The CardBoard
WBB: Stanford 69 U.SC 52 - 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 69 U.SC 52 (/thread-2951.html)


WBB: Stanford 69 U.SC 52 - 81alum - 02-09-2012

About 5 minutes into the game, U.SC grabbed a 1 point lead, then Stanford led the rest of the way.  This was not a blowout game--the lead seldom was over 20,  but it also never felt tense to me.

Chiney looks better and better, big sister seems not to be quite as accurate as she was earlier in the year, but still plenty good.  Nneka  was 7/15 with only 8 rebounds.  Chiney was 7/9 with 12 rebounds.  They both got into a bit of foul trouble.  Chiney had 6 blocks!

Toni had a nice game and continues to carry an excellent assist/turnover margin.  Tara played her for 38 minutes.  It is becoming clear that Tara views her as indispensable.  There were one or two plays where she badly beat her defenders and slashed to the basket.  She wound up with 5 assists to 2 turnovers, and went 5/10 with 15 points.  Only one three pointer though.

Joslyn had a pretty quiet game but played a lot of key minutes.  She started and played 24 minutes, had 4 points.  But I was surprised when I looked at her stat line that she had 0 rebounds, although she was credited with a block and a steal.

Amber started but played just 12 minutes, Lindy played 27.  I wish I knew more what is going on there.  This is now the regular pattern.  Lindy had two slashing layups to the basket that looked very nice, and she also had 3 assists.  One came after she passed up a wide open three point shot that had the crowd audibly gasp.  Lindy seems to have completely lost her self-confidence on the three, and the crowd knew it, and other teams know it and seem to dare her to shoot it.    Amber had 1 assist and 1 turnover, 0 points, but not much of a chance.

The key worries going forward continue to be three point shooting and depth.  We were 2-10 on three pointers in the first half, and then 0-2 in the second.  The broadcasters and no doubt the other teams are well aware that Stanford is not currently an outside threat.  Ruef and Boothe are still out and it is beginning to look--if you add in Jasmine and  Alex as if we have lost 4 players for the rest of the way.

Re: WBB: Stanford 69 U.SC 52 - M T - 02-10-2012

This seemed a marginal game by Stanford.  USC had 13 more shots on goal than us (our 5th game where we were outshot, but this is the biggest difference).  This was our third worst rebounding game (OR% 27%  DR% 71%. Previous USC game was 36% and 67%).  Our 7 OR is the season low, partially caused by our season low of just 45 FGA (and season low 23 FG).

We had just 2 TO at half, but wound up at 11 total (vs USC's 10).  I'd be tempted to say the 23 FT made was a bright spot (our highest for the season), but our 33 FTA was also the highest.  70% FT% is just about average for us.

We won this game with defense.  Either that, or it could be blamed on USC's bad shooting (under 30%).  I was pleased that the most any opponent scored was 11.  Last time Corral scored 21.


Quote:Lindy had two slashing layups to the basket that looked very nice, and she also had 3 assists.  One came after she passed up a wide open three point shot that had the crowd audibly gasp.  Lindy seems to have completely lost her self-confidence on the three, and the crowd knew it, and other teams know it and seem to dare her to shoot it.

Congrats to Lindy for showing such good judgement.  I don't know if that was her own decision as to how she should play, or whether the coaches are telling her to look for cuts to the basket instead of offering up prayers.  (Lindy:  2 of 2 on 2ptrs, 0 of 1 on 3ptrs, 0 of 2 at FT line. A/TO = 3/2).  I recall two passes she made from deep to one of the O-team:  One worked beautifully and the other was intercepted.

In the first half, I thought she should have gone for the long rebound but she backed off instead.  I disagree with the TV announcer who said it was a good idea not to.  The downside would have been that we had 1 defender back when the ball rolls out of bounds rather than 2.  But it wasn't that big a deal, and was just, in my opinion, the incorrect decision in a close call.

It does seem like all but the O-team are bailing out from rebound chances to get back for defense.  I haven't watched the full TV broadcast so I can't quote times, but when I watched the game from the stands, it seemed that, at both ends, we often had fewer rebounders than they had.  Fortunately the O-team, and particularly Nneka, must be part gecko and just latches onto the ball.

I hadn't realized Amber played so little.  I thought she did a respectable job when she was in.  Maybe A/TO of 1/1 is just not good enough.

I thought our one-on-one defense was doing pretty well.  But then Nneka got into foul trouble in the first half, and later Chiney, and we played more zone.  We didn't do well when Nneka was out in the first half, but it surprised me when she came back in with two fouls.  Congrats to both of them for managing their fouls later.  No doubt that is something they'll need in the tourney.

It struck me that Chiney has been scoring as many points as Nneka recently.  Maybe a bit of a sister rivalry going on there? (or, maybe, other teams are focusing on Nneka more).

