Stanford Preeminence -- Conference Chaos

 

Warren Grimes

After a hard fought, storybook comeback against Oregon on Sunday, Stanford has established conference preeminence.  Stanford is the only team undefeated in conference and, with two games remaining, has clinched the regular season championship.  There is no one to nip at the champion’s heels; every other team has lost at least 5 conference games.

The statistics back up Stanford’s superiority.  Stanford is number one in the most important statistical categories (counting only regular season conference games): scoring margin, scoring offense, field goal percentage, field goal percentage defense, 3-point percentage, rebounding margin, rebounding offense, rebounding defense, defensive rebounding percentage, assists, and assist/turnover ratio.  If the conference kept stats on points off of turnovers, Stanford would likely excel in that category as well.  The team is second in the conference for three point shots per game, blocked shots, and defensive boards per game.  

And here is one other unexpected plus for this Stanford team: it is number two in the conference for steals per game (tied with Arizona) and number three for turnover margin.  Past Stanford teams have not always excelled in these areas.   The high turnovers against early season opponents such as Texas may be a thing of the past.

Of course, Stanford is not invulnerable.  The team stands out for its poor free throw shooting – only the 9^th best in the league, shooting just 72.9 %.  Even here, however, the team shows improvement, moving up from its 67.9% for the entire season (counting the early non-conference games). 

Stanford’s vulnerability to a conference opponent playing its “A” game was amply demonstrated by the recent Oregon game.   Consider these facts.

Stanford had the lead in only the first minute (thanks to a technical foul called against Oregon for improper lighting of the basket) and in the last 36 seconds of the game.  Oregon held the lead (or was tied) for the other 38 plus minutes, sometimes stretching it out to 10 or 11 points.

Oregon was the first Pac-12 opponent to out rebound Stanford (42-40).  With the exception of one Colorado game (tied Stanford in boards), Stanford handily won other rebounding battles.

Although Stanford leads the league in three point shooting percentage, the team shot only 18.8% (3/16) against Oregon. 

Once again, defense was absolutely crucial.  Stanford won the battle for turnovers and steals, offsetting the team’s low shooting percentages and deficiency in rebounding.   

The storybook narrative for the Oregon game is really about the second half, and especially about the fourth quarter.  Stanford was five points down at the half, but came back in the third quarter after Anges Emma-Nnopu’s three point swish brought Stanford within one (46-47) to start the fourth quarter.

The last quarter began with Oregon getting open threes that built the lead back to ten (46-56 with 8:08 on the clock).  With exactly 5 minutes left, Oregon still held an 8 point lead (52-60).  With Haley Jones taking over, Stanford went on a 14 to 2 run for the rest of the game.

Here are the key plays:

54-60 -- 4:34 on the clock, Iriafen (great game) gets a layup off a smooth feed from Jones.

56-60 -- 3:57 on the clock, Jones gets a driving layup in traffic.

56-60 – 3:15 on the clock, Jones decisively blocks Endyia Rogers’ layup attempt.

58-60 -- 2:41 on the clock, Jones gets a driving spin-move lay up in heavy traffic.

60-60 -- 2:15 on the clock, Brink ties the game on a jumper off a feed from Wilson.

 63-60 -- 00:36 on the clock, on drive in traffic, Jones throws up an answered prayer while falling backwards to the floor, then converts the free throw.  Even TVD was excited.    

63-62 – 00:28 on the clock, Oregon’s Sabally converts two free throws.

65-62 – 00:20 on the clock, Lexie Hull converts two free throws.

66-62 – 00:06 on the clock, after Oregon fails to convert, Emma-Nnopu converts one of two free throws.

That’s it.

Stanford won this game because they overcame poor outside shooting, stayed within reach, and, with Haley Jones’ help and really solid defense, took over the last five minutes of the game.

Meanwhile, the conference lineup for the Pac-12 tournament shows chaos and surprise.  Washington State, a surprise performer, upset Arizona and is now tied for second with Oregon (Both teams have 10-5 conference records).  Arizona falls to fourth, but with a 9-5 record.  None of these three teams will have an easy last weekend, but Arizona has home games against UCLA and USC.  WSU has to play Stanford at Maples, while Oregon has two tough away games against Colorado and Utah, both fighting for NCAA berths.  These three teams are favored, but not assured, to get the top four seeds (and first round byes).

Washington State, based simply on raw talent, may not belong in the top four.  They lost decisively to Oregon and in their first game against Stanford.  Those wide margin losses are offset by clutch performances, as against Arizona (albeit helped by the injury to Arizona's starting center).  

Meanwhile, Stanford continues its quest for conference perfection at home, in its last scheduled games, one of them against WSU -- the other against Washington.  It can be done.

DEFENSE: Stanford Adds Three More to the String

 

Warren Grimes

Yes, Stanford played three home games in six days last week.

 In each, Stanford played 13 or 14 players.

In each, Stanford prevailed by a double digit margin (the smallest was a 17 point margin over Colorado).

In each, Stanford scoring was diversified among starters and non-starters (the two highest scoring players in a single game were Hannah Jump (19) and Fran Belibi (16), each of whom came off the bench against OSU).

In each, Stanford’s defense, while less than perfect, was impressive.  The opponent average for the three games was 56.3, not bad when you consider Utah has the highest scoring offense in the conference, and Oregon State has its own potent offense. 

