Demise of the Pac-12 and Other Off-Season Events

Warren Grimes

For women’s hoops fans, it’s been an interesting summer – not to mention the spring that preceded it. 

We learned at season’s end that the two top-ranked recruits from last year’s freshman class were transferring.  Lauren Betts, the #1 ranked high school recruit from last year, decided she preferred to play at UCLA.  Indya Nivar, another top 20 recruit, wanted to play closer to home in North Carolina.  On top of that, rising senior Agnes Emma-Nnopu opted to transfer to Texas. 

If there was a positive to be found anywhere in the off-season events, it was that Talana Lepolo, well behind Betts and Nivar in high school ranking, had become Stanford’s starting point guard and started for the U19 USA team that won the championship this summer.  Oh, and Cameron Brink – yes thank goodness for Brink – was the MVP of the champion USA team in the three-on-three WBB world competition in Vienna.

But in terms of what’s happened lately, it’s all about the disintegration of the Pac-12 conference.  After USC and UCLA announced their intention to join the Big Ten last year, the future of the conference was uncertain at best.  It’s worth noting, however, that even without UCLA and USC, the conference still could have been the best women’s hoops conference in the country.  

Three-time NCAA champion Stanford, with the winningest coach in BB history, was still there.  So was Arizona, which played in the NCAA championship game against Stanford in 2021.  Oregon could have won it all in 2020 if the NCAA tournament hadn’t been cancelled.  Then there was Utah, which shared the conference title with Stanford in 2023.  And not so lowly WSU, which pulled the most startling upset by winning the conference tournament last March (WSU still hasn’t bested Stanford in women’s hoops).  And that leaves out Colorado, which has become a no-nonsense team capable of beating Stanford and anyone else in the conference. 

So why take apart the best women’s hoops conference in the country? 

Well, the demise of the Conference had absolutely nothing to do with women’s hoops. 

It was all about money, money, money, and that money came primarily from football.  Each school that has chosen to leave the Pac-12, and that includes eight of the twelve members, has done so for a selfish reason – to maximize its television revenues.  In doing so, the schools showed little or no concern for the remaining conference members.  Nor have they paid much attention to women’s basketball or to any of the other non-football sports.  My hunch is that none of the eight women’s hoops coaches from the departing schools, while they will make the best of their opportunities, would have found this decision to be in the best interests of their program. 

So, the remains of the “Pac-4 Conference” are Stanford, California, OSU, and WSU.  The athletic directors at these schools can understandably ask: “what did we do wrong?” 

I cannot predict what will happen next.  A four-school conference is untenable, although the schools could agree to continue to cooperate in the short term, or even attempt a collective negotiation that would allow all four to join another conference.  The school with the most leverage may be Stanford, in part because of its storied record in many sports (winning the Director’s Cup consistently).  Stanford and California also have leverage because of their location in a populous Bay Area media market. 

Rather than try to predict, let me end by just suggesting what kind of a solution would be best--best for Stanford, but also best for the other three schools and college athletics generally.   That would be to separate football from the other sports.  As the UCLA football coach has suggested in an LA Times interview, there could be further consolidation of football conferences, perhaps even to the point of having a single national conference for football (with various regional divisions).  That conference could then negotiate lucrative media coverage contracts.  Other sports could be left to organize in smaller regionally based conferences (bring back a Pac-8 of the four schools in Washington, Oregon, and California?).  They could still sell media rights and bring in revenue, but money would no longer dominate decisions about what is in the best interests of the athletes and fans.  

Putting the Pieces Together

 

Warren Grimes

I find it difficult to write after a tough loss.  And the second-round loss to Mississippi, on the Maples home court, was as tough as they come.  It was not wholly unexpected, but nonetheless a gut punch for the Stanford players, coaches, and fans.   It ended the Stanford career for at least some of the four extraordinary seniors, each of whom played key roles in Stanford’s first national championship in over two decades.   Going out in the second round was not how Haley Jones and her mates wanted to write the script.

My immediate response to the loss was to be sad, even a bit depressed, and to spend a sleepless night wondering what if.  Others responded differently.   Over on the Cardboard, a few posters unleashed harsh criticism of Coach Tara VanDerveer, some of it in angry and disrespectful tones. 

VanDerveer has coached more teams to victory than any coach in WBB history.  She has three national championships to her credit, long strings of sweet sixteen and final four appearances, and numerous conference and conference tournament titles.  VanDerveer is not above criticism, but she’s entitled to respect because she is a person of principle and because of her amazing and durable record.

One of the criticisms on the Cardboard is that VanDerveer did not use and develop the right players.  As an example, one critic argued that the coach should have played Indya Nivar and Elena Bosgana more because of their superior offensive potential.  I am high on both players, but respectfully disagree.  Nivar, for example, could have seen more minutes by replacing Talana LePolo or Agnes Emma-Nnopu.  But VanDerveer and her staff watch these players every day in practice.  They are going to know far more than outsiders how consistently and intently each of them performs.  The coaches are not wearing blinders – if a player excels in practice, that player is going to get more minutes. A coach who does not follow these rules should switch to coaching nursery school dodgeball.

