[MV72018]

I would like to see a pity verbal to help us heal from this loss.

Juju? Olivia? Joyce? Kendall? Hidalgo or Briggs? Be our silver lining...

A "pity verbal"? What does that mean? 

IMO, a good way of dealing with a tough loss is to get as clear as possible about what went wrong and about what resources the team lacked so that those problems can be definitely corrected instead of repeated the next time. Stanford's recruiting strategy hasn't changed in decades, nor has its related in-game strategy: feed bigs and hoist treys. We always have serious problems with teams that play our wings tightly since we usually don't have wings who can take it to the hoop and finish or a point guard to break down the D at the point, force the perimeter D to help stop the driver, and dish to the wings for open looks. I doubt we'll change either recruiting or the strategy.

[MV72018]

I would like to see a pity verbal to help us heal from this loss.

Juju? Olivia? Joyce? Kendall? Hidalgo or Briggs? Be our silver lining...

A "pity verbal"? What does that mean? 

IMO, a good way of dealing with a tough loss is to get as clear as possible about what went wrong and about what resources the team lacked so that those problems can be definitely corrected instead of repeated the next time. Stanford's recruiting strategy hasn't changed in decades, nor has its related in-game strategy: feed bigs and hoist treys. We always have serious problems with teams that play our wings tightly since we usually don't have wings who can take it to the hoop and finish or a point guard to break down the D at the point, force the perimeter D to help stop the driver, and dish to the wings for open looks. I doubt we'll change either recruiting or the strategy.

[BillBradley]

https://www.basketballwiki.net/index.php...emi-Circle

It sounds like the contact has to occur within the semi-circle, so it is not based on whether a player is touching the line or not.  That being said, I thought it was a blocking foul for more mundane reasons; the defender hadn’t established position and was still shuffling her feet when the contact occurred.  So I thought it should have been a blocking foul and not a charge.  But this is the sort of judgment call that refs make all the time and sometimes get wrong.  Overall, I thought the refs did a good job.

BC

More on this. I couldn't find much on NCAA womens basketball rules. But I did find this article from last year where it says:

"Officials now may use instant replay on an out-of-bounds play, regardless of the number of players involved. Previously, a review was permitted only when there was a deflection involving two players.

Coaches now may challenge two additional plays that would require officials to use instant replay to review them. The first involves the result of a restricted area/lower defensive box play.

Previously, officials could use replay in the last two minutes of the game to determine the location of the players involved in the play. Now, at any time during the game, a coach may ask officials to review the play.

The new replay situation permits officials to use replay to determine whether a basket should count when a foul is not committed on or by a player with the ball. This play may be challenged at any time during the game by the coach, but officials may use replay on their own only in the last two minutes of the game."

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-wom...asketball/

Assuming this is a trusted source, it begs 2 questions. 1) Should the officials have reviewed the play on their own? 2) Should the Stanford coaching staff have challenged this play?

As for the rules itself, I couldn't find much on NCAAW rules from what I would call a trusted source. I do know that on the men' side, there was just a game last weekend where a charging call was reversed because the players foot was on the restricted zone line. Actually, his heel wasn't even touching the line but it was hanging over it. They reversed the call because if any part of your body is "in the restricted zone" (and they made a specific point of saying "even hanging over the line"), then you are declared in the restricted zone.  Not sure the women's game is governed by the same rule. But if it is, then both the officials and our coaching staff missed that one and it was big.

[BillBradley]

https://www.basketballwiki.net/index.php...emi-Circle

It sounds like the contact has to occur within the semi-circle, so it is not based on whether a player is touching the line or not.  That being said, I thought it was a blocking foul for more mundane reasons; the defender hadn’t established position and was still shuffling her feet when the contact occurred.  So I thought it should have been a blocking foul and not a charge.  But this is the sort of judgment call that refs make all the time and sometimes get wrong.  Overall, I thought the refs did a good job.

BC

More on this. I couldn't find much on NCAA womens basketball rules. But I did find this article from last year where it says:

"Officials now may use instant replay on an out-of-bounds play, regardless of the number of players involved. Previously, a review was permitted only when there was a deflection involving two players.

Coaches now may challenge two additional plays that would require officials to use instant replay to review them. The first involves the result of a restricted area/lower defensive box play.

Previously, officials could use replay in the last two minutes of the game to determine the location of the players involved in the play. Now, at any time during the game, a coach may ask officials to review the play.

The new replay situation permits officials to use replay to determine whether a basket should count when a foul is not committed on or by a player with the ball. This play may be challenged at any time during the game by the coach, but officials may use replay on their own only in the last two minutes of the game."

https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-wom...asketball/

Assuming this is a trusted source, it begs 2 questions. 1) Should the officials have reviewed the play on their own? 2) Should the Stanford coaching staff have challenged this play?

As for the rules itself, I couldn't find much on NCAAW rules from what I would call a trusted source. I do know that on the men' side, there was just a game last weekend where a charging call was reversed because the players foot was on the restricted zone line. Actually, his heel wasn't even touching the line but it was hanging over it. They reversed the call because if any part of your body is "in the restricted zone" (and they made a specific point of saying "even hanging over the line"), then you are declared in the restricted zone.  Not sure the women's game is governed by the same rule. But if it is, then both the officials and our coaching staff missed that one and it was big.

[old spanish trail]

I would like to see a pity verbal to help us heal from this loss.

Juju? Olivia? Joyce? Kendall? Hidalgo or Briggs? Be our silver lining...

A "pity verbal"? What does that mean? 

IMO, a good way of dealing with a tough loss is to get as clear as possible about what went wrong and about what resources the team lacked so that those problems can be definitely corrected instead of repeated the next time. Stanford's recruiting strategy hasn't changed in decades, nor has its related in-game strategy: feed bigs and hoist treys. We always have serious problems with teams that play our wings tightly since we usually don't have wings who can take it to the hoop and finish or a point guard to break down the D at the point, force the perimeter D to help stop the driver, and dish to the wings for open looks. I doubt we'll change either recruiting or the strategy.

