WBB: Stanford vs. UCLA Friday 6pm - 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 vs. UCLA Friday 6pm (/thread-24081.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 vs. UCLA Friday 6pm (/thread-24081.html)
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. UCLA Friday 6pm - lsmant - 03-04-2023
Although I have never posted on this forum I read every post available for WBB and WVB. A brobdingnagian thank you to two folks in particular, 81alum and chimera. It has often been my privilege and good luck to hear their discussions at chalk talks. Their posts here are factual and thoughtful and carefully written. I learn from them before and after every game. I share their thoughts and concerns. Last night I could not watch the game to the bitter end. I thought I was done with basketball for the season. Their fair and balanced assessments, along with several others, have enabled me to remember why I have supported this team for decades. Thank you! I am now going to watch the game without sound or commercials or commentary.
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. UCLA Friday 6pm - BillBradley - 03-04-2023
Haven't posted this season, but have enjoyed reading the threads. Just wanted to point out one thing that I think may have been missed through all the reactions to our offensive output. Around Jan 25, I believe Tara made a major decision to focus Cam on the low block. This followed the loss at USC where Cam went 0-5 from 3 and hadn't been shooting it that well from the perimeter, along with a couple other 0-2 games. Before then, we had Cam on the perimeter, sometimes in 4 out sets, which allowed Kiki a/or Haley room to attack. Since then, our lineups have been Haley, Hannah, Cam and ALWAYS one other big if not 2. I think Tara just committed to a strategy of pounding it down on other teams. Mistake? I think maybe so. Not only is it awful to watch as many have posted, but it's also not that fun to play and the team seems to have lost some of their joy. It has allowed Betts to get on the floor. Maybe that was a factor in her decision making. But we are slow and very susceptible to guarding the perimeter and stopping dribble penetration. Our losses have been due to other teams scoring "enough" from the outside or with dribble penetration, while we just can't seem to get into the 70's. UCLA absolutely torched us in the 2nd half yesterday because we were just too slow.
It's pretty simple in my book. In order to get the Natty, we have to exploit teams doubling and tripling Cam. I would surround her with shooters, and even though I don't have a lot of confidence in Lapolo or Agnes or Bosgana's shots, they can hit enough of them to make teams pay. My preferred lineup would be Haley, Cam, Hannah, Lepolo, and Demetre. Go figure, the Cal Stars team. I would even pull Cam out on the perimeter and let Haley go to the low block. Basketball offense is all about finding advantage and exploiting it. Cam and Haley are both good passers. With 3 good enough shooters on the perimeter, if we can't figure out how to distribute the ball when doubled, then we deserve to lose. Maybe Tara will prove to be right, that we need to play to our strengths, play big, and pound it down low. It's way different once we get out of conference and teams don't know us as well. All these P12 players know how to play against each other, but teams around the country won't have that advantage, even with film, and we could drill them.
Last note, say what you want about 1996, but the dude/chick knows hoop. My guess is he/she played college hoop a/or has coached at least at high level AAU or high school varsity. 1996 provides specific examples, even showing on film what he/she is talking about. Not a troll at all in my book. Most of the vitriol towards him/her have to do with tone. Really, who TF cares? Just respond to the basketball points, or don't respond at all. When it gets to the point where a large chunk of posts are about spelling corrections, name corrections, negativity/tone corrections, the board loses a lot of its fun value. This is a big reason why I've decided to not post this year. Hardly anyone would really respond to my basketball points. I posted at the beginning of last season during the "point guard debate" that Lacie would take all the minutes as the fifth player and that Jana just wasn't good enough and she might even transfer. Not only did I get the classic "but she was a 5 star recruit and rated # whatever in the recruiting rankings, she has to be more talented than Lacie who was not even in the top 100 or whatever", I also got scolded for suggesting someone might transfer. Blecchh.
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. UCLA Friday 6pm - cardfan1996 - 03-04-2023
(03-04-2023, 12:28 PM)Deejaatee Wrote:(03-04-2023, 11:59 AM)cardfan1996 Wrote:(03-04-2023, 10:26 AM)Deejaatee Wrote: Slightly different take.
I am disappointed that we did not win last night and will not win the PAC-12 tourney title. But I am excited that we won the regular season championship (remember, we may have 8 teams in the Dance). And excited for the Big Dance.
I do think we are a Final Four team. And I think that now that we are out of the PAC, we will do well.
The PAC is an elite conference with several quality coaches who have been coaching against Stanford for years. They understand how Tara thinks and directs her team. And they have built their teams in ways that can compete with Stanford, the standard. Their theory is that if they can compete with Stanford, they can compete with anyone. Nice to be the standard they are aiming at. But that means that from time to time, they are going to beat us.
That said, with Jones and Brink, we have two All-American level players that other teams have to game plan around. And with Jump, we have one of the best 3-point shooters in the country, who is so good that other teams completely change their defense to shadow her. And her defense has improved to the point she is often guarding other teams' top guards.
I am comfortable going to battle with this nucleus of three.
Lepolo showed this weekend that she has recovered from her injury, and gotten her second freshman wind. She shows a better understanding of the gameplan. And her continued growth allows Jones to roam, which fits her skills better.
