WBB: Stanford 72 WSU 50 - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: WBB: Stanford 72 WSU 50 (/thread-4898.html)

---

WBB: Stanford 72 WSU 50 - 81alum - 03-02-2013

Chiney was 12/17 for 28 points and 13 rebounds before Tara took her out mid way through the second half.  WSU did try to defend her, and on any number of possessions she did not get a touch.  But Amber, Ruef, and Joslyn each had multiple assists to Chiney, and Chiney scored virtually every time she was able to get the ball with at least one foot in the paint.

Our three point shooting again started off well, and again it cooled off as the game wore on.  We had 6 three point shots--mostly in the first half.  While Joslyn was 1/7 from three, she was 5/6 from in close.  Ruef scored no baskets but was able to sink 7/10 free throws for a much needed break from her FT woes.  Overall we shot 43%, 25% from three.  WSU shot just 29%, 9% from three.

Somewhat troubling:  WSU out rebounded us 40/38, and 13/12 offensively.  That despite Chiney's vacuum cleaner like qualities.

Once Tara took Chiney out of the game, WSU slightly closed the lead, but it did make for useful game time for Greenfield, Camp, and Samuelson in particular.  Nobody played more than 30 minutes.

I'm not sure if there are any lessons to be learned today.  The announcers kept talking about Sara as a defensive stopper--especially since Toni is out.  It does seem as if she is given a lot of tough defensive assignments. 

Next week, if the seeds win out in the Pac 12 tournament, we will have to beat USC, then Colorado, then C.al.  That is a surprisingly tough gamut.  At this moment it looks like C.al is taking care of Washington, but it would not much matter for us if they lost, other than to say we would not have to share the regular season championship.

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 72 WSU 50 - Yellowlab - 03-02-2013

Sara James is a good defender unless she is going up against someone with good lateral quickness.  I've seen too many players blow past her to get caught up in the announcer's hype.  She is gaining confidence, and she brings a much needed toughness to the team.  Overall, I've been quite happy with her progress this season, but Toni is an example of a defensive stopper.  Sara?  Not so much.

I was asked whether Stanford could lose its #1 seeding, if Kal wins the Pac-12 tournament.  My first thought was no.  My second thought was maybe.  Now, I don't know what to think.  At this point Stanford clearly should be ranked ahead of Kal, but what if they lose 2 out of 3 to them? 

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 72 WSU 50 - BobK - 03-02-2013

Well we are really playing great D but Tinkle started on  Gladiera  today on Kingma Thursday.  So a big on a guard and neither could score much.    Yep still miss Toni and really going to playing 3 games in a row next week. 

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 72 WSU 50 - BobK - 03-02-2013

After FB track then baseball I'm watching the game now.  James on Gladiera like a blanket.  The announcer said she had trouble with Kingma. Why because Kingma hit one shot in the game?  Lol

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 72 WSU 50 - FarmDad.01 - 03-02-2013

Told several games ago by Coach to keep bombing away, Samuelson certainly has. The results from beyond the arc have been either broiler-hot or freezer-cold. But has anyone else noticed how her game has ratcheted up? Fighting for boards, trying for takeaways, scrapping for loose balls? As if she's seeing, under game conditions, that her height allows more than an unblockable three-point shot? Maybe Sara James Disease is infectious?

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 72 WSU 50 - M T - 03-02-2013

(03-02-2013, 04:34 PM)81alum link Wrote:Somewhat troubling:  WSU out rebounded us 40/38, and 13/12 offensively.
Once Tara took Chiney out of the game, WSU slightly closed the lead

Chiney & Amber were pulled with > 10 minutes to play, Jos with 7:30.  Over the last 10 minutes, Stanford had 8+2 rebounds while WSU had 11+6 rebounds.  So, before that point Stanford had 18+10 while WSU had 16+7.  So, yes, our subs did get outrebounded.  The lead was 30 with 9:46 to go, and only 20 with 4:18 to go.

Regarding a #1 seed...  Don't forget that ND and UConn will play on Monday and then maybe once again.  Probably best for the PAC-12 is for ND to lose twice, which I would expect knock ND to lower ranked than at least one of Stanford and C.al.  Were ND to lose twice and Stanford to lose, I'm not sure what would happen.  I think Stanford has clearly indicated superiority to C.al because C.al had 6 wins against common opponents where they won by 5 points or less, but Stanford's closest game in those was by 9 points.