Except for Williams for a couple years! And, yes, a great shooter would be welcome.

[old spanish trail]

I would like to see a pity verbal to help us heal from this loss.

Juju? Olivia? Joyce? Kendall? Hidalgo or Briggs? Be our silver lining...

A "pity verbal"? What does that mean? 

IMO, a good way of dealing with a tough loss is to get as clear as possible about what went wrong and about what resources the team lacked so that those problems can be definitely corrected instead of repeated the next time. Stanford's recruiting strategy hasn't changed in decades, nor has its related in-game strategy: feed bigs and hoist treys. We always have serious problems with teams that play our wings tightly since we usually don't have wings who can take it to the hoop and finish or a point guard to break down the D at the point, force the perimeter D to help stop the driver, and dish to the wings for open looks. I doubt we'll change either recruiting or the strategy.

Except for Williams for a couple years! And, yes, a great shooter would be welcome.

[TheWildJacko]

I mean, we tried hard to get Kiki Rice and we were in her final 3, so I doubt our recruiting strategy involves not going for guards who can drive, shoot and break down the defense. Just didn’t get the commitment. When we had Candice Wiggins, we used her driving to the hoop all the time!

[TheWildJacko]

I mean, we tried hard to get Kiki Rice and we were in her final 3, so I doubt our recruiting strategy involves not going for guards who can drive, shoot and break down the defense. Just didn’t get the commitment. When we had Candice Wiggins, we used her driving to the hoop all the time!

[BillBradley]

I would like to see a pity verbal to help us heal from this loss.

Juju? Olivia? Joyce? Kendall? Hidalgo or Briggs? Be our silver lining...

A "pity verbal"? What does that mean? 

IMO, a good way of dealing with a tough loss is to get as clear as possible about what went wrong and about what resources the team lacked so that those problems can be definitely corrected instead of repeated the next time. Stanford's recruiting strategy hasn't changed in decades, nor has its related in-game strategy: feed bigs and hoist treys. We always have serious problems with teams that play our wings tightly since we usually don't have wings who can take it to the hoop and finish or a point guard to break down the D at the point, force the perimeter D to help stop the driver, and dish to the wings for open looks. I doubt we'll change either recruiting or the strategy.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think you are giving enough credit to the players we have recruited in the past few years who actually do possess those traits. You mention Lexie as one of the players, so we had her, you admit that. We also have Haley, who IMO is a very capable penetrator and finisher and has proven that through her years (and especially in last years FF). I wish she would have taken over yesterday and done more of that. Also, wouldn't you include Kiana as this type of player? She was quite good at breaking down her player and creating her own shot. So there's 3.

I think if you asked Tara, "wouldn't we be better if we had a bunch of incredibly quick guards who can create their own shot?" do you really think she would say "Nah, not interested in that type of player". She has gone after many players of this type, but that doesn't mean they all come. Plus, most of these players that you would be interested in (who do all the other stuff too like defend and rebound) are really the cream of the crop. It's not like there are scads of those players on the women's side like there are on the men's side. I can count on a couple of fingers the number of these types of players who are playing for the national championship. Destinee Henderson and Azzi Fudd, for example, are much more catch and shoot players than the type of player your are mentioning. Did UConn really have any baskets yesterday where they broke down our defense in one-on-one style? That's not Bueckers game either. Most of their action comes off screens. There are teams like Texas who are way quicker and more athletic and rely on one-on-one dribble penetration, but those teams are home watching.

[BillBradley]

I would like to see a pity verbal to help us heal from this loss.

Juju? Olivia? Joyce? Kendall? Hidalgo or Briggs? Be our silver lining...

A "pity verbal"? What does that mean? 

IMO, a good way of dealing with a tough loss is to get as clear as possible about what went wrong and about what resources the team lacked so that those problems can be definitely corrected instead of repeated the next time. Stanford's recruiting strategy hasn't changed in decades, nor has its related in-game strategy: feed bigs and hoist treys. We always have serious problems with teams that play our wings tightly since we usually don't have wings who can take it to the hoop and finish or a point guard to break down the D at the point, force the perimeter D to help stop the driver, and dish to the wings for open looks. I doubt we'll change either recruiting or the strategy.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think you are giving enough credit to the players we have recruited in the past few years who actually do possess those traits. You mention Lexie as one of the players, so we had her, you admit that. We also have Haley, who IMO is a very capable penetrator and finisher and has proven that through her years (and especially in last years FF). I wish she would have taken over yesterday and done more of that. Also, wouldn't you include Kiana as this type of player? She was quite good at breaking down her player and creating her own shot. So there's 3.

I think if you asked Tara, "wouldn't we be better if we had a bunch of incredibly quick guards who can create their own shot?" do you really think she would say "Nah, not interested in that type of player". She has gone after many players of this type, but that doesn't mean they all come. Plus, most of these players that you would be interested in (who do all the other stuff too like defend and rebound) are really the cream of the crop. It's not like there are scads of those players on the women's side like there are on the men's side. I can count on a couple of fingers the number of these types of players who are playing for the national championship. Destinee Henderson and Azzi Fudd, for example, are much more catch and shoot players than the type of player your are mentioning. Did UConn really have any baskets yesterday where they broke down our defense in one-on-one style? That's not Bueckers game either. Most of their action comes off screens. There are teams like Texas who are way quicker and more athletic and rely on one-on-one dribble penetration, but those teams are home watching.

[chimera]

The narrative of the match-up was skewed from the start because Geno whined all season about how tough he had it.  UConn started three players in their backcourt - Bueckers, Williams, and Fudd, who were the #1 recruits in their respective classes, one of whom is a senior, another of whom was the national POY last season.  We countered with two players who barely score and were not super high level recruits and Lexie, who has had some tremendous games but some clunkers in there as well.  I love her, but she is not Bueckers or Fudd.  

