[Hulk01]

Effective field goal percentage difference
Stanford 16.1
Baylor 15.3
UConn   9.7
Maryland   9.7
S Carolina   7.4

3 point percentage difference, achieved versus allowed (“best outside game”)
Stanford 12.0
Maryland   7.8
UConn   7.8
Baylor   6.8
S Carolina   5.6

FG percentage at the rim, achieved versus allowed (“best inside game”)
Baylor 18.7
Stanford 15.0
S Carolina   9.7
UConn   3.5
Maryland   3.5

Offensive rebounding percentage difference, achieved versus allowed
Baylor 22.8
S Carolina 17.5
Stanford 11.1
UConn   9.3
Maryland   9.3

Turnover percentage difference
Maryland   6.2
UConn   6.2
Stanford   3.6
Baylor   3.2
S Carolina   3.2

Versus Top 25 teams
Stanford 6-1 (net +9.7 points)
Baylor 4-1 (net +15.2)
U Conn 2-1 (net  +2.3)
Maryland 6-2 (net +9.9)
S Carolina 8-4 (net +7.0)

[Hulk01]

Effective field goal percentage difference
Stanford 16.1
Baylor 15.3
UConn   9.7
Maryland   9.7
S Carolina   7.4

3 point percentage difference, achieved versus allowed (“best outside game”)
Stanford 12.0
Maryland   7.8
UConn   7.8
Baylor   6.8
S Carolina   5.6

FG percentage at the rim, achieved versus allowed (“best inside game”)
Baylor 18.7
Stanford 15.0
S Carolina   9.7
UConn   3.5
Maryland   3.5

Offensive rebounding percentage difference, achieved versus allowed
Baylor 22.8
S Carolina 17.5
Stanford 11.1
UConn   9.3
Maryland   9.3

Turnover percentage difference
Maryland   6.2
UConn   6.2
Stanford   3.6
Baylor   3.2
S Carolina   3.2

Versus Top 25 teams
Stanford 6-1 (net +9.7 points)
Baylor 4-1 (net +15.2)
U Conn 2-1 (net  +2.3)
Maryland 6-2 (net +9.9)
S Carolina 8-4 (net +7.0)

[Nan3cy]

Is Strength of Schedule a meaningful statistic this year, given the small number of out-of-conference games? (And if so, where does Stanford rank in comparison with these other teams?)

[Nan3cy]

Is Strength of Schedule a meaningful statistic this year, given the small number of out-of-conference games? (And if so, where does Stanford rank in comparison with these other teams?)

[BostonCard]

For all the talk about our turnovers...

BC

[BostonCard]

For all the talk about our turnovers...

BC

[Hulk01]

Among the top teams at this point, schedules seem to have approached an evening out.

Baylor, Marylland, Stanford and U Conn each have played teams that in aggregate have won 57.5 percent of their games.
I'd add strength of schedule bonus points to South Carollna, for whom that number is 67.2 percent.

[Hulk01]

Among the top teams at this point, schedules seem to have approached an evening out.

Baylor, Marylland, Stanford and U Conn each have played teams that in aggregate have won 57.5 percent of their games.
I'd add strength of schedule bonus points to South Carollna, for whom that number is 67.2 percent.

[BostonCard]

It is also useful to look at the record against other top-25 teams.  It suggests that South Carolina (12) had the most tough match-ups, but Maryland (8) and Stanford (7) are not far behind.  UConn, with 3 top-25 match ups seems to have been the least tested.

BC

[BostonCard]

It is also useful to look at the record against other top-25 teams.  It suggests that South Carolina (12) had the most tough match-ups, but Maryland (8) and Stanford (7) are not far behind.  UConn, with 3 top-25 match ups seems to have been the least tested.

BC

[martyup]

Louisville is not included in any of those categories.  :•)

[martyup]

Louisville is not included in any of those categories.  :•)

[CompSci87]

A fun article about another kind of basketball number. Several Stanford players make the list or at least get honorable mention.

https://www.espn.com/womens-college-bask...sey-number

[CompSci87]

A fun article about another kind of basketball number. Several Stanford players make the list or at least get honorable mention.

https://www.espn.com/womens-college-bask...sey-number

[M T]

Charlie Creme reseeded the Sweet 16.

[M T]

Charlie Creme reseeded the Sweet 16.

[akiddoc]

Charlie Creme reseeded the Sweet 16.

I'm predicting that he is underestimating Oregon.

[akiddoc]

Charlie Creme reseeded the Sweet 16.

I'm predicting that he is underestimating Oregon.

[martyup]

A fun article about another kind of basketball number. Several Stanford players make the list or at least get honorable mention.

https://www.espn.com/womens-college-bask...sey-number

Brink has a tough challenge to be the best that has worn #22, with Swoopes at the top.  However, Swoops only played 2 years in Div 1.  Why did we give Brink a guard's number?  We should have given her #54.