The start of the second half worried me. This is one coach that might outcoach Tara.  They seemed to have figured out how Chiney moved the ball and were disrupting her, forcing turnovers.  We had as many turnovers in the first minute as we'd had in the entire first half.  Fortunately, we survived the initial push (USC scored 8 of the first 10 points) and wound up even for the first 4 minutes of the 2nd half.  Kudos to the team and coaches for recovering.


Re: WBB: Stanford 69 U.SC 52 - 81alum - 02-10-2012

(02-10-2012, 01:33 PM)MT link Wrote:This was our third worst rebounding game (OR% 27%  DR% 71%.
...
Congrats to Lindy for showing such good judgement. 
...
It struck me that Chiney has been scoring as many points as Nneka recently. 

Agreed. Agreed.  Agreed.

The broadcasters noted that SC had installed a lineup specifically to improve its rebounding against us.  It was a major focus for them.  The good news is that we did better in the second half.  They were actually out rebounding us in the first half.

I hope that if Lindy can keep having success slashing it will give her the confidence to start landing the threes, too.  I worry about stalling out in the big tournament against a big, tall team that sells out to stop the inside game--unless we can punish them from outside.

Chiney has just started to soar over the last month.  She is just astonishing.  She was  7/7 at one point, I think, and many of those were not easy shots.  And to have 6 blocks to go along with it.  She was good as a freshman, but Tara's adage that players show the most improvement when they become sophomores is certainly holding true.  My eye is not trained enough to critique her defense, but it seems that every broadcaster comments on it--that she stands out as being one of the best defensive players in the country.    All I know is that shooting 100% in traffic and blocking 6 shots--which she was doing at one point--is a  scrape-your-jaw-off-the-floor kind of performance.

Re: WBB: Stanford 69 U.SC 52 - Yellowlab - 02-10-2012

Lindy is fine against teams with average guards, but she has not not able to keep up with above average ones.  In fact, I might have to object to any sentence with the words "Lindy" and "slash" in it.  I applaud her effort, but she has consistently struggled to finish at the basket.

With apologies to Carolyn Peck, I think it is clear that Stanford, at this point in time, deserves a number 1 seed.  However, with the exception of Toni, Stanford's guard play is not going to stack up against the better teams.  Tara has even tinkered with playing Taylor Greenfield at the 2 spot.

Chiney deserves all of the accolades, but she has done almost all of her scoring on put backs and drives to the basket.  How is that going to work against teams with better post defenders?  Even Nneka's jump shot seems to have deserted her since her ankle injury.  It isn't hard to game plan Stanford right now.

Another cause for concern: Although both James and Samuelson played, Tara essentially used a seven player rotation.

OTOH, I've seen Duke a couple of times this year, and for all of Stanford's flaws, they are better than Duke.



Re: WBB: Stanford 69 U.SC 52 - Griffins78 - 02-10-2012

Toni is getting back to form from last year's injury. Starting to see her moving more confidently and be able to shift it into a higher gear. Still not up to her peak form from last year but getting there on both offense and defense. I think this will be a key to our success. As Toni ramps up her game - it gives Amber more time with less pressure to get comfortable in her role. Her development is also critical this year. She has times of defensive brilliance that we could really use and occasionally terrific passing. I'd really like to see her drive to the basket more aggressively. I think that was one of the big contributions that Toni gave us last year and really opens things up for us.

It seemed to me - but not certain - that we ran more of a weave on offense - similar to how other teams have been playing against us. I really liked the way we moved the ball around on offense in this game. Crisp, quick passing - 'SC was trying to trap or help or double and we moved the ball so well it led to open shots and layups. It seemed to start when Nneka went to the bench and Jos came in.

On defense we were helping out and switching about as well as I've seen. It really was our defense that led to their poor shooting. They had a difficult time getting space. Chiney was blocking just about every other shot in the lane - I gather she was credited for 6 but I counted a lot more shots that she deflected or blocked. Ashley Corral had a great game but it seemed almost every time she drove into the lane, Chiney blocked her shot and Ashley was sent sprawling onto the ground. And we caused them to run out the shot clock or rush to beat it a number of times.

Re: WBB: Stanford 69 U.SC 52 - CompSci87 - 02-10-2012

? I didn't think Toni's injury from last year was that bad. She sprained an ankle in the second round of the NCAAs, and was able to play in later rounds but definitely was hobbled. That's normal for an ankle sprain from which usually you'd be completely recovered after a month or so. Why do some folks think she is still in the process of getting back to form 10 months later? Something I don't know about?