Inside they had senior Ododa, the #5 recruit in her year and Edwards, who was all the way down in the 20s out of HS, the slacker.  Their bench has some top recruits as well that Geno doesn't play.  This story that poor UConn was thin and had nobody compared to mighty Stanford is a myth.  We probably had the least imposing 1 and 2 guards in the E8.  And I love what Lacie did this year and Anna Wilson over her career.  But we were out-gunned at guard, no question.  This post is for those who somehow think we out-talented UConn.  We did not.  And yet if a few more shots fall, we may well have won.

As far as trolls, I'm sorry, if you pop in to gleefully say essentially the coach sucks right after a painful F4 loss, you are trolling.  If your motivation is to rile people up right after a season-ending loss, you are trolling.  If you say stuff like we all have cardinal colored glasses on and can't analyze coaching, you are trolling, especially when you did not bother to point out any specifics. What Tara could have done differently is a reasonable topic.  Whether or not she is a good coach is a stupid, troll topic.  Whether or not Geno is a better coach is a stupid, troll topic.  Dude has 11 championships, duh.  I don't always like him but he has been the best in the business (and all those top recruits year in and year out sure don't hurt).

[chimera]

The narrative of the match-up was skewed from the start because Geno whined all season about how tough he had it.  UConn started three players in their backcourt - Bueckers, Williams, and Fudd, who were the #1 recruits in their respective classes, one of whom is a senior, another of whom was the national POY last season.  We countered with two players who barely score and were not super high level recruits and Lexie, who has had some tremendous games but some clunkers in there as well.  I love her, but she is not Bueckers or Fudd.  

Inside they had senior Ododa, the #5 recruit in her year and Edwards, who was all the way down in the 20s out of HS, the slacker.  Their bench has some top recruits as well that Geno doesn't play.  This story that poor UConn was thin and had nobody compared to mighty Stanford is a myth.  We probably had the least imposing 1 and 2 guards in the E8.  And I love what Lacie did this year and Anna Wilson over her career.  But we were out-gunned at guard, no question.  This post is for those who somehow think we out-talented UConn.  We did not.  And yet if a few more shots fall, we may well have won.

As far as trolls, I'm sorry, if you pop in to gleefully say essentially the coach sucks right after a painful F4 loss, you are trolling.  If your motivation is to rile people up right after a season-ending loss, you are trolling.  If you say stuff like we all have cardinal colored glasses on and can't analyze coaching, you are trolling, especially when you did not bother to point out any specifics. What Tara could have done differently is a reasonable topic.  Whether or not she is a good coach is a stupid, troll topic.  Whether or not Geno is a better coach is a stupid, troll topic.  Dude has 11 championships, duh.  I don't always like him but he has been the best in the business (and all those top recruits year in and year out sure don't hurt).

[TheFarm07]

I would like to see a pity verbal to help us heal from this loss.

Juju? Olivia? Joyce? Kendall? Hidalgo or Briggs? Be our silver lining...

A "pity verbal"? What does that mean? 

IMO, a good way of dealing with a tough loss is to get as clear as possible about what went wrong and about what resources the team lacked so that those problems can be definitely corrected instead of repeated the next time. Stanford's recruiting strategy hasn't changed in decades, nor has its related in-game strategy: feed bigs and hoist treys. We always have serious problems with teams that play our wings tightly since we usually don't have wings who can take it to the hoop and finish or a point guard to break down the D at the point, force the perimeter D to help stop the driver, and dish to the wings for open looks. I doubt we'll change either recruiting or the strategy.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think you are giving enough credit to the players we have recruited in the past few years who actually do possess those traits. You mention Lexie as one of the players, so we had her, you admit that. We also have Haley, who IMO is a very capable penetrator and finisher and has proven that through her years (and especially in last years FF). I wish she would have taken over yesterday and done more of that. Also, wouldn't you include Kiana as this type of player? She was quite good at breaking down her player and creating her own shot. So there's 3.

I think if you asked Tara, "wouldn't we be better if we had a bunch of incredibly quick guards who can create their own shot?" do you really think she would say "Nah, not interested in that type of player". She has gone after many players of this type, but that doesn't mean they all come. Plus, most of these players that you would be interested in (who do all the other stuff too like defend and rebound) are really the cream of the crop. It's not like there are scads of those players on the women's side like there are on the men's side. I can count on a couple of fingers the number of these types of players who are playing for the national championship. Destinee Henderson and Azzi Fudd, for example, are much more catch and shoot players than the type of player your are mentioning. Did UConn really have any baskets yesterday where they broke down our defense in one-on-one style? That's not Bueckers game either. Most of their action comes off screens. There are teams like Texas who are way quicker and more athletic and rely on one-on-one dribble penetration, but those teams are home watching.

It seems relatively speaking we have had much more success with landing top-5/10 elite-level forwards and posts (Appel, the Ogwumike sisters, Jones, Brink, Betts) rather than guards (Kiana).

Rice is among the high level guards we missed on in the past ten years (Diggins, Miles - who had a great freshman year for N.D., etc.).

This year's team is similar to our Final Four teams of a decade ago where we had All American frontcourts in Appel and the Ogwumike sister with Pedersen in there. Pohlen was a great guard, but her specialty was more shooting rather than one-on-one dribble penetration and creation.

[TheFarm07]

I would like to see a pity verbal to help us heal from this loss.

Juju? Olivia? Joyce? Kendall? Hidalgo or Briggs? Be our silver lining...

A "pity verbal"? What does that mean? 

