[teejers1]

@Teejers, re: 

"What I think can be confirmed is the following:  Stanford has a very talented roster for the most part - and certainly with respect to more recent recruits - every single one of them can play, if given the chance.  I mean, look at Lacie and Jump this year.  They are playing well because they are playing a lot and know they won't get yanked for one mistake.  Lexie has always had that luxury (and has played incredibly well overall over the years).  You have to play with confidence, and except in the rarest of circumstances, confidence comes with PT.  This isn't to advocate that one player should be playing over another; but rather, to caution against concluding that certain bench players "aren't good enough" or "can't really play at this level" based on spotty minutes.  They all can play - I mean we know Anna Wilson can play at a championship level, and she is not seeing the court nearly as much this year (same is true for NW player, who barely played last night).  And I think most here would be pleasantly surprised at the productivity of Belibi, Prechtel, and just about everybody else if they played 20 minutes/game for 10 straight games. It's just the nature of playing sports - at any level, really.  And it explains why I am more focused on ramifications of miniscule minutes for very good players on Stanford's bench.  It's a tough job as a coach, but also one of the most important ones."

Generally, I appreciate the post and I do understand what you're saying, but I think you're way oversimplifying. 2 rebuttles:

1) I agree that all our players are talented, but I totally disagree that "every one of them can play if given the chance". I think it's more accurate to say "every one of them can fill a role...if needed." The parts are not interchangeable. I think (hope) everyone on the team realizes and recognizes that 1) some players are better than others and that's OK and 2) PT will vary depending on the circumstance. That's not a convenient coaching line - it's the truth (at least I think it is).

Great example...You bring up Anna "playing at a championship level". Well, that was with Kiana on the court who carried the scoring burden. Anna was the best backcourt choice in that combination of players. But this year, what she brings to the table is not nearly as highly valued, so her minutes are dropping. It doesn't mean the coaches aren't high on Anna anymore. She's still the same player offering the same great things. Other examples...Kiki could start on some P12 teams. But on THIS team, we have Brink, Belibi, and Prechtel as returning posts. Kiki is great at certain things, but she really struggles in a lot of areas. She could play 10+ minutes a game this season and not get to the level where the other players are. It's not intended to be hurtful and I'm certainly not saying she can't play at this level. But she's way down in the depth chart, so I think it's a stretch to say "she can play if given the chance". Sure she could play, just not as good! And what's more, I don't even think there's an issue there. Kiki knows this, because she gets her ass kicked around in practice everyday. And Anna knows what she brings to the table and I really don't think she's bent out of shape. Same with Jana. I get the feeling everyone is feeling sorry for her. She's doesn't offer what this team needs, I bet she knows it, and I also bet she knows she could start next year if she keeps working hard because the parts are going to change a lot.
 
2) I may be off, but I think you are lobbying for a different subbing approach, maybe against cupcake teams, in order to develop our bench. You call out - did Jump really need to play 37 minutes? Of course not - there's lots of options to spread the PT around. But  I would say that these are important games for our starters to gel. Hannah has only been starting for a few games now. Invariably, if you try to get 12+ players reasonable playing time, you'll end up with tons of combinations on the court. So what's more valuable - getting the deep bench some small amount of minutes each or letting Jump play a lot with Jones and the Hulls on the perimeter and letting her get more experience feeding Brink and Belibi? There is a give and take going on here, with a player that is becoming a MAJOR piece of this team being able to compete with other great teams. Hanna getting into a rhythm and getting more confident/comfortable could be way more important to this season than sprinkling some of her minutes across a few of the deep bench.

I'm not saying everyone should be playing 10-20 minutes/game.  And I've played on plenty of teams and know that practices reveal who the superior players are (though in some sports you can have "gamers" vs. practice players, not sure how applicable that is to hoops).  And it's clear already that Brink, Lexie, and Jones deserve starter minutes (and I'm willing to put Jump in there, certainly for now).  But I AM saying people here would be surprised how effective bench players would be when guaranteed that amount of time and being confident and empowered.

And I am also saying that Jump did not need to play (and should not have played) 37 minutes last night.  The outcome was never in doubt.  And Jump had more than ample time to "gel" with the other "key players" in 27 minutes, or even 30 minutes.  I know people in these parts are adamantly opposed to even questioning a decision by Tara, but c'mon now, let's not leave common sense at the door.

The flipside to your argument is that it's easy to envision scenario where you ask players to "step up bigtime" in crucial games without having provided them the game experience to do so when/if called.  It's not hard to imagine a scenario where Anna's and Emma's D are needed against guards.  Well guess what?  They can't just be one-dimensional out there - you want them to at least have the confidence to take (and make) open shots.  Tough to expect that with scrap PT.  And similar demands could be made of others due to foul trouble and/or Covid, for crying out loud.

And although it goes without saying, I feel like I have to say this because I'm the only one who ever dares to question some things we see on the court:  Tara is (and has been) a great coach for Stanford University, and the school is lucky to have her.  And I want her to keep winning as much as possible to keep Geno in the rear-view mirror forever.

