[BillBradley]

A few observations from a fan.

Watching this game unfold, it almost appeared that Wes Moore's team knew more about Stanford's offense than Stanford.  It is simply not the kind of offense that can be successful in the ACC.  When the offense broke down beginning in the 2nd. quarter, Ogden, Agara and Swain tried courageously going one-on-one to the basket, only to lose it, get the ball stolen, or rejected.  

I was struck by Coach Paye's decision not to make any adjustments when it was clear the offense couldn't generate points.  After being an Associate Head Coach and watching Hall of Famer, Tara Vanderveer make game-changing adjustments, one would think Coach Paye would have had more tools in her tool-box to use, but I'm wondering if that tool-box is empty.

Other than grabbing a ton of rebounds, Somfai, a critical part of Stanford's offense, was basically rendered ineffective.  Of all the players, especially the starters, this style of offense hurts Somfai and her skill set the most.  On the other hand, you saw how easily NC State was consistently able to get the ball into their 'Bigs' (or anyone else) at will and Stanford could not stop them.

I don't know where "Cautious Kate" and the team go from here, but it will not get easier.

Yeah, that's how it's been in most games. We are very formulaic and predictable. I think Wes Moore is a really good coach, and I do think we got outcoached this game. Can't say I'm surprised we got blown out, especially without Clardy.

[BillBradley]

A few observations from a fan.

Watching this game unfold, it almost appeared that Wes Moore's team knew more about Stanford's offense than Stanford.  It is simply not the kind of offense that can be successful in the ACC.  When the offense broke down beginning in the 2nd. quarter, Ogden, Agara and Swain tried courageously going one-on-one to the basket, only to lose it, get the ball stolen, or rejected.  

I was struck by Coach Paye's decision not to make any adjustments when it was clear the offense couldn't generate points.  After being an Associate Head Coach and watching Hall of Famer, Tara Vanderveer make game-changing adjustments, one would think Coach Paye would have had more tools in her tool-box to use, but I'm wondering if that tool-box is empty.

Other than grabbing a ton of rebounds, Somfai, a critical part of Stanford's offense, was basically rendered ineffective.  Of all the players, especially the starters, this style of offense hurts Somfai and her skill set the most.  On the other hand, you saw how easily NC State was consistently able to get the ball into their 'Bigs' (or anyone else) at will and Stanford could not stop them.

I don't know where "Cautious Kate" and the team go from here, but it will not get easier.

Yeah, that's how it's been in most games. We are very formulaic and predictable. I think Wes Moore is a really good coach, and I do think we got outcoached this game. Can't say I'm surprised we got blown out, especially without Clardy.

[Lorcan]

I think while Lepolo's offense is a challenge, I'm not quite sure who on the bench you can turn to with Clardy out and Swain struggling to run the point. There are likely no easy answers over that performance, but it seems that we resorted to chucking up threes because the offense as designed wasn't working to get players open.

[Lorcan]

I think while Lepolo's offense is a challenge, I'm not quite sure who on the bench you can turn to with Clardy out and Swain struggling to run the point. There are likely no easy answers over that performance, but it seems that we resorted to chucking up threes because the offense as designed wasn't working to get players open.

[spike5882]

I know some on this forum believe coaches are infallible but there's a difference between talent gap and coaching deficiencies. I don't think NC State's talent level is 20+ points better this year.

I hope that either Paye quickly recognizes the strategic and tactical errors she made or that we don't wait multiple seasons to be content with mediocrity. But based on past experiences I don't think either option will come to fruition anytime soon.

That's why I wished we would have considered a broader search after Tara's retirement rather than just anoint Paye as the successor because of her ties to the program.

Nobody has said coaches are infallible.  In fact, at least I’ve been pretty explicit (in this very thread) that “Coaches are imperfect and some coaches are better than others. They clearly make mistakes and are prone to biases.” [look it up, it’s on page 2 of this thread].

However, I also note that “even a bad coach is more knowledgeable about the game of basketball, has more information about the team and the players, has spent more time reviewing film and thinking about stuff like playing time and is certainly more motivated to get it right (after all, their employment is dependent on it) than even the most knowledgeable of fan message board warriors is.”

I wonder, who on this message board, if given complete coaching responsibilities for Stanford women’s basketball, would do better than Kate Paye (and, if so, what are you doing on this message board, rather than out there coaching)?  I mean, most people here probably wouldn’t even be able to diagram a basketball play correctly, let alone implement one against a team on the edge of the top-25 (Massey rates them 28).  It’s not that Kate Paye is perfect; far from it.  But it would be nice if posters exhibited a modicum of humility instead of acting like fixing this team would be straightforward if only the coach did [whatever the poster thinks should be done].

BC

I don't think anybody here has ever come close to implying they'd do a better job coaching from a whiteboard. Criticism isn’t the same as claiming superiority.

What is fair—and frankly necessary—is evaluating outcomes and process. Over last season and this season (and some years with Tara, too) we’ve seen a stagnant offense, minimal off-ball movement, and little evidence of adjustment when it’s clearly not working. This isn’t about disliking the Princeton offense in principle; it’s about watching it be run without evolution and without an apparent Plan B, despite having talented players who are not being put in positions to succeed. When the same issues persist year over year, at some point it’s not patience, it’s avoidance in making changes and trying something that could be more effective.

As Stanford alums, we’re wired to expect problem-solving, adaptation, and creative thinking when something isn’t working. It’s a large part of the culture and core of our institution. Many of us alum run organizations or companies where results matter. When a strategy underperforms, you don’t shrug and say “Well, I’m the seasoned expert; let's just keep doing what we have always been doing even though we are now failing.” You diagnose, you iterate, and you try new solutions. 

From the outside, that’s what feels missing here with Paye, and it is being pointed out. Pointing that out isn’t being a keyboard warrior or suggesting we are potentially better coaches; it’s just the kind of high-level accountability that helps bring success that most of us are accustomed to.

[spike5882]

I know some on this forum believe coaches are infallible but there's a difference between talent gap and coaching deficiencies. I don't think NC State's talent level is 20+ points better this year.

