[81alum]

I did a spreadsheet comparing our statistics in our two best offensive wins this season--Baylor and Tennessee--vs. our two losses, to see what patterns emerged.

Here are my conclusions:

Chiney is remarkably consistent.  In the four games she scored 18, 21, 18, and 18 points.  Win or lose, she is going to score what she scores.  At the same time, she cannot be counted on for 30 or 40 points the way Nneka sometime could.  Not yet.  While Chiney is clearly a very good player and the foundation of our offense, she cannot carry the team the way Nneka could in her senior year. 

Toni is fairly consistent.  In the two wins she averaged 13 points, in the two losses 9. 

Amber is somewhat inconsistent.  In the two wins she averaged 11 points, in the two losses 4.5.  But if you throw out Connecticut (0), she scored 8, 14, and 9.

Joslyn is one of the keys to improving our offense.  In the two wins she scored 10.5 points, in the two loses she averaged 3.  Her play proves to be a 7 point differential.

Getting help from someone other than those four is critical.  In the two wins the rest of the team scored 18 points, in the two losses 10.5.  In the win against Baylor Taylor Greenfield had 16 points on 4/6 three point shooting.  In the win against Tennessee Bonnie scored 11 points on 3/3 three point shooting.  In the two losses these players were less effective, although Bonnie had 2 threes against Connecticut.  This is better than a 7 point differential.

Passing is critical.  In the two wins we averaged 14 assists.  In the two losses we averaged 4 assists.  This is an extreme difference.  The teams that beat us take away our ability to pass.

Turnovers were important. In the two wins we averaged 10 turnovers, in the two losses 14.5.

Rebounding was not as big a factor as I thought it would be.  In the two wins we had fewer ORs than in the two losses, and only 2 more total rebounds.

Three point shooting:  in the two wins we averaged 5.5 made three point shots.  In the two losses we averaged 2 made three point shots.  That is more than a ten point differential.

In sum:  If Joslyn is engaged in the game, and if Bonnie or Taylor are shooting the three well, we can expect to score about 15 points more than otherwise.  It appears that both these things happen when we are passing the ball well, and do not happen when we don't.

Conclusion:  (nothing we did not already know.)  With the accumulation of game tapes, other teams have all been provided blueprints on how to stop our offense.  Specifically, they key on taking away our passing, especially to Chiney.  We have known since pre season that this would be the case, but they seem to have found a way to do it, limiting Chiney's quality touches, and eating up our possession time while  Amber sits patiently on the perimeter waiting for a chance to get the ball to Chiney.  Our coaches need to devise a strategy to punish defenses that overplay Chiney, and this demands much more involvement from Joslyn and our three point shooters.  In good games this happens, in losses it doesn't.

I hate to contradict the guru, but Tara's comments yesterday about more limited talent beg the question.  We did have enough talent to beat 5 ranked teams, including C.al the first time.  There is a way to coach more out of this team than it gave yesterday.  I know there is because Tara has already done it.

 

[81alum]

I did a spreadsheet comparing our statistics in our two best offensive wins this season--Baylor and Tennessee--vs. our two losses, to see what patterns emerged.

Here are my conclusions:

Chiney is remarkably consistent.  In the four games she scored 18, 21, 18, and 18 points.  Win or lose, she is going to score what she scores.  At the same time, she cannot be counted on for 30 or 40 points the way Nneka sometime could.  Not yet.  While Chiney is clearly a very good player and the foundation of our offense, she cannot carry the team the way Nneka could in her senior year. 

Toni is fairly consistent.  In the two wins she averaged 13 points, in the two losses 9. 

Amber is somewhat inconsistent.  In the two wins she averaged 11 points, in the two losses 4.5.  But if you throw out Connecticut (0), she scored 8, 14, and 9.

Joslyn is one of the keys to improving our offense.  In the two wins she scored 10.5 points, in the two loses she averaged 3.  Her play proves to be a 7 point differential.

Getting help from someone other than those four is critical.  In the two wins the rest of the team scored 18 points, in the two losses 10.5.  In the win against Baylor Taylor Greenfield had 16 points on 4/6 three point shooting.  In the win against Tennessee Bonnie scored 11 points on 3/3 three point shooting.  In the two losses these players were less effective, although Bonnie had 2 threes against Connecticut.  This is better than a 7 point differential.

Passing is critical.  In the two wins we averaged 14 assists.  In the two losses we averaged 4 assists.  This is an extreme difference.  The teams that beat us take away our ability to pass.

Turnovers were important. In the two wins we averaged 10 turnovers, in the two losses 14.5.

Rebounding was not as big a factor as I thought it would be.  In the two wins we had fewer ORs than in the two losses, and only 2 more total rebounds.

Three point shooting:  in the two wins we averaged 5.5 made three point shots.  In the two losses we averaged 2 made three point shots.  That is more than a ten point differential.

In sum:  If Joslyn is engaged in the game, and if Bonnie or Taylor are shooting the three well, we can expect to score about 15 points more than otherwise.  It appears that both these things happen when we are passing the ball well, and do not happen when we don't.

Conclusion:  (nothing we did not already know.)  With the accumulation of game tapes, other teams have all been provided blueprints on how to stop our offense.  Specifically, they key on taking away our passing, especially to Chiney.  We have known since pre season that this would be the case, but they seem to have found a way to do it, limiting Chiney's quality touches, and eating up our possession time while  Amber sits patiently on the perimeter waiting for a chance to get the ball to Chiney.  Our coaches need to devise a strategy to punish defenses that overplay Chiney, and this demands much more involvement from Joslyn and our three point shooters.  In good games this happens, in losses it doesn't.

I hate to contradict the guru, but Tara's comments yesterday about more limited talent beg the question.  We did have enough talent to beat 5 ranked teams, including C.al the first time.  There is a way to coach more out of this team than it gave yesterday.  I know there is because Tara has already done it.

 

[Viking_Guy]

81A--

Echoing you, Tara said that the team had too many people who were used to waiting around and watching WNBA-level talented players win the games.  She probably was referring to the players; I would extend that to the coaching staff.

VG

[Viking_Guy]

81A--

Echoing you, Tara said that the team had too many people who were used to waiting around and watching WNBA-level talented players win the games.  She probably was referring to the players; I would extend that to the coaching staff.

VG

[Yellowlab]

This year's best player (Chiney) is not as good as last year's best player (one guess) but the biggest drop off might be in the play of last year's second best player (Chiney) compared to this year's second best player.  I'm not even sure who that would be.

Also, Chiney is not at her best posted down low with her back to the basket.  She is a slasher.  The offense should have her in motion.  She is an exceptional offensive rebounder, but there is no other player stepping up as a threat to allow Chiney to be in put-back mode.

It seems to me that the offense can and should be tweaked in order to play to Chiney's greatest strength.

