Last night's Stanford game was not televised. Unfortunately, the Cal game was, for two reasons... one of which I'll get to in a bit. The other?
Well, I have a confession to make. I hate those little scroll bars that they have at the bottom of the screen when my team is playing and not on TV. They freak me out. Every time I'm about to see the score, I get really nervous. Since I don't like this, I have a tendency to try and change the channel. The worst thing of all is when I see the score and I'm not expecting to (especially if my team is losing).
This is pure OCD on my part. I don't think it signifies anything other than that I care too much about sports... and anyone reading this kind of already knows that.
In any event, Stanford managed to pull out a close one over Washington, 82-79.
The game wasn't really as close as it seemed-- Stanford was up five with under 5 seconds to play before Washington hit a meaningless three-- but it certainly wasn't a blowout, either. Jon Brockman had one of those "Hi, I'm a POY candidate even though my team is crap" games that you always fear out of him, and Stanford's defense was uncharacteristically porous. And the rebounding sucked. It's been a while since Stanford has needed to shoot well to win a game, and fortunately the team responded in this one.
Several box-score oddities in this game. First off, Washington had a very strange starting lineup. Apparently Romar was just throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what stuck, because two of his bench players individually outscored the combined efforts of every starter other than Brockman. Or maybe he was "sending a message," or something. I don't know. The starter/bench distinction always seemed kind of forced to me anyway, leading to such foolishness as ESPN's Dana O'Neil calling Russell Westbrook a "top bench player" at a time when he was averaging over 30 minutes a game, far more than multiple UCLA starters. As far as I'm concerned, if you're in the top 5 in minutes, you're a starter-- and if your coach inexplicably decides to play the first 3 minutes with his hand behind his back, I really don't care. But no one asked me.
The other really odd thing was this. Stanford shot exactly 50% from the field. OK. Nothing overly odd there. But every single player save two also shot 50% on his shots. Exactly. The only two who didn't were Lawrence Hill, who made 2 of 5, and Landry Fields, who made his only attempt. I'm pretty certain this is up there with "18 out of 20 Oakland A's pitchers have names in the first half of the alphabet" in terms of actual relevance to anything.
Stanford will now face Washington State, and the effort they put forth last night isn't going to cut it against Wazoo. The Cougars played an inspired game against Cal, holding the Bears to the floor and then dispatching them with several well placed whacks with a tire iron last night. Cal's defensive issues showed up again, as the Cougars made 10 of their first 11 shots in the second half (although to be fair, some of them, like Taylor Rochestie's crazy dipsy-doo heave from 12 feet, were just flat-out lucky) and the team was shut out for the final five minutes of the game.
Stanford needs to do several things to win here:
1. Wield Brook Lopez as the primary offensive option. Goods is going to have a tough time shaking the Cougar defenders.
2. Keep Fred Washington on Derrick Low to shut down Wazoo's outside shooting game.
3. Don't let the Cougars generate the free points off of steals that they used to run away with the Cal game.
4. Beat them up on the boards-- it's the only reliable way to generate extra possessions and extra shots against the super-slow-mo offense that WSU runs.
We'll see if the Cardinals can pull this off. WSU is another one of these weird inverse road-home split teams that the Pac-10 is seemingly full of this season. I daresay it's not going to be easy. The game is pretty much a must-win for the Cardinals to have any possible prayer of catching UCLA for the conference title, as I simply don't envision UCLA losing to either Cal or Arizona at this point. Meanwhile, a loss opens up the possibility of WSU (and possibly USC) eking out a tie for second place in the conference-- an eventuality Stanford would really rather avoid if possible.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Well, one of them has to lose
Full disclosure: I came out of this game more irked by the failures of the Cal team than impressed with the successes of Stanford... so apologies in advance if the tone seems more negative than warranted.
Stanford 79, Cal 69
It's not really a coincidence that 2 of Stanford's 3 best offensive performances in conference play (120+ offensive efficiency rating) have come against the Bears. This team cannot play defense. At all. Particularly on the perimeter. It's inexplicable. The team's defense has actually gotten worse from last year, when it was without Hardin, without Jordan Wilkes, and without Knezevic.
A lot of it (not the perimeter problems, though-- I'm not sure how to put it other than that Jerome Randle is really, really short) seems to have to do with DeVon Hardin, who's gone from one of the better defenders in the conference to a near non-factor. He was completely outplayed by Brook Lopez last night, even though Brook did not have a great game overall.
I'm not sure what's wrong with Hardin, but something is. He seems disinterested, almost apathetic. He fouled out with 5 points and 5 rebounds and just sort of shrugged his shoulders.
I think he may be too nice for his own good, which is an odd thing to say. He doesn't seem to have that "I'm better than you are" vibe that, say, Brook Lopez does... and so he ISN'T better, even compared to guys he ought to be better than. The game ends, Cal loses, and he's joking around with guys on the other team. The elite guys don't do that-- when they lose games, they try to kick holes in the locker room walls.
He seems like a nice man, talented, a hard worker, and quite intelligent. But if I'm an NBA scout, I look at him and see a lack of killer instinct. To be an elite pro athlete, you have to be profoundly conceited, almost delusional. You have to think you're better than guys even when you clearly aren't. Hardin is smart enough to know he isn't, and nice enough not to lie and pretend he is. And that may prove his undoing as a pro prospect.
In any event, Cal's NCAA tournament chances seem close to finished. The team will have to spring at least two upsets in the next three tough games (and hold serve against Washington) to go into the Pac-10 tournament 9-9, which seems to be the minimum plausible record-- although a run to the finals might get it done if the team was 8-10 (3 wins and 1 loss in the tournament would make the Bears 11-11 overall).
In Stanford news, we had an Anthony Goods sighting (20 points), which is something the team is going to need a lot more of. He's been plagued with various maladies this year and his shooting has been off. If he can find the stroke, there's no limit to how good this team could be.
