The CardBoard
MBk: Stanford-South Dakota - 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: MBk: Stanford-South Dakota (/thread-8267.html)


MBk: Stanford-South Dakota - washingtonismoney - 11-16-2014

Still relatively close. To get my Dawkins annoyance out of the way, the lineup he's got on the floor -- Humphrey at PF, Nastic at C -- will not space the floor sufficiently at all.

Anyhow, it's close at 21-18. Humphrey looks like he'll be incredibly athletic -- in two years or so. Now he moves a bit like a newborn deer.

Re: MBk: Stanford-South Dakota - washingtonismoney - 11-16-2014

Robert Cartwright looks like he'll be a good one, but needs to learn how to play "fast" as opposed to "frantic." (Also had a bad airballed three, but we'll ignore that for the moment.)

Re: MBk: Stanford-South Dakota - washingtonismoney - 11-16-2014

STAN 40 - South Dakota 26. Solid half, took care of business.

Re: MBk: Stanford-South Dakota - Bruce Wang - 11-16-2014

Travis looks like the real deal. Maybe the best non twin in a long time. I like what Ive seen of Cartwright.

Re: MBk: Stanford-South Dakota - SamAtoms1980 - 11-16-2014

I will admit to not knowing much about this team coached by Voldemort's younger brother, but these South Dakota Coyotes better make some noise in the Summit League because they pushed us a little too hard.

Re: MBk: Stanford-South Dakota - washingtonismoney - 11-16-2014

(11-16-2014, 06:17 PM)SamAtoms1980 link Wrote:I will admit to not knowing much about this team coached by Voldemort's younger brother, but these South Dakota Coyotes better make some noise in the Summit League because they pushed us a little too hard.

FWIW, early computer rankings of South Dakota are:

KenPom: #268
BPI: (too early, no rankings)
The Power Rank: #247
Sagarin: #260

Obviously, super-early so shouldn't over-extrapolate from this game. But not a great look.

Re: MBk: Stanford-South Dakota - SamAtoms1980 - 11-16-2014

I wasn't pleased with our defense in the second half, and we have very tough road games next month that we are currently not ready for.  But we are playing multiple true freshmen, and getting pushed early will help them scale the learning curve.

Re: MBk: Stanford-South Dakota - TrumpCard - 11-17-2014

I won't complain about 2-0 with two double-digit victories in a year after losing two players to the NBA.  (Yes, I'm blissfully ignoring the exhibition.)  Count me in the group that says the team is doing fine so far and has the luxury of another month of development for the freshmen before facing stiff competition. 

Re: MBk: Stanford-South Dakota - FarmBoy - 11-17-2014

Quote:a year after losing two players to the NBA

I think that statement is a tad premature to make, considering neither have played in a regular season game in the league yet.

Josh: It looks like he's still in the D-League (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-thunder-josh-huestis-content-with-unique-career-path-unconcerned-about-outside-skepticism/article/5365539)

Dwight: Has also been sent to the D-League for some tuning up, now with the Celtics. Looks like he had a big game recently, so hopefully he'll be called up. http://www.celticsblog.com/2014/11/16/7232297/james-young-and-dwight-powell-impress-with-maine-red-claws



Re: MBk: Stanford-South Dakota - burger - 11-17-2014

(11-17-2014, 09:36 AM)garvin link Wrote:That game stayed much closer, much longer, than it should have. And South Dakota's ability to penetrate the lane was a little worrisome.
I also thought that the defense against SD was lackluster.  The sample size is tiny, but the per possession defensive stats are not good so far: Ken Pomeroy has us 88th on defense and 38th on offense in D-I.  By comparison, last year we were 66th on O and 43rd on D.

Re: MBk: Stanford-South Dakota - Bruce Wang - 11-17-2014

Just realized that the combined 2014 and 2015 classes would have a 4 star player at each of the 5 positions.  So by prospective talent, if all 5 of these guys start in a couple years, Stanford could be pretty good again.

In my recollection, I don't think we've had subsequent classes with 4 star players at each position. I could be wrong.  I'll just wait until garvin confirms or refutes.

Re: MBk: Stanford-South Dakota - BostonCard - 11-17-2014

One nice thing... we had a nice shooting day from the free throw line.

BC

Re: MBk: Stanford-South Dakota - TrumpCard - 11-17-2014

(11-17-2014, 02:42 PM)Publius link Wrote:Just realized that the combined 2014 and 2015 classes would have a 4 star player at each of the 5 positions.  So by prospective talent, if all 5 of these guys start in a couple years, Stanford could be pretty good again.

In my recollection, I don't think we've had subsequent classes with 4 star players at each position. I could be wrong.  I'll just wait until garvin confirms or refutes.

I only go back 20 years, but I think that covers the prime recruiting years.  During that time frame, I think '01-'02 might have been the only two-year period with five 4-star guys: Haryesz, Grunfeld, JChill, Little, Hernandez.  That's a PG, 2 wings and 2 posts.

More generally, if you look at recruiting for the last 6 years, Dawkins has landed 13 guys who were rated 4-star or better by Rivals or Scout.  The overall quality is not quite as good as Montgomery's recruiting from '97-'02, but it's been damn good.  Now the key is to use that talent to win more games.

Re: MBk: Stanford-South Dakota - Bruce Wang - 11-17-2014

(11-17-2014, 04:17 PM)TrumpCard link Wrote:I only go back 20 years, but I think that covers the prime recruiting years.  During that time frame, I think '01-'02 might have been the only two-year period with five 4-star guys: Haryesz, Grunfeld, JChill, Little, Hernandez.  That's a PG, 2 wings and 2 posts.

I checked.  Haryesz was 3/4 (Rivals/Scout), Grunfeld was 3/4.  They don't show the rankings before 2002.  IIRC Childress was 5/5, Hernandez was 4/5 and Little was 3/3.

Re: MBk: Stanford-South Dakota - BostonCard - 11-17-2014

(11-17-2014, 10:46 PM)garvin link Wrote:Childress was regarded as a prize catch. And I remember Rob Little being described as a sleeper recruit, a project that would 59er fruit late in his career, which turned out to be pretty accurate.

Collateral damage of the autocorrect "feature".

BC