02-11-2013, 04:33 AM
Another warm, bright Sunday afternoon inside Maples pavilion today. A good sized crowd of 4500, many of whom wore pink.
The game was never in doubt, which allows the fans to just enjoy the game (and, for me, not to pick on too many flaws). Stanford never trailed and Stanford just kept pulling away. I believe ASU made consecutive FG's (without an intervening Stanford score) only once in the game. Against the lower-performing teams, when our 3s are anything above abysmal, a zone defense doesn't really stop us. We weren't that great with the 3s at 25%, but Bonnie's 5 of 11 gave us excuses to cheer.
Like 81alum, I am impressed with Bonnie's improvement during the season. To be honest, I thought that she wouldn't contribute much beyond being a designated 3pt shooter. But she's showing decent hands, and a willingness to play tough. She still doesn't have the upper body strength, but she's definitely contributing.
Jos came on late with her scoring. Did you notice we had two double-doubles in the game? Again? Friday it was Chiney & Mikaela. Sunday it was Chiney and Jos.
As I look across the stats, it seems it was a little less offense than average. The game was relatively slowly paced (108 FGA vs average of 118). We took more 3s than average (20 vs average of 14) but with only an average number(5) made. Our 3pt attempts were 36% of our FGA (avg is 24%). 3PT% was only 25% (vs 32%). Because of Bonnie, we had more bench points than usual (21 vs 15). Our second chance points were 21 (avg of 12). While we had 7 TO (vs avg of 12), they only had 10 TO (vs avg of 12). ASU's Assist/FG ratio (56%) was above average (43%) and above Stanford's (48%).
It was good to see Charli Turner-Thorne again, but she seems more mellow. Maybe that has something to do with her time away from coaching?Â
In the last 4 games, our opponents scored 62, 45, 43, and 45 points resulting in wins by 24, 20, 30, and 24 points. That 62 points is fourth highest of the year, still keeping opponents under 70. Clearly defense is our strong suit, but it is hard to assign defensive stats to individual players.
I combined the last 4 easy-win games together for this table. There are some distortions in it from playing patterns. For example, I don't think this should be construed to imply that the other 4 teams would (collectively) outscore our first string if it weren't for Chiney. Instead, I think that when Chiney is out, we tend to put in all subs, who get outscored.
The table is complicated enough, but it struck me that one could add another column of total points scored per 40min game (OP/g + DP/g) while a player is in, to indicate the pace of the game. For instance, Sara's number for that would be 129.2 while Taylor's would be 115.9.
Tara was informed correctly: If we win out, we get the first seed at the PAC-12 tournament by the third tiebreaker, won-loss percentage against all Division 1 opponents. We will have one more win than C.al. Where that will matter is in the semi-final game, where we might play UCLA or Colorado.
---------
C.al squeaks by again, by 5 points. Arizona outshot them (50% to 47% FG%, 38% to 26% 3PT%, 91% to 57% FT%) but lost the battle of the PF (27 vs 17) and FT (22 vs 42) and rebounds (30 vs 41) and TO (21 vs 13). Arizona doubled their point production from when they played us (86 vs 43).
This was C.al's 6th PAC-12 game where at the end of regulation, they were 5 points or fewer ahead. Other than C.al, Stanford's least victory was 9 points against USC (where we had been up by 19, but let it get as close as 5).
The game was never in doubt, which allows the fans to just enjoy the game (and, for me, not to pick on too many flaws). Stanford never trailed and Stanford just kept pulling away. I believe ASU made consecutive FG's (without an intervening Stanford score) only once in the game. Against the lower-performing teams, when our 3s are anything above abysmal, a zone defense doesn't really stop us. We weren't that great with the 3s at 25%, but Bonnie's 5 of 11 gave us excuses to cheer.
Like 81alum, I am impressed with Bonnie's improvement during the season. To be honest, I thought that she wouldn't contribute much beyond being a designated 3pt shooter. But she's showing decent hands, and a willingness to play tough. She still doesn't have the upper body strength, but she's definitely contributing.
Jos came on late with her scoring. Did you notice we had two double-doubles in the game? Again? Friday it was Chiney & Mikaela. Sunday it was Chiney and Jos.
As I look across the stats, it seems it was a little less offense than average. The game was relatively slowly paced (108 FGA vs average of 118). We took more 3s than average (20 vs average of 14) but with only an average number(5) made. Our 3pt attempts were 36% of our FGA (avg is 24%). 3PT% was only 25% (vs 32%). Because of Bonnie, we had more bench points than usual (21 vs 15). Our second chance points were 21 (avg of 12). While we had 7 TO (vs avg of 12), they only had 10 TO (vs avg of 12). ASU's Assist/FG ratio (56%) was above average (43%) and above Stanford's (48%).
