| | | |
STANFORD WASHINGTON |
|
| 140.5 | 84 Final 74 |
|
|
| | |
|
| | | |
785 | STANFORD | -1.5 | -2 | 786 | WASHINGTON | 136 | 140 |
|
|
| | |
|
| | | |
|
|
All Games | 14-5 | +3 | 10-8 | 11-8 | 74.4 | 35.6 | 44.9% | 36.9 | 65.3 | 30.9 | 41.7% | 32.2 | Road Games | 4-4 | +0 | 4-4 | 6-2 | 74.9 | 36.1 | 44.5% | 37.0 | 73.5 | 35.4 | 43.2% | 37.1 | Last 5 Games | 4-1 | +3 | 3-2 | 4-1 | 78.0 | 39.8 | 48.4% | 35.4 | 70.6 | 36.6 | 44.8% | 29.6 | Conference Games | 5-2 | +1.8 | 3-3 | 4-3 | 76.9 | 37.0 | 45.8% | 35.1 | 70.9 | 34.0 | 42.8% | 35.0 |
|
| |
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 74.4 | 35.6 | 26-58 | 44.9% | 7-18 | 40.9% | 15-21 | 70.8% | 37 | 10 | 13 | 19 | 6 | 11 | 3 | vs opponents surrendering | 66.7 | 31.2 | 23-56 | 42.1% | 6-18 | 34.0% | 14-20 | 69.7% | 34 | 9 | 12 | 19 | 6 | 12 | 3 | Team Stats (Road Games) | 74.9 | 36.1 | 28-63 | 44.5% | 8-20 | 43.0% | 10-14 | 69.8% | 37 | 10 | 12 | 21 | 5 | 12 | 3 | Stats Against (All Games) | 65.3 | 30.9 | 23-55 | 41.7% | 6-17 | 36.6% | 13-20 | 67.9% | 32 | 8 | 12 | 19 | 4 | 12 | 3 | vs opponents averaging | 69.5 | 32 | 24-55 | 44.2% | 7-18 | 35.6% | 14-21 | 69.6% | 35 | 9 | 13 | 18 | 6 | 13 | 4 | Stats Against (Road Games) | 73.5 | 35.4 | 25-58 | 43.2% | 6-18 | 36.4% | 17-24 | 69.4% | 37 | 10 | 14 | 16 | 6 | 11 | 4 |
|
|
| |
|
|
All Games | 14-5 | +0.9 | 9-9 | 8-10 | 69.0 | 31.7 | 44.2% | 38.9 | 62.1 | 27.4 | 36.5% | 35.7 | Home Games | 7-2 | -3.5 | 4-5 | 3-6 | 70.4 | 31.9 | 45.6% | 40.6 | 58.8 | 26.6 | 33.9% | 35.8 | Last 5 Games | 3-2 | -5.5 | 3-2 | 3-2 | 65.2 | 27.4 | 44.6% | 33.6 | 65.4 | 31.0 | 41.1% | 33.6 | Conference Games | 3-4 | -7.6 | 3-4 | 4-3 | 65.9 | 28.1 | 43.8% | 35.3 | 68.0 | 30.0 | 41.0% | 33.6 |
|
| |
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 69.0 | 31.7 | 25-57 | 44.2% | 6-17 | 31.9% | 13-20 | 65.6% | 39 | 10 | 14 | 17 | 5 | 12 | 7 | vs opponents surrendering | 65.1 | 30.1 | 23-55 | 41.6% | 6-19 | 33.6% | 13-19 | 68.6% | 34 | 9 | 12 | 18 | 6 | 12 | 3 | Team Stats (Home Games) | 70.4 | 31.9 | 26-57 | 45.6% | 5-17 | 28.7% | 13-21 | 63.0% | 41 | 10 | 14 | 15 | 5 | 12 | 7 | Stats Against (All Games) | 62.1 | 27.4 | 22-60 | 36.5% | 6-19 | 32.0% | 12-18 | 67.8% | 36 | 11 | 10 | 18 | 6 | 11 | 3 | vs opponents averaging | 67 | 31.5 | 24-55 | 43.2% | 6-18 | 35.1% | 13-20 | 67.9% | 36 | 9 | 13 | 18 | 6 | 13 | 4 | Stats Against (Home Games) | 58.8 | 26.6 | 21-62 | 33.9% | 7-21 | 33.0% | 10-15 | 67.7% | 36 | 11 | 10 | 18 | 6 | 12 | 3 |
|
| Average power rating of opponents played: STANFORD 76.9, WASHINGTON 72.2 |
| | |
|
|
