|
|
Post by beavershoopsfan on Jan 20, 2020 9:49:27 GMT -8
Did not realize that Slocum was in there for the majority of the Stanford’s 11-0 run. I think I instead meant to mention the OSU scoring drought in the second quarter when Slocum was on the bench. Thank you for pointing that out. That was in the second quarter. It was only a 3-0 run by Stanford when Slocum was on the bench in that quarter. Slocum was in the game for 8 of those 11 points in Stanford's 11-0 run that turned a 31-21 OSU lead into a 31-32 deficit. When Slocum is hot, I don't like her coming off the court. She may have played her most minutes of the season yesterday, but probably should have played a few more based upon how some of her teammates were shooting. |
|
|
|
Post by jegerklog on Jan 20, 2020 10:00:15 GMT -8
A lot of interesting evaluations in this thread that make sense to me. However, IF the Beavers would have played well in the last minute or two of the ASU game and the last minute of the Stanford game, imagine how the conversation might be completely different. No excuses but I try and keep a positive outlook without specific expectations.
|
|
|
|
Post by beavershoopsfan on Jan 20, 2020 10:08:15 GMT -8
A lot of interesting evaluations in this thread that make sense to me. However, IF the Beavers would have played well in the last minute or two of the ASU game and the last minute of the Stanford game, imagine how the conversation might be completely different. No excuses but I try and keep a positive outlook without specific expectations. Very true. The Beavs led by 5 in the fourth quarter yesterday and wasted a number of late possessions with turnovers when they could have created more separation. |
|
|
|
Post by ricke71 on Jan 20, 2020 10:36:31 GMT -8
May be a valid point re: Aleah. She only started 3 games last season as a sophomore. Coming into a game after observing for half of the first Q might be strong suit. Because Kat is so far off from her pre-injury self (i.e. her shot arc) it causes me to think that starting her in place of Aleah is not the answer. A shot with that extreme amount of arc is automatically low percentage, based on simple physics. Maybe at some point, if Aleah's slump continues, Simmons could get a try as a starter - say, in a couple weeks against either Utah or Colorado . Afterall, with Mik (and possibly Destiny) gone next year, the Beavs will need an increased role from her. Simmons & Tudor have nearly identical shooting % this season (Simmons with an edge on 2 pt shots). Simmons has the downside of those maddening/careless turnovers, and yet her TO/A ratio is slightly better that Kat's this season...and her rebounds per minute are better than Kat's. I realize that those are 'just' stats....and stats are a poor substitute for a more complete evaluation. At any rate, it's a problem (Aleah's offensive woes) that few would have predicted 2 months ago - back when (in many minds, mine included) Aleah was an 'assassin'. The ideal solution is that the switch will flip, and her shooting prowess returns. A shot with higher arc is advantageous compared to a more horizontal/flatter arc. The more horizontal the angle, the less space for the ball diameter to fit between the back and front of the rim.  Based on simple geometry. Good point. It cuts both ways. Obviously too flat requires extreme accuracy in order to pass through the hoop. But, both Very High Arc and Too Flat are undesirable. Totally true on the flatness aspect as your graphic explains. On the other hand, a higher arc means a greater distance will be travelled before the ball reaches the hoop. If a shot is 'off' by 1 cm a distance of 2 feet after it leaves a player's hand, the further it travels, the further it will be 'off' by the time it reaches the basket. At any rate, the very high arc stuff that Kat is throwing up this season, ain't working. In 2020 (PAC 12 season) 6 for 26 from 'three'. |
|
|
|
Post by blastingsand on Jan 20, 2020 10:52:44 GMT -8
Everyone thought we were going to rocked last year too, but ended beating them (even though Hebard was injured) last year. The ducks are inconsistent in their play also, just have enough talent to blow out scrubs when everyone is playing bad. We will see what happens this year. Historically this team has players that play like an AA in the civil war and it will happen again. Looking at you Aleah Goodman. I don't classify Stanford as a scrub.  I don't either. I'm talking about when they do play scrubs and they don't play well, they still blow them out because of talent. |
|
|
|
Post by beavershoopsfan on Jan 20, 2020 10:54:24 GMT -8
Refs and announcers: *common foul* OSU “fan”: *flagrant, easy* A frustration throw of an elbow behind the play isn't common. At least it shouldn't be. But, I'll just say it was very poor judgement and not like MP Pivec didn't throw an elbow. Did you even watch the replay? Prechtel raised her right elbow and arm into Pivec's face as Pivec started to run up the floor. Pivec responded with a "swim move" to push Prechtel's elbow and arm out of her face. Pivec should have kept her hands down and simply taken another shot to the face like she does on a weekly basis. I am sure that getting hit in the face gets old after a while. However, I do understand the desire to try to protect one's face, especially if it keeps happening and is rarely called by the refs. |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Jan 20, 2020 12:31:27 GMT -8
