes for the Betts/Brink post combo, but I'm not sure I see the chemistry yet. I do want to see more of that combination. But as another poster mentioned, Betts doesn't seem to consistently have the intensity yet.

Lepolo just hasn't been as aggressive offensively as she was prior to her injury. She has attacked the basket less and looked for her shot less. I hope she returns to her prior play as that really puts pressure on opposing D's. I rather see her or Nivar handling the ball out front most of the time rather than see Haely dribbling on the perimeter for many seconds. If Haley has the ball on the perimeter, she just needs to immediately take her player off the dribble or pass and move so she can get a pass back for a shot.

I didn't pay attention to Littleton much in the first half, but watched her in the second. Don't know if we changed things from the first, but Jump was on Littleton most all the second half and was terrific denying her the ball and not giving her much space.

(02-18-2023, 11:26 AM)BostonCard Wrote: You know what other game was a root canal? The national championship game against Arizona two years ago, a 54-53 win where Arizona had a chance at a game winning shot as time expired. You will also recall that Arizona was good (top-25), but hardly one of the top teams in the country. Had that game occurred at any point other than in the finals, we might have said "yuck, we aren't that good" and certain posters amongst us would have been very critical of the team and coach after that win.

Stanford is a good, but flawed team. We are ranked in the top 4, which seems reasonable given our track record and the fact that aside from South Carolina and maybe Indiana, there really is no other team without flaws. Most of those teams' flaws are more substantial than Stanford's. I don't think that even the most optimistic poster here denies the existence of our weaknesses, and it means that once we get to the sweet sixteen, we won't be able to take any games for granted. If/when we get to the final four, we will have to play better than we played today to move on.

But that is also not a reason not to celebrate that we beat a tough, ranked team, even if it was by the skin of our teeth. And it is no reason to get histrionic about the team, the coach, or our prospects going forward.

BC

Agree with you Boston, good points. It's why I keep reiterating that in the stretch run against tough opponents, we need to play to our strengths and not worry about our weaknesses (i.e. force other teams to try to match up with us, rather than say us try to go small to match up with smaller, quicker teams - So Carolina does it this way, we should also). Plus, we need to have a dominating, aggressive attitude. At this point in the season, it often is the team who wants it the most and forces its will on the opponent.

RE: WBB: Stanford 50 -- USC 47 - qwerty49 - 02-18-2023

(02-18-2023, 11:26 AM)BostonCard Wrote: You know what other game was a root canal? The national championship game against Arizona two years ago, a 54-53 win where Arizona had a chance at a game winning shot as time expired. You will also recall that Arizona was good (top-25), but hardly one of the top teams in the country. Had that game occurred at any point other than in the finals, we might have said "yuck, we aren't that good" and certain posters amongst us would have been very critical of the team and coach after that win.

Stanford is a good, but flawed team. We are ranked in the top 4, which seems reasonable given our track record and the fact that aside from South Carolina and maybe Indiana, there really is no other team without flaws. Most of those teams' flaws are more substantial than Stanford's. I don't think that even the most optimistic poster here denies the existence of our weaknesses, and it means that once we get to the sweet sixteen, we won't be able to take any games for granted. If/when we get to the final four, we will have to play better than we played today to move on.

But that is also not a reason not to celebrate that we beat a tough, ranked team, even if it was by the skin of our teeth. And it is no reason to get histrionic about the team, the coach, or our prospects going forward.

BC

Well, one person's histrionics is another's reality check.

My view: This is a very talented team that unfortunately is not playing up to its potential in terms of consistency and the ability to keep the hammer down and break the game open when opponents make mistakes. The team has FF potential but it's not going to get there if it plays like it played last night.

The fan spectrum is wide. I think one end ("fan-atics") wants to win win win at all costs and is heavily emotionally invested in every game (and probably every play). I think the other end tends to focus more on the experience ("participation trophies" are the extreme example). The former tends to have higher expectations and is therefore much more exposed to frustration and disappointment. The latter tends to accept outcomes more readily as long as the experience is on the whole positive.

This board has the whole spectrum, and I think everyone has a right to be the type of fan they want to be. I will say that I think the criticisms based on observations of game play are very valid; those based on speculation (e.g. motives, personalities, etc) are not.