IMO, a good way of dealing with a tough loss is to get as clear as possible about what went wrong and about what resources the team lacked so that those problems can be definitely corrected instead of repeated the next time. Stanford's recruiting strategy hasn't changed in decades, nor has its related in-game strategy: feed bigs and hoist treys. We always have serious problems with teams that play our wings tightly since we usually don't have wings who can take it to the hoop and finish or a point guard to break down the D at the point, force the perimeter D to help stop the driver, and dish to the wings for open looks. I doubt we'll change either recruiting or the strategy.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think you are giving enough credit to the players we have recruited in the past few years who actually do possess those traits. You mention Lexie as one of the players, so we had her, you admit that. We also have Haley, who IMO is a very capable penetrator and finisher and has proven that through her years (and especially in last years FF). I wish she would have taken over yesterday and done more of that. Also, wouldn't you include Kiana as this type of player? She was quite good at breaking down her player and creating her own shot. So there's 3.

I think if you asked Tara, "wouldn't we be better if we had a bunch of incredibly quick guards who can create their own shot?" do you really think she would say "Nah, not interested in that type of player". She has gone after many players of this type, but that doesn't mean they all come. Plus, most of these players that you would be interested in (who do all the other stuff too like defend and rebound) are really the cream of the crop. It's not like there are scads of those players on the women's side like there are on the men's side. I can count on a couple of fingers the number of these types of players who are playing for the national championship. Destinee Henderson and Azzi Fudd, for example, are much more catch and shoot players than the type of player your are mentioning. Did UConn really have any baskets yesterday where they broke down our defense in one-on-one style? That's not Bueckers game either. Most of their action comes off screens. There are teams like Texas who are way quicker and more athletic and rely on one-on-one dribble penetration, but those teams are home watching.

It seems relatively speaking we have had much more success with landing top-5/10 elite-level forwards and posts (Appel, the Ogwumike sisters, Jones, Brink, Betts) rather than guards (Kiana).

Rice is among the high level guards we missed on in the past ten years (Diggins, Miles - who had a great freshman year for N.D., etc.).

This year's team is similar to our Final Four teams of a decade ago where we had All American frontcourts in Appel and the Ogwumike sister with Pedersen in there. Pohlen was a great guard, but her specialty was more shooting rather than one-on-one dribble penetration and creation.

[BostonCard]

re: rebounding...there's more to the story. O-boards were even at 12 apiece. They got more defensive rebounds because we missed way more shots than they did so they had many more opportunities. I guess we could be criticized for not getting more o-boards, but in the end I don't think you can point to rebounding as one of the main differentiators in the game. I look at it like it was pretty even and both teams held serve.

On the Huskies end, there were 37 available rebounds, with UConn corralling 12 (32%) offensive boards and Stanford 25 (68%) defensive boards.
On the Stanford end, there were 46 available rebounds, with UConn gaining 34 (74%) defensive boards and Stanford 12 (26%) offensive boards.

On the seasons, Stanford cleaned up on 38% of available offensive boards on the Stanford end and 73% of available defensive boards on the opponent's end.  So the game against UConn was characteristically poor on both offensive and defensive boards.  Of course, UConn is a much better team than the average team we faced, but I definitely think we could have done better yesterday. 

BC

[BostonCard]

re: rebounding...there's more to the story. O-boards were even at 12 apiece. They got more defensive rebounds because we missed way more shots than they did so they had many more opportunities. I guess we could be criticized for not getting more o-boards, but in the end I don't think you can point to rebounding as one of the main differentiators in the game. I look at it like it was pretty even and both teams held serve.

On the Huskies end, there were 37 available rebounds, with UConn corralling 12 (32%) offensive boards and Stanford 25 (68%) defensive boards.
On the Stanford end, there were 46 available rebounds, with UConn gaining 34 (74%) defensive boards and Stanford 12 (26%) offensive boards.

On the seasons, Stanford cleaned up on 38% of available offensive boards on the Stanford end and 73% of available defensive boards on the opponent's end.  So the game against UConn was characteristically poor on both offensive and defensive boards.  Of course, UConn is a much better team than the average team we faced, but I definitely think we could have done better yesterday. 

BC

[81alum]

It seems relatively speaking we have had much more success with landing top-5/10 elite-level forwards and posts (Appel, the Ogwumike sisters, Jones, Brink, Betts) rather than guards (Kiana).

Orrange was #11, I recall, and Lili was unrated and unknown.  Those are probably the best two guards in the years leading up to Williams.

McPhee put to the lie any talk that Stanford never has "slasher" guards.  That was her game.

In general, however, it does seem to be the case over many years that we recruit elite bigs more easily than elite guards.  I wonder why that is?  I've never heard a plausible theory.  The pool of available elite guards is actually larger.  Is it something like why Stanford football for a long time recruited much better OL players than DBs?  Why, for example, would Rice go to UCLA which is already stuffed with guards when she could have been a focal point of the offense at Stanford?  While any one case like Rice's may have been something personal and not basketball related, I think there is a bit of a pattern that I find curious.

[81alum]

It seems relatively speaking we have had much more success with landing top-5/10 elite-level forwards and posts (Appel, the Ogwumike sisters, Jones, Brink, Betts) rather than guards (Kiana).

Orrange was #11, I recall, and Lili was unrated and unknown.  Those are probably the best two guards in the years leading up to Williams.

McPhee put to the lie any talk that Stanford never has "slasher" guards.  That was her game.

In general, however, it does seem to be the case over many years that we recruit elite bigs more easily than elite guards.  I wonder why that is?  I've never heard a plausible theory.  The pool of available elite guards is actually larger.  Is it something like why Stanford football for a long time recruited much better OL players than DBs?  Why, for example, would Rice go to UCLA which is already stuffed with guards when she could have been a focal point of the offense at Stanford?  While any one case like Rice's may have been something personal and not basketball related, I think there is a bit of a pattern that I find curious.

[BostonCard]

I would like to see a pity verbal to help us heal from this loss.

Juju? Olivia? Joyce? Kendall? Hidalgo or Briggs? Be our silver lining...

A "pity verbal"? What does that mean? 