I hope that either Paye quickly recognizes the strategic and tactical errors she made or that we don't wait multiple seasons to be content with mediocrity. But based on past experiences I don't think either option will come to fruition anytime soon.

That's why I wished we would have considered a broader search after Tara's retirement rather than just anoint Paye as the successor because of her ties to the program.

Nobody has said coaches are infallible.  In fact, at least I’ve been pretty explicit (in this very thread) that “Coaches are imperfect and some coaches are better than others. They clearly make mistakes and are prone to biases.” [look it up, it’s on page 2 of this thread].

However, I also note that “even a bad coach is more knowledgeable about the game of basketball, has more information about the team and the players, has spent more time reviewing film and thinking about stuff like playing time and is certainly more motivated to get it right (after all, their employment is dependent on it) than even the most knowledgeable of fan message board warriors is.”

I wonder, who on this message board, if given complete coaching responsibilities for Stanford women’s basketball, would do better than Kate Paye (and, if so, what are you doing on this message board, rather than out there coaching)?  I mean, most people here probably wouldn’t even be able to diagram a basketball play correctly, let alone implement one against a team on the edge of the top-25 (Massey rates them 28).  It’s not that Kate Paye is perfect; far from it.  But it would be nice if posters exhibited a modicum of humility instead of acting like fixing this team would be straightforward if only the coach did [whatever the poster thinks should be done].

BC

I don't think anybody here has ever come close to implying they'd do a better job coaching from a whiteboard. Criticism isn’t the same as claiming superiority.

What is fair—and frankly necessary—is evaluating outcomes and process. Over last season and this season (and some years with Tara, too) we’ve seen a stagnant offense, minimal off-ball movement, and little evidence of adjustment when it’s clearly not working. This isn’t about disliking the Princeton offense in principle; it’s about watching it be run without evolution and without an apparent Plan B, despite having talented players who are not being put in positions to succeed. When the same issues persist year over year, at some point it’s not patience, it’s avoidance in making changes and trying something that could be more effective.

As Stanford alums, we’re wired to expect problem-solving, adaptation, and creative thinking when something isn’t working. It’s a large part of the culture and core of our institution. Many of us alum run organizations or companies where results matter. When a strategy underperforms, you don’t shrug and say “Well, I’m the seasoned expert; let's just keep doing what we have always been doing even though we are now failing.” You diagnose, you iterate, and you try new solutions. 

From the outside, that’s what feels missing here with Paye, and it is being pointed out. Pointing that out isn’t being a keyboard warrior or suggesting we are potentially better coaches; it’s just the kind of high-level accountability that helps bring success that most of us are accustomed to.

[BostonCard]

I mean, if it is just frustration that we aren’t as good as we are accustomed (or wish to be), I am right there with you guys.

But beyond that, there are a lot of assumptions intrinsic in your post that we simply don’t know.  None of us go to practice, so we don’t know what they are working on.  What we see is an offense that isn’t working as well as we would like, and assume that the coaches aren’t making adjustments, but to my knowledge nobody here has gone through and diagrammed every play and shown that our mix of plays has not changed over time or doesn’t change over the course of a game.  More likely than not, it actually has, but most of us are not sophisticated enough to notice it, and that type of large scale change that people would notice is not actually realistic to implement mid-season.

Moreover, because our team is fairly young, and freshmen are responsible for about 30% of available minutes, I would guess that Kate Paye is probably spending more time than would be typical on fundamentals: offensive and defensive positioning, boxing out, etc. and getting the team to execute the plays that we do have in our arsenal more effectively, rather than making wholesale changes to the way we run our offense.

Lastly, I want to emphasize that even as our offense doesn’t seem to have improved much since last year, our defense most certainly has, going from the 99th adjusted defensive efficiency (I’m using Bart Torvik’s numbers) to the 22nd best DE, which makes this team a substantially better team than last year’s.  (I’m not cherry picking, using Massey’s numbers we went we’ve improved from #49 to #16 on defense).  Overall, we’ve gone from #41 (Massey)/53 (Torvik) to #30 (Massey)/36 (Torvik).

I wish we would improve more, faster, as I’m sure we all do.  I just think it is a bit early to conclude that Paye is the problem, and that the team will not continue to improve with her at the helm.  To be clear, she may not rise to the challenge, but I don’t think it’s clear that she won’t.

BC

[BostonCard]

I mean, if it is just frustration that we aren’t as good as we are accustomed (or wish to be), I am right there with you guys.

But beyond that, there are a lot of assumptions intrinsic in your post that we simply don’t know.  None of us go to practice, so we don’t know what they are working on.  What we see is an offense that isn’t working as well as we would like, and assume that the coaches aren’t making adjustments, but to my knowledge nobody here has gone through and diagrammed every play and shown that our mix of plays has not changed over time or doesn’t change over the course of a game.  More likely than not, it actually has, but most of us are not sophisticated enough to notice it, and that type of large scale change that people would notice is not actually realistic to implement mid-season.

Moreover, because our team is fairly young, and freshmen are responsible for about 30% of available minutes, I would guess that Kate Paye is probably spending more time than would be typical on fundamentals: offensive and defensive positioning, boxing out, etc. and getting the team to execute the plays that we do have in our arsenal more effectively, rather than making wholesale changes to the way we run our offense.

Lastly, I want to emphasize that even as our offense doesn’t seem to have improved much since last year, our defense most certainly has, going from the 99th adjusted defensive efficiency (I’m using Bart Torvik’s numbers) to the 22nd best DE, which makes this team a substantially better team than last year’s.  (I’m not cherry picking, using Massey’s numbers we went we’ve improved from #49 to #16 on defense).  Overall, we’ve gone from #41 (Massey)/53 (Torvik) to #30 (Massey)/36 (Torvik).

I wish we would improve more, faster, as I’m sure we all do.  I just think it is a bit early to conclude that Paye is the problem, and that the team will not continue to improve with her at the helm.  To be clear, she may not rise to the challenge, but I don’t think it’s clear that she won’t.