RE: WBB: Stanford 50 -- USC 47 - martyup - 02-18-2023

[Image: ac6e04e6584455d2688ab3f3c955eb28.gif]

RE: WBB: Stanford 50 -- USC 47 - TheWildJacko - 02-18-2023

(02-18-2023, 03:02 PM)qwerty49 Wrote:
(02-18-2023, 11:26 AM)BostonCard Wrote: You know what other game was a root canal? The national championship game against Arizona two years ago, a 54-53 win where Arizona had a chance at a game winning shot as time expired. You will also recall that Arizona was good (top-25), but hardly one of the top teams in the country. Had that game occurred at any point other than in the finals, we might have said "yuck, we aren't that good" and certain posters amongst us would have been very critical of the team and coach after that win.

Stanford is a good, but flawed team. We are ranked in the top 4, which seems reasonable given our track record and the fact that aside from South Carolina and maybe Indiana, there really is no other team without flaws. Most of those teams' flaws are more substantial than Stanford's. I don't think that even the most optimistic poster here denies the existence of our weaknesses, and it means that once we get to the sweet sixteen, we won't be able to take any games for granted. If/when we get to the final four, we will have to play better than we played today to move on.

But that is also not a reason not to celebrate that we beat a tough, ranked team, even if it was by the skin of our teeth. And it is no reason to get histrionic about the team, the coach, or our prospects going forward.

BC

Well, one person's histrionics is another's reality check.

My view: This is a very talented team that unfortunately is not playing up to its potential in terms of consistency and the ability to keep the hammer down and break the game open when opponents make mistakes. The team has FF potential but it's not going to get there if it plays like it played last night.

The fan spectrum is wide. I think one end ("fan-atics") wants to win win win at all costs and is heavily emotionally invested in every game (and probably every play). I think the other end tends to focus more on the experience ("participation trophies" are the extreme example). The former tends to have higher expectations and is therefore much more exposed to frustration and disappointment. The latter tends to accept outcomes more readily as long as the experience is on the whole positive.

This board has the whole spectrum, and I think everyone has a right to be the type of fan they want to be. I will say that I think the criticisms based on observations of game play are very valid; those based on speculation (e.g. motives, personalities, etc) are not.

I agree with you in general, I just think the spectrum isn’t that clear. Like, I get VERY emotionally invested in each game and every play, and even pissed off sometimes (more often than I’d like) if I don’t think we’re playing the way we should. I also pretty much expect us to win every game (I still think we should have beaten So. Carolina). I just don’t subscribe to the mindset that whatever expectations and/or hopes I may have justify trashing the team/coaches on a message board by calling them “pathetic” or “embarrassing.”

RE: WBB: Stanford 50 -- USC 47 - 81alum - 02-18-2023

(02-18-2023, 03:02 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: I will say that I think the criticisms based on observations of game play are very valid; those based on speculation (e.g. motives, personalities, etc) are not.

Excellent point.

(02-18-2023, 03:39 PM)TheWildJacko Wrote: I just don’t subscribe to the mindset that whatever expectations and/or hopes I may have justify trashing the team/coaches on a message board by calling them “pathetic” or “embarrassing.”

Agree wholeheartedly. Just keeping most of the adjectives out of the analysis gives even a very critical post more of an analytical feel rather than making it sound like a rant.

Mudhead - Mudhead - 02-18-2023

(02-18-2023, 04:07 PM)81alum Wrote:
(02-18-2023, 03:02 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: I will say that I think the criticisms based on observations of game play are very valid; those based on speculation (e.g. motives, personalities, etc) are not.
Excellent point.

(02-18-2023, 03:39 PM)TheWildJacko Wrote: I just don’t subscribe to the mindset that whatever expectations and/or hopes I may have justify trashing the team/coaches on a message board by calling them “pathetic” or “embarrassing.”
Agree wholeheartedly. Just keeping most of the adjectives out of the analysis gives even a very critical post more of an analytical feel rather than making it sound like a rant.

I would like to endorse this thinking. During a game, I a. The worst of sideline second guessers. “ Haley , why are you so llose with the damned ball?” “ Cam, don’t you dare foul her setting a pic 30 feet from the basket” “ Tara , who the hell is going to score in this line up ?”

When we are at the game , I just mutter. When we are watching on TV only my family has to hear my brilliant commentary. But if I post, I absulutely must discipline my commentary to take out the inflammation and eliminate any thought that a player is lackadaisical , or unfocused or that a coach is “dum b”. That doesn’t limit my opportunity to share what I see or worry about or even judge. It just forces me to phrase my thoughts a bit more to what I really believe, not how I am emoting.