IMO, a good way of dealing with a tough loss is to get as clear as possible about what went wrong and about what resources the team lacked so that those problems can be definitely corrected instead of repeated the next time. Stanford's recruiting strategy hasn't changed in decades, nor has its related in-game strategy: feed bigs and hoist treys. We always have serious problems with teams that play our wings tightly since we usually don't have wings who can take it to the hoop and finish or a point guard to break down the D at the point, force the perimeter D to help stop the driver, and dish to the wings for open looks. I doubt we'll change either recruiting or the strategy.

I think this is demonstrably untrue, given that Stanford completely revamped its offensive philosophy from a triangle offense to a Princeton offense.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/01/sport...nford.html

In fact, the triangle offense was itself instituted in 2002, so the Princeton offense is at least the third offensive system we played.

Here's a description of the Princeton offense, which we switched to in 2017 or 2018.

https://halfcourthoops.substack.com/p/st...ffense?s=r

My guess is that UConn was just a well coached team that defended the Princeton well.  By not overpursuing passing lanes, they didn't get many turnovers (as Texas did) but they were generally not vulnerable to the backdoor cuts that are the mainstay of the Princeton.  In fact, other than Prechtel's beautiful assist to Lexie, we really struggled.  We had 10 assists on 23 field goals (43%); for the season we had 537 assists on 967 field goals (56%).  Even when we scored in the paint, many of those scores were based on Brink or Jones beating their defender 1-on-1 rather than being fed the basketball in position. 

BC

[BostonCard]

I would like to see a pity verbal to help us heal from this loss.

Juju? Olivia? Joyce? Kendall? Hidalgo or Briggs? Be our silver lining...

A "pity verbal"? What does that mean? 

IMO, a good way of dealing with a tough loss is to get as clear as possible about what went wrong and about what resources the team lacked so that those problems can be definitely corrected instead of repeated the next time. Stanford's recruiting strategy hasn't changed in decades, nor has its related in-game strategy: feed bigs and hoist treys. We always have serious problems with teams that play our wings tightly since we usually don't have wings who can take it to the hoop and finish or a point guard to break down the D at the point, force the perimeter D to help stop the driver, and dish to the wings for open looks. I doubt we'll change either recruiting or the strategy.

I think this is demonstrably untrue, given that Stanford completely revamped its offensive philosophy from a triangle offense to a Princeton offense.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/01/sport...nford.html

In fact, the triangle offense was itself instituted in 2002, so the Princeton offense is at least the third offensive system we played.

Here's a description of the Princeton offense, which we switched to in 2017 or 2018.

https://halfcourthoops.substack.com/p/st...ffense?s=r

My guess is that UConn was just a well coached team that defended the Princeton well.  By not overpursuing passing lanes, they didn't get many turnovers (as Texas did) but they were generally not vulnerable to the backdoor cuts that are the mainstay of the Princeton.  In fact, other than Prechtel's beautiful assist to Lexie, we really struggled.  We had 10 assists on 23 field goals (43%); for the season we had 537 assists on 967 field goals (56%).  Even when we scored in the paint, many of those scores were based on Brink or Jones beating their defender 1-on-1 rather than being fed the basketball in position. 

BC

[81alum]

I think this is demonstrably untrue, given that Stanford completely revamped its offensive philosophy from a triangle offense to a Princeton offense.

Quite right.  In the "looking ahead" thread I ask if it is time to change offense again.  Each time Tara has shifted it has been due to the personnel we had available and seeking a system that better fits who we have to work with.

[81alum]

I think this is demonstrably untrue, given that Stanford completely revamped its offensive philosophy from a triangle offense to a Princeton offense.

Quite right.  In the "looking ahead" thread I ask if it is time to change offense again.  Each time Tara has shifted it has been due to the personnel we had available and seeking a system that better fits who we have to work with.

[treetop11]

Stanford got its butt kicked on the boards: 46-37. 
Strange indeed. Was it primarily a matter of bad 
luck, bad positioning, or being out-hustled?

I saw some of all of the above, but mostly bad positioning and a couple of times, not strong enough.

---

Still have the game zooming around in my head, so wanted to post some thoughts now so maybe I can sleep tonight. 
- Interesting move by Geno to start the game in a zone. I thought that was very risky, but it paid off. 
- I have a theory on Lexie's game...she did an awesome job defensively on Bueckers. Holding her to 14 points was tremendous. Sometimes that sort of defensive assignment ends up taking all your focus and energy. She just couldn't seem to find her rhythm on offense. I so wish her 3 would have gone in to cut the lead to 2 with 45 seconds left!
- The offensive foul on Haley with around a minute left...half of Edwards foot was over the charge line. Why didn't that get reviewed? That was a pretty big call. Haley would have gotten 2 shots and instead they got 2. The inconsistencies in instant replay review drive me nuts. They'll spend forever looking to see who's fingernail hit it last or how many tenths of a second to put on the clock, but they won't look at a foot on a line?
- My two keys to the game were met: 1) Keep Bueckers under her average (check, average 14.8, held to 14)  2) Don't let Fudd go off from the 3-pt line (check - she made zero and only had 2 baskets before making free throws in the end). They only had 39 points as a team after 3 quarters. If you would have told me that would be the case before the tip (and we only made 11 turnovers and they made 19), I would have thought the game was in the bag. Guess I didn't think there was a universe where we shot that poorly.
- Big time credit to UConn for winning the game at the line. 16-20 from the line and 15-17 in the 4th is big time.
- How about Lacie's game. 9 boards, 2 steals, 0 turnovers in 40 minutes.
- I didn't like the sub to put Kiki in for Cam to start the 4th. Why? Did Cam need a rest? She only had 2 fouls? Kiki's been sitting cold on the bench all game - it's just such a tough spot to be in to have to go in and guard a UConn big in the heat of a Final Four battle, and for a freshman to boot. 
- Loved Emma coming in at the end for the press and what a play she made!
- I think it was a mistake to play Hannah so much in the second half in Anna's place. She wasn't being that effective on offense. The one thing about Anna is she makes plays and she's a winner. I think she needed to be on the court in the 4th. 
- When they played with only one big in the first half and we went with our big lineup of Hulls, Haley, Cam, and Fran, it didn't work because we couldn't guard them on the perimeter. Give Westbrook credit for hitting those 3's. Those were of immense proportions for them.
- Happy to see Prechtel give some solid minutes and can a couple shots. 
- Felt like the refs did a reasonable job tonight with the foul calls. Still a few I would have let go, but 32 is way better than 46. 
- I know they won, but I still think we are better. Just not our night. 

