WBB: Stanford 67 -- Washington 72

WBB: Stanford 67 -- Washington 72 - 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 67 -- Washington 72 (/thread-24012.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

RE: WBB: Stanford 67 -- Washington 72 - treetop11 - 02-06-2023

(02-05-2023, 04:38 PM)chimera Wrote:
(02-05-2023, 04:24 PM)cardfan1996 Wrote:
(02-05-2023, 03:55 PM)BostonCard Wrote: We weren’t looking too good when we lost back to back games against Colorado and UCLA two years ago. Unless you are a truly dominant team (and we aren’t), to win a title it takes a combination of talent and luck. I think we could win our last six, but it would take better play than today to do so, and, against the very top teams (eg South Carolina), we probably need them to not play their best as well.

BC

We lost those because Fran was in the starting lineup and we couldn’t defensive rebound at UCLA or defensive rebound or hold on to the ball at Colorado.

We can get back on track if, like 2021, we change the starting lineup. Brink for Belibi was an easy decision. I have no faith she will replace Agnes and Lepolo with the right players, or replace them at all.

Tara keeps recycling bad decisions. We already saw how ineffective on offense Agnes and Lepolo in November. We saw how bad Haley was at the 1 in the very first exhibition game. Why are we still seeing this stuff in February?

My answer to your last question is that there are not great options. Two bigs and one shooter did not work and was ditched. the small line-up was helpful for a bit but in the end is not going to work well enough because we still have just one shooter out there, the starting guards don't score or create shots for others well enough, and now the rebounding is suffering when Jones is on the perimeter and we are still in a smaller line-up. I don't know a solution that would jell in time. The bench hasn't played enough to really get comfortable. If I was the boss I might consider starting Nivar at the 2 if we keep the small line-up or Bosgana. Nivar hasn't scored much but I feel it is there, she just needs time on court, which we may not have enough of left this season.

I actually might go something like Brink, Jones, Demetre, Jump and Lepolo or Brink, Jones, Bosgana, Jump and Nivar or Lepolo if they want to stay small, or if they want to go bigger again, I'd go Iriafen (or even Betts), Brink, Jones, Bosgana, Nivar or Lepolo. I don't really think Nivar is a solution at pg this season. Rather see her at the 2. At any rate, I would want to play my drivers more (Nivar and Bosgana) and not go with only one perimeter shooter pretty much ever. Eh I don't know. I am talking out my butt at this point. O and D broke down late, both need something.

No, you're not talking out of your butt. You're making perfect sense and I wish the coaches could hear you. You're recommending a line up (and rotation with the players mentioned) that I can see would work as a tighter rotation to stick with down the stretch. We need to have players who drive and attack the basket and 3 point shooters to win in college basketball today. Even if opponents pack it in, still need to attack the basket through passes into the post and drives. Drive and score or draw fouls or if just well defended kick out for threes. You are posing lineups with 3 shooters on the floor and 3 players capable of driving with 2 premier rebounders. The only adjustment I would make is for you bug line up, I would have Prechtel instead of Iriafen because Ashten will take and make 3's and I like her D and rebounding better and the big lineup would be effective with her when we playe teams with a bulky post player who is physical. But overall, your suggestions are spot on.

RE: WBB: Stanford 67 -- Washington 72 - Jskass - 02-06-2023

Curious as to opponents' shooting percentage in the key vs. outside. In the key shots are generally much higher percentage so IF they are equal to or lower than their outside, that means our interior defense is superior -- which would support the "Brink 100%" theory...otherwise, agree that team defense means cannot overly attribute it to one player.

RE: WBB: Stanford 67 -- Washington 72 - treetop11 - 02-06-2023

(02-05-2023, 04:48 PM)cardfan1996 Wrote: Tara gives no other options any chance. It took Lepolo turning her ankle for Tara to let go her security blanket and only for 2 games (2 games which you won handily without Lepolo and Agnes on the bench for the most part against Top 10 competition).

Bosgana would have definitely helped in this game, and in both earlier losses because she can create off the dribble. So can Nivar.

This game was still just 2 pt deficit when Tara decided Lepolo needed to come back in the game even though she was horrible on both offense and defense.

