[M T]

We're up 37-31 at the half.  Cal is forcing us out of our game, but we seem to be forcing them out of their game.
They have hit 5 of 9 from 3, but only 5 of 26 inside the arc.
Stanford is 1 of 8 from 3, but 13 of 24 inside the arc.
Nneka (6 of 11) has been hitting 18 footers.

Chiney has 2 fouls as does Rashanda Gray.

Larry Scott is trying to justify the women experiencing the same environment as the men (echos in an empty venue).
Lisa Leslie: ".. one ticket sold so the fans can ENDURE both the men and women's games."

[M T]

We're up 37-31 at the half.  Cal is forcing us out of our game, but we seem to be forcing them out of their game.
They have hit 5 of 9 from 3, but only 5 of 26 inside the arc.
Stanford is 1 of 8 from 3, but 13 of 24 inside the arc.
Nneka (6 of 11) has been hitting 18 footers.

Chiney has 2 fouls as does Rashanda Gray.

Larry Scott is trying to justify the women experiencing the same environment as the men (echos in an empty venue).
Lisa Leslie: ".. one ticket sold so the fans can ENDURE both the men and women's games."

[M T]

Highlight:  Nneka's three 3ptrs in the 2nd half.
Nneka: 29pts 12 reb. 2 blks, 3 steals
Chiney:  17pts 12 reb.
Amber: 13pts
Jos: 9pts  5 blocks
Toni: 9pts
Another fine FT% game.

Generally a good game.  Negatives:  0 bench points.
Only 11 assists to 13 turnovers.
Sarah got 3 fouls in limited time.

(This is based on ESPN stats, which differed from what the TV announcers used (which I presume will be the official stats))

[M T]

Highlight:  Nneka's three 3ptrs in the 2nd half.
Nneka: 29pts 12 reb. 2 blks, 3 steals
Chiney:  17pts 12 reb.
Amber: 13pts
Jos: 9pts  5 blocks
Toni: 9pts
Another fine FT% game.

Generally a good game.  Negatives:  0 bench points.
Only 11 assists to 13 turnovers.
Sarah got 3 fouls in limited time.

(This is based on ESPN stats, which differed from what the TV announcers used (which I presume will be the official stats))

[Viking_Guy]

MT--

One thing I noticed this game and in watching the tape of last night's when I got home: our vulnerability against physical perimeter play hinges completely on the guards' willingness or unwillingness to drive.  When Lindy is in, she's not a threat to finish inside (or at least not quick enough to get a lot of advantage on the drive); if you body up on her, she's not going to turn you and go, and it prevents her from squaring up to the basket.

Toni and Amber present more of a driving threat, but Amber doesn't present as much of an outside threat, so you can drop off her and clog the middle more.

That's why Toni is so important to providing a balance to the team: she can play the one role that Stanford is often missing, the triple-threat slasher who can and will take the ball to the hoop.  She's not great at it, but she's good, and that provides us with some threat against teams that exert extreme perimeter pressure.

A couple of other things:
- Okay, I got a bit upset at the officiating today.  First half, looked fine for the most part.  Even the flagrant against Chiney, though I don't think it was nearly as bad as the earlier one against Kal.  But late in the game, it seemed Stanford couldn't buy a call inside, while da Bares set up a conga line to the charity stripe.  And the blocking call against Tinkle to end the first half was a joke; I don't think she could've been more still, but she was so close to the sideline, I doubt the official (who was watching the on-ball action) saw her standing there and waiting for the contact.

The late in the game sequence where Chiney was getting mugged inside, especially after the call against Tinkle, resulting in no whistle was a bit much.

- Great game by Amber; she needed to be in there in preference to Lindy.  I think LaRocque is a bit of a security blanket for Tara; she won't make many mistakes, and she's comfortable, and plays smart, but she doesn't create or cause the defense to adjust as much as Amber.  Orrange's two and-1 drives in the second half were the exact antidote necessary to K.al's overextended pressure on the outside.  Glad to see her take them.

Now we need to find the three-point shot again.  By someone not named Ogwumike, that is :).

VG

[Viking_Guy]

MT--

One thing I noticed this game and in watching the tape of last night's when I got home: our vulnerability against physical perimeter play hinges completely on the guards' willingness or unwillingness to drive.  When Lindy is in, she's not a threat to finish inside (or at least not quick enough to get a lot of advantage on the drive); if you body up on her, she's not going to turn you and go, and it prevents her from squaring up to the basket.

Toni and Amber present more of a driving threat, but Amber doesn't present as much of an outside threat, so you can drop off her and clog the middle more.

That's why Toni is so important to providing a balance to the team: she can play the one role that Stanford is often missing, the triple-threat slasher who can and will take the ball to the hoop.  She's not great at it, but she's good, and that provides us with some threat against teams that exert extreme perimeter pressure.

A couple of other things:
- Okay, I got a bit upset at the officiating today.  First half, looked fine for the most part.  Even the flagrant against Chiney, though I don't think it was nearly as bad as the earlier one against Kal.  But late in the game, it seemed Stanford couldn't buy a call inside, while da Bares set up a conga line to the charity stripe.  And the blocking call against Tinkle to end the first half was a joke; I don't think she could've been more still, but she was so close to the sideline, I doubt the official (who was watching the on-ball action) saw her standing there and waiting for the contact.

The late in the game sequence where Chiney was getting mugged inside, especially after the call against Tinkle, resulting in no whistle was a bit much.

- Great game by Amber; she needed to be in there in preference to Lindy.  I think LaRocque is a bit of a security blanket for Tara; she won't make many mistakes, and she's comfortable, and plays smart, but she doesn't create or cause the defense to adjust as much as Amber.  Orrange's two and-1 drives in the second half were the exact antidote necessary to K.al's overextended pressure on the outside.  Glad to see her take them.

Now we need to find the three-point shot again.  By someone not named Ogwumike, that is :).

VG

[meos]

It's been nice to observe Nneka's progression from freshman to senior in her basketball skills and on court awareness. She started good in the post as a freshman. Anytime she elevated into the air with her shot, it was like poetry in motion. Her challenge in those days was the transition from the ground to get into the air. Fast forward to the beginning of her senior year, and Nneka's outside shot emerged with more confidence, frequency and with good result from 15 feet in. She is going to need perimeter skills and an outside shot in the WNBA, so I was glad to see Nneka showing that this year.

But my jaw drops as Nneka steps outside the 3 point arc against K.al today and hits three 3-pointers.  I went from thinking why was Nneka forcing so many outside shots in the first half, to wondering from where did Nneka find her 3-point shot in the 2nd half.

K.al did their thing and did it well with good competitive spirit. They will probably give some teams a lot of problems in the NCAA tourney.

