Coaching Perspectives on the USC Game

 

Warren Grimes

Coaches map out defensive and offensive strategies before each game.  Playing USC for the second time (after a humiliating loss in Los Angeles), how did Stanford coaches adjust their strategies?  And how did USC coaches adjust to the loss of Rayah Marshall, a key big who boards, blocks and scores? 

Without actual knowledge of the game plans, these comments are based on what I saw in the two games and on two basic rules of thumb: (1) that on the defensive side, a coach tries to make it difficult for the opponent’s primary scorers to succeed; and (2) on the offensive side, a coach tries to design an offense most likely to succeed against the opponent’s defense. 

Stanford and USC are the two best defensive teams in the conference.  USC allows opponents (on average) just under 54 points a game; Stanford has an opponent average of just under 57 points.  On field goal percentage defense, Stanford comes out on top with .328 with USC number two at .353.

Both teams did their defensive jobs well.  A total of 101 points were scored by the two teams in the USC victory; only 97 points were scored in the second matchup.  These low scoring totals, well below each team’s average, are often seen in the NCAA tournament when top teams meet one another.

Lindsay Gottlieb’s strategy for USC – USC matches up well against Stanford, both in terms of height and athleticism. Gottlieb succeeded in limiting Stanford’s top scorers in both games: Brink, Jones, and Jump had their points, but each had a low percentage of conversions.  Brink, for example, had 11 points in the first game and 12 points in the second.  But her conversion rate was 21% in the first game and 33% in the second, well below her season average of 49%.  Jump’s combined performance in the two games was 2 for 11, or 18%, well below her 45% average.

Offensively, USC is the second lowest in the conference in field goal percentage (35%).  These percentages were even worse in the two games (27% in the first game and 22% in the second), but Gottlieb’s team maintained or surpassed its average in 3-point shooting.  Without Rayah Marshall in the second game, Gottlieb may have redesigned her offense to rely less on interior scoring and more on three-point shooting.  Her team launched 23 long distance shots in the game, and converted 8 of them for a respectable 34.8% conversions (USC averages 34% on its three-point shots).

An impressive facet of Gottlieb’s game plan was how to use the natural incentive to play hard against Stanford, the team most Pac-12 opponents most want to beat.  One sign of this motivation was the bench response when USC teammates made a good play.  Rebounding was something USC did with passion and focus in the second game.  Gottlieb must have reached out to her players to make maximum rebounding efforts in lieu of an absent Rayah Marshall.  The team responded by tying Stanford with 43 total rebounds, but impressively gathering 20 offensive boards (USC averages 13 offensive boards, but that's with Marshall playing).  When second half shots weren’t falling for USC, time and again their players responded with offensive boards.  This was a team effort, with 6 players contributing offensive rebounds and with 3 of those players gathering more offensive than defensive boards (an unusual result and a demonstration of USC’s determination).

Tara VanDerveer’s strategy for Stanford – In January, the Stanford coaches had only a short time to prepare their team for a Sunday matchup with USC at the Galen Center.  Stanford had played a then top-10 ranked UCLA team on Friday.  The coaches had no such excuse for the Maples game, although they did lack one piece of knowledge that Gottlieb had.  Gottlieb knew that Marshall would be unlikely to play.  The Stanford coaches doubtless knew of Marshall’s injury the previous weekend, but they lacked any sense of whether Marshall would be sufficiently recovered to play.  Stanford had no choice but to plan a game strategy focusing on the interior, assuming Marshall would play.  That they did well.  They held USC to 2 points in the paint.  Although USC made 35% of its three-point shots, the Cardinal defense held USC to a 15% conversion rate (6 out of 40 attempts) on two-point shots.  Although Destiny Littleton (the high scorer with 18 points in the first game) had a hot first quarter, her overall shooting was not impressive (4 for 20 and 1 for 8 from 3-point land). 