Personally, I would stay with the big lineup to start every game, starting Iriafen instead of Emma-Nnopu. I think that tells every team that they have to match us. Not the other way around. But Tara sometimes goes with those she trusts.
Speaking of Trust, that is proably the one area where I would like to see Tara expand this tournament season. She tends to rely heavily on those she trusts, sometimes to the point of failure (see Jones losing her sea legs in the last few games). She does indeed have that deep bench. But it is only good if you use it wisely. Play your people. Even, if you don't yet fully Trust them.
That is what sets Dawn Staley apart from Tara at this point. She trusts her bench players to play through mistakes and gain momentim through playing.
Tara needs to heed her own statement about getting out of the way of her team. She needs to loosen the reins a little on her other players.
That would allow her to take advantage of the multi-skilled Bosgana; the three point shooting presence of Prechtel in the post; the speed of Iriafen and Belibi on the wings; and the shooting ability of Harriel running the point behind Lepolo, allowing Nivar to scramble around with Emma-Nnopu causing havoc. And no, I didn't forget Betts just continuing to expand her presence game to game.
Regardless of how Tara puts things together though, I am excited for what's to come this tournament season.
Let the dance begin.
I get your point but why would Tara not trust Ashten? Better still, why would she trust Agnes, Lepolo, Betts, Kiki . . .Fran, Hannah, but not Ashten?
Ashten has performed at a high level in pressure situations in way more consequential games than any of the above. She is known as the most clutch player by her teammates (according to their own poll).
Prechtel may fit in a different bucket. More like a better talented Alyssa Jerome from the past. She trusts her with the "break glass in case of emergency" approach. Tara knows what Prechtel can do, and sees that need in special circumstances, which may appear in the tournament. I think the issue normally with Prechtel is she is an outside-in post, whereas the team has switched to an inside-out approach. So, to take full advantage of her strengths on offense, requires the right mix of people on the court. Not sure Tara has figured out who that combo would be.
Prechtel is not Alyssa Jerome. Her credentials including Mickey D All-American and PAC-12 6th women of the year speak for themselves. Pretchel has performed at a high level and in more “consequential” games than Lepolo, Agnes, Fran, Hannah, Brooke, Betts and Demetre COMBINED IMO. We all have different definitions of consequential but she is widely regarded by the team as “clutch.” She is the only player I’ve seen truly frustrate Boston. And it would be extraordinarily unfair to “break the glass” and expect Ashten to “save” SWBB when she has had very little time on the floor with the starters.
Most of us agree “pound the post” is not working. Spacing is offense and offense is spacing. We can’t out-S.Carolina S.Carolina because their defense is next level suffocating and so is their rebounding. “Pound the post” is their specific identity and it works for them because of the skillset of the individual players. For instance, they have Zia Cooke. We have Hannah Jump. Zia Cooke can be a knock down shooter but mostly she drives to the basket, gets fouls and goes to the foul line, gets midrange jumpers and she can create for herself. Zia has struggled in some games but never gone scoreless. Hannah is a gifted shooter but you can face guard Hannah and take her completely out of a game. And I honestly can’t remember the last time Hannah went to the free throw line. And I think she went scoreless against UCLA yesterday and at Maples. You have to surround Hannah with players on the perimeter that can make plays for her because she cannot make plays for herself with the ball, not just other “shooters” that are far inferior to her as a shooter.
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. UCLA Friday 6pm - treetop11 - 03-04-2023
(03-04-2023, 09:40 AM)81alum Wrote:(03-04-2023, 09:20 AM)cardfan1996 Wrote: The only reason I can think that Hannah would leave is if she thinks her guard skills can be developed better elsewhere because this year at least playing time is not an issue (though it seems from posts from those close to her that she is not getting the same spotlight shined on her as Cam and Haley and that might be an issue that probably is not solved through the portal).No. Another reason might be if she did not find or was not admitted to an MA program at Stanford. So many people on this board ignore the academic complexities of Stanford. So many fan posts are, for obvious reasons fan-centric and not student-centric.
Anna Wilson went through senior day 3 times, so so much for the theory that doing so tells us much about the intentions of players. Sometimes decisions about whether a player can come back or not are simply not made by senior day. Most graduate admissions letters come out in April, for example.
Well, Jump was just named P12 Scholar-Athlete of the year, so admissions to grad school should be simple, right?
Then there's Oscar DaSilva..........
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. UCLA Friday 6pm - treetop11 - 03-04-2023
(03-04-2023, 09:58 AM)cardfan1996 Wrote:(03-04-2023, 09:40 AM)81alum Wrote:(03-04-2023, 09:20 AM)cardfan1996 Wrote: The only reason I can think that Hannah would leave is if she thinks her guard skills can be developed better elsewhere because this year at least playing time is not an issue (though it seems from posts from those close to her that she is not getting the same spotlight shined on her as Cam and Haley and that might be an issue that probably is not solved through the portal).No. Another reason might be if she did not find or was not admitted to an MA program at Stanford. So many people on this board ignore the academic complexities of Stanford. So many fan posts are, for obvious reasons fan-centric and not student-centric.