Stanford was stingy, turning the ball over less (Stanford had 31 turns for the week, while its collective opponents had 58 turns).  Stanford blocked the ball 20 times, while opponents managed only 6.  And, where it really counts, Stanford had 59 points off of turnovers to its opponents’ 23.  For opponents, those are demoralizing stats. 

The intensity of Stanford’s defense was evident.  Crouched low on the perimeter, raised up in the interior, the focus of every player was evident.  There was team help defense, with the players communicating to execute the scouting report.  And the team seemed to amp up in crucial moments, as in the second half against Colorado.  Time and again, a Colorado interior pass ended up in the hands of Lexie Hull (6 steals) Anna Wilson (3 steals).   

So defense is the most critical and most enjoyable part of the game.  Why? 

When Stanford’s defense is working, so too is its transition offense.   The connection is direct.  Transition opportunities almost never result when an opponent scores and forces Stanford to inbound.  When Stanford steals, or disrupts and gets a board, the opponent has less opportunity to organize a defense.  Once a transition is underway, there is fun, creativity, and an opportunity for sharing.  It may be Jones making a length of the court run for an acrobatic layup; it may be Cameron Brink or Fran Belibi running just behind the ball and ready to take a no look feed from Jones or Lacey Hull—once it’s in their hands, forget about it; or it may be Hannah Jump or one of the Hulls posting up for a last second feed beyond the arc for a three.  Swish!   

In the Utah game, there was a box score story.  Six different Stanford players scored in double digits – and a seventh player was on the cusp (Hannah Jump had 9 points).  More should be made of this point, because it is unusual.  How often does a  team score 91 points spread among 6 double-digit scorers.  I’d say rarely, if ever!   It typifies the talent rich and sharing nature of this basketball team. 

Another story line was Haley Jones performance in the second half against Colorado.  Jones had no points and only one board as Colorado ended the first half with a one point lead.   Jones and her mates needed to step it up.   And they did.  Collectively, they held Colorado to just 16 second half points.   Jones grabbed 4 second half boards, put up 10 points, and added two blocked shots. 

Most of the story is not in the stats, but how Jones used her driving skills to score fourth quarter points, maneuvering between and among defenders, to put the game out of reach for the Buffaloes.  I give Jones a large share of the credit for these demoralizing moves – and clearing the bench.

Now it’s on to the Oregon weekend, the toughest one of the conference season.  Stanford has what it takes to continue winning, but it will take all of the team’s focus and intensity.

Stanford’s Silent Killers and Energizer Bunnies

 Warren Grimes

Stanford swept the LA schools this past weekend.  And they did it without Haley Jones (Covid Protocol absentee).

Is that a big deal?

Well, yes, it is. 

Haley Jones leads the team in assists (by a wide margin).

Haley Jones is a magnet for drawing fouls and consistently converts (shooting 86%).

Haley Jones is a key member of the “bring-the-ball-up-the-court” committee.

Haley Jones is the team’s second leading scorer and was the top scorer in 4 of the 8 January games.

Haley Jones is the second leading rebounder (8.2 per game, just behind Brink’s 8.5 per game).

Haley Jones is a strong defender and has the second highest blocked-shot total.

Haley Jones’ creative length-of-the-court drives score clutch points and demoralize opponents.

Candor requires that I also disclose Jones’ team-leading 57 turnovers, or 3.2 per game.  Turnovers notwithstanding, Jones can well be viewed as the single most valuable component in the Stanford machine.  This past weekend, playing without Jones, Stanford did not blink an eye, in part because Cameron Brink had a career weekend, and Fran Belibi ably slipped into the starting lineup with lots of points and rebounds.

To be sure, Jones' absence from the lineup likely influenced the statistics.  In LA, Stanford drew fewer fouls and converted on fewer of them.  Against UCLA, Stanford made only five of ten foul shots.  And turnovers?  Both UCLA (10 turns to Stanford's 8) and USC (17 turns to Stanford's 15) had more turnovers than Stanford did.  

Maybe statistics don’t adequately tell the story, because the Hull twins were silent killers in both contests.  The twins just keep going, and going, and going.  The Energizer Bunny confessed exhaustion, just from watching them.    

Against UCLA, Lexie had 14 points and 10 boards while playing for 36 minutes.  Look deeper -- she also had 5 assists and a steal.  Meanwhile, her sister Lacie played for 26 minutes, had 8 points, 7 assists, 1 block and 1 steal. 

Against USC, Lexie played a mere 30 minutes, but had 9 points, 4 boards, 2 assists, and 2 blocked shots.  It’s that deeper look at the statistics that shows what the twins do -- all the time, non-stop.  Lacie played for 27 minutes, also contributed 9 points and had 4 assists and 3 steals.   

Lacie Hull is the chairwoman of the bring-the-ball-up-the-court committee.  She can still score points, including three point shots against both UCLA and USC. 

If you want entertainment and non-stop action, just watch either of the twins regardless of who has the ball.  They are constantly moving, anticipating, staying focused and in the game.  The beauty of this is that they set a pattern for the rest of the team.    

