The CardBoard
WBB: Stanford 67 Oregon State 60 - 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 67 Oregon State 60 (/thread-2753.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

WBB: Stanford 67 Oregon State 60 - 81alum - 01-07-2012

This was way too close for comfort.  Oregon State led by 4 at the half and led as late as with 10:30 in the second half.  Oregon State used their dribble-drive offense to take the ball to the basket repeatedly in the first half and scored 65% of the time, with Stanford scoring just 36% in the half and for the night.

To give you a hint of how this game went, consider that we won it while making 36% of our field goals, while Oregon State lost it while making 49% of theirs.

The crowd was spooked.  They tried cheering more than is usual for our normal blowout league games.  One guy stood up and yelled "What team is this?" 

It looked to me that they were swarming all over Nneka, but when we got it out on the perimeter it seemed they were all over our shooters.  Nneka wound up with 33 points and 16 rebounds.  That may sound outstanding, but she was only 11/29, and was up against a 6'7" center much of the night.  She made some awe inspiring shots, but overall she was hampered--she is normally a 60% shooter.  She gave us the victory in two other ways--with 6 offensive rebounds and 11 free throws.  (She also passed several career milestones--2000 points and 1000 rebounds, which the crowd warmly acknowledged.) 

But the offense looked very one dimensional to me.  This is what Thursday's Oregon game might have looked like if nobody shot any threes.  Today, for some reason, we only attempted 8 threes and made only 2.  Chiney had 20 points doing the kinds of things that Nneka also did--but no one else had more than 5.  Toni was 1-5, Taylor 0-3, Lindy 1-3, Bonnie 1-2, Joslyn 2-5.  Pretty much all significant offense went through the O sisters.

I wish I knew more about defense--hopefully we will get a lesson from Viking Guy--but it looked horrible in the first half and much improved in the second.  Giving up 65% shooting and nearly all of it on dribbles right up to the hoop just looked atrocious.  In the second half the defenders seemed to play with more intensity.

Tara came out and talked to the crowd after the game.  She confirmed that it was a rough half time locker room talk, and that the young players still are learning how to play defense with intensity.  She reminded us that in high school they often played almost no man defense at all.  It is clear that she thinks her frosh can shoot the ball but that they have a long ways to go to be ready for defense.  She also remarked that this kind of a win is better for the team than the easy blowouts.  But if we could only beat Oregon State in this manner at Maples, how will we do when we play them at home?

An interesting new wrinkle that Tara talked about was sending Joslyn in to play the 3 position--the position that Taylor and Bonnie play.  Joslyn is like Kayla--a more natural 4, but in this game Tara thought in the second half she needed someone with more experience and intensity at the 3.

Tara also remarked that we didn't make many threes--but we didn't need to in this game.  I get the impression that the players were coached to "get it to Nneka" and avoid so many three point shots as we had in the Oregon game.

I'm glad we pulled out a win.  But here we are deep into the season and we are still talking about getting offensive support for the Ogwumike sisters.  And we are still talking about the learning curve for our young players.  An awful lot of learning needs to happen over the next two months.

WBB: Stanford 67 Oregon State 60 - 81alum - 01-07-2012

This was way too close for comfort.  Oregon State led by 4 at the half and led as late as with 10:30 in the second half.  Oregon State used their dribble-drive offense to take the ball to the basket repeatedly in the first half and scored 65% of the time, with Stanford scoring just 36% in the half and for the night.

To give you a hint of how this game went, consider that we won it while making 36% of our field goals, while Oregon State lost it while making 49% of theirs.

The crowd was spooked.  They tried cheering more than is usual for our normal blowout league games.  One guy stood up and yelled "What team is this?" 

It looked to me that they were swarming all over Nneka, but when we got it out on the perimeter it seemed they were all over our shooters.  Nneka wound up with 33 points and 16 rebounds.  That may sound outstanding, but she was only 11/29, and was up against a 6'7" center much of the night.  She made some awe inspiring shots, but overall she was hampered--she is normally a 60% shooter.  She gave us the victory in two other ways--with 6 offensive rebounds and 11 free throws.  (She also passed several career milestones--2000 points and 1000 rebounds, which the crowd warmly acknowledged.) 

But the offense looked very one dimensional to me.  This is what Thursday's Oregon game might have looked like if nobody shot any threes.  Today, for some reason, we only attempted 8 threes and made only 2.  Chiney had 20 points doing the kinds of things that Nneka also did--but no one else had more than 5.  Toni was 1-5, Taylor 0-3, Lindy 1-3, Bonnie 1-2, Joslyn 2-5.  Pretty much all significant offense went through the O sisters.

I wish I knew more about defense--hopefully we will get a lesson from Viking Guy--but it looked horrible in the first half and much improved in the second.  Giving up 65% shooting and nearly all of it on dribbles right up to the hoop just looked atrocious.  In the second half the defenders seemed to play with more intensity.

Tara came out and talked to the crowd after the game.  She confirmed that it was a rough half time locker room talk, and that the young players still are learning how to play defense with intensity.  She reminded us that in high school they often played almost no man defense at all.  It is clear that she thinks her frosh can shoot the ball but that they have a long ways to go to be ready for defense.  She also remarked that this kind of a win is better for the team than the easy blowouts.  But if we could only beat Oregon State in this manner at Maples, how will we do when we play them at home?