The season stats also do not support the critic’s views.  For one, Indya Nivar DID get substantial playing time: Nivar was tied with Emma-Nnopu for the sixth most minutes on the floor and ahead of 8^th place Kiki Iriafen.  When on the floor, Nivar was at times impressive, but shot threes at a modest 23% rate.  Emma-Nnopu, playing the same number of minutes as Nivar, shot threes at a 42% rate.  Emma Nnopu also was equal or better than Nivar in rebounding, free throw shooting percentage, and in steals. 

Lepolo, who had roughly twice as many minutes on the floor as Nivar, shot threes at 37% and had a superior assist to turnover ratio (2:1 compared to Nivar’s 1;1).  The truth is, none of these three players (Lepolo, Emma-Nnopu, or Nivar) was the kind of offensive threat that would challenge defensive schemes that collapsed around the team’s key scorers. 

Perhaps the statistics provide a somewhat stronger case for more minutes for Bosgana, who was the 11^th ranked player in team minutes.  Bosgana is a player ready and willing to put up shots and she shot threes at a respectable 32 % and field goals at an overall 44%.  Bosgana, like the other three, was not a consistent difference maker in key games.  Perhaps each of these players needs more time to develop, and that’s a reason for hope for next year.

Another criticism of VanDerveer is said to be her failure to recruit a top ranked point guard.  It’s easy to provide a list of highly ranked point guards who were recruited by Stanford but chose other schools, including Skylar Diggins, Paige Bueckers, and Kiki Rice.  These were indeed recruiting disappointments, but the picture is not fully revealed by focusing only on failures.  Over her career, there is a long list of star point guards that VanDerveer has brought to Stanford, including Jennifer Azzi, Sonja Henning, Susan King Borchardt, Jamila Wideman, Amber Orrange, and Kiana Williams.  Nonetheless, I would agree that Stanford has had difficulty in consistently filling the point guard position with top-flight talent, often forced to turn the position over to talented but not natural point guards, including Lacie Hull (last year) or Jeanette Pohlen or Nicole Powell in years past.   Indeed, Haley Jones has been performing point guard functions during her entire four years at Stanford.

A top ranked high school point guard is a valuable commodity for every college basketball team in the country.  It should surprise no one that Skylar Diggins or Kiki Rice was intensely recruited.  Those two candidates, in particular, were major disappointments because Stanford seemed to have a recruiting advantage.  Diggins had already tentatively committed to Stanford, only to be won over to Notre Dame at the end.  But Diggins had a natural South Bend connection, so maybe that should be less surprising.    As for Rice, we had the Susan King Borchardt family connection, but that turns out not to be decisive in many recruitments (Bonnie and Karlie Samuelson chose Stanford, but their even more highly regarded sister, Katie Lou, chose the evil empire).

I see no basis for concluding that Stanford, under Coach VanDerveer, is somehow inherently disadvantaged in recruiting top point guards.   One theory about this is that the Stanford style of offense tends to cripple the freedom of action of freewheeling point guards.  This theory is 90% hooey.   All coaches put limits on point guard behavior.  It’s true that some offenses emphasize fast break creativity while others focus more on a half court set up.  But VanDerveer has always taught her teams to run whenever possible.  Since Haley Jones joined the team, fast break creativity has been a focus.   

Are fans frustrated when Kiki Rice chooses to attend UCLA?  Of course.  But laying the blame on the coach for most of these individualized decisions is suspect, particularly when VanDerveer has succeeded in recruiting so many other top-flight players.

The focus of Stanford coaches is (and ought to be) next season.  With Haley Jones gone, the team urgently needs balanced perimeter scoring to complement Cameron Brink and Lauren Betts.  Anything that Stanford can do to enhance player development is a top priority.   And there’s lots to work with, even if none of the four seniors return for a “Covid” year (yet to be determined). 

Eight of the eleven players with the most minutes are underclassmen and should be returning.   Brink is obviously pivotal.  One other player who will be back is perhaps a diamond in the rough.  She is a player who, although yet to start a game, had the 5^th largest number of minutes on a per game basis.  She shot 36% from three-land and had an enviable 2:1 assist to turnover ratio.

Who is it?  

Brooke Demetre. 

 Lets hope that Demetre can diversify her offensive skills and become a major scoring threat.

The Pac-12: The Nation's Best WBB Conference, But Is There a Dominant Team?

 

Warren Grimes

The Pac 12 is the best WBB conference in the land, but with a major question mark.  There is talent, depth, and balance in the conference.  That was illustrated by the recently completed topsy turvy conference tournament.  Here are some of the difficult-to-get-your-head-around facts of that tournament.

