The CardBoard
The Shot, Part II - 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: The Shot, Part II (/thread-6726.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

The Shot, Part II - Papa John - 02-10-2014

Some folks might not know/recall that Nick Robinson was not the only Cardinal to hit a miracle buzzer-beating shot in 2004. Given this weekend's men's game at WSU, now might be a good time to (re)introduce Matt Lottich's heave as time expired to beat WSU. Like the UA game, a series of events led to Mr. Lottich's heroics. In some ways, this win was even more improbable than the win over the Wildcats, as Stanford was down by 5 points with under 30 seconds to go.

And as a side note, unlike the UA game, I was not able to watch the Stanford-WSU game on my local cable. So I phoned a buddy in the Bay Area who gave me the play-by-play. I was running around the apartment, screaming after Lottich's shot, which caused many concerned looks (not the first time, nor the last) from my wife.

Trust me, this will be a worthwhile 10 minutes of your day!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DOQ8ASbn6o

Re: The Shot, Part II - Bruce Wang - 02-10-2014

Thanks for posting, PapaJ.  I had forgotten about this game.  I found myself reacting to the end like it was live.

This was probably my favorite MBB team.  Does anybody what's happened to the various members?

Re: The Shot, Part II - Papa John - 02-10-2014

My pleasure, Publius. I can't tell you what happened to all of the players on the 2003-04 team, but I can tell you why Josh Childress--that team's most highly decorated player, and the one who hit a crucial three-pointer to tie up the earlier Arizona game--is standing on the sidelines during the last minute mayhem: he fouled out. And yet Stanford still found a way to win. Incredible.

I do know that Childress had some success in the NBA after the 2003-04 season. He was drafted by the Atlanta Hawks and also played some in Europe. Not sure what he is up to at the moment, however.

But Matt Lottich is my favorite player from that team. I believe that he is an assistant coach for Valparaiso.

Re: The Shot, Part II - dabigv13 - 02-10-2014

Fantastic game, that was a magical season. Of course the very next game the Cinderella story ran out.

My personal favorite player from that era was Chris Hernandez...LinkedIn tells us that he's an MBA student at Notre Dame (boooo hisssss). Rob Little works for Wells Fargo. Childress was waived by the New Orleans Pelicans in December. Dan Grunfeld is playing in Israel (my favorite dominant scorer in Cardinal history...he surprised defenders with his slowness). Fred Washington is a law student at Santa Clara.

Justin Davis, who I always thought was underrated, looks like he's making a positive impact after basketball-
https://www.baycitizen.org/blogs/change-agents/former-basketball-pro-urges-black-teen/

Re: The Shot, Part II - CapitolHillCard - 02-10-2014

Ask and ye shall receive. The Stanford Daily just ran a piece on"the (other) shot" and it includes a separate section on where the 2003-04 team is now.

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2014/02/07/where-are-they-now-the-2003-04-stanford-mens-basketball-team/

Thanks, incidentally, to Papa John for posting that clip. I had likewise forgotten about that game. Unbelievable.

Re: The Shot, Part II - Spiny_Norman - 02-10-2014

I have saved a copy of the chat from the other board that occurred during the last 20 seconds of the 2004 WSU miracle victory.  If there are no objections from The Powers That Be (to wit, Yvonne), I'll post here to help you relive the fan experience in those long ago days when every game was not televised.

Re: The Shot, Part II - g1313 - 02-10-2014

Childress had an interesting stint where he was the highest paid player outside of the NBA when he played in Greece. There was a lot of coverage at the time because it was one of the few times that someone voluntarily left the NBA to go play somewhere else for more money (he turned down a contract from the Hawks).

However, it appears that he did not have a good experience in Europe and it may have significantly set back his career.

Coverage of his initial decision to go: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/sports/basketball/12childress.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Why he now discourages players from going to Europe: http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/feed/2010-10/nba-labor/story/josh-childress-i-dont-know-why-guys-would-head-to-europe


Re: The Shot, Part II - Papa John - 02-10-2014

(02-10-2014, 06:22 PM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:I have saved a copy of the chat from the other board that occurred during the last 20 seconds of the 2004 WSU miracle victory.  If there are no objections from The Powers That Be (to wit, Yvonne), I'll post here to help you relive the fan experience in those long ago days when every game was not televised.
I, for one, would love to see that chat, Spiny Norman (and Yvonne)! I remember staying on the phone with my friend for a long time after the game had ended as he retold the events that had just unfolded. It was joyous, yet surreal, and I would love to live vicariously through the other Board participants from 10 years ago.

