Analysis of post-game comments from 7 losses

[DobbsRover2]

Having the #1 player in WCBB (not talking about high school rankings) usually results in a Championship (looking back through the 00s). But isn't that just common sense? Best player / best team is often a symbiotic relationship.

The only teams that failed to do it since 2001(looking at both AP and Naismith POY) were: LSU with Seimone Augustus. Duke With Beard. And Duke with Lindsey Harding. Admittedly, that's a very subjective calculation. The truly transcendent players in that time, were Maya, Diana, and Candace. They got 7 NCs among them.

All that said, it doesn't guarantee it. There are a whole lot of other variables.

What does "usually" mean? I guess to some it might mean more than 50% of the time.

In the last 20 years, the Naismith winner has played on the NC winner 11 times ( and in the 31 years of the award, it's just 14 times). That's a significant contribution for the last 20 years, but that still leaves 9 teams that didn't get the NC without the best player, and why Baylor in 2013 was left off your list, I'm not sure. Many would consider Griner a transcendent player by her stats.

Simply put, having the top player with either a very strong cast or another top-5 player can often get you an NC, but there are times like with Griner and Sims last year, or perhaps a Naismith winner Catchings in 2000 backed by Lawson and Clement that still falls well short. On the other hand, move Beard and the Duke team from 2004 to 2005 and they could well have won that NC game against MD in a diminished year. There is no magic formula for an NC other than true grit to the very end.

 

[pvdoggy]

Agian, my point that UConn gets #1 player year and year in all positions. You can't win with just post player, see Griner. Stanford had two #1 players in twenty so odd years, they were two years apart and both post players. They did make it to 2 F4s when they played together, but we've always had bad luck with injuries to our guards. We should have won in Indy, but blew it, but A&M was a bad match-up for us in the back court, where the O sisters did not play. We should have won in San Antonio, too but Maya, clearly the #1 player, took over. Didn't help that Appel was hurt.

Should have, could have, if and but...
sounds like what I say every time I tee it up.

 

[intlzncster]

What does "usually" mean? I guess to some it might mean more than 50% of the time.

In the last 20 years, the Naismith winner has played on the NC winner 11 times ( and in the 31 years of the award, it's just 14 times). That's a significant contribution for the last 20 years, but that still leaves 9 teams that didn't get the NC without the best player, and why Baylor in 2013 was left off your list, I'm not sure. Many would consider Griner a transcendent player by her stats.

Simply put, having the top player with either a very strong cast or another top-5 player can often get you an NC, but there are times like with Griner and Sims last year, or perhaps a Naismith winner Catchings in 2000 backed by Lawson and Clement that still falls well short. On the other hand, move Beard and the Duke team from 2004 to 2005 and they could well have won that NC game against MD in a diminished year. There is no magic formula for an NC other than true grit to the very end.

I did say it doesn't guarantee it. I only glanced at the lists (hence the Baylor omission). You could change the word 'usually' if you like.

I would argue that WCBB is so different from the past; you can throw out the old statistics. They are as meaningless as 1872 baseball stats (hyp). Where can you draw the line? I have no idea, but just in watching Geno's teams over the years, it is no longer the same game as it once was (as Lobo has mentioned several times). It makes sense to favor more recent history in that case. Which is why I looked at (arbitrarily) the 00's.

Using just the Naismith:

Past 5 years - 4x (80%)
Past 10 - 6x (60%)
Past 15 - 9x (60%)
Past 20 - 11x (55%)

Those are big numbers imo. Obviously, this is dependent on what voters say (which is subjective too) in this specific analysis. The person voted the best, isn't always the best. For instance, Parker was a better player than Harding, I don't care about their stats that year. If I'm making a team of college players, I'm taking Parker over Harding. Since 1998, that's the only one of the Naismith's I'd have a big issue with though.

This year, I expect voters to vote for Odyssey Simms. Even though the best player might play for UCONN. So the percentage would drop.

At any rate, in WCBB, I'd consider having the best player one the most significant factors in winning a championship. It doesn't guarantee anything, as we've seen, but the odds certainly favor it.

 

[cardfan]

But Geno got KML to post up and play defense and Stewie to pass. As Jim Foster said, he "does more with more."

He also made Stef, generally a top 30 high school player, into a consensus top 5-10 in her class.

I think that, in many years, one could argue that Stanford, Duke, ND, Baylor, or Tennessee has as much talent as UConn, based on expectations coming out of high school.

As another example, Tina Charles would have been an AA anywhere, but she became NPOY only because the UConn coaching staff pushed her.

Tina would have developed under Tara, Stanford has a long history of great post players. I remember all too well what post players like Val Whiting and Olympia Scott looked like their freshman years. They were less developed than Charles and they ended up having great careers, as did Nneka, Appel, Folkl, etc.

 

[cardfan]

"UConn gets #1 player year and year in all positions"

Not true.

2013? Nope. Chong, while she did win a couple of nice awards, is not the #1 player.
2012? Yep. Stewart
2011? KML some recruiting services but Williams was #1 in more
2010? Nope
2009? Nope
2008? For a minute. But Nope.
2007? Yep. Moore
2006? Charles? I don't know if she was #1 but close enough
2005? Nope
2004? Nope

Last 10 years.

