[WBB fan]

I found the article re the team rotation in the Chron this morning fascinating, not so much because it said anything that we haven't been saying on this board, but because Tara was saying it -- she seems to be more open and forthcoming about the team than she had been many times in the past.

[WBB fan]

I found the article re the team rotation in the Chron this morning fascinating, not so much because it said anything that we haven't been saying on this board, but because Tara was saying it -- she seems to be more open and forthcoming about the team than she had been many times in the past.

[OCcardinal]

I was looking through some Efficiency stats. Cameron Brink's minutes have been down for these early games, so she hasn't been filling up the stat sheet on a cumulative basis. But she is having a remarkably productive season: 

Player Season (Efficiency Stat per 30 Min)
Cameron Brink 2022-23 (30.5)
Cameron Brink 2021-22 (25.9)
Azzi Fudd 2022-23 (16.8)
Caitlin Clark 2022-23 (29.9)
Aliyah Boston 2022-23 (21.1)
Aliyah Boston 2021-22 (26.9)*
Paige Bueckers 2020-21 (19.6)*
Sabrina Ionescu 2019-20 (24.6)*
Megan Gustafson 2018-2019 (32.7)*
A'ja Wilson 2017-2018 (29.2)*
Kelsey Plum 2016-2017 (24.4)*
Breanna Stewart 2015-16 (30.6)*
Breanna Stewart 2014-15 (25.8)*
Breanna Stewart 2013-14 (24.8)*
*AP National Player of the Year Season

[OCcardinal]

I was looking through some Efficiency stats. Cameron Brink's minutes have been down for these early games, so she hasn't been filling up the stat sheet on a cumulative basis. But she is having a remarkably productive season: 

Player Season (Efficiency Stat per 30 Min)
Cameron Brink 2022-23 (30.5)
Cameron Brink 2021-22 (25.9)
Azzi Fudd 2022-23 (16.8)
Caitlin Clark 2022-23 (29.9)
Aliyah Boston 2022-23 (21.1)
Aliyah Boston 2021-22 (26.9)*
Paige Bueckers 2020-21 (19.6)*
Sabrina Ionescu 2019-20 (24.6)*
Megan Gustafson 2018-2019 (32.7)*
A'ja Wilson 2017-2018 (29.2)*
Kelsey Plum 2016-2017 (24.4)*
Breanna Stewart 2015-16 (30.6)*
Breanna Stewart 2014-15 (25.8)*
Breanna Stewart 2013-14 (24.8)*
*AP National Player of the Year Season

[qwerty49]

If a coach wants a player to have less minutes, then the coach can cause that to happen.  If the coach doesn't do that, it is for a reason.  The other players aren't yet performing as well as the players that are playing more than the coach wishes.  If you sit your better players so others can play, you risk having a game turn against you.  So, I interpret Tara wanting starters to play less means she wants the non-starters to play well enough that she can rest the starters.

In a single game, playing too much can cause your effectiveness to decrease.  But what does "[Lepolo's] minutes are starting to take a toll" mean?  She's young enough that 3 days ought to be sufficient for muscles to recover.  But there's more than muscles involved.

+/- per 40 minutes:
Lepolo 32.4
Brink 38.3
Jones 29.9
Jump 33.9
Iriafen 29.6
Emma-Nnopu 27.2
Belibi 21.6
Prechtel 29.1
Nivar 36.0
Bosgana 29.0
Demetre 30.9
Harriel 36.0
Betts 32.3

Frankly, those numbers for the non-starters surprised me.  Some of that is they have had relatively more time against weaker teams.

Help me out with the math here.  Is there such a thing as a "team avg +/-" ?  Since in our 11 games we've outscored our opponents by 352, would that stat by definition be 352/11= 32?  (with some adjustment for the 5 addtl mins we played against SCar?)

Or, more likely, am I just talking gibberish, LOL.

[qwerty49]

If a coach wants a player to have less minutes, then the coach can cause that to happen.  If the coach doesn't do that, it is for a reason.  The other players aren't yet performing as well as the players that are playing more than the coach wishes.  If you sit your better players so others can play, you risk having a game turn against you.  So, I interpret Tara wanting starters to play less means she wants the non-starters to play well enough that she can rest the starters.

In a single game, playing too much can cause your effectiveness to decrease.  But what does "[Lepolo's] minutes are starting to take a toll" mean?  She's young enough that 3 days ought to be sufficient for muscles to recover.  But there's more than muscles involved.

+/- per 40 minutes:
Lepolo 32.4
Brink 38.3
Jones 29.9
Jump 33.9
Iriafen 29.6
Emma-Nnopu 27.2
Belibi 21.6
Prechtel 29.1
Nivar 36.0
Bosgana 29.0
Demetre 30.9
Harriel 36.0
Betts 32.3

Frankly, those numbers for the non-starters surprised me.  Some of that is they have had relatively more time against weaker teams.

