[M T]

WAcard,  welcome to the Cardboard.  From your moniker, I'm guessing you're not able to see many of the Stanford games in person, and are limited to the TV games. 

As 81alum suggests, I showed these stats for these 4 games because that's the set that was chosen.  I get these stats from the play-by-play, which is sometimes inconsistent, and I try to correct them if I can.  For these games, with the help of recorded video, I was able to correct the inconsistencies (but perhaps not all errors).  There may be some games that I don't have a consistent record.  I started looking at these last year.

Yes, there are weaknesses.  I really don't suggest looking at the numbers to 4 decimal places.  Maybe 2 decimal places would be better.  I do discount these numbers if the player played or sat on the bench for less than 5 minutes.  Then there's the fact that scoring is discrete (1, 2, or 3 points).    My gut feeling is that one should give a +/- on the delta score of at least 2 points, maybe 4.  For a player that plays 20 minutes, that might not matter too much.  A player that plays in garbage time generally has little time on the court and the effect is magnified.  So my rough rule of thumb is to discount numbers for time periods under 5 minutes. 

But, on the other hand, when it shows that Stanford lead UConn for the 11 minutes that Amber was out of the game, and lost by 29 points for the 29 minutes she was in the game, I think that's worth looking into.  Garbage time?  Well, we don't see the same effect on Chiney.

By the way, I do get the same numbers for offensive lineups.  So for each set of 5 players on the court, I have those numbers.  But the time is so broken up, it usually isn't worth pulling the numbers out.

Players & teams evolve year to year and within the year.  I wouldn't put as much stock into the early games as the more recent games.  I wouldn't put much stock in the games against overmatched opponents.  So, the 4 games chosen by 81alum are a reasonable set. One might want to add So. Carolina and the first C.al game.    Last year's performance by a player seems to be less relevant than this year's performance.

Yes, if I were a stock broker, I'd be recommending a purchase in Sara's stock, and a sell on Amber's and Bonnie's.  It isn't just the last game, but that might be sufficient for the recommendation.  I believe I commented about Sara in the preseason.  As for Amber, I didn't buy into the praise I heard about her early in the season, based on what I saw.  But it wasn't until I analyzed a part of the UConn game in detail, that I felt I had a solid basis for saying she doesn't contribute in the way she should.  Amber could be a good player, but IMO, she wastes a lot of court time being unproductive (not being available for passes, not getting back on defense, etc.) which results in more Stanford struggles as though they are playing with 4 players.  Bonnie's play is definitely improved over last year, but she seems too weak to play against good teams.  In her specialty, she's now 4th on the team in 3PT% of those taking at least 25 3pt shots.

Scoring per 40min:  Chiney: 25.3, Sara: 16.2, Jos: 15.0, Amber: 14.1, Taylor: 13.2, Toni: 13.2, Bonnie: 10.5, Mikaela: 5.4, Jasmine: 4.7

Just the point of view of another plumber.

[M T]

WAcard,  welcome to the Cardboard.  From your moniker, I'm guessing you're not able to see many of the Stanford games in person, and are limited to the TV games. 

As 81alum suggests, I showed these stats for these 4 games because that's the set that was chosen.  I get these stats from the play-by-play, which is sometimes inconsistent, and I try to correct them if I can.  For these games, with the help of recorded video, I was able to correct the inconsistencies (but perhaps not all errors).  There may be some games that I don't have a consistent record.  I started looking at these last year.

Yes, there are weaknesses.  I really don't suggest looking at the numbers to 4 decimal places.  Maybe 2 decimal places would be better.  I do discount these numbers if the player played or sat on the bench for less than 5 minutes.  Then there's the fact that scoring is discrete (1, 2, or 3 points).    My gut feeling is that one should give a +/- on the delta score of at least 2 points, maybe 4.  For a player that plays 20 minutes, that might not matter too much.  A player that plays in garbage time generally has little time on the court and the effect is magnified.  So my rough rule of thumb is to discount numbers for time periods under 5 minutes. 

But, on the other hand, when it shows that Stanford lead UConn for the 11 minutes that Amber was out of the game, and lost by 29 points for the 29 minutes she was in the game, I think that's worth looking into.  Garbage time?  Well, we don't see the same effect on Chiney.

By the way, I do get the same numbers for offensive lineups.  So for each set of 5 players on the court, I have those numbers.  But the time is so broken up, it usually isn't worth pulling the numbers out.

Players & teams evolve year to year and within the year.  I wouldn't put as much stock into the early games as the more recent games.  I wouldn't put much stock in the games against overmatched opponents.  So, the 4 games chosen by 81alum are a reasonable set. One might want to add So. Carolina and the first C.al game.    Last year's performance by a player seems to be less relevant than this year's performance.

Yes, if I were a stock broker, I'd be recommending a purchase in Sara's stock, and a sell on Amber's and Bonnie's.  It isn't just the last game, but that might be sufficient for the recommendation.  I believe I commented about Sara in the preseason.  As for Amber, I didn't buy into the praise I heard about her early in the season, based on what I saw.  But it wasn't until I analyzed a part of the UConn game in detail, that I felt I had a solid basis for saying she doesn't contribute in the way she should.  Amber could be a good player, but IMO, she wastes a lot of court time being unproductive (not being available for passes, not getting back on defense, etc.) which results in more Stanford struggles as though they are playing with 4 players.  Bonnie's play is definitely improved over last year, but she seems too weak to play against good teams.  In her specialty, she's now 4th on the team in 3PT% of those taking at least 25 3pt shots.

Scoring per 40min:  Chiney: 25.3, Sara: 16.2, Jos: 15.0, Amber: 14.1, Taylor: 13.2, Toni: 13.2, Bonnie: 10.5, Mikaela: 5.4, Jasmine: 4.7

Just the point of view of another plumber.