| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63790
Back to top |
|
Brinx
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Posts: 874
Location: CA
Back to top |
 Posted: 01/22/16 11:59 am ::: |
Reply  |
|
| Big weekend for UCLA, hope they can shoot a decent percentage from the free throw line and play consistently tonight.
|
|
patsweetpat
Joined: 14 Jul 2010
Posts: 2313
Location: Culver City, CA
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/22/16 7:44 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Brinx wrote: |
| Big weekend for UCLA, hope they can shoot a decent percentage from the free throw line and play consistently tonight. |
The Massey Index calls UCLA a 12.5pt favorite tonight. That seems high to me-- this Bear team matches up tough against this Bruin roster, I think-- but we'll see.
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63790
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/22/16 9:39 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| 27-21 UCLA with 4:59 left in half
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
FS02
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 9699
Location: Husky (west coast) Country
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/22/16 9:47 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Doesn't look good for Cal--they're short handed, young, and playing a team that is every bit as athletic as they are.
UCLA by 11 at half.
_________________
@dtmears2
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63790
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/22/16 10:11 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| UCLA up 18 halfway through the 3rd
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
Fighting Artichoke
Joined: 12 Dec 2012
Posts: 4040
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/22/16 10:25 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Cal getting killed on the boards, especially giving up a lot of offensive boards (like ND did yesterday against Syracuse). Predictably, they are getting killed on the road @UCLA (62-41 after 3).
|
|
Hoops9092
Joined: 04 Nov 2008
Posts: 1639
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/22/16 10:28 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| I really would love to see UCLA make a deep run in March. This team has all the potential to do so.
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63790
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/22/16 10:52 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| 75-56 UCLA final
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
patsweetpat
Joined: 14 Jul 2010
Posts: 2313
Location: Culver City, CA
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/23/16 11:45 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Well, that was a nice win over, let’s be honest, a hobbled Bear team. Despite their talent and athleticism— and they do have some— the Bears are now down to one single guard in uniform, and a true freshman, at that. Cal is really experiencing a sort of version of the snakebit injury-riddled year that our UCLA WBB team had to struggle through two seasons ago. Remember when Lemberger played the entire P12 season on a broken leg and our starting bigs were Costa and Livulo and our first “big” off the bench was an ailing Rhema Gardner and our other bench big was literally nobody? The women that year showed incredible heart and grit, and I’ll love them forever, but… tough times.
Nobody cried for our Bruin team that season, though, and probably not too many Bear opponents are gonna shed tears for them in 2016.
Anyways. In getting a convincing W last night, the Bruins did what they had to do. But they did it in kind of a weird way, at least offensively. UCLA posted a certainly-respectable 1.046PPP, but they did it on a somewhat-less-respectable shooting night of 39%. That’s simultaneoulsy UCLA’s 5th-best PPP performance this season, and its 6th-worst shooting performance. Kinda odd. At no other time this year has UCLA collected more than a point per possession while simultaneously shooting in the 30s (or worse). In fact, that never happened last year either. Or the year before that. Or the year before that. FWIW, over the past 6 seasons, UCLA has *never* simultaneously gone above 1PPP and below 40% shooting in the same game. Until last night.
The way they did it last night, of course, was by dominating the offensive boards. 24 offensive rebounds. 28 second chance points. That’s a lot of put-backs of a lot of missed shots. Okay. As a Bruin fan, part of you wishes these ladies would convert more of their chances the first time around, but that’s just not the Bruin roster we’ve got. For lack of reliable shooting, this team projected to struggle to convert reliably in the halfcourt, and that’s played out irl, and the coaches have responded to it by stressing defense and rebounding, defense and rebounding, defense and rebounding. And this team can certainly go a long way just on defense and rebounding.
