SC vs LSU

[The deacon]

Other than Stanford, we have not played another team with more than 1 good post player. Hopefully we got that corrected.

You don't consider Dorka Juhasz to be a good post player?

 

[visitingcock]

You don't consider Dorka Juhasz to be a good post player?

Good? Yes. Dominant like Brink? no.

Dorka is good in the low post and very good when she posts high, Brink is, at the least, very good to excellent everywhere she posts.

 

[The deacon]

Good? Yes. Dominant like Brink? no.

Dorka is good in the low post and very good when she posts high, Brink is, at the least, very good to excellent everywhere she posts.

No debate from me there, for sure, visitingcock. It's just that TC22 said SC has not played a team with more than one good post player. UConn clearly has two good post players.

 

[hoopsnloops32]

I think you are correct. We did have trouble guarding the 2 dominant bigs and I think that was addressed before the LSU game. It doesn’t matter who you are, SC is going to try to run you off the 3 line and make you shoot 2s and they are very good at it. Other than Stanford, we have not played another team with more than 1 good post player. Hopefully we got that corrected.

i dont believe SC played a Great game and some of that was due to Connecticut.There we’re definitely some adjustments made before the LSU game. It doesn’t matter what teams are played. There is always goin to be players that are great individual players. The key is to stop enough of the other players on the team so that one player can’t beat you.

Well it's not two dominant bigs that are the issue. Its two decent bigs that are enough of a threat from 15ft out that you have to guard them. You don't have to guard all 5 LSU players on the floor around the perimeter, not the case with UConn and sometimes Stanford. I think UConn is a bad match-up for South Carolina, as evidenced by our very depleted line-up losing by only 4. If UConn ever returns to full strength they'll be able to exploit it better offensively. How that effects them defensively is another story but they'd have more flexibility to figure it out.

 

[GamecockFam]

Exactly. In fact, this is everyone’s strategy against SC. Stop Zia and maybe Johnson, and then Aliyah and/or Kamila can’t beat you. The entire lineup is pretty strong, which means most opponents can still be beaten by the rest of the team. At the beginning of the season, it looked like only UConn and Stanford had the personnel to pull this off. I was surprised a depleted UConn was able to stay within striking distance of a win in that game. I’d be even more surprised if they can do it again with the current lineup. To me, that says only Stanford remains as an “even up” threat. Betts has been playing with more confidence recently and that may help.

Of course, a fluke upset is always possible, but I’m only thinking of games when both teams are playing their best.

Um. What?! How many South Carolina games have you watched this season? We've been facing these junk defenses with basically four players in the paint to stop Boston and Cardoso. Very rarely do we see teams strategize to stop our guards. That's one of the reasons why Zia's numbers are up this season.

 

[ThatCG1801]

If we had a "take a shot every time the phrase 'our very depleted line-up' is mentioned" game happening in this thread, we'd all be snot slinging drunk.

 

[Bone Dog]

Um. What?! How many South Carolina games have you watched this season? We've been facing these junk defenses with basically four players in the paint to stop Boston and Cardoso. Very rarely do we see teams strategize to stop our guards. That's one of the reasons why Zia's numbers are up this season.

I've watched about a dozen full SC games and most of the rest as ~30 minute highlights, and I've seen everyone fail to outplay the backcourt enough to outweigh the scoring of the front court. I don't know what you mean by inverting the issue and saying "junk defenses" couldn't stop Boston and Cardozo. The point of stopping Zia and Raven and Brea, et al on the perimeter, is so it doesn't matter what Boston and Cardoso do, while you imagine it's about crowding the paint to stop them. [Is this where I'm supposed to say "Um, what?"]

But, to the point: if you can't beat an opponent where they are strong, you attack them where they are less strong... and then you hope the differential is enough to negate their strength. Stanford is the only team that might be able to compete in the front court. Everyone else is stuck hoping to outclass the backcourt enough to negate the front court advantage. The fact that no one has succeeded at this -- the only strategy open to them -- is that their backcourts have not been sufficiently better. And this is a fact I mentioned in my original comment.

Case in point in the UConn game -- Boston and Cardoso scored 43, while Cooke, Beal, Fletcher and Hall scored 16. But Johnson put in 14 -- she had as good a game as you can have while shooting 33% and that was more than enough to win. On UConn's side, Lopez-Senechal, Griffin and Muhl scored 47 and Edwards and Juhasz added 30, but that was not enough to take the win. In other words, UConn's backcourt only outscored SC's backcourt by 17. I don't see any other team being able to do better in this sort of comparison against SC, which is why I expect they'll repeat as NC. If Stanford is going to prevail, their front court has to win it for them, not their backcourt -- and I don't see that happening.

 

[hoopsnloops32]

I've watched about a dozen full SC games and most of the rest as ~30 minute highlights, and I've seen everyone fail to outplay the backcourt enough to outweigh the scoring of the front court. I don't know what you mean by inverting the issue and saying "junk defenses" couldn't stop Boston and Cardozo. The point of stopping Zia and Raven and Brea, et al on the perimeter, is so it doesn't matter what Boston and Cardoso do, while you imagine it's about crowding the paint to stop them. [Is this where I'm supposed to say "Um, what?"]