Help me out with the math here.  Is there such a thing as a "team avg +/-" ?  Since in our 11 games we've outscored our opponents by 352, would that stat by definition be 352/11= 32?  (with some adjustment for the 5 addtl mins we played against SCar?)

Or, more likely, am I just talking gibberish, LOL.

[M T]

Yep. Because of the OT, the +/- for 40 minutes will be a bit less.

I left off two since they didn't play in the last game and weren't in its season stats:
 Papadaki  24.8
 Green  37.3

If I add up the total +/- for all players (1758) and divide by the total minutes (2225)
and then multiply by 40, I get 31.60.

When I look at the games, I calculate  940-586 = 354 points for 11.125 40-minut games
354/11.125 = 31.82  per 40 minutes.  (.125 for the 5 minute overtime)

The numbers SHOULD agree.  See below for details.  GI,GO.

They also have Eff there, so you can see how Eff gives higher numbers for the posts & forwards and lower numbers to guards, compared to +/-.
Ratios of Eff / +/-
Lepolo  0.387
Brink 1.164
Jones 0.761
Jump 0.496
Iriafen 1.033
Emma-Nnopu 0.400
Belibi 1.456
Prechtel 0.846
Nivar 0.365
Bosgana 0.750
Demetre 0.513
Harriel 0.424
Betts 1.631

Note that what I show above is the ratio of Eff divided by +/-, not the ratio of two players' Eff nor +/-.
For instance, Brink show an Eff of 241 and a +/- of 207  while Betts had an Eff of 137 and +/- of 84.
So, by Eff, Betts's contributions have been 57% of Brink, but Betts's +/- has only been  40.6% of Brink.
The fact that Betts 1.631 above is bigger than Brink's 1.164 means that what she does when in the
game contributes more to EFF versus the score difference than what Brink does.

----------
Details:

The +/- for all the players must be wrong.  It should total to 354*5 = 1770 rather than 1758.
The recorded +/- is low by 12.

Where I find the +/- for each game and season:
Go to the Stanford page at StatBroadcast, find the latest WBB game and click on Final Stats.
Then click on Home (or Visitor) Stats, and then on Season.  Last column is +/-


The FGCU game has bad +/-.  The total for the players is 117.   It should be (93-69)*5 = 120.  +/- low by 3
The Grambling  game has bad +/-.  The total for the players is 183.  It should be (87-50)*5 = 185.  +/- low by 2
The Hawaii game has bad +/-.  The total for the players is 147.  It should be 145.  +/- high by 2.
I can understand why this error happens.  The scorekeeper fails to show the 5 players in the game.  Perhaps 4 players or 6 players get credit for the scoring during some interval.

Those errors doesn't explain it all.  So I looked deeper.
In the first game, Demetre had +/- of  11; in the 2nd, she had 32.  But it the season stats for game 2, her total +/- was listed as 42, not 43.
Wow.  Isn't this why you have computers?  All those stats are in the same system, but the addition is wrong???

It turns out that the site doesn't have the Pacific game.  I had to work backwards from the season numbers after the Portland game.
Likewise, the game's Plus/Minus wasn't in the Gonzaga results, so I used the differences between the seasons stats from that game versus the previous game.

None of the games in Hawaii had a season +/- column, so the next chance to check their addition is the Santa Clara game.
Oh, wow.  Lots of errors.  (Here, high means the season total was higher than the sum of the individual games)
Lepolo, Brink, Jones, Jump were short by 2.  Iriafen was 12 too low. Nivar was 4 too low. 
Bosgana was 8 too high.  Demetre was 14 too high.  Harriel was 5 too high.
(Maybe it wasn't an addition error. Maybe they started from a separately kept record of Plus/Minus provided by Stanford.)

[M T]

Yep. Because of the OT, the +/- for 40 minutes will be a bit less.

I left off two since they didn't play in the last game and weren't in its season stats:
 Papadaki  24.8
 Green  37.3

If I add up the total +/- for all players (1758) and divide by the total minutes (2225)
and then multiply by 40, I get 31.60.

When I look at the games, I calculate  940-586 = 354 points for 11.125 40-minut games
354/11.125 = 31.82  per 40 minutes.  (.125 for the 5 minute overtime)

The numbers SHOULD agree.  See below for details.  GI,GO.

