I would love to say something interesting here, but that would require having something interesting to say.
Stanford 55, Fresno State 48
I will say this about this game-- Stanford's defense was stifling. Fresno State netted only .83 points per shot, which is abysmal. Worse yet, Fresno turned the ball over 18 times, with only 6 assists. Most of the baskets they did manage were off of Kevin Bell penetrating into the lane, and even he was rather ineffectual, managing a mere 7 for 18 with 2 free throws. Like Texas Tech, Fresno was reduced to ineffectual lunges and runners in a desperate attempt to generate some offense.
That being said, Stanford:
a. turned the ball over 14 times themselves,
b. got all of three points from the bench, all of them on a single Taj Finger shot (weird in and of itself-- since when does he shoot threes?)
c. got outrebounded by a far smaller team, and
d. punctuated the game with such black-comedic highlights as Fred Washington and Brook Lopez attempting threes and Lawrence Hill shooting 2 for 12. He's officially in a slump at this point, as he whiffed on several wide-open threes that he normally buries.
There was basically one offensive highlight in this game, and it was Anthony Goods peeling off a screen and lunging to the hoop for a perfect slam dunk-- around a help defender. Very nice, but it hardly triggered a run-- Fresno promptly inbounded and hit a 3-pointer, which last time I checked is worth more points than a dunk.
In other news, Cal football's nightmarish season continues its denouement, with several players benched for at least the start of tomorrow's Armed Forces Bowl. Perhaps mercifully, I will be spared the sight of the game by work, as one of the worst football seasons (and sports years, period) in local history finally sputters to its gloomy conclusion. Let's hope for a happier 2008.
Note: the above was all written several days ago, but has been sitting on my computer since then. This is because I am an idiot who forgets about these things.
Might as well go straight on to the keys for Stanford to pull the upset in tonight's game:
1. Defense: The overriding priority is restraining UCLA's offense. They are not a super-powered offensive force. Most of the scoring comes from the guards-- Westbrook, Collison and Shipp. If Stanford can swat away their attempts at penetration and cling close enough to stop them from shooting 3s, I think UCLA will have trouble winning. Target: Less than one point per shot.
2. Lawrence Hill: Guy's been in a slump lately. The Cardinal desperately needs him to break out of it. He's going to have open looks from 3 and needs to knock them down. Target: 12 points and 6 rebounds.
3. Turnovers: We know there's going to be a bunch of them for Stanford. UCLA plays aggressive, ball-hawking, borderline illegal defense. The Cardinal have to limit the number of turnovers, particularly steals (which are much more damaging than other turnovers because they often lead to easy baskets on run-outs). Otherwise they simply won't be able to match UCLA in possessions. Target: 12 turnovers, 4 steals.
4. Non-Lopez/Goods scoring: Someone else is going to need to step up and score, whether it be Fred Washington with penetration or Drew Shiller (currently sitting at a ludicrous 1.9 points per shot-- he needs to take more of them) bombing from the outside. UCLA's own stodgy white jump-shooter, Michael Roll, is doubtful for the game with an injury, so the Cardinal definitely have an edge here. Target: At least one player besides Brook, Goods and Hill with 10 points.
We shall see. It's awfully tough to predict anyone to beat UCLA at this point, but I think Stanford is certainly at least capable of pulling it off.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Running rapidly out of "Brook" jokes
At the rate we're going, I'm going to have to start re-using them by mid-January. Could be a long season for anyone who actually cares about quality writing.
Then again, if that's you, why are you reading this in the first place?
Stanford 62, Texas Tech 61
Ladies and gentlemen, your consensus Pac-10 Player of the Week.
Tight-fought battle down to the wire. The single overriding factor in this game-- particularly in the second half-- was that Stanford had a way to generate easy points-- throw the ball in to Brook Lopez-- and Texas Tech had none. Trent Johnson put in a zone in the second half which completely stuffed Tech's offense. And again, Brook was the key to that-- because despite being almost 7 feet, he's agile enough to guard one of the corners of the zone very well. Meanwhile Robin Lopez was prowling the lane, freed by the zone look to come over the top of any guard penetration and simply swat the ball away. It did result in Tech getting a couple of weak offensive boards-- and several extremely long possessions, as Tech kept running the shot clock way down trying to find an open shot; at one point the ball was in Stanford's end for well over a minute straight-- but the tradeoff was more than worth it.
Offensively, this was really a forgettable performance by the Farm Team. Until Mitch Johnson hit on a wide-open 3 midway through the second half, the team didn't have a long-range basket. Anthony Goods pump-faked on what looked (to my amateur eye) to have been a couple of open looks from the corners, and generally settled for midrange jumpers instead. Lawrence Hill had what can only be described as an off game. At the end of the game, he wasn't even on the floor, as Taj Finger took over the interior with Fred Washington, Goods and Johnson on the perimeter.
The inclusion of Washington in the above list is of some note. Washington actually had minor surgery a few weeks back, but managed through the combination of a light schedule and a pretty quick recovery to miss only one game-- and apparently he could have played in that one, too, but was held out for precautionary reasons.
Washington seems like he's about 80 years old at this point, but he's actually only in his 5th season. He's the last remaining Cardinal who actually played for Mike Montgomery (although Taj Finger and Peter Prowitt were recruited by him), having gotten a medical hardship waiver for the '05-06 season. I'm pretty sure he's in grad school at this point, but it's nice to see him continue to help out the team. Texas Tech really didn't respect him enough in this game, and it burned them. A couple of times they had Martin Zeno, theoretically his mark, release him and play a one-man zone in the middle of the floor to help out against the Lopezes. This didn't work out well. Stanford took advantage of Zeno's paradox (heh) with 3 chip-in baskets from Washington on offensive rebounds in the second half-- rebounds obtained because nobody was bothering to block Washington out.
Bad break for Cal, as they lose at the last second to Utah, a game they really could have used come tournament time.
Stanford has another light week upcoming, with the only remaining non-conference fixture against Fresno State. Cal hosts the Golden Bear Invitational, which I may actually be attending, and plays Long Beach State and then either Bucknell or North Dakota State. The Bears really need those for the W column. I think it's going to take 19 wins to get Cal into the Tourney, and if they lose one of those they may need a winning record in conference play to advance.
Also, some props to the Stanford women's team, which picked up a huge home win against Tennessee, snapping an 11-game losing streak to the Vols. I have to say, it sure would be nice if all the good men's teams actually played each other the way the good women's teams do. One can but dream, I suppose.
Then again, if that's you, why are you reading this in the first place?
Stanford 62, Texas Tech 61
Ladies and gentlemen, your consensus Pac-10 Player of the Week.
Tight-fought battle down to the wire. The single overriding factor in this game-- particularly in the second half-- was that Stanford had a way to generate easy points-- throw the ball in to Brook Lopez-- and Texas Tech had none. Trent Johnson put in a zone in the second half which completely stuffed Tech's offense. And again, Brook was the key to that-- because despite being almost 7 feet, he's agile enough to guard one of the corners of the zone very well. Meanwhile Robin Lopez was prowling the lane, freed by the zone look to come over the top of any guard penetration and simply swat the ball away. It did result in Tech getting a couple of weak offensive boards-- and several extremely long possessions, as Tech kept running the shot clock way down trying to find an open shot; at one point the ball was in Stanford's end for well over a minute straight-- but the tradeoff was more than worth it.
Offensively, this was really a forgettable performance by the Farm Team. Until Mitch Johnson hit on a wide-open 3 midway through the second half, the team didn't have a long-range basket. Anthony Goods pump-faked on what looked (to my amateur eye) to have been a couple of open looks from the corners, and generally settled for midrange jumpers instead. Lawrence Hill had what can only be described as an off game. At the end of the game, he wasn't even on the floor, as Taj Finger took over the interior with Fred Washington, Goods and Johnson on the perimeter.
The inclusion of Washington in the above list is of some note. Washington actually had minor surgery a few weeks back, but managed through the combination of a light schedule and a pretty quick recovery to miss only one game-- and apparently he could have played in that one, too, but was held out for precautionary reasons.
Washington seems like he's about 80 years old at this point, but he's actually only in his 5th season. He's the last remaining Cardinal who actually played for Mike Montgomery (although Taj Finger and Peter Prowitt were recruited by him), having gotten a medical hardship waiver for the '05-06 season. I'm pretty sure he's in grad school at this point, but it's nice to see him continue to help out the team. Texas Tech really didn't respect him enough in this game, and it burned them. A couple of times they had Martin Zeno, theoretically his mark, release him and play a one-man zone in the middle of the floor to help out against the Lopezes. This didn't work out well. Stanford took advantage of Zeno's paradox (heh) with 3 chip-in baskets from Washington on offensive rebounds in the second half-- rebounds obtained because nobody was bothering to block Washington out.
Bad break for Cal, as they lose at the last second to Utah, a game they really could have used come tournament time.
Stanford has another light week upcoming, with the only remaining non-conference fixture against Fresno State. Cal hosts the Golden Bear Invitational, which I may actually be attending, and plays Long Beach State and then either Bucknell or North Dakota State. The Bears really need those for the W column. I think it's going to take 19 wins to get Cal into the Tourney, and if they lose one of those they may need a winning record in conference play to advance.
Also, some props to the Stanford women's team, which picked up a huge home win against Tennessee, snapping an 11-game losing streak to the Vols. I have to say, it sure would be nice if all the good men's teams actually played each other the way the good women's teams do. One can but dream, I suppose.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Bronco Brook
You know, sometimes when a player is out for an extended period of time, you forget how much better he makes a team.
Stanford 74, Santa Clara 48
Brook Lopez dominated this game every single minute he was in the ballgame. Rebounding. Threatening blocks. Hedging hard on high screens. Playing tough one-on-one D against one of the leading scorers in the country (John Bryant, now just under 20 points per game). But most of all, scoring practically at will. With his size and athleticism, he can be practically toeing the baseline with two defenders draped on his back, and he'll still be able to lean back and spin a layup in off the glass.
If any college hoops player could ever justify Keyshawn Johnson's mantra (just give me the damn ball), it's Brook Lopez. I actually felt kind of sorry for Robin, because he's been playing really well and suddenly is going to get fewer minutes and fewer shot opportunities.
If Brook plays this well all season, he's going to be a consensus top 5 draft pick. You can't turn down that kind of money. I hope that if he goes, Robin will stay for at least one more season, perhaps two more. He's already made big strides offensively, and I feel like getting out of his brother's shadow might have a salutary effect on his perceived draft status (which right now is not as high as it, by rights, should be). It's not like they'll be playing together in the NBA anyway, so there's no real reason why they would have to come out at the same time. And I think a Stanford team led by seniors in Anthony Goods and Lawrence Hill, retaining Robin Lopez and working in raw-but-talented Josh Owens would be a force to be reckoned with come Tourney time.
Unrelated notes: A really positive sign in this game was that they completely shut down Santa Clara's perimeter offense. Despite running two bigs for much of the game, the Cardinal defenders were able to stick close to SC's guards and really limit their offense to tossing the ball in to Bryant and hoping he could do something with it. Incredibly, Santa Clara had only FIVE assists in the entire game.