Anna Wilson went through senior day 3 times, so so much for the theory that doing so tells us much about the intentions of players. Sometimes decisions about whether a player can come back or not are simply not made by senior day. Most graduate admissions letters come out in April, for example.
Hey that could be a possibility but I think both Anna and Alyssa are the exception not the rule. And Anna is certainly the most exceptional case wouldn’t you agree? Bringing your family out 3x for senior day is not usual or expected.
I think if any of the Funky Four stays, it will be Hannah. But as a graduate of Stanford, the perception was never that graduate programs at Stanford (not the medical school or law school obviously) were more rigorous than undergraduate admissions process. Things may have changed though.
(03-04-2023, 09:57 AM)chimera Wrote:(03-03-2023, 11:50 PM)cardfan1996 Wrote:(03-03-2023, 10:38 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(03-03-2023, 10:08 PM)chimera Wrote: Oh come on, UCLA doesn't go as deep as Stanford does and Close is no genius at subbing. I don't see the times played in the stats yet but against UA, UCLA played their starters over 30 minutes and this was game three for them. They went to over time in their first game. Stanford has gone deeper than them most games. There is no reason anyone on our team should be all that tired, certainly not more tired than UCLA. Jones and Jump play a lot, probably a bit too much, but sitting another minute or two shouldn't make a vast difference. This isn't UConn where he rides his starters plus one sub for 40 minutes.
Minutes aren’t up yet, but both teams played 10 players and bench points were Stanford 21, UCLA 9. I would be surprised if there was a large discrepancy in the distribution of minutes between the teams.
BC
It’s Haley’s rest that is at issue. Think of all the cumulative minutes she has logged this year. She is not a robot. Personally I think she should have put a stop to it in November when it was apparent Tara’s grand vision of her as a point guard was not working out for her and her numbers and draft status were falling. She was being bullied online for not being able to close out games the way people were accustomed to seeing her in previous years. She is someone Stanford depends on to close out games and is historically more effective in that role rested going into the 4th. This year, she is taking on even more responsibility and ballhandling. No one plays 40 minutes in the pros even if they are down going into the 4th quarter. Stef Curry takes his rest so he can have his legs in the 4th to make his shot. Times have changed. What Tara has been doing for the last 35-40 years has not changed but it is no longer best practices for athletes, and it hasn’t been for the last decade. Alot of the big programs have their kids wearing wearables that provide information when that kids need to rest.
I looked at the conference minutes played stats. Jones played about 35 MPG in conference. Several top players on various teams played around that or more. She played fewer minutes in the non-conference schedule. In fact I distinctly recall someone, I think it was you, complaining at that tine that Jones and Brink were not getting enough minutes to be able to assert themselves and get in sync in the early conference season. There is nothing unusual about her minutes. It is possible she is dinged up or ill and we fans do not know, but her minutes, while a bit more than ideal, should not be a big problem. I'm pretty sure the basketball team has worn those monitors for years now, so that is just another assumption/complaint based on nothing.
Nah I don’t think that was me unless you are not applying any context to my words. I probably didn’t think our starting lineup had a chance to gel and look at them in March, a team who looks at times like it lacks chemistry.
Here is what I believe - I don’t think any player should be playing more than 30 minutes/game and they shouldn’t play at all if they are injured or ill. No player should compromise their health or long term career by playing ill or injured because it will help a millionaire’s resume (not just Tara but ANY coach). I think Paige compromised her long term career last year for Geno when she was clearly playing on one leg at times and Azzi may be on track to make the same unfortunate compromise this year. These players owe these coaches less than nothing.
Edited to add: re: Haley. If you have eyes, what do you see? Did Haley look exhausted to you vs S. Caroline, Utah recently or vs UCLA yesterday? Name a game in which she got no rest going into the 4th quarter of the game and was able to make her 15 foot shot (because that is her shot)? I honestly can’t think of one game under those circumstances where her shot from that distance wasn’t short to the rim. Why do you think that is? Mostly she is still able to post up and make layups but that requires spacing on the floor.
1996, you're an absolute total idiot and ignorant as well. Years ago, on TOS, some guys used to complain about Monty's overuse of some of players. Back then, I checked minutes played by players on other teams and have checked fairly regularly since then both MBB and WBB. FACT is that there are always players on other teams with more PT than ours. AND FACT is that the players with the most PT have always been the best players in the conference i.e. coaches want their best players on the court as much as possible in order to win and obviously don't think that PT in a game with quarter/half breaks, media timeouts and other timeouts is too much for any player - simple as that.
I didn't play college ball, but played lots in HS and was pretty good. For basketball, I was in peak shape - much more so than for football and baseball. I played almost full games in my junior and senior years and never got overly fatigued. Players (and this applies to all sports) look forward to games and competing against other teams. It's practice that is more grueling and can be grind. Games are only part of a day, practices are close to daily, you compete agains the same players (teammates), and don't have the excitement of games.
Let's end this silly discussion of of too much PT. It is true that our kids were ovelry pushed playing so many top teams in such a short time with some terrible travel. That is draining but draining for the entire team and not related to PT for specific games.
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. UCLA Friday 6pm - cardfan1996 - 03-04-2023
(03-04-2023, 02:17 PM)treetop11 Wrote:(03-04-2023, 09:58 AM)cardfan1996 Wrote:(03-04-2023, 09:40 AM)81alum Wrote:(03-04-2023, 09:20 AM)cardfan1996 Wrote: The only reason I can think that Hannah would leave is if she thinks her guard skills can be developed better elsewhere because this year at least playing time is not an issue (though it seems from posts from those close to her that she is not getting the same spotlight shined on her as Cam and Haley and that might be an issue that probably is not solved through the portal).No. Another reason might be if she did not find or was not admitted to an MA program at Stanford. So many people on this board ignore the academic complexities of Stanford. So many fan posts are, for obvious reasons fan-centric and not student-centric.
Anna Wilson went through senior day 3 times, so so much for the theory that doing so tells us much about the intentions of players. Sometimes decisions about whether a player can come back or not are simply not made by senior day. Most graduate admissions letters come out in April, for example.
Hey that could be a possibility but I think both Anna and Alyssa are the exception not the rule. And Anna is certainly the most exceptional case wouldn’t you agree? Bringing your family out 3x for senior day is not usual or expected.
I think if any of the Funky Four stays, it will be Hannah. But as a graduate of Stanford, the perception was never that graduate programs at Stanford (not the medical school or law school obviously) were more rigorous than undergraduate admissions process. Things may have changed though.
(03-04-2023, 09:57 AM)chimera Wrote:(03-03-2023, 11:50 PM)cardfan1996 Wrote:(03-03-2023, 10:38 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Minutes aren’t up yet, but both teams played 10 players and bench points were Stanford 21, UCLA 9. I would be surprised if there was a large discrepancy in the distribution of minutes between the teams.
BC
It’s Haley’s rest that is at issue. Think of all the cumulative minutes she has logged this year. She is not a robot. Personally I think she should have put a stop to it in November when it was apparent Tara’s grand vision of her as a point guard was not working out for her and her numbers and draft status were falling. She was being bullied online for not being able to close out games the way people were accustomed to seeing her in previous years. She is someone Stanford depends on to close out games and is historically more effective in that role rested going into the 4th. This year, she is taking on even more responsibility and ballhandling. No one plays 40 minutes in the pros even if they are down going into the 4th quarter. Stef Curry takes his rest so he can have his legs in the 4th to make his shot. Times have changed. What Tara has been doing for the last 35-40 years has not changed but it is no longer best practices for athletes, and it hasn’t been for the last decade. Alot of the big programs have their kids wearing wearables that provide information when that kids need to rest.
I looked at the conference minutes played stats. Jones played about 35 MPG in conference. Several top players on various teams played around that or more. She played fewer minutes in the non-conference schedule. In fact I distinctly recall someone, I think it was you, complaining at that tine that Jones and Brink were not getting enough minutes to be able to assert themselves and get in sync in the early conference season. There is nothing unusual about her minutes. It is possible she is dinged up or ill and we fans do not know, but her minutes, while a bit more than ideal, should not be a big problem. I'm pretty sure the basketball team has worn those monitors for years now, so that is just another assumption/complaint based on nothing.
Nah I don’t think that was me unless you are not applying any context to my words. I probably didn’t think our starting lineup had a chance to gel and look at them in March, a team who looks at times like it lacks chemistry.
Here is what I believe - I don’t think any player should be playing more than 30 minutes/game and they shouldn’t play at all if they are injured or ill. No player should compromise their health or long term career by playing ill or injured because it will help a millionaire’s resume (not just Tara but ANY coach). I think Paige compromised her long term career last year for Geno when she was clearly playing on one leg at times and Azzi may be on track to make the same unfortunate compromise this year. These players owe these coaches less than nothing.
Edited to add: re: Haley. If you have eyes, what do you see? Did Haley look exhausted to you vs S. Caroline, Utah recently or vs UCLA yesterday? Name a game in which she got no rest going into the 4th quarter of the game and was able to make her 15 foot shot (because that is her shot)? I honestly can’t think of one game under those circumstances where her shot from that distance wasn’t short to the rim. Why do you think that is? Mostly she is still able to post up and make layups but that requires spacing on the floor.
1996, you're an absolute total idiot and ignorant as well. Years ago, on TOS, some guys used to complain about Monty's overuse of some of players. Back then, I checked minutes played by players on other teams and have checked fairly regularly since then both MBB and WBB. FACT is that there are always players on other teams with more PT than ours. AND FACT is that the players with the most PT have always been the best players in the conference i.e. coaches want their best players on the court as much as possible in order to win and obviously don't think that PT in a game with quarter/half breaks, media timeouts and other timeouts is too much for any player - simple as that.
I didn't play college ball, but played lots in HS and was pretty good. For basketball, I was in peak shape - much more so than for football and baseball. I played almost full games in my junior and senior years and never got overly fatigued. Players (and this applies to all sports) look forward to games and competing against other teams. It's practice that is more grueling and can be grind. Games are only part of a day, practices are close to daily, you compete agains the same players (teammates), and don't have the excitement of games.
Let's end this silly discussion of of too much PT. It is true that our kids were ovelry pushed playing so many top teams in such a short time with some terrible travel. That is draining but draining for the entire team and not related to PT for specific games.
I don’t know how you folks get away with violating board rules. A conversation doesn’t end because you disagree with it. In fact, it makes me more inclined to continue it.
Also no one cares what you did in the 50s, 60s or 70s. Times have changed and basketball has evolved. It’s an entirely different sport than when you played
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. UCLA Friday 6pm - BostonCard - 03-04-2023
(03-04-2023, 02:17 PM)treetop11 Wrote: 1996, you're an absolute total idiot and ignorant as well.
I don’t agree with the poster either, but calling someone a “total idiot and ignorant as well” is not cool, and not allowed on this board. Please just focus on whether 30 minutes/game is not too much playing time, where I think you will find a lot of support but if you can’t do that without resorting to name calling, consider sitting it out.
BC
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. UCLA Friday 6pm - cardfan1996 - 03-04-2023
And on that note, I’d like to clarify that my preference is to average 30 minutes/game but I realize that oftentimes minutes will be either a little higher or lower than that based on a variety of circumstances. For instance, the coaches that I respect the most and whose bball brains I most admire (even if I dislike them personally) are the ones that time their best players’ rest with upcoming television timeouts. They are smart enough to stretch 5 game minutes of rest into like 15 minutes or more of real time rest.
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. UCLA Friday 6pm - treetop11 - 03-04-2023
(03-04-2023, 01:25 PM)BillBradley Wrote: Haven't posted this season, but have enjoyed reading the threads. Just wanted to point out one thing that I think may have been missed through all the reactions to our offensive output. Around Jan 25, I believe Tara made a major decision to focus Cam on the low block. This followed the loss at USC where Cam went 0-5 from 3 and hadn't been shooting it that well from the perimeter, along with a couple other 0-2 games. Before then, we had Cam on the perimeter, sometimes in 4 out sets, which allowed Kiki a/or Haley room to attack. Since then, our lineups have been Haley, Hannah, Cam and ALWAYS one other big if not 2. I think Tara just committed to a strategy of pounding it down on other teams. Mistake? I think maybe so. Not only is it awful to watch as many have posted, but it's also not that fun to play and the team seems to have lost some of their joy. It has allowed Betts to get on the floor. Maybe that was a factor in her decision making. But we are slow and very susceptible to guarding the perimeter and stopping dribble penetration. Our losses have been due to other teams scoring "enough" from the outside or with dribble penetration, while we just can't seem to get into the 70's. UCLA absolutely torched us in the 2nd half yesterday because we were just too slow.
It's pretty simple in my book. In order to get the Natty, we have to exploit teams doubling and tripling Cam. I would surround her with shooters, and even though I don't have a lot of confidence in Lapolo or Agnes or Bosgana's shots, they can hit enough of them to make teams pay. My preferred lineup would be Haley, Cam, Hannah, Lepolo, and Demetre. Go figure, the Cal Stars team. I would even pull Cam out on the perimeter and let Haley go to the low block. Basketball offense is all about finding advantage and exploiting it. Cam and Haley are both good passers. With 3 good enough shooters on the perimeter, if we can't figure out how to distribute the ball when doubled, then we deserve to lose. Maybe Tara will prove to be right, that we need to play to our strengths, play big, and pound it down low. It's way different once we get out of conference and teams don't know us as well. All these P12 players know how to play against each other, but teams around the country won't have that advantage, even with film, and we could drill them.
Last note, say what you want about 1996, but the dude/chick knows hoop. My guess is he/she played college hoop a/or has coached at least at high level AAU or high school varsity. 1996 provides specific examples, even showing on film what he/she is talking about. Not a troll at all in my book. Most of the vitriol towards him/her have to do with tone. Really, who TF cares? Just respond to the basketball points, or don't respond at all. When it gets to the point where a large chunk of posts are about spelling corrections, name corrections, negativity/tone corrections, the board loses a lot of its fun value. This is a big reason why I've decided to not post this year. Hardly anyone would really respond to my basketball points. I posted at the beginning of last season during the "point guard debate" that Lacie would take all the minutes as the fifth player and that Jana just wasn't good enough and she might even transfer. Not only did I get the classic "but she was a 5 star recruit and rated # whatever in the recruiting rankings, she has to be more talented than Lacie who was not even in the top 100 or whatever", I also got scolded for suggesting someone might transfer. Blecchh.
I always liked your posts in the past and thought you knowledgeable, but here I think you're plain wrong. You talk about Tara almost exclusively having Brink post low and we constantly pound it into the paint. But that's just not true. Take yesterday's loss to Ucla for example. It looked to me that Brink was at least half the time (and maybe more) at the high post/free throw line area). In fact, she shot at least a few mid range shots from there and made at least a couple and drove down the lane several times from up high as well as did a lot pf passes from there - recall her errant pass to Haley down in the closing seconds of the game? Bessoir and Sontag were often fronting Cam when she was in the low post and we were unable to feed her. Cam would then move out of the low post to get freed and open things up.