The problem with Lepolo and Agnes is that you start the game in a scoring drought. This is apparent to most bball folks except this staff

You destroy your own argument with your last statement. We did well in the first Q agst UW and had a 9 pt lead and almsot got to our 20 pt per Q level that I always look for. It was the second Q that killed us where we gave up 30 pts (a pace of 120 for the game) as our D went south.

(02-05-2023, 05:09 PM)cardfan1996 Wrote:
(02-05-2023, 04:51 PM)treetop11 Wrote:
(02-05-2023, 04:24 PM)cardfan1996 Wrote:
(02-05-2023, 03:55 PM)BostonCard Wrote: We weren’t looking too good when we lost back to back games against Colorado and UCLA two years ago. Unless you are a truly dominant team (and we aren’t), to win a title it takes a combination of talent and luck. I think we could win our last six, but it would take better play than today to do so, and, against the very top teams (eg South Carolina), we probably need them to not play their best as well.

BC

We lost those because Fran was in the starting lineup and we couldn’t defensive rebound at UCLA or defensive rebound or hold on to the ball at Colorado.

We can get back on track if, like 2021, we change the starting lineup. Brink for Belibi was an easy decision. I have no faith she will replace Agnes and Lepolo with the right players, or replace them at all.

Tara keeps recycling bad decisions. We already saw how ineffective on offense Agnes and Lepolo in November. We saw how bad Haley was at the 1 in the very first exhibition game. Why are we still seeing this stuff in February?

So what's your answer?

Go back to my first post this year and every subsequent posts. What I’ve said since November, sit Lepolo, start any two of Nivar, Bosgana and Ashten though Ashten seems to have checked out to me (and I don’t blame her getting 2 minutes of playing time here and there). And stop the absolute insanity of Haley running the 1 completely. It’s stupid.

You start a lineup that can beat S. Carolina or UConn. You can’t beat S.Carolina without Ashten. You can’t beat S.Carolina without a 3-post lineup stopping Boston and help on rebounding so I’d make sure Ashten was engaged and playing 20-30 minutes/game. It sounds preposterous to go from 2 minutes per game to 20 minutes but she clearly needs the game reps.

You sit Agnes to the right of Lolo Green and if we need someone who is hyper focused defensively on just their assignment (in other words, we need a face guard), then Agnes can come in for a few defensive possessions. I’d sit Lepolo to the right of Bosgana who if she is not starting, should be first off the bench. Both Bosgana and Nivar are solid ballhandlers and more importantly, can pass in the post.

Re: the rebounding problem. As I said, Lepolo and Agnes do not help make up for the rebounding lost when Tara sat Kiki. Lepolo will freeze and stare at rebounds in her area. Agnes (and Hannah) will either take off before a rebound is secured or Agnes will just stand and stare on the perimeter because she was hyper focused on her defensive assignment but never blocks out.

You're not making sense. You say sit Lepolo and play Nivar, Bosgana or Prechtel and later you say it's insane to have Haley at the point. So based on that, who do you have at the point? Jump, Brink, Bosgana, Prechtel? C'mon. That leaves only Nivar and frankly I don't think the coaches or most of us here feel comfortable turning over the PG position fulltime to Nivar. She's not a natural point and didn't do so in HS. It's been good to see Tara give her more minutes there to rest Lepolo and give us a backup like we needed when Lepolo got hurt.

So give us your lineup and rotation like chimera did. What chimera offered makes a great deal of sense to me and I think it addresses what are likely your concerns e.g. getting more/better ballhandlers on the court. And like you I would like to see more Ashten at least when it is advantageeoud to go big or just to mix things up.

(02-05-2023, 06:30 PM)chimera Wrote:
(02-05-2023, 06:00 PM)81alum Wrote: We are currently less than the sum of our parts.

This is a very un-Tara like team. In all the years I have watched her teams, I don't think there has been a single year in which the team did not improve over the season. Even in bad years, we usually went further than expected at the end, and bad early season losses disappeared by the end of the year.

This year we are still struggling to get an offense that works. We are on our 3rd offense in less than a year, and it shows.