Whatever Stanford's woes may be, Kal deserves credit.  They are a legit top ten team.  They have a very good back court and powerful posts.  That's a nice combination.  No offense to other PAC-12 teams, but I have a feeling there will be a rubber game in Seattle.   

[Yellowlab]

This year's best player (Chiney) is not as good as last year's best player (one guess) but the biggest drop off might be in the play of last year's second best player (Chiney) compared to this year's second best player.  I'm not even sure who that would be.

Also, Chiney is not at her best posted down low with her back to the basket.  She is a slasher.  The offense should have her in motion.  She is an exceptional offensive rebounder, but there is no other player stepping up as a threat to allow Chiney to be in put-back mode.

It seems to me that the offense can and should be tweaked in order to play to Chiney's greatest strength.

Whatever Stanford's woes may be, Kal deserves credit.  They are a legit top ten team.  They have a very good back court and powerful posts.  That's a nice combination.  No offense to other PAC-12 teams, but I have a feeling there will be a rubber game in Seattle.   

[WAcard]

Wow she really said that about talent after a loss, talk about throwing players under the bus and not taking responsibility for your team. iMO our players have shown they can play with and better than the best, but what also has been shown is the inconsistent ways they have been used and the lack of game adjustments by the coaches to counter. A real shame!

[WAcard]

Wow she really said that about talent after a loss, talk about throwing players under the bus and not taking responsibility for your team. iMO our players have shown they can play with and better than the best, but what also has been shown is the inconsistent ways they have been used and the lack of game adjustments by the coaches to counter. A real shame!

[Viking_Guy]

WA-

She might not have said "WNBA level talent" or made a direct talent comparison, but the implication was a bit obvious; that too many people on the floor were waiting for someone else to do something.

And it's true, but incomplete.  One of my long-term pet peeves with Tara's style is that her quick trigger when someone makes a mistake can lead to people, especially guards, being gun-shy.  In an earlier thread, I said one of the consequences of that is, when receiving a pass on the perimeter, opponents know that more often than not Stanford is going to stop, assess, and then make a safe move, rather than instantaneously attack.  Leads to all sorts of advantages to overplaying defenses; one of the most frustrating sequences in the game last weekend involved a series of times Stanford reversed the ball to an open shooter, and she didn't catch and shoot, but hesitated just long enough to allow Kal to recover.

VG

[Viking_Guy]

WA-

She might not have said "WNBA level talent" or made a direct talent comparison, but the implication was a bit obvious; that too many people on the floor were waiting for someone else to do something.

And it's true, but incomplete.  One of my long-term pet peeves with Tara's style is that her quick trigger when someone makes a mistake can lead to people, especially guards, being gun-shy.  In an earlier thread, I said one of the consequences of that is, when receiving a pass on the perimeter, opponents know that more often than not Stanford is going to stop, assess, and then make a safe move, rather than instantaneously attack.  Leads to all sorts of advantages to overplaying defenses; one of the most frustrating sequences in the game last weekend involved a series of times Stanford reversed the ball to an open shooter, and she didn't catch and shoot, but hesitated just long enough to allow Kal to recover.

VG

[WAcard]

Oh my gosh you are so right, it is very frustrating, shooters need to be able to let it fly but clearly they have lost their confidence and are afraid that they will be pulled.

[WAcard]

Oh my gosh you are so right, it is very frustrating, shooters need to be able to let it fly but clearly they have lost their confidence and are afraid that they will be pulled.

[M T]

You clearly have a bias toward offense.  It doesn't matter if we score 100 points a game, if we let the opponent score 101.  One could make an equally strong case about defense.  My favorite statistic still remains the scoring delta rate while a player is in versus when they are out of a game.  But you quickly see that the data is noisy.  But to my mind, that sums up everything that a player does or doesn't do to help her team win.  (Noise includes the problem that both teammates & opponents change, some games may be high scoring, some low, and for players with limited playing time, the granularity of scoring.)

In the numbers below, the first 3 columns of numbers represent the time the player is on the court:  their number of minutes, the scoring delta during that time, and that delta adjusted to 40 minutes of playing time (NetP/G = Net Points/game).  I think it should be clear that the higher the last number is, the better the player was helping (vs hurting) their team.  The second set NetP/G are for when they are on the bench.  That shows how well the team does without the player in the game.  Low playing time or low bench time distort the NetP/G.  Likewise, high playing time means the NetP/G will be just about the games differential.

I've highlighted the most interesting numbers (ignoring numbers for less than 5min).  Against C.al, Sara's limited playing time corresponds mostly to the first 1/4 of the game when we were doing well.  With her out, we did poorly.  We did poorly with Bonnie in the game. 
Against UConn, we did so poorly with Amber in the game, that we actually were leading for the 11+ minutes she was on the bench.  Mikaela also seemed to be ineffective.    On the other hand, in the Tenn win, we did well with Mikaela in the game.  In the Baylor game, we did well when Taylor was in the game.

To get a sense of a single player vs the rest of her team, look at the Playing NetP/G minus Bench NetP/G.  Modulo very limited times for either, this number gives a general guide as to how effective the player was versus the rest of her teammates.
Comparing our guards:  Parentheses indicates < 5min on bench (so questionable stats)
Toni:  (-28), +20, (+70), -58
Amber: (+1), -47, -34, -36

Cal loss by 12					|	UConn loss by 27
		Play		Bench	|			Play		Bench
Player	Min	NetPts	NetP/G	  NetP/G	|	Player	Min	NetPts	NetP/G	  NetP/G
Camp, Jasmine	4:52	-3	-24.66	-10.25	|	Camp, Jasmine	4:48	-1	-8.33	-29.55
Greenfield, Taylor	18:33	-8	-17.25	-7.46	|	Greenfield, Taylor	16:51	-9	-21.36	-31.10
James, Sara	8:39	6	27.75	-22.97	|	James, Sara	1:13	0	0.00	-27.85
Kokenis, Toni	37:18	-13	-13.94	14.81	|	Kokenis, Toni	31:32	-18	-22.83	-42.52
Lakhian, Kiran	0:34	0	0.00	-12.17
Ogwumike, Chiney	39:26	-12	-12.17	0.00	|	Ogwumike, Chiney	36:49	-25	-27.16	-25.13
Orrange, Amber	36:56	-11	-11.91	-13.04	|	Orrange, Amber	28:41	-29	-40.44	7.07
Payne, Erica	2:47	-1	-14.37	-11.82	|	Payne, Erica	1:13	0	0.00	-27.85
Picknell, Tess	0:34	0	0.00	-12.17	|	Picknell, Tess	2:35	0	0.00	-28.86
Ruef, Mikaela	8:13	-1	-4.87	-13.84	|	Ruef, Mikaela	18:45	-23	-49.07	-7.53
Samuelson, Bonnie	6:37	-7	-42.32	-5.99	|	Samuelson, Bonnie	25:39	-17	-26.51	-27.87
Tinkle, Joslyn	35:31	-10	-11.26	-17.84	|	Tinkle, Joslyn	31:54	-13	-16.30	-69.14

