[cardfan1996]

And while Tara is a legendary coach, she is not Geno or Pat. She is not the Goat of WBB as someone said above that cannot be critiqued on some of her choices this year. She may be the Goat of West coast basketball. 

Okay, I see where you're coming from now.  I'm surprised it took you 41 posts on the Cardboard to make this clear.

Yes, I am not a homer. I can think critically. You conveniently left off half my response to warp what was said. And yet, I don’t care.

I think Geno has answered any questions re: whether he is a good coach because he gets the best players or whether he is the best coach. It is both. He has not always had the best roster but he has been to an insane amount of Final Fours in a row. And he has had an insane amount of undefeated seasons. And a lot of those 11 national championship titles were complete blow-outs. Yes, the question of Goat is not really in question. 

But Top 3 or Top 5 is still tremendous.

And by the way, I don’t like that a male coach will sit at the top of the mountain in WBB perhaps forever. I hate it in fact but it is what it is.

Edited to add: Recruiting is part of being the “best coach” to me. Tara doesn’t have the pool Pat and Geno has but she has had roster full of McDonalds All-Americans. She has also lost out on her share of program defining point guards over the years even though they got into Stanford: Sue Bird, Diggins, likely Juju too. Who else?


How do you value her roster in 2021 with a hundred McDonalds AA vs Arizona’s with one McDonalds All-American?

[cardfan1996]

And while Tara is a legendary coach, she is not Geno or Pat. She is not the Goat of WBB as someone said above that cannot be critiqued on some of her choices this year. She may be the Goat of West coast basketball. 

Okay, I see where you're coming from now.  I'm surprised it took you 41 posts on the Cardboard to make this clear.

Yes, I am not a homer. I can think critically. You conveniently left off half my response to warp what was said. And yet, I don’t care.

I think Geno has answered any questions re: whether he is a good coach because he gets the best players or whether he is the best coach. It is both. He has not always had the best roster but he has been to an insane amount of Final Fours in a row. And he has had an insane amount of undefeated seasons. And a lot of those 11 national championship titles were complete blow-outs. Yes, the question of Goat is not really in question. 

But Top 3 or Top 5 is still tremendous.

And by the way, I don’t like that a male coach will sit at the top of the mountain in WBB perhaps forever. I hate it in fact but it is what it is.

Edited to add: Recruiting is part of being the “best coach” to me. Tara doesn’t have the pool Pat and Geno has but she has had roster full of McDonalds All-Americans. She has also lost out on her share of program defining point guards over the years even though they got into Stanford: Sue Bird, Diggins, likely Juju too. Who else?


How do you value her roster in 2021 with a hundred McDonalds AA vs Arizona’s with one McDonalds All-American?

[DaBears17]

Geno to a certain degree is standing on the shoulders of Pat and Tara.  He also had the advantage of being a good story for a sports network 43 miles from Storrs.  Being 140 miles from NYC also got them a lot of good media coverage in 1995.  Rebecca Lobo on Letterman.   If the Whalers hadn't left Hartford in 1997 and/or in 1999 the Patriots hadn't pulled out of the deal to move to Hartford would UConn have gotten all the media coverage that helped a few critical recruits choose UConn over Tennessee?

Geno is an excellent coach and I like people with his straight-shooting, tell it as it personality.  He has done a lot for women's basketball and even without the media fawning over him in the late 90's and early aughts, would have been one of the top 3 coaches.  The media attention that to a certain degree he lucked into helped him make 5 finals fours between 2000 and 2004 and win 4 championships, that helped UConn get the reputation of the school to go to if you wanted to win a championship and play in the WNBA.

He has done a lot for the game.  The rule changes of going to 4Q's, advancing the ball on a timeout, and 10 second clock are his suggestions.  I like his suggestion of the women using the men's ball.   

I stuck around Maples after Stanford broke UConn's winning streak. I saw Geno after leaving the post game press conference stop and talk to a young UConn fan after giving her an autograph.  Lot of respect for doing that.

---

Edited to add: Recruiting is part of being the “best coach” to me. Tara doesn’t have the pool Pat and Geno has but she has had roster full of McDonalds All-Americans. She has also lost out on her share of program defining point guards over the years even though they got into Stanford: Sue Bird, Diggins, likely Juju too. Who else?

Kara Lawson's Dad wanted her to go to Stanford and her Mom wanted her to go to Duke and she chose Tennessee.  Another "what-if" about what would the landscape of college basketball been if Stanford's guards 1999-2003 were Lawson/Carey with a two year overlap with Nicole Powell?

