12-21-2011, 04:50 PM
Did you notice Pat's quote on the game:Â "They obviously had a great crowd in here"Â A lot of people were at the game that probably weren't that familiar with the team, but the team gave them a lot to cheer about.
I can't remember a game that was as impressive as this one. (Perhaps that is a reflection on my memory!) Tennessee is no slouch. Those are some very fine players they have. Good size, great athleticism. But Stanford picked them apart.
Tennessee gambled to bottle up Stanford in the back court, and they often got burned. I disagree with one ESPN announcer who thinks WBB should have a 10-second back court call. I doubt she will watch this game, but I think this shows that having that rule would be like adding a rule that requires all shots to be made with one hand. If you want to introduce rules that change the style of the game, that can be done, but great BB doesn't benefit from that rule. (Before there was a shot clock, a 10-sec. back court limit seems like a reasonable rule.)
Have you ever seen a 61% shooting effort in the first half result in a 7 point deficit? I can't recall that. I would point that out to anyone who thinks Tennessee lost this game because it was at the end of a long road trip. Maybe the final score should have been 2x 48-41 = 96-82 except for Tenn's 2nd half letdown. Oh wait, that's almost what it was.
One thing I think is under-emphasized is how the O rebounds allow the 3-point shooters to take their shots. Sometimes a shot is the only way to get the ball into Nneka. We got 44% of the rebounds on our shots. Tenn got 34% of the rebounds on their shots.
Some have knocked the foul by Lindy on the 3-pt shot. I disagree. It is a shame it was a foul, but it appears it was the shooter's foot that came forward and hit Lindy's leg. The shooter's arm was untouched and I think Lindy got the ball. If Lindy hadn't rushed her, she would have had a clear shot. I think that defensive play was what Stanford was doing to try to reduce Tennessee's shooting percentage. This one happened to be a foul.
The broadcast had a clip of Tara saying she was uncomfortable (I think that is her word) with a player averaging 25 points. I suspect what Tara was thinking was that it is a problem if a team depends on one player for too large a percentage of their points. 5 starters would have to average 19 points to score 97 points. If Stanford were scoring 72 points a game, then 25 points (~ 30%) might be too much to depend on one player.
In the past, I've seen Stanford teams depend too much on one player. This has many effects. One is that the other players look only to feed the star rather than playing for their own shot. I have to say that I don't think that was the case against Tennessee. It may have happened some (I can imagine Joslyn doing that, but I don't remember if she did that), but I am sure that Chiney didn't and Toni didn't. I also don't think the 3-pt shooters were guilty of that.
Another problem is the team getting too dependent on one player, so the team becomes vulnerable to a few bad calls, or one injury or illness. We've got a lot of other good players that this won't be an issue except in those very few critical games. Nneka strength & athleticism lets her play the best in "Let 'em play" officiating. Injury is another matter. Nneka will rarely play more than 32 minutes again until near the end of the year. That will hurt her scoring average (why don't they use points/40min for stats ??), but that's ok.
For several years, Stanford was blessed with a number of individual stars. They passed around who got the most points in a game. But that is a luxury few teams get.
I think our strength of schedule will hurt us again in rankings past the middle of the year. Cal is looking pretty strong. USC looked really good against Texas A&M. Both are better than their win-loss numbers indicate.
Obviously, Stanford's vulnerability is in defense. We have let the best player of the other team get too many points. We again were burned by that versus Tennessee.
I'm noticing a trend toward MORE offensive charges called if the defender is outside the new circle. But I haven't seen enough games yet to be sure.
I can't remember a game that was as impressive as this one. (Perhaps that is a reflection on my memory!) Tennessee is no slouch. Those are some very fine players they have. Good size, great athleticism. But Stanford picked them apart.
Tennessee gambled to bottle up Stanford in the back court, and they often got burned. I disagree with one ESPN announcer who thinks WBB should have a 10-second back court call. I doubt she will watch this game, but I think this shows that having that rule would be like adding a rule that requires all shots to be made with one hand. If you want to introduce rules that change the style of the game, that can be done, but great BB doesn't benefit from that rule. (Before there was a shot clock, a 10-sec. back court limit seems like a reasonable rule.)
Have you ever seen a 61% shooting effort in the first half result in a 7 point deficit? I can't recall that. I would point that out to anyone who thinks Tennessee lost this game because it was at the end of a long road trip. Maybe the final score should have been 2x 48-41 = 96-82 except for Tenn's 2nd half letdown. Oh wait, that's almost what it was.
One thing I think is under-emphasized is how the O rebounds allow the 3-point shooters to take their shots. Sometimes a shot is the only way to get the ball into Nneka. We got 44% of the rebounds on our shots. Tenn got 34% of the rebounds on their shots.
Some have knocked the foul by Lindy on the 3-pt shot. I disagree. It is a shame it was a foul, but it appears it was the shooter's foot that came forward and hit Lindy's leg. The shooter's arm was untouched and I think Lindy got the ball. If Lindy hadn't rushed her, she would have had a clear shot. I think that defensive play was what Stanford was doing to try to reduce Tennessee's shooting percentage. This one happened to be a foul.
The broadcast had a clip of Tara saying she was uncomfortable (I think that is her word) with a player averaging 25 points. I suspect what Tara was thinking was that it is a problem if a team depends on one player for too large a percentage of their points. 5 starters would have to average 19 points to score 97 points. If Stanford were scoring 72 points a game, then 25 points (~ 30%) might be too much to depend on one player.
In the past, I've seen Stanford teams depend too much on one player. This has many effects. One is that the other players look only to feed the star rather than playing for their own shot. I have to say that I don't think that was the case against Tennessee. It may have happened some (I can imagine Joslyn doing that, but I don't remember if she did that), but I am sure that Chiney didn't and Toni didn't. I also don't think the 3-pt shooters were guilty of that.
Another problem is the team getting too dependent on one player, so the team becomes vulnerable to a few bad calls, or one injury or illness. We've got a lot of other good players that this won't be an issue except in those very few critical games. Nneka strength & athleticism lets her play the best in "Let 'em play" officiating. Injury is another matter. Nneka will rarely play more than 32 minutes again until near the end of the year. That will hurt her scoring average (why don't they use points/40min for stats ??), but that's ok.
For several years, Stanford was blessed with a number of individual stars. They passed around who got the most points in a game. But that is a luxury few teams get.
I think our strength of schedule will hurt us again in rankings past the middle of the year. Cal is looking pretty strong. USC looked really good against Texas A&M. Both are better than their win-loss numbers indicate.
Obviously, Stanford's vulnerability is in defense. We have let the best player of the other team get too many points. We again were burned by that versus Tennessee.
I'm noticing a trend toward MORE offensive charges called if the defender is outside the new circle. But I haven't seen enough games yet to be sure.