The CardBoard
WBB: Stanford 76 Oregon State 54 - 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 76 Oregon State 54 (/thread-11632.html)

Pages: 1 2

Re: WBB: Stanford 76 Oregon State 54 - BobK - 02-27-2016

McPhee seemed fine post game. 

Scott R gave a big hug to Bird and had a conversation with her in the post game handshake

Just a brobdingnagian win.  Words can't duplicate the in game emotion we all felt. 

Re: WBB: Stanford 76 Oregon State 54 - 2006alum - 02-27-2016

This is incredibly gratifying to see. Watching Bird "soar" in the second half of this season has been tremendous - now she's not just adding mid-range jumpers, but 3 pointers! With that kind of range, she can truly play the 4 and let Kaylee play the 5, her more natural position given her more limited offense.

Without being able to see the game, my suspicion is that their zone wasn't successful because our 2-4 players were all credible scoring threats from outside and inside. When we got shut down by the zone with UCLA, our guards (Lili, Bri, Karlie, and Marta) combined for 5-23 and 2-14 from 3 pt. range. When that happens, they can sag and cut off the inside. This time, by contrast, our guards (Brit, Bri, Karlie and Marta) combined for 12-15 and 4-7 from 3 pt. range (plus Bird's 3 treys). When we're scoring with that kind of accuracy from the perimeter, a zone defense is a lot harder to maintain, esp. with players like McPhee who have the courage to simply drive straight to the basket instead of looking to pass inside.

I must say, this does seem to validate what many of us have been saying all year. McPhee is such a rangy player that she opens up our offense because she can score from anywhere - outside, midrange, and driving to the basket for a layup. With Bird also showing more range, this gives our offense a ton of fluidity and prevent us from stagnating and resorting to the "pass around the perimeter and run down the shotclock" strategy that has plagued us over the past year and a half. And McPhee also seemed to be a beast on defense, which I gather was one of the reasons for less playing time in the past.

I know that Lili prefers to play the 2 than the 1, but man, I'd love to see a starting 1-2-3-4-5 lineup of Lili, Karlie, McPhee, Bird, and Kayl. Lili and Karlie are our strongest 3 point shooters and both are also strong ball distributors (probably Marta's equal now, and I'm sure Marta will soon surpass them by next year given her natural talents at it). That keeps us a credible threat from outside, with McPhee and Bird strong at transition offense to get inside. We could rotate in Bri and Marta at the 1, switch Lili at the 2, and have Alanna swap out with McPhee at the three, with Kailee subbing at the 4-5. 

I don't have time now, but later today I'll run the +/- and see what that shows, if anything. But this is really fun to see, and I'm glad the team is beginning to gel before it's too late.

And really sorry to hear about Alleyne. She's a force of nature and a strong WNBA pick so I hope her rehab doesn't impair her long-term potential at the pro level.


Re: WBB: Stanford 76 Oregon State 54 - 81alum - 02-27-2016

Before the game, Kate answered a question about the zone defenses we have faced.  The question was something like "In the past the way to kill zones has been with three point shooting, but we don't seem to be able to do that this year.  Why?"

And the answer was something like:  "You need strong post play to force the zone to collapse inwards, otherwise the zone extends out and blankets the three point shooters.  Earlier on we were not getting strong enough inside play to force the zone to collapse."

In other words, modern zone defense can do just as good a job at covering three point shots as it can at covering points in the paint--but it can't do both simultaneously.  The inside threat just has to be great enough to pull the perimeter of the zone inside.

I'm not sure if that was actually what we did to beat the zone last night, though.  I think the mid-range jumpers somehow messed with it.  I'll have to review the game and keep an eye on when OSU switched in and out.

Re: WBB: Stanford 76 Oregon State 54 - chimera - 02-27-2016

It was a topsy turvy game for sure, with Bird hitting maybe two or three layups and a bunch of long shots.  If a team takes shots confidently and makes them, any zone is going to be in trouble.  Super defensive effort by everyone.  Seemed like we were less concerned with doubling Hamblin than past games, preferring to stick on their guards, especially Wiesner, who went off in the 4th quarter when we lost up at OSU.  We did double her but not at the expense of letting OSU's shooters get free. 

P-12 tournament will be interesting.  Probably we would play UW, a team that can go off but is not deep and will have played the day before.  I think if we win that game and get into the P-12 semis or better, we are in great shape to host unless wackiness happens in other conference tournaments and teams in our range of RPI and ranking do very well.  Best of course is to keep winning, notch another two or three more.  If we win the P-12 tournament, we might be a 3 seed.  I do worry the committee will not want to give 4 P-12 teams top 4 seeds, just because in the past the conference as a whole has not done well in the NCAAs except for us and Cal's one miracle F4.

Re: WBB: Stanford 76 Oregon State 54 - CompSci87 - 02-27-2016

(02-27-2016, 11:51 AM)81alum link Wrote:Before the game, Kate answered a question about the zone defenses we have faced.  The question was something like "In the past the way to kill zones has been with three point shooting, but we don't seem to be able to do that this year.  Why?"