[martyup]

A fun article about another kind of basketball number. Several Stanford players make the list or at least get honorable mention.

https://www.espn.com/womens-college-bask...sey-number

Brink has a tough challenge to be the best that has worn #22, with Swoopes at the top.  However, Swoops only played 2 years in Div 1.  Why did we give Brink a guard's number?  We should have given her #54.

[TheRicker]

Saturday Games Schedule with Betting point spreads:

https://www.espn.com/womens-college-bask...scoreboard

Sunday Games Schedule with Betting point spreads:  Note Stanford -15 1/2 vs Missouri State.

https://www.espn.com/womens-college-bask...e/20210328

[TheRicker]

Saturday Games Schedule with Betting point spreads:

https://www.espn.com/womens-college-bask...scoreboard

Sunday Games Schedule with Betting point spreads:  Note Stanford -15 1/2 vs Missouri State.

https://www.espn.com/womens-college-bask...e/20210328

[jonnyss]

Saturday Games Schedule with Betting point spreads:

https://www.espn.com/womens-college-bask...scoreboard

Sunday Games Schedule with Betting point spreads:  Note Stanford -15 1/2 vs Missouri State.

https://www.espn.com/womens-college-bask...e/20210328

all the betting lines are as you might expect...except oregon is favored by 1 over louisville!

vegas agrees with akiddoc.

[jonnyss]

Saturday Games Schedule with Betting point spreads:

https://www.espn.com/womens-college-bask...scoreboard

Sunday Games Schedule with Betting point spreads:  Note Stanford -15 1/2 vs Missouri State.

https://www.espn.com/womens-college-bask...e/20210328

all the betting lines are as you might expect...except oregon is favored by 1 over louisville!

vegas agrees with akiddoc.

[WBB fan]

I find it interesting that the largest spread is for Stanford, even more than for Maryland

[WBB fan]

I find it interesting that the largest spread is for Stanford, even more than for Maryland

[CompSci87]

A fun article about another kind of basketball number. Several Stanford players make the list or at least get honorable mention.

https://www.espn.com/womens-college-bask...sey-number

Brink has a tough challenge to be the best that has worn #22, with Swoopes at the top.  However, Swoops only played 2 years in Div 1.  Why did we give Brink a guard's number?  We should have given her #54.

Jenna Brown has dibs on keeping 54 when she comes back from injury in the fall.

[CompSci87]

A fun article about another kind of basketball number. Several Stanford players make the list or at least get honorable mention.

https://www.espn.com/womens-college-bask...sey-number

Brink has a tough challenge to be the best that has worn #22, with Swoopes at the top.  However, Swoops only played 2 years in Div 1.  Why did we give Brink a guard's number?  We should have given her #54.

Jenna Brown has dibs on keeping 54 when she comes back from injury in the fall.

[M T]

Changing to the Elite 8.  Several of these can not be calculated from what the schools post.
I updated the ones I could by my calculations.  When the difference was more than 0.2, I left the struck out old value.

What is "turnover percentage"?

Effective field goal percentage difference

Stanford 16.7
Baylor 14.7
Louisville 11.4
UConn   9.7 18.8  Why the discrepancy?
Indiana  7.6
S Carolina   7.5
Arizona   5.1
Texas   -1.2


3 point percentage difference, achieved versus allowed (“best outside game”)

Stanford 12.0 11.3  (Hard for me to believe this went down over the past few games.)
UConn   7.8  8.1
Louisville 7.7
Baylor   6.8  6.4
S Carolina   5.8
Texas  2.1
Arizona   2.1
Indiana  -2.0


FG percentage at the rim, achieved versus allowed (“best inside game”)

Baylor 18.7
Stanford 15.0
S Carolina   9.7
UConn   3.5
Texas
Louisville
Arizona
Indiana


Offensive rebounding percentage difference, achieved versus allowed

Baylor 22.6
S Carolina 17.4
Stanford 11.2
UConn   9.3  12.9
Texas   6.7
Indiana  4.1
Louisville  3.0
Arizona  0.2


Turnover percentage difference

UConn   6.2
Stanford   3.6
Baylor   3.2
S Carolina   3.2
Texas
Louisville
Arizona
Indiana


Versus Top 25 teams

Stanford 6-1 (net +9.7 points)
Baylor 4-1 (net +15.2)
U Conn 2-1 (net  +2.3)
S Carolina 8-4 (net +7.0)
Texas
Louisville
Arizona
Indiana

[M T]

Changing to the Elite 8.  Several of these can not be calculated from what the schools post.
I updated the ones I could by my calculations.  When the difference was more than 0.2, I left the struck out old value.

What is "turnover percentage"?