[meos]

It's been nice to observe Nneka's progression from freshman to senior in her basketball skills and on court awareness. She started good in the post as a freshman. Anytime she elevated into the air with her shot, it was like poetry in motion. Her challenge in those days was the transition from the ground to get into the air. Fast forward to the beginning of her senior year, and Nneka's outside shot emerged with more confidence, frequency and with good result from 15 feet in. She is going to need perimeter skills and an outside shot in the WNBA, so I was glad to see Nneka showing that this year.

But my jaw drops as Nneka steps outside the 3 point arc against K.al today and hits three 3-pointers.  I went from thinking why was Nneka forcing so many outside shots in the first half, to wondering from where did Nneka find her 3-point shot in the 2nd half.

K.al did their thing and did it well with good competitive spirit. They will probably give some teams a lot of problems in the NCAA tourney.

[CompSci87]

If Kal can get a 7 seed, they might even upset a 2. That would be satisfying for those of us who are tired of the eastern fans with their endless chorus of "the Pac-12 sucks".

[CompSci87]

If Kal can get a 7 seed, they might even upset a 2. That would be satisfying for those of us who are tired of the eastern fans with their endless chorus of "the Pac-12 sucks".

[Viking_Guy]

CompSci--

I agree, it would be nice if Berkeley could go on the road and win a couple in the tournament.  How much do you want to bet they'll be facing a home team on their homecourt?  As in, they're the #7 to Gonzaga's #10 in Spokane?  Or the 8-9, as Creme currently has them, at Notre Dame?

More generally, I get the sense that the Pac-12 women are being tarred with the same brush as the men, which is patently unfair.  By RPI, the Pac-12 is the fourth toughest women's conference, ahead of both the ACC and the Big 10, trailing only the Big XII, the Big East and the SEC.  In contrast, the Pac-12 men are TENTH, trailing the Mountain West, the Missouri Valley, the A10 and Conference USA, as well as the other 5 "power conferences".

VG

[Viking_Guy]

CompSci--

I agree, it would be nice if Berkeley could go on the road and win a couple in the tournament.  How much do you want to bet they'll be facing a home team on their homecourt?  As in, they're the #7 to Gonzaga's #10 in Spokane?  Or the 8-9, as Creme currently has them, at Notre Dame?

More generally, I get the sense that the Pac-12 women are being tarred with the same brush as the men, which is patently unfair.  By RPI, the Pac-12 is the fourth toughest women's conference, ahead of both the ACC and the Big 10, trailing only the Big XII, the Big East and the SEC.  In contrast, the Pac-12 men are TENTH, trailing the Mountain West, the Missouri Valley, the A10 and Conference USA, as well as the other 5 "power conferences".

VG

[M T]

Good points, VG.

I'm not sure I agree about Lindy's qualities.  I have been less than pleased with her performance this year, whether it is lazy passes or just not paying attention.  But I don't want to speak too badly about anyone now.

I do agree 100% with your assessment about Toni and Amber and their benefit to the team.  If Amber can develop a 3 point shot by next year, it will really help.

I was anxious, but pleased with the results, about Nneka getting away from the basket on offense.  A bold move, that I presume Tara suggested.  In hindsight, it makes wonderful sense.  Against some teams, Nneka & Chiney can hit 50-60% of their shots inside, so that's what they do.  But, there are going to be teams for which that doesn't work, whether it is because of rough play, bigger (weight & height) inside opponents, or what.  When they show they can step out and hit the open 15 footer, then the game changes.  The opponent's defense is going to have to respond, or get burned.  I hope Nneka's nearly half-court drive late in the game makes her highlight reel.  That's another area I think she could do really well in, if she has to.  Such a drive is very valuable as a press-breaker.

We all see that so much of our scoring is done by the O-team.  A bunch of that is due to the fact that we DO get points by feeding it to the O-team.  That strategy works well and seems to be the right idea, so we keep doing it.  I saw several plays today where Toni or Jos or others had a decent chance at scoring, but instead they fed it to Nneka or Chiney for an easy two.  Those are good decisions.  But, it does mean that the rest of our players don't get the experience they would otherwise at developing their own offensive potential.

The great interior play doesn't excuse or explain the problems with 3 point shooting.  Is it mental?  Is it that 3 point shooting practice never has anything riding on it (no pressure, no adrenaline), or doesn't have a defender coming in fast?

We had more weak passes, both in the halfcourt and against the press, that cause me to cringe.  We got burned less by them today than we would against some other teams.

As for the flagrant fouls, there were two others that seemed obvious to me that, IMO, should have been called against California.  I probably wouldn't have called the one against Chiney, but I don't think it was a bad call.  The ones they missed were more obvious.

I too think the block call against Jos was wrong because she had position.  She did have her foot on the protect-the-shooter circle, but I don't think the rules indicate that is a block (just that it isn't called a charge).

More stats:
Surprising to me, this was our worst day for 2nd chance points.  We got 13 offensive rebounds (avg = 15), but just 2 second chance points (avg = 16).
Only 38% of our FG had assists.  That is a season low (avg = 58%)
It was our worst game for defensive rebounding percentage, just 55% (avg=70%) as we got 28 DR and they got 23 OR (a season high for our opponents).
[Our 19 fouls ties for 2nd most of the year (avg = 14).  I thought the officials were just making calls for the benefit of the losing team.]

----
A comment from another discussion was that Stanford didn't play any "ranked" teams late in the season (since Dec. 20) and so weren't tested.  I think today and yesterday were good tests.  And also Jan 28.  Each of those will help when we're up against different styles of teams that we'll see in the tourney.
----
Re conference rankings...
http://www.rpiratings.com/womensrpi.php has PAC-12 at 4th just barely ahead of 6
http://www.rpiratings.com/womrate.php has PAC-12 6th, fractionally behind 5th.

I would still like to understand RPI better.  It seems likely that it feeds off of the incestuous games within conferences, but I just don't know. (For instance, if UConn and ND split a pair of games, they both get a quality win with no downside, so do both RPIs go up, while if Stanford beats K.al three times, does its RPI go down.)

[M T]

Good points, VG.

I'm not sure I agree about Lindy's qualities.  I have been less than pleased with her performance this year, whether it is lazy passes or just not paying attention.  But I don't want to speak too badly about anyone now.

I do agree 100% with your assessment about Toni and Amber and their benefit to the team.  If Amber can develop a 3 point shot by next year, it will really help.