BC

[M T]

I wondered about the differential in fouls called on the visitors or the home team.  So I crunched the numbers for the ACC WBB regular season games for last year.  (A reminder that the number & mixture of which opponents a team played  will impact these numbers.)
   

(Oh cool! Attachments work now! Thanks!  I was even able to delete & replace the attachment when editing after posting.)

On the whole, the home teams averaged about 10% fewer fouls than the visitors.  But teams and individual games varied greatly.

The penultimate column (positive is better) shows a team's overall (home + away) foul differential compared to their opponents. 

NC State by far had the best team as far as foul differential goes.  They had an average (between home & away games) of 48 fewer fouls than their opponents (12 more fewer at home games; 12 less fewer at away games).  That suggests they fared even better at home.

Virginia Tech fared quite well, but their home differential was almost as good as NC State, but their away numbers weren't close to NC State.

Clemson fared the worst in fouls.

Stanford had 18 fewer fouls as the home team and 8 more fouls as the visiting team (net of 10 fewer than their opponents).
If there were no home court advantage for fouls (and these numbers were a true measure), you might want to say Stanford should have an advantage of 5 fouls over the home games and 5 fouls over the away games.  Then you'd say that the home court advantage was worth 13 fouls (=18-5) over the set of home games. (So, about 1.5 fouls per game).  This is the home court advantage in the last column.

By that measure, NC State had a 12-foul home court advantage over their set of home games.  Virginia Tech seems to have had about a 25-foul home court advantage over the set of home games.  But Notre Dame had the biggest home court advantage of about 28.5 fouls (about 3 per game).

[M T]

I wondered about the differential in fouls called on the visitors or the home team.  So I crunched the numbers for the ACC WBB regular season games for last year.  (A reminder that the number & mixture of which opponents a team played  will impact these numbers.)
   

(Oh cool! Attachments work now! Thanks!  I was even able to delete & replace the attachment when editing after posting.)

On the whole, the home teams averaged about 10% fewer fouls than the visitors.  But teams and individual games varied greatly.

The penultimate column (positive is better) shows a team's overall (home + away) foul differential compared to their opponents. 

NC State by far had the best team as far as foul differential goes.  They had an average (between home & away games) of 48 fewer fouls than their opponents (12 more fewer at home games; 12 less fewer at away games).  That suggests they fared even better at home.

Virginia Tech fared quite well, but their home differential was almost as good as NC State, but their away numbers weren't close to NC State.

Clemson fared the worst in fouls.

Stanford had 18 fewer fouls as the home team and 8 more fouls as the visiting team (net of 10 fewer than their opponents).
If there were no home court advantage for fouls (and these numbers were a true measure), you might want to say Stanford should have an advantage of 5 fouls over the home games and 5 fouls over the away games.  Then you'd say that the home court advantage was worth 13 fouls (=18-5) over the set of home games. (So, about 1.5 fouls per game).  This is the home court advantage in the last column.

By that measure, NC State had a 12-foul home court advantage over their set of home games.  Virginia Tech seems to have had about a 25-foul home court advantage over the set of home games.  But Notre Dame had the biggest home court advantage of about 28.5 fouls (about 3 per game).

[Hieronymus]

Catching up late but:
- mostly the officiating was garden variety bad except for 2 stretches. The first was an insane 5 offensive fouls on Stanford in q1, and the second was the last 3 or so minutes of q3 when the game started to get away.
- offense died in the second half. Ogaden kept them in it for much of q3 by herself, but she could only carry that so far.
- yes Leopolo makes it 4v5 on offense, but as was noted above with no Clardy there aren’t a lot of options. I did think she was ok on defense though most of the game.
- it’s good to push tempo to get into the offense faster, but they generate no fast break points. Literally 0 today. And that seems pretty typical for several years now. So for me faster tempo is mostly talk with no action.

[Hieronymus]

Catching up late but:
- mostly the officiating was garden variety bad except for 2 stretches. The first was an insane 5 offensive fouls on Stanford in q1, and the second was the last 3 or so minutes of q3 when the game started to get away.
- offense died in the second half. Ogaden kept them in it for much of q3 by herself, but she could only carry that so far.
- yes Leopolo makes it 4v5 on offense, but as was noted above with no Clardy there aren’t a lot of options. I did think she was ok on defense though most of the game.
- it’s good to push tempo to get into the offense faster, but they generate no fast break points. Literally 0 today. And that seems pretty typical for several years now. So for me faster tempo is mostly talk with no action.

[fullmetal]

I wonder, who on this message board, if given complete coaching responsibilities for Stanford women’s basketball, would do better than Kate Paye (and, if so, what are you doing on this message board, rather than out there coaching)?

Side note here.  I agree with your sentiment; we shouldn't assume we have enough knowledge to judge KP's process -- only her results, and even those might need to be contextualized.

However, the "what are you doing on this message board rather than out there coaching" bit brought me back to some thoughts I had earlier.  The pathway to D1 head coach is not for the faint of heart.  Some start at the high school assistant level, some start at the collegiate volunteer/GA level.  It's a long and competitive route, however you slice it.  It means low salaries for a long time before a hypothetical payoff if you happen to rise to the top, assuming a meritocracy of some sort (and the promotion structure is often not meritocratic).  I would say this system doesn't always capture the best coaching talent.  If you have the skills to be a good coach, then you probably also have the skills to make big bucks elsewhere with a wider job market and more paths to promotion.  In some sports, a lot of coaches have family resources subsidizing meager starting salaries before they make it big.  Those who don't have that cushion either grit their teeths or choose a better path for themselves on a different career track.  So no, I don't necessarily think that the coaching funnel incentivizes the best and brightest coaching talent to end up at D1 positions.  Certainly basketball is a popular enough sport where most coaches at a big university are at the top of the game, but I wouldn't discount the chance that really bright minds found other careers due to structural entry barriers.

Back to KP: if we are to moderate our criticism, we should at least be allowed to comment on the results, and the NCST game was a stinker.  We need to know that this kind of game won't happen again, and we would ideally know what KP's staff is doing to make sure that is the case.  In private industry, I'm not sure "flush it and move on" is a sufficient response to your boss when they ask "wtf happened with the missed deadlines and failed execution last quarter."