Stewart - Forward/Center
KML - Forward/Guard
Moore - Forward
Charles - Center

I know they play like they have a #1 player at every position, but they don't. And guards are rarely #1. I hope you noticed that UConn didn't have any.

Now compare to other schools and you'll prove my pt. Of course I meant in general year in and year out. How many schools get #1 post, forward and guard strung together even over 4 ? None, as nobody, Nope.

Geez, Stewie and KML already won a NC, and how many did Moore and Charles get? 1 or 2? Again, proved my pt.

 

[cardfan]

Actually, your point was they got the #1 player. Now it is that they get the #1 player at all positions?

Stanford had the Ogwumike sisters together for two years, plus the PAC 12 POY in Pohlen...and made the Final Four.

If you look at UConn, only KML and Stewart were the #1 players (and #1 at their positions). Hartley was highly regarded and a top ten player, but not #1 at her position. Dolson was not #1 at her position (and was a top 30-top 40 recruit by some recruiting services).

You are making your conclusion first, then trying to go back for the support. It is not there, and it is not true.

Duke has more elite level talent in terms of high school accolades/awards/All-American honors than any other team in the country and cannot sniff a Final Four. That has nothing to do with not getting the top overall player and more to do with the coaching and Xs and Os.

I wasn't talking about Dolson or Hartley being #1. I know what they ranked out of h.s. they are great players who obviously help the 1's on their team now - KML and Stewie.

Yea, I remember Pohlen, and both O sisters losing in Indy. I was sitting very close to the action and still pissed. They were best team that year and lost. To me, that the 2nd worst loss in Stanford history, the first being ODU in Cincy. Against A&M, Nneka has 31 pts and Pohlen wasn't 100% and only had 11. Chiney got in foul trouble (like in Denver too vs. Baylor). She was also not a good match up for A&M guards. In Denver F4 vs. Baylor, I thought Nneka outplayed Griner, but Baylor beat us at the 3pt line and guard play. Had Tara told Nneka to take it to Griner in the 1st half vs. shooting threes, I think we would have won.

As I said before, I agree McCallie has underachieved with the talent she has signed, and I wonder how the hell she gets such great athletes, but I'm sure Duke is a big factor. I was yelling at the TV like Lawson did during halftime show. I don't think she is a good X&O's coach either, but Duke has not signed the same number of 1 ranked players out of high school as Uconn, not even very close. A good friend who knows a lot of about the women's game, said McCallie is better suited for a school like MSU or Maine, where she overachieved with not as talented kids.

 

[DobbsRover2]

A good friend who knows a lot of about the women's game, said McCallie is better suited for a school like MSU or Maine, where she overachieved with not as talented kids.

Ah, the old Peter Principle, that you get pushed up the ladder of success until you reach the rung where you're a failure. Interesting point with McCallie, though many coaches make the adjustments as they rise up and even thrive on the challenges of working with stronger players. But some coaches are better at getting a bunch of less talented pluggers to buy into a system than they are with muli-talented players who may feel entitled to certain things. And some coaches are able to handle the basic offensive and defensive systems, but when it comes to the intricacies of the programs run by a Geno, Muffet, Jeff, or Tara, they are lost. And unless you have a big bag of tricks, you can't beat the top teams, who all have defenses that can clamp down on the simple systems that a team like Duke can use to beat the non-elite teams without a problem.

 

[doggydaddy]

Now compare to other schools and you'll prove my pt. Of course I meant in general year in and year out. How many schools get #1 post, forward and guard strung together even over 4 ? None, as nobody, Nope.

Geez, Stewie and KML already won a NC, and how many did Moore and Charles get? 1 or 2? Again, proved my pt.

Proved your point? No, you said they get the top player every year. They don't. Not even every other year.

But when they do, they win, unlike Stanford.

Now, if your point was that Uconn gets the top player more than other schools, you would be correct. And if your point was that Uconn wins when they have those players, you would be right again.

But neither of those points were made in your hyperbolic post. In your haste to overstate Uconn's talent advantage, you made no point at all.

 

[RSHERMVIKES]

I have posted previously, that there are some big-name coaches that are great recruiters but lousy game coaches! Add J.P. McCallie to the list! Carolyn Peck, Nell Fortner, Andy Landers, Jim Foster, Sylvia Hatchell, Holly Warlick, "deer in the headlights" Goestenkors, C. Vivian Stringer, etc. I had thought Kim Mulkey was one of the great ones but she was totally outcoached by Jeff Walz in NCAA's! She never considered L'ville a threat and had her Baylor girls already in the FF, then pow, a ton of made 3's and Baylor was out hustled and Baylor in the Brittany Griner era won only one NC!

 

[cardfan]

Proved your point? No, you said they get the top player every year. They don't. Not even every other year.

But when they do, they win, unlike Stanford.

Now, if your point was that Uconn gets the top player more than other schools, you would be correct. And if your point was that Uconn wins when they have those players, you would be right again.

But neither of those points were made in your hyperbolic post. In your haste to overstate Uconn's talent advantage, you made no point at all.

Read your list of 1 players UConn has signed over the years. No other school has had that many. Stanford has signed two #1 post players, (over UConn) and they played together for 2 years, and lost in F4 semis. Awful, I know.