We have lost a few recruits over the years to admission standards as well.

[DaBears17]

Geno to a certain degree is standing on the shoulders of Pat and Tara.  He also had the advantage of being a good story for a sports network 43 miles from Storrs.  Being 140 miles from NYC also got them a lot of good media coverage in 1995.  Rebecca Lobo on Letterman.   If the Whalers hadn't left Hartford in 1997 and/or in 1999 the Patriots hadn't pulled out of the deal to move to Hartford would UConn have gotten all the media coverage that helped a few critical recruits choose UConn over Tennessee?

Geno is an excellent coach and I like people with his straight-shooting, tell it as it personality.  He has done a lot for women's basketball and even without the media fawning over him in the late 90's and early aughts, would have been one of the top 3 coaches.  The media attention that to a certain degree he lucked into helped him make 5 finals fours between 2000 and 2004 and win 4 championships, that helped UConn get the reputation of the school to go to if you wanted to win a championship and play in the WNBA.

He has done a lot for the game.  The rule changes of going to 4Q's, advancing the ball on a timeout, and 10 second clock are his suggestions.  I like his suggestion of the women using the men's ball.   

I stuck around Maples after Stanford broke UConn's winning streak. I saw Geno after leaving the post game press conference stop and talk to a young UConn fan after giving her an autograph.  Lot of respect for doing that.

---

Edited to add: Recruiting is part of being the “best coach” to me. Tara doesn’t have the pool Pat and Geno has but she has had roster full of McDonalds All-Americans. She has also lost out on her share of program defining point guards over the years even though they got into Stanford: Sue Bird, Diggins, likely Juju too. Who else?

Kara Lawson's Dad wanted her to go to Stanford and her Mom wanted her to go to Duke and she chose Tennessee.  Another "what-if" about what would the landscape of college basketball been if Stanford's guards 1999-2003 were Lawson/Carey with a two year overlap with Nicole Powell?

We have lost a few recruits over the years to admission standards as well.

[MV72018]

Hey, we may lose more Pac-12 games and we may not win a NC this season.  But, I guaranty that it won't be because the GOAT NCAA women's basketball coach was not as smart as some people posting their opinions on internet boards.

Given the Wooden-esque number of championships he's won, the fact that he has a considerably higher winning percentage than Tara, and the fact that UConn has typically beaten Stanford in Final Fours, I fail to see why you regard Tara as a more compelling candidate for GOAT than Geno Auriemma. Greatest is not synonymous with "winningest." And keep in mind that Tara has coached six more years than Geno, which is why she has more wins (although a lower winning percentage) than he does.

[MV72018]

Hey, we may lose more Pac-12 games and we may not win a NC this season.  But, I guaranty that it won't be because the GOAT NCAA women's basketball coach was not as smart as some people posting their opinions on internet boards.

Given the Wooden-esque number of championships he's won, the fact that he has a considerably higher winning percentage than Tara, and the fact that UConn has typically beaten Stanford in Final Fours, I fail to see why you regard Tara as a more compelling candidate for GOAT than Geno Auriemma. Greatest is not synonymous with "winningest." And keep in mind that Tara has coached six more years than Geno, which is why she has more wins (although a lower winning percentage) than he does.

[BostonCard]

I mean, it can both be true that Vanderveer (or for that matter Auriemma) is an imperfect coach, and that she is one of the greatest of all time.  Moreover, it can also be true that we, as fans, can comment on her coaching decisions, but that, perhaps, a little humility is warranted.  It’s a message board, so perhaps I’m a naive to expect much, but if I might make a constructive critique, let’s all try to be cognizant of this.

BC

[BostonCard]

I mean, it can both be true that Vanderveer (or for that matter Auriemma) is an imperfect coach, and that she is one of the greatest of all time.  Moreover, it can also be true that we, as fans, can comment on her coaching decisions, but that, perhaps, a little humility is warranted.  It’s a message board, so perhaps I’m a naive to expect much, but if I might make a constructive critique, let’s all try to be cognizant of this.

BC

[DaBears17]

And as I noted in a post above Tara taking a 1 year sabbatical likely cost Stanford a championship or two and weakened Stanford for a couple years with her missing the 1995-1996 season.  Haven't done the math on how it affects winning percentage, but it could be argued that Tara should have 29 more wins and Geno 14 less wins (Geno's victories include 14 games he didn't coach). Plus the PAC12 has been slightly more competitive than the AAC/Big East the past 10 years.

