Grading Kate Paye's Performance - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Grading Kate Paye's Performance (/thread-25440.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Grading Kate Paye's Performance (/thread-25440.html)
RE: 76lsjumb - Mick - 03-21-2025
(02-22-2025, 09:51 AM)gailtate Wrote:(02-02-2025, 01:04 PM)CowboyIndian Wrote:(02-02-2025, 12:07 AM)76lsjumb Wrote: You left out the part of the article where it discussed how this happened just a few months after Coach Taylor led the undefeated Cardinal football team to its first National Championship…
2nd
3rd
Heh heh.
I know how bad four consecutive 3-9 seasons and two consecutive 3-9 seasons and the effects it had on Taylor's staff and circle. I wonder how awful/terrible/criminal Coach Taylor have been if he'd actually won the national championship.
RE: Grading Kate Paye's 1st Season - FarmTeam - 03-22-2025
(03-21-2025, 09:01 AM)SkiBum80 Wrote: I was waiting til end of season to post here.
I thought Coach had a good start to season.
Also said a lot of positive things and seemed to have a good approach coming into the season.
As the season continued it became quite a rollercoaster and some things seemed to unravel.
At times getting some great efforts and games out of our players, othertimes just looking very lackluster and unprepared.
Then last night's bitter and bungled NIT game was far under potential and expectations.
And exposed some questionable schemes and coaching, or lack of quick responsive coaching adjustments.
Yes ACC travel is a bear, yes referees have been atrocious at times.
Even taking that into account, I think her coaching was average at best.
And at Stanford, as is at Lake Wobegon, we are hoping for, and expecting, above average.
I don't watch all that much of the WBB team so I'll mostly keep my opinions to myself. With that said, the track record of long-time assistants in blue-chip programs working with legendary coaches is quite poor imo.
I don't have stats to back that up, so it's possible I'm over-generalizing. But even in Stanford's recent history, we have Haase (Roy Williams) and Dawkins (Coach K) on the men's side.
I'd so much rather hire a coach who has a proven record of success at multiple programs. Such as Kyle Smith. Even though I'll admit I was intrigued by the idea of hiring Mark Madsen, I was much happier to get Smith. No one knew/knows whether Madsen is actually a good coach.
And back to Paye: we have no idea if she is a good coach. In fact, early evidence suggests that she isn't.
At best, Paye was a big roll of the dice for a program that, unlike MBB, is one of the top jobs in the country and presumably could have gotten almost anyone they wanted. That's just mismanagement, which sadly is par for the course for Muir.
RE: Grading Kate Paye's 1st Season - chimera - 03-22-2025
Paye was given the job at a very rough time. Talent level is down significantly. The team was inexperienced. The seniors were more role players thrust into bigger roles than the type of players who can carry a team. New conference with tons of travel, which probably cut into practice time somewhat. Hole in the middle without the posts the team has had. Much had to be overcome. Little was. To me the jury is still out on Kate. Signs are worrying but she, like players, can learn and improve.
To the good, we saw individual players improve - Clardy, Ogden despite her last game, Stevenson also despite her last game. Agara emerged as a potential star (cut the turnovers and finish just a big better and she is there). Unfortunately the team as a whole did not improve over the course of the season. The whole was never even as good as the sum of its parts. The defense was absolutely wretched by Stanford standards. To me defense means good scouts and schemes, great hustle, great focus, and just overall effort. The defense had limitations due to personnel but no way it should have been quite that bad. That is coaching. The offense was fine against lesser teams but collapses against better ones way too often. Adjustments in game were not always made successfully. We got waxed in third quarters in more than a few games. The other teams adjusted better. We still looked tentative and made way too many unforced turnovers late in the season.
We have seen coaches take teams with little talent and turn them into disciplined, competitive teams. Rueck in his first years at OSU is an example. Was Stanford a consistently disciplined, competitive team? I would say no. Too sloppy, too often. Too little focus, too often. Sometimes they did not look ready to play. In the end I think the issues were both talent level and coaching. This team did not have the talent to go far. They did have plenty enough talent to beat Portland or not get crushed by Clemson or Virginia. Young teams are often inconsistent but by the end of the year no way we should bow out so meekly in the ACC tournament to a middling Clemson team. Losing is one thing. Not even being competitive is another.
Next year I expect if the coaching is up to par the team will be a lot better. Better in this context to me means make the NCAAs, bring it on defense, improve as a team over the course of the season as the freshmen get acclimated, and end up in the top 25. It means be competitive against "better" teams. I hope to see changes in the offense and defense. Kate needs to not be Tara 2.0. That will not work.