[fullmetal]

I wonder, who on this message board, if given complete coaching responsibilities for Stanford women’s basketball, would do better than Kate Paye (and, if so, what are you doing on this message board, rather than out there coaching)?

Side note here.  I agree with your sentiment; we shouldn't assume we have enough knowledge to judge KP's process -- only her results, and even those might need to be contextualized.

However, the "what are you doing on this message board rather than out there coaching" bit brought me back to some thoughts I had earlier.  The pathway to D1 head coach is not for the faint of heart.  Some start at the high school assistant level, some start at the collegiate volunteer/GA level.  It's a long and competitive route, however you slice it.  It means low salaries for a long time before a hypothetical payoff if you happen to rise to the top, assuming a meritocracy of some sort (and the promotion structure is often not meritocratic).  I would say this system doesn't always capture the best coaching talent.  If you have the skills to be a good coach, then you probably also have the skills to make big bucks elsewhere with a wider job market and more paths to promotion.  In some sports, a lot of coaches have family resources subsidizing meager starting salaries before they make it big.  Those who don't have that cushion either grit their teeths or choose a better path for themselves on a different career track.  So no, I don't necessarily think that the coaching funnel incentivizes the best and brightest coaching talent to end up at D1 positions.  Certainly basketball is a popular enough sport where most coaches at a big university are at the top of the game, but I wouldn't discount the chance that really bright minds found other careers due to structural entry barriers.

Back to KP: if we are to moderate our criticism, we should at least be allowed to comment on the results, and the NCST game was a stinker.  We need to know that this kind of game won't happen again, and we would ideally know what KP's staff is doing to make sure that is the case.  In private industry, I'm not sure "flush it and move on" is a sufficient response to your boss when they ask "wtf happened with the missed deadlines and failed execution last quarter."

[RuralFan]

Internet Research on North Carolina.  As stated earlier in this thread, North Carolina has lost three games (Louisville L-10 overtime) (Texas L -15) (UCLA L-18).  They also lost an exhibition game against South Carolina L-9.  They have destroyed several unranked teams.

North Carolina has two players listed above 6' 2" in height (Ciela Toomey 6' 4") and (Bianca Thomas 6' 5").  Toomey plays a lot while Thomas plays limited minutes, however Toomey did not play in North Carolina's last game against Cal.  NC has a number of players between 6' 0" and 6' 2" but so does Stanford.  No obvious rebounding advantage to North Carolina.

North Carolina is shooting 35.8 percent from 3 point range. Stanford is hitting 31.3 percentage of 3 point shots.  Stanford will have to guard the 3 point line and it would be truly wonderful if a Stanford player could get hot from 3 point range. I know this is a foolish fan talk.

[RuralFan]

Internet Research on North Carolina.  As stated earlier in this thread, North Carolina has lost three games (Louisville L-10 overtime) (Texas L -15) (UCLA L-18).  They also lost an exhibition game against South Carolina L-9.  They have destroyed several unranked teams.

North Carolina has two players listed above 6' 2" in height (Ciela Toomey 6' 4") and (Bianca Thomas 6' 5").  Toomey plays a lot while Thomas plays limited minutes, however Toomey did not play in North Carolina's last game against Cal.  NC has a number of players between 6' 0" and 6' 2" but so does Stanford.  No obvious rebounding advantage to North Carolina.

North Carolina is shooting 35.8 percent from 3 point range. Stanford is hitting 31.3 percentage of 3 point shots.  Stanford will have to guard the 3 point line and it would be truly wonderful if a Stanford player could get hot from 3 point range. I know this is a foolish fan talk.

[martyup]

I look at the coaching situation as "could a better coach get better results from the same players?"  At this point, KP has not proved to me that she is the best WBB coach for Stanford.  I hope she changes my mind.

[martyup]

I look at the coaching situation as "could a better coach get better results from the same players?"  At this point, KP has not proved to me that she is the best WBB coach for Stanford.  I hope she changes my mind.

[SkiBum80]

I wonder, who on this message board, if given complete coaching responsibilities for Stanford women’s basketball, would do better than Kate Paye (and, if so, what are you doing on this message board, rather than out there coaching)?

Side note here.  I agree with your sentiment; we shouldn't assume we have enough knowledge to judge KP's process -- only her results, and even those might need to be contextualized....

Absolutely agree the assessment should be contextualized.
Basically, what do you achieve with what you've been given?
(With the side bar that part of the achievement includes recruiting, helping the Coach give themselves more, though the recruiting is much more complicated than simply the Head Coach's effort and ability)
On this basis, I think Coach Cignetti is the current King of Contextualized Achievement.
At Stanford, I think Coach Reich did a pretty good job getting us to 4 wins, with arguably a not-significantly-better roster from prior year.
Coach Smith last year set a good example of doing more with less, taking us to first post season play in years. 
Yes, with help, he successfully got Maxime back for a final year, no small feat. 
But he also coached Maxime to his best college year ever, with strategy emphasizing Maxime on defense and playing to team strengths.
For both Coach Smith and Coach Paye I think the assessment for this season is still pending.
Based on games so far, I'm leaning towards Coach Smith maybe ends up pretty good, while Coach Paye not so much. 
For Coach Smith, on the upside, seeing how much he is getting out of highly overlooked Okorie, and how many other Coaches would have drawn this out?  On the downside, the ND game is a recent concern.
For Coach Paye, yes some good wins, like Oregon. But FGCU was already a bad loss. And NCState a beatdown.
At this point of season only my preliminary guesses, as still the heart of season yet to go and I'm open to revision.

[SkiBum80]

I wonder, who on this message board, if given complete coaching responsibilities for Stanford women’s basketball, would do better than Kate Paye (and, if so, what are you doing on this message board, rather than out there coaching)?

Side note here.  I agree with your sentiment; we shouldn't assume we have enough knowledge to judge KP's process -- only her results, and even those might need to be contextualized....