The total commitment approach of Lexie and Lacie rubs off on others.  Cameron Brink’s passion for the game is visible to everyone.  In Brink’s case, her contributions show up easily in the statistics.  But a number of other players show the total commitment with less statistical showing; the mantra of the silent killer.  Anna Wilson belongs in this category.  So does Agnes Emma Nnopu and Alyssa Jerome, when she gets her occasional minutes. 

And then there’s the freshmen.  Someone like Kiki Iriafen may be a relatively silent killer for now, but not for long.  Her explosiveness on offense and on the boards is already apparent.  She enters the game not just in “junk” time, but in the first half when the game is still in doubt.  Iriafen had 7 points against USC.  Then there is Brooke Demetre, who really fits the role of a silent killer because she is quiet and unselfish on the court.  Demetre had some turnovers earlier in the season, but now seems comfortable in the offense.  Demetre is a very precise passer and can launch killer jump shots from near and far.  Against USC, Demetre had 6 points on 2 for 3 shooting from beyond the arc, and added two picture perfect assists to her mates cutting for the basket.  Both of these players would be starters and stars on most, maybe all, of rival Pac-12 squads. 

Energizers and silent and not so silent Hull protégés will be in demand for the upcoming three home matches in six days, against OSU, Utah, and Colorado.  But, for the real deal, keep your eyes glued on one of the Hulls for a few minutes.  Make sure you have fresh batteries.

Stanford's Unprecedented and Exceptional Janurary

 

Warren Grimes

On the last Sunday of the month, Stanford finished its January schedule with a hard fought 75-69 victory over #8 Arizona.  With only 8 games played in the month, Covid had subtracted from a 10 game schedule.  The string of 8 January victories was nonetheless an extraordinary accomplishment.

So what's such a big deal about a string of 8 victories?  Well, to begin with, it's the way it was done.

Let’s begin with Arizona.  This was a rematch of the NCAA championship game 10 months ago.  The Wildcats lost their high scoring point guard, but showed impressive offensive balance in scoring 69 points (Arizona had only 53 points in the NCAA championship game last year).  Stanford took an early lead, but that lead was never more than 12.  Single digit leads were vulnerable to back and forth scoring runs.  Cate Reese was a major contributor for the Wildcats, with 17 points on 3 for 6 shooting from beyond the arc.  The game was not decided until the last minute.

Haley Jones had hurt Arizona badly back in March 2021, so Arizona coach Adia Barnes worked to  control Jones.  Barnes succeeded in keeping Jones away from the basket, limiting her to 4 points on 2 for 12 shooting (Jones still had 7 boards and 6 assists).  Defending Stanford, however, is like a whack-a-mole game.  You stop one player, and up pops another to make your life miserable.  In this case, Cameron Brink had a career game with 25 points and 15 boards.  And the real and unexpected pop up player was Jana Van Gytenbeek, who came off the bench to score 18 points on 6/8 three point shooting.

That’s really Stanford’s January story.  It’s an exceptional story about depth and the ability of different players to step up and make a difference when their mates are stymied.  Opponents can stop some but not all of Stanford’s offensive options.

Take a look at each of the last eight games to see who has been the top scorer.  Four different starters (Haley Jones 4 times, Cameron Brink 2 times, Lexie Hull and Hannah Jump once) have been the top scorer in one or more of these eight games.

If one broadens the metric to see which players have been among the top three scorers in each game, Stanford’s diversity and depth becomes even more apparent.  In six of the eight January games, players from off the bench have been among the top three scorers for the team.  Fran Belibi has been among the top three in four games while Kiki Iriafen has achieved that goal in two games.  Three other substitutes have been a top three scorer in one of the last eight games: Anna Wilson, Ashten Prechtel, and Jana Van Gytenbeek.

With that sort of breadth and depth, one could honestly view the five starters, plus another five substitutes that have made substantial point contributions, as a formidable, whack-a-mole rotation. And it's not just points.  Players such as Anna Wilson come off the bench to contribute on defense.  Indeed, I would argue that the actual rotation is larger, and includes Jordan Hamilton, Agnes Emma Nnopu, and Brooke Demetre.   Each of these players played in critical moments in January.

Both Emma Nnopu and Hamilton played vital minutes in the opening half against California, when the Bears were threatening.  And Demetre was brought in as a substitute for Jones in the critical first half against Arizona.  Each of these players has her own strengths and can be used situationally.  For example, Demetre did not score a lot of points in January, but is a consistent and focused player who makes few mistakes, plays smart defense, and can be a deadly jump shooter from long and mid-range.  She’s a player who can break down a zone defense.

Doing the addition, Stanford’s situational rotation includes 13 players (at least) who can be called upon in critical moments of a game.  If one or more of these players has an off night, bring in someone else.

What else can be said about the eight game January run?   Resilience, of course, is high on the list.  Opponents in the toughest conference in the country regularly bring their A game against Stanford.  Even California, which is so far winless in conference, played Stanford tough in the second quarter, ending the half with a tie score.  Stanford’s defense – and its whack-a-mole offense -- made the difference in six hotly contested January games.  Only against Washington State and ASU did Stanford assert a comfortable first half lead and maintain it in the second half. 

Two other common themes were evident in the January games.  The first is improved free throw shooting.  For the season, the team is shooting just 67% from the charity stripe, but exceeded that percentage in every one of the last eight games (from a low of 70% against Colorado to a high of 83.3% against Oregon).