Robin Lopez's offensive game also continues to improve, as he hit a couple of very nice shots at key points in the game. He may not get to where Brook is if he stays another year (heck, he may not ever get there), but it's not out of the question that he could climb into the lottery picks in the 2008 draft.
Up next are the Washington schools. Stanford really needs to take care of Washington for seeding purposes. With Siena bouncing around the 90s in the RPI, Stanford could enter the tournament without an RPI sub-100 loss, which is nice-- but Washington is 120th in the RPI. It also goes almost without saying that losing to Washington would knock them out of realistic hopes at the conference crown. Meanwhile, Cal faces an utter must-win in Washington State.
I'll continue to update the Pac-10 bubble situation for the next week or two, as well.
Stanford 79, Cal 69
It's not really a coincidence that 2 of Stanford's 3 best offensive performances in conference play (120+ offensive efficiency rating) have come against the Bears. This team cannot play defense. At all. Particularly on the perimeter. It's inexplicable. The team's defense has actually gotten worse from last year, when it was without Hardin, without Jordan Wilkes, and without Knezevic.
A lot of it (not the perimeter problems, though-- I'm not sure how to put it other than that Jerome Randle is really, really short) seems to have to do with DeVon Hardin, who's gone from one of the better defenders in the conference to a near non-factor. He was completely outplayed by Brook Lopez last night, even though Brook did not have a great game overall.
I'm not sure what's wrong with Hardin, but something is. He seems disinterested, almost apathetic. He fouled out with 5 points and 5 rebounds and just sort of shrugged his shoulders.
I think he may be too nice for his own good, which is an odd thing to say. He doesn't seem to have that "I'm better than you are" vibe that, say, Brook Lopez does... and so he ISN'T better, even compared to guys he ought to be better than. The game ends, Cal loses, and he's joking around with guys on the other team. The elite guys don't do that-- when they lose games, they try to kick holes in the locker room walls.
He seems like a nice man, talented, a hard worker, and quite intelligent. But if I'm an NBA scout, I look at him and see a lack of killer instinct. To be an elite pro athlete, you have to be profoundly conceited, almost delusional. You have to think you're better than guys even when you clearly aren't. Hardin is smart enough to know he isn't, and nice enough not to lie and pretend he is. And that may prove his undoing as a pro prospect.
In any event, Cal's NCAA tournament chances seem close to finished. The team will have to spring at least two upsets in the next three tough games (and hold serve against Washington) to go into the Pac-10 tournament 9-9, which seems to be the minimum plausible record-- although a run to the finals might get it done if the team was 8-10 (3 wins and 1 loss in the tournament would make the Bears 11-11 overall).
In Stanford news, we had an Anthony Goods sighting (20 points), which is something the team is going to need a lot more of. He's been plagued with various maladies this year and his shooting has been off. If he can find the stroke, there's no limit to how good this team could be.
Robin Lopez's offensive game also continues to improve, as he hit a couple of very nice shots at key points in the game. He may not get to where Brook is if he stays another year (heck, he may not ever get there), but it's not out of the question that he could climb into the lottery picks in the 2008 draft.
Up next are the Washington schools. Stanford really needs to take care of Washington for seeding purposes. With Siena bouncing around the 90s in the RPI, Stanford could enter the tournament without an RPI sub-100 loss, which is nice-- but Washington is 120th in the RPI. It also goes almost without saying that losing to Washington would knock them out of realistic hopes at the conference crown. Meanwhile, Cal faces an utter must-win in Washington State.
I'll continue to update the Pac-10 bubble situation for the next week or two, as well.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Pac-10 Bubble Trouble
In lieu of the usual Friday post (because the Bay schools had the night off yesterday), I figured it might be time for a little Pac-10 Bubble Watching.
So let's look at the teams in order of the current standings, and see how they stack up. (Note: Magic #, the number of games a team needs to win to squeeze into the NCAA field, EXCLUDES opening-round tournament wins. Thumping Oregon State in LA will not impress anybody.)
UCLA: 26-3, 14-2
Remaining games: Stanford, Cal
Status: Lock
Seed floor: 4
UCLA is coming pretty close to locking up a protected seed in the tournament; 1 win in the remaining 3 games should obtain them a #2 seed (and of course a #1 is still there to be won if the team is a clear winner in the conference). An extended losing streak is not really an issue at this point.
Stanford: 24-4, 13-3
Remaining games: @ UCLA, @ USC
Status: Lock
Seed floor: 4
See above. At this point the team can't do worse than second in conference with one hypothetical bad loss in the conference tourney. A #1 seed isn't off the table if Stanford wins out. Not that it's a likely scenario, but what the hey.
Odd note: Stanford's seed floor is as high as UCLA's, even though their realistic (read: not assuming a road win at Pauley) seed ceiling is probably at the 2 line. Why? Because their remaining opponents are better, and losses to them will be less damaging.
WSU: 21-7, 10-7
Remaining games: Washington
Status: Favorable
Magic #: 1
Chance of Achieving: 85%
Soft nonconference (not their fault-- who wants to travel to Pullman in winter?) means this team will probably need 11 wins to feel totally safe. A season sweep of USC and ASU does guarantee the Cougars the tiebreaker over the Trojans if needed for the tournament, but that could be a bad thing as it might lead to a third matchup with arch-nemesis Arizona. The Cougars would be well advised to put Washington away. Given the shambles the bubble finds itself in, though, one win may not even be necessary.
USC: 18-10, 9-7
Remaining games: Cal, Stanford
Status: Favorable
Magic #: 1
Chance of Achieving: 83%
I just can't see this team getting dropped with 9 wins. The SOS is impeccable, the team has the win over UCLA, and they have OJMAYOZOMGZORZ!!!!!1!1! on the roster. Hackett was back and played decently against Arizona, making it even less likely that they'll be docked for games where he didn't play. The team laid an egg against ASU, so they should probably win a game against the Bay Area to feel safe.