Of the 11 games played in the tournament, 7 were won by the lower seed (that’s 63% of the games)

Counting only the 7 games played starting with the quarter finals, 5 of those games were won by the lower seed (that’s 71% of the games).

Stanford did not make the final.  That’s not unprecedented, but it is unusual.

Stanford was not alone.  None of the other top 4 seeds made the final.

Seeded number 7, Washington State was the lowest seed to make the final and the lowest to win the tournament.

The champion team, Washington State, has never (as in never-ever) defeated Stanford in WBB.

In the first tournament game, the lowest seed in the tournament, Arizona State, took finalist UCLA to overtime before bowing to the Bruins.

Conference Co-Champions Stanford and Utah collectively lost 2/3 of the 3 tournament games they played.

 

All of this suggests balance in the league.  And the out-of-conference records of these teams suggest their relative superiority over other conferences.  But is there a dominant team in the conference capable of winning it all?

If there is such a team, a prime candidate would be Stanford.   But Stanford lost 2 of the last 3 games it played, hardly an indicator of dominance.  And Utah, in the conference tournament, couldn’t get beyond its game-one loss to number-7 seeded Washington State.

All of this presents intriguing questions for the upcoming NCAA tournament.  I expect the Pac-12 to do quite well in representation (7 or 8 teams?).  And these teams should do well in the first 2 or 3 rounds.  But will any of them make the Final Four?  The Pac 12 could plausibly land 3 teams in the Final 4, but it could also end up not sending anyone.  The up and down performances of every one of the conference’s teams makes one pause.

As for Stanford, the season-ending games exposed vulnerabilities that last season’s team did not have.  This year’s Stanford team lost three of its late season starters with the graduation of the Hull twins and Anna Wilson.  Collectively, those three players provided last year’s team with 28.4% of its points, 41% of its three pointers, and an impressive 58% of its steals.

Four different players have stepped in to fill most of the minutes played by last year’s triumvirate.  They are Lepolo, Demetre, Emma-Nnopu, and Iriafen.  Collectively, playing slightly fewer minutes than last year’s graduated trio, these replacements have put up roughly the same number of team points (28.4%), but fewer of the team’s 3-pointers (37%) and a lot fewer of the team’s steals (30%).  Of these four players, only one (Lepolo) is averaging over 20 minutes per game.  Demetre, Emma-Nnopu and Iriafen are all in the 12 to 14 minute range (so is Nivar).  That could mean amazing depth.  Less optimistically, it means that the coaching staff has not found a player that consistently contributes and scores the way last year’s trio did.  Although each of the four replacement players has had very productive offensive games, none so far can consistently and productively occupy the fifth spot on the floor.     

When you compare this year’s with last year’s stats, the current team is shooting free throws much better, is averaging a few more points per game, and also has the edge in field goal shooting percentage (thanks to the “B” players – Brink, Betts, and Belibi – all shooting near or above a 50% rate).  Last year’s team was shooting threes a bit better, had a substantially higher average of steals (3 more per game) and had a more consistent record that brought them both an undefeated conference season and a conference tournament championship.  One reason for last year’s success is that Lexie was a creative and effective inside-outside scorer (third highest on the team) while her sister and Anna Wilson were threats from the three-point line.   Collectively, those three players were averaging 37% from three-point land.  Wilson proved extremely deadly from distance in tournament play.  Any team that based its defense on sagging to the middle would pay a heavy price. 

To get to the Final Four, Stanford must find someone other than the big three (Haley Jones, Cameron Brink, and Hannah Jump) to be a consistent offensive threat.  Probably that player must show inside-outside scoring ability to make a sagging offensive team pay the price.  Indeed, impressionistically, the comparison of this season with last season leads to this: last year Stanford excelled at perimeter guard offense.  This year’s team, with the addition of Butts, has superior inside play, but probably needs improved perimeter play from the guards to have a chance to win it all.

Stanford can still be a dominant team, but it must prove it.

Coaching Perspectives on the USC Game

 

Warren Grimes

Coaches map out defensive and offensive strategies before each game.  Playing USC for the second time (after a humiliating loss in Los Angeles), how did Stanford coaches adjust their strategies?  And how did USC coaches adjust to the loss of Rayah Marshall, a key big who boards, blocks and scores? 

Without actual knowledge of the game plans, these comments are based on what I saw in the two games and on two basic rules of thumb: (1) that on the defensive side, a coach tries to make it difficult for the opponent’s primary scorers to succeed; and (2) on the offensive side, a coach tries to design an offense most likely to succeed against the opponent’s defense. 

Stanford and USC are the two best defensive teams in the conference.  USC allows opponents (on average) just under 54 points a game; Stanford has an opponent average of just under 57 points.  On field goal percentage defense, Stanford comes out on top with .328 with USC number two at .353.

Both teams did their defensive jobs well.  A total of 101 points were scored by the two teams in the USC victory; only 97 points were scored in the second matchup.  These low scoring totals, well below each team’s average, are often seen in the NCAA tournament when top teams meet one another.

