[81alum]

With all the focus on talent, playing time, etc. I have often wondered why more attention is not paid to experience.  Tara always noticed when another team was full of seniors and thought it was an advantage for them.  This should be even more true for our own team, given that we have generally cerebral young women who are eager to learn the finer points of the game and who absorb complex schemes over time.   For many years, Stanford has attempted schemes that are usually beyond the capacity of our opponents.  When the Princeton was first installed in 2019 we had serious growing pains, but of course it led to a national championship later.  We have often debated whether this was a wise approach or not, but our teams often "out-sophisticated" our opponents.  One might expect this to come with a learning curve, however, and Tara did have a strong preference for playing the most experienced of her players, with some notable exceptions.

So I thought I would look at the relative levels of experience of Stanford teams.  I simply added up to total career Stanford starts for the five starters we finished the season with.  For this year, total starts are through our most recent game.  Keep in mind that if these five stay on the floor for the whole season we would add about 100 more starts to their total.

I did not have the patience to do this for all teams, but I thought I would take this year's, last year's, and the best and the worst of recent memory.  Interesting that both the best and the worst teams had about the same amount of experience.  But our team this year is shockingly inexperienced compared with both of them.

One thing that might make us look better would be counting Tess Heal's Santa Clara starts.  I can see reasons to do so and reasons not to.  If you count them, it would add 66 to the total.

If anyone has a hankering to know about some other particular year, just say so.

2024-25 (Agara, Demetre, Bosgana, Harriel, Heal) 90

2023-24 (Iriafen, Brink, Jump, Bosgana, Lepolo) 370 (last year)

2020-21 (Williams, Jones, Lexie Hull, Brink, Wilson) 299 (Covid championship year)

2017-18 (McPhee, Smith, Williams, Sniezek, Johnson) 295 (Worst year since 2000: 24-11)

[81alum]

With all the focus on talent, playing time, etc. I have often wondered why more attention is not paid to experience.  Tara always noticed when another team was full of seniors and thought it was an advantage for them.  This should be even more true for our own team, given that we have generally cerebral young women who are eager to learn the finer points of the game and who absorb complex schemes over time.   For many years, Stanford has attempted schemes that are usually beyond the capacity of our opponents.  When the Princeton was first installed in 2019 we had serious growing pains, but of course it led to a national championship later.  We have often debated whether this was a wise approach or not, but our teams often "out-sophisticated" our opponents.  One might expect this to come with a learning curve, however, and Tara did have a strong preference for playing the most experienced of her players, with some notable exceptions.

So I thought I would look at the relative levels of experience of Stanford teams.  I simply added up to total career Stanford starts for the five starters we finished the season with.  For this year, total starts are through our most recent game.  Keep in mind that if these five stay on the floor for the whole season we would add about 100 more starts to their total.

I did not have the patience to do this for all teams, but I thought I would take this year's, last year's, and the best and the worst of recent memory.  Interesting that both the best and the worst teams had about the same amount of experience.  But our team this year is shockingly inexperienced compared with both of them.

One thing that might make us look better would be counting Tess Heal's Santa Clara starts.  I can see reasons to do so and reasons not to.  If you count them, it would add 66 to the total.

If anyone has a hankering to know about some other particular year, just say so.

2024-25 (Agara, Demetre, Bosgana, Harriel, Heal) 90

2023-24 (Iriafen, Brink, Jump, Bosgana, Lepolo) 370 (last year)

2020-21 (Williams, Jones, Lexie Hull, Brink, Wilson) 299 (Covid championship year)

2017-18 (McPhee, Smith, Williams, Sniezek, Johnson) 295 (Worst year since 2000: 24-11)

[paloalto]

First, thanks for your contributions to Stanford WBB discussion.

Needless to say a coach has to work with the players available and use a system the players can absorb to maximize  their contribution.   The harsh reality is Stanford has lost some talented players and missed out on some talented recruits.  From my perspective talent is probably as important if not more so than experience.  

My passion is the sport of volleyball.  This year we had the following WVB starters; true freshman (zero college experience of any kind), a redshirt freshman (zero college playing time), and sophomore (negligible court experience last year).   This team went undefeated at home and made it to the regional finals.  So my conclusion; talent is a higher priority than experience in volleyball.  Maybe it's different in basketball.

[paloalto]

First, thanks for your contributions to Stanford WBB discussion.

