WBB: Other teams - Printable Version

WBB: Other teams - 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: WBB: Other teams (/thread-25472.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

RE: WBB: Other teams - BostonCard - 04-08-2025

And it is worth noting that Auriemma notoriosly plays with a short bench, and that he has probably had more top-10 and top-5 players never make it onto the court than we have, just because they have played behind other top-5 players. It doesn't mean that they were busts or that they would not have thrived had they not been stuck behind higher profile players, but that's how Auriemma runs his team (and has done so successfully for many years) but it does make it hard to evaluate hypotheticals such as how Brooke Demetre would have done had she gone to UConn. I think most likely others are correct that she would have spent most of her time there riding the pine, but it would not have been notable since she would have been stuck on the bench behind top-5 players. The issue at Stanford is that despite her recruiting profile and ample opportunities for playing time her output could best be described as disappointing.

BC

RE: WBB: Other teams - qwerty49 - 04-08-2025

(04-08-2025, 03:49 PM)BostonCard Wrote: And it is worth noting that Auriemma notoriosly plays with a short bench, and that he has probably had more top-10 and top-5 players never make it onto the court than we have, just because they have played behind other top-5 players. It doesn't mean that they were busts or that they would not have thrived had they not been stuck behind higher profile players, but that's how Auriemma runs his team (and has done so successfully for many years) but it does make it hard to evaluate hypotheticals such as how Brooke Demetre would have done had she gone to UConn. I think most likely others are correct that she would have spent most of her time there riding the pine, but it would not have been notable since she would have been stuck on the bench behind top-5 players. The issue at Stanford is that despite her recruiting profile and ample opportunities for playing time her output could best be described as disappointing.

BC

I guess what amazes me is the fine line / juggling act that Geno can manage in 1) recruiting all those top players and 2) keeping them around for the promise of someday cracking the 8-player lineup he basically uses. And this has been going on since before NIL. It does create an image of the Evil Empire, a "team I love to hate," ie the rich just get richer.

Having said that, what can we learn from Geno? (Or maybe the question is "what can Kate learn from Geno?")

RE: WBB: Other teams - BobK - 04-08-2025

Harriel to SMU

RE: WBB: Other teams - liveoak - 04-08-2025

(04-08-2025, 09:31 AM)MV72018 Wrote:
(04-07-2025, 10:12 PM)Nobadeer Wrote: Since the year 2000, LSJU played in three NC games, scoring 47, 48 (vs. Uconn) and 54 points (1 NC).

LSJU appeared in six other Final 4s since 2000, scoring 58 points (vs. Uconn), 53 (vs. So. Caro), 56 (vs UConn), 47 (vs. Baylor), 62 (vs. Tex A&M), 64 (vs. UConn).

UConn has played in 11 NC games since 2000 and won them all, scoring 71, 82, 73, 70, 76, 53 (vs. LSJU), 93, 79, 63, 82, and 82 points.

Better players, better offensive schemes, or just consistently better gameday performances?

Better players and better coaches (who devise better offensive schemes). I view "better gameday performances" as an effect of better coaches coaching better players.

Question (without a definitive answer): if Demetre or Bosgana had played for Geno this past year (after being on the UConn team for two or three years before that) would that player have had a significantly better '24-'25 season than she did (6.3ppg for BD, 6.7ppg for EB)? I would guess that she likely would have. Why? Because Geno does a great job of disciplining, conditioning, and building up the confidence, determination, grit, and resilience of his players.

I'm not sure where you're getting your figures. The Stanford official individual stats show that Bosgana was the second leading scorer/rebounder (12.2 ppg/6.4 reg) and Demetre averaged 10.0 ppg/4.3 rebounds per game

I don't agree with this for two reasons. First, both Bosgana and Demetre had double-double games this year - so they can score and have the ability to do so. Bosgana has had some concentration problems on defense, so maybe Gino would have helped with that. Demetre's game is more suited to playing at 3 or 4, but she had to play the 5 most of the time - and I thought she improved playing the post as the year went on. Her problem is, as an undersized post, she got in foul trouble. And her strength is her outside shooting - not as useful in the post. I've seen them all 4 years and I think they both had their best season this year.

Second, I don't know if Gino could get a lot more out them -but I don't think they are as talented as the players that Gino already has (and he has many top 5 players on his team) and I don't think they would have gotten off the bench.

Are you suggesting that the Stanford coaching staff isn't good at developing players?