And the answer was something like:  "You need strong post play to force the zone to collapse inwards, otherwise the zone extends out and blankets the three point shooters.  Earlier on we were not getting strong enough inside play to force the zone to collapse."

In other words, modern zone defense can do just as good a job at covering three point shots as it can at covering points in the paint--but it can't do both simultaneously.  The inside threat just has to be great enough to pull the perimeter of the zone inside.

I'm not sure if that was actually what we did to beat the zone last night, though.  I think the mid-range jumpers somehow messed with it.  I'll have to review the game and keep an eye on when OSU switched in and out.

I think what Kate said about OSU's defensive style giving up midrange shots applied to their zone as well as man. Hamblin and their other bigs wouldn't venture far from the hoop in a zone, so the idea was mostly to penetrate past the extended perimeter and then mostly get midrange looks. The details of how to penetrate are different between zone and man, though.

Re: WBB: Stanford 76 Oregon State 54 - 81alum - 02-27-2016

(02-27-2016, 05:27 PM)CompSci87 link Wrote:[quote author=81alum link=topic=14651.msg157328#msg157328 date=1456599076]
Before the game, Kate answered a question about the zone defenses we have faced.  The question was something like "In the past the way to kill zones has been with three point shooting, but we don't seem to be able to do that this year.  Why?"

And the answer was something like:  "You need strong post play to force the zone to collapse inwards, otherwise the zone extends out and blankets the three point shooters.  Earlier on we were not getting strong enough inside play to force the zone to collapse."

In other words, modern zone defense can do just as good a job at covering three point shots as it can at covering points in the paint--but it can't do both simultaneously.  The inside threat just has to be great enough to pull the perimeter of the zone inside.

I'm not sure if that was actually what we did to beat the zone last night, though.  I think the mid-range jumpers somehow messed with it.  I'll have to review the game and keep an eye on when OSU switched in and out.

I think what Kate said about OSU's defensive style giving up midrange shots applied to their zone as well as man. Hamblin and their other bigs wouldn't venture far from the hoop in a zone, so the idea was mostly to penetrate past the extended perimeter and then mostly get midrange looks. The details of how to penetrate are different between zone and man, though.
[/quote]

I think you are right about that.  Did anyone notice how open Kailee was, over and over and over again, a few feet inside the top of the arc?  If she could take and make a 17-18 foot jumper we would have won by another 20 points.  She did try a three point shot, at least, but missed it and her other attempt.  But not only did OSU sag off of her, they just completely ignored her.

Re: WBB: Stanford 76 Oregon State 54 - BobK - 02-27-2016

That one Kailee shot was with 2 seconds or close left on the clock.  But do agree with you 81

Re: WBB: Stanford 76 Oregon State 54 - CompSci87 - 02-27-2016

I suppose it's too late to fix Kailee's shot. Putting the ball back behind her head before shooting can't be good.

Re: WBB: Stanford 76 Oregon State 54 - Griffins78 - 02-27-2016

Ever see Jamal (Keith) "Smooth as Silk" Wilkes shoot?

Re: WBB: Stanford 76 Oregon State 54 - 81alum - 02-27-2016

(02-27-2016, 09:41 PM)Griffin78 link Wrote:Ever see Jamal (Keith) "Smooth as Silk" Wilkes shoot?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_fMXG2wE5U

Yes, Kailee does bring the ball back over her head like Jamaal Wilkes.  I don't think I would extend the comparison further, though ;)

Did you all catch the post-game interview with Erica McCall?  The interview was pretty ordinary, but what was a riot were her teammates flying around like "birds" in the background.

http://pac-12.com/videos/stanfords-erica-mccall-after-upsetting-no-7-oregon-state

Re: WBB: Stanford 76 Oregon State 54 - CompSci87 - 02-28-2016

(02-27-2016, 10:26 PM)81alum link Wrote:Did you all catch the post-game interview with Erica McCall?  The interview was pretty ordinary, but what was a riot were her teammates flying around like "birds" in the background.

http://pac-12.com/videos/stanfords-erica-mccall-after-upsetting-no-7-oregon-state

I saw them doing that from the stands while the interview was going on and we were waiting for the 1000 win celebration. Love how it showed up on the video!

Re: WBB: Stanford 76 Oregon State 54 - winflop - 02-28-2016

(02-28-2016, 12:33 AM)CompSci87 link Wrote:[quote author=81alum link=topic=14651.msg157369#msg157369 date=1456637214]
Did you all catch the post-game interview with Erica McCall?  The interview was pretty ordinary, but what was a riot were her teammates flying around like "birds" in the background.

http://pac-12.com/videos/stanfords-erica-mccall-after-upsetting-no-7-oregon-state

I saw them doing that from the stands while the interview was going on and we were waiting for the 1000 win celebration. Love how it showed up on the video!
[/quote]

Same here I had no idea what that was - any clues from WBB regular attendees?

Re: WBB: Stanford 76 Oregon State 54 - CompSci87 - 02-28-2016

They were doing it because McCall's nickname is Bird. Tara even calls her that when talking to the press.

Re: WBB: Stanford 76 Oregon State 54 - Jskass - 02-28-2016

When I saw that McPhee was one of them, I hoped that meant her foot was okay...