Absolutely agree the assessment should be contextualized.
Basically, what do you achieve with what you've been given?
(With the side bar that part of the achievement includes recruiting, helping the Coach give themselves more, though the recruiting is much more complicated than simply the Head Coach's effort and ability)
On this basis, I think Coach Cignetti is the current King of Contextualized Achievement.
At Stanford, I think Coach Reich did a pretty good job getting us to 4 wins, with arguably a not-significantly-better roster from prior year.
Coach Smith last year set a good example of doing more with less, taking us to first post season play in years. 
Yes, with help, he successfully got Maxime back for a final year, no small feat. 
But he also coached Maxime to his best college year ever, with strategy emphasizing Maxime on defense and playing to team strengths.
For both Coach Smith and Coach Paye I think the assessment for this season is still pending.
Based on games so far, I'm leaning towards Coach Smith maybe ends up pretty good, while Coach Paye not so much. 
For Coach Smith, on the upside, seeing how much he is getting out of highly overlooked Okorie, and how many other Coaches would have drawn this out?  On the downside, the ND game is a recent concern.
For Coach Paye, yes some good wins, like Oregon. But FGCU was already a bad loss. And NCState a beatdown.
At this point of season only my preliminary guesses, as still the heart of season yet to go and I'm open to revision.

[OCcardinal]

For Coach Paye, yes some good wins, like Oregon. But FGCU was already a bad loss. And NCState a beatdown.

Washington may have been an even better win. They beat #6 Michigan yesterday by 12 points.

[OCcardinal]

For Coach Paye, yes some good wins, like Oregon. But FGCU was already a bad loss. And NCState a beatdown.

Washington may have been an even better win. They beat #6 Michigan yesterday by 12 points.

[BostonCard]

However, the "what are you doing on this message board rather than out there coaching" bit brought me back to some thoughts I had earlier.  The pathway to D1 head coach is not for the faint of heart.  Some start at the high school assistant level, some start at the collegiate volunteer/GA level.  It's a long and competitive route, however you slice it.  It means low salaries for a long time before a hypothetical payoff if you happen to rise to the top, assuming a meritocracy of some sort (and the promotion structure is often not meritocratic).  I would say this system doesn't always capture the best coaching talent.  If you have the skills to be a good coach, then you probably also have the skills to make big bucks elsewhere with a wider job market and more paths to promotion.  In some sports, a lot of coaches have family resources subsidizing meager starting salaries before they make it big.  Those who don't have that cushion either grit their teeths or choose a better path for themselves on a different career track.  So no, I don't necessarily think that the coaching funnel incentivizes the best and brightest coaching talent to end up at D1 positions.  Certainly basketball is a popular enough sport where most coaches at a big university are at the top of the game, but I wouldn't discount the chance that really bright minds found other careers due to structural entry barriers.

Fair but also not relevant.  Because all of us have taken a path away from coaching women’s basketball, none of us have acquired knowledge, experience, or skills one develops during that path.  Sure, there is a decent chance that someone here, had they spent the time, energy and dedication and been willing to forgo the other opportunities may well have become a better coach than Kate Paye (maybe), but that’s neither here nor there.  The most knowledgeable amongst us have the knowledge and experience of a former player (most likely at the high school level, though perhaps someone played collegiate basketball), maybe rec league player, and volunteer coach.  And yet some people here act like they could lead Stanford to a national title if they were given the keys to the kingdom (yeah, I hyperbolic a bit).

So, sure, there are probably polymath geniuses out there who had they made a different career choice at some point in their lives would have been stupendous college basketball coaches, maybe even better than some of the GOATs out there.  But ability is so much more than just innate potential, so having made that decision, those that decided to go in another direction chose to forgo the training and experience needed to become a basketball coach.

BC

---

Back to KP: if we are to moderate our criticism, we should at least be allowed to comment on the results, and the NCST game was a stinker.  We need to know that this kind of game won't happen again, and we would ideally know what KP's staff is doing to make sure that is the case.  In private industry, I'm not sure "flush it and move on" is a sufficient response to your boss when they ask "wtf happened with the missed deadlines and failed execution last quarter."

Oh, it was absolutely a stinker.  It rates as our second-worst game of the season by game score (73, only Florida Gulf Coast was worse).  But I hate to break it to you, we probably will have more (our average game score is 88, and it has a SD of 17, so chances are we will have more sub 75 game scores, though the scoring is very skewed, so you can’t assume normality in trying to predict how often you will have a game score less than 1 SD below the mean).  But I don’t think saying “this is unacceptable, and shouldn’t ever happen again” is realistic.  In 2022, when we went to the Final Four and had one of the best teams in the country, we had a comparable game (a 57-54 loss against South Florida with a game score of 75).  Last year, we had 6(!) games with a game score as low or lower, including a 20 point loss against a 17-15 Virginia team (Game Score of 21).  The men’s team already has 5 games with a worse game score (71 vs. Portland St., 49 vs. Seattle, 53 vs. UNLV, 50 vs. Cal State Northridge, and 25 vs. Notre Dame).

(Game Scores courtesy of Bart Torvik: https://barttorvik.com/ncaaw/team.php?ye...m=Stanford)

We can all agree the game was bad, but at the same time recognize that the team will have good games and bad games, and the game was not representative of our season, just like the 64-53 win over Oregon (game score of 100) represented an exceptionally good game for us, but probably can’t be replicated over the long term.  Our median GS of 94 is what we did against Gonzaga and Washington State, so that is probably most typical (the mean GS was 89, but it is not a Normal distribution, but it was most like the Cal or Washington St. games.

Improvement will come from having more good games (like Oregon) and fewer bad games (like NC State), but unless you are a national title-caliber team, it is going to be difficult to completely avoid having a stinker every once in a while.


