The CardBoard
WBB: Washington 87 Stanford 82 - 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: Washington 87 Stanford 82 (/thread-6718.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

WBB: Washington 87 Stanford 82 - 81alum - 02-09-2014

Overview:

Stanford's defensive woes continued today as we trailed virtually the entire game, by as much as 16 points.  We made a valiant effort in the waning seconds and got the score to a three point game, but it was not quite enough.  We lost after Chiney commited an intentional foul to stop a layup with four seconds left.

At the half Washington 41 Stanford 34 :

Tara started Taylor Greenfield today instead of Sara James.  Lili we are told was ill and not at full strength against WSU but is much better today.

Washington has taken a page out of WSU's defense and played an effective zone during the first half.  It has been difficult to pass the ball in to Chiney, who has only 8 points on 3/7 shooting.  When she gets it she is triple teamed.  When we have tried to force it in we have had a few turnovers, so there has been a lot of stagnant passing the ball around the outside before hoisting up a three point shot.  Unfortunately, our three point shooting has gone cold and we are just 4/17.

On defense we look as bad as we have all year.  Kelsey Plum is 3/3 on treys, and several Washington players drive to the basket in open lanes fairly easily. 

Mikaela is a bright spot so far.  She already has 10 points with all the attention focused on Chiney. 

Tara needs some major defensive adjustments at halftime.  It is ominous that Washington has generated so much offense and their star Jazmine Davis has been quiet.  What if she goes off in the second half? 

Second half:

Unlike WSU, Stanford did not entirely solve the zone at the half.  Chiney worked hard for her 23 points on 9/17.  She seemed to tire late in the second half, getting fewer shots off and uncharacteristically missing some free throws.  Our three point shooting continued cold, and Amber was not driving much and was 2/15 for the game.  Meanwhile, Washington's Kelsey Plum--who apparently was recruited by us and chose Washinton (according to the announcers) racked up 23 points.  Down by 16 points with 9 minutes left, we fought back to within 6 at 5:15 after Amber and Karlie made free throws, and hope began to flicker again.  But the same lack of defense that got us in the hole in the first place prevented us from digging out.  Williams made a basket +1, Plum made a jumper, Wetmore made two free throws and we were down by 11 again.

Bonnie was inserted and we began to run plays to set up her treys, and she finally began to make them.  In fact, she made 3 treys and two free throws in the last two minutes to give us a bit of hope.  We were stretching the game with fouls and Washington missed quite a few free throws to give us a chance. 

With 6 seconds we had closed to within 3 and intercepted the Washington inbounds.  Perhaps for the first time all year I could really feel the heart from our team as it battled back.  But Washington was able to tie it up on the floor and they had the arrow.  A long pass in was followed by the intentional foul by Chiney and the game was over.

Performances:

If someone had said that we would have 4 players in double figures and that we would lose the game, I think we all would have thought him crazy.  And note that this was Mikaela's best game of her career in terms of stats--with 16 points and 22 rebounds.  Absolutely astounding.

Chiney had 23 points and 14 rebounds--completely respectable.  Lili had 13 and Bonnie had 14--most of them during desperation time.

Even more astonishing was that we had only 7 turnovers for the game, and out rebounded Washington 57-39.  We took 81 shots to their 64.  We made only 1 less free throw than they did--even with all that intentional fouling at the end.  By almost all the stats we should have dominated. 

But none of the stats matter if the ball doesn't go in the hole.  We shot 35% and they shot 47%.  From three we were 22% and they were 41%.  We were not particularly closely defended--except Chiney.  We simply lacked focus when shooting.

Parting thoughts:

If we had shot better from three, we would have won.  But three point shooting is not always reliable--especially when playing away from home with new sight lines--our frosh had never played in that arena before, and Karlie was 1-8 from three.  But Amber was 0-8, Taylor was 1-6, and Bonnie was our most successful but just 4-11.  Our 42% three point shooting dropped in this game to 22%, and it was not mainly due to perimeter defense.