A frustration throw of an elbow behind the play isn't common. At least it shouldn't be. But, I'll just say it was very poor judgement and not like MP Pivec didn't throw an elbow. Did you even watch the replay? Prechtel raised her right elbow and arm into Pivec's face as Pivec started to run up the floor. Pivec responded with a "swim move" to push Prechtel's elbow and arm out of her face. Pivec should have kept her hands down and simply taken another shot to the face like she does on a weekly basis. I am sure that getting hit in the face gets old after a while. However, I do understand the desire to try to protect one's face, especially if it keeps happening and is rarely called by the refs. I was there... 5 rows from it happening... it was an elbow/forearm... I watched the replay... it was an intentional act not an accident of follow thru or a basketball play. Whether it connects or how hard is not the issue. What happened to her before is not the issue. The play had progressed, it was retaliatory and was looked at for a specific reason. The replay shown to the officials allowed them to make the appropriate decision. I'm good with that. As stated... it was intentional, not deemed flagrant by the rules. It was behind the play. It was out of character. And, as stated if any such play had been reversed OSU fans would have whined and cried til the cows came home. Hell, they still are and some just can't see OSU losing without it being the officials. On a side note. It was a well officiated game and calls were made and missed both ways. It was physical game with tow extremely talented teams. HINT... just like tournament play. If that game (or the ASU game) offended any fans based on the play and officiating then they show little respect for this OSU team and their chances in tourney play. Adjust or go home. That was a GREAT game. It was won by the better, deeper TEAM. It was won because their adjustments had a larger effect on the outcome than OSU's. It is a learning experience and if this team can't adjust to developing an offense when the 3 point shot isn't falling then they are going to lose a few more during the regular season. Maybe learning from these games will allow this team to actually win a Pac12 tournament game for the first time in 3 years?! Which in and of itself will help the seeding for the NCAA. |
|
|
|
Post by sparty on Jan 20, 2020 12:35:43 GMT -8
Pivec didn't throw an elbow. Did you even watch the replay? Prechtel raised her right elbow and arm into Pivec's face as Pivec started to run up the floor. Pivec responded with a "swim move" to push Prechtel's elbow and arm out of her face. Pivec should have kept her hands down and simply taken another shot to the face like she does on a weekly basis. I am sure that getting hit in the face gets old after a while. However, I do understand the desire to try to protect one's face, especially if it keeps happening and is rarely called by the refs. I was there... 5 rows from it happening... it was an elbow/forearm... I watched the replay... it was an intentional act not an accident of follow thru or a basketball play. Whether it connects or how hard is not the issue. What happened to her before is not the issue. The play had progressed, it was retaliatory and was looked at for a specific reason. The replay shown to the officials allowed them to make the appropriate decision. I'm good with that. As stated... it was intentional, not deemed flagrant by the rules. It was behind the play. It was out of character. And, as stated if any such play had been reversed OSU fans would have whined and cried til the cows came home. Hell, they still are and some just can't see OSU losing without it being the officials. On a side note. It was a well officiated game and calls were made and missed both ways. It was physical game with tow extremely talented teams. HINT... just like tournament play. If that game (or the ASU game) offended any fans based on the play and officiating then they show little respect for this OSU team and their chances in tourney play. Adjust or go home. That was a GREAT game. It was won by the better, deeper TEAM. It was won because their adjustments had a larger effect on the outcome than OSU's. It is a learning experience and if this team can't adjust to developing an offense when the 3 point shot isn't falling then they are going to lose a few more during the regular season. Maybe learning from these games will allow this team to actually win a Pac12 tournament game for the first time in 3 years?! Which in and of itself will help the seeding for the NCAA. I will make a prediction. This thread is not going to end pretty.  |
|
|
|
Post by beaveragain on Jan 20, 2020 13:32:51 GMT -8
On how the game was called I think the only real problem was that the ref's changed how they were calling the game sometime after the half. I think Stanford went with the change more and the Beav's didn't as much. But the ref's aren't trying to give the game away.