I was anxious, but pleased with the results, about Nneka getting away from the basket on offense.  A bold move, that I presume Tara suggested.  In hindsight, it makes wonderful sense.  Against some teams, Nneka & Chiney can hit 50-60% of their shots inside, so that's what they do.  But, there are going to be teams for which that doesn't work, whether it is because of rough play, bigger (weight & height) inside opponents, or what.  When they show they can step out and hit the open 15 footer, then the game changes.  The opponent's defense is going to have to respond, or get burned.  I hope Nneka's nearly half-court drive late in the game makes her highlight reel.  That's another area I think she could do really well in, if she has to.  Such a drive is very valuable as a press-breaker.

We all see that so much of our scoring is done by the O-team.  A bunch of that is due to the fact that we DO get points by feeding it to the O-team.  That strategy works well and seems to be the right idea, so we keep doing it.  I saw several plays today where Toni or Jos or others had a decent chance at scoring, but instead they fed it to Nneka or Chiney for an easy two.  Those are good decisions.  But, it does mean that the rest of our players don't get the experience they would otherwise at developing their own offensive potential.

The great interior play doesn't excuse or explain the problems with 3 point shooting.  Is it mental?  Is it that 3 point shooting practice never has anything riding on it (no pressure, no adrenaline), or doesn't have a defender coming in fast?

We had more weak passes, both in the halfcourt and against the press, that cause me to cringe.  We got burned less by them today than we would against some other teams.

As for the flagrant fouls, there were two others that seemed obvious to me that, IMO, should have been called against California.  I probably wouldn't have called the one against Chiney, but I don't think it was a bad call.  The ones they missed were more obvious.

I too think the block call against Jos was wrong because she had position.  She did have her foot on the protect-the-shooter circle, but I don't think the rules indicate that is a block (just that it isn't called a charge).

More stats:
Surprising to me, this was our worst day for 2nd chance points.  We got 13 offensive rebounds (avg = 15), but just 2 second chance points (avg = 16).
Only 38% of our FG had assists.  That is a season low (avg = 58%)
It was our worst game for defensive rebounding percentage, just 55% (avg=70%) as we got 28 DR and they got 23 OR (a season high for our opponents).
[Our 19 fouls ties for 2nd most of the year (avg = 14).  I thought the officials were just making calls for the benefit of the losing team.]

----
A comment from another discussion was that Stanford didn't play any "ranked" teams late in the season (since Dec. 20) and so weren't tested.  I think today and yesterday were good tests.  And also Jan 28.  Each of those will help when we're up against different styles of teams that we'll see in the tourney.
----
Re conference rankings...
http://www.rpiratings.com/womensrpi.php has PAC-12 at 4th just barely ahead of 6
http://www.rpiratings.com/womrate.php has PAC-12 6th, fractionally behind 5th.

I would still like to understand RPI better.  It seems likely that it feeds off of the incestuous games within conferences, but I just don't know. (For instance, if UConn and ND split a pair of games, they both get a quality win with no downside, so do both RPIs go up, while if Stanford beats K.al three times, does its RPI go down.)

[Yellowlab]

I sort of like the fact that Stanford, on back to back days, held one Brandon sister to zero points and the other to 3 points on 1-10 shooting.  That's pretty good post defense.

[Yellowlab]

I sort of like the fact that Stanford, on back to back days, held one Brandon sister to zero points and the other to 3 points on 1-10 shooting.  That's pretty good post defense.

[treefan]

MT--

One thing I noticed this game and in watching the tape of last night's when I got home: our vulnerability against physical perimeter play hinges completely on the guards' willingness or unwillingness to drive.  When Lindy is in, she's not a threat to finish inside (or at least not quick enough to get a lot of advantage on the drive); if you body up on her, she's not going to turn you and go, and it prevents her from squaring up to the basket.

Toni and Amber present more of a driving threat, but Amber doesn't present as much of an outside threat, so you can drop off her and clog the middle more.

That's why Toni is so important to providing a balance to the team: she can play the one role that Stanford is often missing, the triple-threat slasher who can and will take the ball to the hoop.  She's not great at it, but she's good, and that provides us with some threat against teams that exert extreme perimeter pressure.

A couple of other things:
- Okay, I got a bit upset at the officiating today.  First half, looked fine for the most part.  Even the flagrant against Chiney, though I don't think it was nearly as bad as the earlier one against Kal.  But late in the game, it seemed Stanford couldn't buy a call inside, while da Bares set up a conga line to the charity stripe.  And the blocking call against Tinkle to end the first half was a joke; I don't think she could've been more still, but she was so close to the sideline, I doubt the official (who was watching the on-ball action) saw her standing there and waiting for the contact.

The late in the game sequence where Chiney was getting mugged inside, especially after the call against Tinkle, resulting in no whistle was a bit much.

- Great game by Amber; she needed to be in there in preference to Lindy.  I think LaRocque is a bit of a security blanket for Tara; she won't make many mistakes, and she's comfortable, and plays smart, but she doesn't create or cause the defense to adjust as much as Amber.  Orrange's two and-1 drives in the second half were the exact antidote necessary to K.al's overextended pressure on the outside.  Glad to see her take them.

Now we need to find the three-point shot again.  By someone not named Ogwumike, that is :).

VG

once again, great summary VG. I agree with every single pt you made, especially about the officiating. The call against Jos at the end of the half was great acting by Bares. Boothe also picked up quick fouls for breathing, while Chiney and Nneka (and one time Lindy) were clocked underneath. I hate the flagrant elbow foul thing, neither one was intentional.

[treefan]

MT--

One thing I noticed this game and in watching the tape of last night's when I got home: our vulnerability against physical perimeter play hinges completely on the guards' willingness or unwillingness to drive.  When Lindy is in, she's not a threat to finish inside (or at least not quick enough to get a lot of advantage on the drive); if you body up on her, she's not going to turn you and go, and it prevents her from squaring up to the basket.

Toni and Amber present more of a driving threat, but Amber doesn't present as much of an outside threat, so you can drop off her and clog the middle more.

That's why Toni is so important to providing a balance to the team: she can play the one role that Stanford is often missing, the triple-threat slasher who can and will take the ball to the hoop.  She's not great at it, but she's good, and that provides us with some threat against teams that exert extreme perimeter pressure.

A couple of other things:
- Okay, I got a bit upset at the officiating today.  First half, looked fine for the most part.  Even the flagrant against Chiney, though I don't think it was nearly as bad as the earlier one against Kal.  But late in the game, it seemed Stanford couldn't buy a call inside, while da Bares set up a conga line to the charity stripe.  And the blocking call against Tinkle to end the first half was a joke; I don't think she could've been more still, but she was so close to the sideline, I doubt the official (who was watching the on-ball action) saw her standing there and waiting for the contact.

The late in the game sequence where Chiney was getting mugged inside, especially after the call against Tinkle, resulting in no whistle was a bit much.