RE: WBB: Other teams - MV72018 - 04-09-2025

(04-08-2025, 10:04 PM)liveoak Wrote:
(04-08-2025, 09:31 AM)MV72018 Wrote:
(04-07-2025, 10:12 PM)Nobadeer Wrote: Since the year 2000, LSJU played in three NC games, scoring 47, 48 (vs. Uconn) and 54 points (1 NC).

LSJU appeared in six other Final 4s since 2000, scoring 58 points (vs. Uconn), 53 (vs. So. Caro), 56 (vs UConn), 47 (vs. Baylor), 62 (vs. Tex A&M), 64 (vs. UConn).

UConn has played in 11 NC games since 2000 and won them all, scoring 71, 82, 73, 70, 76, 53 (vs. LSJU), 93, 79, 63, 82, and 82 points.

Better players, better offensive schemes, or just consistently better gameday performances?

Better players and better coaches (who devise better offensive schemes). I view "better gameday performances" as an effect of better coaches coaching better players.

Question (without a definitive answer): if Demetre or Bosgana had played for Geno this past year (after being on the UConn team for two or three years before that) would that player have had a significantly better '24-'25 season than she did (6.3ppg for BD, 6.7ppg for EB)? I would guess that she likely would have. Why? Because Geno does a great job of disciplining, conditioning, and building up the confidence, determination, grit, and resilience of his players.

I'm not sure where you're getting your figures. The Stanford official individual stats show that Bosgana was the second leading scorer/rebounder (12.2 ppg/6.4 reg) and Demetre averaged 10.0 ppg/4.3 rebounds per game

I don't agree with this for two reasons. First, both Bosgana and Demetre had double-double games this year - so they can score and have the ability to do so. Bosgana has had some concentration problems on defense, so maybe Gino would have helped with that. Demetre's game is more suited to playing at 3 or 4, but she had to play the 5 most of the time - and I thought she improved playing the post as the year went on. Her problem is, as an undersized post, she got in foul trouble. And her strength is her outside shooting - not as useful in the post. I've seen them all 4 years and I think they both had their best season this year.

Second, I don't know if Gino could get a lot more out them -but I don't think they are as talented as the players that Gino already has (and he has many top 5 players on his team) and I don't think they would have gotten off the bench.

Are you suggesting that the Stanford coaching staff isn't good at developing players?

1. You are correct; the figures I cited were incorrect. My bad.
2. "I don't agree with this for two reasons." I don't know exactly what the "this" is with which you disagree. Obviously both players scored in double figures multiple times this year, hence had the clear capability of doing so. To me, the interesting questions are ones of level and consistency.
3. For whatever reason or reasons, I don't think that in the '24-'25 season either player reached the highest level of development -- gauged by scoring and defense level and overall consistency of play -- of which she is capable.
4. Am I "suggesting" that the Stanford coaching staff "isn't good at developing players?" So far I haven't seen much evidence that this coaching staff is impressively good at developing its players. (Clardy is arguably the best counterexample to this notion.) More generally, I'm not persuaded that the coaching staff, through its decisions and development work, got the most out of the talent it had onboard. Perhaps you think that the coaching staff got the most out of the talent it had, but that the problem was that because of recruiting and transfers, the staff had only modest talent to work with. There may be elements of truth in both viewpoints.

RE: WBB: Other teams - PalmTree - 04-09-2025

(04-09-2025, 11:37 AM)MV72018 Wrote:
(04-08-2025, 10:04 PM)liveoak Wrote:
(04-08-2025, 09:31 AM)MV72018 Wrote:
(04-07-2025, 10:12 PM)Nobadeer Wrote: Since the year 2000, LSJU played in three NC games, scoring 47, 48 (vs. Uconn) and 54 points (1 NC).

LSJU appeared in six other Final 4s since 2000, scoring 58 points (vs. Uconn), 53 (vs. So. Caro), 56 (vs UConn), 47 (vs. Baylor), 62 (vs. Tex A&M), 64 (vs. UConn).

UConn has played in 11 NC games since 2000 and won them all, scoring 71, 82, 73, 70, 76, 53 (vs. LSJU), 93, 79, 63, 82, and 82 points.

Better players, better offensive schemes, or just consistently better gameday performances?

Better players and better coaches (who devise better offensive schemes). I view "better gameday performances" as an effect of better coaches coaching better players.