They also have Eff there, so you can see how Eff gives higher numbers for the posts & forwards and lower numbers to guards, compared to +/-.
Ratios of Eff / +/-
Lepolo  0.387
Brink 1.164
Jones 0.761
Jump 0.496
Iriafen 1.033
Emma-Nnopu 0.400
Belibi 1.456
Prechtel 0.846
Nivar 0.365
Bosgana 0.750
Demetre 0.513
Harriel 0.424
Betts 1.631

Note that what I show above is the ratio of Eff divided by +/-, not the ratio of two players' Eff nor +/-.
For instance, Brink show an Eff of 241 and a +/- of 207  while Betts had an Eff of 137 and +/- of 84.
So, by Eff, Betts's contributions have been 57% of Brink, but Betts's +/- has only been  40.6% of Brink.
The fact that Betts 1.631 above is bigger than Brink's 1.164 means that what she does when in the
game contributes more to EFF versus the score difference than what Brink does.

----------
Details:

The +/- for all the players must be wrong.  It should total to 354*5 = 1770 rather than 1758.
The recorded +/- is low by 12.

Where I find the +/- for each game and season:
Go to the Stanford page at StatBroadcast, find the latest WBB game and click on Final Stats.
Then click on Home (or Visitor) Stats, and then on Season.  Last column is +/-


The FGCU game has bad +/-.  The total for the players is 117.   It should be (93-69)*5 = 120.  +/- low by 3
The Grambling  game has bad +/-.  The total for the players is 183.  It should be (87-50)*5 = 185.  +/- low by 2
The Hawaii game has bad +/-.  The total for the players is 147.  It should be 145.  +/- high by 2.
I can understand why this error happens.  The scorekeeper fails to show the 5 players in the game.  Perhaps 4 players or 6 players get credit for the scoring during some interval.

Those errors doesn't explain it all.  So I looked deeper.
In the first game, Demetre had +/- of  11; in the 2nd, she had 32.  But it the season stats for game 2, her total +/- was listed as 42, not 43.
Wow.  Isn't this why you have computers?  All those stats are in the same system, but the addition is wrong???

It turns out that the site doesn't have the Pacific game.  I had to work backwards from the season numbers after the Portland game.
Likewise, the game's Plus/Minus wasn't in the Gonzaga results, so I used the differences between the seasons stats from that game versus the previous game.

None of the games in Hawaii had a season +/- column, so the next chance to check their addition is the Santa Clara game.
Oh, wow.  Lots of errors.  (Here, high means the season total was higher than the sum of the individual games)
Lepolo, Brink, Jones, Jump were short by 2.  Iriafen was 12 too low. Nivar was 4 too low. 
Bosgana was 8 too high.  Demetre was 14 too high.  Harriel was 5 too high.
(Maybe it wasn't an addition error. Maybe they started from a separately kept record of Plus/Minus provided by Stanford.)

[qwerty49]

Yep. Because of the OT, the +/- for 40 minutes will be a bit less.

I left off two since they didn't play in the last game and weren't in its season stats:
 Papadaki  24.8
 Green  37.3

If I add up the total +/- for all players (1758) and divide by the total minutes (2225)
and then multiply by 40, I get 31.60.

When I look at the games, I calculate  940-586 = 354 points for 11.125 40-minut games
354/11.125 = 31.82  per 40 minutes.  (.125 for the 5 minute overtime)

The numbers SHOULD agree.  See below for details.  GI,GO.

They also have Eff there, so you can see how Eff gives higher numbers for the posts & forwards and lower numbers to guards, compared to +/-.
Ratios of Eff / +/-
Lepolo  0.387
Brink 1.164
Jones 0.761
Jump 0.496
Iriafen 1.033
Emma-Nnopu 0.400
Belibi 1.456
Prechtel 0.846
Nivar 0.365
Bosgana 0.750
Demetre 0.513
Harriel 0.424
Betts 1.631

Note that what I show above is the ratio of Eff divided by +/-, not the ratio of two players' Eff nor +/-.
For instance, Brink show an Eff of 241 and a +/- of 207  while Betts had an Eff of 137 and +/- of 84.
So, by Eff, Betts's contributions have been 57% of Brink, but Betts's +/- has only been  40.6% of Brink.
The fact that Betts 1.631 above is bigger than Brink's 1.164 means that what she does when in the
game contributes more to EFF versus the score difference than what Brink does.

----------
Details:

The +/- for all the players must be wrong.  It should total to 354*5 = 1770 rather than 1758.
The recorded +/- is low by 12.

Where I find the +/- for each game and season:
Go to the Stanford page at StatBroadcast, find the latest WBB game and click on Final Stats.
Then click on Home (or Visitor) Stats, and then on Season.  Last column is +/-


The FGCU game has bad +/-.  The total for the players is 117.   It should be (93-69)*5 = 120.  +/- low by 3
The Grambling  game has bad +/-.  The total for the players is 183.  It should be (87-50)*5 = 185.  +/- low by 2
The Hawaii game has bad +/-.  The total for the players is 147.  It should be 145.  +/- high by 2.
I can understand why this error happens.  The scorekeeper fails to show the 5 players in the game.  Perhaps 4 players or 6 players get credit for the scoring during some interval.