- Great game by Amber; she needed to be in there in preference to Lindy.  I think LaRocque is a bit of a security blanket for Tara; she won't make many mistakes, and she's comfortable, and plays smart, but she doesn't create or cause the defense to adjust as much as Amber.  Orrange's two and-1 drives in the second half were the exact antidote necessary to K.al's overextended pressure on the outside.  Glad to see her take them.

Now we need to find the three-point shot again.  By someone not named Ogwumike, that is :).

VG

once again, great summary VG. I agree with every single pt you made, especially about the officiating. The call against Jos at the end of the half was great acting by Bares. Boothe also picked up quick fouls for breathing, while Chiney and Nneka (and one time Lindy) were clocked underneath. I hate the flagrant elbow foul thing, neither one was intentional.

[treefan]

It's been nice to observe Nneka's progression from freshman to senior in her basketball skills and on court awareness. She started good in the post as a freshman. Anytime she elevated into the air with her shot, it was like poetry in motion. Her challenge in those days was the transition from the ground to get into the air. Fast forward to the beginning of her senior year, and Nneka's outside shot emerged with more confidence, frequency and with good result from 15 feet in. She is going to need perimeter skills and an outside shot in the WNBA, so I was glad to see Nneka showing that this year.

But my jaw drops as Nneka steps outside the 3 point arc against K.al today and hits three 3-pointers.  I went from thinking why was Nneka forcing so many outside shots in the first half, to wondering from where did Nneka find her 3-point shot in the 2nd half.

K.al did their thing and did it well with good competitive spirit. They will probably give some teams a lot of problems in the NCAA tourney.

excellent analysis Soem. Exactly why Nneka should be national POY.

[treefan]

It's been nice to observe Nneka's progression from freshman to senior in her basketball skills and on court awareness. She started good in the post as a freshman. Anytime she elevated into the air with her shot, it was like poetry in motion. Her challenge in those days was the transition from the ground to get into the air. Fast forward to the beginning of her senior year, and Nneka's outside shot emerged with more confidence, frequency and with good result from 15 feet in. She is going to need perimeter skills and an outside shot in the WNBA, so I was glad to see Nneka showing that this year.

But my jaw drops as Nneka steps outside the 3 point arc against K.al today and hits three 3-pointers.  I went from thinking why was Nneka forcing so many outside shots in the first half, to wondering from where did Nneka find her 3-point shot in the 2nd half.

K.al did their thing and did it well with good competitive spirit. They will probably give some teams a lot of problems in the NCAA tourney.

excellent analysis Soem. Exactly why Nneka should be national POY.

[treefan]

If Kal can get a 7 seed, they might even upset a 2. That would be satisfying for those of us who are tired of the eastern fans with their endless chorus of "the Pac-12 sucks".

I couldn't agree more!!

[treefan]

If Kal can get a 7 seed, they might even upset a 2. That would be satisfying for those of us who are tired of the eastern fans with their endless chorus of "the Pac-12 sucks".

I couldn't agree more!!

[M T]

I don't know that The School near Oakland will get a #7 seed.  But I can hope they get a #10 seed, and then beat a #2.  But even if they wind up playing a #1 seed, I think they could give them a tough time.

I wish GameTracker was following the games in the tourney as they seem to get the official play-by-play live.  ESPN had some errors, IIRC.

An interesting stat that was mentioned on TV: Stanford had 11 straight rebounds to start the second half. Later, K.al got 6 in a row.

I notice we didn't see Melissa Barlow as a ref. 

Flagrant fouls don't have to be intentional.  And "intentional" is no longer part of the wording of the rules.  ("Flagrant 1 foul" has replaced "intentional personal foul")

From 2012 & 2013 NCAA Men's and Women's Basketball Rules
http://www.ncaapublications.com/productd...s/BR13.pdf

[4-29.2] c. Flagrant 1 personal foul. A flagrant 1 personal foul shall be a personal
foul that is deemed excessive in nature and/or unnecessary, but not based
solely on the severity of the act. Examples include, but are not limited to:
...[omitting examples 1 through 5]
6. Illegal contact with an elbow that occurs above the shoulders of an
opponent when the elbows are not swung excessively per 4-36.7.a.
[4-29.2] d. Flagrant 2 personal foul. A flagrant 2 personal foul shall be a personal
foul that involves contact with an opponent that is not only excessive, but
also severe or extreme while the ball is live.
  ...
[4-29.3] f. Flagrant 2 technical foul. A flagrant 2 technical foul can be either contact
or noncontact.
1. A flagrant 2 contact technical foul occurs when the ball is dead and the
contact is not only excessive, but also severe or extreme.
a. An exception may be a foul committed by an airborne shooter.
2. A flagrant 2 noncontact technical foul occurs when the ball is either
live or dead and involves extreme, sometimes persistent, vulgar,
abusive conduct.
[4-29.3] g. Contact dead ball technical foul. A contact dead ball technical foul
occurs when the ball is dead and involves contact that is unnecessary,
unacceptable and excessive, but does not rise to the level of a flagrant 2
contact technical foul.

[4-26] Art. 7. When during the course of play (live ball), an individual strikes an
opponent with the hand, elbow, arm, foot, knee or leg in a nonconfrontational
manner but the act is excessive or severe, it shall be ruled as a flagrant 2 personal
foul and not a fighting action. When a defined body part is used to strike an
opponent but the contact is not severe or excessive, a judgment shall be made by
the official as to whether the contact is a flagrant 1 personal foul.
...
[4-26] Art. 13. Illegal contact caused by the swinging of the elbow(s) that:
a. Results from total body movement is a common or flagrant 1 personal foul
b. Is excessive per Rule 4-36.7 is a flagrant 2 foul.
c. Occurs above the shoulders of an opponent is a flagrant 1 or flagrant 2
personal foul.
d. Occurs below the shoulders of an opponent is a common, flagrant 1 or
flagrant 2 personal foul.
[4-26] Art. 14. Illegal contact with an elbow that does not involve the swinging of the
elbow shall be considered a foul unless the contact is incidental per Rule 4-40.

---

[4-36] Art. 7. The following shall be considered excessive swinging:
a. When arm(s) and elbow(s) are swung about while using the shoulders as
pivots, and the speed of the extended arm(s) and elbow(s) exceeds that of
the rest of the body as it rotates on the hips or on the pivot foot; or
b. When the speed and vigor with which the arm(s) and elbow(s) are swung
is such that injury could result if another player were contacted.

This weekend, there was a contact dead ball technical foul called for  Baylor's Destiny Williams (while standing) pulling the pony tail of a player lying on the floor. 

As I read those, if you swing your elbows and make illegal contact above the shoulders, it is a flagrant foul.  If you do not swing your elbows and your elbow makes illegal, not incidental, contact above the shoulders, then the foul would normally be a common foul unless the effect is excessive or severe (or confrontational).