Effective field goal percentage difference

Stanford 16.7
Baylor 14.7
Louisville 11.4
UConn   9.7 18.8  Why the discrepancy?
Indiana  7.6
S Carolina   7.5
Arizona   5.1
Texas   -1.2


3 point percentage difference, achieved versus allowed (“best outside game”)

Stanford 12.0 11.3  (Hard for me to believe this went down over the past few games.)
UConn   7.8  8.1
Louisville 7.7
Baylor   6.8  6.4
S Carolina   5.8
Texas  2.1
Arizona   2.1
Indiana  -2.0


FG percentage at the rim, achieved versus allowed (“best inside game”)

Baylor 18.7
Stanford 15.0
S Carolina   9.7
UConn   3.5
Texas
Louisville
Arizona
Indiana


Offensive rebounding percentage difference, achieved versus allowed

Baylor 22.6
S Carolina 17.4
Stanford 11.2
UConn   9.3  12.9
Texas   6.7
Indiana  4.1
Louisville  3.0
Arizona  0.2


Turnover percentage difference

UConn   6.2
Stanford   3.6
Baylor   3.2
S Carolina   3.2
Texas
Louisville
Arizona
Indiana


Versus Top 25 teams

Stanford 6-1 (net +9.7 points)
Baylor 4-1 (net +15.2)
U Conn 2-1 (net  +2.3)
S Carolina 8-4 (net +7.0)
Texas
Louisville
Arizona
Indiana

[Hulk01]

Changing to the Elite 8.  Several of these can not be calculated from what the schools post.
I updated the ones I could by my calculations.  When the difference was more than 0.2, I left the struck out old value.

What is "turnover percentage"?

Effective field goal percentage difference

Stanford 16.7
Baylor 14.7
Louisville 11.4
UConn   9.7 18.8  Why the discrepancy?
Indiana  7.6
S Carolina   7.5
Arizona   5.1
Texas   -1.2


3 point percentage difference, achieved versus allowed (“best outside game”)

Stanford 12.0 11.3  (Hard for me to believe this went down over the past few games.)
UConn   7.8  8.1
Louisville 7.7
Baylor   6.8  6.4
S Carolina   5.8
Texas  2.1
Arizona   2.1
Indiana  -2.0


FG percentage at the rim, achieved versus allowed (“best inside game”)

Baylor 18.7
Stanford 15.0
S Carolina   9.7
UConn   3.5
Texas
Louisville
Arizona
Indiana


Offensive rebounding percentage difference, achieved versus allowed

Baylor 22.6
S Carolina 17.4
Stanford 11.2
UConn   9.3  12.9
Texas   6.7
Indiana  4.1
Louisville  3.0
Arizona  0.2


Turnover percentage difference

UConn   6.2
Stanford   3.6
Baylor   3.2
S Carolina   3.2
Texas
Louisville
Arizona
Indiana


Versus Top 25 teams

Stanford 6-1 (net +9.7 points)
Baylor 4-1 (net +15.2)
U Conn 2-1 (net  +2.3)
S Carolina 8-4 (net +7.0)
Texas
Louisville
Arizona
Indiana

Turnover percentage is the percentage of possessions on which a team turned over the ball.

---

My calculations are based on the entire season.
I erred in my initial report on UConn's effective field goal percentage differential.
I have them at 18.9 (57.2  vs. 38.3), Stanford now at 16.1.

[Hulk01]

Changing to the Elite 8.  Several of these can not be calculated from what the schools post.
I updated the ones I could by my calculations.  When the difference was more than 0.2, I left the struck out old value.

What is "turnover percentage"?

Effective field goal percentage difference

Stanford 16.7
Baylor 14.7
Louisville 11.4
UConn   9.7 18.8  Why the discrepancy?
Indiana  7.6
S Carolina   7.5
Arizona   5.1
Texas   -1.2


3 point percentage difference, achieved versus allowed (“best outside game”)

Stanford 12.0 11.3  (Hard for me to believe this went down over the past few games.)
UConn   7.8  8.1
Louisville 7.7
Baylor   6.8  6.4
S Carolina   5.8
Texas  2.1
Arizona   2.1
Indiana  -2.0


FG percentage at the rim, achieved versus allowed (“best inside game”)

Baylor 18.7
Stanford 15.0
S Carolina   9.7
UConn   3.5
Texas
Louisville
Arizona
Indiana


Offensive rebounding percentage difference, achieved versus allowed

Baylor 22.6
S Carolina 17.4
Stanford 11.2
UConn   9.3  12.9
Texas   6.7
Indiana  4.1
Louisville  3.0
Arizona  0.2


Turnover percentage difference

UConn   6.2
Stanford   3.6
Baylor   3.2
S Carolina   3.2
Texas
Louisville
Arizona
Indiana


Versus Top 25 teams

Stanford 6-1 (net +9.7 points)
Baylor 4-1 (net +15.2)
U Conn 2-1 (net  +2.3)
S Carolina 8-4 (net +7.0)
Texas
Louisville
Arizona
Indiana

Turnover percentage is the percentage of possessions on which a team turned over the ball.

---

My calculations are based on the entire season.
I erred in my initial report on UConn's effective field goal percentage differential.
I have them at 18.9 (57.2  vs. 38.3), Stanford now at 16.1.