ASU: 18-9, 8-8
Remaining games: @ Oregon, @ OSU
Status: Bubblicious
Magic #: 2
Chance of Achieving: 50%
The RPI and SOS hate this team. Inevitably, that will cause Jay Bilas to love them, but he's not on the Committee. (I like Bilas a lot, but he does have a bit of a bee in his bonnet about the RPI.)
The win over USC was the first needed win in what seems like a best-of-three for a bid; the Devils now need to pick up a road win at Oregon or a tournament win over (probably) USC, plus handle Oregon State.
Cal: 15-12, 6-10
Remaining games: @ USC, @ UCLA
Status: Dead
While Cal might be technically alive for a bid with 5 straight wins to the conference tournament final, that's sufficiently unlikely that I think Cal's tournament chances can be officially declared dead.
Arizona: 17-12, 7-9
Remaining games: @ OSU, @ Oregon
Status: Sweating
Magic #: 2
Chance of Achieving: 60%
The apocalypse scenario of a home sweep by the L.A. schools strikes. I still think 9-9 or 8-10 with a win in the conference quarters gets it done, especially in light of the overall weakness of the bubble. For obvious reasons, the OSU game is now an absolute must-win.
Oregon: 16-12, 7-9
Remaining games: ASU, Arizona
Status: Sweating
Magic #: 2 (and that's iffy)
Chance of Achieving: 45%
Honestly, I don't know if 9-9 and a first-round Pac-10 tournament loss would get the job done here. Beating UCLA would really help if it was one of those three wins. Otherwise I suspect it will depend on what the final Pac-10 pecking order looks like. If Oregon looks like the seventh best team with this resume, I think they will end up one of the last teams out.
Washington: 16-14, 7-10
Remaining games: @ WSU
Status: Dead
Washington does the conference no favors by eliminating both itself and Cal on the two legs of the Bay Area road trip.
Oregon State: Who cares?
Remaining games: Arizona, ASU
Status: You gotta be kidding me
Oregon State continues to play "lame Beaver" for the conference. (Get it? I can't say "lame Duck" because Oregon is the Ducks... oh, forget it.) Good thing, too, because neither tonight's victor Oregon nor either Arizona school can absorb a loss and have its bid chances survive, and the same will likely be true of the #7 team in the conference tournament.
It's going to be very hard for the conference to get 7 teams in. This is a shame, because it really is an awesome league. There just aren't enough wins to go around, particularly with Washington suddenly snarfing a couple of wins from putative Tourney squads. Right now, it looks like the top 6 in the league are UCLA, Stanford, WSU, USC, Arizona and the winner of the critical ASU/Oregon game-- and it also looks like that's going to be it for the conference. Of course, things can (and will) change rapidly from here on out. I'll post another update during the run-up to the Pac-10 tournament.
So let's look at the teams in order of the current standings, and see how they stack up. (Note: Magic #, the number of games a team needs to win to squeeze into the NCAA field, EXCLUDES opening-round tournament wins. Thumping Oregon State in LA will not impress anybody.)
UCLA: 26-3, 14-2
Remaining games: Stanford, Cal
Status: Lock
Seed floor: 4
UCLA is coming pretty close to locking up a protected seed in the tournament; 1 win in the remaining 3 games should obtain them a #2 seed (and of course a #1 is still there to be won if the team is a clear winner in the conference). An extended losing streak is not really an issue at this point.
Stanford: 24-4, 13-3
Remaining games: @ UCLA, @ USC
Status: Lock
Seed floor: 4
See above. At this point the team can't do worse than second in conference with one hypothetical bad loss in the conference tourney. A #1 seed isn't off the table if Stanford wins out. Not that it's a likely scenario, but what the hey.
Odd note: Stanford's seed floor is as high as UCLA's, even though their realistic (read: not assuming a road win at Pauley) seed ceiling is probably at the 2 line. Why? Because their remaining opponents are better, and losses to them will be less damaging.
WSU: 21-7, 10-7
Remaining games: Washington
Status: Favorable
Magic #: 1
Chance of Achieving: 85%
Soft nonconference (not their fault-- who wants to travel to Pullman in winter?) means this team will probably need 11 wins to feel totally safe. A season sweep of USC and ASU does guarantee the Cougars the tiebreaker over the Trojans if needed for the tournament, but that could be a bad thing as it might lead to a third matchup with arch-nemesis Arizona. The Cougars would be well advised to put Washington away. Given the shambles the bubble finds itself in, though, one win may not even be necessary.
USC: 18-10, 9-7
Remaining games: Cal, Stanford
Status: Favorable
Magic #: 1
Chance of Achieving: 83%
I just can't see this team getting dropped with 9 wins. The SOS is impeccable, the team has the win over UCLA, and they have OJMAYOZOMGZORZ!!!!!1!1! on the roster. Hackett was back and played decently against Arizona, making it even less likely that they'll be docked for games where he didn't play. The team laid an egg against ASU, so they should probably win a game against the Bay Area to feel safe.
ASU: 18-9, 8-8
Remaining games: @ Oregon, @ OSU
Status: Bubblicious
Magic #: 2
Chance of Achieving: 50%
The RPI and SOS hate this team. Inevitably, that will cause Jay Bilas to love them, but he's not on the Committee. (I like Bilas a lot, but he does have a bit of a bee in his bonnet about the RPI.)
The win over USC was the first needed win in what seems like a best-of-three for a bid; the Devils now need to pick up a road win at Oregon or a tournament win over (probably) USC, plus handle Oregon State.
Cal: 15-12, 6-10
Remaining games: @ USC, @ UCLA
Status: Dead
While Cal might be technically alive for a bid with 5 straight wins to the conference tournament final, that's sufficiently unlikely that I think Cal's tournament chances can be officially declared dead.