Obviously a tremendous year for the team. I am going to really miss this group of seniors.

Yes, I didn't like the Kiki sub-in. It didn't work out having Jump in there, but that decision, I can understand. Tara was looking for an offensive spark because we weren't clicking and missing threes. Usually, Jump may even miss her first or even second shot, but there nails a few. She did not last night and really hasn't shot well in recent games. I'm a big Jump fan but disappointed that her play has trailed off lately. 
Officiating seemed pretty good overall, but very interesting about your observation on the Haley charge, didn't see that. Question though; even if the defender is inside the arc or has a foot in, can a player still be called for a charge with a deliberate shove or push off? as opposed to just body banging?

re: rebounding...there's more to the story. O-boards were even at 12 apiece. They got more defensive rebounds because we missed way more shots than they did so they had many more opportunities. I guess we could be criticized for not getting more o-boards, but in the end I don't think you can point to rebounding as one of the main differentiators in the game. I look at it like it was pretty even and both teams held serve.

True, but because it was a close game throughout, there were a number of times where missed O and D rebounds were a factor and possibly got us started on a run - which we had none this game.

[treetop11]

Stanford got its butt kicked on the boards: 46-37. 
Strange indeed. Was it primarily a matter of bad 
luck, bad positioning, or being out-hustled?

I saw some of all of the above, but mostly bad positioning and a couple of times, not strong enough.

---

Still have the game zooming around in my head, so wanted to post some thoughts now so maybe I can sleep tonight. 
- Interesting move by Geno to start the game in a zone. I thought that was very risky, but it paid off. 
- I have a theory on Lexie's game...she did an awesome job defensively on Bueckers. Holding her to 14 points was tremendous. Sometimes that sort of defensive assignment ends up taking all your focus and energy. She just couldn't seem to find her rhythm on offense. I so wish her 3 would have gone in to cut the lead to 2 with 45 seconds left!
- The offensive foul on Haley with around a minute left...half of Edwards foot was over the charge line. Why didn't that get reviewed? That was a pretty big call. Haley would have gotten 2 shots and instead they got 2. The inconsistencies in instant replay review drive me nuts. They'll spend forever looking to see who's fingernail hit it last or how many tenths of a second to put on the clock, but they won't look at a foot on a line?
- My two keys to the game were met: 1) Keep Bueckers under her average (check, average 14.8, held to 14)  2) Don't let Fudd go off from the 3-pt line (check - she made zero and only had 2 baskets before making free throws in the end). They only had 39 points as a team after 3 quarters. If you would have told me that would be the case before the tip (and we only made 11 turnovers and they made 19), I would have thought the game was in the bag. Guess I didn't think there was a universe where we shot that poorly.
- Big time credit to UConn for winning the game at the line. 16-20 from the line and 15-17 in the 4th is big time.
- How about Lacie's game. 9 boards, 2 steals, 0 turnovers in 40 minutes.
- I didn't like the sub to put Kiki in for Cam to start the 4th. Why? Did Cam need a rest? She only had 2 fouls? Kiki's been sitting cold on the bench all game - it's just such a tough spot to be in to have to go in and guard a UConn big in the heat of a Final Four battle, and for a freshman to boot. 
- Loved Emma coming in at the end for the press and what a play she made!
- I think it was a mistake to play Hannah so much in the second half in Anna's place. She wasn't being that effective on offense. The one thing about Anna is she makes plays and she's a winner. I think she needed to be on the court in the 4th. 
- When they played with only one big in the first half and we went with our big lineup of Hulls, Haley, Cam, and Fran, it didn't work because we couldn't guard them on the perimeter. Give Westbrook credit for hitting those 3's. Those were of immense proportions for them.
- Happy to see Prechtel give some solid minutes and can a couple shots. 
- Felt like the refs did a reasonable job tonight with the foul calls. Still a few I would have let go, but 32 is way better than 46. 
- I know they won, but I still think we are better. Just not our night. 

Obviously a tremendous year for the team. I am going to really miss this group of seniors.

Yes, I didn't like the Kiki sub-in. It didn't work out having Jump in there, but that decision, I can understand. Tara was looking for an offensive spark because we weren't clicking and missing threes. Usually, Jump may even miss her first or even second shot, but there nails a few. She did not last night and really hasn't shot well in recent games. I'm a big Jump fan but disappointed that her play has trailed off lately. 
Officiating seemed pretty good overall, but very interesting about your observation on the Haley charge, didn't see that. Question though; even if the defender is inside the arc or has a foot in, can a player still be called for a charge with a deliberate shove or push off? as opposed to just body banging?

re: rebounding...there's more to the story. O-boards were even at 12 apiece. They got more defensive rebounds because we missed way more shots than they did so they had many more opportunities. I guess we could be criticized for not getting more o-boards, but in the end I don't think you can point to rebounding as one of the main differentiators in the game. I look at it like it was pretty even and both teams held serve.

True, but because it was a close game throughout, there were a number of times where missed O and D rebounds were a factor and possibly got us started on a run - which we had none this game.

[TheFarm07]

Does UConn or South Carolina run a specific type of offensive scheme, like Tara does? I can't remember whether Geno or Dawn or other well-known coaches like Mulkey or McGraw are known to run a particular type.

If not, in general, since I am not immersed in the deep details of the x's and o's of strategy and tactics, why have a specific scheme, like the Princeton or triangle? Unless, I am not clear if there are names to the general offensive strategy other teams have beyond the Princeton and triangle.