By the way, I exercise no such restraint when “helping” the refs or making sure the other team knows I see their underhanded deeds.. I learned this technique watching our kids play football in high school here in Texas. I would move to the end zone and lean on the fence so that my comments of the moment were not shared . Probably kept me out of a lot of fist fights .

It’s still a good approach .

RE: WBB: Stanford 50 -- USC 47 - stopandpop - 02-18-2023

Maybe my (old) eyes are deceiving me, but it seems Brink's missed midrange shots have a slightly higher trajectory (more like Demetre's), than her games earlier in the season, when she was fairly consistent, and even hitting a decent percentage of 3's.

Or is it just a mental thing at this point where she's lost confidence in that shot?

The other question I have is- What do you think was the reason why (in the last 3-4 minutes of the game), Brink was getting the ball, maybe 15 feet from the basket, and looking around for someone to pass to? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think she drove to the basket once in that stretch.

All that standing around late in the 4th. quarter when Haley or Talano or Nivar is dribbling the ball (and being pressured), seemed more like we were playing not to lose rather than playing to win.

RE: WBB: Stanford vs. USC Friday 8pm - old spanish trail - 02-18-2023

(02-18-2023, 05:19 AM)M T Wrote:
(02-17-2023, 09:56 PM)old spanish trail Wrote: dont think anyone can complain about the refs so far.
Notes while I watched the recorded game:

1Q 8:28 USC 3' moving screen to allow a 3PT make.
1Q 7:30 USC slight moving screen prevents Jump from following her player, but then Jump is called for a foul on the shooter whom she isn't near. Call is by a ref whose view is blocked, so apparently reacting to Littletion's backward flop.
1Q 6:52 USC two moving screens by the same player leads to a 3pt make.
(2Q 7:30 Wandering Jones leaves her player (only 20% 3PT%) open for a wide open 3.)
(2Q 6:58 Another flop try by, you guessed it, Littleton)
(2Q 6:28 Circus shot miss by Jones with Demetre open for a 3)
(2Q 6:08 Jones fails to get out on player on a switch, allowing a long 3)
(2Q 2:27 Another USC attempted flop)
(2Q 2:15 Brink should know better than to try to rescue a ball under the opponent's goal!)
2Q 0:34.4 USC moving screen leads to a 3PT make
2Q 0:25 Brink makes an obvious moving screen
3Q 9:09 Should have been a foul on Brink
(3Q 8:24 Loose defense by Jones results in an open 3ptr by her player)
3Q 6:03 USC moving screen
(3Q 5:00 Wandering Jones lets her player hit a wide open 3)
3Q 0:16 The elbow over the head of the defender could have been called an intentional foul by Brink
3Q 0:03 Should have been a foul on USC on Jones's 2PT
(4Q 9:35 Wandering Jones doesn't pay any attention to her player who goes to get the O-board)
(4Q 8:15 Wandering Jones doesn't pay any attention to her player for about 10 seconds, leading to a wide-open 3PT miss)
(4Q 6:33 Jump gets blocked out, leading to a USC O-board)
4Q 6:24 USC Moving screen allows a 3PT miss and leads to a USC O-board.
(4Q 3:30 Jones failure to block out allows her player to get a USC O-board)
(4Q 3:25 Jones/Nivar communication failure leads to an open shot)
(4Q 3:22 Iriafen tries to block out but isn't effective, leading to USC O-board)
4Q 2:45 USC Push-off and two moving screens leads to a foul called against Stanford.
(4Q 1:58 Jones's player screens Nivar; Jones doesn't switch, leaving a wide open 3pt miss)
(4Q 1:43 Jump/Nivar miscommunication leads to an open 3pt make)
(4Q 1:05 Brink should have been called for a silly foul)

I should have been more clear, I guess. I thought both teams committed a number of fouls that weren't called. It seemed pretty even to me. There were also several moves by both teams that are often called fouls when I think it should be play on. Again, pretty even. It was indeed a physical game. I'm probably in the minority but I prefer letting them play to a ticky tac foul game. I do agree this game was a bit extreme on the physical side, especially in the 4th when SC was trying to catch up.