Brook did get into a bit of foul trouble, picking up 4 in 19 minutes of play. A couple of them were kind of cheap, though. By and large he did a good job defensively.
Taj Finger had a nice little game. He's not usually much of a scorer, but he was 3/5 from the field and hit 4 free throws, and ripped down 11 rebounds for a double-double. He and Hill both have excellent rebounding instincts, and it shows (Hill had 8 boards along with 16 points).
Up next is a tough trip. The Cardinal head out to Dallas to play what is technically a neutral-site game against Texas Tech (and to be fair, Lubbock is a good several hundred miles away and there won't be a student section). Trips across multiple time zones are always tricky; Cal got tripped up by Kansas State 2 Sundays ago, and if the team had come out of the gate just a tiny bit quicker, they might well have won that one. Did jet lag play a role? Who knows, but Pac-10 teams always seem to have a tough time of it going east. At least Stanford's game will be at 1:30 Pacific time (3:30 local), a perfectly reasonable starting hour.
Stanford 74, Santa Clara 48
Brook Lopez dominated this game every single minute he was in the ballgame. Rebounding. Threatening blocks. Hedging hard on high screens. Playing tough one-on-one D against one of the leading scorers in the country (John Bryant, now just under 20 points per game). But most of all, scoring practically at will. With his size and athleticism, he can be practically toeing the baseline with two defenders draped on his back, and he'll still be able to lean back and spin a layup in off the glass.
If any college hoops player could ever justify Keyshawn Johnson's mantra (just give me the damn ball), it's Brook Lopez. I actually felt kind of sorry for Robin, because he's been playing really well and suddenly is going to get fewer minutes and fewer shot opportunities.
If Brook plays this well all season, he's going to be a consensus top 5 draft pick. You can't turn down that kind of money. I hope that if he goes, Robin will stay for at least one more season, perhaps two more. He's already made big strides offensively, and I feel like getting out of his brother's shadow might have a salutary effect on his perceived draft status (which right now is not as high as it, by rights, should be). It's not like they'll be playing together in the NBA anyway, so there's no real reason why they would have to come out at the same time. And I think a Stanford team led by seniors in Anthony Goods and Lawrence Hill, retaining Robin Lopez and working in raw-but-talented Josh Owens would be a force to be reckoned with come Tourney time.
Unrelated notes: A really positive sign in this game was that they completely shut down Santa Clara's perimeter offense. Despite running two bigs for much of the game, the Cardinal defenders were able to stick close to SC's guards and really limit their offense to tossing the ball in to Bryant and hoping he could do something with it. Incredibly, Santa Clara had only FIVE assists in the entire game.
Brook did get into a bit of foul trouble, picking up 4 in 19 minutes of play. A couple of them were kind of cheap, though. By and large he did a good job defensively.
Taj Finger had a nice little game. He's not usually much of a scorer, but he was 3/5 from the field and hit 4 free throws, and ripped down 11 rebounds for a double-double. He and Hill both have excellent rebounding instincts, and it shows (Hill had 8 boards along with 16 points).
Up next is a tough trip. The Cardinal head out to Dallas to play what is technically a neutral-site game against Texas Tech (and to be fair, Lubbock is a good several hundred miles away and there won't be a student section). Trips across multiple time zones are always tricky; Cal got tripped up by Kansas State 2 Sundays ago, and if the team had come out of the gate just a tiny bit quicker, they might well have won that one. Did jet lag play a role? Who knows, but Pac-10 teams always seem to have a tough time of it going east. At least Stanford's game will be at 1:30 Pacific time (3:30 local), a perfectly reasonable starting hour.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Brook no delay!
Yes, that's right-- Brook Lopez is now eligible for play.
You expected maybe the "ZOMG 3xhibition tings of Koll3ge of Idahoe"?
Like it or not, this was the single most important news of the first half of the season. The guy is that good. And unlike his brother, his hair doesn't look like a beaver sat on his head. (Robin Lopez was named to the All-Bad-Hair NCAA tournament team last year. You can't make this stuff up, folks.)
(Actually, now that I think on it, that's exactly what ESPN did. Forget I just said that-- you CAN just make stuff up and many people will believe it. For further proof of this principle, please see any baseball game commented on by Joe Morgan.)
Put plainly, Brook Lopez has one of the best offensive games of any college big man. Maybe not quite on the level of Ohio State's Kosta Koufos, and I'd have to put Kevin Love in that category too, but quite strong nonetheless. He's got the ability to hit the midrange shot, which separates him from a lot of guys who are pretty much limited to layups and dunks. He's not great putting the ball on the floor, though (2 turnovers a game last season). If he could add the ability to move and back down defenders from further out than the fringes of the lane, he could become truly unstoppable.
Even more important, though, is his defensive presence. When the Cardinal throw out the double-Lopez lineup, it completely changes the game on the defensive end. It's awfully nice to know, as a perimeter guard, that even if you screw up you'll probably get bailed out by shot-blockers. It's virtually impossible to attempt a shot inside of 15 feet against that lineup without it being blocked or at least severely affected.
Report of actual performance coming Wednesday, when Stanford faces off against mid-major nemesis Santa Clara. It's been a pretty slow stretch for Cardinal Precepts, but we're getting into the swing of things for the stretch run.
You expected maybe the "ZOMG 3xhibition tings of Koll3ge of Idahoe"?
Like it or not, this was the single most important news of the first half of the season. The guy is that good. And unlike his brother, his hair doesn't look like a beaver sat on his head. (Robin Lopez was named to the All-Bad-Hair NCAA tournament team last year. You can't make this stuff up, folks.)
(Actually, now that I think on it, that's exactly what ESPN did. Forget I just said that-- you CAN just make stuff up and many people will believe it. For further proof of this principle, please see any baseball game commented on by Joe Morgan.)
Put plainly, Brook Lopez has one of the best offensive games of any college big man. Maybe not quite on the level of Ohio State's Kosta Koufos, and I'd have to put Kevin Love in that category too, but quite strong nonetheless. He's got the ability to hit the midrange shot, which separates him from a lot of guys who are pretty much limited to layups and dunks. He's not great putting the ball on the floor, though (2 turnovers a game last season). If he could add the ability to move and back down defenders from further out than the fringes of the lane, he could become truly unstoppable.
Even more important, though, is his defensive presence. When the Cardinal throw out the double-Lopez lineup, it completely changes the game on the defensive end. It's awfully nice to know, as a perimeter guard, that even if you screw up you'll probably get bailed out by shot-blockers. It's virtually impossible to attempt a shot inside of 15 feet against that lineup without it being blocked or at least severely affected.
Report of actual performance coming Wednesday, when Stanford faces off against mid-major nemesis Santa Clara. It's been a pretty slow stretch for Cardinal Precepts, but we're getting into the swing of things for the stretch run.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Surveying the Pac
We've reached roughly the quarter-season mark. I've looked at Cal and Stanford; how is the rest of the conference doing?
Arizona-- 5-2, SOS rank 8
Pomeroy rating: 26
(Just a note about the above: SOS is measured by rank among the 341 Division I programs. Pomeroy rating was developed by Ken Pomeroy, now of basketballprospectus.com, to measure the actual performance of basketball teams against their opponents in a better manner than the RPI. It's a pretty predictive ranking scheme.)
Lute Olsen always has his teams play particularly tough non-conference schedules. I've got to be honest with you-- I don't understand it with this team. The team at present has one proven scorer in Chase Budinger, who is (despite my earlier criticism of him vis a vis Ryan Anderson) pretty awesome, and a whole lot of question marks elsewhere. Jerryd Bayless is producing quite well for a freshman, but this is not a strong Olsen squad.
Add in the fact that Olsen is taking the season off, and you've got a recipe for another potential meltdown in the latter half of the season. He is, apparently, in the midst of a somewhat messy divorce. It's to his credit that he realized he couldn't concentrate on coaching and turned the reins over to Kevin McHale. But no matter who's coaching, the strain of numerous high-intensity games is, I think, going to wear the team down. They've still got games at Illinois, at UNLV (never an easy road trip), and at Memphis. It's hard to see this team going better than 9-4 in nonconference play, which likely means they'll need a .500 Pac-10 mark to make the Tourney.
Arizona State-- 5-2, SOS 156
Pomeroy Rating: 50
Herb Sendek has definitely upped the recruiting ante in the Desert, as evidenced by the fact that his team's leading scorer and rebounder is a freshman. Unfortunately, said freshman (James Harden) is a guard. Guards leading your team in rebounding is a Bad Thing. This team has a core of solid talent, and has held its own to this point, managing two D-I wins at the Maui Invitational, but losing by 15 to Nebraska does not fill me with confidence for this team's future. Right now Pomeroy has them on the Tourney bubble, but without better scoring and rebounding performances, they're not going to win enough games in-conference.
Oregon-- 6-1, SOS 30
Pomeroy Rating: 44
I find it odd that Oregon's schedule is ranked as highly as it is. Outside of Kansas State (narrow win) and St. Mary's (lost rather badly), there's no one of any consequence on there. This is a veteran team, but also one with severe depth and height problems. The team has one player with significant minutes over 6-6, and only 7 guys in the regular rotation. Call me a skeptic, but I just can't see where the #19 AP rank is coming from. The Pac-10 this year is crammed full of big men, and I cannot see what Oregon will be able to do against DeVon Harden and his ilk. They should enter Pac-10 play at 10-2, but I think this team will struggle to post a .500 conference record and ultimately miss the NCAA tournament.
Oregon State-- 4-3, SOS 321
Pomeroy Rating: 160
Let's face it-- this is a bad team. When you lose to Alaska-Fairbanks, you've got some serious issues. I was under the impression that O-State had brought in a decent recruiting class, but so far it hasn't really showed. The only players who should inspire fear in any opponent are Seth Tarver and Marcel Jones. In this conference, O-State is going to be lucky to win 4 games. It would take little short of a miracle for this group to even obtain an NIT bid.
UCLA-- 8-1, SOS 11
Pomeroy Rating: 3
It's a measure of how reactive and stupid the polls are that UCLA dropped 7 spots for losing to a pretty good Texas team by 2 points. Ignore them. The committee will, too. This is a Bruins squad which has won a bunch of games against tough opponents despite serious injury problems. The frontline group-- Collison, Westbrook, Shipp, Mbah a Moute (is that not the most awesome name in sports?) and Kevin Love-- is as good as any in the country. This team doesn't have the backcourt depth of some of Howland's past teams, but that situation will improve once Michael Roll returns from injury.
It's pretty hard for me not to think that UCLA is Final Four-bound again. The only thing that might crimp those plans is if the team loses enough conference games to drop to a #3 seed or so.
USC-- 6-3, SOS 16
Pomeroy Rating: 21
Does Taj Gibson have mono or something? What happened to the dominant big man we saw in last year's NCAA tournament? He had zero points when I turned on last week's game against Kansas, at about the 6-minutes-to-go mark. I'm a big fan of his, despite his playing for USC (easily my least-liked team in the conference) and the lassitude I'm seeing is a little disturbing.