Lindsay Gottlieb’s strategy for USC – USC matches up well against Stanford, both in terms of height and athleticism. Gottlieb succeeded in limiting Stanford’s top scorers in both games: Brink, Jones, and Jump had their points, but each had a low percentage of conversions.  Brink, for example, had 11 points in the first game and 12 points in the second.  But her conversion rate was 21% in the first game and 33% in the second, well below her season average of 49%.  Jump’s combined performance in the two games was 2 for 11, or 18%, well below her 45% average.

Offensively, USC is the second lowest in the conference in field goal percentage (35%).  These percentages were even worse in the two games (27% in the first game and 22% in the second), but Gottlieb’s team maintained or surpassed its average in 3-point shooting.  Without Rayah Marshall in the second game, Gottlieb may have redesigned her offense to rely less on interior scoring and more on three-point shooting.  Her team launched 23 long distance shots in the game, and converted 8 of them for a respectable 34.8% conversions (USC averages 34% on its three-point shots).

An impressive facet of Gottlieb’s game plan was how to use the natural incentive to play hard against Stanford, the team most Pac-12 opponents most want to beat.  One sign of this motivation was the bench response when USC teammates made a good play.  Rebounding was something USC did with passion and focus in the second game.  Gottlieb must have reached out to her players to make maximum rebounding efforts in lieu of an absent Rayah Marshall.  The team responded by tying Stanford with 43 total rebounds, but impressively gathering 20 offensive boards (USC averages 13 offensive boards, but that's with Marshall playing).  When second half shots weren’t falling for USC, time and again their players responded with offensive boards.  This was a team effort, with 6 players contributing offensive rebounds and with 3 of those players gathering more offensive than defensive boards (an unusual result and a demonstration of USC’s determination).

Tara VanDerveer’s strategy for Stanford – In January, the Stanford coaches had only a short time to prepare their team for a Sunday matchup with USC at the Galen Center.  Stanford had played a then top-10 ranked UCLA team on Friday.  The coaches had no such excuse for the Maples game, although they did lack one piece of knowledge that Gottlieb had.  Gottlieb knew that Marshall would be unlikely to play.  The Stanford coaches doubtless knew of Marshall’s injury the previous weekend, but they lacked any sense of whether Marshall would be sufficiently recovered to play.  Stanford had no choice but to plan a game strategy focusing on the interior, assuming Marshall would play.  That they did well.  They held USC to 2 points in the paint.  Although USC made 35% of its three-point shots, the Cardinal defense held USC to a 15% conversion rate (6 out of 40 attempts) on two-point shots.  Although Destiny Littleton (the high scorer with 18 points in the first game) had a hot first quarter, her overall shooting was not impressive (4 for 20 and 1 for 8 from 3-point land). 

Offensively, Stanford had 8 fast break points (compared to none in LA) and had major contributions from players other than the big three.  From off the bench, Indya Nivar had 9 points and Lauren Betts had 4.  Starter Kiki Iriafen played only 16 minutes, but had 9 points and 6 rebounds.  Each of these players was converting their shots at an equal or higher percentage than were the big three.

In the last minutes of the game, Stanford saw its lead, as high as 11 points in the third quarter, whittled down to 3 points.  Jones missed an uncontested layup and twice the team turned the ball over on inbound passes.  The inability of the team to inbound the ball in crucial minutes almost did Stanford in during the semi-final NCAA game against South Carolina two years ago.  The defense, however, held up.  USC  was 0-7 in three point attempts in the final quarter.

There are still things to work on, and three games against NCAA-bound teams to play.  The conference title hangs in the balance. 

The Story of Two Games: “Hullsling” Your Way to Victory

 

Warren Grimes

On a February Sunday, Stanford endured a disappointing 72-67 loss to Washington, an unranked team that probably won’t get invited to the Big Dance.  Stanford played well enough to win, but Washington had what was likely its best overall game of the season, including a potent offensive showing that Stanford’s defense couldn’t squelch.  Four days later, on a Thursday, Stanford held 17^th ranked Arizona to 60 points in their home arena and easily prevailed by a 24-point margin.  At one point, Stanford had a 37-point lead over the Wild Cats.  What a difference.  And how does one explain it?

It all comes down to “hullsling.”

 I looked up the word in my basketball dictionary: To hullsle: to play like a Hull, as in a Lacie or Lexie Hull. 

When a Hull plays basketball, she has her mind on the game every second.  She is always thinking, always anticipating, always mentally there for the team making the little plays that matter so much.  She is focused and aggressive all the time.     

