02-07-2021, 03:51 PM
First time in quite a while I remember seeing that all Stanford players who got in the game scored.
WBB: Stanford 83 Utah 41
02-07-2021, 03:51 PM
We shot 51%/44%. UT shot 24%/5%. UT was 1 for 22 from 3.
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
Well, it is true that we did not dominate the second half as completely as the first. Utah got a bit of an inside game going with Pendande. But I, for one, am pleased with our performance in the second half anyway. Tara gave our third string players the floor and they more than held their own. In fact, Van Gytenbeek looked brilliant at times and is increasing my confidence in our pointguard-of-the-future. We also showed we could defeat the zone in this game--very important--and our three point shooting returned. 11 players scored. A good way to end the weekend.
The announcers also gave us important insights. Murphy is really the best in the business, as far as I am concerned. We learned about Tara's take on the Colorado meltdown, and we learned that Prechtel is out with a concussion protocol after a practice bump.
The announcers also gave us important insights. Murphy is really the best in the business, as far as I am concerned. We learned about Tara's take on the Colorado meltdown, and we learned that Prechtel is out with a concussion protocol after a practice bump.
Well, it is true that we did not dominate the second half as completely as the first. Utah got a bit of an inside game going with Pendande. But I, for one, am pleased with our performance in the second half anyway. Tara gave our third string players the floor and they more than held their own. In fact, Van Gytenbeek looked brilliant at times and is increasing my confidence in our pointguard-of-the-future. We also showed we could defeat the zone in this game--very important--and our three point shooting returned. 11 players scored. A good way to end the weekend.
The announcers also gave us important insights. Murphy is really the best in the business, as far as I am concerned. We learned about Tara's take on the Colorado meltdown, and we learned that Prechtel is out with a concussion protocol after a practice bump.
The announcers also gave us important insights. Murphy is really the best in the business, as far as I am concerned. We learned about Tara's take on the Colorado meltdown, and we learned that Prechtel is out with a concussion protocol after a practice bump.
02-07-2021, 03:52 PM
A 42 point win. Take that NET rankings!
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
02-07-2021, 03:54 PM
(02-07-2021, 03:52 PM)81alum Wrote: The announcers also gave us important insights. Murphy is really the best in the business, as far as I am concerned. We learned about Tara's take on the Colorado meltdown, and we learned that Prechtel is out with a concussion protocol after a practice bump.
other than getting agnes emma-nnopu's name wrong about 10 times.
(02-07-2021, 03:52 PM)81alum Wrote: The announcers also gave us important insights. Murphy is really the best in the business, as far as I am concerned. We learned about Tara's take on the Colorado meltdown, and we learned that Prechtel is out with a concussion protocol after a practice bump.
other than getting agnes emma-nnopu's name wrong about 10 times.
02-07-2021, 03:56 PM
(02-07-2021, 03:38 PM)martyup Wrote: All of our bigs have 3 fouls with 4:49 to play. We're back to mostly just chucking 3s at the end of the shot clock. Looking more like a strategy by Tara than poor play.
Why do you think that is Tara's default strategy for when we are up big in terms of shooting the 3? I understand using time, but just a desperate 3 at the end of the shot clock seems random. I think it's ok to set up for a decent show with your backups in.
(02-07-2021, 03:38 PM)martyup Wrote: All of our bigs have 3 fouls with 4:49 to play. We're back to mostly just chucking 3s at the end of the shot clock. Looking more like a strategy by Tara than poor play.
Why do you think that is Tara's default strategy for when we are up big in terms of shooting the 3? I understand using time, but just a desperate 3 at the end of the shot clock seems random. I think it's ok to set up for a decent show with your backups in.
02-07-2021, 03:58 PM
(02-07-2021, 03:54 PM)jonnyss Wrote: [quote="81alum" pid='306952' dateline='1612738322']
The announcers also gave us important insights. Murphy is really the best in the business, as far as I am concerned. We learned about Tara's take on the Colorado meltdown, and we learned that Prechtel is out with a concussion protocol after a practice bump.
other than getting agnes emma-nnopu's name wrong about 10 times.