Those errors doesn't explain it all.  So I looked deeper.
In the first game, Demetre had +/- of  11; in the 2nd, she had 32.  But it the season stats for game 2, her total +/- was listed as 42, not 43.
Wow.  Isn't this why you have computers?  All those stats are in the same system, but the addition is wrong???

It turns out that the site doesn't have the Pacific game.  I had to work backwards from the season numbers after the Portland game.
Likewise, the game's Plus/Minus wasn't in the Gonzaga results, so I used the differences between the seasons stats from that game versus the previous game.

None of the games in Hawaii had a season +/- column, so the next chance to check their addition is the Santa Clara game.
Oh, wow.  Lots of errors.  (Here, high means the season total was higher than the sum of the individual games)
Lepolo, Brink, Jones, Jump were short by 2.  Iriafen was 12 too low. Nivar was 4 too low. 
Bosgana was 8 too high.  Demetre was 14 too high.  Harriel was 5 too high.
(Maybe it wasn't an addition error. Maybe they started from a separately kept record of Plus/Minus provided by Stanford.)

Wow, thanks for the response.

Even allowing for some of the data entry errors, it seems the main outliers are Brink (+) and Belibi (-).  And that in itself suggests that (based on performance here-to-date) Fran should never sub in for Cam.  To a lesser extent, the same might hold true for subbing Agnes in for Hannah or Nivar or Harriel.  But what seems to be an otherwise relatively tight grouping of the others around the mean would seem to suggest that our team is fairly evenly talented in terms of +/- performance on the court.  (ie we are deep, but of course we knew that).  I have long since forgotten any semblance of statistical analysis I was exposed to back in the Jurassic Age, but I wonder if the old measures of standard deviations/confidence levels would reveal anything significant.  And stats for Nivar or Harriel and some others might be skewed anyway due to relatively low minutes played.

LOL, this is exactly the kind of fuzzy navel gazing we silly fans can indulge in on a Tuesday heading into Finals week!

[qwerty49]

Yep. Because of the OT, the +/- for 40 minutes will be a bit less.

I left off two since they didn't play in the last game and weren't in its season stats:
 Papadaki  24.8
 Green  37.3

If I add up the total +/- for all players (1758) and divide by the total minutes (2225)
and then multiply by 40, I get 31.60.

When I look at the games, I calculate  940-586 = 354 points for 11.125 40-minut games
354/11.125 = 31.82  per 40 minutes.  (.125 for the 5 minute overtime)

The numbers SHOULD agree.  See below for details.  GI,GO.

They also have Eff there, so you can see how Eff gives higher numbers for the posts & forwards and lower numbers to guards, compared to +/-.
Ratios of Eff / +/-
Lepolo  0.387
Brink 1.164
Jones 0.761
Jump 0.496
Iriafen 1.033
Emma-Nnopu 0.400
Belibi 1.456
Prechtel 0.846
Nivar 0.365
Bosgana 0.750
Demetre 0.513
Harriel 0.424
Betts 1.631

Note that what I show above is the ratio of Eff divided by +/-, not the ratio of two players' Eff nor +/-.
For instance, Brink show an Eff of 241 and a +/- of 207  while Betts had an Eff of 137 and +/- of 84.
So, by Eff, Betts's contributions have been 57% of Brink, but Betts's +/- has only been  40.6% of Brink.
The fact that Betts 1.631 above is bigger than Brink's 1.164 means that what she does when in the
game contributes more to EFF versus the score difference than what Brink does.

----------
Details:

The +/- for all the players must be wrong.  It should total to 354*5 = 1770 rather than 1758.
The recorded +/- is low by 12.

Where I find the +/- for each game and season:
Go to the Stanford page at StatBroadcast, find the latest WBB game and click on Final Stats.
Then click on Home (or Visitor) Stats, and then on Season.  Last column is +/-


The FGCU game has bad +/-.  The total for the players is 117.   It should be (93-69)*5 = 120.  +/- low by 3
The Grambling  game has bad +/-.  The total for the players is 183.  It should be (87-50)*5 = 185.  +/- low by 2
The Hawaii game has bad +/-.  The total for the players is 147.  It should be 145.  +/- high by 2.
I can understand why this error happens.  The scorekeeper fails to show the 5 players in the game.  Perhaps 4 players or 6 players get credit for the scoring during some interval.