One measure of this hullsling skill is the number of steals on defense.  When Stanford played Washington in last season’s final conference game of the season (and the last conference game for Lexie, Lacie, and Anna Wilson), the Hulls and Wilson combined for 11 steals.  In this season’s loss against the Huskies, the entire team had just 3 steals.  Last season, the match was close, but still resulted in a  63-56 win for Stanford.  Last season, Stanford had 19 offensive boards; this year, only 2.  That must be a season low for Stanford.   Last year, Lexie Hull scored 15 points, had 8 boards, and 5 steals. This year, Brooke Demetre scored 15 points, but could not make up for Stanford’s overall lack luster performance.  

So a team that hullsles gets steals, gets blocks, gets offensive boards, gets fast break opportunities, disrupts the offensive flow of the opponent – and wins.  Exhibit number one is how Stanford played against Arizona, perhaps its best overall game of the season.  Stanford had 9 steals (Indya Nivar led with 3), 10 blocks (Lauren Betts had 4), 24 assists, 22 fast break points, and out-rebounded the Wildcats 45 to 27.   

My sense is that this year’s team too often relies on a few people (Brink, Jones, and Jump) to do too much.  Everyone must be involved in the offense and the defense for every minute of the game.  Two freshmen announced themselves against Arizona: Lauren Betts had 12 points, 4 blocks, and 2 nice assists; Indya Nivar had 8 points, 4 boards, 3 steals, and 2 assists (0 turnovers).   Everyone, not just the All Americans, played intensively, aggressively, and focused.  That’ s how Stanford scored 84 points against a highly ranked team that typically has a disruptive defense. 

Returning to the (probably unanswerable) question of which Stanford team (this year’s or last year’s) is the better team, I’d have to say that last year’s team wins the mark for consistency.  They went undefeated in the conference season, an amazing achievement.  But in terms of which team will be the best at the end of the season, the question is still open.  If Stanford hullsles the way it did against Arizona, they could easily win out the conference season and be a serious contender for the national championship. 

Stanford has 3 more games against tournament-bound teams (UCLA, Colorado, and Utah) and another against the USC team that humiliated Stanford in Los Angeles.  Let’s hope that Stanford’s team is inspired by the Hulls, wins the conference, and continues with that momentum into the post-season.

Takeaways from a Tough Loss

 

Warren Grimes

Call it a debacle.  Or merely a disappointing letdown.  Either way, this last Sunday, Stanford could not execute its offense against a motivated USC squad and went down almost meekly by a 55-46 score.

The demise of the offense could not have been more dramatic.  Stanford managed only 4 points in the first quarter and finished with just 46 points.  If those were not record low numbers for a VanDerveer coached team, they had to be close to it.

Why did this happen?  There are inevitably two points of view when there is a major upset.  USC Coach Lindsay Gottlieb talks about how well her team played.  On the defensive end, there is no doubt that USC deserves major credit.  USC did what South Carolina could not do -- hold Stanford to 46 points. 

Coach VanDerveer spoke about poor screening, poor ball control and disappointing shooting performances.  True enough, although I think there is more to be said.

Stanford did not experience a major defensive let down.  It held a very good offensive team to 55 points, limiting them to 27% overall shooting percentage (but could not stop productive 42% three-point shooting).  It outrebounded that team 40-36.   Stanford’s defensive effort should have been good enough to win.

On the offensive side, Stanford shot 30.9%, and a much worse 19% (4-21) from distance.  It had no fast break points. And it had 13 turnovers.

VanDerveer remarked on the poor screening effort, and that could have affected the long-distance shooting.  Hannah Jump was 0-3; Cameron Brink was 0-5; and Ashten Prechtel was 1-4.  Particularly for Brink, the long-distance shots seemed relatively uncontested.

There is a link here to USC’s defensive game plan.  That plan, not unlike other Stanford opponents, was to follow Jump everywhere she went and clog the middle while leaving other Stanford perimeters relatively unguarded from distance.  So Haley Jones and Cameron Brink, for example, were not closely guarded from outside. 

By clogging the middle, USC made it extremely difficult for Jones to penetrate and for Brink to dominate – Brink converted only 3 of 9 from the interior.  This game plan would have failed miserably if Stanford had found its long-range shooting.  Talana Lepolo and Agnes Emma-Nnopu both converted their only three-point shots.   Brooke Demetre was 1-3.  Why not more of that?

Stanford may have become too predictable in its offense – too reliant on the big three (Brink, Jones, and Jump).  To be sure, these gifted players are hard to defend, but USC had the personnel, the game plan, and the motivation to do just that.  No one can totally stop Cameron Brink from scoring but limiting her to 3-14 shooting helps a great deal. 

Last year’s team might well have done in the Trojans.  With reliable outside shooting from three other players -- the Hull twins and Anna Wilson -- Stanford’s three-point percentage would likely have been respectable, and USC’s defensive game plan would not have worked as well.  Outside shooting opens up the interior game.