_____________________________________________________
Emma-Nnopu looks like a potential terrific lock down defender. She's already pretty good.
(02-07-2021, 03:54 PM)jonnyss Wrote: [quote="81alum" pid='306952' dateline='1612738322']
The announcers also gave us important insights. Murphy is really the best in the business, as far as I am concerned. We learned about Tara's take on the Colorado meltdown, and we learned that Prechtel is out with a concussion protocol after a practice bump.
other than getting agnes emma-nnopu's name wrong about 10 times.
_____________________________________________________
Emma-Nnopu looks like a potential terrific lock down defender. She's already pretty good.
02-07-2021, 03:59 PM
I think the final score is misleading, if you can call a 42 point win that. Seems to me that Stanford was even more dominant than it shows, given that (I think) NONE of the starters played in the 4th quarter, unless Brink had a minute or two. Great to see Jana score in double digits and Agnes get so much time. She was really impressive on the boards, very aggressive and held onto the ball they she got it, also showed good awareness of where her teammates were and passed accordingly. And everyone who played scored!
Maybe being back at Maples, able to practice there has an impact. The team looked much more organized, coherent in this game than they have in earlier games.
Maybe being back at Maples, able to practice there has an impact. The team looked much more organized, coherent in this game than they have in earlier games.
I think the final score is misleading, if you can call a 42 point win that. Seems to me that Stanford was even more dominant than it shows, given that (I think) NONE of the starters played in the 4th quarter, unless Brink had a minute or two. Great to see Jana score in double digits and Agnes get so much time. She was really impressive on the boards, very aggressive and held onto the ball they she got it, also showed good awareness of where her teammates were and passed accordingly. And everyone who played scored!
Maybe being back at Maples, able to practice there has an impact. The team looked much more organized, coherent in this game than they have in earlier games.
Maybe being back at Maples, able to practice there has an impact. The team looked much more organized, coherent in this game than they have in earlier games.
02-07-2021, 04:04 PM
(02-07-2021, 03:52 PM)81alum Wrote: Well, it is true that we did not dominate the second half as completely as the first. Utah got a bit of an inside game going with Pendande. But I, for one, am pleased with our performance in the second half anyway. Tara gave our third string players the floor and they more than held their own. In fact, Van Gytenbeek looked brilliant at times and is increasing my confidence in our pointguard-of-the-future. We also showed we could defeat the zone in this game--very important--and our three point shooting returned. 11 players scored. A good way to end the weekend.
The announcers also gave us important insights. Murphy is really the best in the business, as far as I am concerned. We learned about Tara's take on the Colorado meltdown, and we learned that Prechtel is out with a concussion protocol after a practice bump.
I agree. I am just looking at consistency, even among the backups. We were forced to use our starters a lot longer than it initially looked like we needed in the Colorado game. By pulling our starters early, we reduce injury risk and then give our players valuable experience, especially important for Van Gytenbeek, who is probably our starting point guard next year.
(02-07-2021, 03:52 PM)81alum Wrote: Well, it is true that we did not dominate the second half as completely as the first. Utah got a bit of an inside game going with Pendande. But I, for one, am pleased with our performance in the second half anyway. Tara gave our third string players the floor and they more than held their own. In fact, Van Gytenbeek looked brilliant at times and is increasing my confidence in our pointguard-of-the-future. We also showed we could defeat the zone in this game--very important--and our three point shooting returned. 11 players scored. A good way to end the weekend.
The announcers also gave us important insights. Murphy is really the best in the business, as far as I am concerned. We learned about Tara's take on the Colorado meltdown, and we learned that Prechtel is out with a concussion protocol after a practice bump.
I agree. I am just looking at consistency, even among the backups. We were forced to use our starters a lot longer than it initially looked like we needed in the Colorado game. By pulling our starters early, we reduce injury risk and then give our players valuable experience, especially important for Van Gytenbeek, who is probably our starting point guard next year.