12/13/2014 | DENVER | 49-43 | W | -13.5 | L | 129.5 | U | 14-44 | 31.8% | 31 | 7 | 17-43 | 39.5% | 28 | 11 | 12/17/2014 | LOYOLA-MARYMOUNT | 67-58 | W | -17 | L | 132 | U | 22-53 | 41.5% | 30 | 8 | 24-51 | 47.1% | 31 | 17 | 12/20/2014 | @ BYU | 77-79 | L | 4.5 | W | 148 | O | 32-66 | 48.5% | 36 | 14 | 26-61 | 42.6% | 39 | 12 | 12/23/2014 | @ TEXAS | 74-71 | W | 10 | W | 130 | O | 29-67 | 43.3% | 32 | 6 | 25-56 | 44.6% | 36 | 11 | 12/29/2014 | ARK-PINE BLUFF | 74-39 | W | -24.5 | W | 129.5 | U | 25-49 | 51.0% | 33 | 14 | 13-41 | 31.7% | 21 | 25 | 1/2/2015 | WASHINGTON ST | 71-56 | W | -15 | T | 139.5 | U | 26-56 | 46.4% | 37 | 6 | 14-42 | 33.3% | 33 | 9 | 1/4/2015 | WASHINGTON | 68-60 | W | -5.5 | W | 131.5 | U | 23-59 | 39.0% | 38 | 9 | 21-55 | 38.2% | 37 | 19 | 1/8/2015 | @ UCLA | 81-86 | L | -1 | L | 131.5 | O | 26-71 | 36.6% | 42 | 9 | 27-62 | 43.5% | 51 | 10 | 1/11/2015 | @ USC | 78-76 | W | -6 | L | 132 | O | 30-65 | 46.2% | 30 | 14 | 26-53 | 49.1% | 32 | 14 | 1/14/2015 | @ CALIFORNIA | 69-59 | W | -2 | W | 133 | U | 25-52 | 48.1% | 34 | 8 | 22-62 | 35.5% | 41 | 9 | 1/17/2015 | CONNECTICUT | 72-59 | W | -5.5 | W | 124.5 | O | 24-59 | 40.7% | 48 | 13 | 23-55 | 41.8% | 24 | 12 | 1/22/2015 | ARIZONA | 82-89 | L | 3.5 | L | 130 | O | 25-50 | 50.0% | 29 | 14 | 30-54 | 55.6% | 25 | 10 | 1/24/2015 | ARIZONA ST | 89-70 | W | -6.5 | W | 136.5 | O | 31-53 | 58.5% | 36 | 8 | 27-62 | 43.5% | 26 | 9 | 1/28/2015 | @ WASHINGTON | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1/31/2015 | @ WASHINGTON ST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/5/2015 | UCLA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/8/2015 | USC | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/12/2015 | @ UTAH | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/15/2015 | @ COLORADO | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
| |
|
|
12/14/2014 | E WASHINGTON | 81-77 | W | -7.5 | L | 146 | O | 26-56 | 46.4% | 42 | 13 | 25-68 | 36.8% | 35 | 12 | 12/17/2014 | GRAMBLING | 86-38 | W | -36.5 | W | 126 | U | 32-63 | 50.8% | 51 | 10 | 14-60 | 23.3% | 29 | 17 | 12/20/2014 | *OKLAHOMA | 69-67 | W | 6 | W | 145.5 | U | 25-51 | 49.0% | 36 | 14 | 27-64 | 42.2% | 35 | 8 | 12/22/2014 | TULANE | 66-57 | W | -14 | L | 134 | U | 25-48 | 52.1% | 33 | 18 | 19-60 | 31.7% | 36 | 14 | 12/28/2014 | STONY BROOK | 57-62 | L | -13.5 | L | 131.5 | U | 23-67 | 34.3% | 47 | 12 | 23-62 | 37.1% | 45 | 13 | 1/2/2015 | @ CALIFORNIA | 75-81 | L | -1 | L | 125 | O | 28-62 | 45.2% | 42 | 12 | 26-61 | 42.6% | 29 | 4 | 1/4/2015 | @ STANFORD | 60-68 | L | 5.5 | L | 131.5 | U | 21-55 | 38.2% | 37 | 19 | 23-59 | 39.0% | 38 | 9 | 1/10/2015 | WASHINGTON ST | 77-80 | L | -11.5 | L | 137 | O | 32-65 | 49.2% | 31 | 9 | 28-61 | 45.9% | 34 | 10 | 1/15/2015 | OREGON ST | 56-43 | W | -7 | W | 123.5 | U | 18-43 | 41.9% | 31 | 13 | 15-47 | 31.9% | 30 | 15 | 1/18/2015 | OREGON | 85-77 | W | -5.5 | W | 142.5 | O | 30-59 | 50.8% | 43 | 11 | 30-72 | 41.7% | 34 | 6 | 1/22/2015 | @ COLORADO | 52-50 | W | 1 | W | 129 | U | 18-50 | 36.0% | 35 | 13 | 19-60 | 31.7% | 40 | 12 | 1/25/2015 | @ UTAH | 56-77 | L | 13 | L | 127.5 | O | 22-52 | 42.3% | 28 | 12 | 28-52 | 53.8% | 30 | 9 | 1/28/2015 | STANFORD | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/1/2015 | CALIFORNIA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/4/2015 | @ OREGON | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/8/2015 | @ OREGON ST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/13/2015 | ARIZONA | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2/15/2015 | ARIZONA ST | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | STANFORD: The Cardinal made a surprising run to the Sweet 16 last season, defeating one of the country's most talented teams in Kansas. Leading the way for Stanford will be SG Chasson Randle (18.8 PPG, 3.6 RPG, 2.1 APG), a talented guard who was terrific in the NCAA Tournament last year. He is an improving shooter, making him a difficult matchup for the opposition. His attacking style is complemented perfectly on the perimeter by swingman Anthony Brown (12.3 PPG, 5.0 RPG, 45% threes), who shoot the basketball at a high percentage from anywhere on the court (48% FG, 79% FT). At 6-foot-6, he can get a shot off whenever he wants on the perimeter, while doing a solid job of moving without the ball. C Stefan Nastic (7.4 PPG, 2.8 RPG, 58% FG) did not put up huge numbers as a reserve last season, but now as the starting center, he could double both his points and rebounds. Joining him in the frontcourt is PF Reid Travis, a McDonald's All-American from Minnesota. He is a very physical player with a high motor, and should complement the skill set of Nastic nicely. | | WASHINGTON: The Huskies have had some struggles the past couple seasons, but have some potential to surprise people in the Pac-12. PG Nigel Williams-Goss (13.4 PPG, 4.4 RPG, 4.4 APG) is an ultra-talented floor leader that will have to become more of a scorer to help make up for the loss of C.J. Wilcox. At 6-foot-3, he has great size for the point, but will have to cut back on the turnovers. His partner in the backcourt is SG Andrew Andrews (12.3 PPG, 3.9 RPG, 2.6 APG), who is another combo guard who can go for 20 points on any given night. Both of these guys are very fast with the ball, and they put a lot of pressure on opposing defenses. The Huskies ranked 189th in the nation in rebounding, but teams can't crash the offensive glass because they have to get back to stop the fast break. For Washington to contend for an NCAA Tournament berth, PF Shawn Kemp Jr. (4.4 PPG, 1.8 RPG, 56% FG, 71% FT) must become more of a presence down low. If he is able to help the team rebound the ball, Washington could make a surprising run in the conference. |
| | |
| Last Updated: 5/21/2024 10:39:23 AM EST. |
|
|
| |
|