RE: Grading Kate Paye's 1st Season - BostonCard - 03-22-2025
Rick Pitino’s coaching tree has done alright: three titles between Billy Donovan and Tubby Smith.
Duke is coached by a coach K protege (former player and assistant), and seems to be doing alright (it helps to have the best player).
I would say that on the balance, former assistants and players of legends probably do a bit worse than expectations because expectations are probably weighted upwards due to expectations that the magic will rub off.
BC
RE: Grading Kate Paye's 1st Season - old spanish trail - 03-22-2025
It's good to remember that Paye was told she would be the next coach on Tara's retirement. She stayed for at least the last 5 years, in spite of a number of offers, and many inquiries. She will be fine. Her assistants have lots of important experience, but I wish she had an enthusiastic, young addition.
RE: Grading Kate Paye's 1st Season - CompSci87 - 03-22-2025
(03-22-2025, 05:34 PM)old spanish trail Wrote: It's good to remember that Paye was told she would be the next coach on Tara's retirement. She stayed for at least the last 5 years, in spite of a number of offers, and many inquiries. She will be fine. Her assistants have lots of important experience, but I wish she had an enthusiastic, young addition.
Don't Erica McCall and Jeanette Pohlen count as young and enthusiastic?
RE: Grading Kate Paye's 1st Season - bl82 - 03-22-2025
My overall grate is incomplete. So far, the recruiting has been great and it all starts with recruiting. Let's see how well Kate can lock in the pieces that will make the most difference next year and supplement the incoming frosh with talent from the NIL that can make a difference right from the start. Then let's see what Kate can do with those pieces in year #2. I see a big upgrade in performance in the works, but I'm not sure what sort of ceiling next year's team will have.
One thing about Kate that's easy to overlook is that, unlike Tara, she does not have Kate Paye as her top assistant. Tara made great use of Kate so they made an impressive 1-2 punch. I loved watching Tara and Kate analyze the games in real-time on the bench and wish I could have read lips to see what they are saying. Who is it that provides real-time strategic and tactical input to Kate? Heather Oesterle? I do see them talking the most. Also, Tara used Kate as a super scout for upcoming opponents. Who does Kate rely on for this? Does that person do the same level of analysis and prep that Kate did?
RE: Grading Kate Paye's 1st Season - GK3 - 03-22-2025
(03-21-2025, 10:07 AM)81alum Wrote: I find it hard to know how to judge the coaching this year. Not just Kate, but the overall coaching staff might well be the most qualified in the nation, with all the WNBA players and all the experience under one of the best (Tara.) So clearly our lack of success this year is not due to lack of know-how or experience at winning and knowing how to do so.I think with her incoming class, Kate has a very good chance to turn things around. What concerns me is how patient will the potential stars we join us next year. A so so year could easily see people leaving
So what is it? There it is a ticklish calculation about how well we did with the talent/experience we had on hand. Did we underperform our level of talent? If you think our level of talent is high, then obviously we underperformed. If you think our team just was not as richly talented as in the past, then maybe having a winning season (which we just barely did) is not so bad.
My own view is that we had a dearth of both talent and experience. Our seniors (Demetre, Bosgana, and Harriel) all had particular talents, but none of them was talented enough to be the kind of player that can put the team on her back in clutch time. And all of them had weaknesses that the opponents could exploit. They were not up to the level of Brink and Iriafen, obviously, but I also don't think they were up to the level of leaders who were not superstars like Brittany McPhee, Erica McCall, Dijonai Carrington, Amber Orrange, etc. It has been a very long time since we have not had one of those kinds of talents to lead the team. So I'm not convinced that our seniors had a higher ceiling that a better coach could have helped them to reach. And of those seniors, only Bosgana had ever started a game before this season--and for less than a season. Not since the beginning of Tara's time here have we had such a complete dearth of experienced leadership.
Turning to our junior class...that is the class that was devastated by transfers out. Lepolo was injured, and the others were Papadaki and Green, who never played a significant role in a game. So other than Tess Heal transferring in, there was NO junior class, to go along with a weak senior class.
This was a team whose talent and future promise was centered on the sophomore class. Agara, Clardy, and Ogden all made important strides this season compared with last season. Agara and Clardy were asked to play positions outside of their most natural "fits" for the sake of the team. Agara really should not be a 5, and Clardy was not really supposed to be a point guard. But they both acquitted themselves well, and some of that has to be attributable to player development and coaching. Ogden remains more of a mystery to me. Many of us thought she was making important improvements in her game, and then last night reminded us of her inconsistency. So while I think the coaches have done a splendid job helping Agara and Clardy to mature into improved players, they certainly have not with Ogden.
