Since returning from final exams, Stanford (14-2, 3-0) has had a number of slow starts. This was not one of them.
They went up 10-2 in the blink of an eye, forcing WSU coach Kyle Smith to burn a timeout before the under 16 could put them out of their misery. The idea was to slow the Cardinal momentum, but the reality could not have been more different. By the ten minute mark, the Stanford advantage had ballooned to 26-4.
Oscar da Silva scored 15 points in the game’s first 9 minutes before heading to the bench with foul trouble. It would take the Cougars the rest of the first half to eclipse his total. “Our inside game was an important piece of our game plan,” said da Silva. “I was trying to come out and be aggressive.
Nothing Washington State did seemed to work. Desperate for any sort of spark, they switched to a zone defense. The Cardinal struggled on Thursday against the long 1-3-1 of Washington, but they had no such issues tonight. They worked the ball inside out, finding good shots, and knocking them down with confidence. It was a clinic.
The 46-18 halftime advantage was only 2 points shy of their midway lead against Maryland Eastern Shore earlier this season. There was a lot to like for Stanford, as they shot better than 65% from the field. Their starters also committed just one turnover. But once again, their defense put a serious stamp on the game.
Washington State’s top two scorers, CJ Elleby and Isaac Bonton, entered the game averaging nearly 34 per game between them. Elleby was even invited to the NBA Draft Combine a year ago. At the half, they’d combined for just 1 point on 0-11 shooting thanks to Davis, Wills, and company.
“Daejon and Bryce really enjoy the idea of being lockdown defenders,” said Coach Haase. “They take a lot of pride in that.” The two Cougar stars were frustrated, and it was visibly evident. Elleby in particular grew increasingly disinterested in the game, settling for difficult shots, committing careless turnovers, and getting blown by on an Isaac White drive.
The second half had a decidedly different tone, as play opened up more, and Haase experimented with different lineups and concepts. On the first few possessions, they worked the ball inside to Bryce Wills in post position. He paid it off with a bucket on his first touch. A few possessions later, the Cougars brought help and he kicked it to the opposite corner, which led to the extra pass to Tyrell Terry on the wing. The freshman drained the three.
One surprising bright spot was the play of Lukas Kisunas. The sophomore center scored a career high 9 points, on 4-4 from the field. He also grabbed 4 rebounds, handed out 3 assists, and blocked two shots. “Lukas added a spark,” said Haase. “He brought value to us on both ends of the floor.”
The lead grew to us much as 33, but oscillated once the Cougars started connecting on bunches of threes. The visitors made 9 of their 13 perimeter shots in the second half, but it was a case of far too little, far too late.
Stanford was led by Terry’s 22, a new career high. Oscar da Silva finished with 15 after a pair of brief stints in the second half. Isaac White and Bryce Wills scored 11 and 10, respectively. As a team, they had 23 assists against just 9 turnovers, and shot 61% from the field.
Washington State was led by Isaac Bonton’s 15, 14 of which came in a flurry during the second half. Daron Henson scored 12 points on 4 threes, in just his second game of the season.
This win moves the Cardinal to 3-0 in conference play for the first time since 2003-04. After an emotional victory like the one over Washington, there’s always the worry of a subsequent letdown game. That was apparently the message in the Stanford locker room.
“The win on Thursday wouldn't have meant anything if we dropped this game today,” said da Silva. “Everybody came out focused and ready to achieve that goal.”
They’ll put their hot start to the test next week against UCLA and USC in LA. “I’m looking forward to going on the road and seeing what we can do,” said Terry.
Comments
Great effort!
I didn’t see the game as I had some family issues to take care of, but excited to see a dominant effort by the whole team. Go, Cardinal!
By worldblee on 01.12.20 12:44pm
Mike Montgomery drools...
He was the TV analyst for this game. He’s got a thing for Ty Terry, like much of the sports media. However, Mike’s regard for Oscar da Silva and Daejon Davis is well into the quiet respect mode. Mike’s one more analyst who’s conflated Davis as a pro prospect. Of course, the trend of respect for da Silva is verging similarly.
Ty Terry is a wunderkind but he’s playing on a team that makes him better. Terry’s their #2 in assists but he’s sandwiched by his backcourt mates, Davis (#1) and Wills (#3). Tyrell’s 22 points in this game, particularly from the perimeter, were typically assisted by Davis and Wills.