That said, even though our offense looked disjointed and out of sorts, we scored 82 points distributed between multiple players.  With an average Stanford defense, that would have been more than enough to win.  No, this loss cannot be attributed to our offense, even though we certainly can improve on that score.   

A Stanford team giving up 87 points shows something is seriously amiss with our defensive play.  I think this year we are beginning to learn just how valuable Joslyn and Toni and Sara were on defense--even though they did not always have the glowing offensive output that we would have liked.  Sara did not play today at all, and the loss of Toni to medical retirement and Joslyn to graduation has left some defensive holes that we have not adequately filled.

Multiple times we left Washington players completely unmolested to shoot threes--which they did at 41%.  But while leaving them open from the arc, we did not do an especially good job closing down the lanes, as we let their guards penetrate repeatedly--as we did with WSU and with C.al.  All five of Washington's starters scored 13 or more points. 

Tara's "scouting report defense" has never worked all that well against teams which have multiple players who can score.  Who do you choose to shut down?  In this game, whoever we chose--we chose wrong. 

Re: WBB: Washington 41 Stanford 34 at half - WAcard - 02-09-2014

Thompson is not a good match up on Plum, she has given up 2 open 3s and a lay up. Mikaela is a trooper battling.

Re: WBB: Washington 41 Stanford 34 at half - WAcard - 02-09-2014

Absolute bullcrap call on Mikaela they hit Chiney all game long and she gets no calls.

Re: WBB: Washington 41 Stanford 34 at half - WAcard - 02-09-2014

Took us too long to go into the match up, all year these teams have been struggling against zone and we are not going to get calls on the road.

On another note this is great practice.

Re: WBB: Washington 87 Stanford 82 - WAcard - 02-09-2014

I am pleeding with Tara to put in a 3 2 match up zone, mix up this throughout the game. We had to drive the gaps to draw the defense.

Re: WBB: Washington 87 Stanford 82 - WAcard - 02-09-2014

Nice run though Alum, yes the heart came too late but I think it is tied into the lack of changes in our defense.

I also thought for the first time in a long time our game plan was off. Amber allowed Plum to go left, she is a lefty. Thompson on Plum did not work due to her small size but a longer player seemed to affect her shot. Again we were struggling on help side and Taylor seems like she is so afraid to foul she justs pulls her hands away and gets out of the way. Some adjustments needed but considering we were that flat and they were hitting we did show fight at the end which was good to see.

brobdingnagian shout out to Mikaela 7/12 and 22 rebounds.

Re: WBB: Washington 87 Stanford 82 - M T - 02-09-2014

[Apparently I clicked Post at one point rather than Preview.  This was the intended post.]

A team loss.  Tara may have wanted to change things up, but whatever she tried either was the wrong thing or wasn't enough.  It wasn't one player (although that isn't to say that some players stood out more than others.  I'll point out that Mikaela had 16pts + 22reb and Chiney had 23pts and 14 rebounds.  You can say our forwards were not really the problem.).

Amber showed she couldn't keep up with Plum--she got burned so many times.  We showed that when we have the players who take our 3 point shots in the game (Lili, 2 of {Samuelsons + Greenfield}, Amber, & Chiney), we have no penetration to disrupt the defense.

We found that you can't depend on 3 point shots to carry the game.  They're a good threat to free up Chiney, but if they don't fall, both ends of our game are hampered.  We didn't do the kind of guard play on offense (and, face it, the Samuelson's & Greenfield can't) it takes to get the double & triple teams off Chiney.

I was surprised we got 34 of 41 rebounds at our defensive end and 23 of 55 at our offensive end.  It felt that we were being out-rebounded.

Maybe I'll let someone else point out specific shortcomings of play on the field.  I took a lot of notes, but I won't be able to view the video again until Thursday.


Re: WBB: Washington 87 Stanford 82 - BBGuru - 02-09-2014


Sometimes you just need to stick with what works.