Re: WBB: Stanford 69 U.SC 52 - treefan - 02-11-2012

(02-10-2012, 03:24 PM)garvin link Wrote:It could be that we're genuinely the fourth-best team in the country. But there's a big gap between the top three and the rest of us. Even if we make the Final Four -- and I think there's an excellent chance we'll upset earlier by somebody who figures out a way to bottle up both Ogwumikes at once -- I think we'll be shredded by Baylor, Connecticut or the University of South Bend.

I don't think we'd be shredded by UConn at all. In fact, I think the O sisters would own them on neutral court.

Winning streaks - M T - 02-11-2012

From UConn's game notes dated 2/11/12 (vs Georgetown):
"Below is the list of the longest all-time regluar[sic]-season conference winning streaks"
They list 124 for Texas, 96 for ODU, 66 for LaTech, and 57 for Connecticut.

Stanford won the last 13 regular season conf. games of 2008-2009, then 18 in 2009-2010,
then 18 in 2010-2011, and had won the first 9 regular season conf. games of 2011-2012 as of our
last overtime win (1/28/12).  That made 58 (now 61) consecutive regular season conference wins..  (Going back further, Stanford was 17-1 in 2008-9, 16-2 in 2007-8, 17-1 2006-7, 15-3 2005-6, 17-1 2004-5.  So, since the start of 2006, Stanford is 98-4 in regular season conference games.)

Anyone care to inform the UConn athletic department that they need to update their game notes?

It seemed odd that UConn uses "regular season conference wins" in their literature, while Stanford uses "wins against conference opponents." Stanford passed UConn for the former before tying them for the latter on Thursday at 69.

TV graphic of Consecutive Wins vs Conf. Opp.:
Texas 143, ODU 115, LaTech 77, Conn 69, Stanford (now 69)
We have 6 more such games this year, so we won't pass LaTech this year but may next year.  It would take two years beyond that before the LaTech record could be threatened (2015-16), and two more years beyond that to approach the Texas record (2017-18).  Seems impossible! 

Here's a sorta scary stat.  UConn players this year (to 2/10) have a total of 5 double-doubles across the whole team.


Re: WBB: Stanford 69 U.SC 52 - M T - 02-11-2012

Toward the end of watching the TV broadcast of the U.SC game, I took notes about the playing and rebounding.

From 8:41 to 1:06, in the 2nd half, here are the numbers of rebounders in position for each team for each FGA or foul on a shot (ignoring FT), with Stanford numbers first
(eg, 4-3 means 4 Stanford rebounders, 3 U.SC rebounders)
Stanford defensive end:  4-3, 3-3, 2-3, 3-2, 3-3, 2-3, 1-1, 5-3, 3-1, 2-1, 3-3, 4-4, 4-3, 4-3, 3-3, 4-1 (avg 3.125 - 2.75, def. team advantage 0.375 players/rebound)
Stanford offensive end:  3-4, 2-4,1-3, 3-5, 2-5, 2-5, 3-5 (avg 2.286 - 4.429, def. team advantage 2.143 players/rebound)
That's a major difference in rebounders, which should give U.SC quite an advantage.
However, U.SC got 2 defensive and 4 offensive rebounds in those chances, while Stanford got 7 defensive and 1 offensive rebounds.
The fact that Stanford wasn't out-rebounded badly is a credit to the skills of the O-team.

However, Stanford made only one FG during that time, while U.SC made 4 (2 were 2nd chance FG).

During this period, I saw both Lindy (8:31, 6:51, 6:48, 3:53) and Joslyn (8:13, 6:48, 1:35) heading back to the offensive end when they should have stayed (IMO) for a possible defensive rebound.  I even saw Nneka do it once (1:35).  It isn't like we were getting lots of fast breaks on them (2 FB FGs) so I don't really understand why we were assuming we'd get defensive rebounds (that we didn't always get).  (Leaving early makes sense on offensive rebound chances so as to avoid an opponent's fast break.)  At the 1:35 mark, two players that are rebounders started leaning & going to the offensive end before the ball hits the rim and are beyond the 3pt line when the rebound is contested.  That seems the wrong thing to do if you want to hold your lead.  It hurt at 1:22 when everyone else headed to the offensive end and left Nneka and Toni with a number of opponents, resulting in a turnover.

While Stanford earlier had done some really good switching on one-on-one defense,  in this stretch they left some people open by one player switching but the other not.  (5:12 Nneka switches, Toni doesn't;  2:43 Lindy switches; Chiney doesn't)

In this stretch, there were several cases where Lindy was slow to react (but not caused by her head being turned), plus another where she gave a big cushion that resulted in her having to go around a screen, resulting in an open 3pt shot.


Re: WBB: Stanford 69 U.SC 52 - 81alum - 02-11-2012

Those are interesting observations, MT.  I wonder what the explanation might be.  Are certain players instructed to leave early for some reason?  Do they gauge whether they have a chance at the rebound based on the shot while it is in the air, and leave if they think they do not?  Or are they simply making mental errors?