RE: WBB: Stanford vs. USC Friday 8pm - 81alum - 02-18-2023

(02-18-2023, 07:08 PM)old spanish trail Wrote: I should have been more clear, I guess. I thought both teams committed a number of fouls that weren't called. It seemed pretty even to me. There were also several moves by both teams that are often called fouls when I think it should be play on. Again, pretty even. It was indeed a physical game. I'm probably in the minority but I prefer letting them play to a ticky tac foul game. I do agree this game was a bit extreme on the physical side, especially in the 4th when SC was trying to catch up.

It could very well be that both sides were called evenly, although in both games against USC, USC shot and made more free throws than we did. That does seem odd to me.

But even if both sides were called evenly, it did not have the same effect on both sides. "Letting them play" favors defense over offense, and thus the officiating reduces the advantage of a good offense and accentuates the advantage of a good defense. The results are what we saw.

RE: WBB: Stanford 50 -- USC 47 - OCcardinal - 02-18-2023

I would have liked to have seen a blowout, but blowouts don't guarantee you a championship. Two seasons ago UConn finished the regular season with only one 3-point loss and an average margin of victory of 32 points. But then Arizona beat them by 10 in the Final Four. They weren't ready to face that kind of opponent. If we hope to win 6 tournament games in a row what matters is that we be able to beat all styles of play (and refereeing).

With this win we've now earned at least one victory against every tournament-quality team we've faced, except South Carolina. We also had a 12-point scoring margin improvement from the 1st USC game and did so while upping a backup freshman guard's playing time from 3 minutes to 26 minutes. That's a terrific result.

Nivar made some mistakes, but finished tied for 2nd in team scoring and 3rd in efficiency, with a rating of 12 (only 1 point behind Jones despite paying 9 fewer minutes). True, USC was missing Marshall, but Marshall's good defense was offset by terrible offense. In the earlier matchup vs Stanford she shot 2-12 from the field (and 2-6 from the free throw line) with an efficiency rating of 3, second worst on her team. Not exactly the stuff of nightmares. Compare Brink, who last night did not have her best shooting night, but still finished with an Efficiency of 20 (leading all players on both teams).

What I like from this year's team is that when facing the better teams in the conference we seem to be learning more from our first matchups than our opponents. Notice our margin improvements against the two best teams we've played twice so far:

Opponent 1st Game/2nd Game (Difference)
#18 AZ 16/24 (+8) [compare that to Arizona's +13 margin improvement in their second game with Utah]
#25 USC -9/3 (+12) [compare that to USC's +33 margin improvement in their second game with Oregon]

(I recognize that was not the case with Cal, where our margin shrunk by 13, but I chalk that up to a combination of it being early in the season and perhaps overconfidence.)

What's interesting is that we were not able to improve against the best Pac 12 teams at all in our National Championship season two seasons ago:

Opponent 1st Game/2nd Game (Difference) [Rankings = pre-tournament AP rankings]
#9 UCLA 12/-4 (-16)
#11 AZ 27/14 (-13)
#23 OR 7/2 (-5)

Maybe that was more a function of the Santa Clara County quarantine than anything else. But it is a striking difference nonetheless. We have three more tough second games coming up, so fingers crossed the trend continues.

RE: WBB: Stanford 50 -- USC 47 - TheWildJacko - 02-18-2023

(02-18-2023, 06:18 PM)stopandpop Wrote: Maybe my (old) eyes are deceiving me, but it seems Brink's missed midrange shots have a slightly higher trajectory (more like Demetre's), than her games earlier in the season, when she was fairly consistent, and even hitting a decent percentage of 3's.

Or is it just a mental thing at this point where she's lost confidence in that shot?

The other question I have is- What do you think was the reason why (in the last 3-4 minutes of the game), Brink was getting the ball, maybe 15 feet from the basket, and looking around for someone to pass to? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think she drove to the basket once in that stretch.

All that standing around late in the 4th. quarter when Haley or Talano or Nivar is dribbling the ball (and being pressured), seemed more like we were playing not to lose rather than playing to win.

Not sure re: the first question, but my biggest question is, towards the end of the game, why didn’t Kiki shoot the ball when she got the pass wide open under the basket with 3 seconds left and everyone in the gym counting down? She was looking around for someone to pass to, it seemed, but she literally could not have been more open. The shot clock expired and we almost gave the game away on that one play. I was very confused.