The second theme is rebounding.  Stanford won the rebounding battle in each of the last eight games.  The margin was close against Oregon (33-29), but more one-sided against other opponents.  Stanford out boarded Arizona by a 34 to 26 margin.   The rebounding advantage helps to offset Stanford turnovers, where January opponents continued to exploit the team (Stanford had 18 turns against Arizona while Arizona yielded just 11). 

What’s ahead is the second half of the conference schedule, including possible make up games.  Stanford may be favored in each of these games, but will be sorely tested by Oregon in Eugene and by every other conference opponent who can bring their A game.   This weekend, those opponents will be a very talented but short-handed UCLA and USC.

High Altitude Resilience

 

Warren Grimes

Stanford coach Tara VanDerveer has often spoken of the resilience of last year’s championship-winning team.  Is that still true this year?  Even at high altitude?

Boulder, Colorado, where Stanford played Colorado on last Friday evening, is more than a mile (5328 feet) above sea level.  The Huntsman Arena in Salt Lake, in the hills above the city, is almost that high (4803 feet above sea level).

I can’t say that the altitude didn’t matter.  But yes, Stanford definitely proved it’s still resilient this year, even at high altitudes.  In both contests Stanford was challenged by a motivated and very good team.  Colorado came into the game ranked no. 22 and the last undefeated team in Division IA.  Utah was 9-3 with some exciting new freshmen and an attitude.

Both opponents played great in the first half and had a lead at halftime.  Both opponents, especially Colorado, played inspired defense.  In the first quarter, Colorado’s aggressive defense generated double digit turnovers.  The Buffaloes had a 15 to 8 point advantage at the end of the first 10 minutes.  The turns were less frequent as the game progressed, but Colorado generated a humbling 22 turns against Stanford. 

Stanford, however, was resilient, winning every subsequent quarter.  It was an 8-point margin (60-52) at the end, but the outcome was in doubt until the last minutes.  The Stanford starters were there, particularly Haley Jones with 11 points, 8 boards, and 5 assists.  Stanford dominated the boards to at least partially offset the turns (Brink, Belibi, and Prechtel had 7 boards each, and Iriafen played just 3 minutes, but got 3 boards and 2 points in that time).

So what is the takeaway from the Colorado game?  Teams with high energy and quickness on defense can wreak havoc with Stanford’s offense.  But can they do it for a full 40 minutes?  Colorado succeeded splendidly for the first 8 minutes of the game, building an 11 point margin in the first quarter.  But a combination of better ball control by Stanford and a gradual decrease in focus and intensity on the part of Colorado was enough to turn this game.  The game was very physical, but Stanford was able to answer with its own physicality.  On that note, Ashten Prechtel has always played great against Colorado, and did that again with her 10 points and 7 boards (Prechtel was 2/4 from long distance).

Utah was a different story.  But like Colorado, the Utes were an inspired opponent that took a substantial first half lead against Stanford.  This time, the opponent’s deluge came in the second quarter when the Utes blitzed Stanford from the three point line and took, at one point, a 13-point lead.  The half ended with Utah enjoying a 7 point margin (37 to 30).  Utah’s secret wasn’t so much its aggressive defense.  They generated 12 Stanford turns, but really it was the Utes efficient half-court offense that generated more points against Stanford (73) than any other opponent this season.  Maryland and Gonzaga managed 68 points in losses to Stanford.  Even in its three losses, Stanford did not give up more than 65 points.  Against Stanford, the Utes shot 39% from distance, and 40% overall. 

That efficiency fell off in the fourth quarter, when Utah got only 10 points (against Stanford’s 23 points).   So, once again, Stanford’s fourth quarter defense won the game.  The game was still up for grabs late into the quarter, but the momentum for Utah was squelched by Stanford’s defense.  The other story of this game is that Stanford was able to put on its own offensive display, led by Cameron Brink’s 24 points and 11 boards, and Lexie Hull’s 21 points (5 three pointers).  The third highest scorer for Stanford?  Anna Wilson had 12 critical points, including two three pointers and two midrange jumpers that were real difference makers.

Speaking of stop-and-pops, Stanford could do more with the midrange jumper.  Opponents can harass our three point shooters, as Colorado did.  They can clog the middle, as both the mountain schools did.  But there are openings in the midrange that Stanford could exploit.  I’d like to see Haley Jones and Lexie and Lacie do more from the midrange.  Brink and Jump too.

Free throw shooting, which plagued Stanford earlier this season, has improved.  Cameron Brink, who had struggled mightily with free throws, was 8 for 11 during the two games.   As a team, Stanford was 32 for 44 during the two games – that’s a respectable 73 percent.

Another note is Stanford’s continuing demonstration of versatility.  The game high scorer has been different for each of the last four games (Lexie Hull – Oregon, Hannah Jump – Gonzaga, Haley Jones – Colorado, and Cameron Brink – Utah).  Different players off the bench have contributed in these games, including Fran Belibi, Ashten Prechtel, Anna Wilson, and Kiki Iriafen.  Stanford is a versatile and talented handful.

Before Stanford moves on to upcoming games against California, you can check off the box for “resilience at high altitude.” 

Washington State: How to Frame the Question

 

Warren Grimes

Going into Sunday’s Washington State game, there were two ways to frame the question.