02-07-2021, 04:07 PM
Agnes also had 8 rebounds . . . she can play. I don't recall her scoring a FG yet this year, but I probably missed one early.
The Turtling Supremacy
The Turtling Supremacy
DIE LUFT DER FREIHEIT WEHT
Agnes also had 8 rebounds . . . she can play. I don't recall her scoring a FG yet this year, but I probably missed one early.
The Turtling Supremacy
The Turtling Supremacy
DIE LUFT DER FREIHEIT WEHT
02-07-2021, 04:23 PM
That was refreshing. Nothing to complain about, really. Few turnovers, blowout with no letup late even with reserves in the whole 4th quarter against mostly Utah starters, and shooting was good. Well one complaint - we let Utah get way too many O boards. Not a small complaint. I enjoyed seeing how the reserves played. Was impressed with Jana and Agnes, who both almost surely played their biggest career minutes. Jana is a true floor general, and really moves the ball well. She is not one to dribble around deciding what to do too often. Agnes played a smart, contained game, made some nice decisions on passes, and rebounded well. Defends well too.
I hope Ashten is able to go against Oregon State on Friday, assuming that game gets played, which at this point is not a given. It was good for Fran to get so much playing time. She did well, which should boost her confidence after a small string of struggle games and reduced minutes.
I hope Ashten is able to go against Oregon State on Friday, assuming that game gets played, which at this point is not a given. It was good for Fran to get so much playing time. She did well, which should boost her confidence after a small string of struggle games and reduced minutes.
That was refreshing. Nothing to complain about, really. Few turnovers, blowout with no letup late even with reserves in the whole 4th quarter against mostly Utah starters, and shooting was good. Well one complaint - we let Utah get way too many O boards. Not a small complaint. I enjoyed seeing how the reserves played. Was impressed with Jana and Agnes, who both almost surely played their biggest career minutes. Jana is a true floor general, and really moves the ball well. She is not one to dribble around deciding what to do too often. Agnes played a smart, contained game, made some nice decisions on passes, and rebounded well. Defends well too.
I hope Ashten is able to go against Oregon State on Friday, assuming that game gets played, which at this point is not a given. It was good for Fran to get so much playing time. She did well, which should boost her confidence after a small string of struggle games and reduced minutes.
I hope Ashten is able to go against Oregon State on Friday, assuming that game gets played, which at this point is not a given. It was good for Fran to get so much playing time. She did well, which should boost her confidence after a small string of struggle games and reduced minutes.
02-07-2021, 04:27 PM
None of the starters played more than half the game. Kiana played 13 minutes. In fact, only Jump and Van Gytenbeek played more than half the game.
BC
BC
None of the starters played more than half the game. Kiana played 13 minutes. In fact, only Jump and Van Gytenbeek played more than half the game.
BC
BC
02-07-2021, 04:36 PM
(02-07-2021, 04:07 PM)Hurlburt88 Wrote: Agnes also had 8 rebounds . . . she can play. I don't recall her scoring a FG yet this year, but I probably missed one early.
The Turtling Supremacy
Yes, she has scored before. She even has a 3 this season, though I understand that's not a strength.
02-07-2021, 04:38 PM
(02-07-2021, 02:25 PM)TheFarm07 Wrote:(02-07-2021, 02:07 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(02-07-2021, 01:50 PM)BobK Wrote: Unranked North Carolina just beat # 4 North Carolina
Louisville edged unranked ND
Were they scrimmaging or did you mean NC State?
BC
Yea, I forgot the "state" part
With both UCLA and NC State losing this week, is that enough for us to go up to #4? Or does NC State's win over Louisville keep them in the top 4? Will be an interesting new ranking. I figure South Carolina and UConn will be 1-2. Then Louisville? Stanford? NCState in that order?
BC
(02-07-2021, 02:25 PM)TheFarm07 Wrote:(02-07-2021, 02:07 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(02-07-2021, 01:50 PM)BobK Wrote: Unranked North Carolina just beat # 4 North Carolina
Louisville edged unranked ND
Were they scrimmaging or did you mean NC State?