BC

[BostonCard]

However, the "what are you doing on this message board rather than out there coaching" bit brought me back to some thoughts I had earlier.  The pathway to D1 head coach is not for the faint of heart.  Some start at the high school assistant level, some start at the collegiate volunteer/GA level.  It's a long and competitive route, however you slice it.  It means low salaries for a long time before a hypothetical payoff if you happen to rise to the top, assuming a meritocracy of some sort (and the promotion structure is often not meritocratic).  I would say this system doesn't always capture the best coaching talent.  If you have the skills to be a good coach, then you probably also have the skills to make big bucks elsewhere with a wider job market and more paths to promotion.  In some sports, a lot of coaches have family resources subsidizing meager starting salaries before they make it big.  Those who don't have that cushion either grit their teeths or choose a better path for themselves on a different career track.  So no, I don't necessarily think that the coaching funnel incentivizes the best and brightest coaching talent to end up at D1 positions.  Certainly basketball is a popular enough sport where most coaches at a big university are at the top of the game, but I wouldn't discount the chance that really bright minds found other careers due to structural entry barriers.

Fair but also not relevant.  Because all of us have taken a path away from coaching women’s basketball, none of us have acquired knowledge, experience, or skills one develops during that path.  Sure, there is a decent chance that someone here, had they spent the time, energy and dedication and been willing to forgo the other opportunities may well have become a better coach than Kate Paye (maybe), but that’s neither here nor there.  The most knowledgeable amongst us have the knowledge and experience of a former player (most likely at the high school level, though perhaps someone played collegiate basketball), maybe rec league player, and volunteer coach.  And yet some people here act like they could lead Stanford to a national title if they were given the keys to the kingdom (yeah, I hyperbolic a bit).

So, sure, there are probably polymath geniuses out there who had they made a different career choice at some point in their lives would have been stupendous college basketball coaches, maybe even better than some of the GOATs out there.  But ability is so much more than just innate potential, so having made that decision, those that decided to go in another direction chose to forgo the training and experience needed to become a basketball coach.

BC

---

Back to KP: if we are to moderate our criticism, we should at least be allowed to comment on the results, and the NCST game was a stinker.  We need to know that this kind of game won't happen again, and we would ideally know what KP's staff is doing to make sure that is the case.  In private industry, I'm not sure "flush it and move on" is a sufficient response to your boss when they ask "wtf happened with the missed deadlines and failed execution last quarter."

Oh, it was absolutely a stinker.  It rates as our second-worst game of the season by game score (73, only Florida Gulf Coast was worse).  But I hate to break it to you, we probably will have more (our average game score is 88, and it has a SD of 17, so chances are we will have more sub 75 game scores, though the scoring is very skewed, so you can’t assume normality in trying to predict how often you will have a game score less than 1 SD below the mean).  But I don’t think saying “this is unacceptable, and shouldn’t ever happen again” is realistic.  In 2022, when we went to the Final Four and had one of the best teams in the country, we had a comparable game (a 57-54 loss against South Florida with a game score of 75).  Last year, we had 6(!) games with a game score as low or lower, including a 20 point loss against a 17-15 Virginia team (Game Score of 21).  The men’s team already has 5 games with a worse game score (71 vs. Portland St., 49 vs. Seattle, 53 vs. UNLV, 50 vs. Cal State Northridge, and 25 vs. Notre Dame).

(Game Scores courtesy of Bart Torvik: https://barttorvik.com/ncaaw/team.php?ye...m=Stanford)

We can all agree the game was bad, but at the same time recognize that the team will have good games and bad games, and the game was not representative of our season, just like the 64-53 win over Oregon (game score of 100) represented an exceptionally good game for us, but probably can’t be replicated over the long term.  Our median GS of 94 is what we did against Gonzaga and Washington State, so that is probably most typical (the mean GS was 89, but it is not a Normal distribution, but it was most like the Cal or Washington St. games.

Improvement will come from having more good games (like Oregon) and fewer bad games (like NC State), but unless you are a national title-caliber team, it is going to be difficult to completely avoid having a stinker every once in a while.


BC

[chimera]

What is the identity of this team?  We are not a great three point shooting team.  We don't even have one really great shooter.  Clardy is the best as far as percentage with enough shots per game for it to matter.  Ogden is ok but doesn't take that many.  Lepolo is good but barely shoots.  Amborn can shoot but is not in the rotation.  Swain and Somfai were good shooters before college IIRC but right now they are not hitting enough.  If this offense needs a three ball floor spreader, they need to get Amborn out there a bit more and live with whatever else she doesn't do so well.  Maybe the frosh starters will hit better as they get more comfortable.  Can't count on that though.

We are not an inside team.  We don't throw passes to a big down low very often.  We don't have a lot of size inside except Eschmeyer, who doesn't play that much (yet?).  Agara needs space to operate.  She is a 4, not a 5.  A clogged paint hurts her game.  Somfai has the size and can score inside but somehow we don't post her up much, and she has been taking too many outside shots that right now she is not making or trying to drive into a crowded lane.  Stevenson doesn't have the size or the offense.  Who do we have that we successfully post up?  

We are not a defense leads to offense team, or not enough of one to make a living that way.  We don't put enough pressure on teams to be that.  We are still more a position defense sort of team.   

So what is the identity?  Could we be a high execution, high intensity, high hustle team that just out works and out executes the other team, playing tough defense and very smart basketball?  That would be good.  But we are not that either.  We have too many turnovers, too many games where the focus doesn't seem to be there, and too often the offense is too slow, not crisp and well executed.  The defense is better than last year but not good enough to be a hang your hat on defense.  The offense is not sharp enough to overcome good defenses.  

The wins against Oregon and Washington were encouraging.  The NC State game feels like a repeat of the road struggles of last year.

[chimera]

What is the identity of this team?  We are not a great three point shooting team.  We don't even have one really great shooter.  Clardy is the best as far as percentage with enough shots per game for it to matter.  Ogden is ok but doesn't take that many.  Lepolo is good but barely shoots.  Amborn can shoot but is not in the rotation.  Swain and Somfai were good shooters before college IIRC but right now they are not hitting enough.  If this offense needs a three ball floor spreader, they need to get Amborn out there a bit more and live with whatever else she doesn't do so well.  Maybe the frosh starters will hit better as they get more comfortable.  Can't count on that though.