But, to the point: if you can't beat an opponent where they are strong, you attack them where they are less strong... and then you hope the differential is enough to negate their strength. Stanford is the only team that might be able to compete in the front court. Everyone else is stuck hoping to outclass the backcourt enough to negate the front court advantage. The fact that no one has succeeded at this -- the only strategy open to them -- is that their backcourts have not been sufficiently better. And this is a fact I mentioned in my original comment.

Case in point in the UConn game -- Boston and Cardoso scored 43, while Cooke, Beal, Fletcher and Hall scored 16. But Johnson put in 14 -- she had as good a game as you can have while shooting 33% and that was more than enough to win. On UConn's side, Lopez-Senechal, Griffin and Muhl scored 47 and Edwards and Juhasz added 30, but that was not enough to take the win. In other words, UConn's backcourt only outscored SC's backcourt by 17. I don't see any other team being able to do better in this sort of comparison against SC, which is why I expect they'll repeat as NC. If Stanford is going to prevail, their front court has to win it for them, not their backcourt -- and I don't see that happening.

I agree with this completely. South Carolina's worst match up isn't another strong frontcout its a team with an elite backcourt and a decent front court. Before the injuries, I think Notre Dame would have presented a tougher match up than Stanford for that reason but alas.

 

[Cornell Lt]

If I’m not mistaken, SC has the #1 3 point shooting % defense in the nation. It does not matter who they play, this late in the season the stats don’t lie.

You are mistaken, SC is second behind Fairleigh Dickinson

 

[Darwin]

Not to take anything away from how UConn played, but that entire game was completely uncharacteristic defensively for South Carolina. At times we looked wholly incapable of getting a stop.

UCONN team will do that to defenses, especially when they have some players.

 

[Darwin]

We probably play a lot of teams that have tried to go small or spread us out.

I don't really think UConn requires too much attention to Edwards or Dorka on the perimeter.

For that matter, Stanford doesn't really have great perimeter shooting bigs outside of Prechtel.

Brinks is very good at 3’s

 

[Gamecockfan77]

Well then you gave them needless attention as they pulled your bogs away from the paint. Feel free to go back and watch the game. They aren’t great outside shooters but you can’t leave them wide open either.

It’s not having free toerimeter shooting big but bigs that you have to contest beyond the three point line. Brink is a problem in that regard when she hits out outside shots like she did early in the South Carolina game.

Biting on Edwards pump fakes on the perimeter was difficult to understand.

As to Brink, yeah if a 20% 3pt shooter makes a lot of threes you have some trouble.

 

[Gamecockfan77]

Brinks is very good at 3’s

She's 10/46. 22%.

Up to this year she's never averaged more than 1 attempt a game.

Now she averages 1.5.

 

[hoopsnloops32]

Biting on Edwards pump fakes on the perimeter was difficult to understand.

As to Brink, yeah if a 20% 3pt shooter makes a lot of threes you have some trouble.

Edwards is shooting well from that spot this year and hit a few that day, around 40-50%. And Brink went 2 for 5 (40%) against South Carolina in November. Again, they don't have to be great shooters, just serviceable enough that you can't leave them wide open.

 

[hoopsnloops32]

She's 10/46. 22%.

Up to this year she's never averaged more than 1 attempt a game.

Now she averages 1.5.

Yes but she is going to take more against South Carolina because a winning strategy to to pull the bigs out of the paint on defense. That is why she took 5 against you guys in November. Against most teams they don't need her around the perimeter. Regular season states are meaningless when the game plan in different.

 

[Gamecockfan77]

South Carolina wins first and foremost because of defense and rebounding.

Secondarily, South Carolina wins because it a good offensive team with fairly balanced scoring and is quite deep when it wants to be, though not as much so in tightly contested games.

Nearly everyone SC has played tries to limit the front court damage and invite our guards to score from perimeter.

 

[GamecockFam]

I've watched about a dozen full SC games and most of the rest as ~30 minute highlights, and I've seen everyone fail to outplay the backcourt enough to outweigh the scoring of the front court. I don't know what you mean by inverting the issue and saying "junk defenses" couldn't stop Boston and Cardozo. The point of stopping Zia and Raven and Brea, et al on the perimeter, is so it doesn't matter what Boston and Cardoso do, while you imagine it's about crowding the paint to stop them. [Is this where I'm supposed to say "Um, what?"]

But, to the point: if you can't beat an opponent where they are strong, you attack them where they are less strong... and then you hope the differential is enough to negate their strength. Stanford is the only team that might be able to compete in the front court. Everyone else is stuck hoping to outclass the backcourt enough to negate the front court advantage. The fact that no one has succeeded at this -- the only strategy open to them -- is that their backcourts have not been sufficiently better. And this is a fact I mentioned in my original comment.