Then again, maybe it's just a natural result of playing on the same team as OJ Mayo. Mayo has really damaged USC's chances with his ball-hogging ways thus far. He's shot the ball 157 times and scored 160 points on those shots. When you consider that he's also turning the ball over 4 times a game, you realize that the lion's share of this team's offense is going through a guy who's actually not all that good. Luckily for USC fans, he'll be gone soon.
I really dislike this new "one year rule" which encourages all of these ringers to show up on campus, go to class for a semester, and then bug out for the NBA. For one thing, it creates way too much uncertainty for coaches as to what their rosters are actually going to look like. For another, it's hard for fans to keep up with. For a third, it's a serious waste of classroom resources on guys who have no interest in or desire to attend college. And for a fourth, it makes the rich richer-- virtually all of these guys are going to top programs, not Northwestern State.
Make the rule the same as in baseball or football (3 year commitment) and I'd be a bit happier with it. I'm really not convinced the rule is even morally right or legally permissible, though. If the players want to play in the NBA, and the teams want them to play in the NBA, what exactly is the justification for preventing them?
Washington-- 4-3, SOS 179
Pomeroy Rating: 129
Here's a shocker for ya: losing Brandon Roy really hurt this team last year. He's not coming back, and it seems like you could say the same about the program. The Huskies made it to New York in the Preseason NIT, but got thumped twice there, and subsequently endured another thrashing at the hands of Oklahoma State in the Big 12-Pac 10 Series. The Huskies are hugely dependent on undersized big Jon Brockman, who is a talented guy but really not on the level of a Brook Lopez or a Kevin Love. Having an undersized, shoot-first point guard who's not a great ball-handler just adds to the problems. Washington has an outside shot at an NIT bid, but that's about all they can realistically hope for.
Washington State-- 8-0, SOS 137
Pomeroy Rating: 12
I don't know of a recent example of a college team enjoying this much consistent success without a single NBA talent on the roster. OK, OK, Kyle Weaver might get a look (6-6 shooting guards are a nice thing), but "last ten picks to possibly undrafted" doesn't really count here. The rest of the team consists of: a short Hawaiian point guard (Derrick Low), a guy whose shot looks like it came straight out of some highlight reel from the 1930s (Rochestie), a center who looks like he just ate Sheboygan and isn't sorry (Aron Baynes), and a guy who looks kind of like what Oakland A's pitcher Dan Haren would look like if you grew both him and his hair out ten inches (Robbie Cowgill).
Kudos to Tony Bennett for turning this ragged bunch of dudes into a formidable defensive menace. The combination of slow tempo and great halfcourt defense means Wazoo has a pretty fair shot at allowing fewer points per game than any other team in Division I. Having one aspect of your game be that good really gives you a chance against any opponent, even the UCLAs of the world.
Arizona-- 5-2, SOS rank 8
Pomeroy rating: 26
(Just a note about the above: SOS is measured by rank among the 341 Division I programs. Pomeroy rating was developed by Ken Pomeroy, now of basketballprospectus.com, to measure the actual performance of basketball teams against their opponents in a better manner than the RPI. It's a pretty predictive ranking scheme.)
Lute Olsen always has his teams play particularly tough non-conference schedules. I've got to be honest with you-- I don't understand it with this team. The team at present has one proven scorer in Chase Budinger, who is (despite my earlier criticism of him vis a vis Ryan Anderson) pretty awesome, and a whole lot of question marks elsewhere. Jerryd Bayless is producing quite well for a freshman, but this is not a strong Olsen squad.
Add in the fact that Olsen is taking the season off, and you've got a recipe for another potential meltdown in the latter half of the season. He is, apparently, in the midst of a somewhat messy divorce. It's to his credit that he realized he couldn't concentrate on coaching and turned the reins over to Kevin McHale. But no matter who's coaching, the strain of numerous high-intensity games is, I think, going to wear the team down. They've still got games at Illinois, at UNLV (never an easy road trip), and at Memphis. It's hard to see this team going better than 9-4 in nonconference play, which likely means they'll need a .500 Pac-10 mark to make the Tourney.
Arizona State-- 5-2, SOS 156
Pomeroy Rating: 50
Herb Sendek has definitely upped the recruiting ante in the Desert, as evidenced by the fact that his team's leading scorer and rebounder is a freshman. Unfortunately, said freshman (James Harden) is a guard. Guards leading your team in rebounding is a Bad Thing. This team has a core of solid talent, and has held its own to this point, managing two D-I wins at the Maui Invitational, but losing by 15 to Nebraska does not fill me with confidence for this team's future. Right now Pomeroy has them on the Tourney bubble, but without better scoring and rebounding performances, they're not going to win enough games in-conference.
Oregon-- 6-1, SOS 30
Pomeroy Rating: 44
I find it odd that Oregon's schedule is ranked as highly as it is. Outside of Kansas State (narrow win) and St. Mary's (lost rather badly), there's no one of any consequence on there. This is a veteran team, but also one with severe depth and height problems. The team has one player with significant minutes over 6-6, and only 7 guys in the regular rotation. Call me a skeptic, but I just can't see where the #19 AP rank is coming from. The Pac-10 this year is crammed full of big men, and I cannot see what Oregon will be able to do against DeVon Harden and his ilk. They should enter Pac-10 play at 10-2, but I think this team will struggle to post a .500 conference record and ultimately miss the NCAA tournament.
Oregon State-- 4-3, SOS 321
Pomeroy Rating: 160
Let's face it-- this is a bad team. When you lose to Alaska-Fairbanks, you've got some serious issues. I was under the impression that O-State had brought in a decent recruiting class, but so far it hasn't really showed. The only players who should inspire fear in any opponent are Seth Tarver and Marcel Jones. In this conference, O-State is going to be lucky to win 4 games. It would take little short of a miracle for this group to even obtain an NIT bid.
UCLA-- 8-1, SOS 11
Pomeroy Rating: 3
It's a measure of how reactive and stupid the polls are that UCLA dropped 7 spots for losing to a pretty good Texas team by 2 points. Ignore them. The committee will, too. This is a Bruins squad which has won a bunch of games against tough opponents despite serious injury problems. The frontline group-- Collison, Westbrook, Shipp, Mbah a Moute (is that not the most awesome name in sports?) and Kevin Love-- is as good as any in the country. This team doesn't have the backcourt depth of some of Howland's past teams, but that situation will improve once Michael Roll returns from injury.
It's pretty hard for me not to think that UCLA is Final Four-bound again. The only thing that might crimp those plans is if the team loses enough conference games to drop to a #3 seed or so.
USC-- 6-3, SOS 16
Pomeroy Rating: 21
Does Taj Gibson have mono or something? What happened to the dominant big man we saw in last year's NCAA tournament? He had zero points when I turned on last week's game against Kansas, at about the 6-minutes-to-go mark. I'm a big fan of his, despite his playing for USC (easily my least-liked team in the conference) and the lassitude I'm seeing is a little disturbing.
Then again, maybe it's just a natural result of playing on the same team as OJ Mayo. Mayo has really damaged USC's chances with his ball-hogging ways thus far. He's shot the ball 157 times and scored 160 points on those shots. When you consider that he's also turning the ball over 4 times a game, you realize that the lion's share of this team's offense is going through a guy who's actually not all that good. Luckily for USC fans, he'll be gone soon.
I really dislike this new "one year rule" which encourages all of these ringers to show up on campus, go to class for a semester, and then bug out for the NBA. For one thing, it creates way too much uncertainty for coaches as to what their rosters are actually going to look like. For another, it's hard for fans to keep up with. For a third, it's a serious waste of classroom resources on guys who have no interest in or desire to attend college. And for a fourth, it makes the rich richer-- virtually all of these guys are going to top programs, not Northwestern State.
Make the rule the same as in baseball or football (3 year commitment) and I'd be a bit happier with it. I'm really not convinced the rule is even morally right or legally permissible, though. If the players want to play in the NBA, and the teams want them to play in the NBA, what exactly is the justification for preventing them?
Washington-- 4-3, SOS 179
Pomeroy Rating: 129
Here's a shocker for ya: losing Brandon Roy really hurt this team last year. He's not coming back, and it seems like you could say the same about the program. The Huskies made it to New York in the Preseason NIT, but got thumped twice there, and subsequently endured another thrashing at the hands of Oklahoma State in the Big 12-Pac 10 Series. The Huskies are hugely dependent on undersized big Jon Brockman, who is a talented guy but really not on the level of a Brook Lopez or a Kevin Love. Having an undersized, shoot-first point guard who's not a great ball-handler just adds to the problems. Washington has an outside shot at an NIT bid, but that's about all they can realistically hope for.
Washington State-- 8-0, SOS 137
Pomeroy Rating: 12
I don't know of a recent example of a college team enjoying this much consistent success without a single NBA talent on the roster. OK, OK, Kyle Weaver might get a look (6-6 shooting guards are a nice thing), but "last ten picks to possibly undrafted" doesn't really count here. The rest of the team consists of: a short Hawaiian point guard (Derrick Low), a guy whose shot looks like it came straight out of some highlight reel from the 1930s (Rochestie), a center who looks like he just ate Sheboygan and isn't sorry (Aron Baynes), and a guy who looks kind of like what Oakland A's pitcher Dan Haren would look like if you grew both him and his hair out ten inches (Robbie Cowgill).
Kudos to Tony Bennett for turning this ragged bunch of dudes into a formidable defensive menace. The combination of slow tempo and great halfcourt defense means Wazoo has a pretty fair shot at allowing fewer points per game than any other team in Division I. Having one aspect of your game be that good really gives you a chance against any opponent, even the UCLAs of the world.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Cal thoughts
Stanford 67, Colorado 43
Nice dominant road win for the Red. Again, I haven't got a lot to say here, so more thoughts on Cal.
I did get a chance to watch last night's game against Missouri, and while it wasn't a classic finish, I have to say it was an exceptionally well-played game. It started out at a breakneck pace, and it looked like Cal might get run out of the building the way Stanford was in last year's NCAA tournament. But somehow they got things under control. Mizzou basically lost their shooting touch midway through the second half and never got it back, allowing Cal to roar from 13 points back to finish 12 points ahead and win going away.
In no particular order:
I wasn't real impressed with any of the individual Missouri players except for their guard Matt Lawrence, who swished something like 5 consecutive 3-pointers in the first half and clearly is a man who can't be left unguarded on the perimeter. They seem like a team that will give opponents fits and probably steal some wins over better teams, however. Lots of pressing, trapping and lunging for balls. It's a wild ride. Ultimately I think they'll lack the talent in a pretty potent Big 12 to make the NCAA tournament.
Patrick Christopher is an incredible finisher around the rim for a guard. He throws up some crazy layup attempt, and somehow it banks in off the glass and the front of the rim. He looks like the dynamic scoring guard that Cal's recent teams have mostly lacked (with apologies to Ayinde Ubaka, who was a little too unselfish to really fill this role).
Ryan Anderson-- quietest double-double I've seen in a while? I don't know. This was not a particularly good game for him, but the man gets his numbers come hell or high water. 15 points, 11 rebounds.
