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.