We are not an inside team.  We don't throw passes to a big down low very often.  We don't have a lot of size inside except Eschmeyer, who doesn't play that much (yet?).  Agara needs space to operate.  She is a 4, not a 5.  A clogged paint hurts her game.  Somfai has the size and can score inside but somehow we don't post her up much, and she has been taking too many outside shots that right now she is not making or trying to drive into a crowded lane.  Stevenson doesn't have the size or the offense.  Who do we have that we successfully post up?  

We are not a defense leads to offense team, or not enough of one to make a living that way.  We don't put enough pressure on teams to be that.  We are still more a position defense sort of team.   

So what is the identity?  Could we be a high execution, high intensity, high hustle team that just out works and out executes the other team, playing tough defense and very smart basketball?  That would be good.  But we are not that either.  We have too many turnovers, too many games where the focus doesn't seem to be there, and too often the offense is too slow, not crisp and well executed.  The defense is better than last year but not good enough to be a hang your hat on defense.  The offense is not sharp enough to overcome good defenses.  

The wins against Oregon and Washington were encouraging.  The NC State game feels like a repeat of the road struggles of last year.

[BillBradley]

What is the identity of this team?  We are not a great three point shooting team.  We don't even have one really great shooter.  Clardy is the best as far as percentage with enough shots per game for it to matter.  Ogden is ok but doesn't take that many.  Lepolo is good but barely shoots.  Amborn can shoot but is not in the rotation.  Swain and Somfai were good shooters before college IIRC but right now they are not hitting enough.  If this offense needs a three ball floor spreader, they need to get Amborn out there a bit more and live with whatever else she doesn't do so well.  Maybe the frosh starters will hit better as they get more comfortable.  Can't count on that though.

We are not an inside team.  We don't throw passes to a big down low very often.  We don't have a lot of size inside except Eschmeyer, who doesn't play that much (yet?).  Agara needs space to operate.  She is a 4, not a 5.  A clogged paint hurts her game.  Somfai has the size and can score inside but somehow we don't post her up much, and she has been taking too many outside shots that right now she is not making or trying to drive into a crowded lane.  Stevenson doesn't have the size or the offense.  Who do we have that we successfully post up?  

We are not a defense leads to offense team, or not enough of one to make a living that way.  We don't put enough pressure on teams to be that.  We are still more a position defense sort of team.   

So what is the identity?  Could we be a high execution, high intensity, high hustle team that just out works and out executes the other team, playing tough defense and very smart basketball?  That would be good.  But we are not that either.  We have too many turnovers, too many games where the focus doesn't seem to be there, and too often the offense is too slow, not crisp and well executed.  The defense is better than last year but not good enough to be a hang your hat on defense.  The offense is not sharp enough to overcome good defenses.  

The wins against Oregon and Washington were encouraging.  The NC State game feels like a repeat of the road struggles of last year.

Couldn't agree more. KP isn't using our size nor our atheticism to our advantage. Nunu, Clardy, Ogden, plus the three frosh are all big and/or athletic and they can all really run the floor. They could push the pace and also bang it down low. Shay could fit in this scheme as well. But instead it's slow as molasses out there. They are not a difficult team to guard.

[BillBradley]

What is the identity of this team?  We are not a great three point shooting team.  We don't even have one really great shooter.  Clardy is the best as far as percentage with enough shots per game for it to matter.  Ogden is ok but doesn't take that many.  Lepolo is good but barely shoots.  Amborn can shoot but is not in the rotation.  Swain and Somfai were good shooters before college IIRC but right now they are not hitting enough.  If this offense needs a three ball floor spreader, they need to get Amborn out there a bit more and live with whatever else she doesn't do so well.  Maybe the frosh starters will hit better as they get more comfortable.  Can't count on that though.

We are not an inside team.  We don't throw passes to a big down low very often.  We don't have a lot of size inside except Eschmeyer, who doesn't play that much (yet?).  Agara needs space to operate.  She is a 4, not a 5.  A clogged paint hurts her game.  Somfai has the size and can score inside but somehow we don't post her up much, and she has been taking too many outside shots that right now she is not making or trying to drive into a crowded lane.  Stevenson doesn't have the size or the offense.  Who do we have that we successfully post up?  

We are not a defense leads to offense team, or not enough of one to make a living that way.  We don't put enough pressure on teams to be that.  We are still more a position defense sort of team.   

So what is the identity?  Could we be a high execution, high intensity, high hustle team that just out works and out executes the other team, playing tough defense and very smart basketball?  That would be good.  But we are not that either.  We have too many turnovers, too many games where the focus doesn't seem to be there, and too often the offense is too slow, not crisp and well executed.  The defense is better than last year but not good enough to be a hang your hat on defense.  The offense is not sharp enough to overcome good defenses.  

The wins against Oregon and Washington were encouraging.  The NC State game feels like a repeat of the road struggles of last year.

Couldn't agree more. KP isn't using our size nor our atheticism to our advantage. Nunu, Clardy, Ogden, plus the three frosh are all big and/or athletic and they can all really run the floor. They could push the pace and also bang it down low. Shay could fit in this scheme as well. But instead it's slow as molasses out there. They are not a difficult team to guard.

[M T]

Nunu, Clardy, Ogden, plus the three frosh are all big and/or athletic and they can all really run the floor. They could push the pace and also bang it down low.

This isn't the 1980s.  6'2", 5'9", 6'1" plus 6'2", 6'3", 6'2" are NOT big.  Eschmeyer is 6'5" but is not ready yet.
NC State's 6'6" player played 31 minutes. Eschmeyer played 8.5 minutes.  Stanford lost.
Tennessee's two 6'4" players played 28 minutes each; a 6'5" player played 12 minutes.  Eschmeyer played 11 minutes. Stanford lost.

This is not to say that height conquers all, but it is incorrect to think of Stanford as having big players and can bang it down low.  I expect Eschmeyer will develop into a big player, but for now, she's just tall.

Somfai is our best "big" at least in terms of very impressive rebounding, but her overall play isn't there yet (12 of 57 from 3 ??).  Agara is big for her height, but doesn't play taller than she is.