An interesting new wrinkle that Tara talked about was sending Joslyn in to play the 3 position--the position that Taylor and Bonnie play.  Joslyn is like Kayla--a more natural 4, but in this game Tara thought in the second half she needed someone with more experience and intensity at the 3.

Tara also remarked that we didn't make many threes--but we didn't need to in this game.  I get the impression that the players were coached to "get it to Nneka" and avoid so many three point shots as we had in the Oregon game.

I'm glad we pulled out a win.  But here we are deep into the season and we are still talking about getting offensive support for the Ogwumike sisters.  And we are still talking about the learning curve for our young players.  An awful lot of learning needs to happen over the next two months.

WBB: Stanford 67 Oregon State 60 - 81alum - 01-07-2012

This was way too close for comfort.  Oregon State led by 4 at the half and led as late as with 10:30 in the second half.  Oregon State used their dribble-drive offense to take the ball to the basket repeatedly in the first half and scored 65% of the time, with Stanford scoring just 36% in the half and for the night.

To give you a hint of how this game went, consider that we won it while making 36% of our field goals, while Oregon State lost it while making 49% of theirs.

The crowd was spooked.  They tried cheering more than is usual for our normal blowout league games.  One guy stood up and yelled "What team is this?" 

It looked to me that they were swarming all over Nneka, but when we got it out on the perimeter it seemed they were all over our shooters.  Nneka wound up with 33 points and 16 rebounds.  That may sound outstanding, but she was only 11/29, and was up against a 6'7" center much of the night.  She made some awe inspiring shots, but overall she was hampered--she is normally a 60% shooter.  She gave us the victory in two other ways--with 6 offensive rebounds and 11 free throws.  (She also passed several career milestones--2000 points and 1000 rebounds, which the crowd warmly acknowledged.) 

But the offense looked very one dimensional to me.  This is what Thursday's Oregon game might have looked like if nobody shot any threes.  Today, for some reason, we only attempted 8 threes and made only 2.  Chiney had 20 points doing the kinds of things that Nneka also did--but no one else had more than 5.  Toni was 1-5, Taylor 0-3, Lindy 1-3, Bonnie 1-2, Joslyn 2-5.  Pretty much all significant offense went through the O sisters.

I wish I knew more about defense--hopefully we will get a lesson from Viking Guy--but it looked horrible in the first half and much improved in the second.  Giving up 65% shooting and nearly all of it on dribbles right up to the hoop just looked atrocious.  In the second half the defenders seemed to play with more intensity.

Tara came out and talked to the crowd after the game.  She confirmed that it was a rough half time locker room talk, and that the young players still are learning how to play defense with intensity.  She reminded us that in high school they often played almost no man defense at all.  It is clear that she thinks her frosh can shoot the ball but that they have a long ways to go to be ready for defense.  She also remarked that this kind of a win is better for the team than the easy blowouts.  But if we could only beat Oregon State in this manner at Maples, how will we do when we play them at home?

An interesting new wrinkle that Tara talked about was sending Joslyn in to play the 3 position--the position that Taylor and Bonnie play.  Joslyn is like Kayla--a more natural 4, but in this game Tara thought in the second half she needed someone with more experience and intensity at the 3.

Tara also remarked that we didn't make many threes--but we didn't need to in this game.  I get the impression that the players were coached to "get it to Nneka" and avoid so many three point shots as we had in the Oregon game.

I'm glad we pulled out a win.  But here we are deep into the season and we are still talking about getting offensive support for the Ogwumike sisters.  And we are still talking about the learning curve for our young players.  An awful lot of learning needs to happen over the next two months.

WBB: Stanford 67 Oregon State 60 - 81alum - 01-07-2012

This was way too close for comfort.  Oregon State led by 4 at the half and led as late as with 10:30 in the second half.  Oregon State used their dribble-drive offense to take the ball to the basket repeatedly in the first half and scored 65% of the time, with Stanford scoring just 36% in the half and for the night.

To give you a hint of how this game went, consider that we won it while making 36% of our field goals, while Oregon State lost it while making 49% of theirs.

The crowd was spooked.  They tried cheering more than is usual for our normal blowout league games.  One guy stood up and yelled "What team is this?" 

It looked to me that they were swarming all over Nneka, but when we got it out on the perimeter it seemed they were all over our shooters.  Nneka wound up with 33 points and 16 rebounds.  That may sound outstanding, but she was only 11/29, and was up against a 6'7" center much of the night.  She made some awe inspiring shots, but overall she was hampered--she is normally a 60% shooter.  She gave us the victory in two other ways--with 6 offensive rebounds and 11 free throws.  (She also passed several career milestones--2000 points and 1000 rebounds, which the crowd warmly acknowledged.) 

But the offense looked very one dimensional to me.  This is what Thursday's Oregon game might have looked like if nobody shot any threes.  Today, for some reason, we only attempted 8 threes and made only 2.  Chiney had 20 points doing the kinds of things that Nneka also did--but no one else had more than 5.  Toni was 1-5, Taylor 0-3, Lindy 1-3, Bonnie 1-2, Joslyn 2-5.  Pretty much all significant offense went through the O sisters.