Re: The Shot, Part II - Bruce Wang - 02-11-2014

(02-10-2014, 05:39 PM)Papa John link Wrote:But Matt Lottich is my favorite player from that team. I believe that he is an assistant coach for Valparaiso.

Lottich is my favorite player from that team as well.  The guy is fearless.  Assistant coach for Valparaiso?  Hmmmm....

Re: The Shot, Part II - burger - 02-11-2014

What that article didn't tell you about Nick Robinson: 2013-2014 record as head coach at Southern Utah: 0-20.  Ouch.

Re: The Shot, Part II - FarmBoy - 02-11-2014

That team is one of the most painful memories for me as a Stanford fan. After such a great season filled with big wins, to go out of the tourney the way they did was just depressing. That's pretty much when I got on board the "Mike Montgomery can't win the big games in the tourney and it's time for both parties to move on", boat. I don't harbor the ill-will against Monty that a lot of folks here do, because frankly, his strategy at Stanford had been proved to not be viable come tourney time. I miss the 20+ win seasons and occasional top 10 ranking. But I don't miss the certainty that Stanford would lose to a team with a lower seed in the tournament each year.

Hopefully our Harbaugh/Shaw of basketball is around the corner, ready to win big in season and get it done in the tourney as well.

Just read an interesting stat... - CowboyIndian - 02-11-2014

...in the Redding paper (but I think it was an AP article), the subject of which was Syracuse attaining the No. 1 position in a poll for the 16th time. According to the article, this tied them with: Kansas State and STANFORD!

Is that possible?

Re: Just read an interesting stat... - Papa John - 02-11-2014

(02-11-2014, 10:51 AM)CowboyIndian link Wrote:...in the Redding paper (but I think it was an AP article), the subject of which was Syracuse attaining the No. 1 position in a poll for the 16th time. According to the article, this tied them with: Kansas State and STANFORD!

Is that possible?
I have no idea how many times Syracuse and KSU have been #1 in the AP poll, but, according to the men's basketball media guide, Stanford has indeed been voted to the top spot 16 times (and all within a 4+ year span under Montgomery):
December 20, 1999
December 27, 1999
January 3, 2000
February 21, 2000
February 28, 2000
January 8, 2001
January 15, 2001
January 22, 2001
January 29, 2001
February 19, 2001
February 26, 2001
March 5, 2001
February 16, 2004
February 23, 2004
March 1, 2004
March 15, 2004

Re: The Shot, Part II - Nan3cy - 02-11-2014

It had been "one of those years" one of the commentators said. It sure was -- right up to the (gulp) end in the tournament.  :'(

Re: The Shot, Part II - BostonCard - 02-11-2014

(02-11-2014, 08:34 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:That team is one of the most painful memories for me as a Stanford fan. After such a great season filled with big wins, to go out of the tourney the way they did was just depressing. That's pretty much when I got on board the "Monty the Traitor can't win the big games in the tourney and it's time for both parties to move on", boat. I don't harbor the ill-will against Monty that a lot of folks here do, because frankly, his strategy at Stanford had been proved to not be viable come tourney time. I miss the 20+ win seasons and occasional top 10 ranking. But I don't miss the certainty that Stanford would lose to a team with a lower seed in the tournament each year.

Hopefully our Harbaugh/Shaw of basketball is around the corner, ready to win big in season and get it done in the tourney as well.

I don't know how you can accuses Monty of systematic underperformance when he also took a team to the Final 4.  The NCAA tourney (and, in fact, any one and done tourney) is going to have its share of upsets.  To the extent that we were upset victims during the latter stages of Monty's career at Stanford is due to the fact that we were frequently a higher seed.

BC

Re: The Shot, Part II - FarmBoy - 02-11-2014

BC - I don't have the data readily at hand, but in the last couple of years of Monty's tenure, ESPN did an analysis of the top underperformers and overperformers in the NCAA tourney for the ten years prior. Stanford was very high on the underperformer list.