Arizona: 17-12, 7-9
Remaining games: @ OSU, @ Oregon
Status: Sweating
Magic #: 2
Chance of Achieving: 60%
The apocalypse scenario of a home sweep by the L.A. schools strikes. I still think 9-9 or 8-10 with a win in the conference quarters gets it done, especially in light of the overall weakness of the bubble. For obvious reasons, the OSU game is now an absolute must-win.
Oregon: 16-12, 7-9
Remaining games: ASU, Arizona
Status: Sweating
Magic #: 2 (and that's iffy)
Chance of Achieving: 45%
Honestly, I don't know if 9-9 and a first-round Pac-10 tournament loss would get the job done here. Beating UCLA would really help if it was one of those three wins. Otherwise I suspect it will depend on what the final Pac-10 pecking order looks like. If Oregon looks like the seventh best team with this resume, I think they will end up one of the last teams out.
Washington: 16-14, 7-10
Remaining games: @ WSU
Status: Dead
Washington does the conference no favors by eliminating both itself and Cal on the two legs of the Bay Area road trip.
Oregon State: Who cares?
Remaining games: Arizona, ASU
Status: You gotta be kidding me
Oregon State continues to play "lame Beaver" for the conference. (Get it? I can't say "lame Duck" because Oregon is the Ducks... oh, forget it.) Good thing, too, because neither tonight's victor Oregon nor either Arizona school can absorb a loss and have its bid chances survive, and the same will likely be true of the #7 team in the conference tournament.
It's going to be very hard for the conference to get 7 teams in. This is a shame, because it really is an awesome league. There just aren't enough wins to go around, particularly with Washington suddenly snarfing a couple of wins from putative Tourney squads. Right now, it looks like the top 6 in the league are UCLA, Stanford, WSU, USC, Arizona and the winner of the critical ASU/Oregon game-- and it also looks like that's going to be it for the conference. Of course, things can (and will) change rapidly from here on out. I'll post another update during the run-up to the Pac-10 tournament.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Injuries? Feh. I'm an A's fan. Suck it up.
Apologies to the two people who will actually read this for taking so long to get it up. Really just pure laziness on my part.
...and wow. I thought the officiating in Thursday's game was bad. This game made it look like the three officials in Thursday's contest were the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
(Extraneous comment: Am I the only one to whom the phrase "Holy Ghost" sounds utterly stupid? I mean, Ghost? Seriously? Do the GhostBusters go after him? And can someone please explain the whole Trinity concept to me, period? Believe it or not, as an amateur Byzantine-ist, I know a fair amount about early Christian theology. I still don't understand how you can get three-Gods-in-one, or indeed what the point is supposed to be. Islam and Judaism at least have clarity on their side.)
In any event, it was awful. The first half was basically whistle-free; at one point Robin Lopez was literally tackled during a loose-ball situation and no foul was called. Then we get to the second half, and there's whistles blowing all over the joint. Everyone, by now, has probably seen the final play (where Brook Lopez was "fouled" by Chase Budinger on what appeared to be a totally clean block), but I can't even count the number of times that Jerryd Bayless lunged into the paint and basically threw himself at his defender and got a foul call. Got old mighty quick, I have to say.
Give the kid credit, though. He made free throws like his family would be executed if he missed one. 16-for-16, I believe. Amazing. Talk about a premium talent. He's up there with Kevin Love, Brook Lopez, Malik Hairston and Ryan Anderson in contention for All-Conference honors, and a darkhorse for Player of the Year.
One thing is very clear, and it's that Arizona is nothing-- NOTHING-- without Bayless. I can't remember a team where one guard dominated the offense to such a degree. He scored 75% of their points against ASU! That's borderline unbelievable at any level.
And that segues into my lecture du jour, which is about injuries and the selection committee process. Arizona seems like they will get a pass on their 1-3 stretch early in Pac-10 play in which he was injured and unavailable. Now, as a Pac-10 true believer, I think Arizona is basically an NCAA tournament team anyway-- and their RPI and SOS back them up even if they finish in the bottom half of the league. But that doesn't mean they should get a pass for overrecruiting a small roster and neglecting their bench. If they get in, it should be because they earned it.
We know that teams' performance is weighted by the committee based on who was and wasn't playing in a given game, and who will or won't be around for the Tournament. The infamous hosing of Cincinnati after Kenyon Martin broke his leg, where they were dropped to a #2 seed for no other reason than that a player was hurt, is the most obvious example. But there have certainly been others. Heck, Stanford might get a mulligan on the Siena loss, which is even less excusable given that Brook Lopez was absent due to suspension, not injury.
In my mind, this is one form of the cardinal sin (are there enough religious metaphors in this post?) of "projection seeding." Teams should be seeded based on performance-- period. Not who you think will advance, who has the best players, whatever-- the 4 #1 seeds should be the four teams that did the most work during the regular season. And injuries simply don't factor into that. Your #1 player, who comprises 50% of your offense, was out? Golly gee. Perhaps you should have recruited or developed some better players to pick up the slack. You think Kansas is going to notice if one of their starters is out? Shit, Brandon Rush missed like 1/3 of the season and the team was undefeated in his absence. Why? Because they go 10 deep with quality players, that's why.
As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as a game that "shouldn't count." Pro teams don't get to throw out games where they were missing key components. If they did, the A's would have made the baseball playoffs last year, based on their undefeated 2-0 record for the season.
It's not OK to seed a team based on the perceived quality of their tournament roster vis a vis the rosters that they had during various pre-tournament games. The only fair way to seed-- keeping in mind, of course, that college athletics are never really "fair" given teams' disparate budgets and recruiting capabilities-- is to seed and admit teams based on what they accomplished. As Joe Lunardi pointed out the other day, if it's just a beauty contest based on the roster, why bother to play the season at all?