The foul at 18:59 in the first half against Gray should have been called flagrant 2 foul, IMO, because it was excessive, not just a flagrant 1 foul.  She swung both elbows upwards at the face in what would be a one-two punch by a boxer, with the intent to strike the opponent. (The left elbow swing is seen in the replay and the right elbow swing is seen during regular play)  Judging from the fact that this was just 1 minute into the game, I suspect this was premeditated, and could have, maybe should have, been ruled confrontational.

When Nneka's contact lens was dislodged at 18:50 in the 2nd half, it was because of Gray's right hand swiping her face during a rebound.  Nothing excessive there, but could have been called a foul.

When Nneka got hit in the face again at 10:29 in the 2nd half, it was from the shooter's non-shooting hand coming down into her face.  Again nothing excessive.  A charging foul was called, separately from the hand to the face.  I thought the blocking foul they called a few seconds later should also have been a charging foul.  Nneka was clearly in place before the player left the ground. But perhaps Nneka's right foot was on the restricted area circle, in which case it is to be called a blocking foul.

The foul called on Chiney at 10:05 in the 2nd was apparently ruled a flagrant 1 foul.  Chiney was guarding one player and went for a rebound. Another player behind her, whom Chiney never saw, was hit in the face by Chiney's forearm. (Not that it matters, but it wasn't either "running into an elbow" or "throwing an elbow")  I'm not sure what the refs were thinking here. I believe that the camera angle from behind the players (the live shot) shows the contact was with the forearm, not the elbow.  But even if the refs felt it was the elbow, rule 4-26.14 seems to indicate that without swinging the elbows, it is a common foul, unless it is an excessive or unnecessary foul.  It was clearly not swinging the elbows, nor excessive.

The foul by Caldwell against Nneka at 6:36 in the 2nd was similar to the Chiney foul at 10:05.  The offending player (on offense) was moving her arm, calling for the ball, and brought her arm down with the elbow hitting Nneka's cheek.  This time, there was no review, and no flagrant 1 foul call.  I don't see the difference.

While I'm at it, the foul on Jos just before the half might be legit.  Jos clearly had position two foot falls before the contact.  The TV camera angle doesn't allow me to tell if Jos's feet were spread too far, but it looks like it may be.  They are supposed to be at shoulder width.  I've rarely seen that called (ie, most of the time, the feet are wider than the shoulders).  For instance, see the screen being set at 11:12 in the 1st.

[M T]

I don't know that The School near Oakland will get a #7 seed.  But I can hope they get a #10 seed, and then beat a #2.  But even if they wind up playing a #1 seed, I think they could give them a tough time.

I wish GameTracker was following the games in the tourney as they seem to get the official play-by-play live.  ESPN had some errors, IIRC.

An interesting stat that was mentioned on TV: Stanford had 11 straight rebounds to start the second half. Later, K.al got 6 in a row.

I notice we didn't see Melissa Barlow as a ref. 

Flagrant fouls don't have to be intentional.  And "intentional" is no longer part of the wording of the rules.  ("Flagrant 1 foul" has replaced "intentional personal foul")

From 2012 & 2013 NCAA Men's and Women's Basketball Rules
http://www.ncaapublications.com/productd...s/BR13.pdf

[4-29.2] c. Flagrant 1 personal foul. A flagrant 1 personal foul shall be a personal
foul that is deemed excessive in nature and/or unnecessary, but not based
solely on the severity of the act. Examples include, but are not limited to:
...[omitting examples 1 through 5]
6. Illegal contact with an elbow that occurs above the shoulders of an
opponent when the elbows are not swung excessively per 4-36.7.a.
[4-29.2] d. Flagrant 2 personal foul. A flagrant 2 personal foul shall be a personal
foul that involves contact with an opponent that is not only excessive, but
also severe or extreme while the ball is live.
  ...
[4-29.3] f. Flagrant 2 technical foul. A flagrant 2 technical foul can be either contact
or noncontact.
1. A flagrant 2 contact technical foul occurs when the ball is dead and the
contact is not only excessive, but also severe or extreme.
a. An exception may be a foul committed by an airborne shooter.
2. A flagrant 2 noncontact technical foul occurs when the ball is either
live or dead and involves extreme, sometimes persistent, vulgar,
abusive conduct.
[4-29.3] g. Contact dead ball technical foul. A contact dead ball technical foul
occurs when the ball is dead and involves contact that is unnecessary,
unacceptable and excessive, but does not rise to the level of a flagrant 2
contact technical foul.

[4-26] Art. 7. When during the course of play (live ball), an individual strikes an
opponent with the hand, elbow, arm, foot, knee or leg in a nonconfrontational
manner but the act is excessive or severe, it shall be ruled as a flagrant 2 personal
foul and not a fighting action. When a defined body part is used to strike an
opponent but the contact is not severe or excessive, a judgment shall be made by
the official as to whether the contact is a flagrant 1 personal foul.
...
[4-26] Art. 13. Illegal contact caused by the swinging of the elbow(s) that:
a. Results from total body movement is a common or flagrant 1 personal foul
b. Is excessive per Rule 4-36.7 is a flagrant 2 foul.
c. Occurs above the shoulders of an opponent is a flagrant 1 or flagrant 2
personal foul.
d. Occurs below the shoulders of an opponent is a common, flagrant 1 or
flagrant 2 personal foul.
[4-26] Art. 14. Illegal contact with an elbow that does not involve the swinging of the
elbow shall be considered a foul unless the contact is incidental per Rule 4-40.

---

[4-36] Art. 7. The following shall be considered excessive swinging:
a. When arm(s) and elbow(s) are swung about while using the shoulders as
pivots, and the speed of the extended arm(s) and elbow(s) exceeds that of
the rest of the body as it rotates on the hips or on the pivot foot; or
b. When the speed and vigor with which the arm(s) and elbow(s) are swung
is such that injury could result if another player were contacted.

This weekend, there was a contact dead ball technical foul called for  Baylor's Destiny Williams (while standing) pulling the pony tail of a player lying on the floor. 

As I read those, if you swing your elbows and make illegal contact above the shoulders, it is a flagrant foul.  If you do not swing your elbows and your elbow makes illegal, not incidental, contact above the shoulders, then the foul would normally be a common foul unless the effect is excessive or severe (or confrontational).

The foul at 18:59 in the first half against Gray should have been called flagrant 2 foul, IMO, because it was excessive, not just a flagrant 1 foul.  She swung both elbows upwards at the face in what would be a one-two punch by a boxer, with the intent to strike the opponent. (The left elbow swing is seen in the replay and the right elbow swing is seen during regular play)  Judging from the fact that this was just 1 minute into the game, I suspect this was premeditated, and could have, maybe should have, been ruled confrontational.