Tenn win by 13					|	Baylor win by 2
		Play		Bench	|			Play		Bench
Player	Min	NetPts	NetP/G	  NetP/G	|	Player	Min	NetPts	NetP/G	  NetP/G
Camp, Jasmine	4:58	4	32.21	10.28	|	Camp, Jasmine	0:46	2	104.35	0.00
Greenfield, Taylor	7:50	2	10.21	13.68	|	Greenfield, Taylor	29:19	10	13.64	-29.95
James, Sara	0:25	-1	-96.00	14.15
Kokenis, Toni	36:56	17	18.41	-52.17	|	Kokenis, Toni	30:39	-9	-11.75	47.06
Ogwumike, Chiney	39:35	14	14.15	-96.00	|	Ogwumike, Chiney	36:52	1	1.08	12.77
Orrange, Amber	29:38	3	4.05	38.59	|	Orrange, Amber	28:24	-6	-8.45	27.59
Payne, Erica	1:30	-2	-53.33	15.58	|	Payne, Erica	1:28	0	0.00	2.08
Picknell, Tess	0:25	-1	-96.00	14.15	|	Picknell, Tess	1:59	1	20.17	1.05
Ruef, Mikaela	27:38	19	27.50	-19.41	|	Ruef, Mikaela	29:51	5	6.70	-11.82
Samuelson, Bonnie	15:08	-1	-2.64	22.52	|	Samuelson, Bonnie	10:27	3	11.48	-1.35
Tinkle, Joslyn	35:57	11	12.24	19.75	|	Tinkle, Joslyn	30:15	3	3.97	-4.10

[M T]

You clearly have a bias toward offense.  It doesn't matter if we score 100 points a game, if we let the opponent score 101.  One could make an equally strong case about defense.  My favorite statistic still remains the scoring delta rate while a player is in versus when they are out of a game.  But you quickly see that the data is noisy.  But to my mind, that sums up everything that a player does or doesn't do to help her team win.  (Noise includes the problem that both teammates & opponents change, some games may be high scoring, some low, and for players with limited playing time, the granularity of scoring.)

In the numbers below, the first 3 columns of numbers represent the time the player is on the court:  their number of minutes, the scoring delta during that time, and that delta adjusted to 40 minutes of playing time (NetP/G = Net Points/game).  I think it should be clear that the higher the last number is, the better the player was helping (vs hurting) their team.  The second set NetP/G are for when they are on the bench.  That shows how well the team does without the player in the game.  Low playing time or low bench time distort the NetP/G.  Likewise, high playing time means the NetP/G will be just about the games differential.

I've highlighted the most interesting numbers (ignoring numbers for less than 5min).  Against C.al, Sara's limited playing time corresponds mostly to the first 1/4 of the game when we were doing well.  With her out, we did poorly.  We did poorly with Bonnie in the game. 
Against UConn, we did so poorly with Amber in the game, that we actually were leading for the 11+ minutes she was on the bench.  Mikaela also seemed to be ineffective.    On the other hand, in the Tenn win, we did well with Mikaela in the game.  In the Baylor game, we did well when Taylor was in the game.

To get a sense of a single player vs the rest of her team, look at the Playing NetP/G minus Bench NetP/G.  Modulo very limited times for either, this number gives a general guide as to how effective the player was versus the rest of her teammates.
Comparing our guards:  Parentheses indicates < 5min on bench (so questionable stats)
Toni:  (-28), +20, (+70), -58
Amber: (+1), -47, -34, -36

Cal loss by 12					|	UConn loss by 27
		Play		Bench	|			Play		Bench
Player	Min	NetPts	NetP/G	  NetP/G	|	Player	Min	NetPts	NetP/G	  NetP/G
Camp, Jasmine	4:52	-3	-24.66	-10.25	|	Camp, Jasmine	4:48	-1	-8.33	-29.55
Greenfield, Taylor	18:33	-8	-17.25	-7.46	|	Greenfield, Taylor	16:51	-9	-21.36	-31.10
James, Sara	8:39	6	27.75	-22.97	|	James, Sara	1:13	0	0.00	-27.85
Kokenis, Toni	37:18	-13	-13.94	14.81	|	Kokenis, Toni	31:32	-18	-22.83	-42.52
Lakhian, Kiran	0:34	0	0.00	-12.17
Ogwumike, Chiney	39:26	-12	-12.17	0.00	|	Ogwumike, Chiney	36:49	-25	-27.16	-25.13
Orrange, Amber	36:56	-11	-11.91	-13.04	|	Orrange, Amber	28:41	-29	-40.44	7.07
Payne, Erica	2:47	-1	-14.37	-11.82	|	Payne, Erica	1:13	0	0.00	-27.85
Picknell, Tess	0:34	0	0.00	-12.17	|	Picknell, Tess	2:35	0	0.00	-28.86
Ruef, Mikaela	8:13	-1	-4.87	-13.84	|	Ruef, Mikaela	18:45	-23	-49.07	-7.53
Samuelson, Bonnie	6:37	-7	-42.32	-5.99	|	Samuelson, Bonnie	25:39	-17	-26.51	-27.87
Tinkle, Joslyn	35:31	-10	-11.26	-17.84	|	Tinkle, Joslyn	31:54	-13	-16.30	-69.14

Tenn win by 13					|	Baylor win by 2
		Play		Bench	|			Play		Bench
Player	Min	NetPts	NetP/G	  NetP/G	|	Player	Min	NetPts	NetP/G	  NetP/G
Camp, Jasmine	4:58	4	32.21	10.28	|	Camp, Jasmine	0:46	2	104.35	0.00
Greenfield, Taylor	7:50	2	10.21	13.68	|	Greenfield, Taylor	29:19	10	13.64	-29.95
James, Sara	0:25	-1	-96.00	14.15
Kokenis, Toni	36:56	17	18.41	-52.17	|	Kokenis, Toni	30:39	-9	-11.75	47.06
Ogwumike, Chiney	39:35	14	14.15	-96.00	|	Ogwumike, Chiney	36:52	1	1.08	12.77
Orrange, Amber	29:38	3	4.05	38.59	|	Orrange, Amber	28:24	-6	-8.45	27.59
Payne, Erica	1:30	-2	-53.33	15.58	|	Payne, Erica	1:28	0	0.00	2.08
Picknell, Tess	0:25	-1	-96.00	14.15	|	Picknell, Tess	1:59	1	20.17	1.05
Ruef, Mikaela	27:38	19	27.50	-19.41	|	Ruef, Mikaela	29:51	5	6.70	-11.82
Samuelson, Bonnie	15:08	-1	-2.64	22.52	|	Samuelson, Bonnie	10:27	3	11.48	-1.35
Tinkle, Joslyn	35:57	11	12.24	19.75	|	Tinkle, Joslyn	30:15	3	3.97	-4.10

[81alum]

The game is up on ESPN3 for anyone who wants to review the debacle:

http://espn.go.com/watchespn/player/_/id/744843/

A classic illustration of what we are talking about comes beginning with 10:12 left in the game, at about 1:37:24 into the gametape. 