It seems to me with the Princeton offense we have the last few years, if an opponent has the defensive players, they can prepare well for it and except for a couple opportunities a game where we can find the backdoor cut, we often had to resort to creating something one-on-one and that was something that showed up in the game last night.

[TheFarm07]

Does UConn or South Carolina run a specific type of offensive scheme, like Tara does? I can't remember whether Geno or Dawn or other well-known coaches like Mulkey or McGraw are known to run a particular type.

If not, in general, since I am not immersed in the deep details of the x's and o's of strategy and tactics, why have a specific scheme, like the Princeton or triangle? Unless, I am not clear if there are names to the general offensive strategy other teams have beyond the Princeton and triangle.

It seems to me with the Princeton offense we have the last few years, if an opponent has the defensive players, they can prepare well for it and except for a couple opportunities a game where we can find the backdoor cut, we often had to resort to creating something one-on-one and that was something that showed up in the game last night.

[BostonCard]

UConn runs a motion offense.  I'm less familiar with South Carolina's offense.

BC

[BostonCard]

UConn runs a motion offense.  I'm less familiar with South Carolina's offense.

BC

[qwerty49]

As a longtime fan of Stanford WBB, please permit me to make an observation:  this online community (even going back to the old Bootleg) treats our WBB program (Tara, staff and players) with what I would term as "extremely benign reverence."  Markedly kid gloves, compared to the way Shaw and his program are treated.  Markedly.

It's noticeable that we often call them (staff AND players) by their first names, while in FB and MBB that rarely happens.  Now this is going to get me in trouble, but it does seem overly protective and even a bit reverse sexist to me.  And I confess that even I get caught up in it.  But even though she deserves it, there is some truth that we put Tara on a pedestal.  And woe to any poster who breaks the narrative.

My point is that one person's trolling is another's criticism.  And that the one post everyone objects to was made in the heat of a tough loss, an agonizing loss to watch where we had so many changes to take the lead, to even win.

No one is perfect, especially in the heated aftermath of a frustrating loss.  The year we lost to UConn where the halftime score was something like 20-16, I lamented that we had laid an egg on national TV.  But I didn't know at the time how serious Jayne's injury was, and how much that affected everything.  But I shot my wad without knowing the full story.

So, just saying -- let's just chill.  We all have a choice to respond to or ignore posts.  

And FWIW, I'm in the camp that is frustrated because we could have won this game.

[qwerty49]

As a longtime fan of Stanford WBB, please permit me to make an observation:  this online community (even going back to the old Bootleg) treats our WBB program (Tara, staff and players) with what I would term as "extremely benign reverence."  Markedly kid gloves, compared to the way Shaw and his program are treated.  Markedly.

It's noticeable that we often call them (staff AND players) by their first names, while in FB and MBB that rarely happens.  Now this is going to get me in trouble, but it does seem overly protective and even a bit reverse sexist to me.  And I confess that even I get caught up in it.  But even though she deserves it, there is some truth that we put Tara on a pedestal.  And woe to any poster who breaks the narrative.

My point is that one person's trolling is another's criticism.  And that the one post everyone objects to was made in the heat of a tough loss, an agonizing loss to watch where we had so many changes to take the lead, to even win.

No one is perfect, especially in the heated aftermath of a frustrating loss.  The year we lost to UConn where the halftime score was something like 20-16, I lamented that we had laid an egg on national TV.  But I didn't know at the time how serious Jayne's injury was, and how much that affected everything.  But I shot my wad without knowing the full story.

So, just saying -- let's just chill.  We all have a choice to respond to or ignore posts.  

And FWIW, I'm in the camp that is frustrated because we could have won this game.

[BostonCard]

I for one have deliberately tried to use the player's last names, as I would with the male players on the football team and as a sign of respect.
I also have fought against the people who attack Shaw as a person rather than his actions.  As his team's performance on the field has lagged, though I have been finding it harder to muster the energy to do so.

But comparing Vanderveer to Shaw is kind of ridiculous (and I would consider myself a Shawpologist).  Vanderveer's last losing season was... her first at Stanford (13-15). The last time her team missed an NCAA tournament was in 1986.  Shaw has missed a bowl game his last two seasons (ignoring the COVID-19 impacted 2020 season).  Haase has never made an NCAA tournament at Stanford. I think Tara Vanderveer can rightfully be considered the third best women's college basketball coach ever (I would probably rank it: Geno Auriema, Pat Summit, Tara Vanderveer), or at least is in contention with a small group of other coaches who have won multiple NCAA tournaments (Auriema, Summit, Mulkey [3], McGraw [2], Sharp [2]).  She is the winningest coach in all of women's college basketball; Shaw is merely the winningest football coach at Stanford.

She is not perfect.  There are plenty of critiques in this thread of what she has done, some by me.  I just don't think there is much value to declaring her a "meh" coach, and I called it out.

BC

[BostonCard]

I for one have deliberately tried to use the player's last names, as I would with the male players on the football team and as a sign of respect.
I also have fought against the people who attack Shaw as a person rather than his actions.  As his team's performance on the field has lagged, though I have been finding it harder to muster the energy to do so.

But comparing Vanderveer to Shaw is kind of ridiculous (and I would consider myself a Shawpologist).  Vanderveer's last losing season was... her first at Stanford (13-15). The last time her team missed an NCAA tournament was in 1986.  Shaw has missed a bowl game his last two seasons (ignoring the COVID-19 impacted 2020 season).  Haase has never made an NCAA tournament at Stanford. I think Tara Vanderveer can rightfully be considered the third best women's college basketball coach ever (I would probably rank it: Geno Auriema, Pat Summit, Tara Vanderveer), or at least is in contention with a small group of other coaches who have won multiple NCAA tournaments (Auriema, Summit, Mulkey [3], McGraw [2], Sharp [2]).  She is the winningest coach in all of women's college basketball; Shaw is merely the winningest football coach at Stanford.