I agree. This has been a very strange season to me. Even seasons where we lost 10 games, things felt more stable than this season does as far as the rotation, what sort of contributions various players could make, and how to get the most out of the team. The things the coaches have tried this season mostly made sense to me (like they would care about that!) early on, but every potential line-up has shown issues that are serious enough to hold the team back. Can't be good to change things up so much in the schemes and the rotation. The question now is can changes that might help be made in time to gel?

Of all the guards that have gotten playing time - Jump, Emma-Nnopu, Nivar, Lepolo, Bosgana, and Harriel (who is also not playing after having a good enough game to draw praise and go to the post-game presser) - none strike me as true defensive stoppers to the point that they should play because of how good their defense is. All of them have played good defense at times. So who should play and how much? What do we value in guard play given what Jones and Brink can do and how many good posts we have? The key to this season has always been what can we get from the perimeter. Given that we seem to have bad defensive games like today even playing a line-up that is more defensive oriented on the perimeter with Emma-Nnopu, we should look instead to players who can be offensive threats on multiple levels - shooting, passing, driving, etc. and work on their defense. That says play Bosgana to me, and Nivar, at the 2 a whole lot more.

You're right about no great defensive stoppers to justify playing without providing much on O. And it is O that hass been our problem. If we had been scoring more, we don't lose either to SC or UW and not as clsoe in our recent wins. Our D without elite perimeter D players is still exccellent because our perimeter players ar good enough AND we have a Brink (or others) as backstops if our perimeter players get beat. So yes, focus on kicking up the O. I noted watching the Utah - UO game that it was a wide open almost frantic game. Utah gave up a lot of points and because of the game flow and Duck O, Utah's D was not that good - but they responded with an even better O that continually put up points every time tha the ducks made a run.

RE: WBB: Stanford 67 -- Washington 72 - 2006alum - 02-06-2023

No one is talking out of their butt. I know this was a really tough loss, but let's keep it civil, please.

RE: WBB: Stanford 67 -- Washington 72 - BobK - 02-06-2023

Of course this isn’t a very civil tread. Blasting the coaches is not civil when the team is 22-3

RE: WBB: Stanford 67 -- Washington 72 - cardfan1996 - 02-06-2023

(02-06-2023, 12:43 AM)2006alum Wrote: Dreadful and horrible are pretty absurd adjectives to use to describe an All-American and future WNBA lottery pick.

That said, I'm just going to say what I've said several times this season: this team doesn't feel very hungry, game in and game out. Whatever their weaknesses were, the Hulls and Wilson went at 100% all the time. Brink and Jump are the only players I see with fire in their bellies, and Jump has a limited repertoire and what seems to be a now-well-known scouting defense profile. So we rise and fall with Brink. Today she was sick, and we sunk.

I really love so much about Jones, but honestly, I think she's just too good natured and happy-go-lucky to push through to the next level. She barely tries to take threes anymore, and it feels like she plataued her sophomore year. That's still enough for some stellar games, press awards, and a lottery pick, but I just don't get the sense she'll do anything necessary to avoid losing. Her rush to hug Boston immediately after they won the final four says everything about her character and spirit but also her competitive fire to win at all costs.

Ultimately, I fear Tara has a cornucopia of good pieces but not the ones to construct a dominant lineup. Sometimes them's the breaks. It is what it is, and I hope we can get hot when it counts and Jones does her thing when all the chips are down. In the mean time, I'm prepared for a few more weekends like this one, where we rise one day and fall the next.

I think trying to draw conclusions about a player’s state of mind based on her being happy on the court, or showing sportsmanship is “pretty absurd.” Neither you nor I know Haley or know her state of mind.

My observations are simply about her play and what is observable and knowable by a complete stranger. So dreadful and horrible compared to what should happen in similar scenarios is pretty “fair” to me. I don’t speculate on whether or not her emotions mean anything unless she has spoken about that. And the only thing she has said is she wants to win another natty before she graduates.