I'm sure I'll have more to say on this later. For now, suffice it to say that while Arizona has a legitimate beef about the officiating-- although I think the cardinal errors more or less balanced out, that's not an excuse for committing those errors-- they have no beef for the loss of Nic Wise and Brett Brielmayer to injury. Resilient teams deal with injuries by inserting quality backups, not by whinging to the powers that be about how their losses shouldn't matter.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
The thrill of OT victory...
and the agony of OT defeat.
ASU 72, Stanford 68
Well, there you have it, opposing NCAA tournament teams. Watch this film to find out how to beat Stanford-- outrebound them (at least relative to the average opponent; I'm not sure whether they technically ended up ahead or not, but it was very close), outhustle them to loose balls, make them miss free throws (not actually that hard) and pay off the referees.
Seriously, this was an atrociously officiated game, starting with the fact that the refs couldn't seem to find their whistles in the first 15 minutes of the game, with the result that virtually no one was called for a foul for ANYTHING. Since Stanford has... oh, about five times as many post players as ASU (I approximate here), this clearly ended up favoring the Sun Devils.
Another particularly galling example of incompetence was when a ball which clearly, visibly to the TV eye, deflected off an ASU player trying to make a steal and bounced out the Stanford end was inexplicably given to ASU. Given that the game went to overtime, it's very possible that that play decided the game. I forget if ASU scored on that possession, but even if they didn't Stanford might have on the other end. So call it a 75% chance of being a game-changing play.
Also deciding the game was Stanford's clutch free-throw shooting, which quite frankly wasn't. On FIVE consecutive trips to the foul line stretching from regulation into OT, the Cardinal missed the front end of the free-throw attempt. (This is worse than missing the back end, because you can't rebound the miss.) This is not good enough.
It really irritates me when that strategy works, for a whole variety of reasons. First off, it's not basketball. It's like deciding the end of a hockey game by shooting penalty shots. (Oh. Wait. The NHL does that now, too. Well, let me put it on record that it's a pretty retarded way to end a pro hockey game.) Secondly, it arbitrarily rewards one skill (foul shooting) at the expense of others-- why should that particular skill be de rigeur for closing out tough games? And perhaps most importantly, it makes games drag on FOREVER in an endless succession of free throws and timeouts. It's like the basketball strategy equivalent of the Special Olympics. Even when it works, it's still retarded. And usually, it doesn't work.
Well, anyway, Stanford needed to be able to win an OT game with no Pendergraph on the floor (he fouled out as part of the end-game hackorama) and simply whiffed on the opportunity. I cannot figure out why they had so much trouble defending James Harden. Everybody in the building knew that he was going to take the shot for ASU every single time down the floor. I mean, box-and-one? Constant double-team? Something? Please?
Aargh. I don't expect them to win every game, certainly not every road game, but this was a really crummy way to lose to a team which once again (like Oregon) was visibly not as good.
Cal was taken apart by Arizona, marking the first time this year that both teams have gone down on the same day. As good as the wins over the Washington schools felt, these games feel equally bad.
ASU 72, Stanford 68
Well, there you have it, opposing NCAA tournament teams. Watch this film to find out how to beat Stanford-- outrebound them (at least relative to the average opponent; I'm not sure whether they technically ended up ahead or not, but it was very close), outhustle them to loose balls, make them miss free throws (not actually that hard) and pay off the referees.
Seriously, this was an atrociously officiated game, starting with the fact that the refs couldn't seem to find their whistles in the first 15 minutes of the game, with the result that virtually no one was called for a foul for ANYTHING. Since Stanford has... oh, about five times as many post players as ASU (I approximate here), this clearly ended up favoring the Sun Devils.
Another particularly galling example of incompetence was when a ball which clearly, visibly to the TV eye, deflected off an ASU player trying to make a steal and bounced out the Stanford end was inexplicably given to ASU. Given that the game went to overtime, it's very possible that that play decided the game. I forget if ASU scored on that possession, but even if they didn't Stanford might have on the other end. So call it a 75% chance of being a game-changing play.
Also deciding the game was Stanford's clutch free-throw shooting, which quite frankly wasn't. On FIVE consecutive trips to the foul line stretching from regulation into OT, the Cardinal missed the front end of the free-throw attempt. (This is worse than missing the back end, because you can't rebound the miss.) This is not good enough.
It really irritates me when that strategy works, for a whole variety of reasons. First off, it's not basketball. It's like deciding the end of a hockey game by shooting penalty shots. (Oh. Wait. The NHL does that now, too. Well, let me put it on record that it's a pretty retarded way to end a pro hockey game.) Secondly, it arbitrarily rewards one skill (foul shooting) at the expense of others-- why should that particular skill be de rigeur for closing out tough games? And perhaps most importantly, it makes games drag on FOREVER in an endless succession of free throws and timeouts. It's like the basketball strategy equivalent of the Special Olympics. Even when it works, it's still retarded. And usually, it doesn't work.
Well, anyway, Stanford needed to be able to win an OT game with no Pendergraph on the floor (he fouled out as part of the end-game hackorama) and simply whiffed on the opportunity. I cannot figure out why they had so much trouble defending James Harden. Everybody in the building knew that he was going to take the shot for ASU every single time down the floor. I mean, box-and-one? Constant double-team? Something? Please?
Aargh. I don't expect them to win every game, certainly not every road game, but this was a really crummy way to lose to a team which once again (like Oregon) was visibly not as good.
Cal was taken apart by Arizona, marking the first time this year that both teams have gone down on the same day. As good as the wins over the Washington schools felt, these games feel equally bad.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
When is winning not a good thing?
Well, in college hoops, it's when you beat a bad team in a game where you played poorly, solely because the opposing team is terrible.