So what adjustments, aside from more effective screening, could the team make?  Players such as Lepolo, Emma-Nnopu, and Demetre should be given the green light to shoot from distance when they are left open.  Demetre has suffered from a recent shooting draught, but, I understand, is still lights out in practice.  Stanford’s interior game is one of its strengths, but when an opponent gambles on leaving open perimeter players, the watchword should be: “make them pay.”  For all of the listed players (and perhaps Indya Nivar and Elena Bosgana should be added), the coaches need to encourage perimeter players to walk, talk and execute with swagger.  When the shot clock is below 10 seconds, if the shot is there, take it!

As far as Haley Jones, the best approach may be for Jones to be less predictable when faced with a clogged interior.  Rather than take on two or three obstructing players, perhaps Jones can rely more on a pull up jumper that she can shoot very effectively.

The USC game should be motivation for the team to make some of these offensive adjustments.  Take the bitterness of this loss, learn from it, and make them pay!

Talana Lepolo: Stanford’s Stealth MVP

 

Warren Grimes

Stanford has ample MVP candidates – to begin with, two All American players (Haley Jones and Cameron Brink).  And don’t forget Hannah Jump, who may well be the best three-point shooter Stanford has ever had.

Rounding out the starting lineup, Stanford has Kiki Iriafen, an interior player who, averaging less than 16 minutes per game, still manages to be the team’s third leading rebounder and fourth leading scorer.  Iriafen converts her shots at a 58% rate, better than Cameron Brink. 

That leaves only one other starter: Talana Lepolo.  With an average of 5.5 points per game, Lepolo’s unlikely to win any MVP awards.  But her value to the team?  That’s worth a careful look. 

Lepolo came out of relative obscurity (a freshman with a solid high school record, but only the third highest high school ranking among the team’s incoming freshmen) to be a starter and an invaluable point guard for the nation’s second ranked team. 

No, Lepolo doesn’t shoot the way Kiana Williams did.  No, Lepolo doesn’t defend and steal quite as well as Anna Wilson did.  Lepolo, however, is a unique player with her own amazing skill set.  She gets the ball up court as fast as any point guard that I can remember.  Her pinpoint passes often lead to easy conversions on the inside (Brink, for example) or the outside (Jump, for example).  Against Arizona’s aggressive and trapping defense, Lepolo had 4 assists against 3 turnovers, but she proved her mettle by dribbling out of two-player entrapments. 

One feature that sets Lepolo apart from other storied Stanford point guards is her strength.  She can drive the basket with the momentum and stability to stay on course against large defenders.  She uses those same assets to dribble out of defensive traps.  Meanwhile, she does what all point guards are asked to do.  She dishes out assists.  Last year, Lacie Hull and Anna Wilson combined averaged around five assists per game.  Lepolo alone is averaging just less than five per game.   Meanwhile, Lepolo accomplishes this with a commendable assist/turnover ratio (2.09).

So, averaging only 5.5 points per game, does that mean that Lepolo lacks offensive punch?  Opposing coaches who make that assumption may regret it.  Against Creighton, Lepolo scored a team and career high 17 points, shooting 5 for 11 from distance.  Lepolo is converting three-point shots at a 41% average, second only to Hannah Jump.  Free thows?  Lepolo has 10 for 12, or 83% conversions. 

Does Lepolo benefit from having Haley Jones and three other starters who help with the ball-handling and are major offensive threats?  Of course, she does.  The important point is that Lepolo knows how to work in tandem with her teammates, taking advantage of defenders who are preoccupied with other Stanford players.

When asked about Talana’s playing, Haley Jones offered high praise at the post-Arizona game press conference.  Noting the excellent communication with Lepolo, Jones expressed “utmost confidence in Talana.”  Jones continued: “She’s growing so much in her leadership.”  For good reason, Jones and her mates enjoy playing with Talana. 

So, at season’s end, Lepolo may be without MVP honors, but she makes everyone else on the team better.  If overall statistics are honored, Lepolo’s a solid bet for the Pac-12 All-Freshman team.   

Stanford in December: Depth and Versatility

 Warren Grimes

In December, Stanford women played 5 home games.  One of those (Gonzaga) was played before the finals break.  Three more (Tennessee, Creighton, and California) were before the Christmas break.  The last was Arizona State, played on New Year’s Eve.

Stanford won all of them, four by 20-point plus margins.  That’s an accomplishment given that three of the five opponents are likely to be tournament teams.  Tennessee (a team that had lost six coming into Maples but still could end the season in the top 20) managed to limit Stanford to a 7-point margin.

In four of the five games, the top three scorers were Brink, Jump, and Jones, each of them averaging around 13 points per game over the season.  Brink is slightly in the lead. She has an impressive 61% shooting percentage.  Jump is just behind in scoring but is shooting threes at a team leading 50% rate.  And Jones, well she does it all, but should be singled out for her assists and her “full court” drives to the basket. 

Stanford has no player in the race for top conference scorer, but the team’s balanced scoring says a great deal about why Stanford is so tough to defend.  The December games stand out because players other than the top three have stepped up in various ways to add to the opponent’s difficulty in facing Stanford.