I wish I knew more about defense--hopefully we will get a lesson from Viking Guy--but it looked horrible in the first half and much improved in the second.  Giving up 65% shooting and nearly all of it on dribbles right up to the hoop just looked atrocious.  In the second half the defenders seemed to play with more intensity.

Tara came out and talked to the crowd after the game.  She confirmed that it was a rough half time locker room talk, and that the young players still are learning how to play defense with intensity.  She reminded us that in high school they often played almost no man defense at all.  It is clear that she thinks her frosh can shoot the ball but that they have a long ways to go to be ready for defense.  She also remarked that this kind of a win is better for the team than the easy blowouts.  But if we could only beat Oregon State in this manner at Maples, how will we do when we play them at home?

An interesting new wrinkle that Tara talked about was sending Joslyn in to play the 3 position--the position that Taylor and Bonnie play.  Joslyn is like Kayla--a more natural 4, but in this game Tara thought in the second half she needed someone with more experience and intensity at the 3.

Tara also remarked that we didn't make many threes--but we didn't need to in this game.  I get the impression that the players were coached to "get it to Nneka" and avoid so many three point shots as we had in the Oregon game.

I'm glad we pulled out a win.  But here we are deep into the season and we are still talking about getting offensive support for the Ogwumike sisters.  And we are still talking about the learning curve for our young players.  An awful lot of learning needs to happen over the next two months.

Re: WBB: Stanford 67 Oregon 60 - unclechuck - 01-07-2012

You might want to proof read your title. There are two very different Pac12 teams from the state of Oregon.

Re: WBB: Stanford 67 Oregon 60 - unclechuck - 01-07-2012

You might want to proof read your title. There are two very different Pac12 teams from the state of Oregon.

Re: WBB: Stanford 67 Oregon 60 - unclechuck - 01-07-2012

You might want to proof read your title. There are two very different Pac12 teams from the state of Oregon.

Re: WBB: Stanford 67 Oregon 60 - unclechuck - 01-07-2012

You might want to proof read your title. There are two very different Pac12 teams from the state of Oregon.

Re: WBB: Stanford 67 Oregon State 60 - 81alum - 01-07-2012

Thank you. 

Re: WBB: Stanford 67 Oregon State 60 - 81alum - 01-07-2012

Thank you. 

Re: WBB: Stanford 67 Oregon State 60 - 81alum - 01-07-2012

Thank you. 

Re: WBB: Stanford 67 Oregon State 60 - 81alum - 01-07-2012

Thank you. 

Re: WBB: Stanford 67 Oregon 60 - sheriand - 01-07-2012

Oregon State played very well, congratulations to their new (last year) coach.  They were aggressive, up-tempo, and they kept up the pace and the pressure throughout the entire game.  Our offense was very cold in the first half.  I was happy to see Bonnie come in and hoped she would change things up, but she only made the one basket.    Thank heavens for Nneka, who seemed to struggle, but still had a tremendous game.  I'm getting to have a nervous reaction to black and orange uniforms...

Re: WBB: Stanford 67 Oregon 60 - sheriand - 01-07-2012

Oregon State played very well, congratulations to their new (last year) coach.  They were aggressive, up-tempo, and they kept up the pace and the pressure throughout the entire game.  Our offense was very cold in the first half.  I was happy to see Bonnie come in and hoped she would change things up, but she only made the one basket.    Thank heavens for Nneka, who seemed to struggle, but still had a tremendous game.  I'm getting to have a nervous reaction to black and orange uniforms...

Re: WBB: Stanford 67 Oregon 60 - sheriand - 01-07-2012

Oregon State played very well, congratulations to their new (last year) coach.  They were aggressive, up-tempo, and they kept up the pace and the pressure throughout the entire game.  Our offense was very cold in the first half.  I was happy to see Bonnie come in and hoped she would change things up, but she only made the one basket.    Thank heavens for Nneka, who seemed to struggle, but still had a tremendous game.  I'm getting to have a nervous reaction to black and orange uniforms...

Re: WBB: Stanford 67 Oregon 60 - sheriand - 01-07-2012

Oregon State played very well, congratulations to their new (last year) coach.  They were aggressive, up-tempo, and they kept up the pace and the pressure throughout the entire game.  Our offense was very cold in the first half.  I was happy to see Bonnie come in and hoped she would change things up, but she only made the one basket.    Thank heavens for Nneka, who seemed to struggle, but still had a tremendous game.  I'm getting to have a nervous reaction to black and orange uniforms...

Re: WBB: Stanford 67 Oregon 60 - Viking_Guy - 01-07-2012

81alum--

Well, let's see.  The first half, we played a non-switching player-to-player early, and got burned time and again.  Watching Lindy or Bonnie chase a driving guard down the lane after a simple pick at the top of the key was getting really tiring.  And, not to put it all on them, but there was no hedging help from the player defending the pick for a lot of the plays.  Simple drives to the hoop or dishes to the post when the underneath players had to rotate explains a lot of their shooting accuracy.  Also absent: any real attempt at fighting over or through the pick.

