Takeaways from a Tough Loss

 

Warren Grimes

Call it a debacle.  Or merely a disappointing letdown.  Either way, this last Sunday, Stanford could not execute its offense against a motivated USC squad and went down almost meekly by a 55-46 score.

The demise of the offense could not have been more dramatic.  Stanford managed only 4 points in the first quarter and finished with just 46 points.  If those were not record low numbers for a VanDerveer coached team, they had to be close to it.

Why did this happen?  There are inevitably two points of view when there is a major upset.  USC Coach Lindsay Gottlieb talks about how well her team played.  On the defensive end, there is no doubt that USC deserves major credit.  USC did what South Carolina could not do -- hold Stanford to 46 points. 

Coach VanDerveer spoke about poor screening, poor ball control and disappointing shooting performances.  True enough, although I think there is more to be said.

Stanford did not experience a major defensive let down.  It held a very good offensive team to 55 points, limiting them to 27% overall shooting percentage (but could not stop productive 42% three-point shooting).  It outrebounded that team 40-36.   Stanford’s defensive effort should have been good enough to win.

On the offensive side, Stanford shot 30.9%, and a much worse 19% (4-21) from distance.  It had no fast break points. And it had 13 turnovers.

VanDerveer remarked on the poor screening effort, and that could have affected the long-distance shooting.  Hannah Jump was 0-3; Cameron Brink was 0-5; and Ashten Prechtel was 1-4.  Particularly for Brink, the long-distance shots seemed relatively uncontested.

There is a link here to USC’s defensive game plan.  That plan, not unlike other Stanford opponents, was to follow Jump everywhere she went and clog the middle while leaving other Stanford perimeters relatively unguarded from distance.  So Haley Jones and Cameron Brink, for example, were not closely guarded from outside. 

By clogging the middle, USC made it extremely difficult for Jones to penetrate and for Brink to dominate – Brink converted only 3 of 9 from the interior.  This game plan would have failed miserably if Stanford had found its long-range shooting.  Talana Lepolo and Agnes Emma-Nnopu both converted their only three-point shots.   Brooke Demetre was 1-3.  Why not more of that?

Stanford may have become too predictable in its offense – too reliant on the big three (Brink, Jones, and Jump).  To be sure, these gifted players are hard to defend, but USC had the personnel, the game plan, and the motivation to do just that.  No one can totally stop Cameron Brink from scoring but limiting her to 3-14 shooting helps a great deal. 

Last year’s team might well have done in the Trojans.  With reliable outside shooting from three other players -- the Hull twins and Anna Wilson -- Stanford’s three-point percentage would likely have been respectable, and USC’s defensive game plan would not have worked as well.  Outside shooting opens up the interior game.

So what adjustments, aside from more effective screening, could the team make?  Players such as Lepolo, Emma-Nnopu, and Demetre should be given the green light to shoot from distance when they are left open.  Demetre has suffered from a recent shooting draught, but, I understand, is still lights out in practice.  Stanford’s interior game is one of its strengths, but when an opponent gambles on leaving open perimeter players, the watchword should be: “make them pay.”  For all of the listed players (and perhaps Indya Nivar and Elena Bosgana should be added), the coaches need to encourage perimeter players to walk, talk and execute with swagger.  When the shot clock is below 10 seconds, if the shot is there, take it!

As far as Haley Jones, the best approach may be for Jones to be less predictable when faced with a clogged interior.  Rather than take on two or three obstructing players, perhaps Jones can rely more on a pull up jumper that she can shoot very effectively.

The USC game should be motivation for the team to make some of these offensive adjustments.  Take the bitterness of this loss, learn from it, and make them pay!

Talana Lepolo: Stanford’s Stealth MVP

 

Warren Grimes

Stanford has ample MVP candidates – to begin with, two All American players (Haley Jones and Cameron Brink).  And don’t forget Hannah Jump, who may well be the best three-point shooter Stanford has ever had.

Rounding out the starting lineup, Stanford has Kiki Iriafen, an interior player who, averaging less than 16 minutes per game, still manages to be the team’s third leading rebounder and fourth leading scorer.  Iriafen converts her shots at a 58% rate, better than Cameron Brink. 

That leaves only one other starter: Talana Lepolo.  With an average of 5.5 points per game, Lepolo’s unlikely to win any MVP awards.  But her value to the team?  That’s worth a careful look. 

Lepolo came out of relative obscurity (a freshman with a solid high school record, but only the third highest high school ranking among the team’s incoming freshmen) to be a starter and an invaluable point guard for the nation’s second ranked team. 

No, Lepolo doesn’t shoot the way Kiana Williams did.  No, Lepolo doesn’t defend and steal quite as well as Anna Wilson did.  Lepolo, however, is a unique player with her own amazing skill set.  She gets the ball up court as fast as any point guard that I can remember.  Her pinpoint passes often lead to easy conversions on the inside (Brink, for example) or the outside (Jump, for example).  Against Arizona’s aggressive and trapping defense, Lepolo had 4 assists against 3 turnovers, but she proved her mettle by dribbling out of two-player entrapments. 