Offensively, Stanford had 8 fast break points (compared to none in LA) and had major contributions from players other than the big three.  From off the bench, Indya Nivar had 9 points and Lauren Betts had 4.  Starter Kiki Iriafen played only 16 minutes, but had 9 points and 6 rebounds.  Each of these players was converting their shots at an equal or higher percentage than were the big three.

In the last minutes of the game, Stanford saw its lead, as high as 11 points in the third quarter, whittled down to 3 points.  Jones missed an uncontested layup and twice the team turned the ball over on inbound passes.  The inability of the team to inbound the ball in crucial minutes almost did Stanford in during the semi-final NCAA game against South Carolina two years ago.  The defense, however, held up.  USC  was 0-7 in three point attempts in the final quarter.

There are still things to work on, and three games against NCAA-bound teams to play.  The conference title hangs in the balance. 

The Story of Two Games: “Hullsling” Your Way to Victory

 

Warren Grimes

On a February Sunday, Stanford endured a disappointing 72-67 loss to Washington, an unranked team that probably won’t get invited to the Big Dance.  Stanford played well enough to win, but Washington had what was likely its best overall game of the season, including a potent offensive showing that Stanford’s defense couldn’t squelch.  Four days later, on a Thursday, Stanford held 17^th ranked Arizona to 60 points in their home arena and easily prevailed by a 24-point margin.  At one point, Stanford had a 37-point lead over the Wild Cats.  What a difference.  And how does one explain it?

It all comes down to “hullsling.”

 I looked up the word in my basketball dictionary: To hullsle: to play like a Hull, as in a Lacie or Lexie Hull. 

When a Hull plays basketball, she has her mind on the game every second.  She is always thinking, always anticipating, always mentally there for the team making the little plays that matter so much.  She is focused and aggressive all the time.     

One measure of this hullsling skill is the number of steals on defense.  When Stanford played Washington in last season’s final conference game of the season (and the last conference game for Lexie, Lacie, and Anna Wilson), the Hulls and Wilson combined for 11 steals.  In this season’s loss against the Huskies, the entire team had just 3 steals.  Last season, the match was close, but still resulted in a  63-56 win for Stanford.  Last season, Stanford had 19 offensive boards; this year, only 2.  That must be a season low for Stanford.   Last year, Lexie Hull scored 15 points, had 8 boards, and 5 steals. This year, Brooke Demetre scored 15 points, but could not make up for Stanford’s overall lack luster performance.  

So a team that hullsles gets steals, gets blocks, gets offensive boards, gets fast break opportunities, disrupts the offensive flow of the opponent – and wins.  Exhibit number one is how Stanford played against Arizona, perhaps its best overall game of the season.  Stanford had 9 steals (Indya Nivar led with 3), 10 blocks (Lauren Betts had 4), 24 assists, 22 fast break points, and out-rebounded the Wildcats 45 to 27.   

My sense is that this year’s team too often relies on a few people (Brink, Jones, and Jump) to do too much.  Everyone must be involved in the offense and the defense for every minute of the game.  Two freshmen announced themselves against Arizona: Lauren Betts had 12 points, 4 blocks, and 2 nice assists; Indya Nivar had 8 points, 4 boards, 3 steals, and 2 assists (0 turnovers).   Everyone, not just the All Americans, played intensively, aggressively, and focused.  That’ s how Stanford scored 84 points against a highly ranked team that typically has a disruptive defense. 

Returning to the (probably unanswerable) question of which Stanford team (this year’s or last year’s) is the better team, I’d have to say that last year’s team wins the mark for consistency.  They went undefeated in the conference season, an amazing achievement.  But in terms of which team will be the best at the end of the season, the question is still open.  If Stanford hullsles the way it did against Arizona, they could easily win out the conference season and be a serious contender for the national championship. 

Stanford has 3 more games against tournament-bound teams (UCLA, Colorado, and Utah) and another against the USC team that humiliated Stanford in Los Angeles.  Let’s hope that Stanford’s team is inspired by the Hulls, wins the conference, and continues with that momentum into the post-season.