Those errors doesn't explain it all.  So I looked deeper.
In the first game, Demetre had +/- of  11; in the 2nd, she had 32.  But it the season stats for game 2, her total +/- was listed as 42, not 43.
Wow.  Isn't this why you have computers?  All those stats are in the same system, but the addition is wrong???

It turns out that the site doesn't have the Pacific game.  I had to work backwards from the season numbers after the Portland game.
Likewise, the game's Plus/Minus wasn't in the Gonzaga results, so I used the differences between the seasons stats from that game versus the previous game.

None of the games in Hawaii had a season +/- column, so the next chance to check their addition is the Santa Clara game.
Oh, wow.  Lots of errors.  (Here, high means the season total was higher than the sum of the individual games)
Lepolo, Brink, Jones, Jump were short by 2.  Iriafen was 12 too low. Nivar was 4 too low. 
Bosgana was 8 too high.  Demetre was 14 too high.  Harriel was 5 too high.
(Maybe it wasn't an addition error. Maybe they started from a separately kept record of Plus/Minus provided by Stanford.)

Wow, thanks for the response.

Even allowing for some of the data entry errors, it seems the main outliers are Brink (+) and Belibi (-).  And that in itself suggests that (based on performance here-to-date) Fran should never sub in for Cam.  To a lesser extent, the same might hold true for subbing Agnes in for Hannah or Nivar or Harriel.  But what seems to be an otherwise relatively tight grouping of the others around the mean would seem to suggest that our team is fairly evenly talented in terms of +/- performance on the court.  (ie we are deep, but of course we knew that).  I have long since forgotten any semblance of statistical analysis I was exposed to back in the Jurassic Age, but I wonder if the old measures of standard deviations/confidence levels would reveal anything significant.  And stats for Nivar or Harriel and some others might be skewed anyway due to relatively low minutes played.

LOL, this is exactly the kind of fuzzy navel gazing we silly fans can indulge in on a Tuesday heading into Finals week!

[BostonCard]

A statistical analysis is hard because one player’s +/- is dependent on both who else is on the court and who the opponent is.  It is a crude measurement, but does tell you a bit on how the team does when a particular player is on the floor.

BC

[BostonCard]

A statistical analysis is hard because one player’s +/- is dependent on both who else is on the court and who the opponent is.  It is a crude measurement, but does tell you a bit on how the team does when a particular player is on the floor.

BC

[qwerty49]

A statistical analysis is hard because one player’s +/- is dependent on both who else is on the court and who the opponent is.  It is a crude measurement, but does tell you a bit on how the team does when a particular player is on the floor.

BC

Yeah, I get that. It might be a bit more interesting if the data were solid enough to look at how certain combinations of players (any number between 2 and 5, I suppose) performed. But yes BC too many moving parts involved.

[qwerty49]

A statistical analysis is hard because one player’s +/- is dependent on both who else is on the court and who the opponent is.  It is a crude measurement, but does tell you a bit on how the team does when a particular player is on the floor.

BC

Yeah, I get that. It might be a bit more interesting if the data were solid enough to look at how certain combinations of players (any number between 2 and 5, I suppose) performed. But yes BC too many moving parts involved.

[BostonCard]

Note that there are adjusted stats that take into account who else is on the floor. The problem is it requires large sample sizes to get reasonably precise estimates.

BC

[BostonCard]

Note that there are adjusted stats that take into account who else is on the floor. The problem is it requires large sample sizes to get reasonably precise estimates.

BC

[M T]

A statistical analysis is hard because one player’s +/- is dependent on both who else is on the court and who the opponent is.  It is a crude measurement, but does tell you a bit on how the team does when a particular player is on the floor.

The same can be said of most any other statistic (FT% is the only exception I can think of).  Just take scoring.  If a 6' player plays against 5' players, doesn't that affect the person's scoring?  If a player angers the PG and never sees the ball, doesn't that affect the person's scoring?   When an opponent face-guards Jump the entire game, doesn't that affect her scoring, and also the scoring of her teammates?  And, there are more confounding factors.  What if Missy is a ref? 

Something like EFF is crude because it includes only a handful of other statistics that are only indirectly associated to the outcome of the game.   It clearly gives higher values for certain positions on the court, so at best it is useful for comparing two people in the same position on teams that run similar offenses. 

The team can score 98 points and lose a game, or score only 54 points and win a championship.

If you tell me the sum of the +/- for all the players on the team in a game, I can tell you not only whether they won or not, but also how much they won (or lost) by.

And, like most stats, the raw number isn't meaningful without knowing the playing time.

[M T]

A statistical analysis is hard because one player’s +/- is dependent on both who else is on the court and who the opponent is.  It is a crude measurement, but does tell you a bit on how the team does when a particular player is on the floor.