How could Stanford possibly win?

Stanford was without five very talented players because of the Covid protocol.  Among them were top scorer and shot blocker Cameron Brink.  True, Stanford had defeated number seven-ranked and previously undefeated Tennessee with Brink in foul trouble, playing only 8 minutes.  Against Tennessee, however, Stanford had Ashten Prechtel, a dominant post player who came off the bench and devastated the Volunteers in the fourth quarter.  Prechtel, however, was also out, as was a third veteran post player, Alyssa Jerome.  Yep, Stanford was thin at the post.  The other two missing players – Agnes Emma Nnopu and Brooke Demetre – also had seen significant playing time off the bench.  Things did not look rosy for Stanford.

How could Stanford possibly lose?

Stanford had four of its five regular starters, led by All American Haley Jones and the Hull twins. Close to home country – and with family in the stands – you knew the Hulls were there to play.   To replace Brink at the post, Fran Belibi was and is a player of consequence.  Off the bench, there were players like Anna Wilson and blossoming freshman post Kiki Iriafen.  That is a roster of a top ten team.  This is the deepest team Stanford has ever had, with more than enough talent to take down the Cougars.

So, it turns out, the second question call was the more accurate.  After a struggling first quarter, Stanford turned on the defense and almost doubled Washington State on the score board (82 to 44).  The Hull twins and Anna Wilson led the charge on defense (Lacie Hull played 36 minutes).  As she had against Tennessee, Haley Jones was there with bells on – 24 points, 16 boards, and 3 assists.   Actually, Jones could have had more assists if teammates hadn’t missed some easy conversions.

Also Iriafen came to play, providing a meaningful post presence with 13 points and 8 boards in just 14 minutes.  As did Belibi, who started at the post, scoring 10 points and grabbing 8 boards in her 16 minutes of court time.  If you do the math, that means that for 10 minutes of the game, Stanford played without a regular post player.  Not to worry – Haley Jones can do that too.  True, playing the post against Washington State is made easier because the Cougars don’t have a lot to offer at that position.  Still, with her strength and quickness, Jones can play the post when asked to do so.  

Jones does what the team needs.  Point guard?  Shooting guard?  Power forward?  Post?  Her flexibility, along with her productivity, is why jones should be a consensus first team All American this season.   That result isn’t a given.  When other players (for example, Brink, Lexie Hull, or Hannah Jump) have the hot hand, Jones will back off a bit on the offense.   So far, Jones hasn't done what Ionescu did for Oregon two years ago – constantly lead the team in scoring, assists, and often  boards as well.  Ionescu was a triple double master.  Jones could be that as well, but sometimes, she appears to lose focus.   Is that because Jones lacks the fire, or is it a wise and team-enhancing choice to share the limelight with her teammates? 

So far this season, Jones appears to play best when it is most needed.  She did that in the tournament last year; she did it this year against Tennessee; and, I expect and hope, she will continue to do so,  including against the Oregon schools this weekend.. 

New Year’s Thoughts on Coaching

 

Warren Grimes

Coaches, even very good ones, have notably different approaches to coaching.   

True, any good coach has to have certain common skills, such as recruiting, organizing, teaching, strategizing, and motivating.  That’s a pretty long list.  But coaches can differ substantially over things such as game strategies, how they organize, how they teach, and how they motivate.

Take Brenda Frese, the well-known coach of the Maryland Terrapins since 2002.  Her achievements include a national championship in 2006 and two other Final Four appearances.  She has won conference titles in the ACC and, after Maryland switched to the Big Ten, in that conference as well.

Frese is known as an excellent recruiter.  She has demonstrated an ability to recruit high octane offensive players that contribute to high scoring teams.  No doubt, the free-wheeling offensive style of her teams is an attraction for many gifted high school athletes. 

On defense, her teams have had less success.  Stanford has played Maryland twice since Frese began coaching there.  The first time was a tournament regional final in Candice Wiggins’ senior year.  Maryland was the number one seed in the region, but could not stop second-seeded Stanford from pulling the upset.   The game was an offensive explosion, with a final score of 98-87.   Not sterling defense by either team.

Earlier this season, Stanford met up with a Frese-led Maryland team in the Bahamas tournament.  Stanford again prevailed, this time 86 to 68.  For Stanford to score 86 points against a top ten opponent is unusual.  This year, Stanford is averaging 72 points per game and has scored more than 86 points only against two lower ranked opponents (Pacific and Morgan State). 

Take a look at this comparison of Maryland and Stanford stats for this season.

                                                                Ave. Points                         Ave. Opponent Points

Maryland (13 Games)                    82.8                                                        66.5

Stanford (11 Games)                      72.1                                                        57.9

Maryland is scoring roughly 11 points more per game than Stanford.  And Maryland opponents are averaging roughly 9 points more than Stanford opponents.

So, it might be concluded, Maryland teams led by Frese have excelled on offense but not so much on defense.  The reasons for less impressive defensive stats may lie in part on the emphasis Maryland places on offense.  If Maryland puts up more shots in a forty minute game, the opponent will also shoot more.  Other factors include defensive game planning, discipline, and the type of athletes that Maryland recruits. 