When Nneka's contact lens was dislodged at 18:50 in the 2nd half, it was because of Gray's right hand swiping her face during a rebound.  Nothing excessive there, but could have been called a foul.

When Nneka got hit in the face again at 10:29 in the 2nd half, it was from the shooter's non-shooting hand coming down into her face.  Again nothing excessive.  A charging foul was called, separately from the hand to the face.  I thought the blocking foul they called a few seconds later should also have been a charging foul.  Nneka was clearly in place before the player left the ground. But perhaps Nneka's right foot was on the restricted area circle, in which case it is to be called a blocking foul.

The foul called on Chiney at 10:05 in the 2nd was apparently ruled a flagrant 1 foul.  Chiney was guarding one player and went for a rebound. Another player behind her, whom Chiney never saw, was hit in the face by Chiney's forearm. (Not that it matters, but it wasn't either "running into an elbow" or "throwing an elbow")  I'm not sure what the refs were thinking here. I believe that the camera angle from behind the players (the live shot) shows the contact was with the forearm, not the elbow.  But even if the refs felt it was the elbow, rule 4-26.14 seems to indicate that without swinging the elbows, it is a common foul, unless it is an excessive or unnecessary foul.  It was clearly not swinging the elbows, nor excessive.

The foul by Caldwell against Nneka at 6:36 in the 2nd was similar to the Chiney foul at 10:05.  The offending player (on offense) was moving her arm, calling for the ball, and brought her arm down with the elbow hitting Nneka's cheek.  This time, there was no review, and no flagrant 1 foul call.  I don't see the difference.

While I'm at it, the foul on Jos just before the half might be legit.  Jos clearly had position two foot falls before the contact.  The TV camera angle doesn't allow me to tell if Jos's feet were spread too far, but it looks like it may be.  They are supposed to be at shoulder width.  I've rarely seen that called (ie, most of the time, the feet are wider than the shoulders).  For instance, see the screen being set at 11:12 in the 1st.

[Yellowlab]

This article opened my eyes a bit re: RPI:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/sports...ref=sports

I think Cal will do some damage this year in the tournament, and I expect them to be considerably better next year.

[Yellowlab]

This article opened my eyes a bit re: RPI:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/sports...ref=sports

I think Cal will do some damage this year in the tournament, and I expect them to be considerably better next year.

[Roberton3]

This article opened my eyes a bit re: RPI:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/sports...ref=sports

I think The School near Oakland will do some damage this year in the tournament, and I expect them to be considerably better next year.

Among people who have thought much about ranking systems, the RPI is well-known to be severely flawed.  Perhaps the most obvious problem is that playing a very good team will improve your RPI even if you lose by 100 (unless you already have a very good RPI), and playing a very bad team will worsen your RPI even if you win by 100 (unless you already have a very bad RPI).  Pretty much every other computer-based ranking system is clearly superior.  The main reasons the RPI is still used are inertia (we've used it for a long time, so why change) and that it's simple enough that you can explain it to someone who doesn't know any math above the 6th-grade level. 

[Note: edited to correct a typo.]

[Roberton3]

This article opened my eyes a bit re: RPI:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/sports...ref=sports

I think The School near Oakland will do some damage this year in the tournament, and I expect them to be considerably better next year.

Among people who have thought much about ranking systems, the RPI is well-known to be severely flawed.  Perhaps the most obvious problem is that playing a very good team will improve your RPI even if you lose by 100 (unless you already have a very good RPI), and playing a very bad team will worsen your RPI even if you win by 100 (unless you already have a very bad RPI).  Pretty much every other computer-based ranking system is clearly superior.  The main reasons the RPI is still used are inertia (we've used it for a long time, so why change) and that it's simple enough that you can explain it to someone who doesn't know any math above the 6th-grade level. 

[Note: edited to correct a typo.]

[CompSci87]

I knew she had shot some, but didn't realize she had made any either until someone corrected me when I said these were the first. I looked it up, and her previous makes were last year in the Gonzaga game and the DePaul game. I don't know about those makes, but I believe many of her past misses were desperation shots to beat the clock.

[CompSci87]

I knew she had shot some, but didn't realize she had made any either until someone corrected me when I said these were the first. I looked it up, and her previous makes were last year in the Gonzaga game and the DePaul game. I don't know about those makes, but I believe many of her past misses were desperation shots to beat the clock.

[Viking_Guy]

To be fair, so was her first one in this game.  From 26 feet or so.

VG

[Viking_Guy]

To be fair, so was her first one in this game.  From 26 feet or so.

VG

[M T]

[Actually, Nneka's first two 3pt attempts of this game were as the shot clock ran down.  The first was an air ball 30 seconds into the game.  The other 3 attempts were successful.  Chiney's comments about encouraging Nneka to shoot 3s at the end of the clock were interesting.]

As was said, rating systems generally have problems, partly because of the sparsity of data.  There are too many variables and too few constraints.  Consider North Carolina.  By RPI, it is 89th; by Sagarin/CBN it is 41, a dramatic difference.  It has 3 wins above RPI #84:  Miami(#24), 2x Wake Forest (#49).  It has a loss against RPI #246.  All the other wins are against teams #84 or lower;  all the other losses are against teams #32 and higher.  So, you've got about 50 places (#32 to #84) that you could put it in.
Look at Stanford.  A loss against RPI #3; Wins against #5, #21, 3x #30, #38, and the rest are #55 and lower.  You'd have a strong case to put it in the top 30, but not as clear that it should be in the top 5.
Look at K.al.  3x losses against #2, loss against #13, 2x losses against #38.  Wins against #49, #51, and lower.  Why should it be #30 ??
The NCAA RPI system has gotten its little tweaks, like epicycles in the Ptolemaic system, but still isn't great.
(Note that the incestuousness of play within conferences contributes to the too little data, and tends to keep conference teams bunched in RPI, not to mention share a lot of their OWP and OOWP)

So now you look at things like home/neutral/away wins/losses.  Still not enough data.  Then you look at score differential.  But that has the problem that most coaches try to avoid big differentials, and also avoid too much playing time by their best players. But not all coaches.
Scoring differential and top 5 player average playing time

• UConn  (+30.6pts): Hartley: 32.8 min, Hayes: 30.4, Faris: 28.7, Mosqueda-lewis: 27.9, Dolson: 22.8
  
• Stanford (+22.2): Nneka 29.8, Toni 29.6, Chiney 28.7, La Rocque 23.5 Tinkle 22.7
  
• ND (+27.5): Diggins 30.2, Mallory 28.9, McBride 27.3, Novosel 26.1, Peters 24.2
  
• Baylor (+27.3):  Griner 32.3, Sims 31.9, Hayden 25.9, Williams 25.3, Madden 24.6
  

Is the lesser time for Stanford due to easier opponents, injuries, or what?  Does the difference in scoring differential reflect dominance or just the coach's preference.