But it could probably go even a tiny bit further on those two things plus a few made buckets.
|
|
Fighting Artichoke
Joined: 12 Dec 2012
Posts: 4040
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/23/16 12:17 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| patsweetpat wrote: |
Well, that was a nice win over, let’s be honest, a hobbled Bear team. Despite their talent and athleticism— and they do have some— the Bears are now down to one single guard in uniform, and a true freshman, at that. Cal is really experiencing a sort of version of the snakebit injury-riddled year that our UCLA WBB team had to struggle through two seasons ago. Remember when Lemberger played the entire P12 season on a broken leg and our starting bigs were Costa and Livulo and our first “big” off the bench was an ailing Rhema Gardner and our other bench big was literally nobody? The women that year showed incredible heart and grit, and I’ll love them forever, but… tough times.
Nobody cried for our Bruin team that season, though, and probably not too many Bear opponents are gonna shed tears for them in 2016.
Anyways. In getting a convincing W last night, the Bruins did what they had to do. But they did it in kind of a weird way, at least offensively. UCLA posted a certainly-respectable 1.046PPP, but they did it on a somewhat-less-respectable shooting night of 39%. That’s simultaneoulsy UCLA’s 5th-best PPP performance this season, and its 6th-worst shooting performance. Kinda odd. At no other time this year has UCLA collected more than a point per possession while simultaneously shooting in the 30s (or worse). In fact, that never happened last year either. Or the year before that. Or the year before that. FWIW, over the past 6 seasons, UCLA has *never* simultaneously gone above 1PPP and below 40% shooting in the same game. Until last night.
The way they did it last night, of course, was by dominating the offensive boards. 24 offensive rebounds. 28 second chance points. That’s a lot of put-backs of a lot of missed shots. Okay. As a Bruin fan, part of you wishes these ladies would convert more of their chances the first time around, but that’s just not the Bruin roster we’ve got. For lack of reliable shooting, this team projected to struggle to convert reliably in the halfcourt, and that’s played out irl, and the coaches have responded to it by stressing defense and rebounding, defense and rebounding, defense and rebounding. And this team can certainly go a long way just on defense and rebounding.
But it could probably go even a tiny bit further on those two things plus a few made buckets. |
A couple of things. First I cannot find out what happened to Gabby Green. She played 39 minutes in the previous game against Oregon, and the Cal twitter site mentioned no injury or illness, yet she didn't play last night. What's up?
Second, while I can understand that Cal players might have been fatigued and thus not been able to extend their best effort, but how could a team of 4 forwards and only 1 guard be out-rebounded so badly? Shouldn't their height have been their greatest asset?
|
|
Kailapea
Joined: 28 Feb 2006
Posts: 1255
Location: Northridge, CA
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/23/16 12:42 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Fighting Artichoke wrote: |
| patsweetpat wrote: |
Well, that was a nice win over, let’s be honest, a hobbled Bear team. Despite their talent and athleticism— and they do have some— the Bears are now down to one single guard in uniform, and a true freshman, at that. Cal is really experiencing a sort of version of the snakebit injury-riddled year that our UCLA WBB team had to struggle through two seasons ago. Remember when Lemberger played the entire P12 season on a broken leg and our starting bigs were Costa and Livulo and our first “big” off the bench was an ailing Rhema Gardner and our other bench big was literally nobody? The women that year showed incredible heart and grit, and I’ll love them forever, but… tough times.
Nobody cried for our Bruin team that season, though, and probably not too many Bear opponents are gonna shed tears for them in 2016.
Anyways. In getting a convincing W last night, the Bruins did what they had to do. But they did it in kind of a weird way, at least offensively. UCLA posted a certainly-respectable 1.046PPP, but they did it on a somewhat-less-respectable shooting night of 39%. That’s simultaneoulsy UCLA’s 5th-best PPP performance this season, and its 6th-worst shooting performance. Kinda odd. At no other time this year has UCLA collected more than a point per possession while simultaneously shooting in the 30s (or worse). In fact, that never happened last year either. Or the year before that. Or the year before that. FWIW, over the past 6 seasons, UCLA has *never* simultaneously gone above 1PPP and below 40% shooting in the same game. Until last night.