BC
Yea, I forgot the "state" part
With both UCLA and NC State losing this week, is that enough for us to go up to #4? Or does NC State's win over Louisville keep them in the top 4? Will be an interesting new ranking. I figure South Carolina and UConn will be 1-2. Then Louisville? Stanford? NCState in that order?
BC
02-07-2021, 04:57 PM
South Carolina plays UConn Monday. That may give the voters a little extra urge to rank them #1/#2. Whether they do or not, it's a big game!
South Carolina plays UConn Monday. That may give the voters a little extra urge to rank them #1/#2. Whether they do or not, it's a big game!
02-07-2021, 07:53 PM
(02-07-2021, 04:57 PM)CompSci87 Wrote: South Carolina plays UConn Monday. That may give the voters a little extra urge to rank them #1/#2. Whether they do or not, it's a big game!
It was a very good game all around. And no the fourth quarter was not a letdown as it was all bench players. For a lot of the fourth quarter it was Van Gytenbeek, Jump, Lacie, Emma-Nnopu and Jerome. That's not a lot of offense as it's mostly Van Gytenbeek and Jump who will shoot the ball, everyone else isn't much of an offensive threat. And Jerome is not a very good post defender so Utah's bigs went to town a bit. But that is to be expected when you have your entire bench in. Those players work really hard in practice and deserve game time when it's a blowout.
Contrast this with say UConn who keeps their starters in during blowouts and they can pad their stats. Jones and Brink were both well on the way to 20+ points and 10+ rebounds. While I do wish our star players would get more recognition, Tara's way keeps the entire team motivated and protects against needless injuries in garbage time.
(02-07-2021, 04:57 PM)CompSci87 Wrote: South Carolina plays UConn Monday. That may give the voters a little extra urge to rank them #1/#2. Whether they do or not, it's a big game!
It was a very good game all around. And no the fourth quarter was not a letdown as it was all bench players. For a lot of the fourth quarter it was Van Gytenbeek, Jump, Lacie, Emma-Nnopu and Jerome. That's not a lot of offense as it's mostly Van Gytenbeek and Jump who will shoot the ball, everyone else isn't much of an offensive threat. And Jerome is not a very good post defender so Utah's bigs went to town a bit. But that is to be expected when you have your entire bench in. Those players work really hard in practice and deserve game time when it's a blowout.
Contrast this with say UConn who keeps their starters in during blowouts and they can pad their stats. Jones and Brink were both well on the way to 20+ points and 10+ rebounds. While I do wish our star players would get more recognition, Tara's way keeps the entire team motivated and protects against needless injuries in garbage time.
While watching this blowout, I was noticing an issue that happens when one team seems dominant. We all know it and we've seen it countless times.
When one team is dominating, the refs start calling the game differently for one team than the other.
Effect 1: For a half or so, one team dominates playing at a particular level of aggressiveness & tight defense. Now, the team is being called for fouls for what was allowed earlier. Two things happen: The stronger team gets a bunch of fouls called on them. They have to adjust their intensity to a lower level.
Effect 2: The other team was not being effective, but now they can play super aggressively and not get fouls called on them. If anything, playing super aggressively gets fouls called on the other team.
I think we see Effect 1 often in Stanford games. We saw it in both the Utah and Colorado games.
In the Colorado game, we saw Effect 2. Colorado started playing a lot more aggressively, and that had a significant effect.
I believe that Effect 1 contributes to the perception that the winning team lets its foot off the gas. All it takes is a few calls to impact play, beyond the immediate foul. Moving screen or a good block? Charge or a blocking foul? Aggressive rebound or over the back? Travel or a good move to the basket? So players don't go through a screen, or step out of the way rather than risk a blocking foul, ease up on rebounding.
----
I watched the end of the Louisville - ND game and the talking heads afterwards for a while. I really think they don't know there is basketball west of the SEC. At least, they didn't mention it. I'd believe they haven't watched any games (either that or they are instructed not to mention it).