We played a possession or so of 2-3 zone coming out of a OSU timeout and generated a turnover, but then went right back.  Then switched to this 2-1-2 zone with which the coaching staff has apparently  fallen in love.  I don't really understand the appeal (although it does take away the middle of the lane normally), for one basic reason: in order for a 2-1-2 to generate pressure and stops, you need quick players chasing up top.  Our two most athletic players are playing the backline of that zone.  And with Jos or Taylor at the foul line in that zone, they were almost being used as picks themselves when the quicker Beaver guards got behind the two defenders outside - they would drive across the lane and cause more confusion.

In the second half, we played quite a bit more 2-3, and I think it helped for a while.  But then OSU actually put in an offense designed to counter the 2-3 (quick passes to the corner, then to the post or the foul line, reverse to the opposite corner, then either shoot or hit the player at the top of the arc as Stanford's defense tried to get out on the wing shooter).  And their shooting did cool off remarkably.  The other thing it did was stop our post players from having to come off their mark to help out - in the first half, OSU hung with Stanford on the boards in large part because of the rotation help from the bigs; in the second half, a more condensed defense helped Stanford outboard the Beavers something like 20-10.

The far larger issue was Stanford's offense.  OSU didn't even contest the tip off; they immediately fell into a 2-3 zone.  And Stanford did one of two things:  immediately force the ball in to a double- and triple-teamed Nneka, or pass it around the perimeter for 20 seconds and then force it in to a double and triple-teamed Nneka.  No one seemed willing to take an outside shot, and the Beavers' offensive efficiency meant there weren't a lot of transition opportunities off rebounds for the Cardinal.  And that continued pretty much the entire game.

I don't know if it's just the peculiarities of the Stanford version of the triangle, but until very late in the game, the offense didn't change up into a "zone-busting" look.  It simply kept trying to get the ball into the lane, and it worked often enough (mostly due to Nneka and Chiney's insane athletic abilities) for the coaches to keep at it.

The larger issue is, I think Tara's comments on Thursday about people not being able to hit shots really sent a chill through our guards - Lindy, Toni and Amber REALLY looked reluctant to shoot (and almost reluctant to feed Bonnie, who was willing; when she was on the floor, the ball kept reversing away from her).  It felt like a game in the Pac-10 tournament a few seasons back, when Stanford played Arizona State in the finals and Kelley Suminski basically played a one-woman zone because ASU's guards really didn't want to shoot.

In this game, I don't really think their perimeter recovered that quickly, I think Stanford just really didn't want to shoot outside, and OSU kept sagging 3-4 people into the paint.  The Cardinal's passing also left a lot to be desired; lots of toss it around the perimeter, most especially between Toni and Lindy, with very little aggression on the dribble or on the pass to try to get the zone moving.  The one exception was that Lindy kept trying to feed lobs to Nneka for her patented alley-oop layup; it worked once or twice, but then that third defender kept tipping the ball away because she didn't have to come out to defend anyone.

More generally, against the zone the ball has to keep moving, move in and out and laterally quickly, then reverse or kick out to shoot before the zone can recover, or make one more pass and try to catch the defenders over-committing to the initial chance.  OSU didn't care about the latter; Stanford's triggers from outside were very slow tonight.  And the Cardinal offense, with its emphasis on 3 perimeter - 2 post triangles, kept trying to play WITHIN those triangles, which goes right into the zone's strength.  Reverse or skip passes to the opposite corner create pressure on the zone, but Stanford only makes those passes around the perimeter.

Sorry if I'm being unclear.  Let's say Toni has the ball up top, with Lindy in the wing or corner and Nneka in the post.  The triangle principles Stanford seems to play within seem to preclude anyone other than Toni playing the ball to the opposite wing.  So if Nneka gets the ball and is doubled by Lindy's player, she kicks it back out to Lindy, who then (almost always) gives a half-hearted shot fake and either dumps the ball back in or brings it to Toni up top.  Rarely do you see the post kick it to the opposite wing herself.

The other big issue is the lack of multiple dimensions in the passing.  It is either horizontal (around the perimeter) or entry-kickout (into and out of the post).  What you need is post-to-post, or post to high post to corner, where multiple passes and OPTIONS come into play, rather than just a three-player game with two players waiting to (A) retreat on defense from the opposite wing or (B) crash the boards from the opposite post.

It got so bad that a friend of mine got upset with me when I started yelling what Stanford would do when they were walking the ball up in the second half and Toni and Lindy just started tossing it back and forth between them; I was that frustrated.  And it was on a possession that ended in a Stanford turnover (or maybe a held ball) because of that unimaginative and passive offensive mindset.

Near the end of the game, with Joslyn in playing the three, you started to get a glimpse of what the appropriate response to the 2-3 should have been all along.  Instead of 3 out-2 in triangle, Joslyn played the high post at the foul line (she's 6'4" - as long as she doesn't bring the ball down, she'll have a good look at the pass or the shot from there), with the two guards on either wing.  For two straight possessions late, she did that and pushed a 9 point Stanford lead out to 14, on a three-point conversion by Chiney and a free-throw line jumper when the D dropped off.  Hopefully we'll learn from that experience.