The same can be said of most any other statistic (FT% is the only exception I can think of).  Just take scoring.  If a 6' player plays against 5' players, doesn't that affect the person's scoring?  If a player angers the PG and never sees the ball, doesn't that affect the person's scoring?   When an opponent face-guards Jump the entire game, doesn't that affect her scoring, and also the scoring of her teammates?  And, there are more confounding factors.  What if Missy is a ref? 

Something like EFF is crude because it includes only a handful of other statistics that are only indirectly associated to the outcome of the game.   It clearly gives higher values for certain positions on the court, so at best it is useful for comparing two people in the same position on teams that run similar offenses. 

The team can score 98 points and lose a game, or score only 54 points and win a championship.

If you tell me the sum of the +/- for all the players on the team in a game, I can tell you not only whether they won or not, but also how much they won (or lost) by.

And, like most stats, the raw number isn't meaningful without knowing the playing time.

[mbdude]

Women’s College Basketball Players Rankings – Class by Class! Week 4 – Women's Basketball News and Opinions (wbasketballblog.com)

wasn't sure where to put this.

As a side not Rice listed in top frosh: Lepolo 62 assists, Rice 29

https://www.warrennolan.com/basketballw/...conference

[mbdude]

Women’s College Basketball Players Rankings – Class by Class! Week 4 – Women's Basketball News and Opinions (wbasketballblog.com)

wasn't sure where to put this.

As a side not Rice listed in top frosh: Lepolo 62 assists, Rice 29

https://www.warrennolan.com/basketballw/...conference

[BostonCard]

Nice to see Jump on the list of top seniors!

BC

[BostonCard]

Nice to see Jump on the list of top seniors!

BC

[M T]

Nice to see Jump on the list of top seniors!

I can't tell if this is some kind of vanity poll or click bait or what.  As it says at the top, "news and opinion".  This isn't news, so it is just someone's opinion.

#1, #2, and #7 seniors (all ahead of Jones) are from one team but that team isn't ranked #1.
The best the #1 and #2 teams have is one player ranked at #4 in that player's class.

[M T]

Nice to see Jump on the list of top seniors!

I can't tell if this is some kind of vanity poll or click bait or what.  As it says at the top, "news and opinion".  This isn't news, so it is just someone's opinion.

#1, #2, and #7 seniors (all ahead of Jones) are from one team but that team isn't ranked #1.
The best the #1 and #2 teams have is one player ranked at #4 in that player's class.

[jonnyss]

Women’s College Basketball Players Rankings – Class by Class! Week 4 – Women's Basketball News and Opinions (wbasketballblog.com)

wasn't sure where to put this.

As a side not Rice listed in top frosh: Lepolo 62 assists, Rice 29

https://www.warrennolan.com/basketballw/...conference

thanks for posting! as i look at the list, i see rice at #7 among freshmen.

[jonnyss]

Women’s College Basketball Players Rankings – Class by Class! Week 4 – Women's Basketball News and Opinions (wbasketballblog.com)

wasn't sure where to put this.

As a side not Rice listed in top frosh: Lepolo 62 assists, Rice 29

https://www.warrennolan.com/basketballw/...conference

thanks for posting! as i look at the list, i see rice at #7 among freshmen.

[jk1926]

Women’s College Basketball Players Rankings – Class by Class! Week 4 – Women's Basketball News and Opinions (wbasketballblog.com)

wasn't sure where to put this.

As a side not Rice listed in top frosh: Lepolo 62 assists, Rice 29

https://www.warrennolan.com/basketballw/...conference

I believe rankings such as these, especially done weekly, have little value.  Seems like a fool's errand to attempt to evaluate and compare objectively the weekly performance of a very large pool of athletes playing against unbalanced competition.  I suppose it generates traffic to the website.

As an aside, the initial NCAA NET Rankings put 9-0 LSU at #5.  I can't understand how it landed there with such a weak Strength of Schedule.  #8 VA Tech (8-0), for example, has one fewer win but is 3-0 versus teams rated 26-50 and 1-0 versus teams between 51-100.  LSU on the other hand is 2-0 against teams rated 51-100.  All other LSU victories came against teams rated 150+.

I presume this will get straightened out as the season progresses. Still seems illogical to me.

https://stats.ncaa.org/selection_ranking...ties/28085

[jk1926]

Women’s College Basketball Players Rankings – Class by Class! Week 4 – Women's Basketball News and Opinions (wbasketballblog.com)

wasn't sure where to put this.

As a side not Rice listed in top frosh: Lepolo 62 assists, Rice 29

https://www.warrennolan.com/basketballw/...conference

I believe rankings such as these, especially done weekly, have little value.  Seems like a fool's errand to attempt to evaluate and compare objectively the weekly performance of a very large pool of athletes playing against unbalanced competition.  I suppose it generates traffic to the website.

