[81alum]

This year, Stanford’s WBB team is on pace to set a modern record in fewest points allowed,  but also a modern record in fewest points scored.  Only in 1986, Tara’s first year, did Stanford score fewer ppg (66.6) than we are currently scoring (69.5).  (In 1986 there was no three point shot for NCAA women.)  And at no time in the VanDerveer era has Stanford held opponents to fewer ppg that we are this year (52.9.) 

While this year's statistics may seem to represent terrific defense and inauspiscious offense, the numbers may represent something more than just the performance of this year's team.  In reviewing the stats from the whole VanDerveer era, it is surprising how much the game has changed.  The game has become far more defensive than in Stanford's most glorious years.  Our national championship teams gave up 70 and 66 ppg–far more than our team is giving up this year.  But they scored 86 and 93 ppg–in the latter case more than 20 points more every game.  Tara’s explanation is that the ubiquity of scouting reports and game tapes has made preparation against opponents far more thorough.  The way games are officiated probably also plays a role.  As fans, we can reach our own conclusions about whether WBB is a more attractive game today than it was twenty years ago.

Perhaps a better measure of success against the historical standard would be our margin of points scored minus points allowed. So far, that stands at 16.6 this year.  That is about the same margin as when we won our second national championship.  (By the way, that championship team, led by juniors Val Whiting and Molly Goodenbaur, had no starting seniors.)  But it is significantly lower than any other recent season--than any of the five-in-a-row "final four" years.  The last two years with this low a margin were 2005 and 2006.  In 2005 we went 26-8 and lost 4 Pac-10 games, going on to lose to LSU in the Elite Eight.  In 2006, we went 29-5, losing once to Cal by 15 points and then closing with a loss to Florida State at home in the NCAA second round.

I checked to see how Stanford has historically done after losing a big star.  When the 1997-98 season ended we lost Nygaard, Scott, and Folkl.  The 1998-9 year was rough, we went from an average margin of 14.8 to 2.1–a brobdingnagian fall off.  Interestingly, there was very little fall off that year in defense.  Almost all the decline was in offense.  It seems that offensive talent is more difficult to replace than defensive talent.

In comparison, this year we are down from 20.7 to 16.6–a much more modest decline.  I really could not find any other comparable situations.  When Powell left we were joined the next year by Brooke Smith and Candice Wiggins.  And since Smith and Wiggins we have had considerable overlapping star power ever since. 

Year ppg Allowed    Margin
2012 69.5 52.9 16.6
2011 76 55.3 20.7
2010 79.3 55.5 23.8
2009 76.1 53.9 22.2
2008 76.1 55.8 20.3
2007 75.1 56.4 18.7
2006 71.3 57.1 14.2
2005 78.6 62.9 15.7
2004 77.8 56 21.8
2003 70.4 58.4 12
2002 70.7 58.9 11.8
2001 80.3 61.4 18.9
2000 73.4 68.3 5.1
1999 74.3 66.4 7.9
1998 71.7 69.6 2.1
1997 85.7 70.9 14.8
1996 84.3 61.1 23.2
1995 77.7 60 17.7
1994 84.5 60.8 23.7
1993 83.6 65.7 17.9
1992 79 63.3 15.7
1991 85.6 70.1 15.5
1990 85.4 70.7 14.7
1989 92.8 66.2 26.6
1988 87.9 68.3 19.6
1987 75.2 64.1 11.1
1986 66.6 68.2 -1.6

[81alum]

This year, Stanford’s WBB team is on pace to set a modern record in fewest points allowed,  but also a modern record in fewest points scored.  Only in 1986, Tara’s first year, did Stanford score fewer ppg (66.6) than we are currently scoring (69.5).  (In 1986 there was no three point shot for NCAA women.)  And at no time in the VanDerveer era has Stanford held opponents to fewer ppg that we are this year (52.9.) 

While this year's statistics may seem to represent terrific defense and inauspiscious offense, the numbers may represent something more than just the performance of this year's team.  In reviewing the stats from the whole VanDerveer era, it is surprising how much the game has changed.  The game has become far more defensive than in Stanford's most glorious years.  Our national championship teams gave up 70 and 66 ppg–far more than our team is giving up this year.  But they scored 86 and 93 ppg–in the latter case more than 20 points more every game.  Tara’s explanation is that the ubiquity of scouting reports and game tapes has made preparation against opponents far more thorough.  The way games are officiated probably also plays a role.  As fans, we can reach our own conclusions about whether WBB is a more attractive game today than it was twenty years ago.