30 seconds.  Joslyn inbounds to Amber.  Amber brings the ball up the court. 
Soon after passing midcourt, Amber passes to Taylor who passes to Toni who passes to Joslyn.

21 seconds.  Joslyn, on the three point line, is briefly open.  She waits and passes to Toni.

19 seconds.  Toni has benefitted from a screen and is briefly open at the three point line.  She waits, then dribbles and dishes to Amber.

15 seconds.  The dish worked, and Amber is open at the three point line.  She bends her knees as she winds up to shoot.  Then she brings it back, dribbles left, and passes to Taylor who reverse to Joslyn.

10 seconds.  Joslyn is not open this time.  She dribbles right and passes to Toni.

6 seconds.  Toni might be briefly open, but hesitates, then dribbles left with the shot clock winding down.
Toni has briefly gotten herself open but she spins around 180 and passes off to Joslyn with 1 second left.

0 seconds.  Shot clock expires just before Joslyn launches the ball.  It hits nothing but net, and is one of the prettiest shots I've ever seen her make.  Doesn't count.

What this says to me is that Joslyn successfully made a basket when she was absolutely forced to put it up.  At the time she got the ball at the end of the sequence, she knew there would be no guilt if she missed--no one would criticize her for not passing it to Chiney--no one would expect a last second heave to work, and lacking the pressure, she shot the most perfect arcing three pointer I've ever seen.  But at the beginning of the sequence she could not bring herself to shoot, nor could Toni or Amber.

This particular problem is quite obviously not a deficit of talent, but a deficit of confidence.

[81alum]

The game is up on ESPN3 for anyone who wants to review the debacle:

http://espn.go.com/watchespn/player/_/id/744843/

A classic illustration of what we are talking about comes beginning with 10:12 left in the game, at about 1:37:24 into the gametape. 

30 seconds.  Joslyn inbounds to Amber.  Amber brings the ball up the court. 
Soon after passing midcourt, Amber passes to Taylor who passes to Toni who passes to Joslyn.

21 seconds.  Joslyn, on the three point line, is briefly open.  She waits and passes to Toni.

19 seconds.  Toni has benefitted from a screen and is briefly open at the three point line.  She waits, then dribbles and dishes to Amber.

15 seconds.  The dish worked, and Amber is open at the three point line.  She bends her knees as she winds up to shoot.  Then she brings it back, dribbles left, and passes to Taylor who reverse to Joslyn.

10 seconds.  Joslyn is not open this time.  She dribbles right and passes to Toni.

6 seconds.  Toni might be briefly open, but hesitates, then dribbles left with the shot clock winding down.
Toni has briefly gotten herself open but she spins around 180 and passes off to Joslyn with 1 second left.

0 seconds.  Shot clock expires just before Joslyn launches the ball.  It hits nothing but net, and is one of the prettiest shots I've ever seen her make.  Doesn't count.

What this says to me is that Joslyn successfully made a basket when she was absolutely forced to put it up.  At the time she got the ball at the end of the sequence, she knew there would be no guilt if she missed--no one would criticize her for not passing it to Chiney--no one would expect a last second heave to work, and lacking the pressure, she shot the most perfect arcing three pointer I've ever seen.  But at the beginning of the sequence she could not bring herself to shoot, nor could Toni or Amber.

This particular problem is quite obviously not a deficit of talent, but a deficit of confidence.

[CompSci87]

I remember that sequence from watching it at Maples as I was giving myself a sore throat screaming "Shoot! Shoot!" Sigh.

[CompSci87]

I remember that sequence from watching it at Maples as I was giving myself a sore throat screaming "Shoot! Shoot!" Sigh.

[Viking_Guy]

MT--

Not sure if it's bias in favor of the offense, or simply the realization that the largest delta in Stanford's games has been on the offensive end.  Look at the opponent's score in each of those games you mentioned:  Baylor 69, UConn 61, Kal 62, Tenn 60.  That's a fairly consistent defensive effort, although it's not normalized by number of possessions (and I think that would be a FAR better indicator than per minute in a lot of ways - a lot of the efficiency statistics are calculated that way to normalize for "style of play" characteristics, though it's a lot more work to calculate).

Just compare the two games last week: in game 1, Kal had 14 12 more possessions (sorry, was looking at rebounds), shot 21 FT attempts and shot 31% from the field.  In game 2, they had a very similar 10 more possessions, ended up with 31 FTs (given late fouling) - and shot just under 30% from the field.  Stanford has a solid and consistent defense, and has only really had defensive struggles against Baylor (whose 45% is almost all Griner and Griner-overplaying benefits to other inside players) - heck, even UConn, with all of their success in turning Stanford over, shot only around 38%.

Then you look at the offense:  in game 1 last week, 50% from the field and only 9 TOs, enough to offset 0-8 from 3 and 58% FT shooting.  In game 2, 2-12 from 3 was not improvement enough to offset 16 TOs and 35% from the field.  UConn? 20% from the field. Baylor?  51% from the field.  Tennessee? 49% from the field. Heck, in the other close win against South Carolina, we shot 40% from the field and held them under 30.

I don't know if we're talking past one another, but I think the primary issues facing the team are offensive.  It may be that better offensive players bring defensive liabilities with them, true. 

The other indicator of confidence issues to me is what you could call the "quicksand" or "cascade" problem - when things go wrong on offense for Stanford, they go wrong in bunches.  I can't remember a Stanford team (well, other than the current men's team  ::) that has such regular and consistent scoring droughts, where players all seem to tighten up and nothing works.  The key stretch in the loss to Kal was the middle of the second half - Stanford's defense played REALLY well, holding the Bears to 10 points over nearly 11 minutes, from the 15 minute mark to the 4 minute mark on the clock.  The problem was that over the same stretch, Stanford scored a grand total of 8 points, shooting 3-16 with four turnovers.

VG

[Viking_Guy]

MT--

Not sure if it's bias in favor of the offense, or simply the realization that the largest delta in Stanford's games has been on the offensive end.  Look at the opponent's score in each of those games you mentioned:  Baylor 69, UConn 61, Kal 62, Tenn 60.  That's a fairly consistent defensive effort, although it's not normalized by number of possessions (and I think that would be a FAR better indicator than per minute in a lot of ways - a lot of the efficiency statistics are calculated that way to normalize for "style of play" characteristics, though it's a lot more work to calculate).

Just compare the two games last week: in game 1, Kal had 14 12 more possessions (sorry, was looking at rebounds), shot 21 FT attempts and shot 31% from the field.  In game 2, they had a very similar 10 more possessions, ended up with 31 FTs (given late fouling) - and shot just under 30% from the field.  Stanford has a solid and consistent defense, and has only really had defensive struggles against Baylor (whose 45% is almost all Griner and Griner-overplaying benefits to other inside players) - heck, even UConn, with all of their success in turning Stanford over, shot only around 38%.