Question (without a definitive answer): if Demetre or Bosgana had played for Geno this past year (after being on the UConn team for two or three years before that) would that player have had a significantly better '24-'25 season than she did (6.3ppg for BD, 6.7ppg for EB)? I would guess that she likely would have. Why? Because Geno does a great job of disciplining, conditioning, and building up the confidence, determination, grit, and resilience of his players.

I'm not sure where you're getting your figures. The Stanford official individual stats show that Bosgana was the second leading scorer/rebounder (12.2 ppg/6.4 reg) and Demetre averaged 10.0 ppg/4.3 rebounds per game

I don't agree with this for two reasons. First, both Bosgana and Demetre had double-double games this year - so they can score and have the ability to do so. Bosgana has had some concentration problems on defense, so maybe Gino would have helped with that. Demetre's game is more suited to playing at 3 or 4, but she had to play the 5 most of the time - and I thought she improved playing the post as the year went on. Her problem is, as an undersized post, she got in foul trouble. And her strength is her outside shooting - not as useful in the post. I've seen them all 4 years and I think they both had their best season this year.

Second, I don't know if Gino could get a lot more out them -but I don't think they are as talented as the players that Gino already has (and he has many top 5 players on his team) and I don't think they would have gotten off the bench.

Are you suggesting that the Stanford coaching staff isn't good at developing players?

1. Your are correct; the figures I cited were incorrect. My bad.
2. "I don't agree with this for two reasons." I don't know exactly what the "this" is with which you disagree. Obviously both players scored in double figures multiple times this year, hence had the clear capability of doing so. To me, the interesting questions are ones of level and consistency.
3. For whatever reason or reasons, I don't think that in the '24-'25 season either player reached the highest level of development -- gauged by scoring and defense level and overall consistency of play -- of which she is capable.
4. Am I "suggesting" that the Stanford coaching staff "isn't good at developing players?" So far I haven't seen much evidence that this coaching staff is impressively good at developing its players. (Clardy is arguably the best counterexample to this notion.) More generally, I'm not persuaded that the coaching staff, through its decisions and development work, got the most out of the talent it had onboard. Perhaps you think that the coaching staff got the most out of the talent it had, but that the problem was that because of recruiting and transfers, the staff had only modest talent to work with. There may be elements of truth in both viewpoints.

In re your #4, there are some critical skills/abilities that seem to me very difficult for <any> staff to help players develop/improve on - these being foot speed, fast-twitch reaction and ability to create, or help to create, shots. The first two are more innate physical abilities that IMHO, are probably the most limiting for a player. The last is the more coachable, but is somewhat dependent on a player's developing aptitude/skills for quick reads, fast-twitch reaction to the situation and decent situational ball handling/movement ability. Add consistency on top of these. Bottom line, I think we got as much as we could from our players in the high-tempo ACC.

Pre-game prep/game-planning, in-game adjustments and player mental/mindset coaching are to me, different issues.

RE: WBB: Other teams - BillBradley - 04-09-2025

(04-07-2025, 02:27 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote:
(04-06-2025, 02:27 PM)JohnR34231 Wrote: Yeah, no doubt who the best team in the nation is right now. They may not have been earlier in the year but they sure are now.
They just might be next year too even without Bueckers. Sarah Strong is one of the best players in the nation as a freshman.

You have to give all the props to Auriemma. John Wooden won 10 NCs. Geno now has won 12 and counting. He gets great players and pushes them and pushes them to be great. Then he pushes them to be even greater. And they deliver, both individually and as a team. I also don't think Geno gets the credit he is due for being perhaps the best coach of defense ever. His best teams play 40 minutes of intense, pressure, man-to-man defense that prevent the offense from doing what it wants to do. It's very disruptive as we saw all tournament.

Totally agree. His teams play with great intensity and focus on both ends of the floor. I love watching Bueckers play, both because of her scoring ability and her defense. She comes up with so many rebounds and loose balls. She's a great example of someone who plays at the highest level without incredible athleticism. She has nice length, but she isn't blinding quick or strong. What she does have - a brobdingnagian heart. Geno was a perfect fit for her.

RE: WBB: Other teams - BosCard - 04-10-2025

Enjoying watching the exodus from UCLA. Six UCLA players in the transfer portal including all 4 members of their highly ranked freshman class. Turnabout is fair play. Betts is a great player and she wanted more playing time and attention so she shouldn’t be surprised that 6 of her former teammates want the same thing for themselves.

