Warren Grimes
Stanford women’s basketball enters the upcoming season
without a top 25 preseason ranking.
That’s not unexpected. ACC
coaches picked last year’s team to finish in 7th place. The team managed
only an 11th place finish.
They struggled to maintain an above .500 winning percentage, saw a
long streak of NCAA tournament appearances end, and lost twice to Cal. I still loved that team for its moxie and
fight. Stanford lost its top three
scorers from the previous year and suffered a mid-season injury to its top
scorer and rebounder (Nunu Agara).
The reasons for preseason excitement include anticipated
improved play from returning veterans such as Agara, Chloe Clardy, Courtney Ogden,
Ashley Stevenson, and Shay Ijiwoye, the apparent recovery of point guard Talano
Lepolo, and perhaps, most of all, the injection of five new freshmen, three of
whom were high school All Americans.
Hailee Swaine is a top ten guard recruit who could be a team leader in
scoring and defense. The other two
McDonald’s All Americans, 6’4” Lara Somfai and 6’5” Alexandra Eschmeyer, have inside moves, can run the
floor, and shoot three pointers. Two
other freshmen could diversify the team’s offense. Carly Amborn, at 6’2’, is an outside shooter who
seems suited to the three position. And 6’2”
Nora Ezike, as a member of the Nigerian women’s under-19 team, generated
excitement this summer by humiliating the Chinese team with athletic second
half moves that resulted in Nigeria’s upset win. All these players could easily become part of
a late season rotation that plays 10 or more minutes per game.
So yes, there’s sound reason for optimism and
excitement. Coach Paye says that the
depth of talent on the team will lead to more competitive and intense
practices.
Is any of this reflected in the preseason rankings? Apparently not. One recent poll selected five ACC teams in
the top 20: Duke (#8), NC State (#9), North Carolina (#10), Louisville (#17),
and Notre Dame (#18). Stanford was not
in the top 25. When the ACC conference
rankings come out, this pattern suggests that Stanford could be selected for,
at best, a 6th place conference finish.
All rankings are suspect, but none more so than those made in
the preseason. Such ratings, like other
ratings, are a democratic process of compiling the selections of sports writers
or coaches, each of whom may know a lot more about basketball than this
writer. These experts likely know a lot
about the players in conferences that they closely follow. They may also know, from media coverage,
something about the strengths of top teams in the country. What they lack is detailed knowledge about each
of the 100 plus teams eligible for consideration in a nationwide poll.
When a pundit or coach passes judgment on relatively unknown
teams, the voter is likely to fall back on reputation and last year’s
performance. College teams, however,
change every year. Underclassmen develop
new skills, veteran players graduate, and incoming freshmen add to the
mix. Stanford’s WBB team for the
upcoming season will have vastly different personnel from last year’s team
(four players lost and five new ones added), so even those who follow the team
closely would have difficulty making accurate predictions.
As a matter of mathematics, rankings are likely to be less
precise as you move from top 5 teams down the scale. There may be only 5 teams that win 90% of
their games, but a larger number (say 20 teams) that win 80% of the time. That means more nuanced decisions to make as
you move from top 10 to top 20 teams.
This effect may be exacerbated because those doing the rankings may have
less knowledge of teams with fewer wins.
Finally, there is the issue of being a relatively new member
of a conference dominated by east coast teams.
One could expect that writers and coaches involved in the ACC conference
would tend to support other conference teams in making rating selections for a
national poll. There is a built-in bias
to support fellow conference teams. But
many of these coaches and writers do not know Stanford tradition and strengths,
perhaps relying instead upon last year’s results.
This bias won’t just affect women’s basketball. Consider the current season for women’s
soccer, where Stanford has started the season at a record-setting pace. In the preseason rankings, ACC coaches picked
Stanford to finish fifth, behind North Carolina, Notre Dame, Florida State, and
Duke. The season is still young, but so
far, Stanford women’s soccer has vastly outperformed its ranking. The undefeated team is averaging an
impressive 5 goals per game, the most of any team in the nation. By comparison, last year’s squad averaged just
over 1.5 goals per game yet still made it to the final four in the NCAA
tournament. What a difference a season makes. In early season games, Stanford reserves have
come off the bench to average 1.5 goals per game in 40 minutes or less of
playing time. Meanwhile, Stanford is
holding rivals to an average of 0.5 goals per game. This season’s team has impressive depth and,
as of this writing, is ranked #1 in the nation.
Injuries or other unknowns could undermine Stanford’s juggernaut beginning. It is already crystal clear, however, that preseason
rankings were grossly inaccurate.
Outperforming expectations is easier when the preseason pundit
pollsters have low-balled your team. Stanford WBB can follow in the footsteps of
their soccer-playing sisters in using depth, teamwork and intensity to win
decisively. Stanford’s end of season
record, for both soccer and women’s hoops, will be based not on fallible preseason
polls, but on what its talented players demand of themselves. I’m excited for both teams (women’s
volleyball too).