Most years UConn plays in a regionals 40 to 120 miles from Hartford. Do they beat NC State in the elite 8 on a neutral court last year?
Will be interesting to see how they do in a regionals more than a two hour drive from Hartford.

Hey, we may lose more Pac-12 games and we may not win a NC this season.  But, I guaranty that it won't be because the GOAT NCAA women's basketball coach was not as smart as some people posting their opinions on internet boards.

Given the Wooden-esque number of championships he's won, the fact that he has a considerably higher winning percentage than Tara, and the fact that UConn has typically beaten Stanford in Final Fours, I fail to see why you regard Tara as a more compelling candidate for GOAT than Geno Auriemma. Greatest is not synonymous with "winningest." And keep in mind that Tara has coached six more years than Geno, which is why she has more wins (although a lower winning percentage) than he does.

[DaBears17]

And as I noted in a post above Tara taking a 1 year sabbatical likely cost Stanford a championship or two and weakened Stanford for a couple years with her missing the 1995-1996 season.  Haven't done the math on how it affects winning percentage, but it could be argued that Tara should have 29 more wins and Geno 14 less wins (Geno's victories include 14 games he didn't coach). Plus the PAC12 has been slightly more competitive than the AAC/Big East the past 10 years.

Most years UConn plays in a regionals 40 to 120 miles from Hartford. Do they beat NC State in the elite 8 on a neutral court last year?
Will be interesting to see how they do in a regionals more than a two hour drive from Hartford.

Hey, we may lose more Pac-12 games and we may not win a NC this season.  But, I guaranty that it won't be because the GOAT NCAA women's basketball coach was not as smart as some people posting their opinions on internet boards.

Given the Wooden-esque number of championships he's won, the fact that he has a considerably higher winning percentage than Tara, and the fact that UConn has typically beaten Stanford in Final Fours, I fail to see why you regard Tara as a more compelling candidate for GOAT than Geno Auriemma. Greatest is not synonymous with "winningest." And keep in mind that Tara has coached six more years than Geno, which is why she has more wins (although a lower winning percentage) than he does.

[cardfan1996]

Geno to a certain degree is standing on the shoulders of Pat and Tara.  He also had the advantage of being a good story for a sports network 43 miles from Storrs.  Being 140 miles from NYC also got them a lot of good media coverage in 1995.  Rebecca Lobo on Letterman.   If the Whalers hadn't left Hartford in 1997 and/or in 1999 the Patriots hadn't pulled out of the deal to move to Hartford would UConn have gotten all the media coverage that helped a few critical recruits choose UConn over Tennessee?

Geno is an excellent coach and I like people with his straight-shooting, tell it as it personality.  He has done a lot for women's basketball and even without the media fawning over him in the late 90's and early aughts, would have been one of the top 3 coaches.  The media attention that to a certain degree he lucked into helped him make 5 finals fours between 2000 and 2004 and win 4 championships, that helped UConn get the reputation of the school to go to if you wanted to win a championship and play in the WNBA.

He has done a lot for the game.  The rule changes of going to 4Q's, advancing the ball on a timeout, and 10 second clock are his suggestions.  I like his suggestion of the women using the men's ball.   

I stuck around Maples after Stanford broke UConn's winning streak. I saw Geno after leaving the post game press conference stop and talk to a young UConn fan after giving her an autograph.  Lot of respect for doing that.

---

Edited to add: Recruiting is part of being the “best coach” to me. Tara doesn’t have the pool Pat and Geno has but she has had roster full of McDonalds All-Americans. She has also lost out on her share of program defining point guards over the years even though they got into Stanford: Sue Bird, Diggins, likely Juju too. Who else?

Kara Lawson's Dad wanted her to go to Stanford and her Mom wanted her to go to Duke and she chose Tennessee.  Another "what-if" about what would the landscape of college basketball been if Stanford's guards 1999-2003 were Lawson/Carey with a two year overlap with Nicole Powell?

We have lost a few recruits over the years to admission standards as well.

I didn’t know about Lawson. Love her. But can you imagine Diggins paired with Nneka for 4 years? I want to cry.

The difference between Tara and Geno in my mind comes down to the hysterical storytelling of Diana Taurasi, the greatest WBB player in the history of the game. Diana really wanted to go to Stanford really bad according to her. But someone (could have been Tara, could have been someone else) told Diana she was “not Stanford material.” I am going to give that person the benefit of doubt and say it was probably Diana’s grades. But still, there were a lot of possible responses other than you are “not Stanford material.” If you recruit them in the 9th grade, you could work with them on their grades, and expectations. You could say “we would really really love to have you here, but Admissions is so tough and we tried really hard and couldn’t make it happen. But we really hope you stay in California and play in the PAC-10 (you know, since you are suppose to be an ambassador of West coast hoops).”