The freshmen don't tell us a lot about coaching--but we know from a lot of past experience that the best time to judge new players is after they have been part of the system for one year. Ijiwoye simply has to develop a consistent offensive purpose. I am a bit disappointed we did not see more of that from her late in the season. Umeh has done a fabulous job getting into better shape--but it won't be enough for the ACC unless she continues. Large centers are not going to be everyday players in the ACC unless they can sprint up and down the court for an entire game. However, she has made a great deal of progress, so the coaching/conditioning is doing something right. Peterson has been injured all year, and I wonder whether she will be able to get healthy in time to transform herself before ACC play. She needs to do a "Hannah Jump." But there is nothing really to judge when it comes to coaching her.
Our transfers had big transitions for themselves. Each of them made very important contributions. MAS has not reached her potential yet, in my opinion. I think she did improve over the season, as a whole, but last night reminded us of her offensive inconsistency. She may be our best rebounder, and her defense seems to have improved too. But I did not think her offense improved nearly enough over the season. Not sure how the coaches can get more out of her, but they need to. Tess Heal was more of a finished product when she arrived, and she also absorbed our system relatively quickly. I always though she was the most aggressive player on the court. But as last night showed, she could be victimized by opposing offenses who figured out our switching schemes. Coaches can't make her taller. She is who she is--one of my favorites--but she will have to be a role player in a league like the ACC.
Moving from player development to X's and O's, I was surprised that Kate Paye did not perform better at making halftime adjustments, or at anticipating opposing schemes. She has always been Tara's best scout and game planner, by far. But there were some head-scratchers. Last night, we could not adequately respond to the Portland halftime adjustments. As she herself said, the offense went stagnant. We knew in advance what Portland did on defense, but seemed flummoxed and ill prepared to handle it.
My overall assessment is still that Kate Paye deserves two more years, although she has somewhat depleted my reservoir of patience. I expect her to install a new offense, I expect her to settle in as she and the team learn how to deal with the travel and new opponents, and I expect her recruiting to continue to be good. We can't expect a return to greatness next year--the incoming class that she recruited will need a year to be integrated into the team--but I would expect that next year will be significantly better than this year. One BIG factor in our favor is the complete ending of COVID years. If it were not for those extra 5th years teams like Portland and most of the ACC teams we played would have been entirely different, and our experience levels would not have been so vastly different.
RE: Grading Kate Paye's 1st Season - BillBradley - 03-22-2025
I've posted before on this topic, so I won't go into much detail. I'm concerned about Kate. I don't think the team was ready to play in a number of games, often coming out flat. I do think the team had enough talent to win more games. I thought we could have finished middle of the ACC and made the tourney. As I said numerous times, I question the effort. Teams have to play hard to win, even moreso when you don't have as much talent. Winning 50/50 balls, getting on the floor, beating your player down the court, defensive tenacity, etc.. Those are things that really don't describe this year's team.
Sidenote: I'd like to point out the difference between "effort on the court" and "caring". Those are entirely different things.
RE: Grading Kate Paye's 1st Season - FarmTeam - 03-22-2025
(03-22-2025, 05:17 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Rick Pitino’s coaching tree has done alright: three titles between Billy Donovan and Tubby Smith.
Duke is coached by a coach K protege (former player and assistant), and seems to be doing alright (it helps to have the best player).
I would say that on the balance, former assistants and players of legends probably do a bit worse than expectations because expectations are probably weighted upwards due to expectations that the magic will rub off.
BC
Not to split hairs, but I said "long-time" assistants. Billy D and Tubby aren't good examples in any case: they were only with Pitino for a few years and didn't inherit blue-chip programs. Scheyer was so young that he's almost a case unto himself (he was, what, 34 when he got the job?) though I suppose it's fair to lump him in. But on balance I'd say that Coach K has way more failures in his tree than successes. Off the top of my head, I'm thinking Dawkins, Wojo, Snyder (as a college coach), Collins, Amaker.
We could argue examples and maybe someone out there has done a deep-dive on this, but my broader point was less about the "assistant" part and more about having a proven track record as a head coach. And not just a year or two at some small-time program where the name is enough to attract a slightly better caliber of recruit and then achieve a quick bump (looking at you Jerod Haase, Troy Taylor, Mark Madsen). Without the latter, the risk is infinitely higher imo.