It was good to see Charli Turner-Thorne again, but she seems more mellow. Maybe that has something to do with her time away from coaching?Â
In the last 4 games, our opponents scored 62, 45, 43, and 45 points resulting in wins by 24, 20, 30, and 24 points. That 62 points is fourth highest of the year, still keeping opponents under 70. Clearly defense is our strong suit, but it is hard to assign defensive stats to individual players.
I combined the last 4 easy-win games together for this table. There are some distortions in it from playing patterns. For example, I don't think this should be construed to imply that the other 4 teams would (collectively) outscore our first string if it weren't for Chiney. Instead, I think that when Chiney is out, we tend to put in all subs, who get outscored.
| F | L | O | O | R | | | BENCH | | | Flr-Bnch | |||
Player | Min | Opts | Dpts | NetPts | Â OP/g | DP/g | NetP/G | Â Â OP/g | DP/g | NetP/G | Â NetP/G |
Camp, Jasmine | 48:20 | 84 | 64 | 20 | 69.5 | 53.0 | 16.6 | Â 74.9 | 46.9 | 27.9 | -11.4 |
Ebersole, Denia | 2:29 | 0 | 4 | -4 | 0.0 | 64.4 | -64.4 | Â 73.3 | 43.3 | 29.9 | -94.4 |
Green, Alex | 2:55 | 0 | 2 | -2 | 0.0 | 27.4 | -27.4 | Â 74.4 | 46.4 | 28.0 | -55.5 |
Greenfield, Taylor | 69:00 | 116 | 84 | 32 | 67.2 | 48.7 | 18.6 | Â 77.8 | 48.8 | 29.0 | -10.5 |
James, Sara | 82:00 | 160 | 105 | 55 | 78.0 | 51.2 | 26.8 | Â 68.2 | 46.2 | 22.1 | Â 4.8 |
Kokenis, Toni | 59:13 | 106 | 75 | 31 | 71.6 | 50.7 | 20.9 | Â 86.6 | 61.6 | 25.0 | Â -4.1 |
Lakhian, Kiran | 2:29 | 0 | 4 | -4 | 0.0 | 64.4 | -64.4 | Â 73.3 | 43.3 | 29.9 | -94.4 |
Ogwumike, Chiney | 135:19 | 260 | 156 | 104 | 76.9 | 46.1 | 30.7 | Â 53.5 | 63.2 | -9.7 | Â 40.5 |
Orrange, Amber | 109:52 | 216 | 125 | 91 | 78.6 | 45.5 | 33.1 | Â 61.4 | 55.9 | 5.6 | Â 27.5 |
Payne, Erica | 14:00 | 23 | 27 | -4 | 65.7 | 77.1 | -11.4 | Â 75.8 | 46.4 | 29.4 | -40.9 |
Picknell, Tess | 18:26 | 23 | 22 | 1 | 49.9 | 47.7 | 2.2 | Â 76.3 | 48.9 | 27.4 | -25.2 |
Ruef, Mikaela | 76:39 | 130 | 96 | 34 | 67.8 | 50.1 | 17.7 | Â 78.2 | 47.5 | 30.7 | -13.0 |
Samuelson, Bonnie | 62:51 | 119 | 72 | 47 | 75.7 | 45.8 | 29.9 | Â 71.6 | 50.6 | 21.0 | Â 8.9 |
Tinkle, Joslyn | 116:27 | 228 | 139 | 89 | 78.3 | 47.7 | 30.6 | Â 59.7 | 51.4 | 8.3 | Â 22.3 |
| Total | 160:00 | 293 | 195 | 98 | 73.3 | 48.8 | 24.5 |
The table is complicated enough, but it struck me that one could add another column of total points scored per 40min game (OP/g + DP/g) while a player is in, to indicate the pace of the game. For instance, Sara's number for that would be 129.2 while Taylor's would be 115.9.
Tara was informed correctly: If we win out, we get the first seed at the PAC-12 tournament by the third tiebreaker, won-loss percentage against all Division 1 opponents. We will have one more win than C.al. Where that will matter is in the semi-final game, where we might play UCLA or Colorado.
---------
C.al squeaks by again, by 5 points. Arizona outshot them (50% to 47% FG%, 38% to 26% 3PT%, 91% to 57% FT%) but lost the battle of the PF (27 vs 17) and FT (22 vs 42) and rebounds (30 vs 41) and TO (21 vs 13). Arizona doubled their point production from when they played us (86 vs 43).
This was C.al's 6th PAC-12 game where at the end of regulation, they were 5 points or fewer ahead. Other than C.al, Stanford's least victory was 9 points against USC (where we had been up by 19, but let it get as close as 5).