As an aside, the initial NCAA NET Rankings put 9-0 LSU at #5.  I can't understand how it landed there with such a weak Strength of Schedule.  #8 VA Tech (8-0), for example, has one fewer win but is 3-0 versus teams rated 26-50 and 1-0 versus teams between 51-100.  LSU on the other hand is 2-0 against teams rated 51-100.  All other LSU victories came against teams rated 150+.

I presume this will get straightened out as the season progresses. Still seems illogical to me.

https://stats.ncaa.org/selection_ranking...ties/28085

[2006alum]

Women’s College Basketball Players Rankings – Class by Class! Week 4 – Women's Basketball News and Opinions (wbasketballblog.com)

wasn't sure where to put this.

As a side not Rice listed in top frosh: Lepolo 62 assists, Rice 29

https://www.warrennolan.com/basketballw/...conference

I believe rankings such as these, especially done weekly, have little value.  Seems like a fool's errand to attempt to evaluate and compare objectively the weekly performance of a very large pool of athletes playing against unbalanced competition.  I suppose it generates traffic to the website.

As an aside, the initial NCAA NET Rankings put 9-0 LSU at #5.  I can't understand how it landed there with such a weak Strength of Schedule.  #8 VA Tech (8-0), for example, has one fewer win but is 3-0 versus teams rated 26-50 and 1-0 versus teams between 51-100.  LSU on the other hand is 2-0 against teams rated 51-100.  All other LSU victories came against teams rated 150+.

I presume this will get straightened out as the season progresses. Still seems illogical to me.

https://stats.ncaa.org/selection_ranking...ties/28085

NET heavily weighs margin of victory relative to human voters (who do to some extent) and RPI (which does not at all). So while LSU has played cupcakes, they've run up margins that are still impressive, and I suspect feeds into their otherwise otherworldly ranking relative to their SOS to date.

[2006alum]

Women’s College Basketball Players Rankings – Class by Class! Week 4 – Women's Basketball News and Opinions (wbasketballblog.com)

wasn't sure where to put this.

As a side not Rice listed in top frosh: Lepolo 62 assists, Rice 29

https://www.warrennolan.com/basketballw/...conference

I believe rankings such as these, especially done weekly, have little value.  Seems like a fool's errand to attempt to evaluate and compare objectively the weekly performance of a very large pool of athletes playing against unbalanced competition.  I suppose it generates traffic to the website.

As an aside, the initial NCAA NET Rankings put 9-0 LSU at #5.  I can't understand how it landed there with such a weak Strength of Schedule.  #8 VA Tech (8-0), for example, has one fewer win but is 3-0 versus teams rated 26-50 and 1-0 versus teams between 51-100.  LSU on the other hand is 2-0 against teams rated 51-100.  All other LSU victories came against teams rated 150+.

I presume this will get straightened out as the season progresses. Still seems illogical to me.

https://stats.ncaa.org/selection_ranking...ties/28085

NET heavily weighs margin of victory relative to human voters (who do to some extent) and RPI (which does not at all). So while LSU has played cupcakes, they've run up margins that are still impressive, and I suspect feeds into their otherwise otherworldly ranking relative to their SOS to date.

[WBB fan]

Both Haley and Cam are nominated in the WBCA "Starting Five" contest. See the big post in the Fast Break Club Website. You can vote for them once a day at the following link      :http://www.hoophallawards.com/

We really got behind Lexie for the Senior Class Award last year. Let's do it for Haley and Cam on this, this year.

[WBB fan]

Both Haley and Cam are nominated in the WBCA "Starting Five" contest. See the big post in the Fast Break Club Website. You can vote for them once a day at the following link      :http://www.hoophallawards.com/

We really got behind Lexie for the Senior Class Award last year. Let's do it for Haley and Cam on this, this year.

[DaBears17]

Lauren and Fran are on the ballot for center.

[DaBears17]

Lauren and Fran are on the ballot for center.

[M T]

As a side not Rice listed in top frosh: Lepolo 62 assists, Rice 29

It seems some took this as saying Rice was not listed.  But I believe the OP intended “As a side note, Rice listed in top frosh” and then pointed out that Lepolo (who was not listed) had twice as many assists.

[M T]

As a side not Rice listed in top frosh: Lepolo 62 assists, Rice 29

It seems some took this as saying Rice was not listed.  But I believe the OP intended “As a side note, Rice listed in top frosh” and then pointed out that Lepolo (who was not listed) had twice as many assists.

