01-01-2013, 04:56 AM
Coaching:
I believe it was two years ago that Tara said something about being uncomfortable with depending on a player to get 25 points. I think we're in that situation. We've got one player who is clearly an All-American, and is the most talented player I've seen in this year's players (unless you consider height to be a talent). The rest of Stanford mostly seem to be content to serve her the ball rather than to take the initiative.
I disagree that it is solely personnel in WBB, at least if personnel=players. I think Stanford has outperformed the raw talents of its personnel, because of its coaching. Coaching involves finding players that can go to your school, getting them to come to your school, teaching them, training them, having a season-long strategy, and game-by-game tactics. I think we'd agree that coaching played a big role in Stanford beating Baylor. By the same measure, I'd have to say that coaching had a big role in the big loss as well.
I thought the offense at So. Carolina had to be called by the coaches, or else they didn't instruct the players properly. I think Saturday's problems were mostly due to failure in the play, but I still think the coach is responsible. Our players can execute the kinds of plays that VG mentioned. If any of the players weren't doing what the coaches were calling, I would expect them to get benched and talked to. I didn't see that happening. If a player screws up a few times, it is the player's fault. If the player consistently plays the same way, the coach has to be accepting that play.
The crowd in my area was calling for attacking after getting ahead of the press. It seems so obvious from the heights of row R. In my mind, I know the coaches are closer to the play and can see it so much better. I know we were yelling for the players to attack, but in reality, we're pleading with the coaches to order it. I had a little glimmer of hope at the start of the 2nd half that we'd start punishing them for the press. But after 3 possessions or so, it disappeared.
I don't know if Stanford can be the best team at the end of the season. They weren't necessarily top-10 material on Saturday.
There were so many things that UConn did better in this game than Stanford.Â
Play:
I decided to look closely at that first 6:40 of the game where it was close. We hadn't fallen apart, nor had we reason to depart from our game plan. Our starters were in. What were we doing right or wrong and what were they doing better? I looked at what happened and why things happened. I wrote down a narrative of the plays (next msg) and who did well or poorly.
As I went through that part, a particular flaw in our team seemed very obvious. One player consistently was not hustling and was not playing what her position required. Sometimes she played quite well, but much of the time, she was not participating. Her guard was able to drop off her at the 3pt line as she was not an offensive threat.
I didn't start out looking for flaws of this player. But I kept seeing her failing to perform the way her position demands, and it hurt the team. So I concentrated on her play. Specifically I saw these kinds of repeated flaws:
 (a) She doesn't get back on defense (so taller, slower players feel it necessary to get back), and she wasn't a defensive threat with a press.
 (b) Not picking up players when she's back on defense
 © A point guard that stands around, or at best strolls on offense?? Even when she's near the basket and the ball is live?
 (d) Weak passes (for example, the pass into Chiney; I could forgive the pass after the steal)
 (e) Thinking she can do more than she can (driving into multiple players, going up against a player 10" taller (at both ends); going for a steal while ignoring a dangerous player)
 (f) Seemingly sulking (after she hit the backboard underside)
She seemed to have two gears: Try to do it all herself or stand around. At the offensive end, the other team leaves her out on the 3pt line and gets an extra defender to collapse on the paint.
I considered the possibility that I was being too hard on this player. So I looked at scoring differential while the players were in the game versus when they were out.
During the time she was on the bench, Stanford and UConn played to a tie. While she was in the game, Stanford lost by 29 points.
Here are the net points per game for the four Stanford lineups that played more than 5 minutes together.
and for all the players as individuals:
If you have a tape of the game, and can bear to review it, watch Amber during these clock times in the first half and consider if she is playing with the energy she should be:
18:08-17:39
17:27-17:06
13:36-13:33
13:26-13:11
Once we get into the half-court offense, we're playing 4 on 5 as Amber doesn't seem to be even attempting to contribute. Also Amber doesn't hustle back on defense.
Frankly, I'll be disappointed if Tara doesn't do something dramatic to shake up the team. If it were my call, I'd bench Amber for lack of hustle, and lack of playing as a guard, with the hope of getting her to realize she isn't doing what's necessary for the team.
The narrative of the plays in the first 400 seconds will be in the next message.
I believe it was two years ago that Tara said something about being uncomfortable with depending on a player to get 25 points. I think we're in that situation. We've got one player who is clearly an All-American, and is the most talented player I've seen in this year's players (unless you consider height to be a talent). The rest of Stanford mostly seem to be content to serve her the ball rather than to take the initiative.
I disagree that it is solely personnel in WBB, at least if personnel=players. I think Stanford has outperformed the raw talents of its personnel, because of its coaching. Coaching involves finding players that can go to your school, getting them to come to your school, teaching them, training them, having a season-long strategy, and game-by-game tactics. I think we'd agree that coaching played a big role in Stanford beating Baylor. By the same measure, I'd have to say that coaching had a big role in the big loss as well.