Needless to say a coach has to work with the players available and use a system the players can absorb to maximize  their contribution.   The harsh reality is Stanford has lost some talented players and missed out on some talented recruits.  From my perspective talent is probably as important if not more so than experience.  

My passion is the sport of volleyball.  This year we had the following WVB starters; true freshman (zero college experience of any kind), a redshirt freshman (zero college playing time), and sophomore (negligible court experience last year).   This team went undefeated at home and made it to the regional finals.  So my conclusion; talent is a higher priority than experience in volleyball.  Maybe it's different in basketball.

[martyup]

I agree that talent trumps experience.  Look at Juju last season. Didn't she drop a 50 on our "experienced" team.

[martyup]

I agree that talent trumps experience.  Look at Juju last season. Didn't she drop a 50 on our "experienced" team.

[Spiny_Norman]

I agree that talent trumps experience.  Look at Juju last season.  Didn't she drop a 50 on our "experienced" team.

Juju is a rare talent. But last year she played with 3 grad students, a senior and 2 juniors, all with lots of game experience.

This year she is playing with 2 grad students and 2 seniors (among others). Watkins is really good. But the other players help to make her better.

[Spiny_Norman]

I agree that talent trumps experience.  Look at Juju last season.  Didn't she drop a 50 on our "experienced" team.

Juju is a rare talent. But last year she played with 3 grad students, a senior and 2 juniors, all with lots of game experience.

This year she is playing with 2 grad students and 2 seniors (among others). Watkins is really good. But the other players help to make her better.

[liveoak]

With all the focus on talent, playing time, etc. I have often wondered why more attention is not paid to experience.  Tara always noticed when another team was full of seniors and thought it was an advantage for them.  This should be even more true for our own team, given that we have generally cerebral young women who are eager to learn the finer points of the game and who absorb complex schemes over time.   For many years, Stanford has attempted schemes that are usually beyond the capacity of our opponents.  When the Princeton was first installed in 2019 we had serious growing pains, but of course it led to a national championship later.  We have often debated whether this was a wise approach or not, but our teams often "out-sophisticated" our opponents.  One might expect this to come with a learning curve, however, and Tara did have a strong preference for playing the most experienced of her players, with some notable exceptions.

So I thought I would look at the relative levels of experience of Stanford teams.  I simply added up to total career Stanford starts for the five starters we finished the season with.  For this year, total starts are through our most recent game.  Keep in mind that if these five stay on the floor for the whole season we would add about 100 more starts to their total.

I did not have the patience to do this for all teams, but I thought I would take this year's, last year's, and the best and the worst of recent memory.  Interesting that both the best and the worst teams had about the same amount of experience.  But our team this year is shockingly inexperienced compared with both of them.

One thing that might make us look better would be counting Tess Heal's Santa Clara starts.  I can see reasons to do so and reasons not to.  If you count them, it would add 66 to the total.

If anyone has a hankering to know about some other particular year, just say so.

2024-25 (Agara, Demetre, Bosgana, Harriel, Heal) 90

2023-24 (Iriafen, Brink, Jump, Bosgana, Lepolo) 370 (last year)

2020-21 (Williams, Jones, Lexie Hull, Brink, Wilson) 299 (Covid championship year)

2017-18 (McPhee, Smith, Williams, Sniezek, Johnson) 295 (Worst year since 2000: 24-11)

That is great analysis, 81alum...the team's relative inexperience is important - particularly if players need to learn a complex offense such as the Princeton offense. I can sometimes see the players thinking about what to do next - that will get easier as they become more familiar with it. Heal, Stevenson, and the three freshmen have probably never it before this year.

Someone in the main game thread said that they wanted to see a different offense. I understand the frustration, but you can't change offenses during the middle of the year...that really cause problems. What I would like is to have the offense move faster - cut faster and pass faster. There have been times when players hold the ball waiting for someone to make a cut. The whole offense needs to move faster. As the players gain experience, this will happen.

[liveoak]

With all the focus on talent, playing time, etc. I have often wondered why more attention is not paid to experience.  Tara always noticed when another team was full of seniors and thought it was an advantage for them.  This should be even more true for our own team, given that we have generally cerebral young women who are eager to learn the finer points of the game and who absorb complex schemes over time.   For many years, Stanford has attempted schemes that are usually beyond the capacity of our opponents.  When the Princeton was first installed in 2019 we had serious growing pains, but of course it led to a national championship later.  We have often debated whether this was a wise approach or not, but our teams often "out-sophisticated" our opponents.  One might expect this to come with a learning curve, however, and Tara did have a strong preference for playing the most experienced of her players, with some notable exceptions.