She is not perfect.  There are plenty of critiques in this thread of what she has done, some by me.  I just don't think there is much value to declaring her a "meh" coach, and I called it out.

BC

[CompSci87]

The Princeton is at least Tara's fourth offensive system. After the Triangle and before the Princeton, there was a "guard-oriented offense" based on screening, to take advantage of players like Lili Thompson and Amber Orrange.

[CompSci87]

The Princeton is at least Tara's fourth offensive system. After the Triangle and before the Princeton, there was a "guard-oriented offense" based on screening, to take advantage of players like Lili Thompson and Amber Orrange.

[BillBradley]

What is up with the first name/last name thing on this board? And why does anyone actually care? Sexist or protective? Really? Should we stop calling him LeBron and start calling him James instead? Or Woods instead of Tiger? Or Barkley or O'Neill or Smith instead of Charles, Shaq, and Kenny? Practically all male golfers are called by their first names (Rory, "DJ", Jordan, ...)? But people think this is sexist? Do we not respect those men?  I view it neither as a sign of respect, nor sexist. And I bet if you asked the actual athletes, no one would even care. It's just what rolls off the tongue, how other people refer to them, etc. Practically everyone on TV, in the press, etc. call her Paige. Or Stewy. Or Aari. Or Geno. or Tara. So that's what others do. Everyone calls them Harbaugh and Shaw, so that's what others do. Maybe because Jim and David aren't really that interesting. Who knows, and who cares.

[BillBradley]

What is up with the first name/last name thing on this board? And why does anyone actually care? Sexist or protective? Really? Should we stop calling him LeBron and start calling him James instead? Or Woods instead of Tiger? Or Barkley or O'Neill or Smith instead of Charles, Shaq, and Kenny? Practically all male golfers are called by their first names (Rory, "DJ", Jordan, ...)? But people think this is sexist? Do we not respect those men?  I view it neither as a sign of respect, nor sexist. And I bet if you asked the actual athletes, no one would even care. It's just what rolls off the tongue, how other people refer to them, etc. Practically everyone on TV, in the press, etc. call her Paige. Or Stewy. Or Aari. Or Geno. or Tara. So that's what others do. Everyone calls them Harbaugh and Shaw, so that's what others do. Maybe because Jim and David aren't really that interesting. Who knows, and who cares.

[TonyLima]

What is up with the first name/last name thing on this board? And why does anyone actually care? Sexist or protective? Really? Should we stop calling him LeBron and start calling him James instead? Or Woods instead of Tiger? Or Barkley or O'Neill or Smith instead of Charles, Shaq, and Kenny? Practically all male golfers are called by their first names (Rory, "DJ", Jordan, ...)? But people think this is sexist? Do we not respect those men?  I view it neither as a sign of respect, nor sexist. And I bet if you asked the actual athletes, no one would even care. It's just what rolls off the tongue, how other people refer to them, etc. Practically everyone on TV, in the press, etc. call her Paige. Or Stewy. Or Aari. Or Geno. or Tara. So that's what others do. Everyone calls them Harbaugh and Shaw, so that's what others do. Maybe because Jim and David aren't really that interesting. Who knows, and who cares.

You may — and I’m just guessing here — have too much time on your hands.

[TonyLima]

What is up with the first name/last name thing on this board? And why does anyone actually care? Sexist or protective? Really? Should we stop calling him LeBron and start calling him James instead? Or Woods instead of Tiger? Or Barkley or O'Neill or Smith instead of Charles, Shaq, and Kenny? Practically all male golfers are called by their first names (Rory, "DJ", Jordan, ...)? But people think this is sexist? Do we not respect those men?  I view it neither as a sign of respect, nor sexist. And I bet if you asked the actual athletes, no one would even care. It's just what rolls off the tongue, how other people refer to them, etc. Practically everyone on TV, in the press, etc. call her Paige. Or Stewy. Or Aari. Or Geno. or Tara. So that's what others do. Everyone calls them Harbaugh and Shaw, so that's what others do. Maybe because Jim and David aren't really that interesting. Who knows, and who cares.

You may — and I’m just guessing here — have too much time on your hands.

[jonnyss]

What is up with the first name/last name thing on this board? And why does anyone actually care? Sexist or protective? Really? Should we stop calling him LeBron and start calling him James instead? Or Woods instead of Tiger? Or Barkley or O'Neill or Smith instead of Charles, Shaq, and Kenny? Practically all male golfers are called by their first names (Rory, "DJ", Jordan, ...)? But people think this is sexist? Do we not respect those men?  I view it neither as a sign of respect, nor sexist. And I bet if you asked the actual athletes, no one would even care. It's just what rolls off the tongue, how other people refer to them, etc. Practically everyone on TV, in the press, etc. call her Paige. Or Stewy. Or Aari. Or Geno. or Tara. So that's what others do. Everyone calls them Harbaugh and Shaw, so that's what others do. Maybe because Jim and David aren't really that interesting. Who knows, and who cares.

agreed. and it's the example tara sets by calling herself tara and her players by their first names.

[jonnyss]

What is up with the first name/last name thing on this board? And why does anyone actually care? Sexist or protective? Really? Should we stop calling him LeBron and start calling him James instead? Or Woods instead of Tiger? Or Barkley or O'Neill or Smith instead of Charles, Shaq, and Kenny? Practically all male golfers are called by their first names (Rory, "DJ", Jordan, ...)? But people think this is sexist? Do we not respect those men?  I view it neither as a sign of respect, nor sexist. And I bet if you asked the actual athletes, no one would even care. It's just what rolls off the tongue, how other people refer to them, etc. Practically everyone on TV, in the press, etc. call her Paige. Or Stewy. Or Aari. Or Geno. or Tara. So that's what others do. Everyone calls them Harbaugh and Shaw, so that's what others do. Maybe because Jim and David aren't really that interesting. Who knows, and who cares.

agreed. and it's the example tara sets by calling herself tara and her players by their first names.