Then you look at the offense:  in game 1 last week, 50% from the field and only 9 TOs, enough to offset 0-8 from 3 and 58% FT shooting.  In game 2, 2-12 from 3 was not improvement enough to offset 16 TOs and 35% from the field.  UConn? 20% from the field. Baylor?  51% from the field.  Tennessee? 49% from the field. Heck, in the other close win against South Carolina, we shot 40% from the field and held them under 30.

I don't know if we're talking past one another, but I think the primary issues facing the team are offensive.  It may be that better offensive players bring defensive liabilities with them, true. 

The other indicator of confidence issues to me is what you could call the "quicksand" or "cascade" problem - when things go wrong on offense for Stanford, they go wrong in bunches.  I can't remember a Stanford team (well, other than the current men's team  ::) that has such regular and consistent scoring droughts, where players all seem to tighten up and nothing works.  The key stretch in the loss to Kal was the middle of the second half - Stanford's defense played REALLY well, holding the Bears to 10 points over nearly 11 minutes, from the 15 minute mark to the 4 minute mark on the clock.  The problem was that over the same stretch, Stanford scored a grand total of 8 points, shooting 3-16 with four turnovers.

VG

[81alum]

MT,

I LOVE your stats.  I probably am biased towards the offense--mainly because it takes more basketball IQ to understand defenses than I (yet) possess.  But I do agree with VG that the main problem with Stanford this year--uncharacteristically--is our offense. 

That said, your stats seem to confirm a lot of my intuitions.  I sensed that Sara's presence was a good thing, for example.  Amber's performance in the last game seems to have been on par with Chiney and Toni--but clearly not as positive in the other three games.

I wonder if it would be possible to break down the differentials by offense and by defense.  That is, one column would show how many "normalized" points the opponents scored while a player was in the game, the other column would show how many "normalized" points we scored while a player was in the game.  That way a player's contributions on offense could not mask defensive liabilities, and vice versa.  Just another layer of information...

[81alum]

MT,

I LOVE your stats.  I probably am biased towards the offense--mainly because it takes more basketball IQ to understand defenses than I (yet) possess.  But I do agree with VG that the main problem with Stanford this year--uncharacteristically--is our offense. 

That said, your stats seem to confirm a lot of my intuitions.  I sensed that Sara's presence was a good thing, for example.  Amber's performance in the last game seems to have been on par with Chiney and Toni--but clearly not as positive in the other three games.

I wonder if it would be possible to break down the differentials by offense and by defense.  That is, one column would show how many "normalized" points the opponents scored while a player was in the game, the other column would show how many "normalized" points we scored while a player was in the game.  That way a player's contributions on offense could not mask defensive liabilities, and vice versa.  Just another layer of information...

[WAcard]

Hello, You're joking right, you cannot use stats in that fashion and equate it to one player when it is a combination of players on the floor!!!! Even different times of the game, especially garbage time and getting early minutes over being put in when times are rough.

[WAcard]

Hello, You're joking right, you cannot use stats in that fashion and equate it to one player when it is a combination of players on the floor!!!! Even different times of the game, especially garbage time and getting early minutes over being put in when times are rough.

[M T]

81alum, I'll try to pull out the offense & defense separately.  That's a good suggestion.  (FYI, I get this with a  program parsing the Play-by-Play after fixing the screw-ups I run across in it.  Even this far into the season, these have a number of errors.  By the end of the season, they're pretty good.)

Whatever the cause of the malaise for Stanford, what can Stanford change this year in order to improve significantly?  Tara talked of the team needing to be aggressive.  But she didn't give an answer that rang clear when asked about how to achieve that.  It seems to me that being embarrassed on national TV would have been enough.  Chiney spoke of her reaction; others may have said the same, but I don't see it in their play yet.

Tara is the Hall-of-Fame coach with decades of experience at dealing with female athletes of this age.  I don't mean to doubt her.  My naive approach would be to bench people who aren't playing hard enough or don't follow the coaches' instructions, and to reward the hard players with playing time (perhaps beyond their ability).  Chiney is the hardest player.  I think Sara has played second hardest recently.  Then Ruef.  Then you get into an area with more candidates.  Despite her scoring issues, I think Jos has played pretty well.  I think Erica has played pretty well when she's in.  I think Toni almost always plays tough enough.  Honestly, I think Bonnie is trying and has improved, but doesn't have the physical capability to be on the floor against C.al.  I don't have a strong opinion on Taylor, so I guess that must be because she's not doing things to stand out.  Let's see,  what starter am I leaving out?

If Sara doesn't start the next game, I'll be surprised.  If Amber does start, I will continue to be disappointed.

====
I did look in detail at the first 13 minutes of last game, until we lost our last lead, just after the infamous
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professiona...er_armlock
[Lousy job by the official: Even if the official makes the call that way, running practically on top of a player who was pinned to the ground and pointing down at them is poor form.  Not stopping to help or even asking after the aggrieved player is inexcusable.]
It is the case that we had greatly improved the attempts to blockout on rebounds, but still C.al was better at getting to the ball, mostly through hustle and skill and strength, some through luck, and some through pretty rough play.

I think even Amber played a little better in this game in the first 13 minutes.  She got 9 of Stanford's first 16 points.  She got 0 of Stanford's next 39 points.

Some plays to note:
Look at the play at 18:49 and then realize that Sara was charged with a turnover for it.

If you want to scream at the officials, check out the play with 15:42 in the half.  Continuous times in the paint various offensive players in that one possession:  6 seconds, 5 seconds, 4 seconds, & 4 seconds.  Or how about the 5 second call on Jos?  She picks up her dribble with 11:35 on the clock and is whistled with 11:31 on the clock.

I believe the game started to be lost with the play at 15:14 in the first half.  If you have the stomach, watch that one (and continue into the next play) and see who was doing (or not doing) what to get into a good offensive situation.  Admittedly, I've got time to watch it in detail, but it was a time I might have benched someone for not playing strong basketball.

For those that are thinking (perhaps correctly) that Stanford players are too hesitant to shoot, try looking at the play at 8:42 and see if Toni should have taken the 3 when she was open.

[M T]

81alum, I'll try to pull out the offense & defense separately.  That's a good suggestion.  (FYI, I get this with a  program parsing the Play-by-Play after fixing the screw-ups I run across in it.  Even this far into the season, these have a number of errors.  By the end of the season, they're pretty good.)

Whatever the cause of the malaise for Stanford, what can Stanford change this year in order to improve significantly?  Tara talked of the team needing to be aggressive.  But she didn't give an answer that rang clear when asked about how to achieve that.  It seems to me that being embarrassed on national TV would have been enough.  Chiney spoke of her reaction; others may have said the same, but I don't see it in their play yet.

