| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66943
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8233
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
 Posted: 12/12/06 4:20 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
My top 7, based mainly on complex mathematical algorithms in my small intestine:
1. UNC
2. Maryland
3. UConn
4. Duke
5. Tennessee
6. Oklahoma
7. Stanford
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16364
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/12/06 4:35 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
My top 7, based mainly on complex mathematical algorithms in my small intestine:
1. UNC
2. Maryland
3. UConn
4. Duke
5. Tennessee
6. Oklahoma
7. Stanford |
Stanford? Really?
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8233
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/12/06 5:28 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I feel that Stanford, substantively, is closer to the Elite 8 (and almost FF) team we saw last year than the early season stumbler we are now discounting. Most of their substance is still there, Brooke Smith is my favorite senior, and I am impressed by the young Appel.
I'm assuming some guard(s) can step up and become better ballhandlers and 3pt shooters than what we saw, for example, against Tennessee.
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16364
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/12/06 5:40 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
I feel that Stanford, substantively, is closer to the Elite 8 (and almost FF) team we saw last year than the early season stumbler we are now discounting. Most of their substance is still there, Brooke Smith is my favorite senior, and I am impressed by the young Appel.
I'm assuming some guard(s) can step up and become better ballhandlers and 3pt shooters than what we saw, for example, against Tennessee. |
Ok. So hunches and personal liking, not anything substantive that is actually happening in games.
I can live with that.
|
|
accommodatingly
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 2191
Location: Saint Paul, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/12/06 5:41 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
I feel that Stanford, substantively, is closer to the Elite 8 (and almost FF) team we saw last year than the early season stumbler we are now discounting. Most of their substance is still there, Brooke Smith is my favorite senior, and I am impressed by the young Appel.
I'm assuming some guard(s) can step up and become better ballhandlers and 3pt shooters than what we saw, for example, against Tennessee. |
Ballhandlers, maybe, but which guards are going to improve their three-point shooting between now and the end of February, and why do you think so? Is three-point shooting the kind of skill that individual players can drastically improve over the course of a college season? (I recognize that they can improve over the offseason.)
|
|
bballfan2005
Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 25315
Location: Somewhere here and there
Back to top |
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8233
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/12/06 6:38 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
My hunches and personal likings are always informed by what happens in games—to the extent I can figure that out. But I don't give a lot of weight to rigid things like SOS or RPI formulations, at least not at this time of the year. To that extent, my list is purely subjective and hunchy.
I don't think outside shooting ability can be improved much after age 18 or so. Significant improvements occasionally happen, but I would say they are statistically rare. It requires a permanent change to shooting mechanics that, by 18, are already long-developed and habitual.
Shooting is somewhat of a lost art. In my opinion, a significant cause of this is the corrosive mechanical effects of the irresistible 3pt shot on 8-12 year old musculoskelature. Knowing how to teach proper shooting mechanics is also rare skill, even among top coaches and programs.
Sorry, that's one of my favorite rant topics in favor of pre-1936 basketball.
In Wiggins, Stanford has a very good 3pt shooter. Top teams really should have at least two outside threats in order to play the kind of 1936 paint game I advocate, and that I believe TVV wants to play. She usually has had the luxury of multiple 3pt artists.
This year, I don't know where Stanford's 2nd outside threat is. I am ignorant as to the fundamental shooting skills of their young guards and forwards. They could all be poor shooters or some could be decent shooters on bad streaks, for all I personally know at present. But Stanford’s ultimate success may depend on their getting a second 3pt threat from their young guards or from Ros Gold when she returns.
Basically, I just feel hunchy that Stanford is being discounted far too much. Just as I feel hunchy that UConn's dearth of 3pt shooting will not hurt them as much as I would almost always otherwise argue.
|
|
fancy_daniel
Joined: 12 Oct 2005
Posts: 4489
Location: Los Angeles
Back to top |
|
fancy_daniel
Joined: 12 Oct 2005
Posts: 4489
Location: Los Angeles
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/12/06 9:14 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| accommodatingly wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
I feel that Stanford, substantively, is closer to the Elite 8 (and almost FF) team we saw last year than the early season stumbler we are now discounting. Most of their substance is still there, Brooke Smith is my favorite senior, and I am impressed by the young Appel.