So I thought I would look at the relative levels of experience of Stanford teams.  I simply added up to total career Stanford starts for the five starters we finished the season with.  For this year, total starts are through our most recent game.  Keep in mind that if these five stay on the floor for the whole season we would add about 100 more starts to their total.

I did not have the patience to do this for all teams, but I thought I would take this year's, last year's, and the best and the worst of recent memory.  Interesting that both the best and the worst teams had about the same amount of experience.  But our team this year is shockingly inexperienced compared with both of them.

One thing that might make us look better would be counting Tess Heal's Santa Clara starts.  I can see reasons to do so and reasons not to.  If you count them, it would add 66 to the total.

If anyone has a hankering to know about some other particular year, just say so.

2024-25 (Agara, Demetre, Bosgana, Harriel, Heal) 90

2023-24 (Iriafen, Brink, Jump, Bosgana, Lepolo) 370 (last year)

2020-21 (Williams, Jones, Lexie Hull, Brink, Wilson) 299 (Covid championship year)

2017-18 (McPhee, Smith, Williams, Sniezek, Johnson) 295 (Worst year since 2000: 24-11)

That is great analysis, 81alum...the team's relative inexperience is important - particularly if players need to learn a complex offense such as the Princeton offense. I can sometimes see the players thinking about what to do next - that will get easier as they become more familiar with it. Heal, Stevenson, and the three freshmen have probably never it before this year.

Someone in the main game thread said that they wanted to see a different offense. I understand the frustration, but you can't change offenses during the middle of the year...that really cause problems. What I would like is to have the offense move faster - cut faster and pass faster. There have been times when players hold the ball waiting for someone to make a cut. The whole offense needs to move faster. As the players gain experience, this will happen.

[old spanish trail]

With all the focus on talent, playing time, etc. I have often wondered why more attention is not paid to experience.  Tara always noticed when another team was full of seniors and thought it was an advantage for them.  This should be even more true for our own team, given that we have generally cerebral young women who are eager to learn the finer points of the game and who absorb complex schemes over time.   For many years, Stanford has attempted schemes that are usually beyond the capacity of our opponents.  When the Princeton was first installed in 2019 we had serious growing pains, but of course it led to a national championship later.  We have often debated whether this was a wise approach or not, but our teams often "out-sophisticated" our opponents.  One might expect this to come with a learning curve, however, and Tara did have a strong preference for playing the most experienced of her players, with some notable exceptions.

So I thought I would look at the relative levels of experience of Stanford teams.  I simply added up to total career Stanford starts for the five starters we finished the season with.  For this year, total starts are through our most recent game.  Keep in mind that if these five stay on the floor for the whole season we would add about 100 more starts to their total.

I did not have the patience to do this for all teams, but I thought I would take this year's, last year's, and the best and the worst of recent memory.  Interesting that both the best and the worst teams had about the same amount of experience.  But our team this year is shockingly inexperienced compared with both of them.

One thing that might make us look better would be counting Tess Heal's Santa Clara starts.  I can see reasons to do so and reasons not to.  If you count them, it would add 66 to the total.

If anyone has a hankering to know about some other particular year, just say so.

2024-25 (Agara, Demetre, Bosgana, Harriel, Heal) 90

2023-24 (Iriafen, Brink, Jump, Bosgana, Lepolo) 370 (last year)

2020-21 (Williams, Jones, Lexie Hull, Brink, Wilson) 299 (Covid championship year)

2017-18 (McPhee, Smith, Williams, Sniezek, Johnson) 295 (Worst year since 2000: 24-11)

That is great analysis, 81alum...the team's relative inexperience is important - particularly if players need to learn a complex offense such as the Princeton offense. I can sometimes see the players thinking about what to do next - that will get easier as they become more familiar with it. Heal, Stevenson, and the three freshmen have probably never it before this year.

Someone in the main game thread said that they wanted to see a different offense. I understand the frustration, but you can't change offenses during the middle of the year...that really cause problems. What I would like is to have the offense move faster - cut faster and pass faster. There have been times when players hold the ball waiting for someone to make a cut. The whole offense needs to move faster. As the players gain experience, this will happen.