Base, not sure why you are trying to make Mik out to be some sort of thug. Until someone can put up a replay I think it was a simple foul by both players and did nothing to the game play and should have been ignore by the ref's.
|
|
|
|
Post by beavershoopsfan on Jan 20, 2020 13:39:31 GMT -8
I agree that it was an intentional act to get a player's elbow out of her face. If the refs determined that it was an elbow thrown by Pivec, then it would have been deemed a flagrant 1 and free throws would have been rewarded. It was deemed a common foul. Period.
Yes. It does matter what happened to Pivec immediately prior to the incident. That is one of the reasons why the video is reviewed. If the refs had deemed that Prechtel purposely put her elbow into Pivec's face, then a flagrant could have been called on Prechtel. It wasn't called.
The results of Pivec's foul turned the ball over to Stanford with 2:05 left. I am sure that Pivec didn't want that to happen and that will impact how she responds in the future to the continued physicality that she will undoubtedly face.
Overall, the Beavs need to play with more of a nasty streak. Shades of Bre Brown in 2016-2017. They need to be much tougher collectively than they have shown to date. They take too much contact without giving it back like ASU and Stanford routinely do through their hard double teams and movement on and through screens.
I agree that Pivec needs to be smarter with how she retaliates. But, we do need more players to protect themselves from excessive contact and show greater toughness against our conference foes. We have allowed ourselves to be bullied through the relatively clean and foul-free way we play on offense and defense.
|
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Jan 20, 2020 13:42:11 GMT -8
On how the game was called I think the only real problem was that the ref's changed how they were calling the game sometime after the half. I think Stanford went with the change more and the Beav's didn't as much. But the ref's aren't trying to give the game away. Base, not sure why you are trying to make Mik out to be some sort of thug. Until someone can put up a replay I think it was a simple foul by both players and did nothing to the game play and should have been ignore by the ref's. Misquote or interpret much... "thug" is a huge jump from out of character... retaliation... behind the play... But, you go ahead and go there. As for officials. They don't change how they call, the play determines the calls. No official ignores violations then suddenly calls them. Ludicrous... and famous retort of excuse makers. All calls can't be made... period. Every call requires judgement, typically on the advantage gained/lost. If a game gets more physical, there are more potential calls to make. There's not a drastic decision in what to call. Ok... if you're going to make crap up feel free. But, don't expect BS to be ignored. |
|
|
|
Post by beavershoopsfan on Jan 20, 2020 13:55:32 GMT -8
On how the game was called I think the only real problem was that the ref's changed how they were calling the game sometime after the half. I think Stanford went with the change more and the Beav's didn't as much. But the ref's aren't trying to give the game away. Base, not sure why you are trying to make Mik out to be some sort of thug. Until someone can put up a replay I think it was a simple foul by both players and did nothing to the game play and should have been ignore by the ref's. When you watch the replay with 2:05 left to play, watch how Prechtel raised her right elbow up and into the face of Pivec as she turns and takes her first step up the court. Prechtel raised her elbow for a reason. She knew where Pivec's head was. Pivec used her arms in a "swim move" to get the elbow out of her face. An announcer reviewing the replay made that comment. Prechtel crumpled to the ground like a deck chair. Pivec never went to the free throw line during the game. She typically does because she is routinely fouled on drives. She will hopefully learn from the incident. That possession could have made a difference in a three-point game. |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Jan 20, 2020 14:25:06 GMT -8