I don't know, maybe Tara's zone aversion extends to preparing to counter it.  But offensively, Stanford really seems to have trouble adapting to what the opponent offers.  They've been saved recently by outstanding performances by Nneka, with 2 or 3 other supporting cast.  But today showed that other teams are going to dedicate themselves to taking away as much of her room to operate as possible unless some perimeter player makes them pay for it.

The other thing missing offensively?  Penetration with the dribble of any kind.  I can understand being reluctant to drive given our great post players, but you have to be willing to punish over-committed perimeter defenders, which they faced today.

The thing missing defensively?  A one-on-one perimeter defender who can stay with quick players, as I've said before, a la Charmin Smith or Bobbie Kelsey.  Maybe Erica - she's been on the perimeter in the last couple of appearances I've seen?

In any case, yuck.

VG


Re: WBB: Stanford 67 Oregon 60 - Viking_Guy - 01-07-2012

81alum--

Well, let's see.  The first half, we played a non-switching player-to-player early, and got burned time and again.  Watching Lindy or Bonnie chase a driving guard down the lane after a simple pick at the top of the key was getting really tiring.  And, not to put it all on them, but there was no hedging help from the player defending the pick for a lot of the plays.  Simple drives to the hoop or dishes to the post when the underneath players had to rotate explains a lot of their shooting accuracy.  Also absent: any real attempt at fighting over or through the pick.

We played a possession or so of 2-3 zone coming out of a OSU timeout and generated a turnover, but then went right back.  Then switched to this 2-1-2 zone with which the coaching staff has apparently  fallen in love.  I don't really understand the appeal (although it does take away the middle of the lane normally), for one basic reason: in order for a 2-1-2 to generate pressure and stops, you need quick players chasing up top.  Our two most athletic players are playing the backline of that zone.  And with Jos or Taylor at the foul line in that zone, they were almost being used as picks themselves when the quicker Beaver guards got behind the two defenders outside - they would drive across the lane and cause more confusion.

In the second half, we played quite a bit more 2-3, and I think it helped for a while.  But then OSU actually put in an offense designed to counter the 2-3 (quick passes to the corner, then to the post or the foul line, reverse to the opposite corner, then either shoot or hit the player at the top of the arc as Stanford's defense tried to get out on the wing shooter).  And their shooting did cool off remarkably.  The other thing it did was stop our post players from having to come off their mark to help out - in the first half, OSU hung with Stanford on the boards in large part because of the rotation help from the bigs; in the second half, a more condensed defense helped Stanford outboard the Beavers something like 20-10.

The far larger issue was Stanford's offense.  OSU didn't even contest the tip off; they immediately fell into a 2-3 zone.  And Stanford did one of two things:  immediately force the ball in to a double- and triple-teamed Nneka, or pass it around the perimeter for 20 seconds and then force it in to a double and triple-teamed Nneka.  No one seemed willing to take an outside shot, and the Beavers' offensive efficiency meant there weren't a lot of transition opportunities off rebounds for the Cardinal.  And that continued pretty much the entire game.

I don't know if it's just the peculiarities of the Stanford version of the triangle, but until very late in the game, the offense didn't change up into a "zone-busting" look.  It simply kept trying to get the ball into the lane, and it worked often enough (mostly due to Nneka and Chiney's insane athletic abilities) for the coaches to keep at it.

The larger issue is, I think Tara's comments on Thursday about people not being able to hit shots really sent a chill through our guards - Lindy, Toni and Amber REALLY looked reluctant to shoot (and almost reluctant to feed Bonnie, who was willing; when she was on the floor, the ball kept reversing away from her).  It felt like a game in the Pac-10 tournament a few seasons back, when Stanford played Arizona State in the finals and Kelley Suminski basically played a one-woman zone because ASU's guards really didn't want to shoot.

In this game, I don't really think their perimeter recovered that quickly, I think Stanford just really didn't want to shoot outside, and OSU kept sagging 3-4 people into the paint.  The Cardinal's passing also left a lot to be desired; lots of toss it around the perimeter, most especially between Toni and Lindy, with very little aggression on the dribble or on the pass to try to get the zone moving.  The one exception was that Lindy kept trying to feed lobs to Nneka for her patented alley-oop layup; it worked once or twice, but then that third defender kept tipping the ball away because she didn't have to come out to defend anyone.

More generally, against the zone the ball has to keep moving, move in and out and laterally quickly, then reverse or kick out to shoot before the zone can recover, or make one more pass and try to catch the defenders over-committing to the initial chance.  OSU didn't care about the latter; Stanford's triggers from outside were very slow tonight.  And the Cardinal offense, with its emphasis on 3 perimeter - 2 post triangles, kept trying to play WITHIN those triangles, which goes right into the zone's strength.  Reverse or skip passes to the opposite corner create pressure on the zone, but Stanford only makes those passes around the perimeter.

