A Look At Stanford Basketball
Probably the most notable thing about this year's Stanford basketball team is what it's missing: its longtime coach, Mike Montgomery, is off coaching at Cal; his successor, Trent Johnson, left for LSU after last season; and the two best players off last year's Sweet 16 team, 7' twins Brook and Robin Lopez, are off in the NBA. And while I couldn't really say whether new coach Johnny Dawkins is an up- or downgrade over Trent Johnson, I can confidently state that the Cardinal have not come close to being able to replace either Lopez brother.
Say, why don't they make basketball shorts like that anymore? - Image via www.checkoutmycards.com
So, who HAS Stanford gotten to fill their void in the paint? Who has picked up the scoring load for this team? How will the Bears attack this Cardinal team, and what do they need to watch out for? I set out upon the internet, intent on finding out.
From the look of Stanford's roster, it seems that, much like Cal, they abandon the idea of playing with a true center for much of their games. Josh Owens, who gets the bulk of the minutes in the paint, is listed as a Forward/Center on Stanford's website, but other sources list the 6-8 sophomore as a forward only. Owens averages 10 points and 5 boards a game; nice numbers, but hardly setting the world on fire. Backing up Owens is 6-10 Center Will Paul, though Paul hasn't played heavy minutes due to both injury and persistent foul trouble. Who actually starts tomorrow is anyone's guess, however. The Cardinal have a couple of 6-10 freshmen behind Owens and Paul, though I wouldn't expect anything from either one, and no one on the roster is taller that 6-10.
Owens and Paul : the Lopez twins, they are not. - Images via grfx.cstv.com
Looking at Stanford's overall numbers, you can see a big hole near the basket. Checking out a statistical scouting report from Ken Pomeroy, some stark numbers jump out immediately: Stanford ranks 313th in the country in defending the 2-point shot, allowing opponents to shoot 52.5% inside the arc, 250th in the country in blocks (just 6.8% of attempted shots), and 1st in the NCAA in terms of the percentage of an opponents points that come via 2-point field goals (nearly 65%). Even with 6-8 forward Lawrence Hill and 6-7 forward/guard Landry Fields helping out on the glass (each averages over 6 boards per game), Stanford is still a fairly mediocre rebounding team, and ranks in the bottom half in the country in terms of offensive rebounds.
So, the Bears should attack the basket, early and often? That's what I would do. I know the Bears don't have a big inside presence either (this Stanford team is the sort that Leon Powe would just eat alive), but they may have no choice: in contrast to their interior defense, the Cardinal have been exhibiting some excellent perimeter defense. This year, they're allowing opponents to shoot just 28.4% from beyond the arc (10th in the country), and that's if they even get a shot off: Stanford also ranks in the top ten nationally in terms of opponents' 3-point attempts as a percentage of shots as a whole. Either way, when the nation's best 3-point shooting team meets one of the nation's best at defending the long-range shot, something's got to give.
Offensively, the Cardinal get it started on the perimeter as well, with 6-3 senior guard Anthony Goods leading the team in scoring, pouring in over 17 points per game. 6-1 senior point guard Mitch Johnson adds almost 8 points per game and, more importantly, 4.6 assists per game, by far the team leader, and a pretty positive 1.7 assist-to-turnover ratio.
Stanford's senior starting backcourt is a couple of real lookers, don't you think? - Images via grfx.cstv.com
Offensively, the team shoots pretty well (free throws too), though the offensive number that really jumps out at me is how well they take care of the ball (23rd in the country in terms of turnovers per possession -- Cal is 21st). Yes, they've run up some big numbers over some mediocre competition during a very soft non-conference schedule (twice going over 100 points, including a 111-66 demolition of Texas Tech, the Red Raiders' second-worst loss in school history, but this is a good team offensively, and after considering that they were swept in the state of Washington by a combined two points, this team could just as easily be 3-1 in the conference instead of 1-3.
One thing to note about this Stanford team; I wouldn't bother waiting for foul trouble to affect this team. The Cardinal have yet to have a player foul out of a game this year, and I don't think it's merely because Dawkins is being careful with his players, as only Will Paul averages over 3 fouls per game. Anthony Goods, in particular, is a tough out, placing in the top 10 in the country in fouls committed per 40 minutes. He's going to play heavy minutes, and it's probably going to fall to Patrick Christopher to see if he can contain Goods.
So, prediction time: Vegas apparently favors Stanford by 4.5, probably due entirely to home court advantage. I think that's a big high. Jeff Sagarin's rating system would favor Stanford by less than a point, which seems more reasonable, and Ken Pomeroy actually predicts a 76-75 victory for the Bears. And me? Gimmie the Bears by a trey. I think Monty outcoaches Dawkins in his return to the farm, and Harper Kamp has a surprisingly big day inside.
21 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Without a post player, Cal still manages to get a lot of points in the paint of back door cuts when Kamp plays the high post and throwing diagonal lobs (Randle to Christoper) as well as off the bounce from Randle, P. Chris and Robertson – so a lack of shot blocking and overplaying our 3 point shooters is going to keep that paint open for the Bears.
Ryan Anderson also probably would’ve eaten this team up with twins de Lopez.
yeah
agreed. as it is, the bears have found ways to get inside without actual post players so far this year, and none of their perimeter shooters are just shooters (all can take it to the rack if needed), so I rather like this matchup for the bears.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
I like to think I have some knowledge on this subject...
Spoiler alert: My contacts down on the Farm tell me that Johnny Dawkins was caught in the men’s locker room making out with Mitch Johnson. Man, am I glad I left that freak show of a program! Go Bears. mm
No, it's not a toupee, it's just always gray on the sides and dark on the top.
by Mike Montgomery on Jan 16, 2009 10:35 PM PST reply actions
I actually believe this is MM...
it’s the type of post he’d make
You ain't got it like Marshawn got it
by Thoroughbred on Jan 17, 2009 9:45 AM PST up reply actions
Having watched most of their televised games this season:
Mitch Johnson— know him, love him. Same as he ever was. The one thing Stanford does really, really well— top 10 in the nation well— is pass the ball. He’s obviously a big part of that.
Anthony Goods— should be familiar by now too. The one thing he rarely gets credit for is that he’s a really good perimeter defender. Stanford’s opponents for the last few years have disproportionately gotten their points from the point guard, because the PG is being guarded by Mitch Johnson and not Goods or Fred Washington. Freddy W is obviously gone this year, but Landry Fields is also strong defensively.
Landry Fields— kind of a mental enigma, but if he shows up, he can be a scary player— 6-7, perimeter shooting ability, and good at finishing off of offensive boards.
Lawrence Hill— I expect him to rack up the rebounds in this one, as well as get his typical 10 points or so.
Josh Owens— he’s a sophomore, but he might as well be a freshman given how little he played last year. In retrospect, it might have been better to redshirt him, given that the Cardinal had 4 post players in front of him if you count Hill as a PF. So he makes mistakes… missing an open bunny probably cost Stanford last Saturday’s games. I think he’ll be a really good player next year though— great athleticism, nice passing ability for a big and pretty good scoring touch. He’s kind of foul-prone, although he’s not the hacking machine that Will Paul is.
Bench— Drew Shiller is a decent backup point who’s a deadeye shooter on the very rare occasion that he’s actually got an open look. Won’t take you off the dribble though. Kenny Brown shoots 3s and makes some of them. Jeremy Green is reminiscent of a young Christopher— looks like he’ll be a stud in a couple seasons. Jarrett Mann has upside but is defensively exploitable at this point. I’ve already mentioned Paul, who has 31 fouls in 111 minutes played this season. (For the math-challenged, that means that on average he’ll foul out in about 22 minutes of game time.)
Key to this one is Jerome Randle. He should be able to take Johnson off the dribble, and I doubt the Cardinal can really exploit the height advantage at the other end since Mitch isn’t a scoring player. He needs to penetrate to create open looks for Robertson and Christopher, since otherwise they may have trouble getting free. I think Stanford probably has the edge inside as Lawrence Hill has to be considered the best “big” for either team (not saying much, I know).
I feel like Stanford’s going to win this one, but I could easily be wrong. It just seems like the Bears aren’t ideally positioned to exploit Stanford’s weaknesses. If you’re in Vegas, take the points and bet on Cal.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Don't let Fields get hot
He went to my HS, and I watched a lot of his playoff performances.
He was the very definition of streak shooter back then, so I’m hoping Cal just shuts down his 3 looks.
The line is down to Cal +2.5 (from 4.5)
You ain't got it like Marshawn got it
by Thoroughbred on Jan 17, 2009 9:49 AM PST up reply actions
so, fuzz mustaches mandatory for Stanford's senior starting backcourt?
Very good post, I agree with your analysis that these stats look good for the bears. I also think Vegas is ignoring the increased intensity our bears our playing with, and that will only get more so at Maples.
BOOOOOOMMMMMMMSHHAAAKALAKA!
Tedford...if you're reading this...I'LL WORK FOR FREE! I'll fill out your Coach's Poll!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3ZLW3VPHME
And a Highlight Video music request for Danzig:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHBwDYyyGxs&feature=related
Will this be the open thread for the game?
You ain't got it like Marshawn got it
by Thoroughbred on Jan 17, 2009 9:57 AM PST up reply actions
does a bear shit in the woods?
Tedford...if you're reading this...I'LL WORK FOR FREE! I'll fill out your Coach's Poll!
Not this bear
You ain't got it like Marshawn got it
by Thoroughbred on Jan 17, 2009 11:20 AM PST up reply actions
Old SHORT shorts are the BEST shorts!
I really don’t understand how players play with the long droopy shorts. How the hell do you dribble between your legs? Isn’t there a chance the ball, or your hands, get caught up in the extra material? The only reason I think that players today would prefer the bigger shorts (other than it’s become the normal fashion) is that the movement of the body is obscured by the extra material. One’s legs swim in today’s shorts and an opponent may not be able to see that someone is about to cut and go the other direction, especially when the shorts hang over the knee joint.
I have thought about this for a long time and wondered why the fashion trend hasn’t yet reversed itself. Unless there is some advantage, but I would think it is a ball handling DIS-advantage.
Replies requested!
PS: Okay, to be clear, I’m not talking about the super old shorts that were like gymnastics uniforms. But there ain’t nothing wrong with Johnny Dawkins’ shorts in this photo (played for 76ers from ‘89-’94). It is nice to have a little material to soak up the sweat. The old thin shorts and jersey I wore in high school left me a wet, sweaty mess, and that moisture made is hard the ball slippery. Now I wear absorbent shorts and over the shoulder T-shirts instead of tank-top jerseys.
i rather agree
true, the NBA is more image-conscious than any other professional league, but I’d have to think that, at some point, the shorts would get in the way. nate robinson, in particular, always seemed to have uncomfortably long shorts…

So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
need to go back to jackie moon-style

Tedford...if you're reading this...I'LL WORK FOR FREE! I'll fill out your Coach's Poll!
it’s amazing how UCLA only had one basket in the last 13 minutes.
We are temporarily the undisputed #1 in the Pac-10
UCLA fucking sucks...
We should beat them
You ain't got it like Marshawn got it
by Thoroughbred on Jan 17, 2009 4:00 PM PST up reply actions
UCLA loss
It IS interesting that Howland HAS had trouble scoring at times, given that he prepares so intensively and always has his teams ready. Like the announcer said, 90% of their prep for this game was on defending Hardin. I guess it showed.
Don’t get cocky, Cal Fans. We got a LOOOOOONNNNGGGG way to go, and there are going to be losses along the way. Just enjoy what you’re getting right now. We had a great opening weekend at home, and then stole a game in Seattle. But we won’t really know where we’re at until we make the trip down to LA in a couple weeks.
… Woops. This text has been sitting here the entire Cal-Stanford game. I expected us to win. Maybe we have some of the answer before LA.

by 

























































