[81alum]

I wonder if we’ll see Haley Jones back in this game. If the team policy is must have two practices after returning from safety protocols, not sure she’ll qualify. Team would have had Monday off. So today would be 1 practice and tomorrow would be shoot around on a game day. I hope she’s back! Oregon State is no slouch and being on the NCAA bubble and a 2 game slide, they are looking for a signature win. If we play to our capabilities, we can handle them.

Entirely right.  After losing three games this year--two of them most probably to teams with inferior talent--we ought to know that the opponent most likely to beat us is ourselves.  It is a psychological struggle, game in and game out, to play up to our full potential, knowing that if multiple players have an "off" game we can lose.  But if we are hitting on 5 cylinders no one can stop us.

Hopefully our depth and talent will help us not lose another game this season. Our three losses were all winnable contests in my estimation and after seeing us against top competition, I think if we play well in the postseason, then another title wouldn't be out of the question. It's not like in some years past when we had to play well AND hope that the level of a top tier opponent, like UConn drops a notch for us to have a chance.

I think our best matches up against anyone's best this season. The big question is whether we'll be able to play our best in those critical situations.

---

This argument is a bit specious. You play enough games against very good teams (and Stanford has played a bunch of ranked teams) and eventually you will lose a game or two against an inferior opponent.

Being the second best team in the country doesn’t mean you never lose to teams ranked below you or that losing to those teams ranked below you means that you beat yourself. It just means that, on that particular night, the opponent scored more points than you did. And maybe, just maybe, it is because the opponent, who let’s remember, has agency and is actively trying to score more points than you, succeeds in their endeavor.

I would not want anyone to think that if we beat South Carolina in the tournament it’s because the gamecocks beat themselves.

BC

I think it's a fine line. I think you can give credit to your opponents, they played better on those occasions and deserved to beat us. They were more successful in those instances and the better team that night won.

You can also say that we can be better, to try to minimize mistakes and be better prepared. As we saw in those close losses, a couple fewer turnovers could have made the difference.

I can see your point though. It sounds like sour grapes when someone says the reason Team X won was because Team Y beat themselves. However, it doesn't mean that there's no basis in truth. We can throw everything we can at Aliyah Boston and she can still score 20 points and you just have to tip your cap and say "too good." On the other hand, if you throw away a ball under no pressure or miscommunicated with a teammate on a play, then you can still call that an unforced error.

I'm merely paraphrasing what I have heard Tara and countless other coaches say over the years, but this year I happen to believe it is true and not just a rhetorical point that coaches always make.

Many years I have felt that Tara was able to coach our team so effectively that they could often beat teams that were more talented that we were.  This year I think  it is our team that has the superior raw talent compared with most of the teams we play.  We can win games when our players play up to their expected potential.  We don't need career-high performances from a McPhee to beat Oregon, or Pohlen to beat UConn.  We have half a dozen players who can all potentially break out or all combine their production. 

Can we lose?  Of course, and we probably will lose again at some point.  Even with all that talent it is difficult not to hit some games when a few of your players are having off nights.  Our depth reduces that--we are not Chiney and the Chinettes such that if Chiney has an off night we lose.  But if Brink gets in foul trouble, Jones turns the ball over 7 times, and Lexi goes into a shooting slump--all real possibilities and all at the same time--then we would probably lose.  In doing so, we would not be playing up to our potential, as opposed to being defeated by superior talent.

[81alum]

I wonder if we’ll see Haley Jones back in this game. If the team policy is must have two practices after returning from safety protocols, not sure she’ll qualify. Team would have had Monday off. So today would be 1 practice and tomorrow would be shoot around on a game day. I hope she’s back! Oregon State is no slouch and being on the NCAA bubble and a 2 game slide, they are looking for a signature win. If we play to our capabilities, we can handle them.

Entirely right.  After losing three games this year--two of them most probably to teams with inferior talent--we ought to know that the opponent most likely to beat us is ourselves.  It is a psychological struggle, game in and game out, to play up to our full potential, knowing that if multiple players have an "off" game we can lose.  But if we are hitting on 5 cylinders no one can stop us.

Hopefully our depth and talent will help us not lose another game this season. Our three losses were all winnable contests in my estimation and after seeing us against top competition, I think if we play well in the postseason, then another title wouldn't be out of the question. It's not like in some years past when we had to play well AND hope that the level of a top tier opponent, like UConn drops a notch for us to have a chance.

I think our best matches up against anyone's best this season. The big question is whether we'll be able to play our best in those critical situations.

---

This argument is a bit specious. You play enough games against very good teams (and Stanford has played a bunch of ranked teams) and eventually you will lose a game or two against an inferior opponent.

Being the second best team in the country doesn’t mean you never lose to teams ranked below you or that losing to those teams ranked below you means that you beat yourself. It just means that, on that particular night, the opponent scored more points than you did. And maybe, just maybe, it is because the opponent, who let’s remember, has agency and is actively trying to score more points than you, succeeds in their endeavor.

I would not want anyone to think that if we beat South Carolina in the tournament it’s because the gamecocks beat themselves.

BC

I think it's a fine line. I think you can give credit to your opponents, they played better on those occasions and deserved to beat us. They were more successful in those instances and the better team that night won.

You can also say that we can be better, to try to minimize mistakes and be better prepared. As we saw in those close losses, a couple fewer turnovers could have made the difference.

I can see your point though. It sounds like sour grapes when someone says the reason Team X won was because Team Y beat themselves. However, it doesn't mean that there's no basis in truth. We can throw everything we can at Aliyah Boston and she can still score 20 points and you just have to tip your cap and say "too good." On the other hand, if you throw away a ball under no pressure or miscommunicated with a teammate on a play, then you can still call that an unforced error.

I'm merely paraphrasing what I have heard Tara and countless other coaches say over the years, but this year I happen to believe it is true and not just a rhetorical point that coaches always make.

Many years I have felt that Tara was able to coach our team so effectively that they could often beat teams that were more talented that we were.  This year I think  it is our team that has the superior raw talent compared with most of the teams we play.  We can win games when our players play up to their expected potential.  We don't need career-high performances from a McPhee to beat Oregon, or Pohlen to beat UConn.  We have half a dozen players who can all potentially break out or all combine their production. 

Can we lose?  Of course, and we probably will lose again at some point.  Even with all that talent it is difficult not to hit some games when a few of your players are having off nights.  Our depth reduces that--we are not Chiney and the Chinettes such that if Chiney has an off night we lose.  But if Brink gets in foul trouble, Jones turns the ball over 7 times, and Lexi goes into a shooting slump--all real possibilities and all at the same time--then we would probably lose.  In doing so, we would not be playing up to our potential, as opposed to being defeated by superior talent.