DeVon Hardin is an NBA player. He's looking like a finished product on the offensive end, and he's a rebounding machine. Probably the best rebounder in the conference. Might be the highest-picked college senior in the NBA draft, which is always something of an accomplishment. (Although Roy Hibbert might beat him out strictly on account of height.) He was rockin' the high socks last night, which was kind of cool. Looked like a young Elgin Baylor.
Jerome Randle still has work to do on his passing. Way too many semi-forced errors (yeah, the defense made a steal, but they wouldn't have been able to steal it if you hadn't thrown it there... that kind of thing). He's the same age and the same player type (quick little firebrand) as Tajuan Porter, but he doesn't have Porter's poise. (Or ability to throw up a fallaway 3-pointer from 30 feet with 3 seconds on the shot clock and bank it in off the ceiling of the arena. At least, that's what it seems like Porter is doing.)
Nikola Knezevic was a nice stabilizing influence. Against halfcourt defenses, I could see going with a more prominent scorer and having Randle run the point, but right now it looks like the clear best Cal lineup is:
PG: Knezevic
SG: Randle
SF: Christopher
PF: Anderson
C: Hardin
This may change once Jamal Boykin and Theo Robertson become eligible and/or healthy. For tonight's game, however, it's clear that Cal got the best results from this look. Eric Viernesal is simply in a catastrophic offensive funk, to the point that he's not even looking to shoot the ball anymore.
Up next for Stanford: exhibition against College of Idaho. Trent Johnson, if Peter Prowitt and Josh Owens aren't in the starting lineup, we have some things to discuss. I'm not sure if redshirt players are allowed to play in exhibitions, but if they are, Will Paul and Da'veed Dildy had better be in there as well.
In the meantime, we'll have an additional televised Cal game to chew over, as they play at Kansas State next Sunday. They'll be a substantial dog, but could really start laying the framework for a tourney bid with a win in Manhattan.
Nice dominant road win for the Red. Again, I haven't got a lot to say here, so more thoughts on Cal.
I did get a chance to watch last night's game against Missouri, and while it wasn't a classic finish, I have to say it was an exceptionally well-played game. It started out at a breakneck pace, and it looked like Cal might get run out of the building the way Stanford was in last year's NCAA tournament. But somehow they got things under control. Mizzou basically lost their shooting touch midway through the second half and never got it back, allowing Cal to roar from 13 points back to finish 12 points ahead and win going away.
In no particular order:
I wasn't real impressed with any of the individual Missouri players except for their guard Matt Lawrence, who swished something like 5 consecutive 3-pointers in the first half and clearly is a man who can't be left unguarded on the perimeter. They seem like a team that will give opponents fits and probably steal some wins over better teams, however. Lots of pressing, trapping and lunging for balls. It's a wild ride. Ultimately I think they'll lack the talent in a pretty potent Big 12 to make the NCAA tournament.
Patrick Christopher is an incredible finisher around the rim for a guard. He throws up some crazy layup attempt, and somehow it banks in off the glass and the front of the rim. He looks like the dynamic scoring guard that Cal's recent teams have mostly lacked (with apologies to Ayinde Ubaka, who was a little too unselfish to really fill this role).
Ryan Anderson-- quietest double-double I've seen in a while? I don't know. This was not a particularly good game for him, but the man gets his numbers come hell or high water. 15 points, 11 rebounds.
DeVon Hardin is an NBA player. He's looking like a finished product on the offensive end, and he's a rebounding machine. Probably the best rebounder in the conference. Might be the highest-picked college senior in the NBA draft, which is always something of an accomplishment. (Although Roy Hibbert might beat him out strictly on account of height.) He was rockin' the high socks last night, which was kind of cool. Looked like a young Elgin Baylor.
Jerome Randle still has work to do on his passing. Way too many semi-forced errors (yeah, the defense made a steal, but they wouldn't have been able to steal it if you hadn't thrown it there... that kind of thing). He's the same age and the same player type (quick little firebrand) as Tajuan Porter, but he doesn't have Porter's poise. (Or ability to throw up a fallaway 3-pointer from 30 feet with 3 seconds on the shot clock and bank it in off the ceiling of the arena. At least, that's what it seems like Porter is doing.)
Nikola Knezevic was a nice stabilizing influence. Against halfcourt defenses, I could see going with a more prominent scorer and having Randle run the point, but right now it looks like the clear best Cal lineup is:
PG: Knezevic
SG: Randle
SF: Christopher
PF: Anderson
C: Hardin
This may change once Jamal Boykin and Theo Robertson become eligible and/or healthy. For tonight's game, however, it's clear that Cal got the best results from this look. Eric Viernesal is simply in a catastrophic offensive funk, to the point that he's not even looking to shoot the ball anymore.
Up next for Stanford: exhibition against College of Idaho. Trent Johnson, if Peter Prowitt and Josh Owens aren't in the starting lineup, we have some things to discuss. I'm not sure if redshirt players are allowed to play in exhibitions, but if they are, Will Paul and Da'veed Dildy had better be in there as well.
In the meantime, we'll have an additional televised Cal game to chew over, as they play at Kansas State next Sunday. They'll be a substantial dog, but could really start laying the framework for a tourney bid with a win in Manhattan.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Boy, this is interesting
Stanford 84, Sacramento State 58
Since Sacramento State figures to be one of the very worst teams in all of Division I basketball, this is not a surprise. I don't normally look at these things, but if I had to guess I'd figure Stanford didn't even cover the spread.
Only one more game (and two weeks off and an inexplicable midseason exhibition scrimmage, in which I fervently hope no starters will play, because my innate pessimism tells me that if they do, someone will end up injured) worth of wandering in the wilderness before the team actually starts playing interesting opponents on TV channels that someone other than Dan Marino subscribes to.
In the meantime, let me observe that Ryan Anderson is a Norse demigod. I can't believe how little pub this guy is getting in the mainstream media. He was better-- not "the same," mind you, better, than Chase Budinger last season. (Why? Similar counting stats, but fewer possessions because Cal's injury-riddled team had to play at a glacial pace.) Apparently he's decided that being the best freshman in a loaded class in the Pac-10 was not sufficient, because he's now averaging 24 points and 10 rebounds a game this season.
I guess college players don't have press secretaries, but Anderson could sure use one.
Since Sacramento State figures to be one of the very worst teams in all of Division I basketball, this is not a surprise. I don't normally look at these things, but if I had to guess I'd figure Stanford didn't even cover the spread.
Only one more game (and two weeks off and an inexplicable midseason exhibition scrimmage, in which I fervently hope no starters will play, because my innate pessimism tells me that if they do, someone will end up injured) worth of wandering in the wilderness before the team actually starts playing interesting opponents on TV channels that someone other than Dan Marino subscribes to.
In the meantime, let me observe that Ryan Anderson is a Norse demigod. I can't believe how little pub this guy is getting in the mainstream media. He was better-- not "the same," mind you, better, than Chase Budinger last season. (Why? Similar counting stats, but fewer possessions because Cal's injury-riddled team had to play at a glacial pace.) Apparently he's decided that being the best freshman in a loaded class in the Pac-10 was not sufficient, because he's now averaging 24 points and 10 rebounds a game this season.
I guess college players don't have press secretaries, but Anderson could sure use one.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Self-Scheduling Day
At my high school, it was a privilege. In major conference college basketball, it's a right-- maybe even a weapon.
Stanford 73, Colorado State 53
One of the things that I find continually irritating about college sports is the number of noncompetitive games that fans have to wade through in order to get to the gems. Let's face it-- we really don't need a game to tell us that Stanford is better than Colorado State, or that Washington State is in a slightly higher class than Mississippi Valley State.
This is, I will freely admit, more of an issue in football than basketball. In football, eligibility for bowl games (and the program-sustaining revenues thereof) is explicitly linked to number of victories, with no reference paid to strength of schedule. And thanks to the way the polls work (basically, the only motivating factor in the polls is losses-- once you're in the top 10, even if you beat the #1 team, you're unlikely to move upward unless someone else loses) there's basically a loss quota for the BCS (2 losses) and the national title game (1 loss). Your strength of schedule is theoretically factored into some of the various computer formulas which comprise 1/3 of the BCS ranking system, and even more theoretically factored into the minds of the various cranks and coaching subalterns who comprise the poll respondants, but in practice it's almost always better to not lose than to win a big game (but risk losing it).
So we see a ton of crap like Michigan State scheduling Appalachian State. Granted, it's wonderful that App State was able to pull off a huge upset. But the excitement of that game was created by the non-excitement of all the various blowouts of lousy 1-AA teams over the last 10 years or so, in exactly the same manner as the individually stupid decisions by millions of people to buy Super Lotto tickets eventually create a huge jackpot.
Basketball is a different kettle of fish. In part, this is because teams are selected for the championship tournament by a group of people who mostly know what they're doing (unlike the college polls, which are just as screwy and stupid as the football polls), and in part it's because teams play enough games that at some point, you kind of have to play someone good or no one will ever notice you exist. And best of all, basketball is a lot more prone to upsets than football, at least in the context of a single game. You'll get a number of Siena-over-Stanford results in any given week. Unfortunately, it's still not immune to the cupcake phenomenon.
This year, we see a lot of Pac-10 teams playing extremely soft non-conference schedules. There's a really simple explanation for this: everyone expects the conference to be brutally difficult. The best teams in-league are likely to limp out with 4 or 5 losses, which is already around the lower bound for a #1 seed. Most teams will not come out of conference play with more than 10 wins. To even reach the 20 wins which are traditionally a benchmark for reaching the Tourney, you need to win 10 out of 11 or 12 non-conference games (13 for lucky duckies Washington and UCLA).
This naturally leads to a lot of cupcakes scheduled, which is a frank shame. Tonight's Arizona-Kansas game was excellent. I respect Lute Olsen for choosing not to dilute his team's schedule with too many Northern Colorados and UC Davises. But I think it hurts his team. Oftentimes good Arizona teams come out of the season with 18 or 19 wins and get poor seeds in the NCAA tournament despite playing a tougher schedule than any other major conference team. The committee is only human. They can't help but be affected by the number in the Wins column to a greater degree than any other number.
As long as you have a certain quota of "tough games" and potential "statement wins," a quota which has basically been filled by the Pac-10 conference this season simply by virtue of existing, there's not much advantage to scheduling more of them.
I've got a bunch more to say on scheduling, but the rest of it has to do with the RPI, which will probably take up another one of these "vaguely topical essay" posts. There's just not much to be said about the actual game here-- Stanford played well, Anthony Goods broke out of his shooting slump to post another solid game, the team took care of the ball well, and the game wasn't on TV.
Next up... more of the same, as the Cardinal takes on bottom-feeder Sacramento State Tuesday in an untelevised game.
Stanford 73, Colorado State 53
One of the things that I find continually irritating about college sports is the number of noncompetitive games that fans have to wade through in order to get to the gems. Let's face it-- we really don't need a game to tell us that Stanford is better than Colorado State, or that Washington State is in a slightly higher class than Mississippi Valley State.
