[chimera]

new article in The Athletic about the reasons for Stanford and Indiana's losses. 

The article says an anonymous Pac-12 coach said during conference play that our ceiling was not as high as in the past because our guard play simply wasn't good enough. 

On the season-ending loss:
"The Rebels crowded Brink and sent multiple defenders at Jones, showing little respect for Stanford’s other scorers, even stunting off Hannah Jump on multiple occasions. Despite oodles of space afforded beyond the arc, Stanford attempted only seven 3-pointers, a season low. At times, the Cardinal stubbornly tried to force the ball into the paint and at other times, were unwilling to take what Miami’s defense was giving."

This is a key point and has been all year.  I know we did not have experienced three point shooters except Jump, but I never got why players who were shooting 33% and up into the 40% range, even if the number of shots taken was low, were a worse bet than forcing the ball inside over and over.  When the team is shooting 30ish percent as a whole, why are wide open threes by players who don't suck at shooting them such a bad thing?  So many times early in a possession one of our perimeter players had an open shot, but they almost never took it, I'm sure be design so they could run the offense.  But mostly a turnover or a late shot clock struggle resulted.  The offense needs to allow for quick shots when the defense is not fully set.  We seemed to be trying to run offense, when the goal is really to make shots, if that makes any sense.

[chimera]

new article in The Athletic about the reasons for Stanford and Indiana's losses. 

The article says an anonymous Pac-12 coach said during conference play that our ceiling was not as high as in the past because our guard play simply wasn't good enough. 

On the season-ending loss:
"The Rebels crowded Brink and sent multiple defenders at Jones, showing little respect for Stanford’s other scorers, even stunting off Hannah Jump on multiple occasions. Despite oodles of space afforded beyond the arc, Stanford attempted only seven 3-pointers, a season low. At times, the Cardinal stubbornly tried to force the ball into the paint and at other times, were unwilling to take what Miami’s defense was giving."

This is a key point and has been all year.  I know we did not have experienced three point shooters except Jump, but I never got why players who were shooting 33% and up into the 40% range, even if the number of shots taken was low, were a worse bet than forcing the ball inside over and over.  When the team is shooting 30ish percent as a whole, why are wide open threes by players who don't suck at shooting them such a bad thing?  So many times early in a possession one of our perimeter players had an open shot, but they almost never took it, I'm sure be design so they could run the offense.  But mostly a turnover or a late shot clock struggle resulted.  The offense needs to allow for quick shots when the defense is not fully set.  We seemed to be trying to run offense, when the goal is really to make shots, if that makes any sense.