No reason Stanford needed to take a risk. How many better jobs in NCAA WBB are there? A half dozen?
RE: Grading Kate Paye's 1st Season - M T - 03-22-2025
So you agree that bringing in someone that doesn’t know the system that worked well the year before, that doesn’t know the players, and that doesn’t know the school administration nor the school culture waa a risk best not taken?
RE: Grading Kate Paye's 1st Season - crackpot - 03-23-2025
(03-22-2025, 05:34 PM)old spanish trail Wrote: It's good to remember that Paye was told she would be the next coach on Tara's retirement. She stayed for at least the last 5 years, in spite of a number of offers, and many inquiries. She will be fine. Her assistants have lots of important experience, but I wish she had an enthusiastic, young addition.
Has she had any serious offers since 2017? She used the U$C offer as leverage for the #2 seat and guarantee she'd be the next HC. I can't see anyone making her any offers after that.
RE: Grading Kate Paye's 1st Season - qwerty49 - 03-23-2025
It seemed pretty obvious to me that we didn’t have the right talent this year, too many players not at their best positions, and, unfortunately, a step slow as far as athleticism went. I think Kate did pretty well with what she had. (ie the Cards she was dealt, LOL)
Having said that, there are a few options for an offense without a true 5, and maybe Kate will take a look at that in the off season. Not having a true 5 in the post had a ripple effect on the lineup.
RE: Grading Kate Paye's 1st Season - FarmTeam - 03-23-2025
(03-22-2025, 11:42 PM)M T Wrote: So you agree that bringing in someone that doesn’t know the system that worked well the year before, that doesn’t know the players, and that doesn’t know the school administration nor the school culture waa a risk best not taken?
Agree? Yes, I agree since, yes, my entire point is hiring a long-time assistant is a risk and imo a mistake without at least seeing who else is available. :)
Worked well the year before? Umm, depends on how you define "well" in light of their flame-out in the Tournament -- and the prior year's worse flame-out -- but not worth arguing about since it's not the point. The point is that Tara of course had a great career, but her longtime assistant isn't necessarily going to achieve at those same levels and shouldn't have gotten the job imo without at least seeing who else was available. A lazy hiring by Muir.
RE: 76lsjumb - fullmetal - 03-23-2025
(03-21-2025, 10:16 AM)Mick Wrote: I know how bad four consecutive 3-9 seasons and two consecutive 3-9 seasons and the effects it had on Taylor's staff and circle. I wonder how awful/terrible/criminal Coach Taylor have been if he'd actually won the national championship.
I think part of my distaste for the whole situation is that the highlighted behaviors are probably not at all conducive to winning a national championship. Holding players and coaches accountable for performance is sometimes unyielding and hard to endure. But blowing up your staff constantly and blowing up over small things is unlikely to win anyone a championship. People will point to successful coaches and say that "so-and-so was no angel," but that completely ignores the actual details of how/why coaches are perceived to be assholes. TT seems like the kind of guy who manages his team, saying "the beatings will continue until morale improves." Harbs set a clear standard for players and drove everyone to meet it. I'm unclear on his later behavior that rankled boosters and folks, but JH got results out of his players in year one. Clearly TT has mistaken being mean/angry for being a driven leader with uncompromising standards. Hope he figures out the difference some day.
RE: Grading Kate Paye's 1st Season - bl82 - 03-23-2025
So if only the steak eaters have had their feelings hurt and are complaining, does it really matter?
RE: Grading Kate Paye's 1st Season - UltimateCard - 03-23-2025
There’s been much discussion on several threads about the effect of travel; I couldn’t find a recent post so dropping this here: In today’s NYTimes/The Athletic, Chantel Jennings reviews UCLA WBB’s odyssey to becoming the top overall seed: How Long was Path to the Tournament for UCLA Women? 36,000 miles (sorry, likely paywall). Interesting to read about all the program adjustments. One comment notes that despite the disruption, a number of Bruins made Big Ten All-Academic team. Hope the former PAC-12 coaches compare notes…
RE: Grading Kate Paye's 1st Season - crackpot - 03-23-2025
(03-23-2025, 04:00 PM)UltimateCard Wrote: There’s been much discussion on several threads about the effect of travel; I couldn’t find a recent post so dropping this here: In today’s NYTimes/The Athletic, Chantel Jennings reviews UCLA WBB’s odyssey to becoming the top overall seed: How Long was Path to the Tournament for UCLA Women? 36,000 miles (sorry, likely paywall). Interesting to read about all the program adjustments. One comment notes that despite the disruption, a number of Bruins made Big Ten All-Academic team. Hope the former PAC-12 coaches compare notes…
I found it most interesting that they kept to PT, rather than acclimating to ET.
