[BostonCard]

Steals can easily be the result of an unforced errror (for example, a lazy pass that gets intercepted), and sometimes turnovers are the result of good defense (for example, a ball that gets poked away by a defender and then goes out of bounds off a Stanford player in the resulting scramble).

BC

[BostonCard]

Steals can easily be the result of an unforced errror (for example, a lazy pass that gets intercepted), and sometimes turnovers are the result of good defense (for example, a ball that gets poked away by a defender and then goes out of bounds off a Stanford player in the resulting scramble).

BC

[BostonCard]

Steals can easily be the result of an unforced errror (for example, a lazy pass that gets intercepted), and sometimes turnovers are the result of good defense (for example, a ball that gets poked away by a defender and then goes out of bounds off a Stanford player in the resulting scramble).

BC

[BostonCard]

Steals can easily be the result of an unforced errror (for example, a lazy pass that gets intercepted), and sometimes turnovers are the result of good defense (for example, a ball that gets poked away by a defender and then goes out of bounds off a Stanford player in the resulting scramble).

BC

[Jskass]

got to add a few points: (1) Canada's uncalled fouls were driving me crazy -- and I was a bit vocal about it; (2) that UCLA fan in section 12 trying to hurt us on the free throw line did such a good job that the crowd revved up and then did the same to them; and (3) our FT percentage improved at the end because Tara did an excellent job of substituting in players who can hit their free throws (e.g., Williams and Carrington) and out the players in whom she didn't have FT confidence (Johnson and IIRC Sniezek). It accounted for 6 made FT. Important and well-executed since it was obvious from about 2:30 minutes on they were just going to keep fouling us since in the prior game we hit only 50% of our FTs.

[Jskass]

got to add a few points: (1) Canada's uncalled fouls were driving me crazy -- and I was a bit vocal about it; (2) that UCLA fan in section 12 trying to hurt us on the free throw line did such a good job that the crowd revved up and then did the same to them; and (3) our FT percentage improved at the end because Tara did an excellent job of substituting in players who can hit their free throws (e.g., Williams and Carrington) and out the players in whom she didn't have FT confidence (Johnson and IIRC Sniezek). It accounted for 6 made FT. Important and well-executed since it was obvious from about 2:30 minutes on they were just going to keep fouling us since in the prior game we hit only 50% of our FTs.

[Jskass]

got to add a few points: (1) Canada's uncalled fouls were driving me crazy -- and I was a bit vocal about it; (2) that UCLA fan in section 12 trying to hurt us on the free throw line did such a good job that the crowd revved up and then did the same to them; and (3) our FT percentage improved at the end because Tara did an excellent job of substituting in players who can hit their free throws (e.g., Williams and Carrington) and out the players in whom she didn't have FT confidence (Johnson and IIRC Sniezek). It accounted for 6 made FT. Important and well-executed since it was obvious from about 2:30 minutes on they were just going to keep fouling us since in the prior game we hit only 50% of our FTs.

[Jskass]

got to add a few points: (1) Canada's uncalled fouls were driving me crazy -- and I was a bit vocal about it; (2) that UCLA fan in section 12 trying to hurt us on the free throw line did such a good job that the crowd revved up and then did the same to them; and (3) our FT percentage improved at the end because Tara did an excellent job of substituting in players who can hit their free throws (e.g., Williams and Carrington) and out the players in whom she didn't have FT confidence (Johnson and IIRC Sniezek). It accounted for 6 made FT. Important and well-executed since it was obvious from about 2:30 minutes on they were just going to keep fouling us since in the prior game we hit only 50% of our FTs.

[81alum]

Steals can easily be the result of an unforced errror (for example, a lazy pass that gets intercepted), and sometimes turnovers are the result of good defense (for example, a ball that gets poked away by a defender and then goes out of bounds off a Stanford player in the resulting scramble).

BC

Yes, that is more or less true--ultimately you have to apply the eyeball test to determine if a turnover was "earned" by the defense or was just sloppy play by the offense.  For example, those very long passes that we sometimes used to try to get behind the press may have been good ideas but they had way too much arc on them, and this allowed the defense to react and intercept them.  They go down as steals but they were just errant passes on our part.

Those turnovers that don't meet the definition of steal for the other team are the "shoot yourself in the foot" kind of plays:

Stepping out of bounds.
Throwing the ball out of bounds.
Traveling with the ball.
Double dribble.
Shot clock violation.
Five second inbounds violation.
Three seconds in the key violation.
Backcourt violation.
Offensive fouls.
Illegal screens.

Against Tennessee we had 4 of those sorts of turnovers.  Against UCLA we had 9 of them. 