[teejers1]

@Teejers, re: 

"What I think can be confirmed is the following:  Stanford has a very talented roster for the most part - and certainly with respect to more recent recruits - every single one of them can play, if given the chance.  I mean, look at Lacie and Jump this year.  They are playing well because they are playing a lot and know they won't get yanked for one mistake.  Lexie has always had that luxury (and has played incredibly well overall over the years).  You have to play with confidence, and except in the rarest of circumstances, confidence comes with PT.  This isn't to advocate that one player should be playing over another; but rather, to caution against concluding that certain bench players "aren't good enough" or "can't really play at this level" based on spotty minutes.  They all can play - I mean we know Anna Wilson can play at a championship level, and she is not seeing the court nearly as much this year (same is true for NW player, who barely played last night).  And I think most here would be pleasantly surprised at the productivity of Belibi, Prechtel, and just about everybody else if they played 20 minutes/game for 10 straight games. It's just the nature of playing sports - at any level, really.  And it explains why I am more focused on ramifications of miniscule minutes for very good players on Stanford's bench.  It's a tough job as a coach, but also one of the most important ones."

Generally, I appreciate the post and I do understand what you're saying, but I think you're way oversimplifying. 2 rebuttles:

1) I agree that all our players are talented, but I totally disagree that "every one of them can play if given the chance". I think it's more accurate to say "every one of them can fill a role...if needed." The parts are not interchangeable. I think (hope) everyone on the team realizes and recognizes that 1) some players are better than others and that's OK and 2) PT will vary depending on the circumstance. That's not a convenient coaching line - it's the truth (at least I think it is).

Great example...You bring up Anna "playing at a championship level". Well, that was with Kiana on the court who carried the scoring burden. Anna was the best backcourt choice in that combination of players. But this year, what she brings to the table is not nearly as highly valued, so her minutes are dropping. It doesn't mean the coaches aren't high on Anna anymore. She's still the same player offering the same great things. Other examples...Kiki could start on some P12 teams. But on THIS team, we have Brink, Belibi, and Prechtel as returning posts. Kiki is great at certain things, but she really struggles in a lot of areas. She could play 10+ minutes a game this season and not get to the level where the other players are. It's not intended to be hurtful and I'm certainly not saying she can't play at this level. But she's way down in the depth chart, so I think it's a stretch to say "she can play if given the chance". Sure she could play, just not as good! And what's more, I don't even think there's an issue there. Kiki knows this, because she gets her ass kicked around in practice everyday. And Anna knows what she brings to the table and I really don't think she's bent out of shape. Same with Jana. I get the feeling everyone is feeling sorry for her. She's doesn't offer what this team needs, I bet she knows it, and I also bet she knows she could start next year if she keeps working hard because the parts are going to change a lot.
 
2) I may be off, but I think you are lobbying for a different subbing approach, maybe against cupcake teams, in order to develop our bench. You call out - did Jump really need to play 37 minutes? Of course not - there's lots of options to spread the PT around. But  I would say that these are important games for our starters to gel. Hannah has only been starting for a few games now. Invariably, if you try to get 12+ players reasonable playing time, you'll end up with tons of combinations on the court. So what's more valuable - getting the deep bench some small amount of minutes each or letting Jump play a lot with Jones and the Hulls on the perimeter and letting her get more experience feeding Brink and Belibi? There is a give and take going on here, with a player that is becoming a MAJOR piece of this team being able to compete with other great teams. Hanna getting into a rhythm and getting more confident/comfortable could be way more important to this season than sprinkling some of her minutes across a few of the deep bench.

I'm not saying everyone should be playing 10-20 minutes/game.  And I've played on plenty of teams and know that practices reveal who the superior players are (though in some sports you can have "gamers" vs. practice players, not sure how applicable that is to hoops).  And it's clear already that Brink, Lexie, and Jones deserve starter minutes (and I'm willing to put Jump in there, certainly for now).  But I AM saying people here would be surprised how effective bench players would be when guaranteed that amount of time and being confident and empowered.

And I am also saying that Jump did not need to play (and should not have played) 37 minutes last night.  The outcome was never in doubt.  And Jump had more than ample time to "gel" with the other "key players" in 27 minutes, or even 30 minutes.  I know people in these parts are adamantly opposed to even questioning a decision by Tara, but c'mon now, let's not leave common sense at the door.

The flipside to your argument is that it's easy to envision scenario where you ask players to "step up bigtime" in crucial games without having provided them the game experience to do so when/if called.  It's not hard to imagine a scenario where Anna's and Emma's D are needed against guards.  Well guess what?  They can't just be one-dimensional out there - you want them to at least have the confidence to take (and make) open shots.  Tough to expect that with scrap PT.  And similar demands could be made of others due to foul trouble and/or Covid, for crying out loud.

And although it goes without saying, I feel like I have to say this because I'm the only one who ever dares to question some things we see on the court:  Tara is (and has been) a great coach for Stanford University, and the school is lucky to have her.  And I want her to keep winning as much as possible to keep Geno in the rear-view mirror forever.