One feature that sets Lepolo apart from other storied Stanford point guards is her strength.  She can drive the basket with the momentum and stability to stay on course against large defenders.  She uses those same assets to dribble out of defensive traps.  Meanwhile, she does what all point guards are asked to do.  She dishes out assists.  Last year, Lacie Hull and Anna Wilson combined averaged around five assists per game.  Lepolo alone is averaging just less than five per game.   Meanwhile, Lepolo accomplishes this with a commendable assist/turnover ratio (2.09).

So, averaging only 5.5 points per game, does that mean that Lepolo lacks offensive punch?  Opposing coaches who make that assumption may regret it.  Against Creighton, Lepolo scored a team and career high 17 points, shooting 5 for 11 from distance.  Lepolo is converting three-point shots at a 41% average, second only to Hannah Jump.  Free thows?  Lepolo has 10 for 12, or 83% conversions. 

Does Lepolo benefit from having Haley Jones and three other starters who help with the ball-handling and are major offensive threats?  Of course, she does.  The important point is that Lepolo knows how to work in tandem with her teammates, taking advantage of defenders who are preoccupied with other Stanford players.

When asked about Talana’s playing, Haley Jones offered high praise at the post-Arizona game press conference.  Noting the excellent communication with Lepolo, Jones expressed “utmost confidence in Talana.”  Jones continued: “She’s growing so much in her leadership.”  For good reason, Jones and her mates enjoy playing with Talana. 

So, at season’s end, Lepolo may be without MVP honors, but she makes everyone else on the team better.  If overall statistics are honored, Lepolo’s a solid bet for the Pac-12 All-Freshman team.   

Stanford in December: Depth and Versatility

 Warren Grimes

In December, Stanford women played 5 home games.  One of those (Gonzaga) was played before the finals break.  Three more (Tennessee, Creighton, and California) were before the Christmas break.  The last was Arizona State, played on New Year’s Eve.

Stanford won all of them, four by 20-point plus margins.  That’s an accomplishment given that three of the five opponents are likely to be tournament teams.  Tennessee (a team that had lost six coming into Maples but still could end the season in the top 20) managed to limit Stanford to a 7-point margin.

In four of the five games, the top three scorers were Brink, Jump, and Jones, each of them averaging around 13 points per game over the season.  Brink is slightly in the lead. She has an impressive 61% shooting percentage.  Jump is just behind in scoring but is shooting threes at a team leading 50% rate.  And Jones, well she does it all, but should be singled out for her assists and her “full court” drives to the basket. 

Stanford has no player in the race for top conference scorer, but the team’s balanced scoring says a great deal about why Stanford is so tough to defend.  The December games stand out because players other than the top three have stepped up in various ways to add to the opponent’s difficulty in facing Stanford.

Let’s begin with Gonzaga, a team with injuries and a very thin bench, but nonetheless a top 20 team with some significant wins.  Brooke Demetre had a season and career game, scoring a team high 17 points on 5 for 9 shooting from distance.  Demetre has stood out in other games as well in part because of her steady presence and ability to pile up the assists.  She has 20 assists for the season with a 2.1 assist to turnover ratio.  In the Tennessee game, Demetre scored no points but had a steal and 2 assists, not counting passes to the interior that led to free throws for Brink or other players. 

Against Tennessee, Brink, Jones, and Jump carried the critical load.  The team, however, could not have won without Demetre’s contribution and Agnes Emma Nnopu, who played 17 minutes with 2 assists (no turnovers), a block and a steal.

Creighton provided an opportunity for point guard Talana Lepolo, who stepped up with a team and career high 17 points, shooting 5 for 11 from three-point land.  Creighton managed to hold Jump without a three-pointer but paid a price when Lepolo took advantage.  Stanford held Creighton to 59 points, well below their season average.

Then came California, where both Lauren Betts and Elena Bosgana contributed 9 points in ten minutes or less.  Both of these players deserve further mention.  Betts has been averaging less than 10 minutes per game, but in those limited minutes has become the team’s fifth leading scorer and fourth leading rebounder.  On a per minute basis, Betts is in fact the leading scorer and leading rebounder on the team.  She seems certain to get more minutes.

Meanwhile Elena Bosgana has gradually added to her resume.  Averaging around 12 minutes per game, she has now become the team’s sixth leading scorer.  She shoots the three-ball effectively (35.5%), something she did not do last year.  And Bosgana is an impressive defender: she steals the ball, on a per minute basis, more than any teammate, although Emma Nnopu is a close second. 

Now we come to New Year’s Eve and the ASU game.  Once again, the firm of Jump, Brink and Jones stood out, but had substantial support from Lepolo (10 points on 2 for 3 shooting from distance) and from Betts (10 points and 6 boards in 15 minutes).  Add one more player to the list of substantial contributors: Indya Nivar played 18 minutes, part of the time at the point, and tallied 8 points.  Nivar looked confident out there.

What fun!  This depth and versatility will be tested as the conference season proceeds – next against Arizona on Monday.