When one team is dominating, the refs start calling the game differently for one team than the other.
Effect 1: For a half or so, one team dominates playing at a particular level of aggressiveness & tight defense. Now, the team is being called for fouls for what was allowed earlier. Two things happen: The stronger team gets a bunch of fouls called on them. They have to adjust their intensity to a lower level.
Effect 2: The other team was not being effective, but now they can play super aggressively and not get fouls called on them. If anything, playing super aggressively gets fouls called on the other team.
I think we see Effect 1 often in Stanford games. We saw it in both the Utah and Colorado games.
In the Colorado game, we saw Effect 2. Colorado started playing a lot more aggressively, and that had a significant effect.
I believe that Effect 1 contributes to the perception that the winning team lets its foot off the gas. All it takes is a few calls to impact play, beyond the immediate foul. Moving screen or a good block? Charge or a blocking foul? Aggressive rebound or over the back? Travel or a good move to the basket? So players don't go through a screen, or step out of the way rather than risk a blocking foul, ease up on rebounding.
----
I watched the end of the Louisville - ND game and the talking heads afterwards for a while. I really think they don't know there is basketball west of the SEC. At least, they didn't mention it. I'd believe they haven't watched any games (either that or they are instructed not to mention it).
While watching this blowout, I was noticing an issue that happens when one team seems dominant. We all know it and we've seen it countless times.
When one team is dominating, the refs start calling the game differently for one team than the other.
Effect 1: For a half or so, one team dominates playing at a particular level of aggressiveness & tight defense. Now, the team is being called for fouls for what was allowed earlier. Two things happen: The stronger team gets a bunch of fouls called on them. They have to adjust their intensity to a lower level.
Effect 2: The other team was not being effective, but now they can play super aggressively and not get fouls called on them. If anything, playing super aggressively gets fouls called on the other team.
I think we see Effect 1 often in Stanford games. We saw it in both the Utah and Colorado games.
In the Colorado game, we saw Effect 2. Colorado started playing a lot more aggressively, and that had a significant effect.
I believe that Effect 1 contributes to the perception that the winning team lets its foot off the gas. All it takes is a few calls to impact play, beyond the immediate foul. Moving screen or a good block? Charge or a blocking foul? Aggressive rebound or over the back? Travel or a good move to the basket? So players don't go through a screen, or step out of the way rather than risk a blocking foul, ease up on rebounding.
----
I watched the end of the Louisville - ND game and the talking heads afterwards for a while. I really think they don't know there is basketball west of the SEC. At least, they didn't mention it. I'd believe they haven't watched any games (either that or they are instructed not to mention it).
When one team is dominating, the refs start calling the game differently for one team than the other.
Effect 1: For a half or so, one team dominates playing at a particular level of aggressiveness & tight defense. Now, the team is being called for fouls for what was allowed earlier. Two things happen: The stronger team gets a bunch of fouls called on them. They have to adjust their intensity to a lower level.
Effect 2: The other team was not being effective, but now they can play super aggressively and not get fouls called on them. If anything, playing super aggressively gets fouls called on the other team.
I think we see Effect 1 often in Stanford games. We saw it in both the Utah and Colorado games.
In the Colorado game, we saw Effect 2. Colorado started playing a lot more aggressively, and that had a significant effect.
I believe that Effect 1 contributes to the perception that the winning team lets its foot off the gas. All it takes is a few calls to impact play, beyond the immediate foul. Moving screen or a good block? Charge or a blocking foul? Aggressive rebound or over the back? Travel or a good move to the basket? So players don't go through a screen, or step out of the way rather than risk a blocking foul, ease up on rebounding.
----
I watched the end of the Louisville - ND game and the talking heads afterwards for a while. I really think they don't know there is basketball west of the SEC. At least, they didn't mention it. I'd believe they haven't watched any games (either that or they are instructed not to mention it).