In watching the game, I was complaining to myself that we weren't feeding the post enough nad having Brink out high too much. I wanted to see her get the ball down low more and either score or draw fouls especially in the second half when Bessoir and Sontag were in foul trouble. Instead we were spending too much tim eon the perimeter and Brink was part of that. And more so, I wanted to see more bigs than less, We saw Brink and Belibi, but I would have liked to have seen more Brink-Betts or Prechtel.
As far as your lineup goes, it's real close to what we had in much of the 4th Q when we blew the games. Belibi would sub in for Jump or Demetre, but that was the only significant difference. If you are assuming that not having Jump and Demetre instead of Belibi, keep in mind thosetwo were only 1 for 5 from three while and Belibi outscored them both. We have also seeen that lineup in past games and it hasn't been the answer. Two games Brooke was hot from three, but in others, so-so. I believe that Tara has been correct when she goes to two posts. It's fine and even when teams sag, we can get good spacing and openings IF we have good movement and movement with the ball with some screens - the problem is when we get stagnant, usually by handing Haley the ball on the perimeter and she dribbles around looking to go one on one.
Your defense of 1996 is off base. People weren't criticizing this "dude/chick" just because he/she was negative - most everyone was not pleased with the negative based on false statements - some which seemed made up. When it was clear that the Oregon game disputed 1996's claims, he/she wasn't gracious enough to admit being wrong, but made up more BS. The BS is best exemplfied by his/her assertion about too much PT causing tiredness and bad play late in games and increasing injury or potential injury. I addressed the PT thing in another post. To this, I will add that our MBB team has played dramatically better since Haase tightened the rotation to basically 8 players where guys PT has increased at the end of a long season. MBB has not only improved W-L but gone from barely watchable to highly watchable. I doubt very seriously that 1996 played or at least of any siginificance or e/she would not be complaining about PT. Also, players seldom if ever worry about too much PT because they are scared of injury - they want to play. Even when they are hurt or get hurt during a game, more often than not, it's the player who wants to go back in. There are probably a few abusive coaches today, but the large majority are more conservative with injuries than the players themselves.
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. UCLA Friday 6pm - 81alum - 03-04-2023
With regard to 96, I agree with BillBradley that he seems very knowledgeable, and clearly cares enough about the team to remain engaged posting here on the Cardboard. I have learned a few things from those posts. I do wish those posts had fewer adjectives. They are sometimes inflammatory and don't do much to enhance the analysis. Yes, it is tone, and I care a lot about tone.
When I put forward the troll warnings I was referencing the poster who had posted only twice on the Cardboard and who made suggestive comments that one of our star players should think about leaving. I presume that poster, regardless of the name, was probably a fan of another team and trying to sow discord in the hopes of turning rumor-mongering into reality. I hesitate to go back over that ground since the more we say about it the better the trolling has worked.
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. UCLA Friday 6pm - treetop11 - 03-04-2023
(03-04-2023, 03:04 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(03-04-2023, 02:17 PM)treetop11 Wrote: 1996, you're an absolute total idiot and ignorant as well.
I don’t agree with the poster either, but calling someone a “total idiot and ignorant as well” is not cool, and not allowed on this board. Please just focus on whether 30 minutes/game is not too much playing time, where I think you will find a lot of support but if you can’t do that without resorting to name calling, consider sitting it out.
BC
I'm not PC and haven't done name calling before, but kind of fed up with 1996. I can apologize for use of "idiot" but not ignorant. I hope that you aren't one of those people who don't know the difference between "ignorant" and "stupid, etc." If not, you're ignorant. Regardless Boston, as you know have agreed and acknowledgd a number of your posts.
Footnotes:
I found the sequence of seeds interesting; odd numbers 1, 3, 5, and 7 made the semis and 5 and 7 knocked out the 1 and 3.
Forgot to post in my observation sof the game the question: can Cameron Brink teach the others how to shoot free throws? She has been automatic and clearly has gotten some help (probably from Curry) and practiced a lot. BTW, missed FTs a big culprit in MBB close loss to Oregon today. No excuse in missing those.
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. UCLA Friday 6pm - cardfan1996 - 03-04-2023
(03-04-2023, 04:13 PM)81alum Wrote: With regard to 96, I agree with BillBradley that he seems very knowledgeable, and clearly cares enough about the team to remain engaged posting here on the Cardboard. I have learned a few things from those posts. I do wish those posts had fewer adjectives. They are sometimes inflammatory and don't do much to enhance the analysis. Yes, it is tone, and I care a lot about tone.
When I put forward the troll warnings I was referencing the poster who had posted only twice on the Cardboard and who made suggestive comments that one of our star players should think about leaving. I presume that poster, regardless of the name, was probably a fan of another team and trying to sow discord in the hopes of turning rumor-mongering into reality. I hesitate to go back over that ground since the more we say about it the better the trolling has worked.
And yet I perceived very strongly from the tone that it was possibly the family of a player. Tone is very subjective unless you can’t use counter arguments and resort to name calling then you blame others for your own lack of impulse control (“he/she made me do it. That person made me lose control on a fan board discussing WBB.”) That tone is generally associated with a very specific demographic too (generally speaking).