Contrast that approach with Geno who made so many cross country trips to see Diana and was in her house so much that her mother wondered when he would leave and could they ask him to leave.

He had a vision of what Diana would become, maybe not the best player ever, but he knew. He knew.

[cardfan1996]

Geno to a certain degree is standing on the shoulders of Pat and Tara.  He also had the advantage of being a good story for a sports network 43 miles from Storrs.  Being 140 miles from NYC also got them a lot of good media coverage in 1995.  Rebecca Lobo on Letterman.   If the Whalers hadn't left Hartford in 1997 and/or in 1999 the Patriots hadn't pulled out of the deal to move to Hartford would UConn have gotten all the media coverage that helped a few critical recruits choose UConn over Tennessee?

Geno is an excellent coach and I like people with his straight-shooting, tell it as it personality.  He has done a lot for women's basketball and even without the media fawning over him in the late 90's and early aughts, would have been one of the top 3 coaches.  The media attention that to a certain degree he lucked into helped him make 5 finals fours between 2000 and 2004 and win 4 championships, that helped UConn get the reputation of the school to go to if you wanted to win a championship and play in the WNBA.

He has done a lot for the game.  The rule changes of going to 4Q's, advancing the ball on a timeout, and 10 second clock are his suggestions.  I like his suggestion of the women using the men's ball.   

I stuck around Maples after Stanford broke UConn's winning streak. I saw Geno after leaving the post game press conference stop and talk to a young UConn fan after giving her an autograph.  Lot of respect for doing that.

---

Edited to add: Recruiting is part of being the “best coach” to me. Tara doesn’t have the pool Pat and Geno has but she has had roster full of McDonalds All-Americans. She has also lost out on her share of program defining point guards over the years even though they got into Stanford: Sue Bird, Diggins, likely Juju too. Who else?

Kara Lawson's Dad wanted her to go to Stanford and her Mom wanted her to go to Duke and she chose Tennessee.  Another "what-if" about what would the landscape of college basketball been if Stanford's guards 1999-2003 were Lawson/Carey with a two year overlap with Nicole Powell?

We have lost a few recruits over the years to admission standards as well.

I didn’t know about Lawson. Love her. But can you imagine Diggins paired with Nneka for 4 years? I want to cry.

The difference between Tara and Geno in my mind comes down to the hysterical storytelling of Diana Taurasi, the greatest WBB player in the history of the game. Diana really wanted to go to Stanford really bad according to her. But someone (could have been Tara, could have been someone else) told Diana she was “not Stanford material.” I am going to give that person the benefit of doubt and say it was probably Diana’s grades. But still, there were a lot of possible responses other than you are “not Stanford material.” If you recruit them in the 9th grade, you could work with them on their grades, and expectations. You could say “we would really really love to have you here, but Admissions is so tough and we tried really hard and couldn’t make it happen. But we really hope you stay in California and play in the PAC-10 (you know, since you are suppose to be an ambassador of West coast hoops).”

Contrast that approach with Geno who made so many cross country trips to see Diana and was in her house so much that her mother wondered when he would leave and could they ask him to leave.

He had a vision of what Diana would become, maybe not the best player ever, but he knew. He knew.

[BostonCard]

Also possible that Taurisi was paraphrasing the unnamed coach, and that the exact wording was more like what you suggested, but that Taurisi was just passing along the gist.

The call was on the first day of recruiting and it was related to her admission status.

https://www.ctinsider.com/sports/uconn/a...050605.php

Back to the Diana Taurasi-Sue Bird broadcast for a moment. Taurasi said not only did she love watching Stanford, but she wanted to go there. Apparently, she couldn’t get in, and on the first day of recruiting, she got a call “from an unnamed coach who told me I was not Stanford material. And there went my Cardinal dreams.”

BC

[BostonCard]

Also possible that Taurisi was paraphrasing the unnamed coach, and that the exact wording was more like what you suggested, but that Taurisi was just passing along the gist.