This is, I will freely admit, more of an issue in football than basketball. In football, eligibility for bowl games (and the program-sustaining revenues thereof) is explicitly linked to number of victories, with no reference paid to strength of schedule. And thanks to the way the polls work (basically, the only motivating factor in the polls is losses-- once you're in the top 10, even if you beat the #1 team, you're unlikely to move upward unless someone else loses) there's basically a loss quota for the BCS (2 losses) and the national title game (1 loss). Your strength of schedule is theoretically factored into some of the various computer formulas which comprise 1/3 of the BCS ranking system, and even more theoretically factored into the minds of the various cranks and coaching subalterns who comprise the poll respondants, but in practice it's almost always better to not lose than to win a big game (but risk losing it).
So we see a ton of crap like Michigan State scheduling Appalachian State. Granted, it's wonderful that App State was able to pull off a huge upset. But the excitement of that game was created by the non-excitement of all the various blowouts of lousy 1-AA teams over the last 10 years or so, in exactly the same manner as the individually stupid decisions by millions of people to buy Super Lotto tickets eventually create a huge jackpot.
Basketball is a different kettle of fish. In part, this is because teams are selected for the championship tournament by a group of people who mostly know what they're doing (unlike the college polls, which are just as screwy and stupid as the football polls), and in part it's because teams play enough games that at some point, you kind of have to play someone good or no one will ever notice you exist. And best of all, basketball is a lot more prone to upsets than football, at least in the context of a single game. You'll get a number of Siena-over-Stanford results in any given week. Unfortunately, it's still not immune to the cupcake phenomenon.
This year, we see a lot of Pac-10 teams playing extremely soft non-conference schedules. There's a really simple explanation for this: everyone expects the conference to be brutally difficult. The best teams in-league are likely to limp out with 4 or 5 losses, which is already around the lower bound for a #1 seed. Most teams will not come out of conference play with more than 10 wins. To even reach the 20 wins which are traditionally a benchmark for reaching the Tourney, you need to win 10 out of 11 or 12 non-conference games (13 for lucky duckies Washington and UCLA).
This naturally leads to a lot of cupcakes scheduled, which is a frank shame. Tonight's Arizona-Kansas game was excellent. I respect Lute Olsen for choosing not to dilute his team's schedule with too many Northern Colorados and UC Davises. But I think it hurts his team. Oftentimes good Arizona teams come out of the season with 18 or 19 wins and get poor seeds in the NCAA tournament despite playing a tougher schedule than any other major conference team. The committee is only human. They can't help but be affected by the number in the Wins column to a greater degree than any other number.
As long as you have a certain quota of "tough games" and potential "statement wins," a quota which has basically been filled by the Pac-10 conference this season simply by virtue of existing, there's not much advantage to scheduling more of them.
I've got a bunch more to say on scheduling, but the rest of it has to do with the RPI, which will probably take up another one of these "vaguely topical essay" posts. There's just not much to be said about the actual game here-- Stanford played well, Anthony Goods broke out of his shooting slump to post another solid game, the team took care of the ball well, and the game wasn't on TV.
Next up... more of the same, as the Cardinal takes on bottom-feeder Sacramento State Tuesday in an untelevised game.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Loud, Annoying Beeps
I'm assuming everyone's familiar with the noises that large vehicles make when backing up.
Although in Japan, many vehicles might actually say "vehicle is backing up" when backing up. I certainly recall the buses there had computerized voices which would say "the bus is turning right," or whatever happened to be appropriate. It was one of many weird aspects to the whole robotics culture over there.
One thing you may find, reading what I write, is frequent asides which are basically irrelevant to the main thrust of an issue. I'm a very stream-of-consciousness guy.
Backups
Landry Fields
17.6 pts/40; 8.8 rebs/40; 10/21 2ptFG, 10/25 3ptFG, adjusted shooting pct .543
Fields is a sophomore guard who has a reputation as an extremely streaky shooter. He can hit from outside, but the Cardinal need to limit his 2-point attempts. He's not terribly fast or great as a penetrator. His role is as a spot-up shooter. A poor assist to turnover ratio suggests he's not the best choice as a backup point guard. He's still a developing talent, and the team needs him as a third option from distance along with Goods and Hill.
Drew Shiller
22.5 pts/40; 1.83 rebs/40; 3/6 2ptFG, 10/17 3ptFG, adjusted shooting pct .782
Shiller transferred from San Francisco to Stanford and sat out last season as a result of NCAA rules. Looking at the above, it's not hard to tell why the Cardinal wanted him. A .782 adjusted shooting pct is insane, and obviously unsustainable, but he looks like a guy who's capable of making 40% of his three-point attempts. He has limited ability to penetrate, so he'll work best off of high screens from a Lopez or two to get free for three-point tries. He's also an exceptional free-throw shooter (he's made 28 out of 31 in his college career) which is an unheralded asset for teams trying to finish in close games.
Kenny Brown
23.2 pts/40; 6.3 rebs/40; 3/6 2ptFG, 7/15 3ptFG, adjusted shooting pct .642
Brown's "one shining moment" came in the infamous Chicken Soup Fiasco game last season against Arizona. Half of the team became ill with food poisoning as a result of a pregame meal, forcing Brown, Landry Fields and several other backups to play most of a game which was key to the Cardinal's tournament hopes. In the end the team lost, but not before erasing a huge deficit and forcing overtime. Brown's 22 points in that game were only exceeded, in the category of "astounding statistical outbursts," by Ivan Radenovic's 36 for Arizona.
In any event, the walk-on's primarily going to play a sparkplug role for the team. He's an unspectacular shooter, but has hot streaks.
Taj Finger
8.9 pts/40; 10 rebs/40; 9/21 FG (shooting pct .428)
For a variety of reasons, including the ankle injury to Lawrence Hill, Finger actually has the 6th most minutes played on the team so far this season. He's a solid rebounding forward, but the atrocious shooting percentage indicates that the team is going to need to find frontcourt scoring from other areas. Finger is more of a leadership guy at this point than anything else; he and Washington were significant contributors on Johnson's first NCAA tournament squad in 2005.
Peter Prowitt
11.5 pts/40; 6.2 rebs/40; 6/9 FG (shooting pct .667)
If Stanford could somehow combine Prowitt and Finger into one player, they'd have a pretty good forward, as Prowitt has a bit of the soft touch that Finger lacks. Unfortunately, you can't play 6 guys at once. Prowitt really never developed as a player during his time at Stanford, which is why he's been relegated to garbage time and emergency duties.
Josh Owens
12.8 pts/40; 12.8 rebs/40; 6/11 FG (shooting pct .545)
The only true freshman on the roster this season comes in pretty highly regarded (top 100 nationally) as an athletic talent, but hasn't had much of an opportunity given his position on the current depth chart. It might almost have been worth having him redshirt for a season, because he's currently buried at #5 on the forward depth chart, soon to drop to #6 if Brook Lopez gets his academic act together. Still, it's good to see him contributing positively in both points and rebounds in his limited minutes to date. If one or both Lopezes leave next season, he could shoot up that depth chart in a hurry.
And there we have it. Johnson's done a good job of bringing in guard talent in the last couple of seasons, but the team still lacks the true point guard with the ability to create his own shot. As a result, the offense is a little static. The defense should be rock-solid, though. The great thing about having a pair of 7-footers wandering around the paint is that it frees up the guards to be much more aggressive on the perimeter.
The team's next test (and by "test," I mean "test of how awake they are") comes tomorrow with a home game against Colorado State.
Although in Japan, many vehicles might actually say "vehicle is backing up" when backing up. I certainly recall the buses there had computerized voices which would say "the bus is turning right," or whatever happened to be appropriate. It was one of many weird aspects to the whole robotics culture over there.
One thing you may find, reading what I write, is frequent asides which are basically irrelevant to the main thrust of an issue. I'm a very stream-of-consciousness guy.
Backups
Landry Fields
17.6 pts/40; 8.8 rebs/40; 10/21 2ptFG, 10/25 3ptFG, adjusted shooting pct .543
Fields is a sophomore guard who has a reputation as an extremely streaky shooter. He can hit from outside, but the Cardinal need to limit his 2-point attempts. He's not terribly fast or great as a penetrator. His role is as a spot-up shooter. A poor assist to turnover ratio suggests he's not the best choice as a backup point guard. He's still a developing talent, and the team needs him as a third option from distance along with Goods and Hill.
Drew Shiller
22.5 pts/40; 1.83 rebs/40; 3/6 2ptFG, 10/17 3ptFG, adjusted shooting pct .782
Shiller transferred from San Francisco to Stanford and sat out last season as a result of NCAA rules. Looking at the above, it's not hard to tell why the Cardinal wanted him. A .782 adjusted shooting pct is insane, and obviously unsustainable, but he looks like a guy who's capable of making 40% of his three-point attempts. He has limited ability to penetrate, so he'll work best off of high screens from a Lopez or two to get free for three-point tries. He's also an exceptional free-throw shooter (he's made 28 out of 31 in his college career) which is an unheralded asset for teams trying to finish in close games.
Kenny Brown
23.2 pts/40; 6.3 rebs/40; 3/6 2ptFG, 7/15 3ptFG, adjusted shooting pct .642
Brown's "one shining moment" came in the infamous Chicken Soup Fiasco game last season against Arizona. Half of the team became ill with food poisoning as a result of a pregame meal, forcing Brown, Landry Fields and several other backups to play most of a game which was key to the Cardinal's tournament hopes. In the end the team lost, but not before erasing a huge deficit and forcing overtime. Brown's 22 points in that game were only exceeded, in the category of "astounding statistical outbursts," by Ivan Radenovic's 36 for Arizona.
In any event, the walk-on's primarily going to play a sparkplug role for the team. He's an unspectacular shooter, but has hot streaks.
Taj Finger
8.9 pts/40; 10 rebs/40; 9/21 FG (shooting pct .428)
For a variety of reasons, including the ankle injury to Lawrence Hill, Finger actually has the 6th most minutes played on the team so far this season. He's a solid rebounding forward, but the atrocious shooting percentage indicates that the team is going to need to find frontcourt scoring from other areas. Finger is more of a leadership guy at this point than anything else; he and Washington were significant contributors on Johnson's first NCAA tournament squad in 2005.
Peter Prowitt
11.5 pts/40; 6.2 rebs/40; 6/9 FG (shooting pct .667)
If Stanford could somehow combine Prowitt and Finger into one player, they'd have a pretty good forward, as Prowitt has a bit of the soft touch that Finger lacks. Unfortunately, you can't play 6 guys at once. Prowitt really never developed as a player during his time at Stanford, which is why he's been relegated to garbage time and emergency duties.
Josh Owens
12.8 pts/40; 12.8 rebs/40; 6/11 FG (shooting pct .545)
The only true freshman on the roster this season comes in pretty highly regarded (top 100 nationally) as an athletic talent, but hasn't had much of an opportunity given his position on the current depth chart. It might almost have been worth having him redshirt for a season, because he's currently buried at #5 on the forward depth chart, soon to drop to #6 if Brook Lopez gets his academic act together. Still, it's good to see him contributing positively in both points and rebounds in his limited minutes to date. If one or both Lopezes leave next season, he could shoot up that depth chart in a hurry.