Stanford 71, Oregon State 56
The benighted Beavers weren't much of a threat. They have a habit of allowing ridiculous runs to their opponents, and this game was no exception, as Stanford basically blew the game open with a 15-0 stretch to close the first half.
The fact remains that this was one of the team's worse games of the season. Not on the level of the Siena game, or the USC game, or even the first Oregon game, but distinctly weaker than the excellent stretch of play which preceded it. They continued to hold the opponent's assist count down (OSU had only seven on 20 field goals) but shot poorly from the floor and committed a dizzying array of turnovers, including several really boneheaded ones. Brook Lopez stepped out of bounds at least twice, and I think Mitch Johnson did once as well.
Moreover, the team's defensive efficiency was only 90.3 in this game. That's relative to 100, so it was above NCAA average-- but keep in mind, Oregon State is a terrible offensive team. The defense Stanford played Saturday was par for the conference course this year-- and given that the team's offense is likewise rather average, that's not going to be good enough to win on the road this weekend. Let's hope it was a one-game aberration.
Up next: James Harden, Jeff Pendergraph and whoever else Arizona State throws out there. This is a tough road game, but it's a good matchup-- Stanford eats halfcourt teams for lunch. It's a game that ought to be won.
Cal got absolutely poleaxed by Oregon on Saturday; I didn't see the game courtesy of Comcast SportsNet, but it sounds like they were victimized by unbelievable Oregon shooting. These things happen, sadly. Cal's in a really tough bind at this point-- they need four out of seven games, and five of the seven are road games. The most plausible scenario would be wins over the Arizona schools on the road and the Washington schools at home. Doesn't seem all that plausible to me. I guess anything can happen, but Cal is not a good defensive team.
Stanford 71, Oregon State 56
The benighted Beavers weren't much of a threat. They have a habit of allowing ridiculous runs to their opponents, and this game was no exception, as Stanford basically blew the game open with a 15-0 stretch to close the first half.
The fact remains that this was one of the team's worse games of the season. Not on the level of the Siena game, or the USC game, or even the first Oregon game, but distinctly weaker than the excellent stretch of play which preceded it. They continued to hold the opponent's assist count down (OSU had only seven on 20 field goals) but shot poorly from the floor and committed a dizzying array of turnovers, including several really boneheaded ones. Brook Lopez stepped out of bounds at least twice, and I think Mitch Johnson did once as well.
Moreover, the team's defensive efficiency was only 90.3 in this game. That's relative to 100, so it was above NCAA average-- but keep in mind, Oregon State is a terrible offensive team. The defense Stanford played Saturday was par for the conference course this year-- and given that the team's offense is likewise rather average, that's not going to be good enough to win on the road this weekend. Let's hope it was a one-game aberration.
Up next: James Harden, Jeff Pendergraph and whoever else Arizona State throws out there. This is a tough road game, but it's a good matchup-- Stanford eats halfcourt teams for lunch. It's a game that ought to be won.
Cal got absolutely poleaxed by Oregon on Saturday; I didn't see the game courtesy of Comcast SportsNet, but it sounds like they were victimized by unbelievable Oregon shooting. These things happen, sadly. Cal's in a really tough bind at this point-- they need four out of seven games, and five of the seven are road games. The most plausible scenario would be wins over the Arizona schools on the road and the Washington schools at home. Doesn't seem all that plausible to me. I guess anything can happen, but Cal is not a good defensive team.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Demolition Derby
I'm pretty sure that's what last night's game felt like if you were an Oregon Duck.
Stanford 72, Oregon 43
In a stark contrast to the first meeting between the two, where the tempo and run of play were largely controlled by Oregon, Stanford utterly dominated this game from the start-- and did it with the "big lineup" that (not to toot my own horn excessively here) I advocated before that game. It's unfortunate, because I think if Trent Johnson had used it more extensively there, the team would now be 9-1 in conference play-- but he should also get credit for recognizing that the strategy of going small to try to play with Oregon on the perimeter was ineffectual and changing course.
Last night's game wasn't televised, so other than the running Opposition Assist Count (Oregon had six last night-- rather incredible when you consider how good their offense actually is) I don't have a lot to analyze here. I did, however, see most of the Wazoo-UCLA game.
UCLA is clearly the best team in the league at this point. Washington State really doesn't turn the ball over very much-- Stanford only forced four in an overtime WIN-- but for a stretch of about 5 minutes in the second half, they might as well have dipped their hands in a vat of lard. That's how easily UCLA was getting steals. I think you have to chalk it up to UCLA's defense-- it's not particularly great at field goal percentage, but they are unquestionably exceptional at forcing turnovers and the complete package is a national top 10 unit.
Their offense is also excellent, although it has odd weaknesses for a college offense-- particularly an inability (and unwillingness) to shoot the 3-pointer. Still, they generate enormous numbers of easy shots and can hit from midrange, with the result that on a per-possession basis UCLA is a bare fraction worse than Kansas for the top unit in the country. A lot of this is because of Kevin Love, who keeps impressing me more every time I see him. He's the interior scoring threat last year's Bruins needed so badly.
It's kind of odd to watch, because Love looks like a football player-- squat, kind of flabby, no discernible neck. Yet the guy is an absolute powerhouse. He was routinely scoring through double teams, and not just by tossing shots over them (as Brook Lopez is somewhat prone to). He would simply force his way out of them. He's a vacuum on the rebounding glass, he can hit from outside if you play off of him, and his oft-remarked-upon passing strength probably generates 4-6 free points a game on fast-breaks appearing out of nowhere.
It's going to be interesting to see where things shake out with regard to him and the NBA. He's a true center, but he's very short for the position at the NBA level. Can pure strength overcome the inevitable prejudices of scouts against his height? Or will someone take him and attempt to convert him to a power forward? If it's the latter, his draft stock will probably slip a bit.
