AllBuffs Season Preview - The Stanford Cardinal

[Goose]

This thread is for all things Cardinal.

Stanford

Projected Starters
Robert Cartwright - True frosh will probably get first crack at starting spot
Chasson Randle - Potential Pac-12 POY who should lead the Cardinal in scoring.
Anthony Brown - The solid all-around player will need to pick up his scoring with the loss of Huestis & Powell.
Reid Travis - The McDonalds All-American could challenge Randle for best player on the team.
Stefan Nastic - Still raw, but showed flashes against Kansas that he could be legit.

This is easily the most talented Stanford team we've seen in a few years. The team has lots of options off of the bench in guards like Christian Sanders, Dorian Pickens, the Allen twins and center Grant Verhoeven. The question is how will they all gel? Can Dawkins get his team going? If they can meet potential, they're a sweet 16 team. They could be this year's Oregon (without the scandal) - the team with great expectations that stumbles out of the gate only to get dangerous at the last second and cause some serious heartburn in the Pac-12 tourney.

 

[J.R. Ewing]

That guy needs less cowbell.

It sounds like they're a little better team than us. I don't mind that we only get them in Boulder this year.

 

[Goose]

That guy needs less cowbell.

It sounds like they're a little better team than us. I don't mind that we only get them in Boulder this year.

Talent wise? Yes. I'm really high on the pieces the Cardinal have. I just have no faith in Dawk to do anything with it. I really like some of their guard pieces coming off of the bench too - they have lots of options. Ultimately, I think it comes down to Cartwright. If he can run the show mildly competently, they'll be damn good. It just may take some time with a frosh PG.

 

[J.R. Ewing]

Talent wise? Yes. I'm really high on the pieces the Cardinal have. I just have no faith in Dawk to do anything with it. I really like some of their guard pieces coming off of the bench too - they have lots of options. Ultimately, I think it comes down to Cartwright. If he can run the show mildly competently, they'll be damn good. It just may take some time with a frosh PG.

Where's Dawkins lacking? Is it a scheme problem or a motivation problem.

 

[Buffnik]

Where's Dawkins lacking? Is it a scheme problem or a motivation problem.

The question right now is whether the problem is with Dawkins or it was with the personality of the senior class that just graduated. They've had upper echelon talent in the Pac-12 every year we've been in the conference but last year with a veteran group was the first time they've done anything with it.

 

[Goose]

Where's Dawkins lacking? Is it a scheme problem or a motivation problem.

Yes?

Honestly, probably both. I've never been wowed by his schemes and his teams always seem to be flat to me. He's not Robinson out there or anything, but he's also not Tex Winters.

EDIT - and let the debate continue. Pachoops just pointed out to be that Dawk has never been higher than 36th in margin-of-victory. Also, if you look at Dan Hanner's P12 preview, he points out that Dawk's players have a .999 rating of "projected ORtg to actual ORtg" (where he projects players ORtg's in the pre-season and sees how they actually perform. So he's almost the textbook definition of mediocre in that regard.

(Note: Tad IS the textbook definition of mediocre in that regard with a ranking of 1.000)

 

[Buffenuf]

Yes?

Honestly, probably both. I've never been wowed by his schemes and his teams always seem to be flat to me. He's not Robinson out there or anything, but he's also not Tex Winters.

EDIT - and let the debate continue. Pachoops just pointed out to be that Dawk has never been higher than 36th in margin-of-victory. Also, if you look at Dan Hanner's P12 preview, he points out that Dawk's players have a .999 rating of "projected ORtg to actual ORtg" (where he projects players ORtg's in the pre-season and sees how they actually perform. So he's almost the textbook definition of mediocre in that regard.

(Note: Tad IS the textbook definition of mediocre in that regard with a ranking of 1.000)

How is a 1.000 "mediocre"? Sounds like that's right where a coach should be, maximizing the efficiency of his team. The ORtg is a stat to measure a player's statistical mean, offensively and defensively; the good coaching part comes in when creating individual and team (offensive and defensive schemes) match-ups, such that your players exceed their mean or minimize their fall below the mean, while causing the other team's players to fall below or minimize their ability to meet or exceed their mean, i.e. matching up Dinwiddie on the other team's top scorer, unless that TS is a power forward and running an offense that creates defensive mismatch issues for the opponent. (One thing stats can't do is predict the mindset of individuals or a team on a given night under the actual circumstances of a given game.----such as the Buffs' blowout of a ranked Cal team after losing Roberson or that incredible comeback v. Longwhorns when Burks destroyed them in the second half. Both displays of great coaching under difficult circumstances. Or conversely that home court loss to Stanford when the Trees hit 60% of their many 3's. Did Tad turn "stoopid" or Dawkins "brilliant" in that one? Or was it just the players' flow?)