Sorry if I'm being unclear.  Let's say Toni has the ball up top, with Lindy in the wing or corner and Nneka in the post.  The triangle principles Stanford seems to play within seem to preclude anyone other than Toni playing the ball to the opposite wing.  So if Nneka gets the ball and is doubled by Lindy's player, she kicks it back out to Lindy, who then (almost always) gives a half-hearted shot fake and either dumps the ball back in or brings it to Toni up top.  Rarely do you see the post kick it to the opposite wing herself.

The other big issue is the lack of multiple dimensions in the passing.  It is either horizontal (around the perimeter) or entry-kickout (into and out of the post).  What you need is post-to-post, or post to high post to corner, where multiple passes and OPTIONS come into play, rather than just a three-player game with two players waiting to (A) retreat on defense from the opposite wing or (B) crash the boards from the opposite post.

It got so bad that a friend of mine got upset with me when I started yelling what Stanford would do when they were walking the ball up in the second half and Toni and Lindy just started tossing it back and forth between them; I was that frustrated.  And it was on a possession that ended in a Stanford turnover (or maybe a held ball) because of that unimaginative and passive offensive mindset.

Near the end of the game, with Joslyn in playing the three, you started to get a glimpse of what the appropriate response to the 2-3 should have been all along.  Instead of 3 out-2 in triangle, Joslyn played the high post at the foul line (she's 6'4" - as long as she doesn't bring the ball down, she'll have a good look at the pass or the shot from there), with the two guards on either wing.  For two straight possessions late, she did that and pushed a 9 point Stanford lead out to 14, on a three-point conversion by Chiney and a free-throw line jumper when the D dropped off.  Hopefully we'll learn from that experience.

I don't know, maybe Tara's zone aversion extends to preparing to counter it.  But offensively, Stanford really seems to have trouble adapting to what the opponent offers.  They've been saved recently by outstanding performances by Nneka, with 2 or 3 other supporting cast.  But today showed that other teams are going to dedicate themselves to taking away as much of her room to operate as possible unless some perimeter player makes them pay for it.

The other thing missing offensively?  Penetration with the dribble of any kind.  I can understand being reluctant to drive given our great post players, but you have to be willing to punish over-committed perimeter defenders, which they faced today.

The thing missing defensively?  A one-on-one perimeter defender who can stay with quick players, as I've said before, a la Charmin Smith or Bobbie Kelsey.  Maybe Erica - she's been on the perimeter in the last couple of appearances I've seen?

In any case, yuck.

VG


Re: WBB: Stanford 67 Oregon 60 - Viking_Guy - 01-07-2012

81alum--

Well, let's see.  The first half, we played a non-switching player-to-player early, and got burned time and again.  Watching Lindy or Bonnie chase a driving guard down the lane after a simple pick at the top of the key was getting really tiring.  And, not to put it all on them, but there was no hedging help from the player defending the pick for a lot of the plays.  Simple drives to the hoop or dishes to the post when the underneath players had to rotate explains a lot of their shooting accuracy.  Also absent: any real attempt at fighting over or through the pick.

We played a possession or so of 2-3 zone coming out of a OSU timeout and generated a turnover, but then went right back.  Then switched to this 2-1-2 zone with which the coaching staff has apparently  fallen in love.  I don't really understand the appeal (although it does take away the middle of the lane normally), for one basic reason: in order for a 2-1-2 to generate pressure and stops, you need quick players chasing up top.  Our two most athletic players are playing the backline of that zone.  And with Jos or Taylor at the foul line in that zone, they were almost being used as picks themselves when the quicker Beaver guards got behind the two defenders outside - they would drive across the lane and cause more confusion.

In the second half, we played quite a bit more 2-3, and I think it helped for a while.  But then OSU actually put in an offense designed to counter the 2-3 (quick passes to the corner, then to the post or the foul line, reverse to the opposite corner, then either shoot or hit the player at the top of the arc as Stanford's defense tried to get out on the wing shooter).  And their shooting did cool off remarkably.  The other thing it did was stop our post players from having to come off their mark to help out - in the first half, OSU hung with Stanford on the boards in large part because of the rotation help from the bigs; in the second half, a more condensed defense helped Stanford outboard the Beavers something like 20-10.

The far larger issue was Stanford's offense.  OSU didn't even contest the tip off; they immediately fell into a 2-3 zone.  And Stanford did one of two things:  immediately force the ball in to a double- and triple-teamed Nneka, or pass it around the perimeter for 20 seconds and then force it in to a double and triple-teamed Nneka.  No one seemed willing to take an outside shot, and the Beavers' offensive efficiency meant there weren't a lot of transition opportunities off rebounds for the Cardinal.  And that continued pretty much the entire game.

I don't know if it's just the peculiarities of the Stanford version of the triangle, but until very late in the game, the offense didn't change up into a "zone-busting" look.  It simply kept trying to get the ball into the lane, and it worked often enough (mostly due to Nneka and Chiney's insane athletic abilities) for the coaches to keep at it.

The larger issue is, I think Tara's comments on Thursday about people not being able to hit shots really sent a chill through our guards - Lindy, Toni and Amber REALLY looked reluctant to shoot (and almost reluctant to feed Bonnie, who was willing; when she was on the floor, the ball kept reversing away from her).  It felt like a game in the Pac-10 tournament a few seasons back, when Stanford played Arizona State in the finals and Kelley Suminski basically played a one-woman zone because ASU's guards really didn't want to shoot.