Tara is the Hall-of-Fame coach with decades of experience at dealing with female athletes of this age.  I don't mean to doubt her.  My naive approach would be to bench people who aren't playing hard enough or don't follow the coaches' instructions, and to reward the hard players with playing time (perhaps beyond their ability).  Chiney is the hardest player.  I think Sara has played second hardest recently.  Then Ruef.  Then you get into an area with more candidates.  Despite her scoring issues, I think Jos has played pretty well.  I think Erica has played pretty well when she's in.  I think Toni almost always plays tough enough.  Honestly, I think Bonnie is trying and has improved, but doesn't have the physical capability to be on the floor against C.al.  I don't have a strong opinion on Taylor, so I guess that must be because she's not doing things to stand out.  Let's see,  what starter am I leaving out?

If Sara doesn't start the next game, I'll be surprised.  If Amber does start, I will continue to be disappointed.

====
I did look in detail at the first 13 minutes of last game, until we lost our last lead, just after the infamous
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professiona...er_armlock
[Lousy job by the official: Even if the official makes the call that way, running practically on top of a player who was pinned to the ground and pointing down at them is poor form.  Not stopping to help or even asking after the aggrieved player is inexcusable.]
It is the case that we had greatly improved the attempts to blockout on rebounds, but still C.al was better at getting to the ball, mostly through hustle and skill and strength, some through luck, and some through pretty rough play.

I think even Amber played a little better in this game in the first 13 minutes.  She got 9 of Stanford's first 16 points.  She got 0 of Stanford's next 39 points.

Some plays to note:
Look at the play at 18:49 and then realize that Sara was charged with a turnover for it.

If you want to scream at the officials, check out the play with 15:42 in the half.  Continuous times in the paint various offensive players in that one possession:  6 seconds, 5 seconds, 4 seconds, & 4 seconds.  Or how about the 5 second call on Jos?  She picks up her dribble with 11:35 on the clock and is whistled with 11:31 on the clock.

I believe the game started to be lost with the play at 15:14 in the first half.  If you have the stomach, watch that one (and continue into the next play) and see who was doing (or not doing) what to get into a good offensive situation.  Admittedly, I've got time to watch it in detail, but it was a time I might have benched someone for not playing strong basketball.

For those that are thinking (perhaps correctly) that Stanford players are too hesitant to shoot, try looking at the play at 8:42 and see if Toni should have taken the 3 when she was open.

[WAcard]

So you take only those games and come up with those solutions, I certainly hope our coaches are not doing the same. Not to pick on Sara but what other games can you use to say she is the answer, be ause then you are looking at garbage time with a lot of turnovers and bad decision making, did she even play in the Uconn game? You say players like Taylor and Bonnie don't belong well rewatch Tenn and Uconn and Baylor and some big games last year. I seem to recall Sara being taken to the basket on many occasions. Jos is definitely in a slump, question is is she playing where she should be and that question has also been posed by about Chiney. Interesting that you turn it on the players well the loss goes on the coach who made no adjustments in this game and the Uconn game.

The other thing of note re boxing out was that the officials called Stanford for fouls when they were trying to be aggressive but not Cal, this is where Tara should have been really pissed and sent a message to the refs that they were being unfair, how are the players supposed to battle a mauling if they cannot be aggressive in return.

My other thoughts are how does the offense improve and change during different parts of the game, you cannot run the same thing over and over and not expect the other team to adjust, we need counters.
Remember the loss to Depaul!!!!

[WAcard]

So you take only those games and come up with those solutions, I certainly hope our coaches are not doing the same. Not to pick on Sara but what other games can you use to say she is the answer, be ause then you are looking at garbage time with a lot of turnovers and bad decision making, did she even play in the Uconn game? You say players like Taylor and Bonnie don't belong well rewatch Tenn and Uconn and Baylor and some big games last year. I seem to recall Sara being taken to the basket on many occasions. Jos is definitely in a slump, question is is she playing where she should be and that question has also been posed by about Chiney. Interesting that you turn it on the players well the loss goes on the coach who made no adjustments in this game and the Uconn game.

The other thing of note re boxing out was that the officials called Stanford for fouls when they were trying to be aggressive but not Cal, this is where Tara should have been really pissed and sent a message to the refs that they were being unfair, how are the players supposed to battle a mauling if they cannot be aggressive in return.

My other thoughts are how does the offense improve and change during different parts of the game, you cannot run the same thing over and over and not expect the other team to adjust, we need counters.
Remember the loss to Depaul!!!!

[81alum]

So you take only those games and come up with those solutions, I certainly hope our coaches are not doing the same. Not to pick on Sara but what other games can you use to say she is the answer, be ause then you are looking at garbage time with a lot of turnovers and bad decision making, did she even play in the Uconn game? You say players like Taylor and Bonnie don't belong well rewatch Tenn and Uconn and Baylor and some big games last year. I seem to recall Sara being taken to the basket on many occasions. Jos is definitely in a slump, question is is she playing where she should be and that question has also been posed by about Chiney. Interesting that you turn it on the players well the loss goes on the coach who made no adjustments in this game and the Uconn game.

Remember the loss to Depaul!!!!

WAcard,

I didn't take MT's analysis quite the way you did.  I think his stats just give a different way of looking at the games to supplement what we see with our own eyes.  They give me a way of understanding how a player's time in the game might help defensively or whether a player who isn't scoring might be helping others to score.  It is a stat that accounts for assists, turnovers, rebounds--being in the right position at the right time, and all the "little things" that help to win games that otherwise don't show up on the standard stats sheet.  Every traditional stat (say for example assists/turnovers) have problems and can be misleading, and so can MT's point differential--but it gives us more to think about than the columns on the official stat sheets.

The conclusions he draws intrigue me whether or not they fully persuade me.  I already was thinking that Sara James could use some more game time for development, and that Amber was becoming less effective than she was last year--even before I saw his numbers.  Some traditional stats raise some of the same questions his stats raise.  Amber's assist/turnover ratio last year was 1.96, and this year it is 1.49.  My guess, though, is that most of Amber's slump is due to our opponent's defensive adjustments to a Nneka-less Stanford, so I am not quite so negative about her performance as MT is.  In any case, MTs numbers are no more invalid than traditional stats.

As for "only those games," I think MT has data for all the games.  I happened to pick those four because I was interested in comparing our two very best games with our two very worst ones.  I'd be happy with any other comparisons that give us some insight.

I did not see MT picking on Taylor or Bonnie especially.  His stats clearly show they have added a lot to the team in certain games, but they have been inconsistent.  There is a reason Tara has not been starting them.

The loss goes to the coach?  Well, yes, I will agree with you there.  But not just because of lack of adjustments--I think the coach needs to set the tone in advance that gives her players the self-confidence they need to play at their highest level.  Sometimes perfectionism accomplishes the reverse of its intended effect and makes players tentative and afraid of failure.  That looked to me to be the way Stanford played as soon as the game got tight after our 8-1 lead vanished.  Then again, Tara's honors and accolades are all well earned, and so any critique I might have of her coaching should be trusted just about as much as a plumber commenting on the work of a neurosurgeon. 