RE: WBB: Stanford 67 -- Washington 72 - JohnR34231 - 02-06-2023

(02-06-2023, 12:54 PM)BobK Wrote: Of course this isn’t a very civil tread. Blasting the coaches is not civil when the team is 22-3

Blasting coaches is what fans do.
And it doesn't seem to matter if the team is 22-3 or 3-22.

RE: WBB: Stanford 67 -- Washington 72 - cardfan1996 - 02-06-2023

(02-06-2023, 11:27 AM)BostonCard Wrote:
(02-05-2023, 09:24 PM)cardfan1996 Wrote:
(02-05-2023, 09:10 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Weird that despite all that, Stanford still leads the conference in scoring defense at 56 ppg. Sucks that it wasn’t there today, but sometimes a player just goes off.

BC

That is 100% Brink which is why she should not only be PAC-12 DPOY but National DPOY. That #1 rating ain’t because Agnes, Lepolo, Jump, Haley or anyone else defending the perimeter are “elite.” If the paint is closed for business, then teams only have contested 2s or 3s (except when Haley, Brook or Fran is guarding them then maybe, no it’s probably an uncontested shot).

Weird, because Brink isn't really guarding the perimiter, and yet Stanford's 3 pt percentage defense is third in the conference behind only USC and Colorado. For all those uncontested threes that Jones, Demetre, or Belibi supposedly give up, we must just be lucky that our opponents are not draining them.

There is, of course, room for improvement in our perimeter defense. I think we might want to do better than the 30% threes that we are giving up in aggregate. But to assert that one player is responsible for Stanford's league leading defense is hyperbole to the point of ridiculousness in an aspect of the game that is by its very nature team oriented and requires all five players to work together to be effective

BC

It’s not ridiculous. If I am a dynamic offensive player but all I have available are contested jump shots because I know what is waiting for me in the paint, then that limits my offensive playbook. Brink shuts down a brobdingnagian percentage of any opponent’s playbook. The task of perimeter is simply to try to keep people in front of them, and the fact that Brink is on track to break the block record with a month or so left in the season should tell you how successful the perimeter defenders have been

RE: WBB: Stanford 67 -- Washington 72 - TheFarm07 - 02-06-2023

(02-06-2023, 01:04 PM)JohnR34231 Wrote:
(02-06-2023, 12:54 PM)BobK Wrote: Of course this isn’t a very civil tread. Blasting the coaches is not civil when the team is 22-3

Blasting coaches is what fans do.
And it doesn't seem to matter if the team is 22-3 or 3-22.

+1 to JohnR34231. Fans will always be fickle no matter the record. Again, I strongly believe the vast majority of posts here are reasoned (even if I don't agree with all of them) and tempered. It's quite a contrast with other fan opinions which are quite reactionary and emotional on other chats I am a part of.

RE: WBB: Stanford 67 -- Washington 72 - cardfan1996 - 02-06-2023

(02-06-2023, 06:12 AM)81alum Wrote: I haven't seen the presser posted yet, but the AP story has a quote from Tara, stating the obvious.

Quote:"Our first quarter was pretty good, and then our second quarter was just abysmal. Our defense, we really didn't do a whole lot right," Stanford coach Tara VanDerveer said. "We didn't play well offensively, we didn't play well defensively, and we didn't rebound. So that's pretty hard to win games when you're really not getting it done in any of those three things."

In January 2019 we unexpectedly lost at Utah on the second game of a difficult road trip. Why? A little known player, who happened to be from northern California, "went off" for Utah and scored 23 points. Her name was Erika Bean.

Erika, meet Elle Ladine.

Hopefully Tara and her staff took some responsibility for the loss too. Even that crybaby in Westwood is now taking more personal responsibility than she has in previous years as UCLA is on a 3-game slide. It’s not all player responsibility. For instance, Agnes in corners on the same side we are trying to post up is literally driving me crazy. Her defender will always be in the lap of Brink or whatever post player is there. It’s apparent real-time Agnes should be up and away from any action. Rewatching this alignment on tape, this obvious adjustment should have been made in November. Is that the player’s fault or coaching?