Case in point in the UConn game -- Boston and Cardoso scored 43, while Cooke, Beal, Fletcher and Hall scored 16. But Johnson put in 14 -- she had as good a game as you can have while shooting 33% and that was more than enough to win. On UConn's side, Lopez-Senechal, Griffin and Muhl scored 47 and Edwards and Juhasz added 30, but that was not enough to take the win. In other words, UConn's backcourt only outscored SC's backcourt by 17. I don't see any other team being able to do better in this sort of comparison against SC, which is why I expect they'll repeat as NC. If Stanford is going to prevail, their front court has to win it for them, not their backcourt -- and I don't see that happening.

I would argue that the UConn game was the exception to the rule (as was the case for most of the good teams we faced...LSU, Stanford, etc.). I agree that was part of the UConn strategy. But I believe this is incorrect analysis for the majority of the games South Carolina has played this season against outmatched opponents. I don't have enough hands to count how many times our guards were left alone on the perimeter to shoot the ball while the opponent tried to box out the bigs and prevent them from getting touches on rebounds and entry passes. That does not seem like a strategy to stop the guards. If anything they are hoping our guards shoot the ball more often and praying that our bigs don't grab the rebound.

 

[Cornell Lt]

I would agree that SC is the prohibited favorite for the NC. But we all know one injury to the wrong player will alter any teams fate.

 

[SCGamecock]

This thread is no longer about Sunday’s game so a new thread should probably be started.

 

[Bone Dog]

I would argue that the UConn game was the exception to the rule (as was the case for most of the good teams we faced...LSU, Stanford, etc.). I agree that was part of the UConn strategy. But I believe this is incorrect analysis for the majority of the games South Carolina has played this season against outmatched opponents. I don't have enough hands to count how many times our guards were left alone on the perimeter to shoot the ball while the opponent tried to box out the bigs and prevent them from getting touches on rebounds and entry passes. That does not seem like a strategy to stop the guards. If anything they are hoping our guards shoot the ball more often and praying that our bigs don't grab the rebound.

First, just to get this out of the way, I'll quote @ThatCG1801 to the effect that if we had to take a shot every time the phrase that "was the exception to the rule" etc. etc. etc. blah blah blah.

If we had a "take a shot every time the phrase 'our very depleted line-up' is mentioned" game happening in this thread, we'd all be snot slinging drunk.

But you make a good point. The SC backcourt did get lots of open shots this season against many teams -- though they didn't make a ton of them, especially early on. Your interpretation of this might be right that most opponents weren't focusing on them, and this allowed them to pack the paint in a futile effort. But I think there's a subset of this season in which opponents wanted to focus on the guards but were simply outclassed, and another subset in which they attempted it but were not successful enough, yet another in which an opposing coach thought some of the guards could be left open (dared?) to shoot because they didn't shoot all that well. And in the first part of the season -- in the cupcake-OOC segment -- teams who simply hadn't gelled enough yet to carry out a coherent strategy. All this is merely meant to say that there's room for differing interpretations of how opponents tried to play against SC.

 

[Darwin]

She's 10/46. 22%.

Up to this year she's never averaged more than 1 attempt a game.

Now she averages 1.5.

Pretty good for a 5 imo, she is dangerous from outside, you have to guard her.

 

[Darwin]

First, just to get this out of the way, I'll quote @ThatCG1801 to the effect that if we had to take a shot every time the phrase that "was the exception to the rule" etc. etc. etc. blah blah blah.

But you make a good point. The SC backcourt did get lots of open shots this season against many teams -- though they didn't make a ton of them, especially early on. Your interpretation of this might be right that most opponents weren't focusing on them, and this allowed them to pack the paint in a futile effort. But I think there's a subset of this season in which opponents wanted to focus on the guards but were simply outclassed, and another subset in which they attempted it but were not successful enough, yet another in which an opposing coach thought some of the guards could be left open (dared?) to shoot because they didn't shoot all that well. And in the first part of the season -- in the cupcake-OOC segment -- teams who simply hadn't gelled enough yet to carry out a coherent strategy. All this is merely meant to say that there's room for differing interpretations of how opponents tried to play against SC.

They all have had one common denominator, double (sometimes triple) Boston when she gets the ball in the post. Been a staple all season. Up to the perimeter players to make them pay for that strategy.

 

[Bone Dog]

They all have had one common denominator, double (sometimes triple) Boston when she gets the ball in the post. Been a staple all season. Up to the perimeter players to make them pay for that strategy.

In the first half of the season, how often was the ball passed back out of the post for a perimeter shot? I haven't done a detailed study, but I'd estimate not very often. And why should it have been? Once Boston gets the ball down low, why pass it out when she can just score? If that's the reality, why wouldn't a smaller weaker team not collapse into the paint on those occasions? But that doesn't mean they weren't trying to keep the guards from getting open shots... trying and not succeeding.

 

[Darwin]

The poster who said that it’s probably best to just let SC perimeter players take their shots and focus on the defense within the paint is prob correct, because that is the strategy that seems to slow down SC the most.

If you leave Boston/Cardoso in single coverage down low it’s lights out. Size matters.

 

[TC22]

You don't consider Dorka Juhasz to be a good post player?

I could have worded that better. Until UConn, the only team we had played with 2 good post players was Stanford. Since we didn’t defend the post vs UConn very well it was obvious we made some adjustments before the LSU game.