[mbdude]

As a side not Rice listed in top frosh: Lepolo 62 assists, Rice 29

It seems some took this as saying Rice was not listed.  But I believe the OP intended “As a side note, Rice listed in top frosh” and then pointed out that Lepolo (who was not listed) had twice as many assists.

Yes. Thank you

[mbdude]

As a side not Rice listed in top frosh: Lepolo 62 assists, Rice 29

It seems some took this as saying Rice was not listed.  But I believe the OP intended “As a side note, Rice listed in top frosh” and then pointed out that Lepolo (who was not listed) had twice as many assists.

Yes. Thank you

[OCcardinal]

As a side not Rice listed in top frosh: Lepolo 62 assists, Rice 29

62 is impressive (especially given her relatively few turnovers). Among the freshmen who show up on the NCAA's top 200 assist-to-turnover ratio stat list, Lepolo has the 2nd most # of assists and yet the 2nd best assist-to-turnover ratio. 

RANK NAME TEAM CL HEGHT G AST-TO RATIO (AST PER G)

22 Yarden Garzon Indiana Fr. 6'-3" 9 35-12 2.92 (3.89)
44 Talana Lepolo Stanford Fr. 5'-7" 11 62-25 2.48 (5.64)
64 Raven Johnson South Carolina Fr. 5'-8" 8 24-11 2.18 (3.00)
76 Jen Pierre Southeastern La. Fr. 5'-5" 7 23-11 2.09 (3.29)
83 Ines Debroise Rhode Island Fr. 5'-9" 9 31-15 2.07 (3.44)
88 Taina Mair Boston College Fr. 5'-9" 11 82-40 2.05 (7.45)
91 Ereauna Hardaway North Texas Fr. 5'-9" 8 28-14 2.00 (3.50)
137 Angel Jones Siena Fr. 5'-4" 9 28-17 1.65 (3.11)
158 Ainhoa Cea Lipscomb Fr. 5'-6" 10 48-31 1.55 (4.80)
169 Amaya Battle Minnesota Fr. 5'-11" 9 46-31 1.48 (5.11)
173 Sydney Shaw Auburn Fr. 5'-9" 8 25-17 1.47 (3.13)
177 Rosa Smith Idaho Fr. 5'-7" 7 35-24 1.46 (5.00)
180 Kiki Rice UCLA Fr. 5'-11" 9 29-20 1.45 (3.22)
194 Kaitlyn Flanagan Holy Cross Fr. 5'-8" 8 28-20 1.40 (3.50)
194 Madison Schiller Colgate Fr. 5'-8" 7 21-15 1.40 (3.00)
198 Jordan Harrison SFA Fr. 5'-6" 8 36-26 1.38 (4.50)

[OCcardinal]

As a side not Rice listed in top frosh: Lepolo 62 assists, Rice 29

62 is impressive (especially given her relatively few turnovers). Among the freshmen who show up on the NCAA's top 200 assist-to-turnover ratio stat list, Lepolo has the 2nd most # of assists and yet the 2nd best assist-to-turnover ratio. 

RANK NAME TEAM CL HEGHT G AST-TO RATIO (AST PER G)

22 Yarden Garzon Indiana Fr. 6'-3" 9 35-12 2.92 (3.89)
44 Talana Lepolo Stanford Fr. 5'-7" 11 62-25 2.48 (5.64)
64 Raven Johnson South Carolina Fr. 5'-8" 8 24-11 2.18 (3.00)
76 Jen Pierre Southeastern La. Fr. 5'-5" 7 23-11 2.09 (3.29)
83 Ines Debroise Rhode Island Fr. 5'-9" 9 31-15 2.07 (3.44)
88 Taina Mair Boston College Fr. 5'-9" 11 82-40 2.05 (7.45)
91 Ereauna Hardaway North Texas Fr. 5'-9" 8 28-14 2.00 (3.50)
137 Angel Jones Siena Fr. 5'-4" 9 28-17 1.65 (3.11)
158 Ainhoa Cea Lipscomb Fr. 5'-6" 10 48-31 1.55 (4.80)
169 Amaya Battle Minnesota Fr. 5'-11" 9 46-31 1.48 (5.11)
173 Sydney Shaw Auburn Fr. 5'-9" 8 25-17 1.47 (3.13)
177 Rosa Smith Idaho Fr. 5'-7" 7 35-24 1.46 (5.00)
180 Kiki Rice UCLA Fr. 5'-11" 9 29-20 1.45 (3.22)
194 Kaitlyn Flanagan Holy Cross Fr. 5'-8" 8 28-20 1.40 (3.50)
194 Madison Schiller Colgate Fr. 5'-8" 7 21-15 1.40 (3.00)
198 Jordan Harrison SFA Fr. 5'-6" 8 36-26 1.38 (4.50)