The way they did it last night, of course, was by dominating the offensive boards. 24 offensive rebounds. 28 second chance points. That’s a lot of put-backs of a lot of missed shots. Okay. As a Bruin fan, part of you wishes these ladies would convert more of their chances the first time around, but that’s just not the Bruin roster we’ve got. For lack of reliable shooting, this team projected to struggle to convert reliably in the halfcourt, and that’s played out irl, and the coaches have responded to it by stressing defense and rebounding, defense and rebounding, defense and rebounding. And this team can certainly go a long way just on defense and rebounding.
But it could probably go even a tiny bit further on those two things plus a few made buckets. |
A couple of things. First I cannot find out what happened to Gabby Green. She played 39 minutes in the previous game against Oregon, and the Cal twitter site mentioned no injury or illness, yet she didn't play last night. What's up?
Second, while I can understand that Cal players might have been fatigued and thus not been able to extend their best effort, but how could a team of 4 forwards and only 1 guard be out-rebounded so badly? Shouldn't their height have been their greatest asset? |
At some point weary legs had to come into play. Despite being short on players, they were hustling and ran with the Bruins as much as possible. But you could definitely see the legs begin to get heavy as the Bruins routinely kept fresh legs out there.
_________________
Toughness is in the soul and spirit, not in muscles.
|
|
Fighting Artichoke
Joined: 12 Dec 2012
Posts: 4040
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/23/16 2:02 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Kailapea wrote: |
| Fighting Artichoke wrote: |
| patsweetpat wrote: |
Well, that was a nice win over, let’s be honest, a hobbled Bear team. Despite their talent and athleticism— and they do have some— the Bears are now down to one single guard in uniform, and a true freshman, at that. Cal is really experiencing a sort of version of the snakebit injury-riddled year that our UCLA WBB team had to struggle through two seasons ago. Remember when Lemberger played the entire P12 season on a broken leg and our starting bigs were Costa and Livulo and our first “big” off the bench was an ailing Rhema Gardner and our other bench big was literally nobody? The women that year showed incredible heart and grit, and I’ll love them forever, but… tough times.
Nobody cried for our Bruin team that season, though, and probably not too many Bear opponents are gonna shed tears for them in 2016.
Anyways. In getting a convincing W last night, the Bruins did what they had to do. But they did it in kind of a weird way, at least offensively. UCLA posted a certainly-respectable 1.046PPP, but they did it on a somewhat-less-respectable shooting night of 39%. That’s simultaneoulsy UCLA’s 5th-best PPP performance this season, and its 6th-worst shooting performance. Kinda odd. At no other time this year has UCLA collected more than a point per possession while simultaneously shooting in the 30s (or worse). In fact, that never happened last year either. Or the year before that. Or the year before that. FWIW, over the past 6 seasons, UCLA has *never* simultaneously gone above 1PPP and below 40% shooting in the same game. Until last night.
The way they did it last night, of course, was by dominating the offensive boards. 24 offensive rebounds. 28 second chance points. That’s a lot of put-backs of a lot of missed shots. Okay. As a Bruin fan, part of you wishes these ladies would convert more of their chances the first time around, but that’s just not the Bruin roster we’ve got. For lack of reliable shooting, this team projected to struggle to convert reliably in the halfcourt, and that’s played out irl, and the coaches have responded to it by stressing defense and rebounding, defense and rebounding, defense and rebounding. And this team can certainly go a long way just on defense and rebounding.
But it could probably go even a tiny bit further on those two things plus a few made buckets. |
A couple of things. First I cannot find out what happened to Gabby Green. She played 39 minutes in the previous game against Oregon, and the Cal twitter site mentioned no injury or illness, yet she didn't play last night. What's up?