On how the game was called I think the only real problem was that the ref's changed how they were calling the game sometime after the half. I think Stanford went with the change more and the Beav's didn't as much. But the ref's aren't trying to give the game away. Base, not sure why you are trying to make Mik out to be some sort of thug. Until someone can put up a replay I think it was a simple foul by both players and did nothing to the game play and should have been ignore by the ref's. When you watch the replay with 2:05 left to play, watch how Prechtel raised her right elbow up and into the face of Pivec as she turns and takes her first step up the court. Prechtel raised her elbow for a reason. She knew where Pivec's head was. Pivec used her arms in a "swim move" to get the elbow out of her face. An announcer reviewing the replay made that comment. Prechtel crumpled to the ground like a deck chair. Pivec never went to the free throw line during the game. She typically does because she routinely fouled on drives. She will hopefully learn from the incident. That possession could have made a difference in a three-point game. Make up crap much? So you know why a player did what she did? Prechtel is significantly taller, she had possession high... released high... had zero to do with her intending to put her elbow near MP. It was a physical play and MP was out muscled, maybe fouled... but retaliated. The replay and review had zero to do with Prechtel and whether she fouled Pivec. Nor does it matter... Pivec's response was being reviewed. Officials can NOT call a foul reviewing a foul call. UNLESS... IF... Prechtel committed a flagrant she'd could then be assessed, but the foul on Pivec is NOT reversed. Funny... the stuff folks just make up. The replay confirmed the foul on Pivec, decision was it wasn't flagrant. Same replay... but, no flop even considered. Nor discussed, nor a warning of such an action. There were a dozen of us or more in Sec C, 3-5 rows from the replay desk. You can hear what they are looking at and telling the stats folks. Did most think MP got mugged on some plays? Yep. As did some Furd bigs inside. But, it was a foul on MP and it actually doesn't matter what happened before, unless as stated the other player committed a flagrant. Which was NEVER under review. |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Jan 20, 2020 14:55:54 GMT -8
Pivec’s “swim move” resulted in a elbow to the head. It could have easily been called a flagrant 1 on her.
|
|
|
|
Post by beavershoopsfan on Jan 20, 2020 15:23:02 GMT -8
I typically don't take shots at posters. And won't here. I watched the replay again about 6 times today and never did Pivec's elbow hit Prechtel in the head. Period. Pivec uses her hands and arm to push Prechtel off of her. Prechtel embellished the shove and earned a common foul on Pivec.
Prechtel never had possession of that rebound as baseba1111 asserts. Pivec rebounded the ball and was being bumped by Prechtel before Pivec passed the ball. Once again, check the replay at 2:05 remaining to remind yourself that Prechtel did not have possession as baseba1111's post above states. On that rebound, Pivec had secured possession. Prechtel raised up her right elbow and arm as she turns and Pivec heads up the court. I am not a mindreader but can certainly speculate about what Prechtel was attempting to do with her actions. Pivec responded to having an elbow and arm on her head as she attempted to head up the court after securing that rebound.
Baseba1111 stated that it doesn't matter what prompted Pivec to respond and then changes his stance in a later post that acknowledges that the refs can check for a flagrant foul on Prechtel. I stated that clearly in a prior post.
Fouls can be changed during video review in certain circumstances, including a review of a block/charge under the basket. It happened with a Hebard/Gulich block/charge two years ago in Gill. I wasn't expecting the ref to call a double foul unless she determined that Prechtel had thrown an elbow.
As to making crap up, I don't think that I am. I was at the game as well. I just wanted to review the replay multiple times to see what may have provoked Pivec to shove Prechtel away from her.
|
|