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. UCLA Friday 6pm - cardfan1996 - 03-04-2023
All this talk about being humble and gracious. Some of you old folks need to get a grip. This is a fan board. Of course I stand by my position and will defend my position re: Oregon post. Stanford scored more than 60 pts but the offense was still anemic. I didn’t think I would have to further defend that post after the UCLA game to be honest.
Edited: I previously mentioned my stance on player minutes after Haley played 50 minutes in the Colorado game where I called it unethical (that was before my Oregon post). I mention it all the time because it’s a topic I have thought a lot about for years. Before the Lebron Cavs/Golden State series and how I could predict the outcome of those games based on whether Ty Lue was disciplined enough to give Lebron and Kyrie a little rest before the 4th. And I’ve thought about it in other games too. Derek Fisher overworking Nneka and Chelsea Gray and the cumulative effect that had year end. And my conclusion is that it leads to mostly bad outcomes. Player injury, player exhaustion but mostly a players inability to reach peak performance during winning time.
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. UCLA Friday 6pm - 2006alum - 03-04-2023
(03-04-2023, 05:04 PM)cardfan1996 Wrote: All this talk about being humble and gracious. Some of you old folks need to get a grip. This is a fan board. Of course I stand by my position and will defend my position re: Oregon post. Stanford scored more than 60 pts but the offense was still anemic. I didn’t think I would have to further defend that post after the UCLA game to be honest.Indeed, one hosted and run by others, with its own norms and practices. If a number of longtime posters around here are asking that you cool the tone a bit, nothing wrong with fitting in.
Edited: I previously mentioned my stance on player minutes after Haley played 50 minutes in the Colorado game where I called it unethical (that was before my Oregon post). I mention it all the time because it’s a topic I have thought a lot about for years.
And from our usernames, I'm younger than you (and most folks around here), but squarely in the 81 etc. camp that incisive analysis need not include divisive language.
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. UCLA Friday 6pm - 81alum - 03-04-2023
(03-04-2023, 02:01 PM)treetop11 Wrote:Jump is a Psych major. Stanford only gives masters in Psychology to PhD candidates who collect them along the way--there is no stand-alone masters program. She would have to find some other MA different from what she has majored in as an undergrad, and that could be a challenge.(03-04-2023, 09:40 AM)81alum Wrote:(03-04-2023, 09:20 AM)cardfan1996 Wrote: The only reason I can think that Hannah would leave is if she thinks her guard skills can be developed better elsewhere because this year at least playing time is not an issue (though it seems from posts from those close to her that she is not getting the same spotlight shined on her as Cam and Haley and that might be an issue that probably is not solved through the portal).No. Another reason might be if she did not find or was not admitted to an MA program at Stanford. So many people on this board ignore the academic complexities of Stanford. So many fan posts are, for obvious reasons fan-centric and not student-centric.
Anna Wilson went through senior day 3 times, so so much for the theory that doing so tells us much about the intentions of players. Sometimes decisions about whether a player can come back or not are simply not made by senior day. Most graduate admissions letters come out in April, for example.
Well, Jump was just named P12 Scholar-Athlete of the year, so admissions to grad school should be simple, right?
Then there's Oscar DaSilva..........
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. UCLA Friday 6pm - TonyLima - 03-04-2023
(03-04-2023, 05:32 PM)81alum Wrote:(03-04-2023, 02:01 PM)treetop11 Wrote:Jump is a Psych major. Stanford only gives masters in Psychology to PhD candidates who collect them along the way--there is no stand-alone masters program. She would have to find some other MA different from what she has majored in as an undergrad, and that could be a challenge.(03-04-2023, 09:40 AM)81alum Wrote:(03-04-2023, 09:20 AM)cardfan1996 Wrote: The only reason I can think that Hannah would leave is if she thinks her guard skills can be developed better elsewhere because this year at least playing time is not an issue (though it seems from posts from those close to her that she is not getting the same spotlight shined on her as Cam and Haley and that might be an issue that probably is not solved through the portal).No. Another reason might be if she did not find or was not admitted to an MA program at Stanford. So many people on this board ignore the academic complexities of Stanford. So many fan posts are, for obvious reasons fan-centric and not student-centric.
Anna Wilson went through senior day 3 times, so so much for the theory that doing so tells us much about the intentions of players. Sometimes decisions about whether a player can come back or not are simply not made by senior day. Most graduate admissions letters come out in April, for example.
Well, Jump was just named P12 Scholar-Athlete of the year, so admissions to grad school should be simple, right?
Then there's Oscar DaSilva..........
Or ... hear me out ... she could apply to the PhD program.
FWIW I am boycotting this thread and urge others to follow me. The tone is way over the line. I hope the admins will simply shut it down.
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. UCLA Friday 6pm - chimera - 03-04-2023
(03-04-2023, 01:24 PM)lsmant Wrote: Although I have never posted on this forum I read every post available for WBB and WVB. A of immense proportions thank you to two folks in particular, 81alum and chimera. It has often been my privilege and good luck to hear their discussions at chalk talks. Their posts here are factual and thoughtful and carefully written. I learn from them before and after every game. I share their thoughts and concerns. Last night I could not watch the game to the bitter end. I thought I was done with basketball for the season. Their fair and balanced assessments, along with several others, have enabled me to remember why I have supported this team for decades. Thank you! I am now going to watch the game without sound or commercials or commentary.
