Sarah and Azzi are All-Americans

[Centerstream]

I hate to see ESPN giving an award for a transfer! Also, it doesn't look like USAToday chose a POY

Something new for transfers to add to their NIL deals, ESPN NTOY bonus $$$.

 

[Next 12]

Congratulations to all the awards winners, Especially Sarah and Azzi. They were the best of the best. And A BIG ROUND OF APPLAUSE FOR SARAH winning Player of the Year. I expect 2 more AA and POY awards she is that good. A big shout-out for SHEA for Coach of the Year, She really earned it. We have the team that MANY will fear. GO HUSKIES!!!!!!

 

[HuskyNan]

 

[oldude]

I am thrilled that Shea won COY! I just hope Vandy isn't in our bracket. I don't want to have to root against her.

Well, that being the case, I think you’re going to be disappointed when the brackets come out on Sunday.

 

[Centerstream]

Well, that being the case, I think you’re going to be disappointed when the brackets come out on Sunday.

Yup and it will revive the BY threads regarding Geno’s record vs former Huskie coaches.

 

[DefenseBB]

I found the choices and the dialogue/justification of those choices just plain lazy and not supported by any statistical analysis or actual perspective. Also, on one hand the note a “pretend analytical assessment” yet on the other hand they ignore stats altogether and go with a narrative.
To wit:
Sarah was pre-season POY pick and all advanced metrics support her as the clear choice. Hannah was actually second on any analytical evaluation. Crooks was also ahead of Blakes whose year was phenomenal but the “narrative” on Vandy’s success is prompting the closer than it really should be,
Freshman of the year was also a huge gaff by these pundits. Oklahoma UNDERACHIEVED this year and that is primarily how their coach used Chavez and hoe Chavez underperformed. Galvin on the other hand OVERPERFOMED. She was arguably a bigger reason why Vandy shined this year. Blakes did not have to play the point guard position nor have to defend the opposing PG. Add in that Jazzy Davidson performed statistically better also ruined their narrative.
Azzi, for as wonderful as she was and much as we all appreciate her, her narrative was she’s a “sharp shooter”, yet that too rings hollow as Gianna Kneepkens was better in FG and 3pt shooting.Before anyone starts touting overall metrics, ESPN also ignored Kiki Rice who had as good year as any guard. This year is very “guard” led in star power with all the analytics showing Azzi behind Hidalgo, Blakes, Miles, Cambridge and Rice.
Audi Crooks was much better than Joyce Edwards and Lauren Betts but her supporting staff was not nearly as good and her HC was…just way behind Dawn and Cori.

Analytically speaking the AA teams should have been:
1. Strong
2. Hidalgo
3. Blakes
4. Crooks
5. Miles
Second Team
6. Booker
7. Rice
8. Cambridge
9. Olson
10. Fudd

Maggie Doogan from Richmond has a great year, Strack, Betts and even Madina Okot all had better statistical years than Joyce Edwards.
I understand the need to put the “best player” from the best teams on these post season awards but sometimes there are better individual players elsewhere. UCLA, SC are two teams who have great starters to propel them and are the reasons for their success maybe more so than one player.

 

[Jaydumo20]

Congrats!

 

[AzzisBraids]

I found the choices and the dialogue/justification of those choices just plain lazy and not supported by any statistical analysis or actual perspective. Also, on one hand the note a “pretend analytical assessment” yet on the other hand they ignore stats altogether and go with a narrative.
To wit:
Sarah was pre-season POY pick and all advanced metrics support her as the clear choice. Hannah was actually second on any analytical evaluation. Crooks was also ahead of Blakes whose year was phenomenal but the “narrative” on Vandy’s success is prompting the closer than it really should be,
Freshman of the year was also a huge gaff by these pundits. Oklahoma UNDERACHIEVED this year and that is primarily how their coach used Chavez and hoe Chavez underperformed. Galvin on the other hand OVERPERFOMED. She was arguably a bigger reason why Vandy shined this year. Blakes did not have to play the point guard position nor have to defend the opposing PG. Add in that Jazzy Davidson performed statistically better also ruined their narrative.
Azzi, for as wonderful as she was and much as we all appreciate her, her narrative was she’s a “sharp shooter”, yet that too rings hollow as Gianna Kneepkens was better in FG and 3pt shooting.Before anyone starts touting overall metrics, ESPN also ignored Kiki Rice who had as good year as any guard. This year is very “guard” led in star power with all the analytics showing Azzi behind Hidalgo, Blakes, Miles, Cambridge and Rice.
Audi Crooks was much better than Joyce Edwards and Lauren Betts but her supporting staff was not nearly as good and her HC was…just way behind Dawn and Cori.