The fact remains, however, that in this year’s contest, Stanford held Maryland to 14 points below its season average, while, in the same game, Stanford scored 14 more points than its season average.  That Stanford uses a scouting defense (and Maryland evidently does not) must account for some of this difference.   

Defensive approaches are just one of many ways in which coaches may differ.  Some teams emphasize quickness and risk taking on defense.  If successful, this approach can lead to more steals and opponent turnovers that allow for fast breaks on offense.   This year’s Texas team used that approach against Stanford with considerable success.  So did South Carolina in its second half comeback against Stanford.  And Pac-12 opponents such as Arizona and UCLA can be expected to do the same.  Indeed, this may be Stanford’s greatest vulnerability this season. 

VanDerveer-coached teams will also go for steals, but tend to emphasize a positioning defense with less risk taking but potentially superior results in suppressing an opponent’s scoring.   The Hull twins, among the team’s best theft artists, have demonstrated superiority in intelligent risk taking, often involving a well-timed intervention into the passing lane. 

Motivating techniques are another area of variance.  The late Pat Summit once locked her team out of a brand new locker room, telling players that until they became more focused and hard working, the locker room would remain locked.  Addressing this point, Tara VanDerveer once told this writer that she could not (and would not) use this technique for her Stanford team. 

The differing approaches that various coaches take will affect recruiting.  Do the UCLA and Arizona coaches have greater success than Stanford in recruiting the quick and athletic guard?  Does Stanford have greater success in recruiting disciplined players who appreciate the VanDerveer scouting defense?

The most valuable skill a coach can bring?  I’d say creativity.  Every coach must match both offensive and defensive strategy to the opponent; to matchups, to the player with the hot hand; to the score and the time left on the clock.  I’d say Tara VanDerveer does that as well as anyone.

Happy New Year. 

Covid permitting, more coaching creativity and excitement awaits as Stanford begins the conference run.  

Tennessee: Overcoming Adversity -- Three Super Subs and a Jones

 

Warren Grimes  

Before the tipoff, Stanford knew that highly productive post Fran Belibi would not be available (concussion protocol).  Not to worry.  All American candidate Cameron Brink was in the starting lineup.  At over 14 points per game, Brink was the team’s highest scorer and most prolific rebounder.  In recent games, Brink’s performance had exceeded these levels.     

Well, so much for the past.  The box score shows that Brink’s most significant stat was fouls – she had five of them and only played for eight minutes.  During that time, she had four points, two boards, and a turnover. 

So, essentially, Stanford was without its two highest performing post players.  What now?

How about more adversity?   After extending its lead to 20 points late in the second quarter, Stanford entered half time with 43 points and a 17-point lead.  Stanford was very fond of those 43 points.  So much so that with less than three minutes left in the third quarter, Stanford still had 43 points, and not one more.  Stanford’s awful scoring draught was accompanied by missed shots, turnovers, and a loss of composure.  Meanwhile, Tennessee found renewed energy and closed the lead to as little as three points.

With the score 43-40, and only 2:28 left on the third quarter clock, Kiki Iriafen made two free throws, and then a lay up, to restore a bit of sanity.

Iriafen was one of the three super subs that saved the day for Stanford.  With two post players unavailable, Iriafen played 17 minutes.  And she contributed.  She was steady, with only one turnover while adding ten points, five boards, and two assists. 

Then there’s Ashten Prechtel.  Ms Prechtel did a reprise of her performance in last year’s regional final against Louisville.  She played for 15 minutes, and missed a lot of shots early on.  But in the critical fourth quarter, Prechtel was money, sinking three consecutive three-point shots.  She ended up with 12 points, six boards, and two blocks.  Her performance in that last quarter must have demoralized Tennessee.

The third super sub was Anna Wilson.  She came off the bench for 28 minutes.  Her presence late in the third quarter was vital to restoring order.  Her stat line was 4 points, including a vital three-pointer, along with 5 assists and 6 boards.  And not a single turnover.

A second storyline for this game was Haley Jones.  Jones played for 39 minutes in this game.  And why not?   Jones was all over the court, ending up with 18 points, 19 boards, and 6 assists.  She missed a lot of shots (3 for 18 from the field), but was a perfect 12 for 12 from the charity stripe.   Therein lies a third storyline.

Stanford was 21 for 24 in free throws, most un-Stanford like for this season.  So how did that happen?

To begin with, two of Stanford’s most challenged free throwers were absent (Belibi with 59% free throw percentage) or largely absent (Brink with 47% free throw percentage).  Jones made over half the team’s free throws, but was aided by the Hulls, Iriafen, Prechtel, and Wilson.  In the crucial fourth quarter, Stanford made Tennessee pay at the foul line.  That, more than anything else, allowed Stanford a somewhat comfortable margin at the end. 

A lot to like about the Tennessee game.  The overriding storyline is simply about the team’s diverse depth.  With a deep and very talented bench, the team overcame adversity and defeated a previously undefeated top ten team.  The diversity and depth of talent will be helpful as Stanford takes on favored South Carolina, and then begins the draining Pac-12 schedule.

After Texas, A Hull of a Good Game for Haley Jones

Warren Grimes

Losing to Texas was not fun. 

Texas is a very good team that will make opponents suffer.  They got Stanford out of sorts, perhaps best exemplified by 4-27 shooting from the three point line.  That’s . . . uhm . . . 14.8%.