The call was on the first day of recruiting and it was related to her admission status.

https://www.ctinsider.com/sports/uconn/a...050605.php

Back to the Diana Taurasi-Sue Bird broadcast for a moment. Taurasi said not only did she love watching Stanford, but she wanted to go there. Apparently, she couldn’t get in, and on the first day of recruiting, she got a call “from an unnamed coach who told me I was not Stanford material. And there went my Cardinal dreams.”

BC

[M T]

Getting back to this particular game, did no one else notice that in Q1, most of the starters were taken out when Stanford was down 4, and then put back in during Q2 when Stanford was up 5.  Having a mostly-subs team in did better against what OSU had drawn up.   I expected to see more of that in Q3 & Q4, but it didn't happen.  As it was, the +/- for the game was an unusual pattern.

Nivar +13/12 min = +43.3/40min
Iriafen +7/9min = +31.1/40min
Belibi +5/14min = +14.3/40min
Emma-Nnopu +3/32min = +3.8/40min
Lepolo  +1/16min = +7.5/40min
Jump -2/35min = -2.3/40min
Jones -4/35min = -4.6/40min
Brink -5/35min = -5.7/40min
(All others played < 5 minutes)

How many think this pattern was just randomness, or perhaps mental letdown by the starters, or possibly that OSU designed its offense & defense for the game for the usual Stanford starters, but it was not as efficient when other players were put in?

One Cardboarder during the half time said he didn't really believe in +/-.   To me, it is the one stat that can account both for Jones's fancy drives & passes & playing center field for rebounds and also for her errant passes and her lousy defense when she plays off her player, giving up the open three or the rebound when she doesn't block out.

[M T]

Getting back to this particular game, did no one else notice that in Q1, most of the starters were taken out when Stanford was down 4, and then put back in during Q2 when Stanford was up 5.  Having a mostly-subs team in did better against what OSU had drawn up.   I expected to see more of that in Q3 & Q4, but it didn't happen.  As it was, the +/- for the game was an unusual pattern.

Nivar +13/12 min = +43.3/40min
Iriafen +7/9min = +31.1/40min
Belibi +5/14min = +14.3/40min
Emma-Nnopu +3/32min = +3.8/40min
Lepolo  +1/16min = +7.5/40min
Jump -2/35min = -2.3/40min
Jones -4/35min = -4.6/40min
Brink -5/35min = -5.7/40min
(All others played < 5 minutes)

How many think this pattern was just randomness, or perhaps mental letdown by the starters, or possibly that OSU designed its offense & defense for the game for the usual Stanford starters, but it was not as efficient when other players were put in?

One Cardboarder during the half time said he didn't really believe in +/-.   To me, it is the one stat that can account both for Jones's fancy drives & passes & playing center field for rebounds and also for her errant passes and her lousy defense when she plays off her player, giving up the open three or the rebound when she doesn't block out.

[chimera]

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.

[chimera]

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.

[BobK]

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.

As I told you Friday night MT I don’t and never have believed in plus minus. Chimera nailed the reasons.
Jones is a great great player who takes and makes the big shots
Oregon had 51 points with a second left. That’s defense. If we had a weak defensive player why didn’t Oregon expose it? Ah because it didn’t exist.

[BobK]

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.

As I told you Friday night MT I don’t and never have believed in plus minus. Chimera nailed the reasons.
Jones is a great great player who takes and makes the big shots
Oregon had 51 points with a second left. That’s defense. If we had a weak defensive player why didn’t Oregon expose it? Ah because it didn’t exist.

[Softball Fan]

I mean, it can both be true that Vanderveer (or for that matter Auriemma) is an imperfect coach, and that she is one of the greatest of all time.  Moreover, it can also be true that we, as fans, can comment on her coaching decisions, but that, perhaps, a little humility is warranted.  It’s a message board, so perhaps I’m a naive to expect much, but if I might make a constructive critique, let’s all try to be cognizant of this.

BC

I don't understand your admonishment about humility.  This thread is the best sports discussion on Cardboard I have seen in a long time.  It is ten levels better than the repetitive insults about Shaw on all the football threads.

[Softball Fan]

I mean, it can both be true that Vanderveer (or for that matter Auriemma) is an imperfect coach, and that she is one of the greatest of all time.  Moreover, it can also be true that we, as fans, can comment on her coaching decisions, but that, perhaps, a little humility is warranted.  It’s a message board, so perhaps I’m a naive to expect much, but if I might make a constructive critique, let’s all try to be cognizant of this.

BC

I don't understand your admonishment about humility.  This thread is the best sports discussion on Cardboard I have seen in a long time.  It is ten levels better than the repetitive insults about Shaw on all the football threads.