Also, Terry’s outside shots result from a significant number of attempts. He’s still #3 in 3-pt. accuracy, after Spencer Jones and Daejon, respectively. Davis was bothered by the protective facemask, even with free throws, in the first half. But the rest of the team was blowing WSU off the court without scoring.
Montgomery was into his Terry love fest, as he noted how a Davis pass attempt into the paint became a turnover, and then became almost giddy later when Terry threads the needle with a feed into Delaire led to a dunk. Terry is and has been a natural PG, while Daejon was a SG who had to convert to PG. Yet, Davis (40) and Terry (39) are #2 and #3, respectively, in turnovers for the season. Against UW, with Davis missing most of the 1st half, Terry had 4 turnovers, while Daejon had 2. The whole team sees Tyrell as its little brother wunderkind; they want him to be special as much as he can be. But he’ll be better next year, like the rest of the team.
Imagine what this team might’ve been if Josh Sharma hadn’t graduated, or even if Trevor Stanback hadn’t had to take medical retirement.
[(Shoulda + Woulda) / Coulda] ≤ Didn’t.
By Candid One on 01.12.20 6:23pm
Mixed emotions about Montgomery
Let me start off by saying I haven’t heard any of MM’s broadcast this year. All this is based on hearing him from previous years.
Without questions, MM needs to be in the Stanford hall of fame. Had he stuck around, he’d be on the level of Tara for what he had accomplished for Stanford basketball. I doubt I will live to see another coach get Stanford men’s basketball to the same level and make it look like a perennial thing. Based on my ability to understand basketball, MM seemed to be an exemplary coach. He stressed defense, exploiting mismatches, and had a tough as nails approach (would not call timeout when the other team went on runs) that was crucial to Stanford’s success. IMO, he was an elite coach and I would have kept him over any other coach in the entire country.
Now, he was not without flaws. I think he got bewitched by Casey Jacobsen and screwed up by not playing Mendez more, but he’s only human.
All that having been, when I listened to MM in his "color" roll during Stanford home games in previous years, I swear the guy has issues. I’ve never heard a "home team" color analyst sound so resentful. My metric for this is largely based on fouls called for or against Stanford and how he rationalizes or justifies bad calls that go against Stanford.
As I said, i have not heard him this year. So maybe his man-crush on Terry has influenced Montgomery’s choice of words, but otherwise, I do not find his broadcast enjoyable because I perceive Montgomery’s resentment. Only Bill Walton is more annoying.
By Blackjoy on 01.13.20 11:15am
Ranking models
Why does one ranking service (NET) have us at 11, the coaches poll has us around 27, and TeamRankings has us around 53? Why such a wide spread? Which do you think most correctly reflects the quality of our team? I guess time will tell which is right.
I wonder what our rank would be if we had pulled out that game against Butler. Still can’t believe all those shots fell for Baldwin against us at the end of that game.
By brandtjl1 on 01.13.20 1:40pm
Savvy sports fans need to realize...
A poll is one kind of ranking, while a statistical ranking is not a poll. Polling relies on contributing voters, maybe from among sports writers, maybe from among coaches. Each statistical system is different, for disparate perspectives and comparison-contrast on selected strengths and weaknesses. Stats versus opinions. YMMV.
By Candid One on 01.13.20 2:39pm
Yes, that's true,
but it strikes me as still unusual to see such a difference. I’ve seen debates about whether a team should be say in the top 10 or the top 20 but never one rating of 11 and another at 53.
By brandtjl1 on 01.13.20 2:42pm
All three measure different things...
NET is a ranking of how many wins you have and how difficult your schedule was. It does not consider what might happen in the future, nor how "lucky" you might have been to get your wins. It’s only a reflection of what has already happened in the past. Stanford only losing two games—and against relatively strong competition—means that it’s faring well in NET.
Polls are a human reflection of which teams have had the best season so far. Like NET, it should also reflect total wins and how difficult your schedule was, but may also involve many other factors too (some statistical, some measured with he human eye).
TeamRankings is a statistical model used to forecast future games. It doesn’t care how many wins a team has right now. It only cares about how likely the team is to win games in the future. I think intuitively we all get that when two teams play, any one can win—but if they could somehow play 1,000 times, the more skilled team would win more often than not. Statistical models are meant to accurately forecast what would happen beyond simple one-game samples.
By Matt Vassar on 01.16.20 10:34am