03-10-2012, 04:46 PM
Good points, VG.
I'm not sure I agree about Lindy's qualities. I have been less than pleased with her performance this year, whether it is lazy passes or just not paying attention. But I don't want to speak too badly about anyone now.
I do agree 100% with your assessment about Toni and Amber and their benefit to the team. If Amber can develop a 3 point shot by next year, it will really help.
I was anxious, but pleased with the results, about Nneka getting away from the basket on offense. A bold move, that I presume Tara suggested. In hindsight, it makes wonderful sense. Against some teams, Nneka & Chiney can hit 50-60% of their shots inside, so that's what they do. But, there are going to be teams for which that doesn't work, whether it is because of rough play, bigger (weight & height) inside opponents, or what. When they show they can step out and hit the open 15 footer, then the game changes. The opponent's defense is going to have to respond, or get burned. I hope Nneka's nearly half-court drive late in the game makes her highlight reel. That's another area I think she could do really well in, if she has to. Such a drive is very valuable as a press-breaker.
We all see that so much of our scoring is done by the O-team. A bunch of that is due to the fact that we DO get points by feeding it to the O-team. That strategy works well and seems to be the right idea, so we keep doing it. I saw several plays today where Toni or Jos or others had a decent chance at scoring, but instead they fed it to Nneka or Chiney for an easy two. Those are good decisions. But, it does mean that the rest of our players don't get the experience they would otherwise at developing their own offensive potential.
The great interior play doesn't excuse or explain the problems with 3 point shooting. Is it mental? Is it that 3 point shooting practice never has anything riding on it (no pressure, no adrenaline), or doesn't have a defender coming in fast?
We had more weak passes, both in the halfcourt and against the press, that cause me to cringe. We got burned less by them today than we would against some other teams.
As for the flagrant fouls, there were two others that seemed obvious to me that, IMO, should have been called against California. I probably wouldn't have called the one against Chiney, but I don't think it was a bad call. The ones they missed were more obvious.
I too think the block call against Jos was wrong because she had position. She did have her foot on the protect-the-shooter circle, but I don't think the rules indicate that is a block (just that it isn't called a charge).
More stats:
Surprising to me, this was our worst day for 2nd chance points. We got 13 offensive rebounds (avg = 15), but just 2 second chance points (avg = 16).
Only 38% of our FG had assists. That is a season low (avg = 58%)
It was our worst game for defensive rebounding percentage, just 55% (avg=70%) as we got 28 DR and they got 23 OR (a season high for our opponents).
[Our 19 fouls ties for 2nd most of the year (avg = 14). I thought the officials were just making calls for the benefit of the losing team.]
----
A comment from another discussion was that Stanford didn't play any "ranked" teams late in the season (since Dec. 20) and so weren't tested. I think today and yesterday were good tests. And also Jan 28. Each of those will help when we're up against different styles of teams that we'll see in the tourney.
----
Re conference rankings...
http://www.rpiratings.com/womensrpi.php has PAC-12 at 4th just barely ahead of 6
http://www.rpiratings.com/womrate.php has PAC-12 6th, fractionally behind 5th.
I would still like to understand RPI better. It seems likely that it feeds off of the incestuous games within conferences, but I just don't know. (For instance, if UConn and ND split a pair of games, they both get a quality win with no downside, so do both RPIs go up, while if Stanford beats K.al three times, does its RPI go down.)
I'm not sure I agree about Lindy's qualities. I have been less than pleased with her performance this year, whether it is lazy passes or just not paying attention. But I don't want to speak too badly about anyone now.
I do agree 100% with your assessment about Toni and Amber and their benefit to the team. If Amber can develop a 3 point shot by next year, it will really help.
I was anxious, but pleased with the results, about Nneka getting away from the basket on offense. A bold move, that I presume Tara suggested. In hindsight, it makes wonderful sense. Against some teams, Nneka & Chiney can hit 50-60% of their shots inside, so that's what they do. But, there are going to be teams for which that doesn't work, whether it is because of rough play, bigger (weight & height) inside opponents, or what. When they show they can step out and hit the open 15 footer, then the game changes. The opponent's defense is going to have to respond, or get burned. I hope Nneka's nearly half-court drive late in the game makes her highlight reel. That's another area I think she could do really well in, if she has to. Such a drive is very valuable as a press-breaker.
We all see that so much of our scoring is done by the O-team. A bunch of that is due to the fact that we DO get points by feeding it to the O-team. That strategy works well and seems to be the right idea, so we keep doing it. I saw several plays today where Toni or Jos or others had a decent chance at scoring, but instead they fed it to Nneka or Chiney for an easy two. Those are good decisions. But, it does mean that the rest of our players don't get the experience they would otherwise at developing their own offensive potential.
The great interior play doesn't excuse or explain the problems with 3 point shooting. Is it mental? Is it that 3 point shooting practice never has anything riding on it (no pressure, no adrenaline), or doesn't have a defender coming in fast?
We had more weak passes, both in the halfcourt and against the press, that cause me to cringe. We got burned less by them today than we would against some other teams.
As for the flagrant fouls, there were two others that seemed obvious to me that, IMO, should have been called against California. I probably wouldn't have called the one against Chiney, but I don't think it was a bad call. The ones they missed were more obvious.
I too think the block call against Jos was wrong because she had position. She did have her foot on the protect-the-shooter circle, but I don't think the rules indicate that is a block (just that it isn't called a charge).
More stats:
Surprising to me, this was our worst day for 2nd chance points. We got 13 offensive rebounds (avg = 15), but just 2 second chance points (avg = 16).
Only 38% of our FG had assists. That is a season low (avg = 58%)
It was our worst game for defensive rebounding percentage, just 55% (avg=70%) as we got 28 DR and they got 23 OR (a season high for our opponents).
[Our 19 fouls ties for 2nd most of the year (avg = 14). I thought the officials were just making calls for the benefit of the losing team.]
----
A comment from another discussion was that Stanford didn't play any "ranked" teams late in the season (since Dec. 20) and so weren't tested. I think today and yesterday were good tests. And also Jan 28. Each of those will help when we're up against different styles of teams that we'll see in the tourney.
----
Re conference rankings...
http://www.rpiratings.com/womensrpi.php has PAC-12 at 4th just barely ahead of 6
http://www.rpiratings.com/womrate.php has PAC-12 6th, fractionally behind 5th.
I would still like to understand RPI better. It seems likely that it feeds off of the incestuous games within conferences, but I just don't know. (For instance, if UConn and ND split a pair of games, they both get a quality win with no downside, so do both RPIs go up, while if Stanford beats K.al three times, does its RPI go down.)