[DaBears17]

As Haley said last January, she is high risk, high reward, but should work on lowering the risk.  Her play was a big contribution to us winning two games in the Final Four two years ago, but her play helped us lose a game we should have won this year, and it's possible she will contribute to another loss or two this year.

Ever since Chelsea Trotter only played two seasons due to knee issues, I try not to overly criticize players.   I'm a bit frustrated Haley hasn't developed a better 3 point shot and takes plays off on defense.  But she averages the greatest number of minutes on the team.  If she is handling the ball for large portions of the game, she needs to grab some rest at some points.  

She is what she is and so far, the rewards have outweighed the risks.

As a youth softball coach, I learned you need to look at the stats because they help you see things you might not otherwise notice.  Had a player who didn't jump out as anything special but wound up on 1B somehow the most of anyone on the team.   Another year our best player almost always had an error in the 1st inning, but almost never had an error after the 1st one, so you hoped she got it out of the way in a non-critical situation.

+/- is useful for helping understand why the games swing the way they do and provides some information that is useful in determining playing time or finding someone who deserves more playing time.  It helps recognize intangibles but shouldn't be the primary determination of playing time. 
 
SC’s Haley Jones scores season-best 26 points as Stanford beats Cal | Women’s basketball – Santa Cruz Sentinel

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.

As I told you Friday night MT I don’t and never have believed in plus minus.  Chimera nailed the reasons.
Jones is a great great player who takes and makes the big shots
Oregon had 51 points with a second left. That’s defense.  If we had a weak defensive player why didn’t Oregon expose it?  Ah because it didn’t exist.

[DaBears17]

As Haley said last January, she is high risk, high reward, but should work on lowering the risk.  Her play was a big contribution to us winning two games in the Final Four two years ago, but her play helped us lose a game we should have won this year, and it's possible she will contribute to another loss or two this year.

Ever since Chelsea Trotter only played two seasons due to knee issues, I try not to overly criticize players.   I'm a bit frustrated Haley hasn't developed a better 3 point shot and takes plays off on defense.  But she averages the greatest number of minutes on the team.  If she is handling the ball for large portions of the game, she needs to grab some rest at some points.  

She is what she is and so far, the rewards have outweighed the risks.

As a youth softball coach, I learned you need to look at the stats because they help you see things you might not otherwise notice.  Had a player who didn't jump out as anything special but wound up on 1B somehow the most of anyone on the team.   Another year our best player almost always had an error in the 1st inning, but almost never had an error after the 1st one, so you hoped she got it out of the way in a non-critical situation.

+/- is useful for helping understand why the games swing the way they do and provides some information that is useful in determining playing time or finding someone who deserves more playing time.  It helps recognize intangibles but shouldn't be the primary determination of playing time. 
 
SC’s Haley Jones scores season-best 26 points as Stanford beats Cal | Women’s basketball – Santa Cruz Sentinel

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.

As I told you Friday night MT I don’t and never have believed in plus minus.  Chimera nailed the reasons.
Jones is a great great player who takes and makes the big shots
Oregon had 51 points with a second left. That’s defense.  If we had a weak defensive player why didn’t Oregon expose it?  Ah because it didn’t exist.

[M T]

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.

[M T]

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.

[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.

[chimera]

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'm not sure why this was directed at what I wrote, which has nothing to do with offensive in particular.  As to why we discuss the offense more, that's because the defense this weekend (and generally this season) has been good, and when the team has struggled it has been the offense that has been the issue.

[chimera]

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'm not sure why this was directed at what I wrote, which has nothing to do with offensive in particular.  As to why we discuss the offense more, that's because the defense this weekend (and generally this season) has been good, and when the team has struggled it has been the offense that has been the issue.

[martyup]

Yeah, some only like to talk about the bad and ignore the good.

[martyup]

Yeah, some only like to talk about the bad and ignore the good.

[MV72018]

Yeah, some only like to talk about the bad and ignore the good.

In line with your comment, you've talked about those who only like to
talk about the bad and ignore the good -- BAD! -- while neglecting those 
who like to talk about the bad but also like to recognize the good -- GOOD!

Do you criticize your comment? :)

[MV72018]

Yeah, some only like to talk about the bad and ignore the good.

In line with your comment, you've talked about those who only like to
talk about the bad and ignore the good -- BAD! -- while neglecting those 
who like to talk about the bad but also like to recognize the good -- GOOD!

Do you criticize your comment? :)

[martyup]

Nope

[martyup]

Nope