In a number of ways, the Texas game was similar to last year’s championship game against Arizona – except of course that Stanford won that one.  But quite predictably, Texas disrupted Stanford’s offense the same way Arizona did.  It was quickness and in your face player-to-player defense that produced way too many Stanford turn overs.  Add to that a critical 4^th quarter rally that relied heavily on a substitute’s 4 for 4 shooting from the three point line.

Disappointing because Stanford played great defense, except against the substitute who burned them late in the game.

Disappointing because Stanford held a single digit lead throughout the game, until the last part of the 4^th quarter.

Disappointing because Stanford couldn’t exploit its height and talent advantage in the paint. 

Disappointing because the game was at Maples.

It’s no secret that opposing coaches will seek to disrupt Stanford in much the same way that Arizona and Texas did.  Most teams will not have the talent to do that, but expect to see more of this from teams like Arizona, UCLA, South Carolina, and (fill in the blank). 

But now, it’s time to praise.

Two days after Texas, Stanford played a talented and well coached team from Portland.  Stanford won 77-55, but not without holding off a motivated Portland team that closed the margin to 10 points in the third quarter. 

Haley Jones excelled.  She got a triple double – 17 points, 12 boards, and 10 assists.  Jones was the first Stanford player to accomplish this in 19 years (Nicole Powell did it in 2002).  There were a number of highlights to Jones’ performance.  One was a “don’t-try-this-at-home” play that made the highlight reels.  Jones dribbled diagonally through the key and executed a no look lay in from the left side.  This happened fast – if you looked away, you missed it.  Amazing stuff.  She also had a block and two steals in 36 minutes on the court.

Other players deserve lots of recognition.  Lexie Hull played 34 minutes and contributed 7 points, 4 boards, and 6 steals.  Lexie was a real pain to Portland’s offense, but she had help.  Stanford had a total of 19 steals in the game.  A team record?

Lacie Hull had more minutes than her sister (36 of them).  She had ZERO points.  Indeed, Lacie did not even attempt a shot.  So what’s the big deal? 

Well the big deal is that when Lacie was in the game playing the point, the team played better.  Lacie, time and again, brought the ball up court against high pressure defense.  And she did it in style, with 5 assists and only 1 turnover.  On defense, Lacie had 4 steals and 2 blocks.

If Lacie can do this consistently, who cares whether she scores points.  I would not have predicted it, but  Lacie Hull may be the point guard of choice for this team.  If anyone can do the point guard stuff better than Lacie, they will have to be very good.

Aside from these three players, Cameron Brink made her presence known.  In roughly 20 minutes on the court, Brink contributed a team-high 21 points, often with an assist from her mates.  Unlike against Texas, the team was able to exploit its interior game.   The other starter, Anna Wilson, had 2 points and 3 boards in 22 minutes, but these numbers don’t adequately reflect her defensive presence. 

Two of Stanford’s freshman that did not see action against Texas played 10 minute plus segments against Portland, and made their presence known.   Brooke Demetre played 11 minutes and added 11 points on 5-6 shooting.  And Kiki Iriafen played 12 minutes and contributed 9 points and 2 boards.  Iriafen appeared to attempt a dunk that resulted in a turnover, but there seems little doubt that the dunk will happen before long. 

And now for a further look at Demetre.  She did not play against Texas, but is averaging 10 points a game, the fourth highest on the team, despite coming off the bench.  More still, Demetre is shooting at an 82% clip for the games she played, including 1 for 2 from three point land.  A few of these baskets were uncontested lay ups, but most were not.  Demetre has a wide shooting range, she gets her shots off quickly, and she shoots very accurately.    

Iriafen and Demetre have different skill sets, but I see them both getting major playing time as the season progresses. 

Next up, a tough visit to the Hulls’ home turf, against Gonzaga.

A New WBB Season: Concerns and Deep Mind Games

 

Warren Grimes

Over on the Cardboard, a couple of posters wrote of the “ugly” way Stanford took down Arizona in last season's NCAA final.  Arizona, too, was said to have played ugly. 

I understand the word choice.   In terms of offensive flow, both teams were decidedly subpar.  A final score of 54 to 53 does not suggest high potency offense.  Stanford had 21 turnovers – probably a season high.  In the regional final, Stanford scored 30 points in one quarter, more than they averaged in an entire half against Arizona. 

As for Arizona’s offense, Aari McDonald, a superstar who was critical for that team’s success, shot an unimpressive 24% (5 for 21).  McDonald was particularly unproductive inside the arc (1 for 12). 

OK, so I get it.  Offense for both teams was downright miserable.  But the Final Four was really about defense.  In the three end games, none of the four teams reached the 70-point threshold.  Arizona got 69 points against UConn in the semifinal, but that was as good as it got.  Each of the final four teams was an offensive powerhouse, but it was defense that dominated.

From a defensive perspective, the championship game was not ugly.  The defenses were strategic, refined, and intense.  Take Arizona.  Speaking before the game, coach Adia Barnes conceded Stanford’s superiority in rebounding and interior play.  But, Barnes said, “We are quicker.”  

Indeed they were.  Arizona had 12 steals, contributing substantially to Stanford’s 21 turnovers.   Stanford had superior size, better rebounding, and a higher shooting percentage (42%), but could do no better than 54 points and the one point victory.      