After blowing teams out by double digits for weeks, the strategy gets changed and we begin to barely squeak by with teams who we should be able to beat. What happens is, teams see their peers either stick with us or come close to beating us and they become energized and emboldened. They start to believe they have a chance, so they play like they have a chance. Many teams have their best performances of the season when they play against us. While we play our usual carefully orchestrated game, they go for BROKE playing hard and tough, taking advantage of every opportunity to score and leaving their blood sweat and tears on the court like it's an epic battle. Usually, we still prevail but not today.

No one was effective against Plum because we needed a taller player with longer arms on her. Unfortunately that player would also need to have a pair of quick feet. I think Sara James' defense could have been very helpful today but she didn't play. I hope she's not sick or inured.

Chiney got over the 20 pt mark but just barely. Even as amazing as she is, she missed a lot of shots that she normally makes but her double-double is nothing to sneeze at. I love and respect her game even when she's struggling and I keep thinking how sorely she'll be missed next year.

We have a lot to be thankful for in Big Ruef! She was Johnny-Ella on the Spot many times today and she's quickly becoming my favorite player. She had a lot of great put-backs and some awesomely key rebounds! With 16 points and 22 boards she was a star and a joy to watch. She shows just how valuable she is in every game and she'll be sorely missed next year too.

Also thank goodness for Thompson's early 3-3s and BSam's late 4-3s. Our other 2 sharpshooters went a meager 1/7 and 1/8.

Orrange dribbles around and wastes too much time on offense. If she made quicker decisions (and passes) we'd score a lot more in transition. Players would get the ball before the defense has a chance to set up and get in position. More fast breaks to take advantage of our guard speed would be great too. She had some good assists today but she was only 2/15. Ouch!

As for the loss, I'm not too concerned because we can recover. You win some and you lose some and sometimes it takes a loss to help you refocus.

Re: WBB: Washington 87 Stanford 82 - WAcard - 02-09-2014

Thompson was 1 of 4 in the paint so maybe those shots could have been assists to Chiney that would be part of drawing the defense. And who got those assists to Thompson?

Re: WBB: Washington 87 Stanford 82 - M T - 02-09-2014

(02-09-2014, 02:20 PM)81alum link Wrote:No, this loss cannot be attributed to our offense, even though we certainly can improve on that score.   

I disagree partly.  Yes, defense was a significant part.  But we failed to do the kinds of things on offense that one can do, other than shoot the lights out, to stop the multi-player defense on Chiney (which also leads to rebounding issues).  Amber should have been cutting to the basket instead of going 0-8 from 3.  We shouldn't have kept hitting our head against the wall by putting in only the players that can hit 3s but can't/don't attack the lane.  The reason we had decent offensive numbers was because we had such poor defense that there were lots of possessions, plus all the extra offense piled up in the last few minutes.  (FGA-OR is an approximation of possessions.  That is 58 in this game versus 61 in the Oregon game; 46 at  WSU, 44 at k.al, 51 vs k.al, 50 vs u.sc, 44 vs ucla)

My hope is that this loss doesn't block us from getting a #1 seed in the NCAA tourney.  I don't think we have another mulligan to use for the rest of the season.  Speaking of mulligans, UW will be at Stanford on Feb. 27, but I won't be.  Bring friends, family, and other strangers and make lots of noise!



Re: WBB: Washington 87 Stanford 82 - BBGuru - 02-09-2014

(02-09-2014, 04:56 PM)WAcard link Wrote:Thompson was 1 of 4 in the paint so maybe those shots could have been assists to Chiney that would be part of drawing the defense. And who got those assists to Thompson?

I don't know who got her the assists or if she created her own shots, all I know is the scoreboard reflected the shots going in.

BTW, Good thing the paint isn't the only place Thompson can score from. Going 43% at 3/7 beats going 0% at 0/8 seven days a week. :P

Re: WBB: Washington 87 Stanford 82 - BBGuru - 02-09-2014

(02-09-2014, 03:42 PM)WAcard link Wrote:I am pleeding with Tara to put in a 3 2 match up zone, mix up this throughout the game. We had to drive the gaps to draw the defense.

