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

[WestCoast]

ASU up by 8 midway thru Q4. I don't know what it is, but the Beavs just aren't that good this year. They may be playing their way out of hosting in the Tourney.

Oh ye of little faith... I can understand the pessimism based upon the Beavs having held leads in all four of their losses before not finishing well in all four of them. Usually, an 8-point late deficit to ASU results in a loss based upon how CTT teams grind out games. Goodman was clutch for OSU when it counted last night.

 

[domerduck]

Another A+ presser by Scott and his team. If you want a great testimopny of a WBB who is a great citizen, student, and player (Pivec), listen to the last 4 minutes of the presser where Scott is rightfully pissed that she is not a finalist. I agree it's a travesty. I can't believe someone will beat her out with a better resume. Impressive woman.

 

[willtalk]

ASU just wasted an excellent effort with 3 disastrous breakdowns in the final 3 seconds:

1. gave up a wide open layup on a simple cut
2. inexplicably missed the inbound pass, giving OSU the ball back with no time coming off the clock
3. failed to switch on a screen


Can't be overstated how costly this is. ASU needed this win to get back into the hosting picture and that went bye-bye with 3 colossal errors.

You are being a bit harsh. You do not give Oregon St much credit for good execution, but chose to lay it all on bad Arizona St defense. The only one that was a real brain fart was throwing the ball out of bounds. The last two inbound plays were just really good plays that created two catch 22 scenarios. In the first one Arizona was not expecting a Kat Tudor cut to the basket, but they were defending her against a 3 which is what she usually does. The put a forward on her for the extra length. Kat is one of Oregon st. quickest players so Van Hefte had no chance to stay with her on that play.

The last play was actually set up by the previous one. There was no way Van Hefte could have switched on that screen ( I am not even sure it was preplanned as a screen). If you notice Van Hefte was not going to let Kat get around her this time and the two were physically engaged beginning from right under the free-throw line in. Van Hefte was grabbing Kat the entire way and at the point when you think the switch should have happened she even had her arm around her. If she switches Kat is open for the pass and the layup. Pivek used the engagement as a screen to get open. The Arizona defender was forced to follow her around the screen.

Even if Van Hefte disengages it leaves Tudor with a clear lane to the basket because by then the other Arizona defender would also be behind her. Both scoring plays were brilliant play calls that were well executed. Your analysis is an attempt to diminish both teams. By saying that Arizona played bad defense it also negates the Brilliant play calls ( and execution) by Oregon St which put Arizona into the postition of making "the lesser of two evil" choices.. NIce try!

 

[domerduck]

You are being a bit harsh. You do not give Oregon St much credit for good execution, but chose to lay it all on bad Arizona St defense. The only one that was a real brain fart was throwing the ball out of bounds. The last two inbound plays were just really good plays that created two catch 22 scenarios. In the first one Arizona was not expecting a Kat Tudor cut to the basket, but they were defending her against a 3 which is what she usually does. The put a forward on her for the extra length. Kat is one of Oregon st. quickest players so Van Hefte had no chance to stay with her on that play.

The last play was actually set up by the previous one. There was no way Van Hefte could have switched on that screen ( I am not even sure it was preplanned as a screen). If you notice Van Hefte was not going to let Kat get around her this time and the two were physically engaged beginning from right under the free-throw line in. Van Hefte was grabbing Kat the entire way and at the point when you think the switch should have happened she even had her arm around her. If she switches Kat is open for the pass and the layup. Pivek used the engagement as a screen to get open. The Arizona defender was forced to follow her around the screen.

Even if Van Hefte disengages it leaves Tudor with a clear lane to the basket because by then the other Arizona defender would also be behind her. Both scoring plays were brilliant play calls that were well executed. Your analysis is an attempt to diminish both teams. By saying that Arizona played bad defense it also negates the Brilliant play calls ( and execution) by Oregon St which put Arizona into the postition of making "the lesser of two evil" choices.. NIce try!

Great analysis. I too thought Plebe was being a "plebe". There were 4 excellent plays and execution (3 by OSU and one by ASU) with just 1 excusable mistake with litlte time left that OSU took advantage of. That mistake was not on JTT, but Rueck showed why he is a genious. The presser talked about how prepared the Beavs were for those end of game situations. I also don't think that any of us thought with 3 seconds left, neither Pivec or Destiny would not get the ball and that the tying play would be Maddy to Kat. Once that final mistake was made there was little time to set up a defense and the Beavs preparation and practice allowed for that execution.

I thought all in all it was a great game and although ASU I am sure feels bad, but that team should be proud how well they played at a very tough venue.

 

[Plebe]

Ha well of course the Beaver fans will bristle at the suggestion that ASU screwed up, which clearly they did. Congrats to the genius who just beat ASU for the first time in about 5 tries.

I suppose since Oregon State missed out on beating Oregon this year, this game will have to serve as the highlight of their season.

 

[WestCoast]

I certainly hope that last night's win does not turn our to be the highlight of OSU's season. The team has bigger goals.

OSU was fortunate to win last night. Overall, I thought ASU played better than it had played during its win in Tempe. ASU shooters made their first four three-pointers and shot very well in the first half, carving up the OSU zone. Thankfully for OSU fans, ASU couldn't close it out and left some room for some last second heroics.

 

[newfrontier]

Another A+ presser by Scott and his team. If you want a great testimopny of a WBB who is a great citizen, student, and player (Pivec), listen to the last 4 minutes of the presser where Scott is rightfully pissed that she is not a finalist. I agree it's a travesty. I can't believe someone will beat her out with a better resume. Impressive woman.

Rueck is right to be pissed off about The Senior CLASS list of candidates. What a joke leaving Pivec off. Oh well, if only she had stayed later now and then to sign autographs to beef up her "Community Service" , she might have made the list.

 

[newfrontier]

Another A+ presser by Scott and his team. If you want a great testimopny of a WBB who is a great citizen, student, and player (Pivec), listen to the last 4 minutes of the presser where Scott is rightfully pissed that she is not a finalist. I agree it's a travesty. I can't believe someone will beat her out with a better resume. Impressive woman.

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

 

[domerduck]

Ha well of course the Beaver fans will bristle at the suggestion that ASU screwed up, which clearly they did. Congrats to the genius who just beat ASU for the first time in about 5 tries.

I suppose since Oregon State missed out on beating Oregon this year, this game will have to serve as the highlight of their season.

Well they certainly played better against Oregon than UConn did. It will be interesting which team goes farther in the NCAAs this year (UConn or OSU). I'm not counting the Beavers out. I also believe they will go farther than ASU, even though the Devils are a good team. We will see.

 

[willtalk]

Ha well of course the Beaver fans will bristle at the suggestion that ASU screwed up, which clearly they did. Congrats to the genius who just beat ASU for the first time in about 5 tries.

I suppose since Oregon State missed out on beating Oregon this year, this game will have to serve as the highlight of their season.

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.

 

[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:

Voting

The Senior CLASS Award is presented each year to the outstanding senior NCAA Division I Student-Athlete of the Year across nine different sports. The acronym “CLASS” stands for Celebrating Loyalty and Achievement for Staying in School.

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.