Let’s begin with Gonzaga, a team with injuries and a very thin bench, but nonetheless a top 20 team with some significant wins.  Brooke Demetre had a season and career game, scoring a team high 17 points on 5 for 9 shooting from distance.  Demetre has stood out in other games as well in part because of her steady presence and ability to pile up the assists.  She has 20 assists for the season with a 2.1 assist to turnover ratio.  In the Tennessee game, Demetre scored no points but had a steal and 2 assists, not counting passes to the interior that led to free throws for Brink or other players. 

Against Tennessee, Brink, Jones, and Jump carried the critical load.  The team, however, could not have won without Demetre’s contribution and Agnes Emma Nnopu, who played 17 minutes with 2 assists (no turnovers), a block and a steal.

Creighton provided an opportunity for point guard Talana Lepolo, who stepped up with a team and career high 17 points, shooting 5 for 11 from three-point land.  Creighton managed to hold Jump without a three-pointer but paid a price when Lepolo took advantage.  Stanford held Creighton to 59 points, well below their season average.

Then came California, where both Lauren Betts and Elena Bosgana contributed 9 points in ten minutes or less.  Both of these players deserve further mention.  Betts has been averaging less than 10 minutes per game, but in those limited minutes has become the team’s fifth leading scorer and fourth leading rebounder.  On a per minute basis, Betts is in fact the leading scorer and leading rebounder on the team.  She seems certain to get more minutes.

Meanwhile Elena Bosgana has gradually added to her resume.  Averaging around 12 minutes per game, she has now become the team’s sixth leading scorer.  She shoots the three-ball effectively (35.5%), something she did not do last year.  And Bosgana is an impressive defender: she steals the ball, on a per minute basis, more than any teammate, although Emma Nnopu is a close second. 

Now we come to New Year’s Eve and the ASU game.  Once again, the firm of Jump, Brink and Jones stood out, but had substantial support from Lepolo (10 points on 2 for 3 shooting from distance) and from Betts (10 points and 6 boards in 15 minutes).  Add one more player to the list of substantial contributors: Indya Nivar played 18 minutes, part of the time at the point, and tallied 8 points.  Nivar looked confident out there.

What fun!  This depth and versatility will be tested as the conference season proceeds – next against Arizona on Monday.

As Good as it Gets?

 

Warren Grimes

Lisa Fortier brought her Gonzaga squad into Maples last Sunday with only seven players able to play.  But those same seven players were instrumental in defeating top-twenty Tennessee and top-ten Louisville in a November tournament.  Those two opponents have since fallen in the rankings, but there is no question that the Zags are well coached and talented – Coach VanDerveer rates them as a solid top 20 team.

It’s difficult to defend Stanford, but Fortier’s planned defense was well conceived – you might say, “as good as it gets.”   Fortier asked her team to clog the middle and keep track of Hannah Jump.  This defense could have limited Stanford’s interior players (Cameron Brink, Kiki Iriafen, and Haley Jones, not to mention all the bench reinforcements).  This defense could have held down Jump’s three-point barrage, and maybe Stanford’s other outside shooters would have an off day.

Well, the defense sort of worked for the first quarter. 

Jump was held in check early in the game, but Stanford ended up with 15 treys – 45 critical points that made up more than half of Stanford’s 84-point total.  Eight different Stanford players contributed at least one trey, and Stanford shot over 53% from distance.  Overall, with the non-conference season almost complete, Stanford is shooting 39.2% from outside the circle.    That’s impressive.  With three of Stanford’s best outside shooters gone from last year’s team (Lexie and Lacy Hull plus Anna Wilson), this year’s squad is so far 4 percentage points above last year’s 35% three-point percentage. 

Leading the 3-point charge, Hannah Jump has already made 37 at an impressive 52% clip.  Jump is doing it all.  She is in excellent shape and tied with Haley Jones for the most minutes per game.  Oh, and she’s tied with Cameron Brink for the team’s leading scorer (12.4 points per game). 

So, who else is making the threes?  Well, Ashten Prechtel for one.  She’s the second most prolific outside shooter, with 14 conversions at a 46.7% clip.  Next in line is a second-year player who had only 8 three pointers last year.  Brooke Demetre has already eclipsed that mark with 13 conversions at a 36.1% rate.  Against Gonzaga, Demetre made 5 of 9 three-point attempts and had a game and career high 17 points.

Demetre’s emergence is of great value because, at 6 foot 3 and with a high release point, she joins Prechtel as a tall perimeter shooter difficult to guard.  Demetre is also a steady player with lots of assists and few turnovers – an outstanding 2.8 assist to turnover rate. 