Should one pay attention to the point differential when the quality of the teams is vastly different.  Do the big wins by Stanford against ODU and UC Davis matter at all?  (So the question isn't whether you win by 100 or not.  It might be whether you win by 10 vs by 25.  Or, better, how far ahead were you when you were playing with mostly reserves, and how early that was.)

Would a more complicated computerized rating system work better?  No doubt.  Would it be correct?  No way.    I haven't mentioned the effects of injury, suspensions, illness, etc. and their effect on games past and future.  We've seen teams that share an illness among themselves and play poorly for a game or two.  We've unfortunately seen injuries that, even if you discount the injured player, disrupt the performance of the team as they adjust to new responsibilities.  What about the issue of young teams?  No doubt K.al has improved over the year relative to most other teams because the younger players (and coaches!) gain experience more quickly. (I feel confident they would beat Rutgers now.)  How do you put this into a rating system?

Then there's head-to-head styles of play, and players themselves.  I'm afraid that at this point, I don't know how well either K.al or Stanford would do against Baylor.  To compete against a dominant tall player, you need more 3pt production than either team has shown.  (I know Stanford has the potential for such production.)  [I think our best chance against Baylor is to try to use the quickness of the O-team to draw fouls by Griner.  One block her out and the other go to the boards. But Griner is probably too smart for this, but it could affect her play.]

So, the NCAA gives wide latitude to the judgement of the committee.  That means that personal preference, rather than objective measures, are used for the ranking.  We tend to notice the East Coast bias.  (By RPI, U$C should easily be in the tourney.  By Sagarin/CBN, they are on the bubble.  By East Coast Bias, who are those guys anyway?  Hey, about UNC, that went no further west than Atlanta, and played 3 of the bottom 50.)

[M T]

[Actually, Nneka's first two 3pt attempts of this game were as the shot clock ran down.  The first was an air ball 30 seconds into the game.  The other 3 attempts were successful.  Chiney's comments about encouraging Nneka to shoot 3s at the end of the clock were interesting.]

As was said, rating systems generally have problems, partly because of the sparsity of data.  There are too many variables and too few constraints.  Consider North Carolina.  By RPI, it is 89th; by Sagarin/CBN it is 41, a dramatic difference.  It has 3 wins above RPI #84:  Miami(#24), 2x Wake Forest (#49).  It has a loss against RPI #246.  All the other wins are against teams #84 or lower;  all the other losses are against teams #32 and higher.  So, you've got about 50 places (#32 to #84) that you could put it in.
Look at Stanford.  A loss against RPI #3; Wins against #5, #21, 3x #30, #38, and the rest are #55 and lower.  You'd have a strong case to put it in the top 30, but not as clear that it should be in the top 5.
Look at K.al.  3x losses against #2, loss against #13, 2x losses against #38.  Wins against #49, #51, and lower.  Why should it be #30 ??
The NCAA RPI system has gotten its little tweaks, like epicycles in the Ptolemaic system, but still isn't great.
(Note that the incestuousness of play within conferences contributes to the too little data, and tends to keep conference teams bunched in RPI, not to mention share a lot of their OWP and OOWP)

So now you look at things like home/neutral/away wins/losses.  Still not enough data.  Then you look at score differential.  But that has the problem that most coaches try to avoid big differentials, and also avoid too much playing time by their best players. But not all coaches.
Scoring differential and top 5 player average playing time

• UConn  (+30.6pts): Hartley: 32.8 min, Hayes: 30.4, Faris: 28.7, Mosqueda-lewis: 27.9, Dolson: 22.8
  
• Stanford (+22.2): Nneka 29.8, Toni 29.6, Chiney 28.7, La Rocque 23.5 Tinkle 22.7
  
• ND (+27.5): Diggins 30.2, Mallory 28.9, McBride 27.3, Novosel 26.1, Peters 24.2
  
• Baylor (+27.3):  Griner 32.3, Sims 31.9, Hayden 25.9, Williams 25.3, Madden 24.6
  

Is the lesser time for Stanford due to easier opponents, injuries, or what?  Does the difference in scoring differential reflect dominance or just the coach's preference.

Should one pay attention to the point differential when the quality of the teams is vastly different.  Do the big wins by Stanford against ODU and UC Davis matter at all?  (So the question isn't whether you win by 100 or not.  It might be whether you win by 10 vs by 25.  Or, better, how far ahead were you when you were playing with mostly reserves, and how early that was.)

Would a more complicated computerized rating system work better?  No doubt.  Would it be correct?  No way.    I haven't mentioned the effects of injury, suspensions, illness, etc. and their effect on games past and future.  We've seen teams that share an illness among themselves and play poorly for a game or two.  We've unfortunately seen injuries that, even if you discount the injured player, disrupt the performance of the team as they adjust to new responsibilities.  What about the issue of young teams?  No doubt K.al has improved over the year relative to most other teams because the younger players (and coaches!) gain experience more quickly. (I feel confident they would beat Rutgers now.)  How do you put this into a rating system?

Then there's head-to-head styles of play, and players themselves.  I'm afraid that at this point, I don't know how well either K.al or Stanford would do against Baylor.  To compete against a dominant tall player, you need more 3pt production than either team has shown.  (I know Stanford has the potential for such production.)  [I think our best chance against Baylor is to try to use the quickness of the O-team to draw fouls by Griner.  One block her out and the other go to the boards. But Griner is probably too smart for this, but it could affect her play.]

So, the NCAA gives wide latitude to the judgement of the committee.  That means that personal preference, rather than objective measures, are used for the ranking.  We tend to notice the East Coast bias.  (By RPI, U$C should easily be in the tourney.  By Sagarin/CBN, they are on the bubble.  By East Coast Bias, who are those guys anyway?  Hey, about UNC, that went no further west than Atlanta, and played 3 of the bottom 50.)

[Yellowlab]

The NCAA RPI system has gotten its little tweaks, like epicycles in the Ptolemaic system, but still isn't great.

That might be my favorite quote of the year.

[Yellowlab]

The NCAA RPI system has gotten its little tweaks, like epicycles in the Ptolemaic system, but still isn't great.

That might be my favorite quote of the year.

[81alum]

I was away for the weekend and just was able to watch the replay of the game last night.  I continue to be concerned for two reasons.  First, without Nneka's three point shooting we remained deplorable from long range.  Second, while it is great that Nneka can scored a lot of points on jumpers, I also think that we seem to be losing our (previously) consistent ability to feed the ball inside. 