And there we have it. Johnson's done a good job of bringing in guard talent in the last couple of seasons, but the team still lacks the true point guard with the ability to create his own shot. As a result, the offense is a little static. The defense should be rock-solid, though. The great thing about having a pair of 7-footers wandering around the paint is that it frees up the guards to be much more aggressive on the perimeter.
The team's next test (and by "test," I mean "test of how awake they are") comes tomorrow with a home game against Colorado State.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
De-Flatoed
Stanford 72, Yale 61
I gotta be honest with ya, "deflated" is how Stanford looked Tuesday night. The aforementioned Eric Flato dropped 22 on them, and while he is the preseason Ivy League player of the year... it's the Ivy League. He's not that good.
Meanwhile, Anthony Goods continued to be a virtual nonentity. His line: 0-for-4 shooting, 1 point, 2 rebounds, 2 assists, 3 turnovers, 1 steal in 25 minutes. Something's not right with him, and I'm concerned that the illness he had last week hasn't really gone away. It took the Angels' pitcher Justin Speier a couple of months to kick a bug he had and get back to full strength. Let's hope that's not so for Anthony, because he's the team's most dynamic scorer and aggressive defender when he's right.
Mitch Johnson was similarly irrelevant scoring-wise, although he did have 6 dimes and 6 rebounds. He's really never developed an outside shot at all, and at this point it's pretty unrealistic to expect him to show one. It may be time for Trent Johnson to consider the possibility of reducing him to a sixth-man role and having Fred Washington take over the primary ball-handling responsibilities. A team with both of them on the floor at once is a team that's going to have a lot of trouble scoring.
On the other hand, Robin Lopez was a monster. 24 points, 12 rebounds and 5 blocks-- he's starting to evolve his game to a higher level. 8 of 10 from the line is excellent as well; it argues that he's starting to develop shooting skills. Lawrence Hill also deserves effusive praise, as he posted his first real "Lawrence Hill-like" game of the season with 25 points. I suspect his early-season struggles were just a shooting slump. I do think he's a bit more comfortable playing the 3 than the 4, but he shot well from inside in this game (7-for-11).
I really like Lawrence Hill, not least because he's unusually honest for a sports star. When he says something is true, you can basically take it to the bank, as when he observed last year that the Virginia road game was a must-win (and indeed the Cardinal barely pulled it out at the end of regulation). If I had to pick one guy on the team, maybe even in the entire Pac-10, to take 2 free throws with 0.1 seconds remaining and the team down by one, I'd take him in a second.
I'll try and post my "backup profiles" tomorrow, as right now my elbow is sore. Feels like I slept on my funny bone or something. I'm not even sure if that's physically possible.
I gotta be honest with ya, "deflated" is how Stanford looked Tuesday night. The aforementioned Eric Flato dropped 22 on them, and while he is the preseason Ivy League player of the year... it's the Ivy League. He's not that good.
Meanwhile, Anthony Goods continued to be a virtual nonentity. His line: 0-for-4 shooting, 1 point, 2 rebounds, 2 assists, 3 turnovers, 1 steal in 25 minutes. Something's not right with him, and I'm concerned that the illness he had last week hasn't really gone away. It took the Angels' pitcher Justin Speier a couple of months to kick a bug he had and get back to full strength. Let's hope that's not so for Anthony, because he's the team's most dynamic scorer and aggressive defender when he's right.
Mitch Johnson was similarly irrelevant scoring-wise, although he did have 6 dimes and 6 rebounds. He's really never developed an outside shot at all, and at this point it's pretty unrealistic to expect him to show one. It may be time for Trent Johnson to consider the possibility of reducing him to a sixth-man role and having Fred Washington take over the primary ball-handling responsibilities. A team with both of them on the floor at once is a team that's going to have a lot of trouble scoring.
On the other hand, Robin Lopez was a monster. 24 points, 12 rebounds and 5 blocks-- he's starting to evolve his game to a higher level. 8 of 10 from the line is excellent as well; it argues that he's starting to develop shooting skills. Lawrence Hill also deserves effusive praise, as he posted his first real "Lawrence Hill-like" game of the season with 25 points. I suspect his early-season struggles were just a shooting slump. I do think he's a bit more comfortable playing the 3 than the 4, but he shot well from inside in this game (7-for-11).
I really like Lawrence Hill, not least because he's unusually honest for a sports star. When he says something is true, you can basically take it to the bank, as when he observed last year that the Virginia road game was a must-win (and indeed the Cardinal barely pulled it out at the end of regulation). If I had to pick one guy on the team, maybe even in the entire Pac-10, to take 2 free throws with 0.1 seconds remaining and the team down by one, I'd take him in a second.
I'll try and post my "backup profiles" tomorrow, as right now my elbow is sore. Feels like I slept on my funny bone or something. I'm not even sure if that's physically possible.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Morning Breath
Well, that was a nice start. Pity it didn't last through the first 9 days of the season.
Siena 79, Stanford 67
So I just get through praising Goods ecstatically, and he rewards me with a 2-for-12 shooting performance. Ouch. Looking at the box, you'd think it was Stanford that was the undersized small-conference team-- tons of 3-point attempts, not a lot of makes, an overall horrible shooting performance (26/71? Seriously?) and all of 3 free-throw attempts to Siena's 32.
Not having seen the game, I really can't tell if that was legit. But it seems to me that there may have been some substantial hometown reffing going on here. I'm sorry, I just have real difficulty believing that Stanford actually committed twice as many fouls as a Northeast Conference team.
Then again, a bunch of these free throws seem to have come down the stretch, so who knows, really. The game wasn't televised. Can someone work on this, please?
In any event, this is a loss that's going to sound really bad (and drop the team from the top 25) but actually not mean a ton. It's not horrible for the team's RPI, because Siena is a pretty good team in its conference that projects to win 15-20 games. It's early in the season. It's at Siena, which is something the selection committee looks pretty favorably on (scheduling moderately tough road games). It's definitely in the category of "irritating" rather than "devastating," similar to USC's loss to Mercer last weekend.
It would have been nice if Hill was healthy or Brook was available, but both of these will probably be taken into account when the committee looks at the team later in the season. The one irritating thing to me? Johnson should have known not to schedule this game in the morning. Pac-10 teams always have major issues with early games on the East Coast (see last year's NCAA tournament game for further evidence). Couldn't this have been plugged into prime time?
Siena 79, Stanford 67
So I just get through praising Goods ecstatically, and he rewards me with a 2-for-12 shooting performance. Ouch. Looking at the box, you'd think it was Stanford that was the undersized small-conference team-- tons of 3-point attempts, not a lot of makes, an overall horrible shooting performance (26/71? Seriously?) and all of 3 free-throw attempts to Siena's 32.
Not having seen the game, I really can't tell if that was legit. But it seems to me that there may have been some substantial hometown reffing going on here. I'm sorry, I just have real difficulty believing that Stanford actually committed twice as many fouls as a Northeast Conference team.
Then again, a bunch of these free throws seem to have come down the stretch, so who knows, really. The game wasn't televised. Can someone work on this, please?
In any event, this is a loss that's going to sound really bad (and drop the team from the top 25) but actually not mean a ton. It's not horrible for the team's RPI, because Siena is a pretty good team in its conference that projects to win 15-20 games. It's early in the season. It's at Siena, which is something the selection committee looks pretty favorably on (scheduling moderately tough road games). It's definitely in the category of "irritating" rather than "devastating," similar to USC's loss to Mercer last weekend.
It would have been nice if Hill was healthy or Brook was available, but both of these will probably be taken into account when the committee looks at the team later in the season. The one irritating thing to me? Johnson should have known not to schedule this game in the morning. Pac-10 teams always have major issues with early games on the East Coast (see last year's NCAA tournament game for further evidence). Couldn't this have been plugged into prime time?
Meet the Lopezes
When the movie of Stanford Basketball in 2007-8 is made, that's what they should call it.
You know, like "Meet the Robinsons?" Anybody?
OK, so I haven't actually seen that movie. Perhaps I should stick to jokes that actually involve plays on words that I understand the meaning of.
Stanford 71, Northwestern 60
With four games under our belts, it's time to look at the relevant players, their stats so far this season, and what we might be able to expect out of them. For our purposes, I'm using stats-per-40-minutes. There are two reasons for this: first, in the context of a single team, everyone gets the same number of potential possessions, so tempo really isn't a factor here, and second, I'm lazy and want something I can calculate in my head.
To get one minor item out of the way first: Will Paul and Da'veed Dildy are redshirting this season and won't contribute.
And in a not-so-minor item, Brook Lopez is academically ineligible for the first n games of the season, where n is a number between 9 and 11, depending on how soon fall semester grades are posted. If he continues his not-going-to-class ways, he might well be ineligible for the entire year. I'm inferring from certain things Johnson has said that he's no longer actually suspended from the team and is participating in practices, but I could be wrong about this.
Please, Brook, just go to class. Halo is not worth sacrificing 18 zillion dollars in the NBA for. As silly as the NCAA's academic rules are, and they're pretty silly, sometimes we just have to suck it up and deal with silly rules. I'll have more to say on this subject in another post, perhaps during the semester break ('Furd plays no games between Dec. 2 and Dec. 16).
The Starting Five (so far)
C. Robin Lopez
19.1 pts/40; 8.83 rebs/40; 4.65 blk/40; 16/26 2ptFG, 0/0 3ptFG (effective shooting pct .615)
See, Brook? Robin likes Halo, too, and still manages to make it to class often enough.
Frankly, these are (rebounds excepted) great numbers. But we can't really expect them to last. Most of the teams Stanford has played against so far have lacked true big men, with the result that Robin can score at will on dunks and tip-ins. The Pac-10? Not so much. He'll be matching up with Jon Brockman, Robbie Cowgill, Lorenzo Mata and DeVon Hardin in conference play, with a side order of Taj Gibson, Jordan Wilkes, Aron Baynes and Kirk Walters.
Nonetheless, it seems like Robin's offensive game has taken a bit of a step forward in the offseason. He's never going to be a great scorer-- some of his attempted hook shots and step-throughs last year were wince-inducing and usually turnover-inducing-- but if he can develop into a good college scorer and, thus, a mediocre NBA scorer, he'll be employed for a long time. I don't mean to rub salt in Warriors fans' wounds when I say that he could be the next Adonal Foyle.
His defense continues to be excellent, which is the most important factor in Stanford's run through a sequence of defensively challenged opponents (like, say, Siena). Force them to beat you with threes and you're forcing them to get very lucky to beat you.
PF. Lawrence Hill
13.1 pts/40; 12.5 rebs/40; 1.3 blk/40; 8/13 2ptFG, 1/9 3ptFG (effective shooting pct .432)
Hill started off the season ice-cold from three and then hurt his ankle against Northwestern, causing him to miss most of the second half with what the game recap describes as a "mild sprain." Hopefully, the 3-point percentage is just a shooting slump, as Hill led the team in that category last season and sparked the huge comeback against UCLA with his outside touch.