Pleading. There's an "a" in there.

Re: WBB: Washington 87 Stanford 82 - WAcard - 02-09-2014

Where do you want them to drive into Chiney there is a difference between driving to score and driving to assist. We should not be just doing it for the sake of it. It should be to draw and get a defender away from Chiney or to draw the defender away from the shooter. A lot of the 3s were way out there as there was no penetration and some when clock was winding down. As I have pointed out we need to work on a zone. Saying get in players with quicker feet is a cop out as we have them on the floor they are just afraid to foul and get pulled but it is getting our help side better that will make the difference as a lot of these players are looking to score not pass.

Re: WBB: Washington 87 Stanford 82 - BBGuru - 02-09-2014

(02-09-2014, 05:14 PM)MT link Wrote:[quote author=81alum link=topic=9533.msg83577#msg83577 date=1391980829]
No, this loss cannot be attributed to our offense, even though we certainly can improve on that score.   

I disagree partly.  Yes, defense was a significant part.  But we failed to do the kinds of things on offense that one can do, other than shoot the lights out, to stop the multi-player defense on Chiney (which also leads to rebounding issues).  Amber should have been cutting to the basket instead of going 0-8 from 3.  We shouldn't have kept hitting our head against the wall by putting in only the players that can hit 3s but can't/don't attack the lane.  The reason we had decent offensive numbers was because we had such poor defense that there were lots of possessions, plus all the extra offense piled up in the last few minutes.  (FGA-OR is an approximation of possessions.  That is 58 in this game versus 61 in the Oregon game; 46 at  WSU, 44 at k.al, 51 vs k.al, 50 vs u.sc, 44 vs ucla)

My hope is that this loss doesn't block us from getting a #1 seed in the NCAA tourney.  I don't think we have another mulligan to use for the rest of the season.  Speaking of mulligans, UW will be at Stanford on Feb. 27, but I won't be.  Bring friends, family, and other strangers and make lots of noise!
[/quote]

Ditto! Well said.

Re: WBB: Washington 87 Stanford 82 - BBGuru - 02-09-2014

(02-09-2014, 05:34 PM)WAcard link Wrote:Where do you want them to drive into Chiney there is a difference between driving to score and driving to assist. We should not be just doing it for the sake of it. It should be to draw and get a defender away from Chiney or to draw the defender away from the shooter. A lot of the 3s were way out there as there was no penetration and some when clock was winding down. As I have pointed out we need to work on a zone. Saying get in players with quicker feet is a cop out as we have them on the floor they are just afraid to foul and get pulled but it is getting our help side better that will make the difference as a lot of these players are looking to score not pass.

First time I've been compelled to agree with anything you posted. Well said.

Re: WBB: Washington 87 Stanford 82 - 81alum - 02-09-2014

(02-09-2014, 05:14 PM)MT link Wrote:[quote author=81alum link=topic=9533.msg83577#msg83577 date=1391980829]
No, this loss cannot be attributed to our offense, even though we certainly can improve on that score.   

I disagree partly. 
...
The reason we had decent offensive numbers was because we had such poor defense that there were lots of possessions, plus all the extra offense piled up in the last few minutes.
[/quote]
Well, maybe we are not so far apart.  I do think that the main story was poor defense.  We have not allowed 87 points to anybody in at least three years--probably much longer, but I'm not going to scrounge further than 2010.  UConn has not scored 87 on us in quite some time--and not this year.

I do agree that we needed Amber and Lili to cut to the basket more often.  They have shown the ability to do that.  I wonder if the game plan was "off" somehow.

Our frosh will improve their defense with experience.  Chiney had some issues her freshman year, too.  Ros became an expert defender only towards the end of her career.  This will come with time and increasing levels of basketball IQ and muscle memory.