For anybody who wants to find out about ORtg (or is badly in need of some deep sleep) :

http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ratings.html

 

[jgisland]

How is a 1.000 "mediocre"? Sounds like that's right where a coach should be, maximizing the efficiency of his team. The ORtg is a stat to measure a player's statistical mean, offensively and defensively; the good coaching part comes in when creating individual and team (offensive and defensive schemes) match-ups, such that your players exceed their mean or minimize their fall below the mean, while causing the other team's players to fall below or minimize their ability to meet or exceed their mean, i.e. matching up Dinwiddie on the other team's top scorer, unless that TS is a power forward and running an offense that creates defensive mismatch issues for the opponent. (One thing stats can't do is predict the mindset of individuals or a team on a given night under the actual circumstances of a given game.----such as the Buffs' blowout of a ranked Cal team after losing Roberson or that incredible comeback v. Longwhorns when Burks destroyed them in the second half. Both displays of great coaching under difficult circumstances. Or conversely that home court loss to Stanford when the Trees hit 60% of their many 3's. Did Tad turn "stoopid" or Dawkins "brilliant" in that one? Or was it just the players' flow?)

For anybody who wants to find out about ORtg (or is badly in need of some deep sleep) :

http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ratings.html

So many things here, where to start.....

Let's start with comparing Tad's offensive rating expectations to other Pac12 coaches

Coach	Current Team	Ratio
Dana Altman	Oregon	1.034
Wayne Tinkle	Oregon St.	1.027
Cuonzo Martin	California	1.026
Herb Sendek	Arizona St.	1.026
Steve Alford	UCLA	1.022
Lorenzo Romar	Washington	1.020
Andy Enfield	USC	1.020
Ernie Kent	Washington St.	1.013
Sean Miller	Arizona	1.005
Larry Krystkowiak	Utah	1.004
Tad Boyle	Colorado	1.000
Johnny Dawkins	Stanford	0.999

This is a rating based on the *'s a recruit was and what they were projected to do. 10 Pac12 coaches have exceed that offensive output (as one would expect, it's why these guys have power conference jobs). 1 coach is doing exactly as they would expect guys to come in and do based on their high school *rating (Tad) and 1 is below average (Dawkins). So while Tad isn't under performing expectations, he isn't developing these guys offensively and exceeding expectations, which 10 other P12 coaches have managed to do. Anybody who's watched a CU basketball game should be able to tell you that Tad's offensive schemes aren't gorund breaking/innovative nor terribly effective. They generally rely on an individual effort to beat a man, hence why we hear "totally new offense" this year. Tad realizes it's not working and is moving on to something different.

The ORtg is a stat to measure a player's statistical mean, offensively and defensively

Well no actually, it's not - it's an OFFENSIVE stat, there is a defensive stat for this, it's called DRtg. If you want to talk offensive rating let's talk offensive rating, but please don't call it a defensive stat. It also has nothing to do with mean - it's the actual points per 100 possessions. Floor % will take into account average - ORtg is actual.

 

[Darth Snow]

All I know is that Stanford is going to do the opposite of what Goose says.

 

[Goose]

All I know is that Stanford is going to do the opposite of what Goose says.

****ers always do.

 

[LOUMFSG]

Coach	Current Team	Ratio
Dana Altman	Oregon	1.034
Wayne Tinkle	Oregon St.	1.027
Cuonzo Martin	California	1.026
Herb Sendek	Arizona St.	1.026
Steve Alford	UCLA	1.022
Lorenzo Romar	Washington	1.020
Andy Enfield	USC	1.020
Ernie Kent	Washington St.	1.013
Sean Miller	Arizona	1.005
Larry Krystkowiak	Utah	1.004
Tad Boyle	Colorado	1.000
Johnny Dawkins	Stanford	0.999

...

This is interesting. Is there a link to this type of data for other coaches as well?

 

[jgisland]

This is interesting. Is there a link to this type of data for other coaches as well?

Dan Hanner is the man on this stuff. He includes this info on most of his conference previews. Just have to rifle through them.

 

[Goose]

Pachoops on Stanford - http://pachoops.com/2014/10/stanford-cardinal-basketball-preview-chasson-margins/

 

[pachoops]

Jumping in a little late to the scheme/motivation thing.

I've never thought that JD's teams didn't play hard. I just think in the tough moments, they didn't have a great foundation of what they were trying to do. Schematically, I just think they're lost. I recall a possession late in the AZ@Stan game last year. JD calls timeout with about 20 seconds on the shot clock with a chance to build a lead. He draws up a play that swiftly blows up, Arizona takes the lead on the next possession and never yields that lead again.

To me, the scoring margin stuff says it all. The ball is rolled out and they do enough to win more often than not. They don't play the game they play their opponent.