First Look: Stanford

by PB @ BON on Mar 24, 2008 3:27 PM CDT in Basketball

We've all got a pretty good feel for Stanford by now, but let's review their season and overall numbers for a first look at Friday night's opponent.

QUALITY WINS
n-Texas Tech, 62-61
USC, 52-46
Arizona, 56-52
at Washington St, 67-65 (OT)
Oregon, 72-43
at Arizona, 67-66
Washington St, 60-53

LOSSES
at Siena, 67-79
UCLA, 67-76
at Oregon, 66-71
at Arizona St, 68-72 (OT)
at UCLA, 67-77 (OT)
at USC, 64-77
n-UCLA, 64-67

Looking at Stanford's 'Game Plan' page, the number that stands out right away is their offensive rebounding percentage, which has been outstanding all season. In all three of Stanford's losses down the stretch (UCLA, USC, UCLA), the Cardinal secured less than 30% of their misses. Conversely, since March Stanford is 5-0 when securing more than 30% of its misses.

How's that look for Texas? We'll need to do a better job than we have thus far this season. On the year, Texas has allowed opponents to secure 33.8% of their missed shots, the 219th worst rate in Division 1. At least in terms of slowing down Stanford's offense, that's something we must do well.

It is worth noting, however, that Texas hasn't particularly struggled in that department in its losses this season. The 'Horns have faltered when opponents have shot the ball well, more so than when they've done a good job grabbing their misses.

Take a look at Texas' opponents' shooting percentages in the Longhorns' six losses this season:

Opponent Shooting %, Losses
Opponent	FG%	3PT FG%	eFG%
at Michigan St	49%	38%	51.8%
Wisconsin	42%	32%	46.9%
at Missouri	56%	46%	66.7%
at Texas A&M	56%	54%	63.5%
at Texas Tech	43%	35%	50.0%
at Kansas	49%	60%	63.2%

Offensive rebounding wasn't nearly the problem in those games as was opponents draining shots. (Wisconsin excepted, of course - a game I still don't know how we lost.) And Texas' defensive efficiency numbers don't correlate at all with opponent offensive rebounding percentage. Texas certainly has overcome poor defensive rebounding at many times this year, but I'd very much rather not have to on Friday night.

Stanford is only an average shooting team, ranking 154th in Effective FG%, 102nd in 3-Point FG%, and 167th in 2-Point FG%. Considering Texas forces the fewest turnovers per game of any team left in the tournament, disallowing second chances for Stanford looks - as you'd expect - like a potentially decisive factor.

--PB--

0 recs | Comment 7 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Nitpick: we lost to Kansas in tourney, not Allen

although the sea of blue was much the same.

Odd that in all their losses they scored between 64-68 points. Even in wins they're low scoring. Do you have a tempo ratio between Stanford and the Horns?

Y'all are churning out a lot of great info.

by whills on Mar 24, 2008 3:44 PM CDT 0 recs

Pace

Texas has averaged 64.6 possessions per 40 minutes, Stanford 64.8/40. Almost identical, though we had some extraordinarily slow paced games at the start of the season that drag our numbers down. But neither team is a free-wheeling run and gun team.

And yeah, I'm counting the loss in Kansas City as an away game. If only to poke KU fans a little.

--PB--

by PB @ BON on Mar 24, 2008 3:47 PM CDT up 0 recs

Thanks. I wouldn't have expected that.

It's not just the slow-paced early games, but the slow down like the Horns did yesterday - and have done numerous times. That also diminishes possessions.

Just had the thought if the total time we possessed the ball was known, then that might provide some adjustment to the possession figure. That is, we might hold the ball, say 5 seconds longer per possession. In that case, I'd expect first half possessions to be tangibly greater than second half possessions (esp. in wins).

I have no problem with jabbing KU fans. Normally, you have an excellent self-editing capacity, so I should have figured you did it on purpose.

by whills on Mar 24, 2008 3:57 PM CDT up 0 recs

That Stanford @ Siena game

I would like to see Friday's results look something like the box score for that game. Stanford only went to the line a few times and shot 36% from the field. It looks like Siena forced them to shoot a lot from the perimeter (12-31 for 39%).

Barnes needs to call Siena's head coach Fran McCaffery and find out what he did right. It's not like Fran is busy now or anything.

by UTAth on Mar 24, 2008 3:45 PM CDT 0 recs

Slightly off-topic. Today's Around The Horn.

Woody Paige drops a bomb regarding Arkansas that will surely garner him unwanted hate mail.

During the program while the topic was on which number 1 seed looked the strongest right now, Woody Paige had this gem after the gomers on the panel started talking about how good North Carolina looked...

(Paraphrasing)

North Carolina plays Mt Saint Marys and then Mt Saint Fayetteville the next game and you all are praising North Carolina for good play...

After that great exchange Woody says he believes Western Kentucky will beat UCLA. He's a funny guy.

by UTAth on Mar 24, 2008 4:17 PM CDT 0 recs

We need to hit free throws

57% isn't going to beat Stanford.

"So what if I'm tired? I can rest when I die." -- Major Applewhite

by the1austin on Mar 24, 2008 4:30 PM CDT 0 recs

Offensive rebounds and shooting percentage

Standard, inside offensive rebounds could contribute to a higher shooting percentage as put backs are fairly high percentage shots (for some teams).

There's also an inverse effect. If the opponent is shooting a high percentage there are less opportunities for offensive rebounds and therefore likely to be a lower total. It doesn't mean they weren't in position to get the rebounds, just didn't need to.

Also, if they are forced to take longer, lower percentage shots and are shooting badly the ball is more likely on a long shot to create a long rebound that may favor a hustling offense facing the basket and because of poor shooting there are more opportunities. So poor shooting can lead to higher offensive rebounds, but rebounds that are further out and therefore not as helpful.

UT has no real rivals, only a couple of teams we deign to care about.

by twalsh on Mar 25, 2008 12:28 PM CDT 0 recs