Stanford’s defense was equally impressive, holding Arizona to the 28.3% field goal percentage (and superstar Aari McDonald to an even lower percentage).   Stanford out rebounded the Wildcats 47 to 29.  The game’s last two offensive possessions, in many ways, typified the game.  Stanford had a full 30-second offensive possession, was able to run time off the clock by retaining possession, but could not get a shot off.  The ball rolled harmlessly off at the mid-court as the shot clock expired.  Arizona, in turn, had a final possession of 6 seconds and got the ball to Aari McDonald.  But the Arizona star, gang-defended, could do no better than an awkward three point heave as time expired. 

To the very end, it was defense that shone in the Final Four.

Returning everyone except Kiana Williams, and bolstering its ranks with four exceptional freshmen and a heralded transfer, Stanford should continue to play intensive defense this coming season.  But Adia Barnes’ defensive strategy has provided future opponents a clue as to how to defend Stanford.  How will Stanford deal with the aggressive quickness that Arizona demonstrated in the end game?  Most teams won’t be able to duplicate Arizona’s effort, but many may try. 

A strong and quick point guard with ball-handling skills could be part of the answer.  But who will that be?  Aside from starter Anna Wilson, there are two returning veterans (Jenna Brown and Jana Van Gytenbeek) and two new guards (graduate transfer Jordan Hamilton and freshman Jzaniya Harriel) who might be the answer.  For Stanford fans, it should be intriguing to see who can best demonstrate needed point guard skills.   Stanford could end up rotating the point guard position, depending on an opponent’s defensive presence.   Or maybe two of these players will be in the game at the same time.

This list of 5 guards, each of whom might be a point guard, still leaves open possible variations at the two and three positions.  Quickness and strength at the two and three positions will also be critical.  Aside from starters Haley Jones and Lexi Hull, there is Lacie Hull, Hannah Jump, Agnes Ema-Nnopu, and freshmen Brooke Demetre and Elena Bosgana who could play these positions.  All of these players are relatively tall, ranging from 5’11” Ema-Nnopu (she is an amazing rebounder) to Brooke Demetre’s 6’3”.

Stanford will return a bunch of post players.  Versatile Haley Jones can play the four, but look at the other options, including Cameron Brink, post season marvel Ashten Prechtel, dunking expert Fran Belibi, and solid Canadian journeyman Alyssa Jerome.  Now add the very athletic freshman Kiki Iriafen.

Wow, this team has “deep depth.” 

I’ve borrowed Yogi Berra’s words to describe past Stanford teams.  Last season’s team had unusual depth – 11 players saw action in the championship game.  This season, the words fit better than ever.   

The roster is 17 deep because three players are opting for the extra “covid” year.  Each of these 17 players could start for most other Division IA programs.  If this was Charlie Turner Thorne’s team, she could run her five-player platoon system with three platoons and two extra substitutes in case of injury.  Not expecting that from Coach VanDerveer, but who knows.

This year, depth is not a strength of some other premier Stanford athletic programs.  The football team and the women’s volleyball team are struggling because of a lack of depth.  Even the women’s soccer team could use an injection of additional quality players.  Too bad WBB cannot lend some quality athletes.

To fully grasp the depth of this season’s WBB team, consider these two fantasy games.

I. Organize three five-member squads for an intra-squad scrimmage, with each squad getting its shot against the other two.   Squad #1 should be the team’s five starters; Squad #2 should be made up of other veteran players (there should be 7 or 8 to choose from, depending on who the starters are); Squad #3 would be the five newcomers, four freshman and a transfer (if one or more of these players became starters, adjustments would be necessary).

Squad #1 would presumably consist of the four returning starters from the championship game (Brink, Jones, Lexie Hull, and Wilson) plus (you fill in the blank).  The fifth starter might be a veteran, might be a newcomer, might be a point guard, might be a ball-handling player in slots two-five, etc.  The team has flexibility because Haley Jones and Lexi Hull are versatile players.

Squad #2 (non-starting veterans) would have some high octane veteran players, presumably including Ashten Prechtel, Fran Belibi, Alyssa Jerome, and Lacie Hull.  Sophomores Van Gytenbeek or Emma-Nnopu could be added, as could senior Jenna Brown.  That’s a squad most Pac-12 coaches would love to have.

Squad #3 would be the newcomers -- four highly touted freshmen plus transfer Jordan Hamilton.  Last year, Hamilton was a key player for a gifted Northwestern team that gave Louisville a scare in the second round of the tournament.  It’s not preposterous to suggest that, as the freshmen develop, this squad could be a match for squad #1 by season’s end.

II. Assume a make-believe scenario in which Stanford is allowed to field two separate WBB teams (in this fantasy world, it’s now the Pac 13).  Coach VanDerveer would pick five players for team A, after which Coach Paye would pick five for team B.  They would then alternate picks until the 17 player list was exhausted.  One team would have 9 players; the other 8.  A bit short on depth, but both of these teams would have as much or more depth as UCLA had last season.  Team B could well end up with players like Prechtel and Belibi, plus three or more of the exciting newcomers.   Could Stanford field two top ten teams?   Could the two Stanford teams finish one and two in the conference? 

You decide.

Nothing is guaranteed,

But --

this season should be lots and lots of fun.