I think of Lawrence Hill as comparable in a lot of ways to Oakland A's outfielder Nick Swisher-- not very fast, but otherwise very athletic and defensively sound. He's an excellent rebounder, hawks the ball pretty well, and gets to the right spots on the floor. He has a funky shot which is probably more prone to slumps than most, but normally he's a very strong shooter from all parts of the floor. As his numbers above show, he's also an excellent rebounder, probably the best on the team skill-wise (although at 6-8, he's not going to get to as many balls as the Lopezes). He's one of those sleeper NBA types, a guy that will probably end up getting picked in the second round but might force his way into a team's rotation with quality play in practice.
Hopefully the ankle sprain will be fully healed by the time the team faces Yale next Tuesday.
SF: Fred Washington
12.3 pts/40; 7.7 rebs/40; 5.4 asst/40; 10/16 2ptFG, 1/3 3ptFG (effective shooting pct .638)
"Toujours l'audace" might as well be Fred Washington's motto. Let's be blunt-- the guy doesn't have a lot of talent. He's kind of fast, dribbles and passes pretty well, and that's about it. He's carved out a niche by being an incredibly aggressive slasher who's good at recognizing both whether he's committing to a drive or kicking out, and the point at which he needs to make that decision. His assist-to-turnover ratio, on a turnover-prone Stanford club, is excellent.
He's really the definition of the term "point forward." He's not a guard, but he can act like one for the first 3/4 of the court. With Goods and Hill being more spot-up shooters than ball handlers, and the lumbering Lopezes wandering around the court, this is a pretty essential skill.
Washington has absolutely no outside shot, so let's hope the 2-point percentage stays high and the 3-point shots taken stay low.
SG: Anthony Goods
26.7 pts/40; 4.44 rebs/40; 8/6 asst/TO ratio; 12/19 2ptFG, 11/25 3ptFG (effective shooting pct .647)
On a list of the "breakout seasons" of last year's Pac-10, Goods has to rank near the top. A role-player his freshman year, he turned into one of the conference's best scorers last year, and has continued to excel this season. He's turned into the clear #1 option offensively for Stanford. The point totals are not going to continue, but if they were to, he'd vault into serious contention for Pac-10 Player of the Year.
Goods is not a fabulous ballhandler, but he's capable of taking the ball to the hoop as well as lighting it up from outside. He's the clear best option when the Cardinal go inside-outside-- get the ball inside to a Lopez or have Washington penetrate, then kick out to an open Goods for an easy three-pointer.
I don't think enough has been said about the recruiting savvy of Trent Johnson. The Lopez twins were committed to Stanford from the Montgomery years onward, but Hill and Goods were tremendous under-the-radar pickups. This gives me a great deal of optimism about the team's future chances, especially with him tapping the recruiting gold mine of the Plumlee family (three brothers, with the two uncommitted guys currently a junior and a freshman in high school).
PG: Mitch Johnson
16.5 pts/40; 6.6 rebs/40; 8.2 asst/40; 20/11 asst/TO ratio; 7/11 2ptFG, 5/10 3ptFG (effective shooting pct .690)
Johnson is an object lesson in the need to evaluate chronic injuries in assessing players. He was expected to be a major contributor in his sophomore season; instead, he took a pretty big step backwards. He developed plantar fasciitis in his foot about midway through the season and was basically ineffective from that point on. Plantar fasciitis is the same medical issue that MLB outfielder Shannon Stewart has; it's an inflammation of the bottom of the foot caused by too much running on hard surfaces (the Metrodome's Astroturf, in the case of Stewart). As a result, it's pretty common among basketball players.
Unfortunately, it's also basically incurable; it can be managed and mitigated, but it never really "goes away." Johnson will probably wear down toward the end of the season when it flares up; it's not clear what can be done to prevent this other than finger-crossing. So far, so good; through four games, he's been outstanding.
I'll hit the rest of the players in somewhat shorter profiles next time around.
You know, like "Meet the Robinsons?" Anybody?
OK, so I haven't actually seen that movie. Perhaps I should stick to jokes that actually involve plays on words that I understand the meaning of.
Stanford 71, Northwestern 60
With four games under our belts, it's time to look at the relevant players, their stats so far this season, and what we might be able to expect out of them. For our purposes, I'm using stats-per-40-minutes. There are two reasons for this: first, in the context of a single team, everyone gets the same number of potential possessions, so tempo really isn't a factor here, and second, I'm lazy and want something I can calculate in my head.
To get one minor item out of the way first: Will Paul and Da'veed Dildy are redshirting this season and won't contribute.
And in a not-so-minor item, Brook Lopez is academically ineligible for the first n games of the season, where n is a number between 9 and 11, depending on how soon fall semester grades are posted. If he continues his not-going-to-class ways, he might well be ineligible for the entire year. I'm inferring from certain things Johnson has said that he's no longer actually suspended from the team and is participating in practices, but I could be wrong about this.
Please, Brook, just go to class. Halo is not worth sacrificing 18 zillion dollars in the NBA for. As silly as the NCAA's academic rules are, and they're pretty silly, sometimes we just have to suck it up and deal with silly rules. I'll have more to say on this subject in another post, perhaps during the semester break ('Furd plays no games between Dec. 2 and Dec. 16).
The Starting Five (so far)
C. Robin Lopez
19.1 pts/40; 8.83 rebs/40; 4.65 blk/40; 16/26 2ptFG, 0/0 3ptFG (effective shooting pct .615)
See, Brook? Robin likes Halo, too, and still manages to make it to class often enough.
Frankly, these are (rebounds excepted) great numbers. But we can't really expect them to last. Most of the teams Stanford has played against so far have lacked true big men, with the result that Robin can score at will on dunks and tip-ins. The Pac-10? Not so much. He'll be matching up with Jon Brockman, Robbie Cowgill, Lorenzo Mata and DeVon Hardin in conference play, with a side order of Taj Gibson, Jordan Wilkes, Aron Baynes and Kirk Walters.
Nonetheless, it seems like Robin's offensive game has taken a bit of a step forward in the offseason. He's never going to be a great scorer-- some of his attempted hook shots and step-throughs last year were wince-inducing and usually turnover-inducing-- but if he can develop into a good college scorer and, thus, a mediocre NBA scorer, he'll be employed for a long time. I don't mean to rub salt in Warriors fans' wounds when I say that he could be the next Adonal Foyle.
His defense continues to be excellent, which is the most important factor in Stanford's run through a sequence of defensively challenged opponents (like, say, Siena). Force them to beat you with threes and you're forcing them to get very lucky to beat you.
PF. Lawrence Hill
13.1 pts/40; 12.5 rebs/40; 1.3 blk/40; 8/13 2ptFG, 1/9 3ptFG (effective shooting pct .432)
Hill started off the season ice-cold from three and then hurt his ankle against Northwestern, causing him to miss most of the second half with what the game recap describes as a "mild sprain." Hopefully, the 3-point percentage is just a shooting slump, as Hill led the team in that category last season and sparked the huge comeback against UCLA with his outside touch.
I think of Lawrence Hill as comparable in a lot of ways to Oakland A's outfielder Nick Swisher-- not very fast, but otherwise very athletic and defensively sound. He's an excellent rebounder, hawks the ball pretty well, and gets to the right spots on the floor. He has a funky shot which is probably more prone to slumps than most, but normally he's a very strong shooter from all parts of the floor. As his numbers above show, he's also an excellent rebounder, probably the best on the team skill-wise (although at 6-8, he's not going to get to as many balls as the Lopezes). He's one of those sleeper NBA types, a guy that will probably end up getting picked in the second round but might force his way into a team's rotation with quality play in practice.
Hopefully the ankle sprain will be fully healed by the time the team faces Yale next Tuesday.
SF: Fred Washington
12.3 pts/40; 7.7 rebs/40; 5.4 asst/40; 10/16 2ptFG, 1/3 3ptFG (effective shooting pct .638)
"Toujours l'audace" might as well be Fred Washington's motto. Let's be blunt-- the guy doesn't have a lot of talent. He's kind of fast, dribbles and passes pretty well, and that's about it. He's carved out a niche by being an incredibly aggressive slasher who's good at recognizing both whether he's committing to a drive or kicking out, and the point at which he needs to make that decision. His assist-to-turnover ratio, on a turnover-prone Stanford club, is excellent.
He's really the definition of the term "point forward." He's not a guard, but he can act like one for the first 3/4 of the court. With Goods and Hill being more spot-up shooters than ball handlers, and the lumbering Lopezes wandering around the court, this is a pretty essential skill.
Washington has absolutely no outside shot, so let's hope the 2-point percentage stays high and the 3-point shots taken stay low.
SG: Anthony Goods
26.7 pts/40; 4.44 rebs/40; 8/6 asst/TO ratio; 12/19 2ptFG, 11/25 3ptFG (effective shooting pct .647)
On a list of the "breakout seasons" of last year's Pac-10, Goods has to rank near the top. A role-player his freshman year, he turned into one of the conference's best scorers last year, and has continued to excel this season. He's turned into the clear #1 option offensively for Stanford. The point totals are not going to continue, but if they were to, he'd vault into serious contention for Pac-10 Player of the Year.
Goods is not a fabulous ballhandler, but he's capable of taking the ball to the hoop as well as lighting it up from outside. He's the clear best option when the Cardinal go inside-outside-- get the ball inside to a Lopez or have Washington penetrate, then kick out to an open Goods for an easy three-pointer.
I don't think enough has been said about the recruiting savvy of Trent Johnson. The Lopez twins were committed to Stanford from the Montgomery years onward, but Hill and Goods were tremendous under-the-radar pickups. This gives me a great deal of optimism about the team's future chances, especially with him tapping the recruiting gold mine of the Plumlee family (three brothers, with the two uncommitted guys currently a junior and a freshman in high school).
PG: Mitch Johnson
16.5 pts/40; 6.6 rebs/40; 8.2 asst/40; 20/11 asst/TO ratio; 7/11 2ptFG, 5/10 3ptFG (effective shooting pct .690)
Johnson is an object lesson in the need to evaluate chronic injuries in assessing players. He was expected to be a major contributor in his sophomore season; instead, he took a pretty big step backwards. He developed plantar fasciitis in his foot about midway through the season and was basically ineffective from that point on. Plantar fasciitis is the same medical issue that MLB outfielder Shannon Stewart has; it's an inflammation of the bottom of the foot caused by too much running on hard surfaces (the Metrodome's Astroturf, in the case of Stewart). As a result, it's pretty common among basketball players.
Unfortunately, it's also basically incurable; it can be managed and mitigated, but it never really "goes away." Johnson will probably wear down toward the end of the season when it flares up; it's not clear what can be done to prevent this other than finger-crossing. So far, so good; through four games, he's been outstanding.
I'll hit the rest of the players in somewhat shorter profiles next time around.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Basketball Homecourt Classic
Stanford 111, Harvard 56
Stanford 97, Northwestern State 58
Stanford 67, UC Santa Barbara 48
A rant.
Stanford played three games last week. Together they comprised what is now officially known as the "Basketball Travelers' Classic."