And for those overreacting on any criticism re: Tara. She is treated more respectfully than other coaches on this board. But she has 2 All-Americans on her roster, 8 Mickey Ds All-Americans in total, more than Indiana and probably most of the Top 10 except for Dawn, and I do not happily accept any Stanford sports team with those credentials losing to The University of Spoiled Children (USC) and a Washington team that will not even make the tournament. I promise you she is not concerned or offended by what either of us says on this board. I doubt she knows we exist.

RE: WBB: Stanford 67 -- Washington 72 - jonnyss - 02-06-2023

i like the fact that tara is now letting haley shoot from mid-range when there are 3 defenders under the basket. how about more mid-range shots from others? hannah should be able to make mid-range shots since she is a great free throw shooter. but stop and pop shots rather than running mid- range teardrops. kiki and cam should be able to hit the mid-range shot as well since they can make free throws.

haley is not playing point guard. she is emulating draymond green: stand at the top of the key, direct traffic, and pass. tara gives the same role to brooke.

imo haley plays off opposing guards so she can move in and grab rebounds. yes, she gives up an occasional shots; but, except for yesterday, her many rebounds more than offset.

one criticism i do agree with is giving haley more rest. tara has long practiced playing our best player for 40 minutes in tight games. it has been clear for years that even our stars usually do better with at least 5 minutes rest in the 2nd half. while emulating the warriors, i wish tara would take note that steve kerr rests steph for half the 2nd and 4th periods.

RE: WBB: Stanford 67 -- Washington 72 - 81alum - 02-06-2023

Yes, this year has marked a change of tone to our WBB threads, with several members who rarely posted in the past now voicing strongly critical opinions of Vanderveer's coaching decisions. I welcome more interest in WBB, certainly.

Here is my take on this: I know for a fact that Tara Vanderveer knows more about basketball than all the posters on this board combined, and I trust her judgment far more than I trust my own or that of my fellow posters. However, that should not restrain me or anyone else from questioning her decisions or discussing shortcomings in strategy, tactics, personnel, etc. That is in fact what fan boards routinely do--our enjoyment is based in part on testing our own amateur ideas out in public and seeing how they fly.

However, every time we do so, we also should ask ourselves "what are the reasons for why a 1000+ game winner has made the choices and decisions she made." She must have constraints and knowledge that we do not have. While Tara could be wrong about various things--she is never wrong for random reasons or for lack of attention to detail. Her "meticulosity" is legendary. There is a purpose to everything she does, even when she tries something that does not work. I want to know what led a great basketball mind to making the decisions she made--even the bad ones. This is what I mean about criticizing from a standpoint of humility--the recognition that she knows much more than I do, or than you do, and made a choice that may not make sense to us on the face of it. What is the explanation?

I also believe that whenever we are discussing players--WBB or others--we ought to avoid overly rhetorical criticisms. Pointing out a weakness in performance is one thing, but this can be done by stating facts and avoiding adjectives. I may slip up sometimes, but that it is my goal--to focus on performance without attributing motives, desire, etc. that are more speculative. Who among us knows what is really going on inside the head of a player, regardless of how nonchalant she may look to your eye or mine? I think those of you who have been parents of college athletes understand the distinction I am making.

RE: WBB: Stanford 67 -- Washington 72 - MV72018 - 02-06-2023

(02-06-2023, 12:54 PM)BobK Wrote: Of course this isn’t a very civil tread. Blasting the coaches is not civil when the team is 22-3

So far, IMO this is a very civil thread. Apparently, for you a thread about the SU WBB team is "civil" only if it is devoid of criticism of Tara. You seem to regard any criticism of Tara, by yourself or others, as inappropriate. It's obvious why anyone with insider access to a team might be reluctant to make criticism of its head coach and regard doing so as jeopardizing her/his continued insider access. But why do you oppose criticism -- without any name-calling -- of Tara as inappropriate for all posters on this site? As for your claim that "blasting the coaches is not civil when the team is 22-3", that's nonsense. You can argue that criticism of the head coach is not JUSTIFIED when the team has a fine record, but the team's excellent record is irrelevant to whether or not criticism of the coach is CIVIL. When a coach has an incredibly talented roster and a fine record but the team is underperforming, it may be perfectly legitimate to criticize the head coach, e.g., for not getting the team to play together better, for not playing intensely enough, for losing to mediocre teams, for allowing too much hero ball to be played, for blowing too many leads, for playing complacently. or for not improving its caliber of play over the course of the season. Such criticism can be done in civil or uncivil ways. You write as if any criticism of the head coach is UNCIVIL just because the team has a fine record. Whereas, IMO, a fine record doesn't render all criticism of its head coach UNCIVIL any more than a team's having a lousy season's record renders all criticism of its head coach CIVIL.
.