[81alum]

So you take only those games and come up with those solutions, I certainly hope our coaches are not doing the same. Not to pick on Sara but what other games can you use to say she is the answer, be ause then you are looking at garbage time with a lot of turnovers and bad decision making, did she even play in the Uconn game? You say players like Taylor and Bonnie don't belong well rewatch Tenn and Uconn and Baylor and some big games last year. I seem to recall Sara being taken to the basket on many occasions. Jos is definitely in a slump, question is is she playing where she should be and that question has also been posed by about Chiney. Interesting that you turn it on the players well the loss goes on the coach who made no adjustments in this game and the Uconn game.

Remember the loss to Depaul!!!!

WAcard,

I didn't take MT's analysis quite the way you did.  I think his stats just give a different way of looking at the games to supplement what we see with our own eyes.  They give me a way of understanding how a player's time in the game might help defensively or whether a player who isn't scoring might be helping others to score.  It is a stat that accounts for assists, turnovers, rebounds--being in the right position at the right time, and all the "little things" that help to win games that otherwise don't show up on the standard stats sheet.  Every traditional stat (say for example assists/turnovers) have problems and can be misleading, and so can MT's point differential--but it gives us more to think about than the columns on the official stat sheets.

The conclusions he draws intrigue me whether or not they fully persuade me.  I already was thinking that Sara James could use some more game time for development, and that Amber was becoming less effective than she was last year--even before I saw his numbers.  Some traditional stats raise some of the same questions his stats raise.  Amber's assist/turnover ratio last year was 1.96, and this year it is 1.49.  My guess, though, is that most of Amber's slump is due to our opponent's defensive adjustments to a Nneka-less Stanford, so I am not quite so negative about her performance as MT is.  In any case, MTs numbers are no more invalid than traditional stats.

As for "only those games," I think MT has data for all the games.  I happened to pick those four because I was interested in comparing our two very best games with our two very worst ones.  I'd be happy with any other comparisons that give us some insight.

I did not see MT picking on Taylor or Bonnie especially.  His stats clearly show they have added a lot to the team in certain games, but they have been inconsistent.  There is a reason Tara has not been starting them.

The loss goes to the coach?  Well, yes, I will agree with you there.  But not just because of lack of adjustments--I think the coach needs to set the tone in advance that gives her players the self-confidence they need to play at their highest level.  Sometimes perfectionism accomplishes the reverse of its intended effect and makes players tentative and afraid of failure.  That looked to me to be the way Stanford played as soon as the game got tight after our 8-1 lead vanished.  Then again, Tara's honors and accolades are all well earned, and so any critique I might have of her coaching should be trusted just about as much as a plumber commenting on the work of a neurosurgeon. 

[WAcard]

Basketball is a game of runs, during those runs a player can be on the floor, drawing out the D setting screens, making a pass for the next pass to be an assist, moving the ball, doing what they have been told to do which could be getting back on D to stop transitions, those things will never show up on stats. A payer could hit shots, which could be bad decisions and the stat does not show that.

That is my point.

My other point is after every game, especially a loss we can pick on certain individuals. But if you look at the trend of the games it is the lack of adjustments that are hurting us. The beauty of the triangle was that there are many options out of that offense that even if teams adjust defensively we could still get options through smart basketball and ball movement. Our Ball movement is almost non existent. Players are not in the right positions to make it effective. As amber for example dribbles to shots, when they stop falling or she is guarded more closely, why not utilize the fastest weapon on our team Toni to push, drive and kick.

[WAcard]

Basketball is a game of runs, during those runs a player can be on the floor, drawing out the D setting screens, making a pass for the next pass to be an assist, moving the ball, doing what they have been told to do which could be getting back on D to stop transitions, those things will never show up on stats. A payer could hit shots, which could be bad decisions and the stat does not show that.

That is my point.

My other point is after every game, especially a loss we can pick on certain individuals. But if you look at the trend of the games it is the lack of adjustments that are hurting us. The beauty of the triangle was that there are many options out of that offense that even if teams adjust defensively we could still get options through smart basketball and ball movement. Our Ball movement is almost non existent. Players are not in the right positions to make it effective. As amber for example dribbles to shots, when they stop falling or she is guarded more closely, why not utilize the fastest weapon on our team Toni to push, drive and kick.

[81alum]

The beauty of the triangle was that there are many options out of that offense that even if teams adjust defensively we could still get options through smart basketball and ball movement. Our Ball movement is almost non existent. Players are not in the right positions to make it effective.

That I entirely agree with.  My hypothesis all along for our poor offensive showing this year is that Tara's experiment with two new offensive systems has harmed our focus on the old successful triangle.  But who knows.  Maybe she concluded that this batch of players could not run the triangle effectively.

[81alum]

The beauty of the triangle was that there are many options out of that offense that even if teams adjust defensively we could still get options through smart basketball and ball movement. Our Ball movement is almost non existent. Players are not in the right positions to make it effective.

That I entirely agree with.  My hypothesis all along for our poor offensive showing this year is that Tara's experiment with two new offensive systems has harmed our focus on the old successful triangle.  But who knows.  Maybe she concluded that this batch of players could not run the triangle effectively.

[Viking_Guy]

The other issue, I think, is that all of the offenses under discussion - motion, pick and roll and triangle - utterly depend on having at least a third scoring option out on the floor. Absent that, you get what Stanford did to Cal in both games with respect to Eliza Pierre - an extra player or two standing and waiting in the lane to help on the base of the triangle, to defend the drive in either motion or off the pick, and to set themselves as a secondary defender to contest and draw charges against any inside moves.

That's why with Ruef not much of an offensive threat, and Tinkle not presenting much of one either, you get sclerotic offense - you have two defenders who only have to maintain slight contact with their mark, and feel free to drift and help against Chiney inside, or Amber coming off the curl, or Toni on the drive.

VG

[Viking_Guy]

The other issue, I think, is that all of the offenses under discussion - motion, pick and roll and triangle - utterly depend on having at least a third scoring option out on the floor. Absent that, you get what Stanford did to Cal in both games with respect to Eliza Pierre - an extra player or two standing and waiting in the lane to help on the base of the triangle, to defend the drive in either motion or off the pick, and to set themselves as a secondary defender to contest and draw charges against any inside moves.

That's why with Ruef not much of an offensive threat, and Tinkle not presenting much of one either, you get sclerotic offense - you have two defenders who only have to maintain slight contact with their mark, and feel free to drift and help against Chiney inside, or Amber coming off the curl, or Toni on the drive.

VG

[M T]

WAcard,  welcome to the Cardboard.  From your moniker, I'm guessing you're not able to see many of the Stanford games in person, and are limited to the TV games. 