Other concerns: we were outrebounded. Assists to turnovers was bad.  We had only 2 second chance points.  We had 0 bench points--I would guess that is the poorest showing all year from the bench. 

Positives:  Nneka's threes!  I continue to be impressed with Amber.  Amber and Toni are giving us a different dimension than we are used to.  It seems so un-Stanford-like to be scoring points on pull up midrange jumpers and guards slashing to the basket.  That has helped replace our lack of a three point threat or we would be toast by now. 

Our defense was very good the last two games, but our offense seems not to be fully in synch.  Opponents now have a clear blueprint for how to try to beat us  If we stay cold from 3, eventually we will hit a team which defends like ASU but which has a much better offense--and we will lose.  That is, unless Nneka scores 42 points, hits 3 threes, collects 26 rebounds, or some other superhuman feat.

[81alum]

I was away for the weekend and just was able to watch the replay of the game last night.  I continue to be concerned for two reasons.  First, without Nneka's three point shooting we remained deplorable from long range.  Second, while it is great that Nneka can scored a lot of points on jumpers, I also think that we seem to be losing our (previously) consistent ability to feed the ball inside. 

Other concerns: we were outrebounded. Assists to turnovers was bad.  We had only 2 second chance points.  We had 0 bench points--I would guess that is the poorest showing all year from the bench. 

Positives:  Nneka's threes!  I continue to be impressed with Amber.  Amber and Toni are giving us a different dimension than we are used to.  It seems so un-Stanford-like to be scoring points on pull up midrange jumpers and guards slashing to the basket.  That has helped replace our lack of a three point threat or we would be toast by now. 

Our defense was very good the last two games, but our offense seems not to be fully in synch.  Opponents now have a clear blueprint for how to try to beat us  If we stay cold from 3, eventually we will hit a team which defends like ASU but which has a much better offense--and we will lose.  That is, unless Nneka scores 42 points, hits 3 threes, collects 26 rebounds, or some other superhuman feat.

[M T]

I don't have as much doom and gloom feeling.  11A to 13 TO isn't THAT bad.  We are 3rd in the nation in A/TO at 1.30.  But, we were did get fewer assists per shot than we had all season.  I think that is an effect of the defense against us.

Yes 3ptr shooting has been abysmal.
But if you take the O-team shooting out, the team was  11 of 31 from the floor of which 2 of 12 were from 3 (and, remember, by removing the two O sisters, most of the rest are in there to shoot 3s).  So 2ptrs were 9 of 19, which is almost our team's 2pt average (51%).

As for rebounding, don't forget the opponent was ranked as one of the top teams in the country in rebounds.  We were into the irresistable force and immovable object territory.
Even after this game, K.al averages 45.9 Reb and their opponents average 32.8, putting them 3rd in the  country for the difference.
Stanford averages 44.6 and its opponents average 33.6, putting them 7th in the country.

I'm not even TOO concerned about 0 bench points.  Total bench minutes was 32, of which only two were significant chunks: Lindy 10, Taylor 11.  Lindy is no longer an offensive player; she's in there just for defense it seems.  Taylor is just back from missing a number of games.  It would have been nice to see her light up the threes, but that didn't happen.  The subs only took 6 shots.

I noticed something interesting.  I looked hard for an example of K.al setting screens, but it was difficult.  In about 10 minutes of playing time, I found only one instance of a K.al player getting in position to set a screen, but then it wasn't used.  They would bring the ball down and go straight for the basket after 1 or 2 passes.  It looked so odd after all I see Stanford do on offense.  (And truthfully, it kinda scared me to think how good they could be if they were as well coached as Stanford.)

In any case, I'm hoping at least some of our great shooters can get their mojo working and start draining their threes.

And, we are SO blessed to have two of the top 15 players in the country.  Frankly, I don't feel too bad that they do more than 40% of the scoring.  (And, yeah, I wish we also had the best 3 point shooting in the country (or, even, just in the conference) and the best slashing guard in the country and the best defensive player.  But then, I might start wishing we had the tallest player, and ...)  And, we've been blessed year after year of having some of the best players in the country.

Hmmm.. if the Championship game is Baylor vs Stanford, and Nneka scores 40+ points to Griner's 20, and Stanford wins, will they give the MVP to Griner as a consolation prize?  If the outcome were reversed, you know they wouldn't give it to Nneka as a consolation prize.

[M T]

I don't have as much doom and gloom feeling.  11A to 13 TO isn't THAT bad.  We are 3rd in the nation in A/TO at 1.30.  But, we were did get fewer assists per shot than we had all season.  I think that is an effect of the defense against us.

Yes 3ptr shooting has been abysmal.
But if you take the O-team shooting out, the team was  11 of 31 from the floor of which 2 of 12 were from 3 (and, remember, by removing the two O sisters, most of the rest are in there to shoot 3s).  So 2ptrs were 9 of 19, which is almost our team's 2pt average (51%).

As for rebounding, don't forget the opponent was ranked as one of the top teams in the country in rebounds.  We were into the irresistable force and immovable object territory.
Even after this game, K.al averages 45.9 Reb and their opponents average 32.8, putting them 3rd in the  country for the difference.
Stanford averages 44.6 and its opponents average 33.6, putting them 7th in the country.

I'm not even TOO concerned about 0 bench points.  Total bench minutes was 32, of which only two were significant chunks: Lindy 10, Taylor 11.  Lindy is no longer an offensive player; she's in there just for defense it seems.  Taylor is just back from missing a number of games.  It would have been nice to see her light up the threes, but that didn't happen.  The subs only took 6 shots.

I noticed something interesting.  I looked hard for an example of K.al setting screens, but it was difficult.  In about 10 minutes of playing time, I found only one instance of a K.al player getting in position to set a screen, but then it wasn't used.  They would bring the ball down and go straight for the basket after 1 or 2 passes.  It looked so odd after all I see Stanford do on offense.  (And truthfully, it kinda scared me to think how good they could be if they were as well coached as Stanford.)

In any case, I'm hoping at least some of our great shooters can get their mojo working and start draining their threes.

And, we are SO blessed to have two of the top 15 players in the country.  Frankly, I don't feel too bad that they do more than 40% of the scoring.  (And, yeah, I wish we also had the best 3 point shooting in the country (or, even, just in the conference) and the best slashing guard in the country and the best defensive player.  But then, I might start wishing we had the tallest player, and ...)  And, we've been blessed year after year of having some of the best players in the country.

Hmmm.. if the Championship game is Baylor vs Stanford, and Nneka scores 40+ points to Griner's 20, and Stanford wins, will they give the MVP to Griner as a consolation prize?  If the outcome were reversed, you know they wouldn't give it to Nneka as a consolation prize.