I'm assuming some guard(s) can step up and become better ballhandlers and 3pt shooters than what we saw, for example, against Tennessee. |
Ballhandlers, maybe, but which guards are going to improve their three-point shooting between now and the end of February, and why do you think so? Is three-point shooting the kind of skill that individual players can drastically improve over the course of a college season? (I recognize that they can improve over the offseason.) |
Stanford has some freshmen guards that will get stronger as the season progresses. As to being 3-pt threats, who knows, but they need someone other than Candice Wiggins. Another Krista Rappahahn would be great. But Tara Vanderveer has always had great outside shooters. I have no doubt that one of those freshmen she has on her roster now has a touch.
|
|
hoopfan24
Joined: 09 Oct 2006
Posts: 896
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/12/06 9:33 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| accommodatingly wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
I feel that Stanford, substantively, is closer to the Elite 8 (and almost FF) team we saw last year than the early season stumbler we are now discounting. Most of their substance is still there, Brooke Smith is my favorite senior, and I am impressed by the young Appel.
I'm assuming some guard(s) can step up and become better ballhandlers and 3pt shooters than what we saw, for example, against Tennessee. |
Ballhandlers, maybe, but which guards are going to improve their three-point shooting between now and the end of February, and why do you think so? Is three-point shooting the kind of skill that individual players can drastically improve over the course of a college season? (I recognize that they can improve over the offseason.) |
You probably haven't seen Michelle Harrison play, plus JJ Hones is improving. We also may get Ros Gold Onwude back in Jan. We aren't the same 3 pt shooting team as last yr with losing Rapp and Ros, but we added Jayne, Michelle, JJ, and Melanie Murphy.
Tara is very good at developing players so I wouldn't write them off so early. She says they're a cake in the oven. I wouldn't bet against them in March, especially since we host first 2 rounds and have a good shot at Fresno if we win the Pac 10.
Also, Jillian Harmon is playing great, She doensn't have a 3, but she a very good pull up mid range jumper off the dribble- not to mention her great D.
So, let me ask this, would people been so down on Stanford had they made 2 friggin FTs at GA and won?
|
|
Richard 77
Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Posts: 4146
Location: Lake Mills, Wisconsin
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/12/06 10:31 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| bballfan2005 wrote: |
Not a single first-place vote for Duke? Do coaches not keep up with the games or at least take a peak at a box score (or three)?  |
I'm inclined to believe the coaches know what they're doing when voting. So do many posters here.
More so than the media at least..._________________ If you cannot inspire yourself to read a book about women's basketball, or any book about women's sports, you cannot inspire any young girl or boy to write a book about them. http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/Richardstrek |
|
zsasu
Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 112
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/12/06 11:23 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| hoopfan24 wrote: |
| accommodatingly wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
I feel that Stanford, substantively, is closer to the Elite 8 (and almost FF) team we saw last year than the early season stumbler we are now discounting. Most of their substance is still there, Brooke Smith is my favorite senior, and I am impressed by the young Appel.
I'm assuming some guard(s) can step up and become better ballhandlers and 3pt shooters than what we saw, for example, against Tennessee. |
Ballhandlers, maybe, but which guards are going to improve their three-point shooting between now and the end of February, and why do you think so? Is three-point shooting the kind of skill that individual players can drastically improve over the course of a college season? (I recognize that they can improve over the offseason.) |
You probably haven't seen Michelle Harrison play, plus JJ Hones is improving. We also may get Ros Gold Onwude back in Jan. We aren't the same 3 pt shooting team as last yr with losing Rapp and Ros, but we added Jayne, Michelle, JJ, and Melanie Murphy.