As 81alum suggests, I showed these stats for these 4 games because that's the set that was chosen.  I get these stats from the play-by-play, which is sometimes inconsistent, and I try to correct them if I can.  For these games, with the help of recorded video, I was able to correct the inconsistencies (but perhaps not all errors).  There may be some games that I don't have a consistent record.  I started looking at these last year.

Yes, there are weaknesses.  I really don't suggest looking at the numbers to 4 decimal places.  Maybe 2 decimal places would be better.  I do discount these numbers if the player played or sat on the bench for less than 5 minutes.  Then there's the fact that scoring is discrete (1, 2, or 3 points).    My gut feeling is that one should give a +/- on the delta score of at least 2 points, maybe 4.  For a player that plays 20 minutes, that might not matter too much.  A player that plays in garbage time generally has little time on the court and the effect is magnified.  So my rough rule of thumb is to discount numbers for time periods under 5 minutes. 

But, on the other hand, when it shows that Stanford lead UConn for the 11 minutes that Amber was out of the game, and lost by 29 points for the 29 minutes she was in the game, I think that's worth looking into.  Garbage time?  Well, we don't see the same effect on Chiney.

By the way, I do get the same numbers for offensive lineups.  So for each set of 5 players on the court, I have those numbers.  But the time is so broken up, it usually isn't worth pulling the numbers out.

Players & teams evolve year to year and within the year.  I wouldn't put as much stock into the early games as the more recent games.  I wouldn't put much stock in the games against overmatched opponents.  So, the 4 games chosen by 81alum are a reasonable set. One might want to add So. Carolina and the first C.al game.    Last year's performance by a player seems to be less relevant than this year's performance.

Yes, if I were a stock broker, I'd be recommending a purchase in Sara's stock, and a sell on Amber's and Bonnie's.  It isn't just the last game, but that might be sufficient for the recommendation.  I believe I commented about Sara in the preseason.  As for Amber, I didn't buy into the praise I heard about her early in the season, based on what I saw.  But it wasn't until I analyzed a part of the UConn game in detail, that I felt I had a solid basis for saying she doesn't contribute in the way she should.  Amber could be a good player, but IMO, she wastes a lot of court time being unproductive (not being available for passes, not getting back on defense, etc.) which results in more Stanford struggles as though they are playing with 4 players.  Bonnie's play is definitely improved over last year, but she seems too weak to play against good teams.  In her specialty, she's now 4th on the team in 3PT% of those taking at least 25 3pt shots.

Scoring per 40min:  Chiney: 25.3, Sara: 16.2, Jos: 15.0, Amber: 14.1, Taylor: 13.2, Toni: 13.2, Bonnie: 10.5, Mikaela: 5.4, Jasmine: 4.7

Just the point of view of another plumber.

[M T]

WAcard,  welcome to the Cardboard.  From your moniker, I'm guessing you're not able to see many of the Stanford games in person, and are limited to the TV games. 

As 81alum suggests, I showed these stats for these 4 games because that's the set that was chosen.  I get these stats from the play-by-play, which is sometimes inconsistent, and I try to correct them if I can.  For these games, with the help of recorded video, I was able to correct the inconsistencies (but perhaps not all errors).  There may be some games that I don't have a consistent record.  I started looking at these last year.

Yes, there are weaknesses.  I really don't suggest looking at the numbers to 4 decimal places.  Maybe 2 decimal places would be better.  I do discount these numbers if the player played or sat on the bench for less than 5 minutes.  Then there's the fact that scoring is discrete (1, 2, or 3 points).    My gut feeling is that one should give a +/- on the delta score of at least 2 points, maybe 4.  For a player that plays 20 minutes, that might not matter too much.  A player that plays in garbage time generally has little time on the court and the effect is magnified.  So my rough rule of thumb is to discount numbers for time periods under 5 minutes. 

But, on the other hand, when it shows that Stanford lead UConn for the 11 minutes that Amber was out of the game, and lost by 29 points for the 29 minutes she was in the game, I think that's worth looking into.  Garbage time?  Well, we don't see the same effect on Chiney.

By the way, I do get the same numbers for offensive lineups.  So for each set of 5 players on the court, I have those numbers.  But the time is so broken up, it usually isn't worth pulling the numbers out.

Players & teams evolve year to year and within the year.  I wouldn't put as much stock into the early games as the more recent games.  I wouldn't put much stock in the games against overmatched opponents.  So, the 4 games chosen by 81alum are a reasonable set. One might want to add So. Carolina and the first C.al game.    Last year's performance by a player seems to be less relevant than this year's performance.

Yes, if I were a stock broker, I'd be recommending a purchase in Sara's stock, and a sell on Amber's and Bonnie's.  It isn't just the last game, but that might be sufficient for the recommendation.  I believe I commented about Sara in the preseason.  As for Amber, I didn't buy into the praise I heard about her early in the season, based on what I saw.  But it wasn't until I analyzed a part of the UConn game in detail, that I felt I had a solid basis for saying she doesn't contribute in the way she should.  Amber could be a good player, but IMO, she wastes a lot of court time being unproductive (not being available for passes, not getting back on defense, etc.) which results in more Stanford struggles as though they are playing with 4 players.  Bonnie's play is definitely improved over last year, but she seems too weak to play against good teams.  In her specialty, she's now 4th on the team in 3PT% of those taking at least 25 3pt shots.

Scoring per 40min:  Chiney: 25.3, Sara: 16.2, Jos: 15.0, Amber: 14.1, Taylor: 13.2, Toni: 13.2, Bonnie: 10.5, Mikaela: 5.4, Jasmine: 4.7

Just the point of view of another plumber.

[WAcard]

Well you'd lose on that stock deal! iMO. Especially considering for Sara you are basically talking about 2 games in over 2 and a half years, CO I think and the first few minutes of the 2n d Cal game, oh and btw where was she 2 nd half? Where was she 1 st game, where was she Baylor, Tenn, Uconn, last year and year before. Reason, Tara doesn't trust her. Now I am not happy with the coaching in both Uconn and 2nd Cal game but I would n't say Tara doesn't know what she is doing all the time.

Also re Amber, yes she has things she needs to work on and there are times she is probably not who needs the ball in her hands but really, c'mon, maybe Sara should be at the Point!!! Stats are only worth the paper they are printed on just like stock!!!

[WAcard]

Well you'd lose on that stock deal! iMO. Especially considering for Sara you are basically talking about 2 games in over 2 and a half years, CO I think and the first few minutes of the 2n d Cal game, oh and btw where was she 2 nd half? Where was she 1 st game, where was she Baylor, Tenn, Uconn, last year and year before. Reason, Tara doesn't trust her. Now I am not happy with the coaching in both Uconn and 2nd Cal game but I would n't say Tara doesn't know what she is doing all the time.

Also re Amber, yes she has things she needs to work on and there are times she is probably not who needs the ball in her hands but really, c'mon, maybe Sara should be at the Point!!! Stats are only worth the paper they are printed on just like stock!!!