Believe it or not, Lepolo could help here.

[old spanish trail]

With all the focus on talent, playing time, etc. I have often wondered why more attention is not paid to experience.  Tara always noticed when another team was full of seniors and thought it was an advantage for them.  This should be even more true for our own team, given that we have generally cerebral young women who are eager to learn the finer points of the game and who absorb complex schemes over time.   For many years, Stanford has attempted schemes that are usually beyond the capacity of our opponents.  When the Princeton was first installed in 2019 we had serious growing pains, but of course it led to a national championship later.  We have often debated whether this was a wise approach or not, but our teams often "out-sophisticated" our opponents.  One might expect this to come with a learning curve, however, and Tara did have a strong preference for playing the most experienced of her players, with some notable exceptions.

So I thought I would look at the relative levels of experience of Stanford teams.  I simply added up to total career Stanford starts for the five starters we finished the season with.  For this year, total starts are through our most recent game.  Keep in mind that if these five stay on the floor for the whole season we would add about 100 more starts to their total.

I did not have the patience to do this for all teams, but I thought I would take this year's, last year's, and the best and the worst of recent memory.  Interesting that both the best and the worst teams had about the same amount of experience.  But our team this year is shockingly inexperienced compared with both of them.

One thing that might make us look better would be counting Tess Heal's Santa Clara starts.  I can see reasons to do so and reasons not to.  If you count them, it would add 66 to the total.

If anyone has a hankering to know about some other particular year, just say so.

2024-25 (Agara, Demetre, Bosgana, Harriel, Heal) 90

2023-24 (Iriafen, Brink, Jump, Bosgana, Lepolo) 370 (last year)

2020-21 (Williams, Jones, Lexie Hull, Brink, Wilson) 299 (Covid championship year)

2017-18 (McPhee, Smith, Williams, Sniezek, Johnson) 295 (Worst year since 2000: 24-11)

That is great analysis, 81alum...the team's relative inexperience is important - particularly if players need to learn a complex offense such as the Princeton offense. I can sometimes see the players thinking about what to do next - that will get easier as they become more familiar with it. Heal, Stevenson, and the three freshmen have probably never it before this year.

Someone in the main game thread said that they wanted to see a different offense. I understand the frustration, but you can't change offenses during the middle of the year...that really cause problems. What I would like is to have the offense move faster - cut faster and pass faster. There have been times when players hold the ball waiting for someone to make a cut. The whole offense needs to move faster. As the players gain experience, this will happen.

Believe it or not, Lepolo could help here.

[81alum]

Just because "experience matters" does not mean that "talent doesn't."  Of course talent matters, and of course we have lost a lot of talent.  But we have ALSO lost a lot of experience, which makes the challenge even harder.

I think a look at Tara's player time decisions over the years is instructive.  Some of our most truly talented players did start four years.  So talent in those cases LED to experience.  Williams, Brink, Jones, etc.  Of course, if you are the second most talented player but play behind the most talented player then you get no starts--so there are limits to the analysis.  Even so, you could say that the number of starts on a team is a good measure not only of experience but also (to a degree) of talent.   In which case the low number of starts on this year's team is alarming.

A few rare players--the ones everyone wants--come to college ready to play at the college level, and can be expected to start for four years.  We get a few of those.  Kiana Williams, Cameron Brink, Haley Jones, etc.  But Tara built sustained excellence by developing other players around those few.  And those players take time to come into their own.  Hannah Jump, Erica McCall, Bonnie Samuelson, Brittany McPhee, etc.  These are not the players that stand atop all the record books since they did not start for four years, but without players like them we would not have won many games.  (Although Jump did pretty well for someone who started only 51% of her games!)  And for that category of players, experience is crucial.

[81alum]

Just because "experience matters" does not mean that "talent doesn't."  Of course talent matters, and of course we have lost a lot of talent.  But we have ALSO lost a lot of experience, which makes the challenge even harder.

I think a look at Tara's player time decisions over the years is instructive.  Some of our most truly talented players did start four years.  So talent in those cases LED to experience.  Williams, Brink, Jones, etc.  Of course, if you are the second most talented player but play behind the most talented player then you get no starts--so there are limits to the analysis.  Even so, you could say that the number of starts on a team is a good measure not only of experience but also (to a degree) of talent.   In which case the low number of starts on this year's team is alarming.