Regarding another poster's comment about way too many turnovers: We have fewer turnovers than our opponents. Compared to the NC year of 2021, we have 10% more TOs (14.1 vs 12.8 to/g). Worse, but not quite "way too many". I would say we have way too few assists (12.2 vs 16.5 a/g).

[M T]

Nunu, Clardy, Ogden, plus the three frosh are all big and/or athletic and they can all really run the floor. They could push the pace and also bang it down low.

This isn't the 1980s.  6'2", 5'9", 6'1" plus 6'2", 6'3", 6'2" are NOT big.  Eschmeyer is 6'5" but is not ready yet.
NC State's 6'6" player played 31 minutes. Eschmeyer played 8.5 minutes.  Stanford lost.
Tennessee's two 6'4" players played 28 minutes each; a 6'5" player played 12 minutes.  Eschmeyer played 11 minutes. Stanford lost.

This is not to say that height conquers all, but it is incorrect to think of Stanford as having big players and can bang it down low.  I expect Eschmeyer will develop into a big player, but for now, she's just tall.

Somfai is our best "big" at least in terms of very impressive rebounding, but her overall play isn't there yet (12 of 57 from 3 ??).  Agara is big for her height, but doesn't play taller than she is.

Regarding another poster's comment about way too many turnovers: We have fewer turnovers than our opponents. Compared to the NC year of 2021, we have 10% more TOs (14.1 vs 12.8 to/g). Worse, but not quite "way too many". I would say we have way too few assists (12.2 vs 16.5 a/g).

[BillBradley]

Nunu, Clardy, Ogden, plus the three frosh are all big and/or athletic and they can all really run the floor. They could push the pace and also bang it down low.

This isn't the 1980s.  6'2", 5'9", 6'1" plus 6'2", 6'3", 6'2" are NOT big.  Eschmeyer is 6'5" but is not ready yet.
NC State's 6'6" player played 31 minutes. Eschmeyer played 8.5 minutes.  Stanford lost.
Tennessee's two 6'4" players played 28 minutes each; a 6'5" player played 12 minutes.  Eschmeyer played 11 minutes. Stanford lost.

This is not to say that height conquers all, but it is incorrect to think of Stanford as having big players and can bang it down low.  I expect Eschmeyer will develop into a big player, but for now, she's just tall.

Somfai is our best "big" at least in terms of very impressive rebounding, but her overall play isn't there yet (12 of 57 from 3 ??).  Agara is big for her height, but doesn't play taller than she is.

Regarding another poster's comment about way too many turnovers: We have fewer turnovers than our opponents.  Compared to the NC year of 2021, we have 10% more TOs (14.1 vs 12.8 to/g).  Worse, but not quite "way too many".  I would say we have way too few assists (12.2 vs 16.5 a/g).

Big does not mean tall in basketball. Playing big means you do things like rebound well, go through people, over them, body them, etc.  Charles Barkely played very big. He was 6' 6". Both Nunu and Somfai play big - they are beasts down low. Clardy is a big guard who often out-muscles smaller guards. Ogden plays big offensively, getting her shot off pretty much at will because of her athleticism.

[BillBradley]

Nunu, Clardy, Ogden, plus the three frosh are all big and/or athletic and they can all really run the floor. They could push the pace and also bang it down low.

This isn't the 1980s.  6'2", 5'9", 6'1" plus 6'2", 6'3", 6'2" are NOT big.  Eschmeyer is 6'5" but is not ready yet.
NC State's 6'6" player played 31 minutes. Eschmeyer played 8.5 minutes.  Stanford lost.
Tennessee's two 6'4" players played 28 minutes each; a 6'5" player played 12 minutes.  Eschmeyer played 11 minutes. Stanford lost.

This is not to say that height conquers all, but it is incorrect to think of Stanford as having big players and can bang it down low.  I expect Eschmeyer will develop into a big player, but for now, she's just tall.

Somfai is our best "big" at least in terms of very impressive rebounding, but her overall play isn't there yet (12 of 57 from 3 ??).  Agara is big for her height, but doesn't play taller than she is.

Regarding another poster's comment about way too many turnovers: We have fewer turnovers than our opponents.  Compared to the NC year of 2021, we have 10% more TOs (14.1 vs 12.8 to/g).  Worse, but not quite "way too many".  I would say we have way too few assists (12.2 vs 16.5 a/g).

Big does not mean tall in basketball. Playing big means you do things like rebound well, go through people, over them, body them, etc.  Charles Barkely played very big. He was 6' 6". Both Nunu and Somfai play big - they are beasts down low. Clardy is a big guard who often out-muscles smaller guards. Ogden plays big offensively, getting her shot off pretty much at will because of her athleticism.

[Lorcan]

It's nice to see teams that we beat going on to get big wins. Cornell just scored a brobdingnagian upset of Columbia to open Ivy League play.

[Lorcan]

It's nice to see teams that we beat going on to get big wins. Cornell just scored a brobdingnagian upset of Columbia to open Ivy League play.

[Card10Fan]

In case anyone’s wondering - I do see Chloe Clardy in team photos in Carolina so I’d guess she’s on track to play tomorrow and joined the team in Chapel Hill.

[Card10Fan]

In case anyone’s wondering - I do see Chloe Clardy in team photos in Carolina so I’d guess she’s on track to play tomorrow and joined the team in Chapel Hill.

[crackpot]

In case anyone’s wondering - I do see Chloe Clardy in team photos in Carolina so I’d guess she’s on track to play tomorrow and joined the team in Chapel Hill.

Really? The photos I've seen them post recently were from their San Francisco visit and/or just a couple of players (not Chloe).

ETA: Okay, they've recently posted a video and there definitely is someone who could be Chloe (both views from the back, so...).

[crackpot]

In case anyone’s wondering - I do see Chloe Clardy in team photos in Carolina so I’d guess she’s on track to play tomorrow and joined the team in Chapel Hill.

Really? The photos I've seen them post recently were from their San Francisco visit and/or just a couple of players (not Chloe).

ETA: Okay, they've recently posted a video and there definitely is someone who could be Chloe (both views from the back, so...).