[81alum]

To me, if +/- tells you to sit Brink, Jones, and Jump it is not a great stat.  One game is a very small sample size.  Over many games it probably means a lot more.

I don't understand the fascination with offense (and offensive stats) that so many people have to the virtual exclusion of defense.  I think the saw about defense winning championships is the recognition that offense gets the publicity but defense doesn't even though it counts just as much.  Every point the other team scores is a point more that you have to score.

Even the word "outscore" is burdened with this offense connotation.  Stanford seems to win by "out-shutting down" the other team,

So, what do you say when a team beats your starting lineup but your bench wins the day as happened against OSU?   You can say "Great game plan" to the opposing coach.     Personally, I bet the Stanford coaches are breathing a sigh of relief that the remaining schedule, as tough as it is, does not have us playing at OSU.

I've heard Tara say many times that she recruits offense but teaches defense.  Players who do not have offensive skills in high school are unlikely to improve enough to play for Stanford in college.  But Tara believes that almost any player can be taught to play sound team defense, given time and conditioning.

So the bench is always filled with players who were offensive stars in high school, but who have not yet shown they are good enough to defend the match-ups that are available in any given game.  To get playing time from Tara you first have to prove you will not be a defensive liability.

For example, Jump has been a proficient three point shooter from the first day she set foot on campus.  She did not start before this year because other teams frequently victimized her defense.  Only after she improved her defense did she get to these 35-40 minute games.  It is exactly the same path taken by Karlie Samuelson, too.

Tara has said much the same about Demetre.  Now that her defense is beginning to improve, she may well get more playing time.

My guess is that the same is true about Betts.  Tara said putting her in is "instant offense" and yet she doesn't often put her in.  Guess why.  But she will likely be vastly better on defense after a year of conditioning and practice.

As a result of Tara's emphasis on defense, we have become a truly excellent team on defense this year--far better than I expected.  We are winning a lot of relatively low scoring games.  Even our ignominious loss to USC gave up only 55 points.  It was actually an outstanding defensive effort in the loss.

Now, whether this is in spite of Jones's defense or whether Jones is defending better than it might appear, I don't know.  But it is hard to argue that there is very much wrong with our defense.  Our problems lie elsewhere.

[81alum]

To me, if +/- tells you to sit Brink, Jones, and Jump it is not a great stat.  One game is a very small sample size.  Over many games it probably means a lot more.

I don't understand the fascination with offense (and offensive stats) that so many people have to the virtual exclusion of defense.  I think the saw about defense winning championships is the recognition that offense gets the publicity but defense doesn't even though it counts just as much.  Every point the other team scores is a point more that you have to score.

Even the word "outscore" is burdened with this offense connotation.  Stanford seems to win by "out-shutting down" the other team,

So, what do you say when a team beats your starting lineup but your bench wins the day as happened against OSU?   You can say "Great game plan" to the opposing coach.     Personally, I bet the Stanford coaches are breathing a sigh of relief that the remaining schedule, as tough as it is, does not have us playing at OSU.

I've heard Tara say many times that she recruits offense but teaches defense.  Players who do not have offensive skills in high school are unlikely to improve enough to play for Stanford in college.  But Tara believes that almost any player can be taught to play sound team defense, given time and conditioning.

So the bench is always filled with players who were offensive stars in high school, but who have not yet shown they are good enough to defend the match-ups that are available in any given game.  To get playing time from Tara you first have to prove you will not be a defensive liability.

For example, Jump has been a proficient three point shooter from the first day she set foot on campus.  She did not start before this year because other teams frequently victimized her defense.  Only after she improved her defense did she get to these 35-40 minute games.  It is exactly the same path taken by Karlie Samuelson, too.

Tara has said much the same about Demetre.  Now that her defense is beginning to improve, she may well get more playing time.

My guess is that the same is true about Betts.  Tara said putting her in is "instant offense" and yet she doesn't often put her in.  Guess why.  But she will likely be vastly better on defense after a year of conditioning and practice.

As a result of Tara's emphasis on defense, we have become a truly excellent team on defense this year--far better than I expected.  We are winning a lot of relatively low scoring games.  Even our ignominious loss to USC gave up only 55 points.  It was actually an outstanding defensive effort in the loss.

Now, whether this is in spite of Jones's defense or whether Jones is defending better than it might appear, I don't know.  But it is hard to argue that there is very much wrong with our defense.  Our problems lie elsewhere.