And we are not done yet with outside shooters.  Elena Bosgana was 0 for 10 from three-point land last year.  This year, she’s already made 9 of them at a 33% clip.  That means that Bosgana is not just a slasher and driver, but also an outside threat.  At 6 foot 2, she’s another difficult player to guard.  Agnes Emma Nnopu and two of the freshmen, Indya Nivar and Talena Lepolo are also shooting threes at above a 30% clip.   So too is Cameron Brink with a 35% conversion rate.  Altogether, that gives Stanford eight players (3 starters and 5 off the bench) who are shooting threes at above a 30% clip.  Who knows, maybe Haley Jones can join the 30% club.

Stanford’s two-week final exam break offers a time for reflection on the first third of the season.  The team’s biggest surprise so far is Telana Lepolo’s performance at point guard.  She was not the team’s highest ranked incoming freshman, but she is the only one to break into the starting lineup.  She came off the bench in Stanford’s first three games, but now has started 8 games in a row, including tough contests against South Carolina, Florida Gulf Coast, and Gonzaga.  Her most impressive stat is a team leading 62 assists with a 2.5 assist to turnover ratio.  She gets the ball up court in a hurry and knows how to pass.  Not a prolific scorer, Lepolo is still a threat to drive the basket or convert the three.

Stanford’s higher ranked freshmen are also showing well.  Lauren Betts is the real deal on the inside.  She is the team’s 5^th leading scorer (7.3 points per game), achieving this number while averaging less than 10 minutes per game.  Her field goal percentage is a team high 65.2%.  Meanwhile, she’s a formidable rebounder (team high in rebounds per minute) and the second-best blocker on the team.  Indya Nivar is playing great defense and shooting 35% from three-point range.  She is averaging almost 12 minutes per game.

So here are the nominations for the most improved veteran player.

Most improved senior – Hannah Jump gets this award.  Haley Jones remains the team’s best player, but her improvement over last year is less evident.

Most improved junior – Cameron Brink gets this award, in large part because she is drawing fewer fouls and is shooting a commendable 76% from the foul line.  That matters greatly because Brink draws more fouls than any other player on the team.  Brink has contributed to the team's 76% free throw shooting percentage, well above the 68.7% for last year.  Honorable mention goes to Agnes Emma Nnopu, an amazing defender and rebounder who is shooting more threes.

Most improved sophomore – A three way tie – Kiki Iriafen for improved confidence and skills on the interior; Brooke Demetre for her steady play and emergence as a killer from outside the three point line; and Elena Bosgana for both her improved outside shooting and improved defense (Bosgana leads the team in steals per minute).

As good as it gets? 

Not likely, this team has more to show and a long way to go.

What's Exciting About This Year's Stanford Squad?

 Warren Grimes

Last year’s Stanford women’s basketball team was excellent.  They won all of their conference games (a major accomplishment) and made it to the Final Four.   A key to their success was the three starting perimeter players (Lexie Hull, Lacie Hull and Anna Wilson). 

Those three players were valuable on both offense and defense.  Lacie brought the ball up court and, after Haley Jones, was the leading assist maker.  Anna and Lexie weren’t far behind.  Collectively, the three made over 40% of the team’s three pointers, shooting at 37% rate.  The Hull twins were also excellent free throw shooters.

On defense, the three were again leaders, with just under 60% of the team’s total steals.  The Hulls were the top theft artists on the team, with Wilson not far behind. 

You won’t see any of these three playing for Stanford this season.  So who will replace these gifted starters?

Based on the first four games for this season, there are at least partial answers, and some are quite exciting.

It looks as though Haley Jones will be sharing point guard duties with freshman Talana Lepolo.  Lepolo started against Portland and handled their full court press well.  In all four of the games, she has pushed the tempo of the game by moving the ball rapidly up court.  She is the team leader in assists and steals.  Lepolo has missed all 4 of her three point attempts, but has impressed with her drives to the basket.

On three point shooting, Hannah Jump is predictably leading the way (12-19), helped by Ashten Prechtel (5-10).  A number of different players have stepped up.  Brooke Demetre is 7-14; Indya Nivar is 5-10; and Elena Bosgana is 5-13.  Although the team has yet to play against a conference level opponent, the team’s overall 42% shooting from the three-point line is impressive.

Free throw shooting seems also to be improved.  The team is shooting 73% with players such as Kiki Iriafen, Demetre, Bosgana, and Nivar all shooting well above 70%.

The biggest difference from last year may be the improved play of Kiki Iriafen in the post and the high tempo offense that, at least against weaker opponents, has resulted in lots of points on high percentage shots (field goal percentage is 56%).  The team’s average score for the first four games is 93.8.  Number one-ranked high school recruit Lauren Betts has played only in reserve so far, but she’s averaging 9.8 points per game (at a 69% clip), the fourth leading scorer on the team. 

Those numbers will decrease as Stanford enters the tougher part of its schedule.  No reason to fret -- this year’s edition of Stanford women’s basketball seems destined for an exciting and very successful season.  There are still questions to be answered and not a little suspense in seeing who will be the key players at season's end.