It would certainly be interesting to see what he could do with four years at the college level. One hesitates to say he would rewrite the school record books (this is, after all UCLA) but he could win Conference Player of the Year multiple times. Not that I, as a fan of two other Pac-10 teams, would be particularly thrilled to see them play against him twice each. Regardless, I don't think it'll happen. He might stay one more year; I can't see him hanging around any longer. At some point, there's just nothing left to prove.
Cal notes: the Bears have some kind of issue with Oregon State. It just never seems to go well when those two match up. The Bears did pull it out but it was a damned near run thing, to paraphrase Wellington.
One must-win down, two more to go. The game against Oregon tomorrow should be a fun and high-scoring affair. Win that, steal one on the road in Arizona and maybe we're talking an NCAA bid in a few more weeks.
Stanford obviously isn't in that situation right now, but seeding-wise they would be strongly advised to not mess around with OSU tomorrow. I hate these "gimme" games-- nothing good can happen even if you win, and a loss is a disaster. At least in this case it wasn't brought on voluntarily through scheduling.
Stanford 72, Oregon 43
In a stark contrast to the first meeting between the two, where the tempo and run of play were largely controlled by Oregon, Stanford utterly dominated this game from the start-- and did it with the "big lineup" that (not to toot my own horn excessively here) I advocated before that game. It's unfortunate, because I think if Trent Johnson had used it more extensively there, the team would now be 9-1 in conference play-- but he should also get credit for recognizing that the strategy of going small to try to play with Oregon on the perimeter was ineffectual and changing course.
Last night's game wasn't televised, so other than the running Opposition Assist Count (Oregon had six last night-- rather incredible when you consider how good their offense actually is) I don't have a lot to analyze here. I did, however, see most of the Wazoo-UCLA game.
UCLA is clearly the best team in the league at this point. Washington State really doesn't turn the ball over very much-- Stanford only forced four in an overtime WIN-- but for a stretch of about 5 minutes in the second half, they might as well have dipped their hands in a vat of lard. That's how easily UCLA was getting steals. I think you have to chalk it up to UCLA's defense-- it's not particularly great at field goal percentage, but they are unquestionably exceptional at forcing turnovers and the complete package is a national top 10 unit.
Their offense is also excellent, although it has odd weaknesses for a college offense-- particularly an inability (and unwillingness) to shoot the 3-pointer. Still, they generate enormous numbers of easy shots and can hit from midrange, with the result that on a per-possession basis UCLA is a bare fraction worse than Kansas for the top unit in the country. A lot of this is because of Kevin Love, who keeps impressing me more every time I see him. He's the interior scoring threat last year's Bruins needed so badly.
It's kind of odd to watch, because Love looks like a football player-- squat, kind of flabby, no discernible neck. Yet the guy is an absolute powerhouse. He was routinely scoring through double teams, and not just by tossing shots over them (as Brook Lopez is somewhat prone to). He would simply force his way out of them. He's a vacuum on the rebounding glass, he can hit from outside if you play off of him, and his oft-remarked-upon passing strength probably generates 4-6 free points a game on fast-breaks appearing out of nowhere.
It's going to be interesting to see where things shake out with regard to him and the NBA. He's a true center, but he's very short for the position at the NBA level. Can pure strength overcome the inevitable prejudices of scouts against his height? Or will someone take him and attempt to convert him to a power forward? If it's the latter, his draft stock will probably slip a bit.
It would certainly be interesting to see what he could do with four years at the college level. One hesitates to say he would rewrite the school record books (this is, after all UCLA) but he could win Conference Player of the Year multiple times. Not that I, as a fan of two other Pac-10 teams, would be particularly thrilled to see them play against him twice each. Regardless, I don't think it'll happen. He might stay one more year; I can't see him hanging around any longer. At some point, there's just nothing left to prove.
Cal notes: the Bears have some kind of issue with Oregon State. It just never seems to go well when those two match up. The Bears did pull it out but it was a damned near run thing, to paraphrase Wellington.
One must-win down, two more to go. The game against Oregon tomorrow should be a fun and high-scoring affair. Win that, steal one on the road in Arizona and maybe we're talking an NCAA bid in a few more weeks.
Stanford obviously isn't in that situation right now, but seeding-wise they would be strongly advised to not mess around with OSU tomorrow. I hate these "gimme" games-- nothing good can happen even if you win, and a loss is a disaster. At least in this case it wasn't brought on voluntarily through scheduling.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Rip the shit... till my bone collapse
That's what I tried to do to the chair downstairs when the Cardinal finally pulled off their heart-stopping, pulse-racing win over Washington State. Simply an unbelievable game-- one of the two or three best I've seen all season.
Stanford 67, Washington State 65
At the risk of sounding too much like a fanboy and too little like an analyst... this was a hell of a clutch performance. OK, the free-throw shooting was kind of unclutch (for both teams) and the Cardinal could have done better on their last possession than a contested 18-foot heave through traffic. But clutchness is more of a mental toughness thing anyway-- and we saw that on display yesterday. The team had a couple of opportunities to fold after getting down by 9 or so in the second half-- and both times, they fought back to get into the game again.
There's no question what factor made the largest difference in this one-- it was Lawrence Hill. 4 of 6 from 3-point range, 18 points, 8 rebounds. Not a stunning performance, but a very good one-- and it seemed like every 3-pointer came at a crucial moment, stopping a run, giving the team the lead, and so on. Lawrence Hill is an odd bird-- his oddly rotating jump shot is kind of symbolic-- but he's unquestionably a big-game player. He was huge in last year's UCLA upset that essentially carried the team into the NCAA tournament, and huge again in today's nailbiter.