Duke has NC on Sunday and could face Maryland and/or NC in their tourney (I haven't looked at matchups). 

If Duke lost a game and ND lost two, then if Stanford lost to C.al, is it possible that both Stanford & C.al could get #1 seedings?
In that scenario, the losses would be Baylor:1, UConn:2, ND: 3, Duke:2, Stanford: 3, C.al: 2, Penn St: 3, TN: 5, MD: 5, ...
No, I think they'd seed Duke as a #1.  So, unless Duke & ND each lose 2, I don't see the PAC-12 getting two #1s.  If ND splits with UConn, Duke wins out, and Stanford loses, then the PAC-12 will likely get two #2s.  I think Baylor & UConn will get #1 seeds even if they lose 2 each.  So if UConn loses 2, three of the #1 seeds would be Baylor, UConn, ND.

It is hard to judge because our recent quality of opponent has been down, but I think Stanford has really started putting it together.  We've still got weak spots (erratic 3-pt shooting, IMO a not-so-great point guard, and this reliance on the person who has demonstrated she should be chosen as player of the year) but the additional playing time has really helped everyone.  Ruef's presence in the middle has helped take the multi-defender burden off Chiney, and freed up Jos to spend more time on the outside (where she goes anyway).  Bonnie has really played well, but I'm not sure she'll do as well against tough, top opponents. (However, she won't be as obvious a person to pick on.)  Sara hasn't developed the cut to the basket that I hoped she would, but with her in, we rarely wind up with a desperate last second shot. Taylor hasn't developed to the level of her promise last year.  Amber is shooting well, her passes are less often "Oops!", and she's less often catching my eye with lazy defensive plays that give away baskets (such as 14:05 in the first today), but she still seems to be trying to hit home runs rather than doing the things that her position calls for.

Unfortunately, I haven't seen C.al play recently, so I can't really judge.  They really played us tough last time, but they've had too many close calls to really be considered as good.  But what did we do wrong, or, rather, how do we play better against them?

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 72 WSU 50 - BobK - 03-02-2013

Amber may be the league's best Point Guard.  28-2.  That's damn good and without Toni who is a leader, And highly skilled not playing next to Amber.  And then you have a whole different system from last year.  Amber has been just outstanding. 

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 72 WSU 50 - Yellowlab - 03-03-2013

Duke already lost to unranked Miami.  That should drop them below Kal.   

In the expected rematch Stanford has to limit Kal's second chance points.  Stanford did not match their physical intensity at Maples.  I suspect that they will in Seattle.

Boyd probably has to be considered the top point guard in the Pac-12, but Amber is in the discussion.  Her play has baffled me at times this year, but she has made a lot of progress. 

I saw the ND-UConn game earlier this season.  I think ND has an excellent shot at beating them again.

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 72 WSU 50 - 81alum - 03-03-2013

We will be facing C.al without Toni, most probably.  Also, C.al has been doing much better with its perimeter shooting lately.  Because of these two factors, a third game is unlikely to be a replay of either of the first two games.  C.al's offense is better balanced than it was.

Who will defend Layshia?  Can Sara do it?  And Ruef and Chiney need to have monster rebounding games against the C.al bigs.

How this game is officiated could make a big difference.

On the other hand, we need to worry about beating a couple of other very good teams first.

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 72 WSU 50 - WAcard - 03-03-2013

Length will negate Any of Cals 3 shooting, length and not allowing players to get into the body of the defenders. Both Clarendon and Boyd need that to get into the paint so it just makes it that much more difficult. Hopefully this will also help with boards, we may not win all but that's a lot of tall bodies in their. Cal has had trouble in PAC 12 wish I could see why or s it the different mentality of how WA OSU are playing on D that Cal prefers players that get up on them and that hasn't happened. I would also like  to see more switching especially with our length, teams really struggle against a switching man.

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 72 WSU 50 - CompSci87 - 03-03-2013

(03-03-2013, 04:55 PM)garvin link Wrote:Will any of the tournament games be on ESPN, or is the whole thing on the Pac-12 Network?

The final will be on ESPN2 on Sunday. The rest is on Pac-12 Net.