In this game, I don't really think their perimeter recovered that quickly, I think Stanford just really didn't want to shoot outside, and OSU kept sagging 3-4 people into the paint.  The Cardinal's passing also left a lot to be desired; lots of toss it around the perimeter, most especially between Toni and Lindy, with very little aggression on the dribble or on the pass to try to get the zone moving.  The one exception was that Lindy kept trying to feed lobs to Nneka for her patented alley-oop layup; it worked once or twice, but then that third defender kept tipping the ball away because she didn't have to come out to defend anyone.

More generally, against the zone the ball has to keep moving, move in and out and laterally quickly, then reverse or kick out to shoot before the zone can recover, or make one more pass and try to catch the defenders over-committing to the initial chance.  OSU didn't care about the latter; Stanford's triggers from outside were very slow tonight.  And the Cardinal offense, with its emphasis on 3 perimeter - 2 post triangles, kept trying to play WITHIN those triangles, which goes right into the zone's strength.  Reverse or skip passes to the opposite corner create pressure on the zone, but Stanford only makes those passes around the perimeter.

Sorry if I'm being unclear.  Let's say Toni has the ball up top, with Lindy in the wing or corner and Nneka in the post.  The triangle principles Stanford seems to play within seem to preclude anyone other than Toni playing the ball to the opposite wing.  So if Nneka gets the ball and is doubled by Lindy's player, she kicks it back out to Lindy, who then (almost always) gives a half-hearted shot fake and either dumps the ball back in or brings it to Toni up top.  Rarely do you see the post kick it to the opposite wing herself.

The other big issue is the lack of multiple dimensions in the passing.  It is either horizontal (around the perimeter) or entry-kickout (into and out of the post).  What you need is post-to-post, or post to high post to corner, where multiple passes and OPTIONS come into play, rather than just a three-player game with two players waiting to (A) retreat on defense from the opposite wing or (B) crash the boards from the opposite post.

It got so bad that a friend of mine got upset with me when I started yelling what Stanford would do when they were walking the ball up in the second half and Toni and Lindy just started tossing it back and forth between them; I was that frustrated.  And it was on a possession that ended in a Stanford turnover (or maybe a held ball) because of that unimaginative and passive offensive mindset.

Near the end of the game, with Joslyn in playing the three, you started to get a glimpse of what the appropriate response to the 2-3 should have been all along.  Instead of 3 out-2 in triangle, Joslyn played the high post at the foul line (she's 6'4" - as long as she doesn't bring the ball down, she'll have a good look at the pass or the shot from there), with the two guards on either wing.  For two straight possessions late, she did that and pushed a 9 point Stanford lead out to 14, on a three-point conversion by Chiney and a free-throw line jumper when the D dropped off.  Hopefully we'll learn from that experience.

I don't know, maybe Tara's zone aversion extends to preparing to counter it.  But offensively, Stanford really seems to have trouble adapting to what the opponent offers.  They've been saved recently by outstanding performances by Nneka, with 2 or 3 other supporting cast.  But today showed that other teams are going to dedicate themselves to taking away as much of her room to operate as possible unless some perimeter player makes them pay for it.

The other thing missing offensively?  Penetration with the dribble of any kind.  I can understand being reluctant to drive given our great post players, but you have to be willing to punish over-committed perimeter defenders, which they faced today.

The thing missing defensively?  A one-on-one perimeter defender who can stay with quick players, as I've said before, a la Charmin Smith or Bobbie Kelsey.  Maybe Erica - she's been on the perimeter in the last couple of appearances I've seen?

In any case, yuck.

VG


Re: WBB: Stanford 67 Oregon 60 - Viking_Guy - 01-07-2012

81alum--

Well, let's see.  The first half, we played a non-switching player-to-player early, and got burned time and again.  Watching Lindy or Bonnie chase a driving guard down the lane after a simple pick at the top of the key was getting really tiring.  And, not to put it all on them, but there was no hedging help from the player defending the pick for a lot of the plays.  Simple drives to the hoop or dishes to the post when the underneath players had to rotate explains a lot of their shooting accuracy.  Also absent: any real attempt at fighting over or through the pick.

We played a possession or so of 2-3 zone coming out of a OSU timeout and generated a turnover, but then went right back.  Then switched to this 2-1-2 zone with which the coaching staff has apparently  fallen in love.  I don't really understand the appeal (although it does take away the middle of the lane normally), for one basic reason: in order for a 2-1-2 to generate pressure and stops, you need quick players chasing up top.  Our two most athletic players are playing the backline of that zone.  And with Jos or Taylor at the foul line in that zone, they were almost being used as picks themselves when the quicker Beaver guards got behind the two defenders outside - they would drive across the lane and cause more confusion.