Perhaps a better measure of success against the historical standard would be our margin of points scored minus points allowed. So far, that stands at 16.6 this year.  That is about the same margin as when we won our second national championship.  (By the way, that championship team, led by juniors Val Whiting and Molly Goodenbaur, had no starting seniors.)  But it is significantly lower than any other recent season--than any of the five-in-a-row "final four" years.  The last two years with this low a margin were 2005 and 2006.  In 2005 we went 26-8 and lost 4 Pac-10 games, going on to lose to LSU in the Elite Eight.  In 2006, we went 29-5, losing once to Cal by 15 points and then closing with a loss to Florida State at home in the NCAA second round.

I checked to see how Stanford has historically done after losing a big star.  When the 1997-98 season ended we lost Nygaard, Scott, and Folkl.  The 1998-9 year was rough, we went from an average margin of 14.8 to 2.1–a brobdingnagian fall off.  Interestingly, there was very little fall off that year in defense.  Almost all the decline was in offense.  It seems that offensive talent is more difficult to replace than defensive talent.

In comparison, this year we are down from 20.7 to 16.6–a much more modest decline.  I really could not find any other comparable situations.  When Powell left we were joined the next year by Brooke Smith and Candice Wiggins.  And since Smith and Wiggins we have had considerable overlapping star power ever since. 

Year ppg Allowed    Margin
2012 69.5 52.9 16.6
2011 76 55.3 20.7
2010 79.3 55.5 23.8
2009 76.1 53.9 22.2
2008 76.1 55.8 20.3
2007 75.1 56.4 18.7
2006 71.3 57.1 14.2
2005 78.6 62.9 15.7
2004 77.8 56 21.8
2003 70.4 58.4 12
2002 70.7 58.9 11.8
2001 80.3 61.4 18.9
2000 73.4 68.3 5.1
1999 74.3 66.4 7.9
1998 71.7 69.6 2.1
1997 85.7 70.9 14.8
1996 84.3 61.1 23.2
1995 77.7 60 17.7
1994 84.5 60.8 23.7
1993 83.6 65.7 17.9
1992 79 63.3 15.7
1991 85.6 70.1 15.5
1990 85.4 70.7 14.7
1989 92.8 66.2 26.6
1988 87.9 68.3 19.6
1987 75.2 64.1 11.1
1986 66.6 68.2 -1.6

[M T]

Interesting, thanks.  I might like to see the same numbers but only for games against top-10 or top-25 teams.

One of the things we've seen in the past is the point at which you put in the subs.  That caps a game at about 25 point differential (for Tara, other coaches may differ), no matter how bad the team, unless the subs push the point total up.  And, clearly, that affects a simple average point differential (and point total, and to some extent affects the opponent's points).

Another thing might be to look at the playing time of the top 3 starters, per game.

Finally, this measure is affected by the weakness of our opponents as a group.  When the PAC-nn conference was weak, we might have bigger differentials.  When we play multiple top-10 teams in the preseason, our differentials will be less.

I also think there are some other effects from this.  When we've had a good team that won easily, the subsequent teams should be better than expected as the players have had more time on court (and better practice, presumably).  We also should have had more time on court to practice different things, rather than just barely hanging on.

To get a view of widespread changes in WBB, it might be good to see the average point differential for the top 10 teams for each year. (ie, what is the average of the point differentials for the top 10 teams in 1986, in 1987, ...)

[M T]

Interesting, thanks.  I might like to see the same numbers but only for games against top-10 or top-25 teams.

One of the things we've seen in the past is the point at which you put in the subs.  That caps a game at about 25 point differential (for Tara, other coaches may differ), no matter how bad the team, unless the subs push the point total up.  And, clearly, that affects a simple average point differential (and point total, and to some extent affects the opponent's points).

Another thing might be to look at the playing time of the top 3 starters, per game.

Finally, this measure is affected by the weakness of our opponents as a group.  When the PAC-nn conference was weak, we might have bigger differentials.  When we play multiple top-10 teams in the preseason, our differentials will be less.

I also think there are some other effects from this.  When we've had a good team that won easily, the subsequent teams should be better than expected as the players have had more time on court (and better practice, presumably).  We also should have had more time on court to practice different things, rather than just barely hanging on.

To get a view of widespread changes in WBB, it might be good to see the average point differential for the top 10 teams for each year. (ie, what is the average of the point differentials for the top 10 teams in 1986, in 1987, ...)