RE: WBB: Other teams - BostonCard - 04-10-2025

(04-10-2025, 03:05 PM)BosCard Wrote: Enjoying watching the exodus from UCLA. Six UCLA players in the transfer portal including all 4 members of their highly ranked freshman class. Turnabout is fair play. Betts is a great player and she wanted more playing time and attention so she shouldn’t be surprised that 6 of her former teammates want the same thing for themselves.

Aside from the tiniest bit of schadenfreude, I don't. I don't think the constant transferring is good for women's basketball (or collegiate athletics in general) and it is not good for those players academic progress. Some of them may play professionally, and many will likely get NIL deals out of the transfer, but the majority will finish their collegiate basketball careers and have to go into an actual career, where actually learning stuff in college may be useful. Otherwise, we are talking about semi-pro athletes completely divorced from the purpose of college, and I don't think that's good for the sport.

BC

RE: WBB: Other teams - MV72018 - 04-10-2025

(04-10-2025, 03:34 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
(04-10-2025, 03:05 PM)BosCard Wrote: Enjoying watching the exodus from UCLA. Six UCLA players in the transfer portal including all 4 members of their highly ranked freshman class. Turnabout is fair play. Betts is a great player and she wanted more playing time and attention so she shouldn’t be surprised that 6 of her former teammates want the same thing for themselves.

Aside from the tiniest bit of schadenfreude, I don't. I don't think the constant transferring is good for women's basketball (or collegiate athletics in general) and it is not good for those players academic progress. Some of them may play professionally, and many will likely get NIL deals out of the transfer, but the majority will finish their collegiate basketball careers and have to go into an actual career, where actually learning stuff in college may be useful. Otherwise, we are talking about semi-pro athletes completely divorced from the purpose of college, and I don't think that's good for the sport.

BC

Hear, hear!

RE: WBB: Other teams - Goose - 04-10-2025

(04-10-2025, 04:20 PM)MV72018 Wrote:
(04-10-2025, 03:34 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
(04-10-2025, 03:05 PM)BosCard Wrote: Enjoying watching the exodus from UCLA. Six UCLA players in the transfer portal including all 4 members of their highly ranked freshman class. Turnabout is fair play. Betts is a great player and she wanted more playing time and attention so she shouldn’t be surprised that 6 of her former teammates want the same thing for themselves.

Aside from the tiniest bit of schadenfreude, I don't. I don't think the constant transferring is good for women's basketball (or collegiate athletics in general) and it is not good for those players academic progress. Some of them may play professionally, and many will likely get NIL deals out of the transfer, but the majority will finish their collegiate basketball careers and have to go into an actual career, where actually learning stuff in college may be useful. Otherwise, we are talking about semi-pro athletes completely divorced from the purpose of college, and I don't think that's good for the sport.

BC

Hear, hear!

I agree as well. It isn't "good" for academic progress no matter which individual colleges one is talking about. FWIW I am not very interested in watching semi-pro football, even if the jersey says "Stanford" on it.

RE: WBB: Other teams - jacket3ree - 04-10-2025

Of course it isn't good for academic progress, which is why I've never known any non-athlete friend or acquaintance (or my dad) who transferred more than once. That would be stupid; who can afford to constantly start over? I knew plenty of people who transferred once for good reasons and made the most of it. I had lots of undergraduate friends who flunked out and did well starting over in something else, somewhere else.

That said, I can't get too worked up about grown adults making what I might think are stupid decisions. FAAFO. Maybe there is an argument about how valuable a college degree really is these days. Someone on NPR was making the case for quick and focused certificates being the way to go over nothing but student debt and useless in real life degrees. Define priceless, right?

RE: WBB: Other teams - PVTree - 04-11-2025

Fulwiley going to the transfer portal. A very electric player, but may not been happy coming off the bench at South Carolina. I can see her ending up at one of the other powerhouses like LSU.

RE: WBB: Other teams - HalloHaleakala - 04-12-2025

(04-07-2025, 08:14 PM)Lorcan Wrote: It still marvels me that we haven't figured out how to tap into an Ivy to Stanford pipeline. Kaitlyn Davis, Kaitlyn Chen, Makenzie Forbes, et al. could've been interesting gets.

Abby Meyers, too. That one hurt a little. (Although her choice made perfect sense for her on multiple levels.)