02-12-2019, 05:05 PM
Maybe it will take time to develop some mid-range shooter for a hypothetically better offense, but how about the flip side of the game? Why didn't we have better defense?
If we had shot 50% from 2 and 50% from 3, and had the same number of shots (even though we should have fewer shots because of fewer OR chances), we would have scored the same number of points as they did. So even that level of offense wouldn't have been enough to win the game.
Are we thankful that Oregon shot "only" 51% from 2 since they shot 75% from 3? No one fouled out, so we shouldn't have been dropping off them. I expected our defenders not to let their opponents get away from them, or to switch when necessary. To me, the failure to come even close to the defensive performance we usually see is the most telling. I really don't think this is a "short turnaround" issue (which I think is bogus -- Stanford has known that game was coming and I hope has been preparing for it at every practice all season long; if anything, Oregon had a shorter turnaround (AND wasn't at their home court).)
If we had shot 50% from 2 and 50% from 3, and had the same number of shots (even though we should have fewer shots because of fewer OR chances), we would have scored the same number of points as they did. So even that level of offense wouldn't have been enough to win the game.
Are we thankful that Oregon shot "only" 51% from 2 since they shot 75% from 3? No one fouled out, so we shouldn't have been dropping off them. I expected our defenders not to let their opponents get away from them, or to switch when necessary. To me, the failure to come even close to the defensive performance we usually see is the most telling. I really don't think this is a "short turnaround" issue (which I think is bogus -- Stanford has known that game was coming and I hope has been preparing for it at every practice all season long; if anything, Oregon had a shorter turnaround (AND wasn't at their home court).)