[81alum]

Steals can easily be the result of an unforced errror (for example, a lazy pass that gets intercepted), and sometimes turnovers are the result of good defense (for example, a ball that gets poked away by a defender and then goes out of bounds off a Stanford player in the resulting scramble).

BC

Yes, that is more or less true--ultimately you have to apply the eyeball test to determine if a turnover was "earned" by the defense or was just sloppy play by the offense.  For example, those very long passes that we sometimes used to try to get behind the press may have been good ideas but they had way too much arc on them, and this allowed the defense to react and intercept them.  They go down as steals but they were just errant passes on our part.

Those turnovers that don't meet the definition of steal for the other team are the "shoot yourself in the foot" kind of plays:

Stepping out of bounds.
Throwing the ball out of bounds.
Traveling with the ball.
Double dribble.
Shot clock violation.
Five second inbounds violation.
Three seconds in the key violation.
Backcourt violation.
Offensive fouls.
Illegal screens.

Against Tennessee we had 4 of those sorts of turnovers.  Against UCLA we had 9 of them. 

[81alum]

Steals can easily be the result of an unforced errror (for example, a lazy pass that gets intercepted), and sometimes turnovers are the result of good defense (for example, a ball that gets poked away by a defender and then goes out of bounds off a Stanford player in the resulting scramble).

BC

Yes, that is more or less true--ultimately you have to apply the eyeball test to determine if a turnover was "earned" by the defense or was just sloppy play by the offense.  For example, those very long passes that we sometimes used to try to get behind the press may have been good ideas but they had way too much arc on them, and this allowed the defense to react and intercept them.  They go down as steals but they were just errant passes on our part.

Those turnovers that don't meet the definition of steal for the other team are the "shoot yourself in the foot" kind of plays:

Stepping out of bounds.
Throwing the ball out of bounds.
Traveling with the ball.
Double dribble.
Shot clock violation.
Five second inbounds violation.
Three seconds in the key violation.
Backcourt violation.
Offensive fouls.
Illegal screens.

Against Tennessee we had 4 of those sorts of turnovers.  Against UCLA we had 9 of them. 

[81alum]

Steals can easily be the result of an unforced errror (for example, a lazy pass that gets intercepted), and sometimes turnovers are the result of good defense (for example, a ball that gets poked away by a defender and then goes out of bounds off a Stanford player in the resulting scramble).

BC

Yes, that is more or less true--ultimately you have to apply the eyeball test to determine if a turnover was "earned" by the defense or was just sloppy play by the offense.  For example, those very long passes that we sometimes used to try to get behind the press may have been good ideas but they had way too much arc on them, and this allowed the defense to react and intercept them.  They go down as steals but they were just errant passes on our part.

Those turnovers that don't meet the definition of steal for the other team are the "shoot yourself in the foot" kind of plays:

Stepping out of bounds.
Throwing the ball out of bounds.
Traveling with the ball.
Double dribble.
Shot clock violation.
Five second inbounds violation.
Three seconds in the key violation.
Backcourt violation.
Offensive fouls.
Illegal screens.

Against Tennessee we had 4 of those sorts of turnovers.  Against UCLA we had 9 of them. 

[2006alum]

Coming late to this thread after spending several days in bed with the terrible flu going around. Watched it on replay and overall was pretty encouraged. I don't want to jinx things, since every time I get encouraged, we lose the next game in desultory fashion. But it was great to see Smith back to her old self, to see Fingall build on her performance against Tennessee, and to see McPhee deliver back-to-back 20+ point performances. Although we had a lot of turnovers, I actually felt like all but a few were "forced" by UCLA's press - they are a really strong defensive team and they give zero room for error when passing, dribbling, etc. And while UCLA's shooting was uncharacteristically off, I do think a substantial part of that was due to our defense. There were countless times when Canada tried to drive in only to face a wall of Stanford bigs and turn around and toss it to someone else, who tried to get off a rush shot.

We'll see whether we can solidify this today against USC. Fingers (Fingalls?) crossed.

[2006alum]

Coming late to this thread after spending several days in bed with the terrible flu going around. Watched it on replay and overall was pretty encouraged. I don't want to jinx things, since every time I get encouraged, we lose the next game in desultory fashion. But it was great to see Smith back to her old self, to see Fingall build on her performance against Tennessee, and to see McPhee deliver back-to-back 20+ point performances. Although we had a lot of turnovers, I actually felt like all but a few were "forced" by UCLA's press - they are a really strong defensive team and they give zero room for error when passing, dribbling, etc. And while UCLA's shooting was uncharacteristically off, I do think a substantial part of that was due to our defense. There were countless times when Canada tried to drive in only to face a wall of Stanford bigs and turn around and toss it to someone else, who tried to get off a rush shot.

We'll see whether we can solidify this today against USC. Fingers (Fingalls?) crossed.