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 72 WSU 50 - Amber - M T - 03-03-2013

(I did miss Duke's Thursday night loss.  Did you see Eastern Sports Network cut away from today's Duke-UNC WBB with 1:39 left, without any acknowledgement that they were doing that? )

(03-02-2013, 10:38 PM)BobK link Wrote:Amber may be the league's best Point Guard.  28-2.  That's damn good and without Toni who is a leader, And highly skilled not playing next to Amber.  And then you have a whole different system from last year.  Amber has been just outstanding.

I had enumerated some of Amber's play earlier this year, but maybe you weren't around.  It was still early in the season, but see
  http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php/topic,7315.msg56553.html#msg56553
  http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php/topic,7468.msg58019.html#msg58019
IMO, Amber has a weak A/TO ratio.  For a top team, with all the talent to score on any pass and to recover on weak passes & such, she should have a better ratio.  Instead of being one of the A/TO leaders, she is #75 in the country (NCAA stats of 2/28).  Although she's shot a good 3PT%, she's only hit 11 3PT goals in 30 games, so her contribution there is negligible.

It should be obvious that, as point guard, she doesn't get Stanford into many transition baskets.  So, she doesn't wind up testing the other team's transition defense.  She often brings the ball up slowly and then sits on it before passing it around the perimeter.  Put token pressure on her in the backcourt and Stanford is unlikely to start its half-court offense until there is only 20 seconds left on the clock.  She has this habit, annoying to me, of holding the ball with under 10 seconds left and passing it at 0:03 or 0:04 to someone else for them to put up the rushed shot.

Watch a game in replay and just watch her, not the ball. See how she spends a lot of time just standing or just walking?  Watch her when the other team gets the ball under our basket.  Now watch the other players.  They're virtually always hustling.  Either actively defending or getting into position on offense.

I'll review her play at the start of yesterday's game: At 19:01, we are trying to rebound under our board.  Amber is at the foul line with the other 9 players under the basket.  It seems like a good position from which to get back on defense if WSU gets the ball.  But, when the ball comes out, she goes to the player to contest the rebound. When WSU controls, she just stays in front of the dribbler instead of getting back fast (which Sara is doing).  The pass goes to a player on the outside, and Sara takes the other WSU girl on the break, so Amber is now in catch up mode rather than being in front of the play, but she does get into position.  Against UConn, that won't work.

At 18:39, after a WSU offensive rebound, WSU gets the ball and takes another shot.  Amber is standing 1' behind a much taller WSU player, just watching the ball on the rim.  She doesn't pin the other player in nor get to a point where she's got a better chance for the rebound or to defend if they get it.  It seems she's waiting for someone else to do something and give her the ball.

At 18:33, she's dribbling into a relatively open lane and she fumbles the ball (dribbling it off her forearm), which forces her to take a jumper from the foul line rather than having her choice of the pull-up, or driving to the right block for a pass into Chiney who has sealed her player.  When WSU gets the rebound, she does start back on defense well, and WSU brings it up slowly.

At 18:17, Amber plays defense lackadaisically and she allows her player to get a good rebounding position on the right block as Amber strolls toward her.  The shot from the left block goes in, so the poor positioning doesn't cost us this time.  But against C.al....

At 17:58, Jos puts up a 3 that misses badly.  Amber is in 6' outside the 3pt line where she could easily get in defensive position (good).  Chiney brings down the rebound & scores.  Nothing particular to note for a while until she lays a pass in to Chiney for a basket at 15:55.  At 15:38, Amber does block out her player on a WSU shot.  At 15:32, Amber brings the ball down in transition & throws it to an open Sara for 3.  Those assists are the kind of thing you expect for any point guard on a good team, and why her A/TO should be higher.

At 14:09, Amber throws a pass at Chiney's face from 6' away when Chiney wasn't expecting it.  Anyone but Chiney & that might have been a turnover.  At 14:08, Jos takes a 3 and misses.  Amber is 3' outside the 3pt line and should be ready for defense if WSU gets the rebound.  The long rebound comes out to WSU & Jos starts running back, passing Amber who is just strolling perpendicular on the court.  WSU players are hustling down the court, and get a long pass for a fast break, for 2pts plus a foul.  If Amber had broken back on defense, this wouldn't have happened.  What was the value of what Amber was trying to do?  This time, it cost us.