Tara is very good at developing players so I wouldn't write them off so early. She says they're a cake in the oven. I wouldn't bet against them in March, especially since we host first 2 rounds and have a good shot at Fresno if we win the Pac 10.
Also, Jillian Harmon is playing great, She doensn't have a 3, but she a very good pull up mid range jumper off the dribble- not to mention her great D.
So, let me ask this, would people been so down on Stanford had they made 2 friggin FTs at GA and won? |
If I remember correctly Stanford shot a dismal 3-12 from the FT line with Wiggins making the only 3 FT's so it seems to me that it is a stretch to say if Stanford would have made 2 friggin FT's at GA they would have won, it's highly unlikely!!!
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16364
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
|
hoopfan24
Joined: 09 Oct 2006
Posts: 896
Back to top |
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16364
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
|
hoopfan24
Joined: 09 Oct 2006
Posts: 896
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/13/06 12:41 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| my reply about the GA game was the zsasu, not you PUmatty
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16364
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/13/06 12:41 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| hoopfan24 wrote: |
| my reply about the GA game was the zsasu, not you PUmatty |
You replied to me. But gotcha ...
|
|
zsasu
Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 112
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/13/06 2:11 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| hoopfan24 wrote: |
| my reply about the GA game was the zsasu, not you PUmatty |
I think PUmatty said it best. " I give no benefit of the doubt to a team that can't make a single free throw to finish out a game. None at all." I did watch the game and I'm sure you did too, thru your rose tinted glasses!!!
|
|
fancy_daniel
Joined: 12 Oct 2005
Posts: 4489
Location: Los Angeles
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/13/06 2:45 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| I watched that game and I was so disappointed that Stanford could make it to the line but not close it out. I hope they got a tongue-lashing from Tara because that is not Stanford basketball.
|
|
hoopfan24
Joined: 09 Oct 2006
Posts: 896
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/13/06 2:54 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| zsasu wrote: |
| hoopfan24 wrote: |
| my reply about the GA game was the zsasu, not you PUmatty |
I think PUmatty said it best. " I give no benefit of the doubt to a team that can't make a single free throw to finish out a game. None at all." I did watch the game and I'm sure you did too, thru your rose tinted glasses!!! |
Cardinal glasses. The pt is about rankings. Does Stanford deserve to drop from the top 25 or by that far below GA given the result came to down to the last minute, and IF Stanford would have beaten GA, where would they be?
|
|
zsasu
Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 112
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/13/06 6:26 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| hoopfan24 wrote: |
| zsasu wrote: |
| hoopfan24 wrote: |
| my reply about the GA game was the zsasu, not you PUmatty |
I think PUmatty said it best. " I give no benefit of the doubt to a team that can't make a single free throw to finish out a game. None at all." I did watch the game and I'm sure you did too, thru your rose tinted glasses!!! |
Cardinal glasses. The pt is about rankings. Does Stanford deserve to drop from the top 25 or by that far below GA given the result came to down to the last minute, and IF Stanford would have beaten GA, where would they be? |
"If Stanford would have beaten GA" you're living in a fantasy world, get back to reality, they DIDN'T beat GA, get over it, move on!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
hoopfan24
Joined: 09 Oct 2006
Posts: 896
Back to top |
| Posted: 12/13/06 6:34 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| zsasu wrote: |
| hoopfan24 wrote: |
| zsasu wrote: |
| hoopfan24 wrote: |
| my reply about the GA game was the zsasu, not you PUmatty |
I think PUmatty said it best. " I give no benefit of the doubt to a team that can't make a single free throw to finish out a game. None at all." I did watch the game and I'm sure you did too, thru your rose tinted glasses!!! |
Cardinal glasses. The pt is about rankings. Does Stanford deserve to drop from the top 25 or by that far below GA given the result came to down to the last minute, and IF Stanford would have beaten GA, where would they be? |
"If Stanford would have beaten GA" you're living in a fantasy world, get back to reality, they DIDN'T beat GA, get over it, move on!!!!!!!!!! |
you're missing the pt, again.
|
|
|
|