You are much too kind. Next time you see us yacking before a chalk talk, feel free to join in.
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. UCLA Friday 6pm - 81alum - 03-04-2023
(03-04-2023, 08:51 PM)chimera Wrote:I second that. I treasure those face-to-face talks before the game and during halftime.(03-04-2023, 01:24 PM)lsmant Wrote: Although I have never posted on this forum I read every post available for WBB and WVB. A of immense proportions thank you to two folks in particular, 81alum and chimera. It has often been my privilege and good luck to hear their discussions at chalk talks. Their posts here are factual and thoughtful and carefully written. I learn from them before and after every game. I share their thoughts and concerns. Last night I could not watch the game to the bitter end. I thought I was done with basketball for the season. Their fair and balanced assessments, along with several others, have enabled me to remember why I have supported this team for decades. Thank you! I am now going to watch the game without sound or commercials or commentary.
You are much too kind. Next time you see us yacking before a chalk talk, feel free to join in.
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. UCLA Friday 6pm - BostonCard - 03-04-2023
(03-04-2023, 05:32 PM)81alum Wrote: Jump is a Psych major. Stanford only gives masters in Psychology to PhD candidates who collect them along the way--there is no stand-alone masters program. She would have to find some other MA different from what she has majored in as an undergrad, and that could be a challenge.
As a Stanford undergraduate, she can apply for a coterminal MA in psychology. See:
https://web.stanford.edu/dept/registrar/bulletin1112/6609.htm
Quote: Coterminal Program—Stanford undergraduates who would like advanced training in Psychology may apply for a coterminal M.A. degree in Psychology. To do so, students should consult with the student services office. Along with a coterminal program application, applicants must submit:
* a statement of purpose
* a preliminary program plan specifying the courses in which they intend to enroll to fulfill degree requirements
* at least two letters of recommendation from Stanford faculty members familiar with their academic work
* a current Stanford undergraduate transcript
* a written nomination by a member of the Psychology faculty willing to serve as the student's master's degree adviser
This program is limited in size and admission is selective. Applicants must have earned a minimum of 120 units towards graduation as shown on the undergraduate transcript. The department's deadline for the submission of an application to the coterminal program is traditionally in January.
(03-04-2023, 05:29 PM)2006alum Wrote:(03-04-2023, 05:04 PM)cardfan1996 Wrote: All this talk about being humble and gracious. Some of you old folks need to get a grip. This is a fan board. Of course I stand by my position and will defend my position re: Oregon post. Stanford scored more than 60 pts but the offense was still anemic. I didn’t think I would have to further defend that post after the UCLA game to be honest.Indeed, one hosted and run by others, with its own norms and practices. If a number of longtime posters around here are asking that you cool the tone a bit, nothing wrong with fitting in.
Edited: I previously mentioned my stance on player minutes after Haley played 50 minutes in the Colorado game where I called it unethical (that was before my Oregon post). I mention it all the time because it’s a topic I have thought a lot about for years.
And from our usernames, I'm younger than you (and most folks around here), but squarely in the 81 etc. camp that incisive analysis need not include divisive language.
I would add that as fan boards go, this one tends to be better than most. There are many longtime posters here who don’t suffer fools, and the “it’s a fan board” excuse for asshattery doesn’t wear well. Just because one can display a certain attitude with posts without running afoul of the rules doesn’t mean that one should.
BC
RE: WBB: Stanford vs. UCLA Friday 6pm - 81alum - 03-04-2023
(03-04-2023, 10:30 PM)BostonCard Wrote:Very cool, so there is hope. I always thought of coterm programs as needing to be planned years in advance, but it seems as if this is a practical solution so long as she applied in January. I'll keep my hopes up.(03-04-2023, 05:32 PM)81alum Wrote: Jump is a Psych major. Stanford only gives masters in Psychology to PhD candidates who collect them along the way--there is no stand-alone masters program. She would have to find some other MA different from what she has majored in as an undergrad, and that could be a challenge.
As a Stanford undergraduate, she can apply for a coterminal MA in psychology. See:
https://web.stanford.edu/dept/registrar/bulletin1112/6609.htm
Quote: Coterminal Program—Stanford undergraduates who would like advanced training in Psychology may apply for a coterminal M.A. degree in Psychology. To do so, students should consult with the student services office. Along with a coterminal program application, applicants must submit:
* a statement of purpose
* a preliminary program plan specifying the courses in which they intend to enroll to fulfill degree requirements
* at least two letters of recommendation from Stanford faculty members familiar with their academic work
* a current Stanford undergraduate transcript
* a written nomination by a member of the Psychology faculty willing to serve as the student's master's degree adviser
This program is limited in size and admission is selective. Applicants must have earned a minimum of 120 units towards graduation as shown on the undergraduate transcript. The department's deadline for the submission of an application to the coterminal program is traditionally in January.