"Classic." Common English word. Has a very common English meaning, viz., "A major, long-standing sporting event." (Or one of a few other meanings, but that'll do for our purposes.)
Not "Something we invented to get us a few extra home games this season." OK? This is the first time you are holding this event. In all likelihood, it is also the LAST time you are holding this event.
Let me put this in as simple of terms as possible: it's not fucking "classic" until you've had it more than once. Now, personally, I'd like to see the term restricted to events that have happened at least five times, since that implies a certain degree of longevity and continuity. But I'd settle for twice.
I know, I know. All classic events have to start sometime. Etc etc. Can't we let the event speak for itself? Believe me, in today's sports media landscape, anything that's even remotely close to "classic" will be referred to as such. Cf. "A classic play by Shawn Merriman!" (Merriman sacks the QB, quickly frisks him for any steroids he might conveniently be carrying on him, and goes into a spastic dance of frustration when he doesn't find any.) Or "A classic blast off the bat of Manny Ramirez!" (Manny rips a ball 400 feet, watches it intently in case it sprouts wings and flies back onto the field, observes its departure from play, points to the pitcher to say "Hey, you and me, we did this together!", then realizes he needs to pee and jogs uncomfortably around the bases before heading off toward the Green Monster.)
Guys-- can you at least pay off a sportswriter to describe the event as "classic" before appropriating the title?
In this case, the results of the actual games were pretty thoroughly "freestyle", which is precisely what a Stanford fan wants to see. (Warning: the previous sentence is a cross-country skiing joke. If you are not from Scandinavia, please imagine I just said something funny.) Playing classic games with Harvard has a disturbing tendency to imply future un-classic games with, say, Arizona later in the season.
Next time, I'll recap the forthcoming showdown with Northwestern and take a glance over the Stanford roster to see what snarky comments I can get away with before the season even really starts. (Odd: Within its first 4 games, Stanford plays Northwestern and Northwestern State, which are completely unrelated universities 1000-odd miles apart. Odder: Despite being from the Big Eleven, Northwestern has fewer all-time NCAA Tournament appearances [zero] than Northwestern State of the Southland Conference [two]. Northwestern is, uniquely, the only team in a BCS conference to have never appeared in the Big Dance.) If you are one of the seventeen people in the entire Bay Area who actually subscribes to the Big Ten Network, do tell me how it went.
Stanford 97, Northwestern State 58
Stanford 67, UC Santa Barbara 48
A rant.
Stanford played three games last week. Together they comprised what is now officially known as the "Basketball Travelers' Classic."
"Classic." Common English word. Has a very common English meaning, viz., "A major, long-standing sporting event." (Or one of a few other meanings, but that'll do for our purposes.)
Not "Something we invented to get us a few extra home games this season." OK? This is the first time you are holding this event. In all likelihood, it is also the LAST time you are holding this event.
Let me put this in as simple of terms as possible: it's not fucking "classic" until you've had it more than once. Now, personally, I'd like to see the term restricted to events that have happened at least five times, since that implies a certain degree of longevity and continuity. But I'd settle for twice.
I know, I know. All classic events have to start sometime. Etc etc. Can't we let the event speak for itself? Believe me, in today's sports media landscape, anything that's even remotely close to "classic" will be referred to as such. Cf. "A classic play by Shawn Merriman!" (Merriman sacks the QB, quickly frisks him for any steroids he might conveniently be carrying on him, and goes into a spastic dance of frustration when he doesn't find any.) Or "A classic blast off the bat of Manny Ramirez!" (Manny rips a ball 400 feet, watches it intently in case it sprouts wings and flies back onto the field, observes its departure from play, points to the pitcher to say "Hey, you and me, we did this together!", then realizes he needs to pee and jogs uncomfortably around the bases before heading off toward the Green Monster.)
Guys-- can you at least pay off a sportswriter to describe the event as "classic" before appropriating the title?
In this case, the results of the actual games were pretty thoroughly "freestyle", which is precisely what a Stanford fan wants to see. (Warning: the previous sentence is a cross-country skiing joke. If you are not from Scandinavia, please imagine I just said something funny.) Playing classic games with Harvard has a disturbing tendency to imply future un-classic games with, say, Arizona later in the season.
Next time, I'll recap the forthcoming showdown with Northwestern and take a glance over the Stanford roster to see what snarky comments I can get away with before the season even really starts. (Odd: Within its first 4 games, Stanford plays Northwestern and Northwestern State, which are completely unrelated universities 1000-odd miles apart. Odder: Despite being from the Big Eleven, Northwestern has fewer all-time NCAA Tournament appearances [zero] than Northwestern State of the Southland Conference [two]. Northwestern is, uniquely, the only team in a BCS conference to have never appeared in the Big Dance.) If you are one of the seventeen people in the entire Bay Area who actually subscribes to the Big Ten Network, do tell me how it went.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Welcome... to the Monkey House
My primary rooting interest in College Basketball has undoubtedly the most psychedelically frightening mascot in all of sports.
Let's face it. I am not a sane man. That's the first thing I need to get out of the way, as it were, before we get rolling here.
Of course, my sanity or lack thereof is only one of the Cardinal Precepts of... uh, Cardinal Precepts. The following represents my gesture in the direction of Ground Rules, Frequently Unasked Because They're So Unbelievably Obvious Questions, and what have you. Copyright whenever the hell I get around to it, may be changed at any time for any reason or no reason without notifying any or all reader(s-- I use the parenthesis deliberately), etc etc etc.
1. I'm a fan of Stanford Basketball.
You may have noticed this, thanks to the unbelievably clever title above. The primary purpose of this blog will be to follow the Stanford basketball team through its trials and tribulations in what should be a wild 2007-8 season-- and perhaps beyond.
2. I am not a Stanford alum.
Those of you who plugged "Cardinal rule, Bears drool" into Google and scrolled down to result #4353657 to find this are not going to find this blog particularly appealing. Frankly, I'm a fan of Cal basketball as well, and hopefully I'll find time to post some thoughts on Ben Braun's squad during the season as well. I'm actually something of an apologist for the entire Pac-10 conference, with the debatable exception of USC. And even they'll earn some grudging respect from me when they deserve it.
My own alma mater is Pomona College of Claremont, CA-- a fine school in all respects, but not exactly a basketball powerhouse. In the one game that I can recall that we played against a Division 1 opponent during my time there, we lost to UC Irvine 83-28. We were, if you'll pardon the pun, Eaten like Ants. So I pretty much still root for my hometown (ish) teams.
3. I am an admirer of stat geeks, without actually being one myself.
I'm a huge fan of advanced statistical analysis of sports. When this blog rolls around to baseball season, there may be a few posts along those lines. But I'm thoroughly ignorant of Excel's mathematical functions, couldn't find a standard deviation if my life depended upon it, and have no idea what the actual formula for VORP in baseball is, much less how to calculate it.
So while I plan to steal some topical notions from Ken Pomeroy and a few of the other excellent basketball analysts out there on today's Web (most notably the idea of tempo-adjusted statistics), don't expect massive reams of data. I don't have either the patience or the computer skills for it.
4. Writing-wise, what you see is pretty much what you get.
If I had to pick four words to describe my own style, they would be wry, cynical, adverbial and pun-tastic. If the reader is looking for the next A. Bartlett Giamatti, writing lyrical odes to the beauty of sport and the poetry of motion, he/she is once again advised to look elsewhere. I was born on National Grouch Day. (No joke. Look it up.) Rarely has a made-up semi-serious "holiday" been so apt.
5. Flames, abuse, vitriol and other hydrogen-ion-generating materials (that's "acids", for the non-chemically inclined) are welcome, but send them by email.
While I'll be more than happy (tickled pink, actually) to have an argument out in the comments, if it's purely insulting, it ain't staying. Sorry. Chalk it up to my inflated sense of self-worth, if you so desire.
I think that about covers things for now. Next time on Cardinal Precepts: we examine the team's season-opening tournament (the Basketball Travellers' Classic, which apparently involves a bunch of other cruddy teams Travelling to play at Maples) and meet our cast of characters.
Let's face it. I am not a sane man. That's the first thing I need to get out of the way, as it were, before we get rolling here.
Of course, my sanity or lack thereof is only one of the Cardinal Precepts of... uh, Cardinal Precepts. The following represents my gesture in the direction of Ground Rules, Frequently Unasked Because They're So Unbelievably Obvious Questions, and what have you. Copyright whenever the hell I get around to it, may be changed at any time for any reason or no reason without notifying any or all reader(s-- I use the parenthesis deliberately), etc etc etc.
1. I'm a fan of Stanford Basketball.
You may have noticed this, thanks to the unbelievably clever title above. The primary purpose of this blog will be to follow the Stanford basketball team through its trials and tribulations in what should be a wild 2007-8 season-- and perhaps beyond.
2. I am not a Stanford alum.
Those of you who plugged "Cardinal rule, Bears drool" into Google and scrolled down to result #4353657 to find this are not going to find this blog particularly appealing. Frankly, I'm a fan of Cal basketball as well, and hopefully I'll find time to post some thoughts on Ben Braun's squad during the season as well. I'm actually something of an apologist for the entire Pac-10 conference, with the debatable exception of USC. And even they'll earn some grudging respect from me when they deserve it.
My own alma mater is Pomona College of Claremont, CA-- a fine school in all respects, but not exactly a basketball powerhouse. In the one game that I can recall that we played against a Division 1 opponent during my time there, we lost to UC Irvine 83-28. We were, if you'll pardon the pun, Eaten like Ants. So I pretty much still root for my hometown (ish) teams.
3. I am an admirer of stat geeks, without actually being one myself.
I'm a huge fan of advanced statistical analysis of sports. When this blog rolls around to baseball season, there may be a few posts along those lines. But I'm thoroughly ignorant of Excel's mathematical functions, couldn't find a standard deviation if my life depended upon it, and have no idea what the actual formula for VORP in baseball is, much less how to calculate it.
So while I plan to steal some topical notions from Ken Pomeroy and a few of the other excellent basketball analysts out there on today's Web (most notably the idea of tempo-adjusted statistics), don't expect massive reams of data. I don't have either the patience or the computer skills for it.
4. Writing-wise, what you see is pretty much what you get.
If I had to pick four words to describe my own style, they would be wry, cynical, adverbial and pun-tastic. If the reader is looking for the next A. Bartlett Giamatti, writing lyrical odes to the beauty of sport and the poetry of motion, he/she is once again advised to look elsewhere. I was born on National Grouch Day. (No joke. Look it up.) Rarely has a made-up semi-serious "holiday" been so apt.
5. Flames, abuse, vitriol and other hydrogen-ion-generating materials (that's "acids", for the non-chemically inclined) are welcome, but send them by email.
While I'll be more than happy (tickled pink, actually) to have an argument out in the comments, if it's purely insulting, it ain't staying. Sorry. Chalk it up to my inflated sense of self-worth, if you so desire.
I think that about covers things for now. Next time on Cardinal Precepts: we examine the team's season-opening tournament (the Basketball Travellers' Classic, which apparently involves a bunch of other cruddy teams Travelling to play at Maples) and meet our cast of characters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)