I've also got to give props to Trent Johnson for this win. The hidden turning point of the game was when he moved Fred Washington to guard Derrick Low instead of Kyle Weaver. Weaver ran wild a bit-- he had a career-high in points-- but Low, after going on something like a singlehanded 9-0 run while "guarded" by Kenny Brown (sorry Kenny... facts is facts), was shut down for essentially the balance of the game. Combined with the Lopezes fouling out Aron Baynes with limited impact, this left the Cougs with only one good scoring option on the offensive end. Great game management to deal with the loss of Anthony Goods to an ankle sprain (which explains why he had so few minutes in Thursday night's game... I was afraid of something like that when I saw the box score).
This was an awesome statement win for NCAA tournament purposes. It's hard to overestimate the value of a good road win against a tough opponent in a hostile environment. Stanford's excellent road/neutral record (7-2) is going to pay dividends come tournament time, and well it should.
Ryan Anderson watch: 33 points and 17 rebounds against Washington. Just another day at the office.
The road sweep might be even bigger for Cal than it was for Stanford, as it essentially resurrected their season. The Bears have a legitimate shot at a Tournament berth now; it's probably going to take 5 or 6 wins down the stretch and into the Pac-10 tournament to do it, but that number sure looks a lot better than the 7 or 8 wins it looked to take BEFORE last weekend.
Stanford 67, Washington State 65
At the risk of sounding too much like a fanboy and too little like an analyst... this was a hell of a clutch performance. OK, the free-throw shooting was kind of unclutch (for both teams) and the Cardinal could have done better on their last possession than a contested 18-foot heave through traffic. But clutchness is more of a mental toughness thing anyway-- and we saw that on display yesterday. The team had a couple of opportunities to fold after getting down by 9 or so in the second half-- and both times, they fought back to get into the game again.
There's no question what factor made the largest difference in this one-- it was Lawrence Hill. 4 of 6 from 3-point range, 18 points, 8 rebounds. Not a stunning performance, but a very good one-- and it seemed like every 3-pointer came at a crucial moment, stopping a run, giving the team the lead, and so on. Lawrence Hill is an odd bird-- his oddly rotating jump shot is kind of symbolic-- but he's unquestionably a big-game player. He was huge in last year's UCLA upset that essentially carried the team into the NCAA tournament, and huge again in today's nailbiter.
I've also got to give props to Trent Johnson for this win. The hidden turning point of the game was when he moved Fred Washington to guard Derrick Low instead of Kyle Weaver. Weaver ran wild a bit-- he had a career-high in points-- but Low, after going on something like a singlehanded 9-0 run while "guarded" by Kenny Brown (sorry Kenny... facts is facts), was shut down for essentially the balance of the game. Combined with the Lopezes fouling out Aron Baynes with limited impact, this left the Cougs with only one good scoring option on the offensive end. Great game management to deal with the loss of Anthony Goods to an ankle sprain (which explains why he had so few minutes in Thursday night's game... I was afraid of something like that when I saw the box score).
This was an awesome statement win for NCAA tournament purposes. It's hard to overestimate the value of a good road win against a tough opponent in a hostile environment. Stanford's excellent road/neutral record (7-2) is going to pay dividends come tournament time, and well it should.
Ryan Anderson watch: 33 points and 17 rebounds against Washington. Just another day at the office.
The road sweep might be even bigger for Cal than it was for Stanford, as it essentially resurrected their season. The Bears have a legitimate shot at a Tournament berth now; it's probably going to take 5 or 6 wins down the stretch and into the Pac-10 tournament to do it, but that number sure looks a lot better than the 7 or 8 wins it looked to take BEFORE last weekend.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Draft buzz
I'm not going to dwell on last night's Cardinal game, which wasn't televised at all (Can someone work on this? Please?) except to note a rather remarkable number from the box score-- Stanford allowed all of FOUR assists in this game. Overall Stanford's conference opponents are averaging a mere 9 a game; on the season, it's 9.5. Those are pretty remarkable numbers. Essentially what they're saying is that the only way to score on the Cardinal is to penetrate or somehow isolate one guy. Stanford's won 6 games out of 8 with both Lawrence Hill and Anthony Goods in severe shooting slumps, and that goes a long way toward explaining how. Defense doesn't go into a slump, I guess.
And now for something completely different...
In this piece, Chad Ford ranks Anderson as a rising talent. He's still listed as a late first/early second round pick on ESPN's big draft board, but I suspect if he keeps dropping 27 on good defenses like he did last night, he'll probably make his way up the chart pretty quickly. He sees the key to Anderson's potential value as his improved rebounding skills-- often an indicator of a willingness to "get physical" and something that might inveigh against the popular stereotype of jump-shooting white big men, which is that they're not willing to bang for balls.
In this piece, John Hollinger analyzes the draft class according to a metric he's developed to help predict the NBA success of college players-- and Anderson comes off extremely well, given that he's perceived as being primarily a scorer who lacks the freakish athleticism that NBA coaches crave. He is, in fact, the second-highest rated non-freshman, and the formula suggests that Anderson should be as high as a late lottery pick this year and definitely a first-rounder.
It's going to be extremely interesting to see where Anderson's stock ends up after this season, especially relative to teammate DeVon Hardin (who was far bigger on the radar screen prior to the season) who provides a pretty easy point of comparison. My hunch? He'll declare for the draft, but pull his name out and stay another season to ensure that he'll get picked very high, along the lines of what Brook Lopez did last season.
Meanwhile, the aforementioned Twin seems like a near-lock for a top 10 (probably top 5) pick after this season, which sadly more or less guarantees that he won't be returning for his junior year. He's pretty much capable of scoring at will at the college level at this point. That's the curse of today's college game-- the better the players get, the more likely they are to leave. Being a minor league baseball fan must be a similar feeling. I continue to wish that the NBA would abandon the ridiculous one-year rule (creator of media abominations like O.J. Mayo) and institute a system akin to baseball-- let guys go pro out of high school, but give a college 3 years of a player before he can declare as a junior.
As usual, no one asked me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)