In the second half, we played quite a bit more 2-3, and I think it helped for a while.  But then OSU actually put in an offense designed to counter the 2-3 (quick passes to the corner, then to the post or the foul line, reverse to the opposite corner, then either shoot or hit the player at the top of the arc as Stanford's defense tried to get out on the wing shooter).  And their shooting did cool off remarkably.  The other thing it did was stop our post players from having to come off their mark to help out - in the first half, OSU hung with Stanford on the boards in large part because of the rotation help from the bigs; in the second half, a more condensed defense helped Stanford outboard the Beavers something like 20-10.

The far larger issue was Stanford's offense.  OSU didn't even contest the tip off; they immediately fell into a 2-3 zone.  And Stanford did one of two things:  immediately force the ball in to a double- and triple-teamed Nneka, or pass it around the perimeter for 20 seconds and then force it in to a double and triple-teamed Nneka.  No one seemed willing to take an outside shot, and the Beavers' offensive efficiency meant there weren't a lot of transition opportunities off rebounds for the Cardinal.  And that continued pretty much the entire game.

I don't know if it's just the peculiarities of the Stanford version of the triangle, but until very late in the game, the offense didn't change up into a "zone-busting" look.  It simply kept trying to get the ball into the lane, and it worked often enough (mostly due to Nneka and Chiney's insane athletic abilities) for the coaches to keep at it.

The larger issue is, I think Tara's comments on Thursday about people not being able to hit shots really sent a chill through our guards - Lindy, Toni and Amber REALLY looked reluctant to shoot (and almost reluctant to feed Bonnie, who was willing; when she was on the floor, the ball kept reversing away from her).  It felt like a game in the Pac-10 tournament a few seasons back, when Stanford played Arizona State in the finals and Kelley Suminski basically played a one-woman zone because ASU's guards really didn't want to shoot.

In this game, I don't really think their perimeter recovered that quickly, I think Stanford just really didn't want to shoot outside, and OSU kept sagging 3-4 people into the paint.  The Cardinal's passing also left a lot to be desired; lots of toss it around the perimeter, most especially between Toni and Lindy, with very little aggression on the dribble or on the pass to try to get the zone moving.  The one exception was that Lindy kept trying to feed lobs to Nneka for her patented alley-oop layup; it worked once or twice, but then that third defender kept tipping the ball away because she didn't have to come out to defend anyone.

More generally, against the zone the ball has to keep moving, move in and out and laterally quickly, then reverse or kick out to shoot before the zone can recover, or make one more pass and try to catch the defenders over-committing to the initial chance.  OSU didn't care about the latter; Stanford's triggers from outside were very slow tonight.  And the Cardinal offense, with its emphasis on 3 perimeter - 2 post triangles, kept trying to play WITHIN those triangles, which goes right into the zone's strength.  Reverse or skip passes to the opposite corner create pressure on the zone, but Stanford only makes those passes around the perimeter.

Sorry if I'm being unclear.  Let's say Toni has the ball up top, with Lindy in the wing or corner and Nneka in the post.  The triangle principles Stanford seems to play within seem to preclude anyone other than Toni playing the ball to the opposite wing.  So if Nneka gets the ball and is doubled by Lindy's player, she kicks it back out to Lindy, who then (almost always) gives a half-hearted shot fake and either dumps the ball back in or brings it to Toni up top.  Rarely do you see the post kick it to the opposite wing herself.

The other big issue is the lack of multiple dimensions in the passing.  It is either horizontal (around the perimeter) or entry-kickout (into and out of the post).  What you need is post-to-post, or post to high post to corner, where multiple passes and OPTIONS come into play, rather than just a three-player game with two players waiting to (A) retreat on defense from the opposite wing or (B) crash the boards from the opposite post.

It got so bad that a friend of mine got upset with me when I started yelling what Stanford would do when they were walking the ball up in the second half and Toni and Lindy just started tossing it back and forth between them; I was that frustrated.  And it was on a possession that ended in a Stanford turnover (or maybe a held ball) because of that unimaginative and passive offensive mindset.

Near the end of the game, with Joslyn in playing the three, you started to get a glimpse of what the appropriate response to the 2-3 should have been all along.  Instead of 3 out-2 in triangle, Joslyn played the high post at the foul line (she's 6'4" - as long as she doesn't bring the ball down, she'll have a good look at the pass or the shot from there), with the two guards on either wing.  For two straight possessions late, she did that and pushed a 9 point Stanford lead out to 14, on a three-point conversion by Chiney and a free-throw line jumper when the D dropped off.  Hopefully we'll learn from that experience.

I don't know, maybe Tara's zone aversion extends to preparing to counter it.  But offensively, Stanford really seems to have trouble adapting to what the opponent offers.  They've been saved recently by outstanding performances by Nneka, with 2 or 3 other supporting cast.  But today showed that other teams are going to dedicate themselves to taking away as much of her room to operate as possible unless some perimeter player makes them pay for it.

The other thing missing offensively?  Penetration with the dribble of any kind.  I can understand being reluctant to drive given our great post players, but you have to be willing to punish over-committed perimeter defenders, which they faced today.

The thing missing defensively?  A one-on-one perimeter defender who can stay with quick players, as I've said before, a la Charmin Smith or Bobbie Kelsey.  Maybe Erica - she's been on the perimeter in the last couple of appearances I've seen?

In any case, yuck.

VG