Amber is pulled at this point.  This was against a realtively weak team with guards that aren't particularly good.

It does seem that Amber is improving.  She's making fewer of the really lazy passes that are picked off.  She seems to want to make the flashy plays, but doesn't do the work that is best for her team.  For instance, there was a play where she stole the ball as WSU started a transition.  Flashy yes, but if she hadn't gotten the ball, it would have been a 3 on 1 fast break because she was trying to steal the ball rather than get back on defense.  Earlier in the season I pointed out how she was going for offensive rebounds rather than getting back on defense.  I haven't noticed that recently.

On the good side, she does well at shooting and can do well dribbling to the basket.  She should do that some more, IMO. But she isn't a national leader in either of those capabilities.

In my book, she's got a long ways to go before I'd call her a good point guard.

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 72 WSU 50 - M T - 03-03-2013

(03-03-2013, 12:09 PM)81alum link Wrote:We will be facing kal without Toni, most probably.  Also, kal has been doing much better with its perimeter shooting lately.  Because of these two factors, a third game is unlikely to be a replay of either of the first two games.  kal's offense is better balanced than it was.

Actually, C.al's offense is slightly less balanced now because Clarendon is scoring more.  See http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php/topic,7334.msg56633.html#msg56633
Top 6 scorers for Cal
Jan. 7: 13.6, 13.0, 12.4, 9.8, 7.6, 7.6
Mar. 3: 16.1, 12.4, 12.0, 8.6, 8.4, 7.3
In any case, it is more balanced, compared to Stanford.
Stanford: 22.9, 12.3, 10.2, 7.7(Toni), 5.4, 4.9

For the season, C.al's 3pt% on Jan. 7 was 31.3%, exactly the same as it is now.  However, C.al is shooting 3s better than Stanford in conference play.

Jan 7:

Season: (Cal stats as of 2/28 per their website)

The conference stats should be a better comparison since they are played against the same teams.
Conference stats: (Cal stats are missing their last game)

Strength against strength:  Their OR vs our DR.  While I hope that Mikaela can be a big help, this may tilt toward C.al.  Our 3PT% defense vs their 3PT% offense.  I have hope that we can win that battle again.  Our FG% and our defensive FG%: We probably won't do as well, because of their rebounding.  Our advantage in FT% is likely negated by their trips to the foul line.  We have some advantage on TO and Blk.  I was surprised that steals statistics are not that different.

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 72 WSU 50 - chimera - 03-03-2013

I think Amber is far from perfect but you seem to be fixated on finding mistakes rather than looking at the totality of her game.  If you did the same for any other player (ok, maybe not Chiney) you'd find plenty to document there as well.  I think Amber has areas she needs to improve.  She does tend to get into the offense more slowly than I'd like, for instance, though this is improving.  She is more methodical at times than maybe she should be and doesn't always have the execution of the offense perfected yet, but I don't see the lack of hustle you do, just that she is learning how to play college-level fast and has a demeanor that looks deceptive in that regard.  I don't see her getting beaten routinely on defense or not getting to loose balls, etc.  Sometimes younger players find the games moves faster than they can make decisions.  This is a soph point guard, she will make mistakes.  Her stats compare favorably with Boyd over at Cal in shooting percentage, assists per game, A/TO ratio, etc. and scoring is very close.  Amber's A/TO ratio is actually better than Bria Hartley of UConn, believe it or not, and very close to Chelsea Gray of Duke, just to drop some big names.  Now I don't pretend Orrange is comparable to Gray, but I do think you are missing the good things she does, and overemphasizing what you perceive as not good.  The long posts detailing her supposed failings come off as nitpicking to me. 

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 72 WSU 50 - BobK - 03-03-2013

What Chimera said.  :)

MT we sat together at the Old Pro for the Tenn game. 

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 72 WSU 50 - 81alum - 03-03-2013

With regard to C.al becoming more balanced, I meant that they struggled to hit three point shots early in the season and are now doing quite well late.

Their season average is 4.1 treys at .313.

The last few games they have been averaging 6 a game at around .350. 

When we beat them they were 2/21 from three.  When they beat us they were 6/16 from three.  That seems to have started a turnaround on perimeter shooting for them.