RE: WBB: Stanford 67 -- Washington 72 - TonyLima - 02-06-2023

(02-06-2023, 02:15 PM)81alum Wrote: Yes, this year has marked a change of tone to our WBB threads, with several members who rarely posted in the past now voicing strongly critical opinions of Vanderveer's coaching decisions. I welcome more interest in WBB, certainly.

Her is my take on this: I know for a fact that Tara Vanderveer knows more about basketball than all the posters on this board combined, and I trust her judgment far more than I trust my own or that of my fellow posters. However, that should not restrain me or anyone else from questioning her decisions or discussing shortcomings in strategy, tactics, personnel, etc. That is in fact what fan boards routinely do--our enjoyment is based in part on testing our own amateur ideas out in public and seeing how they fly.

However, every time we do so, we also should ask ourselves "what are the reasons for why a 1000+ game winner has made the choices and decisions she made." She must have constraints and knowledge that we do not have. While Tara could be wrong about various things--she is never wrong for random reasons or for lack of attention to detail. Her "meticulosity" is legendary. There is a purpose to everything she does, even when she tries something that does not work. I want to know what led a great basketball mind to making the decisions she made--even the bad ones. This is what I mean about criticizing from a standpoint of humility--the recognition that she knows much more than I do, or than you do, and made a choice that may not make sense to us on the face of it. What is the explanation?

I also believe that whenever we are discussing players--WBB or others--we ought to avoid overly rhetorical criticisms. Pointing out a weakness in performance is one thing, but this can be done by stating facts and avoiding adjectives. I may slip up sometimes, but that it is my goal--to focus on performance without attributing motives, desire, etc. that are more speculative. Who among us knows what is really going inside the head of a player, regardless of how nonchalant she may look to your eye or mine? I think those of you who have been parents of college athletes understand the distinction I am making.

A few years ago I criticized a player in another forum and a different sport. Today I remind myself every day that the players are still kids. Please go easy on them.

RE: WBB: Stanford 67 -- Washington 72 - cardfan1996 - 02-06-2023

I can’t seem to quote the post I am replying to but here it goes

Yes, I want Nivar as the point guard since the coaching staff has been unable to recruit a viable one since Kianna’s year (6-7 cycles ago?). If Lacie (who could not dribble in November, 2021 but looked like a viable pt guard in the Elite 8) can run the point for Stanford’s 2022 Final Four team and nearly get to that last game then Nivar or Bosgana who can actually dribble on Day 1 will work out just fine. Nivar and Bosgana are starting from much more of a fundamentally sound foundation in ballhandling than Lacie (or Anna for that matter). I can tell that Nivar and Bosgana have a lot more comfort with ballhandling than Lacie or Anna did last year or Harriel this year (who appears nervous at times but who again I think is much more sound in ballhandling than Lacie’s starting point (not her end point)). They’d have to work as hard as Lacie (which is impossible) but if they did, they can get there.

Here are my goals for the team (because no one asked):

1. Reach the final game of the NCAA tournament. To get there, we need 1) to be post-first so anyone on the perimeter needs to have basic passing ability to get our post the ball, 2) better defensive rebounding (in many ways, Haley is our best when she wants to be so I want her near the basket), 3) we need a reliable and efficient 2nd & 3rd scorer to help Brink (Haley is not efficient if she has to carry the point guard duties), and 4) we need less turnovers (Haley turns over the ball a lot as her usage rate increases and fatigue sets in).