In the last 6 years of his tenure (after going to the FF), Stanford made it to the sweet 16 once. Their seeds during that stretch: #2 (2nd rd loss), #1 (2nd round), #1 (Elite 8), #8 (2nd round, the only year they reached their seeding level), #4 (2nd round), #1 (2nd round). A #2 seeded team should theoretically lose in the Elite 8. A #1 seed should in theory make it to the FF. Yes, it's a lot harder to exceed your seed expectations when you're seeded highly, but these teams lost 2 and sometimes 3 rounds prior to the round their seeding predicted. Perhaps Stanford was over-rated by The Committee. Regardless, it became all too regular to have this let down, IMO.

I don't know why... - Mick - 02-11-2014

(02-11-2014, 04:44 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:That team is one of the most painful memories for me as a Stanford fan. After such a great season filled with big wins, to go out of the tourney the way they did was just depressing. That's pretty much when I got on board the "Monty the Traitor can't win the big games in the tourney and it's time for both parties to move on", boat. I don't harbor the ill-will against Monty that a lot of folks here do, because frankly, his strategy at Stanford had been proved to not be viable come tourney time. I miss the 20+ win seasons and occasional top 10 ranking. But I don't miss the certainty that Stanford would lose to a team with a lower seed in the tournament each year.

Hopefully our Harbaugh/Shaw of basketball is around the corner, ready to win big in season and get it done in the tourney as well.


...but I remember exactly where I watched the Stanford v. Siena game in 1989.  A good friend of mine and I hibernate in a pizza joint in Santa Clara for the first two weekends of March Madness, and I was assuring him that #3 seed Stanford would just wreck $14 seed Siena, but Stanford lost 78-80.

Siena was tough.  They started 1-2, then finished 24-3 over the season.  Their strength of schedule was extremely weak (225th out of 293), but they had the sixth best NCAA record.  They also got to play in their time zone. 

Stanford got into foul trouble (Reveno fouled out, Terry Taylor and Howard Wright had four fouls) and Vlahov had an underwhelming game, 16 minutes and 0 rebounds.

I don't know how you can accuses Monty of systematic underperformance when he also took a team to the Final 4.  The NCAA tourney (and, in fact, any one and done tourney) is going to have its share of upsets.  To the extent that we were upset victims during the latter stages of Monty's career at Stanford is due to the fact that we were frequently a higher seed.

In case you want to relive the pain:  http://vault.ncaa.com/?game=306SR330_s01&seconds=0

Re: The Shot, Part II - burger - 02-11-2014

(02-11-2014, 04:44 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:I don't know how you can accuses Monty of systematic underperformance when he also took a team to the Final 4.  The NCAA tourney (and, in fact, any one and done tourney) is going to have its share of upsets.  To the extent that we were upset victims during the latter stages of Monty's career at Stanford is due to the fact that we were frequently a higher seed.
I can't recall exactly where I saw this, but near the end of Monty's tenure, ESPN or SI or someone did an analysis of how big-name coaches had done in the Tourney relative to their seeds.  If you were a 2, breaking even would be losing in the Elite 8, losing earlier would be a negative, and making the Final 4 would be bonus points.  Monty came out towards the bottom of the rankings.  And I think that was before the 2004 fiasco (which I was present for--sigh).

Also, his UC East Bay record in the Tourney is so-so:
2009: lost in the 1st round as a 7 seed
2010: lost in the 2nd round as an 8 seed
2012: lost the play-in game as a 12 seed vs. another 12
2013: better--as a 12 seed, beat the 5 in the first round, lost to the 4 in round two

Of course, that's 4 more appearances than we've made since 2009.

Re: The Shot, Part II - Bruce Wang - 02-11-2014

Stanford had a tendency to win the 1st game and then lose the 2nd game of the weekend whether in the Round of 64 or the Sweet Sixteen.  I attributed this to the team relying heavily on preparation to overcome any weaknesses in relative athleticism.  It's easier to prepare for the 1st game of the weekend as opposed to the 2nd game when there are 2 potential opponents.  And don't forget, you know who your opponent is throughout the regular season.  In a way, this demonstrates that Monti was a good coach.

Ahh for those of you who point out that Stanford lost the Final Four game to Kentucky.  That's the exception that proves the rule.  Stanford almost beat that Kentucky team that went on to win the whole thing.

I never really understood that phrase - Mick - 02-11-2014

(02-11-2014, 05:40 PM)Publius link Wrote:That's the exception that proves the rule. 


How does an exception prove a rule?  Wouldn't customary and usual outcomes prove the rule and an exception disprove a rule