I thought the offense at So. Carolina had to be called by the coaches, or else they didn't instruct the players properly. I think Saturday's problems were mostly due to failure in the play, but I still think the coach is responsible. Our players can execute the kinds of plays that VG mentioned. If any of the players weren't doing what the coaches were calling, I would expect them to get benched and talked to. I didn't see that happening. If a player screws up a few times, it is the player's fault. If the player consistently plays the same way, the coach has to be accepting that play.
The crowd in my area was calling for attacking after getting ahead of the press. It seems so obvious from the heights of row R. In my mind, I know the coaches are closer to the play and can see it so much better. I know we were yelling for the players to attack, but in reality, we're pleading with the coaches to order it. I had a little glimmer of hope at the start of the 2nd half that we'd start punishing them for the press. But after 3 possessions or so, it disappeared.
I don't know if Stanford can be the best team at the end of the season. They weren't necessarily top-10 material on Saturday.
- No one player lost this game.Â
- I think the one player who played well enough to be beyond reproach is Chiney. The other players all need to play better.Â
- But I think one starter needs some serious reorientation of her approach to the game.
There were so many things that UConn did better in this game than Stanford.Â
- While Stanford tried to rebound the ball, Geno had his players block out first, and rebound second. Â
- Stanford was shooting; UConn was hitting. That may not be coaching.Â
- UConn was hustling; only some of Stanford were hustling. I think that was coaching.
Play:
I decided to look closely at that first 6:40 of the game where it was close. We hadn't fallen apart, nor had we reason to depart from our game plan. Our starters were in. What were we doing right or wrong and what were they doing better? I looked at what happened and why things happened. I wrote down a narrative of the plays (next msg) and who did well or poorly.
As I went through that part, a particular flaw in our team seemed very obvious. One player consistently was not hustling and was not playing what her position required. Sometimes she played quite well, but much of the time, she was not participating. Her guard was able to drop off her at the 3pt line as she was not an offensive threat.
I didn't start out looking for flaws of this player. But I kept seeing her failing to perform the way her position demands, and it hurt the team. So I concentrated on her play. Specifically I saw these kinds of repeated flaws:
 (a) She doesn't get back on defense (so taller, slower players feel it necessary to get back), and she wasn't a defensive threat with a press.
 (b) Not picking up players when she's back on defense
 © A point guard that stands around, or at best strolls on offense?? Even when she's near the basket and the ball is live?
 (d) Weak passes (for example, the pass into Chiney; I could forgive the pass after the steal)
 (e) Thinking she can do more than she can (driving into multiple players, going up against a player 10" taller (at both ends); going for a steal while ignoring a dangerous player)
 (f) Seemingly sulking (after she hit the backboard underside)
She seemed to have two gears: Try to do it all herself or stand around. At the offensive end, the other team leaves her out on the 3pt line and gets an extra defender to collapse on the paint.
I considered the possibility that I was being too hard on this player. So I looked at scoring differential while the players were in the game versus when they were out.
During the time she was on the bench, Stanford and UConn played to a tie. While she was in the game, Stanford lost by 29 points.
Here are the net points per game for the four Stanford lineups that played more than 5 minutes together.
| Min | NetPts | NetP/G | Â Players |
| 8:40 | -3 | -13.85 | Kokenis; Ogwumike; Orrange; Samuelson; Tinkle |
| 7:35 | -1 | -5.27 | Kokenis; Ogwumike; Orrange; Ruef; Tinkle |
| 6:31 | 3 | 18.41 | Greenfield; Kokenis; Ogwumike; Samuelson; Tinkle |
| 5:27 | -9 | -66.06 | Greenfield; Kokenis; Ogwumike; Orrange; Ruef |
and for all the players as individuals:
| Player | Min | NetPts | NetP/G |
| Camp | 4:48 | -1 | -8.33 |
| Greenfield | 16:51 | -9 | -21.36 |
| James | 1:13 | 0 | 0.00 |
| Kokenis | 31:32 | -18 | -22.83 |
| Ogwumike | 36:49 | -25 | -27.16 |
| Orrange | 28:41 | -29 | -40.44 |
| Payne | 1:13 | 0 | 0.00 |
| Picknell | 2:35 | 0 | 0.00 |
| Ruef | 18:45 | -23 | -49.07 |
| Samuelson | 25:39 | -17 | -26.51 |
| Tinkle | 31:54 | -13 | -16.30 |
If you have a tape of the game, and can bear to review it, watch Amber during these clock times in the first half and consider if she is playing with the energy she should be:
18:08-17:39
17:27-17:06
13:36-13:33
13:26-13:11
Once we get into the half-court offense, we're playing 4 on 5 as Amber doesn't seem to be even attempting to contribute. Also Amber doesn't hustle back on defense.
Frankly, I'll be disappointed if Tara doesn't do something dramatic to shake up the team. If it were my call, I'd bench Amber for lack of hustle, and lack of playing as a guard, with the hope of getting her to realize she isn't doing what's necessary for the team.
The narrative of the plays in the first 400 seconds will be in the next message.