A few rare players--the ones everyone wants--come to college ready to play at the college level, and can be expected to start for four years.  We get a few of those.  Kiana Williams, Cameron Brink, Haley Jones, etc.  But Tara built sustained excellence by developing other players around those few.  And those players take time to come into their own.  Hannah Jump, Erica McCall, Bonnie Samuelson, Brittany McPhee, etc.  These are not the players that stand atop all the record books since they did not start for four years, but without players like them we would not have won many games.  (Although Jump did pretty well for someone who started only 51% of her games!)  And for that category of players, experience is crucial.

[SkiBum80]

You're both right.
Talent and experience are both important.
Which is most important?  Like so many things in life, it depends.
One thing the experience depends on is not just experience, but experience with each other. With that particular lineup of teammates.
Experience with each other can build up some of the inner sense, instinct, of knowing which teammates will be where at a certain time,
and what they are going to do.
Can lead to this tighter play. But doesn't automatically happen.
And some are quicker learners and others learn slow or never.

[SkiBum80]

You're both right.
Talent and experience are both important.
Which is most important?  Like so many things in life, it depends.
One thing the experience depends on is not just experience, but experience with each other. With that particular lineup of teammates.
Experience with each other can build up some of the inner sense, instinct, of knowing which teammates will be where at a certain time,
and what they are going to do.
Can lead to this tighter play. But doesn't automatically happen.
And some are quicker learners and others learn slow or never.

[M T]

Good points. It is a better way of measuring experience than just by class (which gets very confusing with players that played for 6 years in college).  In these days of so many transfers, one team may lose all its seniors while another team is all grad students.

I think looking at career playing time rather than starts would be a finer-grained measure.  That would differentiate Ogden vs Green.  (Btw, in the Roster section of GoStanford.com, you can click on the player, and then Stats on the left to get their career numbers.  Ogden has played 538 minutes in 42 games, with no starts.  Green has played 73 minutes in 30 games, with no starts.)

It can't be helped, but this measure (either starts or minutes) conflates experience and talent.   Talented players are more likely to get starts and time.  It also can obscure talent (suppose you have 4 talented guards and one so-so post).   Injuries also figure into the starting & time figures.   A player that missed a half year due to injury will properly show up as less experienced.

I think you have to include the record at other schools or else some teams could be all grad students with zero total starts at their current school.  There is a bonus for playing time under the current coach/system, but there is a benefit for playing at college level elsewhere.

A set of stats to consider would be
Career starts; Career games; Career minutes; Career min/gm; 
School career starts; School career games; School career minutes; School career min/gm.
Season starts; Season games; Season minutes; Season min/gm

When you get into post-season, the players' post-season experience matters as well.


A "rebuilding" year is a year in which you bank experience to be drawn upon in the future.

---

I'm feeling more and more "done" with analyzing this team.  

That's the thing about an active mind... It keeps going and going.
Thanks for sharing!

---

It's interesting to see some support for Leopolo here for a change.  As I said before, I was less concerned than most about her being a play-maker than a shooter, but in this offense, I fear she would be too deliberate and slow it down.

Even if she doesn't play another game this year, wouldn't she be the player with the most career starts (70) at the end of the year? 
  Nope..  Heal has more starts with 66 at Santa Clara (but, IMO, she doesn't play like she's that experienced).

---

I certainly understand why Stanford WBB scheduled an easier slate than in recent years, but I'm not sure why MBB did.  Each team just had a little known opponent show up with a better team that one might have expected when the schedules were conceived.  Fortunately, Stanford won both games.

[M T]

Good points. It is a better way of measuring experience than just by class (which gets very confusing with players that played for 6 years in college).  In these days of so many transfers, one team may lose all its seniors while another team is all grad students.

I think looking at career playing time rather than starts would be a finer-grained measure.  That would differentiate Ogden vs Green.  (Btw, in the Roster section of GoStanford.com, you can click on the player, and then Stats on the left to get their career numbers.  Ogden has played 538 minutes in 42 games, with no starts.  Green has played 73 minutes in 30 games, with no starts.)

It can't be helped, but this measure (either starts or minutes) conflates experience and talent.   Talented players are more likely to get starts and time.  It also can obscure talent (suppose you have 4 talented guards and one so-so post).   Injuries also figure into the starting & time figures.   A player that missed a half year due to injury will properly show up as less experienced.