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 72 WSU 50 - M T - 03-04-2013

I do look at all the players.  When reviewing a game on tape, one can watch what each of the players does & how their play influences the outcome, good & bad.  In the January posts, I was looking to understand why Stanford played poorly in some segments, and against UConn.  Amber stood out.  (The recent post involved reviewing just Amber's play because I was responding to the statement on her quality.  It would have been wrong to just use January's performances, esp. since Amber is just a sophomore.)  Two things I specifically look at: (1) whether we had a breakdown in defense that lets the other team score, and (2) whether we were in position to rebound.

I could make only general statements, but they would be without support.  Supporting details come with length.  I promise there won't be an exam later, so anyone who wants to skip the details can skip them.  But if someone disagrees with my statements, they can see the support and perhaps say "Hey, you got that wrong there."

BobK,  thanks for reminding me who you are. (If there's one thing I wish I could change, it would be to remember names better.)  If you'd like to fill me in on why I'm wrong & Amber really is outstanding, I'd welcome it.  But maybe others would prefer that this be done by private messages.

(03-03-2013, 08:05 PM)chimera link Wrote:Amber's A/TO ratio is actually better than Bria Hartley of UConn, believe it or not, and very close to Chelsea Gray of Duke, just to drop some big names.

It took me a while to figure out why you made this statement because when I look at
NCAA A/TO stats: http://www.ncaa.com/stats/basketball-women/d1/current/individual/471
I see the following that just doesn't fit what you said.
12. Kelly Faris  Connecticut  2.36  (the guard with the most assists on her team)
23. Chelsey Gray Duke 2.06
44. Bria Hartley Connecticut 1.88
75. Amber Orrange  Stanford 1.67

It then struck me that maybe you had a different number for Amber.  So I checked her conference-only statistics and saw she has a 1.87 A/TO ratio (I suspect you saw 1.9 at the Stanford stats; PAC-12 lists it as 1.87).  1.87 would put her at #45 for the season.

So, Amber's A/TO ratio has improved significantly.  If you look at that in detail, you'll see that her assists are down, but her turnovers are down even more.  This is consistent with what I had observed about her passing.

I look forward to Amber improving even more in the coming two years.  I would be pleased if in two years I can agree that Amber is an outstanding guard.  (Come to think of it, I'd really like to say that before Chiney graduates.  And maybe Amber should be the shooting guard as her FG% and 3FG% are quite good.)

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 72 WSU 50 - BobK - 03-04-2013

I appreciate your response MT but.  :).  Amber is averaging 4.3 assists on the year and 5.2 for the last 6 games so her assists are up

Defense?  Opponents are shooting 31% against us and 23% from three.  I don't see how anyone can be playing poor D. 

A point about assists. How many great passes by Amber over the past 3 games resulted in open then missed 3s?  Many my friend. 

28-2 is absolutely amazing to me. I thought 6 losses at the start if this season and maybe a Sweet 16 loss.  This season has been so fantastic.  I know we are all spoiled and as fans assume a F4.  Of course without Toni healthy this year I should have been sadly correct.  But the team has been great beyond my expectations. 

Now one thing you haven't said or I missed, Amber is very quiet.  That's not good for a PG.  she was benched a while back so she could get Tara's points.  She did.

A change of subjects.  Read the Chron story on Chiney.  Sorry I can't seem to link it. 

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 72 WSU 50 - Yellowlab - 03-04-2013

(03-04-2013, 08:51 AM)BobK link Wrote:28-2 is absolutely amazing to me. I thought 6 losses at the start if this season and maybe a Sweet 16 loss.  This season has been so fantastic.  I know we are all spoiled and as fans assume a F4.  Of course without Toni healthy this year I should have been sadly correct.  But the team has been great beyond my expectations.

I agree.  I've spent too much time complaining and not enough time enjoying this season.  Somehow the coaching staff has figured out how to put the pieces together to get the most out of this team.

---

Re: WBB: Stanford 72 WSU 50 - WAcard - 03-04-2013

I happen to agree with MT on this, I do not think Amber s a PG, I think she is a guard who likes to shoot the ball going to her left, she rarely attacks the gaps to get an easy shot for the shooters and wastes too much of the shot clock dribbling. When under pressure she still struggles with her right hand. I also agree defensively she lacks hustle.  Considering the amount of time on the court she has had I would expect her to be better at ths point.

---