I was also tempted to try tart cherry juice concentrate, but that stuff's expensive!
RE: Grading Kate Paye's 1st Season - StanUSwagU - 03-23-2025
(03-23-2025, 04:00 PM)UltimateCard Wrote: There’s been much discussion on several threads about the effect of travel; I couldn’t find a recent post so dropping this here: In today’s NYTimes/The Athletic, Chantel Jennings reviews UCLA WBB’s odyssey to becoming the top overall seed: How Long was Path to the Tournament for UCLA Women? 36,000 miles (sorry, likely paywall). Interesting to read about all the program adjustments. One comment notes that despite the disruption, a number of Bruins made Big Ten All-Academic team. Hope the former PAC-12 coaches compare notes…
***********
Hi UltimateCard
About this: "Hope the former PAC-12 coaches compare notes…"
If you were referring to Stanford trying to learn from UCLA how to 'make adjustments to better cope with the increased travel distances & time' ...I would not hold your breath;
Many at Stanford think 'they have a standard that is better, & know more than UCLA, NotreDame & Duke' & would resist adopting some of those university's approaches. And that's really pretty sad & close-minded, and may be a factor in Stanford Sports stagnating, & Stanford student-athletes experiences suffering, while the other 3 universities seem to be adapting more quickly to this new 'NIL/TransferPortal/ExtendedTravel /Need more nimble AdmissionsReviewAndAcceptance For Undergrads & Transfers/ era.
I guess the good news on the Extended Travel front is that 'Commercial Supersonic Flight' (in the form of Boom Air & Coast to Coast, Point to Point Flights) might be coming online in the year 2030 (though very expensive), so after that with the Large Sums of Money that we Stanford purportedly have, maybe we can contract with Boom Air's Commercial Supersonic Flight to ferry the Stanford Teams from California to the ACC East Coast trips, saving lots of hours of 'Flight Time' for our student-athletes.
RE: Grading Kate Paye's 1st Season - liveoak - 03-23-2025
(03-23-2025, 03:09 PM)FarmTeam Wrote:(03-22-2025, 11:42 PM)M T Wrote: So you agree that bringing in someone that doesn’t know the system that worked well the year before, that doesn’t know the players, and that doesn’t know the school administration nor the school culture waa a risk best not taken?
Agree? Yes, I agree since, yes, my entire point is hiring a long-time assistant is a risk and imo a mistake without at least seeing who else is available. :)
Worked well the year before? Umm, depends on how you define "well" in light of their flame-out in the Tournament -- and the prior year's worse flame-out -- but not worth arguing about since it's not the point. The point is that Tara of course had a great career, but her longtime assistant isn't necessarily going to achieve at those same levels and shouldn't have gotten the job imo without at least seeing who else was available. A lazy hiring by Muir.
And my point is...it depends. I'll give you two names - Holly Warlick, Pat Summitt's longtime assistant at Tennessee and Niele Ivey, Muffet McGraw longtime assistant at Notre Dame.
Warlick started off well and won a league title and three Elite Eights before she had a couple of relatively bad years and got fired. Ivey took over for McGraw in 2020 and was 10 -10 in that Covid year. She's won at least 24 games the next four years, along with two lleague titles
I think the idea that you shouldn't hire a longtime assistant is a truism that is not necessarily true. I think the first coach who follows a long-serving legend will have a very difficult time and often doesn't succeed - whether they were a long-term assistant or not. This may happen to Kate Paye, though I hope and wish that she has great success as a Stanford coach.
A couple of comments about the "year before" We lost to NC State last year (I was there) because our players weren't athletic enough to cover their guards, Aziaha James and Saniya Rivers - not by coaching.
I believe I read in another thread a concern that Kate hadn't gotten any outside job offers since USC in 2017. I think it was pretty well known afterwards that Kate was being setup to take over from Tara when she left...in fact, it would have been shocking if she didn't get the job. I think this was already planned and I would not attribute her hiring to Bernard Muir. I don't think Muir's done a good job the last several year and I'm glad he's leaving, but this wasn't on him.
Kate may do well or may not. There is definitely room for improvement, but I'm very much looking forward to seeing her and the team next season.