I think you have to include the record at other schools or else some teams could be all grad students with zero total starts at their current school.  There is a bonus for playing time under the current coach/system, but there is a benefit for playing at college level elsewhere.

A set of stats to consider would be
Career starts; Career games; Career minutes; Career min/gm; 
School career starts; School career games; School career minutes; School career min/gm.
Season starts; Season games; Season minutes; Season min/gm

When you get into post-season, the players' post-season experience matters as well.


A "rebuilding" year is a year in which you bank experience to be drawn upon in the future.

---

I'm feeling more and more "done" with analyzing this team.  

That's the thing about an active mind... It keeps going and going.
Thanks for sharing!

---

It's interesting to see some support for Leopolo here for a change.  As I said before, I was less concerned than most about her being a play-maker than a shooter, but in this offense, I fear she would be too deliberate and slow it down.

Even if she doesn't play another game this year, wouldn't she be the player with the most career starts (70) at the end of the year? 
  Nope..  Heal has more starts with 66 at Santa Clara (but, IMO, she doesn't play like she's that experienced).

---

I certainly understand why Stanford WBB scheduled an easier slate than in recent years, but I'm not sure why MBB did.  Each team just had a little known opponent show up with a better team that one might have expected when the schedules were conceived.  Fortunately, Stanford won both games.

[BostonCard]

First, thanks for your contributions to Stanford WBB discussion.

Needless to say a coach has to work with the players available and use a system the players can absorb to maximize  their contribution.   The harsh reality is Stanford has lost some talented players and missed out on some talented recruits.  From my perspective talent is probably as important if not more so than experience.  

My passion is the sport of volleyball.  This year we had the following WVB starters; true freshman (zero college experience of any kind), a redshirt freshman (zero college playing time), and sophomore (negligible court experience last year).   This team went undefeated at home and made it to the regional finals.  So my conclusion; talent is a higher priority than experience in volleyball.  Maybe it's different in basketball.

We also had three key seniors, including at setter, and one junior who was our key pin hitter.  It’s a lot easier to incorporate freshmen if you have experienced leaders.

BC

[BostonCard]

First, thanks for your contributions to Stanford WBB discussion.

Needless to say a coach has to work with the players available and use a system the players can absorb to maximize  their contribution.   The harsh reality is Stanford has lost some talented players and missed out on some talented recruits.  From my perspective talent is probably as important if not more so than experience.  

My passion is the sport of volleyball.  This year we had the following WVB starters; true freshman (zero college experience of any kind), a redshirt freshman (zero college playing time), and sophomore (negligible court experience last year).   This team went undefeated at home and made it to the regional finals.  So my conclusion; talent is a higher priority than experience in volleyball.  Maybe it's different in basketball.

We also had three key seniors, including at setter, and one junior who was our key pin hitter.  It’s a lot easier to incorporate freshmen if you have experienced leaders.

BC

[Mick]

Cameron Brink joins Unrivaled:

Cameron Brink Joins Unrivaled Basketball League; Will Debut in 2026 amid Injury Rehab | News, Scores, Highlights, Stats, and Rumors | Bleacher Report

[Mick]

Cameron Brink joins Unrivaled:

Cameron Brink Joins Unrivaled Basketball League; Will Debut in 2026 amid Injury Rehab | News, Scores, Highlights, Stats, and Rumors | Bleacher Report

[liveoak]

1734546766[/url]']
Good points. It is a better way of measuring experience than just by class (which gets very confusing with players that played for 6 years in college).  In these days of so many transfers, one team may lose all its seniors while another team is all grad students.

I think looking at career playing time rather than starts would be a finer-grained measure.  That would differentiate Ogden vs Green.  (Btw, in the Roster section of GoStanford.com, you can click on the player, and then Stats on the left to get their career numbers.  Ogden has played 538 minutes in 42 games, with no starts.  Green has played 73 minutes in 30 games, with no starts.)

It can't be helped, but this measure (either starts or minutes) conflates experience and talent.   Talented players are more likely to get starts and time.  It also can obscure talent (suppose you have 4 talented guards and one so-so post).   Injuries also figure into the starting & time figures.   A player that missed a half year due to injury will properly show up as less experienced.