2. Make sure Haley Jones is a Top 5 pick because her fallen out of the Top 5 as the #1 player in her class is bad for her and the program. No WNBA team is looking at Haley as a 1, 2 or 3 without a 3pt shot OR the perimeter defensive skills to defend other 3s in the WNBA. I’d have to sell her as a versatile undersized point forward (4) like Alyssa Thomas without the elite defensive skills but with more elite post skills and a pretty jump shot 15 feet and in.

I couldn’t care less about Tara getting the 100th PAC-12 regular season or tourney title. These things are inconsequential to me after you can literally line Maples with past titles.

The current starters that include Lepolo and Agnes OR Haley as point guard will not allow the team to reach either Goal #1 or Goal #2. I’ve known this since November, 2022. This is still the case February 6, 2023.

So no, if I know I will not reach any of the goals going down this current path, why would I not PIVOT even with a month a half? That is the Stanford way. You don’t continue down a path with a very clear end.

RE: WBB: Stanford 67 -- Washington 72 - OCcardinal - 02-06-2023

(02-06-2023, 11:40 AM)treetop11 Wrote: We did well in the first Q agst UW and had a 9 pt lead and almsot got to our 20 pt per Q level that I always look for. It was the second Q that killed us where we gave up 30 pts (a pace of 120 for the game) as our D went south.

Looking at recent stats Nivar seemed to be the better solution at guard. See:

+/- stats
Game Lepolo (Nivar)
Utah -7 (+21) [Lepolo injured 4 minutes into the game]
Colorado N/A (+8)
Oregon +7 (-3) [the one game where Nivar's +/- #s were worse, but that game had some hockey-style lineup changes]
Oregon State -1 (+13)
Washington State +2 (+37) !!!
Washington -13 (-5)

Granted, Nivar played 7 minutes in the middle of that horrid Washington 2nd Quarter and Stanford was outscored 18-13 in those minutes. However Lepolo was on the court for those same 7 minutes. Further, in the three 2Q minutes that Nivar was on the bench, Washington outscored us 12-4.

Lepolo had a great start this season for a freshman, but hasn't shown a lot of upside yet. Nivar is the highest rated (and perhaps most athletic) guard on the roster. And guard play is likely to be even more important in the tournament. If we want a chance at the Final Four or Championship, I think Tara needs to figure out a way to keep her on the court. I'd like to see Nivar playing 20+ minutes a game instead of 7. But she doesn't seem to have earned Tara's full confidence yet.

RE: WBB: Stanford 67 -- Washington 72 - cardfan1996 - 02-06-2023

(02-06-2023, 02:15 PM)81alum Wrote: Yes, this year has marked a change of tone to our WBB threads, with several members who rarely posted in the past now voicing strongly critical opinions of Vanderveer's coaching decisions. I welcome more interest in WBB, certainly.

Here is my take on this: I know for a fact that Tara Vanderveer knows more about basketball than all the posters on this board combined, and I trust her judgment far more than I trust my own or that of my fellow posters. However, that should not restrain me or anyone else from questioning her decisions or discussing shortcomings in strategy, tactics, personnel, etc. That is in fact what fan boards routinely do--our enjoyment is based in part on testing our own amateur ideas out in public and seeing how they fly.

However, every time we do so, we also should ask ourselves "what are the reasons for why a 1000+ game winner has made the choices and decisions she made." She must have constraints and knowledge that we do not have. While Tara could be wrong about various things--she is never wrong for random reasons or for lack of attention to detail. Her "meticulosity" is legendary. There is a purpose to everything she does, even when she tries something that does not work. I want to know what led a great basketball mind to making the decisions she made--even the bad ones. This is what I mean about criticizing from a standpoint of humility--the recognition that she knows much more than I do, or than you do, and made a choice that may not make sense to us on the face of it. What is the explanation?

I also believe that whenever we are discussing players--WBB or others--we ought to avoid overly rhetorical criticisms. Pointing out a weakness in performance is one thing, but this can be done by stating facts and avoiding adjectives. I may slip up sometimes, but that it is my goal--to focus on performance without attributing motives, desire, etc. that are more speculative. Who among us knows what is really going on inside the head of a player, regardless of how nonchalant she may look to your eye or mine? I think those of you who have been parents of college athletes understand the distinction I am making.