Second, while I can understand that Cal players might have been fatigued and thus not been able to extend their best effort, but how could a team of 4 forwards and only 1 guard be out-rebounded so badly? Shouldn't their height have been their greatest asset? |
At some point weary legs had to come into play. Despite being short on players, they were hustling and ran with the Bruins as much as possible. But you could definitely see the legs begin to get heavy as the Bruins routinely kept fresh legs out there. |
I realize that the looking at the play-by-play is not the most accurate way to determine rebounding stats, but according to that, UCLA outrebounded Cal by 11 (30 to 19) in the first half and only by one in the second half (19-1 , giving you the 12 rebound differential reported in the boxscore. So it doesn't seem like it was due to fatigue. Weird.
|
|
GEF34
Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 14110
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/01/16 2:18 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Fighting Artichoke wrote: |
| Kailapea wrote: |
| Fighting Artichoke wrote: |
| patsweetpat wrote: |
Well, that was a nice win over, let’s be honest, a hobbled Bear team. Despite their talent and athleticism— and they do have some— the Bears are now down to one single guard in uniform, and a true freshman, at that. Cal is really experiencing a sort of version of the snakebit injury-riddled year that our UCLA WBB team had to struggle through two seasons ago. Remember when Lemberger played the entire P12 season on a broken leg and our starting bigs were Costa and Livulo and our first “big” off the bench was an ailing Rhema Gardner and our other bench big was literally nobody? The women that year showed incredible heart and grit, and I’ll love them forever, but… tough times.
Nobody cried for our Bruin team that season, though, and probably not too many Bear opponents are gonna shed tears for them in 2016.
Anyways. In getting a convincing W last night, the Bruins did what they had to do. But they did it in kind of a weird way, at least offensively. UCLA posted a certainly-respectable 1.046PPP, but they did it on a somewhat-less-respectable shooting night of 39%. That’s simultaneoulsy UCLA’s 5th-best PPP performance this season, and its 6th-worst shooting performance. Kinda odd. At no other time this year has UCLA collected more than a point per possession while simultaneously shooting in the 30s (or worse). In fact, that never happened last year either. Or the year before that. Or the year before that. FWIW, over the past 6 seasons, UCLA has *never* simultaneously gone above 1PPP and below 40% shooting in the same game. Until last night.
The way they did it last night, of course, was by dominating the offensive boards. 24 offensive rebounds. 28 second chance points. That’s a lot of put-backs of a lot of missed shots. Okay. As a Bruin fan, part of you wishes these ladies would convert more of their chances the first time around, but that’s just not the Bruin roster we’ve got. For lack of reliable shooting, this team projected to struggle to convert reliably in the halfcourt, and that’s played out irl, and the coaches have responded to it by stressing defense and rebounding, defense and rebounding, defense and rebounding. And this team can certainly go a long way just on defense and rebounding.
But it could probably go even a tiny bit further on those two things plus a few made buckets. |
A couple of things. First I cannot find out what happened to Gabby Green. She played 39 minutes in the previous game against Oregon, and the Cal twitter site mentioned no injury or illness, yet she didn't play last night. What's up?
Second, while I can understand that Cal players might have been fatigued and thus not been able to extend their best effort, but how could a team of 4 forwards and only 1 guard be out-rebounded so badly? Shouldn't their height have been their greatest asset? |
At some point weary legs had to come into play. Despite being short on players, they were hustling and ran with the Bruins as much as possible. But you could definitely see the legs begin to get heavy as the Bruins routinely kept fresh legs out there. |
I realize that the looking at the play-by-play is not the most accurate way to determine rebounding stats, but according to that, UCLA outrebounded Cal by 11 (30 to 19) in the first half and only by one in the second half (19-1, giving you the 12 rebound differential reported in the boxscore. So it doesn't seem like it was due to fatigue. Weird. |
One of the biggest differences was the 1st half was very up and down, so it took more out of the Cal players with a limited roster, where as the 2nd half was more half court oriented, especially the 4th quarter, so it allowed the Cal players more of a chance to gather themselves.
|
|
|
|