I think you have to include the record at other schools or else some teams could be all grad students with zero total starts at their current school.  There is a bonus for playing time under the current coach/system, but there is a benefit for playing at college level elsewhere.

A set of stats to consider would be
Career starts; Career games; Career minutes; Career min/gm; 
School career starts; School career games; School career minutes; School career min/gm.
Season starts; Season games; Season minutes; Season min/gm

When you get into post-season, the players' post-season experience matters as well.


A "rebuilding" year is a year in which you bank experience to be drawn upon in the future.

---

1734389678[/url]']
I'm feeling more and more "done" with analyzing this team.  

That's the thing about an active mind... It keeps going and going.
Thanks for sharing!

---

It's interesting to see some support for Leopolo here for a change.  As I said before, I was less concerned than most about her being a play-maker than a shooter, but in this offense, I fear she would be too deliberate and slow it down.

Even if she doesn't play another game this year, wouldn't she be the player with the most career starts (70) at the end of the year? 
  Nope..  Heal has more starts with 66 at Santa Clara (but, IMO, she doesn't play like she's that experienced).

---

I certainly understand why Stanford WBB scheduled an easier slate than in recent years, but I'm not sure why MBB did.  Each team just had a little known opponent show up with a better team that one might have expected when the schedules were conceived.  Fortunately, Stanford won both games.

In my opinion, the offense moves too slowly. Most of these players haven’t run this offense very much in game situations. that I think Lepolo will help this offense when she returns, since has run it for two years and probably knows it as well as anyone on this team. Lepolo will also help with breaking a press, which would have been a big help on Monday.

Heal hasn’t run this offense either and she came from a less athletic league. She’s already scored over 1200 points in two years at Santa Clara and holds a couple of all-time season records. I think we will see more from her over the season.

[liveoak]

1734546766[/url]']
Good points. It is a better way of measuring experience than just by class (which gets very confusing with players that played for 6 years in college).  In these days of so many transfers, one team may lose all its seniors while another team is all grad students.

I think looking at career playing time rather than starts would be a finer-grained measure.  That would differentiate Ogden vs Green.  (Btw, in the Roster section of GoStanford.com, you can click on the player, and then Stats on the left to get their career numbers.  Ogden has played 538 minutes in 42 games, with no starts.  Green has played 73 minutes in 30 games, with no starts.)

It can't be helped, but this measure (either starts or minutes) conflates experience and talent.   Talented players are more likely to get starts and time.  It also can obscure talent (suppose you have 4 talented guards and one so-so post).   Injuries also figure into the starting & time figures.   A player that missed a half year due to injury will properly show up as less experienced.

I think you have to include the record at other schools or else some teams could be all grad students with zero total starts at their current school.  There is a bonus for playing time under the current coach/system, but there is a benefit for playing at college level elsewhere.

A set of stats to consider would be
Career starts; Career games; Career minutes; Career min/gm; 
School career starts; School career games; School career minutes; School career min/gm.
Season starts; Season games; Season minutes; Season min/gm

When you get into post-season, the players' post-season experience matters as well.


A "rebuilding" year is a year in which you bank experience to be drawn upon in the future.

---

1734389678[/url]']
I'm feeling more and more "done" with analyzing this team.  

That's the thing about an active mind... It keeps going and going.
Thanks for sharing!

---

It's interesting to see some support for Leopolo here for a change.  As I said before, I was less concerned than most about her being a play-maker than a shooter, but in this offense, I fear she would be too deliberate and slow it down.

Even if she doesn't play another game this year, wouldn't she be the player with the most career starts (70) at the end of the year? 
  Nope..  Heal has more starts with 66 at Santa Clara (but, IMO, she doesn't play like she's that experienced).

---

I certainly understand why Stanford WBB scheduled an easier slate than in recent years, but I'm not sure why MBB did.  Each team just had a little known opponent show up with a better team that one might have expected when the schedules were conceived.  Fortunately, Stanford won both games.

In my opinion, the offense moves too slowly. Most of these players haven’t run this offense very much in game situations. that I think Lepolo will help this offense when she returns, since has run it for two years and probably knows it as well as anyone on this team. Lepolo will also help with breaking a press, which would have been a big help on Monday.

Heal hasn’t run this offense either and she came from a less athletic league. She’s already scored over 1200 points in two years at Santa Clara and holds a couple of all-time season records. I think we will see more from her over the season.