RE: WBB: Stanford 50 -- USC 47 - CompSci87 - 02-19-2023

(02-18-2023, 08:00 PM)TheWildJacko Wrote: Not sure re: the first question, but my biggest question is, towards the end of the game, why didn’t Kiki shoot the ball when she got the pass wide open under the basket with 3 seconds left and everyone in the gym counting down? She was looking around for someone to pass to, it seemed, but she literally could not have been more open. The shot clock expired and we almost gave the game away on that one play. I was very confused.

That one puzzled me too. My thought was that she must have lost track of where the defenders were and thought they were right behind her.

RE: WBB: Stanford 50 -- USC 47 - 81alum - 02-19-2023

(02-19-2023, 12:08 AM)CompSci87 Wrote:
(02-18-2023, 08:00 PM)TheWildJacko Wrote: Not sure re: the first question, but my biggest question is, towards the end of the game, why didn’t Kiki shoot the ball when she got the pass wide open under the basket with 3 seconds left and everyone in the gym counting down? She was looking around for someone to pass to, it seemed, but she literally could not have been more open. The shot clock expired and we almost gave the game away on that one play. I was very confused.

That one puzzled me too. My thought was that she must have lost track of where the defenders were and thought they were right behind her.

My guess is that the whole team was instructed to run clock as long as they were able--until/unless they got fouled. They wanted to milk every second. However, taking the chance to go up 5 seems like it was probably worth giving USC 3 extra seconds. The difference would have been being up 3 with 7 seconds left, or being up 5 with 10 seconds. But Iriafen must have been following directions.

The absolute worst thing we could have done was to take a shot and miss before using up all the clock. But a point-blank layup having used up 27 seconds probably wasn't what was anticipated when a coach said "hold onto the ball" or somesuch.

RE: WBB: Stanford 50 -- USC 47 - RuralFan - 02-19-2023

Quote:My guess is that the whole team was instructed to run clock as long as they were able--until/unless they got fouled. They wanted to milk every second.

This may be a brilliant strategy, but I just can't deal with it. It means not running the offense. It means not taking any shots. It means not rebounding or playing with energy. It means giving up! Surely there is a better way.

RE: WBB: Stanford 50 -- USC 47 - 81alum - 02-19-2023

(02-19-2023, 08:27 AM)RuralFan Wrote: This may be a brilliant strategy, but I just can't deal with it. It means not running the offense. It means not taking any shots. It means not rebounding or playing with energy. It means giving up! Surely there is a better way.

I don't follow you. Far from giving up, the strategy was meant to guarantee a lead, to guarantee that USC had very little time to overcome our lead, and to guarantee that we knew exactly what kind of shot USC would have to take (only a three point shot could tie.) Given that we could not run the clock out entirely, it gave us the best chance to win. As it turned out, Littleton had to take USC's desperation shot with Lepolo's two hands in her face. We knew exactly what they had to do and we defended it perfectly. The ball did not even hit rim--so we defended it a bit better than the national championship heave that Arizona made at the buzzer.

However, I do agree that the strategy should have been more nuanced, and if we had a very easy shot available with only a few seconds left on the shot clock (as turned out to be the case) we should have taken it. We basically gave up a high chance at 2 points in order to kill 3 more seconds, and that probably wasn't the best trade. If Iriafen passes out of that layup early in the shot clock, then I think that would have been an excellent decision--but not with three seconds.

I also wonder if we were surprised that USC did not foul us early in the shot clock. It was a tough call for USC to make, down 3. Had they sent us to the line with about 30 seconds left, then they could have played the fouling game back-and-forth a bit and hoped we would miss all our free throws. But we were 5/5 at that point.

Our team does deserve credit for improving its inbounding passes. USC had several fouls to give at the end and used them up trying to force us to turn the ball over while inbounding it. We have been vulnerable to this before. But we got the ball in successfully every time, and then they let us run clock without fouling.

Here is a question for our basketball rules experts. Let's say Iriafen with 3 seconds on the shot clock just reaches up and taps the ball on the rim. Does that reset the shot clock to 20 seconds? Does she at least have to pretend it is a genuine shot? Does the ball have to leave her hand?