No offense but I am not doing any of this “giving the coach the benefit of the doubt” business, and it has nothing to do with Tara. That is just not who I am. I question doctors all the time and I have not read one medical book. And it’s a good thing thing I ask a lot of questions and challenge things that don’t make sense (and I will leave it at that).

For the first time ever I wrote the Stanford AD last Fall asking him why changes haven’t been made to the football and MBB coaches and why our “revenue sports” were allowed to deteriorate under his (the AD’s) tenure. I am sure David Shaw and the MBB coach know more about football and bball, respectively, than I do but that didn’t stop me.

Just so we are clear, my loyalty is to Stanford University only and not to any particular coach no matter how long his/her tenure. And that is where it will remain. David was a student athlete Stanford alum but I felt absolutely nothing on his dismissal because his teams stopped performing up to an acceptable standard.

But hey, I bet some fans are fans of Stanford WBB because of Tara so I get the perspective of “humility” for those fans. I’d be supporting Stanford WBB whether or not she was the coach.

RE: WBB: Stanford 67 -- Washington 72 - BostonCard - 02-06-2023

There’s a fine line between skepticism and hubris, and every poster here has won three fewer national titles than our coach, has no insight into what goes on in practice, and doesn’t have a staff of assistant coaches whose job it is to provide suggestions. That is by no means to say that Tara Vanderveer is perfect or will ever be, but given a choice between the winningest coach of all time and some internet rando, the chance that said coach hasn’t thought of the magic bullet that my fellow posters are advocating as the obvious solution to the team playing subpar basketball is slim.

If this is a way to vent after a disappointing loss, that’s fine, but remember the old adage, “on the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog”.

BC

RE: WBB: Stanford 67 -- Washington 72 - BostonCard - 02-06-2023

Lepolo: 609 minutes in 24 games (21 started) for 25 mpg. She has shot 45/97 (46%) and 17/45 (37%) from behind the line. She has scored 119 pts, gotten 44 rebounds, 91 assists versus 50 turnovers, and 18 steals. On a normalized basis, this would be 7.8 pts/40 min (on 6.4 shots/40 min), 2.9 rebounds/40 min, 6.0 assists/40 min, 3.2 turnovers/40 min, and 1.2 steals/40 min.

Nivar: 281 minutes in 25 games (1 start) for 11.2 mpg. She has shot 24/70 (34%) and 8/32 (25%) from behind the line. She has scored 73 points, gotten 40 rebounds, 24 assists versus 21 turnovers, and has 11 steals. On a normalized basis, this would be 10.4 points/40 min (on 10.0 shots/40 min), 5.7 rebounds/40 min, 3.4 assists/40 min, 3.0 turnovers/40 min, and 1.6 steals/40 min.

Broadly, they are pretty comparable in what they give you offensively. Nivar is going to shoot more and get more points, but Lepolo's shots are more likely to go in. Nivar gets you about twice as many rebounds per 40 min, but almost half as many assists with a similar number of turnovers and slightly more steals. Basically, what I see is a purer point guard versus a combo guard, but no obvious reason to select one over the other. They are both role players who are meant to complement our two stars, and if you see data that suggests that one is clearly better than the other or that there is a clear reason why one should start over the other, I honestly don't see it in the data.

BC

RE: WBB: Stanford 67 -- Washington 72 - chimera - 02-06-2023

This is all getting much too serious. Bantering on a message board should be part of the fun of being a fan. I was over being unhappy or upset with the loss about 10 minutes after it was over. I happen to enjoy trying to put together the puzzle so I try things out here, but in no way do I think my ramblings are all that meaningful or informed. The only things that bother me are when posters go out of their way to say unkind things about players or coaches (although given that they are highly paid adults, the coaches can certainly take whatever anyone here dishes out) and unwarranted certainty, when posters claim that they know better and anyone who doesn't see it that way is wrong and not objective. I don't find most of this thread to be troubling. It is typical for a message board. If we all stop critiquing what would we have to talk about? Endless cheerleading is not fun. We have to be able to discuss what we perceive to be flaws? Just don't be a jerk about it, is all I can say.