02-07-2021, 10:24 PM
(02-07-2021, 08:19 PM)M T Wrote: While watching this blowout, I was noticing an issue that happens when one team seems dominant. We all know it and we've seen it countless times.
When one team is dominating, the refs start calling the game differently for one team than the other.
Effect 1: For a half or so, one team dominates playing at a particular level of aggressiveness & tight defense. Now, the team is being called for fouls for what was allowed earlier. Two things happen: The stronger team gets a bunch of fouls called on them. They have to adjust their intensity to a lower level.
Effect 2: The other team was not being effective, but now they can play super aggressively and not get fouls called on them. If anything, playing super aggressively gets fouls called on the other team.
I think we see Effect 1 often in Stanford games. We saw it in both the Utah and Colorado games.
In the Colorado game, we saw Effect 2. Colorado started playing a lot more aggressively, and that had a significant effect.
I believe that Effect 1 contributes to the perception that the winning team lets its foot off the gas. All it takes is a few calls to impact play, beyond the immediate foul. Moving screen or a good block? Charge or a blocking foul? Aggressive rebound or over the back? Travel or a good move to the basket? So players don't go through a screen, or step out of the way rather than risk a blocking foul, ease up on rebounding.
----
I watched the end of the Louisville - ND game and the talking heads afterwards for a while. I really think they don't know there is basketball west of the SEC. At least, they didn't mention it. I'd believe they haven't watched any games (either that or they are instructed not to mention it).
I agree with this generally. I thought the refs started calling all kinds of stuff in the last third or so of the CO game that they had not been calling earlier in both games, and they kept at it for a while. I usually know what a call is when I watch without sound, at least what the refs were calling, whether or not I agreed with the call. Not so during both these games. I was fairly confused a few times about what was called. It is very evident on what they call on post moves. Some of that is the fault of our players being more passive perhaps and getting lazy maybe on defense, reaching more or whatever. Still seems the calls were a bit off. I know everyone thinks their team gets hosed on calls. But just because we are homers doesn't mean we are wrong.
(02-07-2021, 08:19 PM)M T Wrote: While watching this blowout, I was noticing an issue that happens when one team seems dominant. We all know it and we've seen it countless times.
When one team is dominating, the refs start calling the game differently for one team than the other.
Effect 1: For a half or so, one team dominates playing at a particular level of aggressiveness & tight defense. Now, the team is being called for fouls for what was allowed earlier. Two things happen: The stronger team gets a bunch of fouls called on them. They have to adjust their intensity to a lower level.
Effect 2: The other team was not being effective, but now they can play super aggressively and not get fouls called on them. If anything, playing super aggressively gets fouls called on the other team.
I think we see Effect 1 often in Stanford games. We saw it in both the Utah and Colorado games.
In the Colorado game, we saw Effect 2. Colorado started playing a lot more aggressively, and that had a significant effect.
I believe that Effect 1 contributes to the perception that the winning team lets its foot off the gas. All it takes is a few calls to impact play, beyond the immediate foul. Moving screen or a good block? Charge or a blocking foul? Aggressive rebound or over the back? Travel or a good move to the basket? So players don't go through a screen, or step out of the way rather than risk a blocking foul, ease up on rebounding.
----
I watched the end of the Louisville - ND game and the talking heads afterwards for a while. I really think they don't know there is basketball west of the SEC. At least, they didn't mention it. I'd believe they haven't watched any games (either that or they are instructed not to mention it).
I agree with this generally. I thought the refs started calling all kinds of stuff in the last third or so of the CO game that they had not been calling earlier in both games, and they kept at it for a while. I usually know what a call is when I watch without sound, at least what the refs were calling, whether or not I agreed with the call. Not so during both these games. I was fairly confused a few times about what was called. It is very evident on what they call on post moves. Some of that is the fault of our players being more passive perhaps and getting lazy maybe on defense, reaching more or whatever. Still seems the calls were a bit off. I know everyone thinks their team gets hosed on calls. But just because we are homers doesn't mean we are wrong.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »