Arizona St (19) @ Oregon St (9) - 2/07/20

[TheFarmFan]

Mary Murphy of Pac-12 Network doesn't think highly of Pivec not making the Senior CLASS Award list either.

That's horrifying. I haven't even heard of half the players who are finalists, and I'd easily put her above either Ionescu or Hebard in terms of all four components of the Senior CLASS Award. Rueck may be self-motivated but his assessment is 100% on point.

Pivec is one of the few known admitted to turn down Stanford, so I should have every reason not to like her because BOY DO WE NEED SENIOR LEADERSHIP this year. And yet still, nothing but respect for her.

Can the fans launch a write-in petition???

 

[Plebe]

Double boo... I usually appreciate Plebe's informed humor. Difficult to do so this time after seeing Kennedy Brown writhing on the floor in pain last night.

I've deleted my comment. It was in poor taste and I'm sorry. I was attempting to riff on someone else's comment about OSU's surely unprecedented ample roster of bigs, but of course it was extremely insensitive and inappropriate in the moment. I'm sorry. I hope that Kennedy will be all right and return to the court soon.

 

[newfrontier]

 

[Plebe]

My evaluation had nothing to do with being a fan. I gave a simi detailed evaluation of my perspective. You did not. You just claimed they screwed up when in reality they only made choices which turned out to be wrong. In fact, I was actually down on Scott for continuing to play a zone even while Arizona was busting it with their 3 pt shooting. However, he redeemed himself in the second half and those last two calls.

Your statement that " clearly they did " sort of reminds somewhat of a poster on the Louisville site, who confuses fact with his own opinion. You are nowhere near his level, but that statement is a good start in that direction.

Your statement labeling my perspective reflecting a beaver fan perspective actually seems to define your intent. Especially your last sarcastic statement with respect to Scott's genius. To tell the truth, I even initially bought into your perspective until I actually rewatched the clips. In fact, before the .4 second play was run, the announcers mentioned they will have to leave the middle open ( no zone ) because they have to guard against the Oregon 3 pt shooters. It makes sense to guard against a three that will beat you in exchange for a 2 which would result in a tie. My perspective is based on a logical evaluation of visual evidence. Yours is nothing but a subjective rationalization in support of a sought after conclusion.

If you disagree then point out the flaws in my scenario.

Your whole post just overcomplicates the essence of what happened. In both plays OSU ran screening action off the ball, which was totally to be expected since they run off-ball screen action all the time, it's their bread and butter. The defense has to know how they're going to play the screens, especially in an end-of-game situation coming out of a timeout. Clearly ASU is capable of defending off-ball screens or else they wouldn't have beaten Oregon State 4 times in a row.

Any time someone gets a wide open layup on an out of bounds play there was a major defensive breakdown. It doesn't mean it wasn't a well-designed play, but it's a play that depends on the defense breaking down. I don't know why this is so offensive to state. It's possible to hold both thoughts in the head at one time: nice play by offense, colossal screw-up by defense.

 

[nwhoopfan]

I'll give you a defensive break down on Tudor's layup, but I don't think it was bad D on Pivec's shot. ASU was all over Slocum and Tudor. Mik had to squeeze off a tough shot between 2 defenders. I'm not sure what ASU was supposed to do differently on that one.

 

[Plebe]

I'll give you a defensive break down on Tudor's layup, but I don't think it was bad D on Pivec's shot. ASU was all over Slocum and Tudor. Mik had to squeeze off a tough shot between 2 defenders. I'm not sure what ASU was supposed to do differently on that one.

Robbi Ryan gets hung up on the screen, and the other defender doesn't switch and it leaves Pivec wide open for the catch. I don't know what defense they talked about in the huddle, but that's almost an automatic switch scenario given time and score. Defense 101. With 0.4 seconds you have to protect against the lob to the middle.

Edit to add: It's not that much different in principle than the lob pass from the sideline with 0.8 seconds left that Syracuse used to beat Florida State last month. The media went on and on about what a great play it was -- and yes, it was a great play -- but it required a colossal defensive screw-up in which Ekhomu abandoned the lane to chase the screener all the way past the 3-point line, in a time and score situation where a lob pass toward the bucket had to be the #1 priority to guard against.

 

[WestCoast]

Robbi Ryan gets hung up on the screen, and the other defender doesn't switch and it leaves Pivec wide open for the catch. I don't know what defense they talked about in the huddle, but that's almost an automatic switch scenario given time and score. Defense 101. With 0.4 seconds you have to protect against the lob to the middle.

Edit to add: It's not that much different in principle than the lob pass from the sideline with 0.8 seconds left that Syracuse used to beat Florida State last month. The media went on and on about what a great play it was -- and yes, it was a great play -- but it required a colossal defensive screw-up in which Ekhomu abandoned the lane to chase the screener all the way past the 3-point line, in a time and score situation where a lob pass toward the bucket had to be the #1 priority to guard against.

I think Plebe's analysis is spot on re: the final breakdown by ASU in not defending the lob to the middle of the paint with 0.4 of a second to play. In the video replay, it appeared that Ryan and the other ASU defender were being careful to avoid a foul. That is so unlike how ASU typically defends. They usually force the action with their aggressiveness. With so little time left, the most likely spot for a catch and shoot was a lob in the paint. ASU didn't switch effectively and paid the price with the loss.

 

[nwhoopfan]

Well OSU has had a knack for forcing game to OT or winning at the buzzer off of inbounds plays during Rueck's tenure. Maybe they're just lucky that their opponents keep having defensive breakdowns.

 

[newfrontier]

That's horrifying. I haven't even heard of half the players who are finalists, and I'd easily put her above either Ionescu or Hebard in terms of all four components of the Senior CLASS Award. Rueck may be self-motivated but his assessment is 100% on point.

Pivec is one of the few known admitted to turn down Stanford, so I should have every reason not to like her because BOY DO WE NEED SENIOR LEADERSHIP this year. And yet still, nothing but respect for her.

Can the fans launch a write-in petition???

GOOD NEWS!! Mikayla Pivec of Oregon State has been added to the finalist list of the Senior CLASS Award!!! It would appear that the email "campaign" to alert the Award managers had an effect! So supporters, now go vote for her!!! HERE:

Account Suspended

www.seniorclassaward.com

 

[newfrontier]

More news on Mikayla Pivec: The folks who run Senior CLASS Award admit they blew it! Read this!

Just Do The Right Thing | Columns | Senior CLASS Award

www.seniorclassaward.com

"While everyone associated with the Senior CLASS Award prides ourselves in thorough evaluation, we have come to the conclusion that we had a miss." Duhhhhhh!

"While the committee feels strongly about the attributes of the 10 finalists who have been chosen, it has been decided that leaving Mikayla Pivec of Oregon State off the list doesn’t feel right. " [Also, it didn't smell right or look right!!!]

"At the end of the day, although this move is unprecedented in the 18-year history of the award, she is being added to the list of finalists. Our decision is based on just getting it right. "

So, I guess all those pesky OSU Beaver fans wearing orange tinted glasses may actually have a legitimate "beef" once in a while. Imagine that.

 

[Plebe]

So, I guess all those pesky OSU Beaver fans wearing orange tinted glasses may actually have a legitimate "beef" once in a while. Imagine that.

Why the persecution complex? Just take the win.

 

[newfrontier]

Why the persecution complex? Just take the win.

Good point. Yes, just take the win. My retort (sarcasm) was not meant for a wide audience. I should have left it out of this comment/announcement.

 

[willtalk]

Your whole post just overcomplicates the essence of what happened. In both plays OSU ran screening action off the ball, which was totally to be expected since they run off-ball screen action all the time, it's their bread and butter. The defense has to know how they're going to play the screens, especially in an end-of-game situation coming out of a timeout. Clearly ASU is capable of defending off-ball screens or else they wouldn't have beaten Oregon State 4 times in a row.

Any time someone gets a wide open layup on an out of bounds play there was a major defensive breakdown. It doesn't mean it wasn't a well-designed play, but it's a play that depends on the defense breaking down. I don't know why this is so offensive to state. It's possible to hold both thoughts in the head at one time: nice play by offense, colossal screw-up by defense.

Actually your are simplifying the plays in order to support your simplistic scenario. In other words, Arizona St screwed up rather than my scenario which was that they made bad choices. The bad choice they made that allowed Tudor to get open was putting a forward to face guard her to stop her from getting off a three. If you watch the play Tudor didn't even need that screen that Pivek set. She had already beaten her defender and had a clear cut to the basket. All the Pivek screen did was increase her lead by a couple feet on what she already had. The mistake they made was choosing to be concerned about Tudor getting off a three by face guarding her with a forward and thus sacrificing the much quicker Tudors advantage at a cut to the basket. Tudor had not been shooting that well, the better choice might have been to lay off her and just let her get off a shot. The odds are she would have missed. They never expected a cut play from Washington to Tudor. They expected the ball to go to either Slocum or Pivek.

As I said it was a matter of choice. The forward defender had no shot at defending both a quick release shot and the cut option. That is what analysis is supposed to do. Go into detail as opposed to making a rash statement without involving thought and reason. Arizona expect Oregon St.'s shooters to try and get off a game-winning 3pr attempt and that was their priority in defense. Scott just did what was not expected. Your perspective about should off could of is just Monday morning QB'ing. If they tried and hit a three then the criticism would have been that they didn't faceguard for the shot.

 

[WestCoast]

Actually your are simplifying the plays in order to support your simplistic scenario. In other words, Arizona St screwed up rather than my scenario which was that they made bad choices. The bad choice they made that allowed Tudor to get open was putting a forward to face guard her to stop her from getting off a three. If you watch the play Tudor didn't even need that screen that Pivek set. She had already beaten her defender and had a clear cut to the basket. All the Pivek screen did was increase her lead by a couple feet on what she already had. The mistake they made was choosing to be concerned about Tudor getting off a three by face guarding her with a forward and thus sacrificing the much quicker Tudors advantage at a cut to the basket. Tudor had not been shooting that well, the better choice might have been to lay off her and just let her get off a shot. The odds are she would have missed. They never expected a cut play from Washington to Tudor. They expected the ball to go to either Slocum or Pivek.

As I said it was a matter of choice. The forward defender had no shot at defending both a quick release shot and the cut option. That is what analysis is supposed to do. Go into detail as opposed to making a rash statement without involving thought and reason. Arizona expect Oregon St.'s shooters to try and get off a game-winning 3pr attempt and that was their priority in defense. Scott just did what was not expected. Your perspective about should off could of is just Monday morning QB'ing. If they tried and hit a three then the criticism would have been that they didn't faceguard for the shot.

I think that Plebe's points were that someone from ASU needed to guard the paint better on both of those inbounds plays by OSU. I do think that both plays were well-designed, but ASU's responses to the screens by clearing the primary area it needed to protect made those two plays successful. ASU's defense is usually its strength. Its desire to chase Tudor at the top of the key allowed her to cut through the lane without anyone from ASU minding the paint.