Baez87 - Baez87 - 02-19-2023

(02-19-2023, 09:49 AM)81alum Wrote:
(02-19-2023, 08:27 AM)RuralFan Wrote: This may be a brilliant strategy, but I just can't deal with it. It means not running the offense. It means not taking any shots. It means not rebounding or playing with energy. It means giving up! Surely there is a better way.
I don't follow you. Far from giving up, the strategy was meant to guarantee a lead, to guarantee that USC had very little time to overcome our lead, and to guarantee that we knew exactly what kind of shot USC would have to take (only a three point shot could tie.) Given that we could not run the clock out entirely, it gave us the best chance to win. As it turned out, Littleton had to take USC's desperation shot with Lepolo's two hands in her face. We knew exactly what they had to do and we defended it perfectly. The ball did not even hit rim--so we defended it a bit better than the national championship heave that Arizona made at the buzzer.

However, I do agree that the strategy should have been more nuanced, and if we had a very easy shot available with only a few seconds left on the shot clock (as turned out to be the case) we should have taken it. We basically gave up a high chance at 2 points in order to kill 3 more seconds, and that probably wasn't the best trade. If Iriafen passes out of that layup early in the shot clock, then I think that would have been an excellent decision--but not with three seconds.

I also wonder if we were surprised that USC did not foul us early in the shot clock. It was a tough call for USC to make, down 3. Had they sent us to the line with about 30 seconds left, then they could have played the fouling game back-and-forth a bit and hoped we would miss all our free throws. But we were 5/5 at that point.

Our team does deserve credit for improving its inbounding passes. USC had several fouls to give at the end and used them up trying to force us to turn the ball over while inbounding it. We have been vulnerable to this before. But we got the ball in successfully every time, and then they let us run clock without fouling.

Here is a question for our basketball rules experts. Let's say Iriafen with 3 seconds on the shot clock just reaches up and taps the ball on the rim. Does that reset the shot clock to 20 seconds? Does she at least have to pretend it is a genuine shot? Does the ball have to leave her hand?

My opinion is that the ball simply has to touch the rim for a reset, no measure of intent is necessary. That could set up a possibility for someone of Iriafen's stature to do just you suggested. (If you don’t get a good bounce, it could backfire). I’m sure we have some rules guys who will wade in and clarify this.
In a sense we played our eleven point lead out the same way — do just enough to burn the clock and win the game. I prefer a runaway, but if the shots aren’t falling, it’s an effective way to win.

RE: WBB: Stanford 50 -- USC 47 - Goose - 02-19-2023

(02-19-2023, 09:49 AM)81alum Wrote: I don't follow you. Far from giving up, the strategy was meant to guarantee a lead, to guarantee that USC had very little time to overcome our lead, and to guarantee that we knew exactly what kind of shot USC would have to take (only a three point shot could tie.) Given that we could not run the clock out entirely, it gave us the best chance to win. As it turned out, Littleton had to take USC's desperation shot with Lepolo's two hands in her face. We knew exactly what they had to do and we defended it perfectly. The ball did not even hit rim--so we defended it a bit better than the national championship heave that Arizona made at the buzzer.

However, I do agree that the strategy should have been more nuanced, and if we had a very easy shot available with only a few seconds left on the shot clock (as turned out to be the case) we should have taken it. We basically gave up a high chance at 2 points in order to kill 3 more seconds, and that probably wasn't the best trade. If Iriafen passes out of that layup early in the shot clock, then I think that would have been an excellent decision--but not with three seconds.

I agree with the strategy employed, but I am not totally in agreement with the idea a shot with "only a few seconds" on the clock is a good one. The players out there have a lot of decisions to make and are real busy playing basketball. How many seconds is few enough? How sure that you will make it do you have to be? How much time is actually left? Lots of things to go wrong. If you are a great shooter and are wide open with X seconds left, do you shoot? I can certainly see the staff telling players that with less than X seconds left on the shot clock, you can shoot. I can also see the coach saying "Don't shoot it, period". I can also understand a player who technically has a green light not shooting because they weren't "exactly sure how much time was left on the shot clock". It is a more "conservative" decision, but it probably won't get you yelled at. Shooting might :-).

RE: WBB: Stanford 50 -- USC 47 - jonnyss - 02-19-2023

turtling with a lead in the 4th quarter has never been fun for fans.

that said, usc's time management at the end of the game was much stranger. why foul twice, then let the clock run down? i suppose it's human for a coach to change her mind; but it's not a good look. much harder to understand than tara's use-clock strategy.