On the positive front--I really did like the way we fought back when it seemed hopeless.  And Mikaela was awesome.  And Bonnie making 11 points in 2 minutes proves to me that she is at her best when she just focuses and shoots and doesn't think too much about getting wide open. 

We will come back from this.  It might mean a 2 seed--or it might not--but that has never been an impediment to our tournament success before.  Think Candice and company against Maryland.

Re: WBB: Washington 87 Stanford 82 - Jskass - 02-09-2014

given that other teams have 2 losses, I'll hope that Duke just leapfrogs us and Louisville in the rankings, returning us to #4 and Louisville at 5 for now. We really need to refocus on defense and on the guard penetration, which more often than not leads to good outcomes.

However, the comment about certain players not playing aggressive defensive because they're afraid to foul and then be pulled from the game is a good point. Almost appears that the abundance of talent is hurting us if Taylor or anyone else isn't as aggressive as they should be.

Re: WBB: Washington 87 Stanford 82 - kookiebean - 02-09-2014

I took a picture of the defensive player with her back on Chiney and her arm drapped over her shoulder. See attached. Is this a legal defense?


[attachment deleted by admin]

Re: WBB: Washington 87 Stanford 82 - BBGuru - 02-09-2014

(02-09-2014, 07:27 PM)Jskass link Wrote:given that other teams have 2 losses, I'll hope that Duke just leapfrogs us and Louisville in the rankings, returning us to #4 and Louisville at 5 for now. We really need to refocus on defense and on the guard penetration, which more often than not leads to good outcomes.

However, the comment about certain players not playing aggressive defensive because they're afraid to foul and then be pulled from the game is a good point. Almost appears that the abundance of talent is hurting us if Taylor or anyone else isn't as aggressive as they should be.

When you reward aggressive D with a long trip to the bench it makes players too tentative. They know their diligent efforts will result in a punishment, so they back off and allow their opponents to have their way. I think this is a coaching mistake and it sets a climate of hesitancy, but it's not the only mistake.

IMPO players need the freedom and permission to be spontaneous on offense too. Teams like Washington who do well against us have players who aren't afraid to take chances. They're spontaneous on the ball and they take even the slightest opportunity to score.

Our players, especially the guards, usually have to wait around and dribble forever and default to an established offense. There's very little catch and shoot or points scored in transition off quick passes that take advantage of a break in the defense. There's that robot-like resignation to look to the bench, set it up, and either hold the ball too long or dribble forever and give the defense a chance to get in place. Then we pass it back and forth around the 3 pt line until we're forced to take a shot. I like 3s but coaches shouldn't allow a team to live and die by them.

I'd like to see more creative, spontaneous offense and have those efforts be positively rewarded by the coaches. We should be taking players off the dribble, making the quick long pass to cherry pick, hitting players with the ball before their defenders can get set up, making our passes much quicker, and basically playing without so much FEAR! Fear that if you make a mistake you're on the bench possibly never to be seen in the game again.

Re: WBB: Washington 87 Stanford 82 - BBGuru - 02-09-2014

(02-09-2014, 06:33 PM)81alum link Wrote:[quote author=MT link=topic=9533.msg83590#msg83590 date=1391991268]
[quote author=81alum link=topic=9533.msg83577#msg83577 date=1391980829]
No, this loss cannot be attributed to our offense, even though we certainly can improve on that score.   

I disagree partly. 
...
The reason we had decent offensive numbers was because we had such poor defense that there were lots of possessions, plus all the extra offense piled up in the last few minutes.
[/quote]


Our frosh will improve their defense with experience.  Chiney had some issues her freshman year, too.  Ros became an expert defender only towards the end of her career.  This will come with time and increasing levels of basketball IQ and muscle memory.


[/quote]

Our frosh weren't the only defensive problems. Greenfield got scored on very consistently and had zero rebounds. Chiney and Ruef got beat to the basket and lost their players, or got shot right over at will. They scored a lot, but they also gave up a lot of baskets. I also think we switched too much and our bigs got tasked with much smaller guards who simply blew right past them.