Analytically speaking the AA teams should have been:
1. Strong
2. Hidalgo
3. Blakes
4. Crooks
5. Miles
Second Team
6. Booker
7. Rice
8. Cambridge
9. Olson
10. Fudd

Maggie Doogan from Richmond has a great year, Strack, Betts and even Madina Okot all had better statistical years than Joyce Edwards.
I understand the need to put the “best player” from the best teams on these post season awards but sometimes there are better individual players elsewhere. UCLA, SC are two teams who have great starters to propel them and are the reasons for their success maybe more so than one player.

There are some very valid points in here and stats based posts do tell a very good side of the story. The reason why looking at individual stats is so tricky is because there's surface stats then there's advanced stats.

Let's start with Azzi and the sharpshooter piece since we can all agree on Sarah Strong. Kneepkens is a great example of an efficient guard, shooting 50/40/90. But if we look past the surface, we can see what ESPN means when they say "her shooting is so important to UConn."

Azzi is 2nd in total three pointers with 104, 6th in 3pt percentage, and would be 1st in free throws if she shot enough for the stats to pop her in there with like stats (Kneepkens doesn't qualy either.) UConn relies on Azzi Fudd shooting to win, everyone in every gym knows she wants to make 3's and she still finds a way to get these shots off at an amazingly high clip with supreme efficiency.

Contextually, statistically and with the eye-test, she's one (if not the) best shooter(s) in the country and Geno keeps saying she's not even shooting that well. Thought I can often time fault pundits, they got this one right and there reasoning requires a bit more than stat-to-stat comparisons of other top players to see.

 

[Jonathan14]

There are some very valid points in here and stats based posts do tell a very good side of the story. The reason why looking at individual stats is so tricky is because there's surface stats then there's advanced stats.

Let's start with Azzi and the sharpshooter piece since we can all agree on Sarah Strong. Kneepkens is a great example of an efficient guard, shooting 50/40/90. But if we look past the surface, we can see what ESPN means when they say "her shooting is so important to UConn."

Azzi is 2nd in total three pointers with 104, 6th in 3pt percentage, and would be 1st in free throws if she shot enough for the stats to pop her in there with like stats (Kneepkens doesn't qualy either.) UConn relies on Azzi Fudd shooting to win, everyone in every gym knows she wants to make 3's and she still finds a way to get these shots off at an amazingly high clip with supreme efficiency.

Contextually, statistically and with the eye-test, she's one (if not the) best shooter(s) in the country and Geno keeps saying she's not even shooting that well. Thought I can often time fault pundits, they got this one right and there reasoning requires a bit more than stat-to-stat comparisons of other top players to see.

One other factor elevating Azzi's accomplishment is her usage rate compared to Gianna's. Both women are incredible shooters. The big separator is usage and role. Azzi used 26.1% of UConn’s possessions; Gianna used 18.6% of UCLA’s. Maintaining near-45% three-point shooting at Azzi’s volume is harder than doing it at Gianna’s lower-usage, more connective role. The best way to put it is: Gianna was the more efficient finisher; Azzi was the more demanding offensive engine. Gianna’s player offensive rating was higher, 140.0 to 125.6, which is a strong sign that when she finished possessions, UCLA got huge value. But Fudd’s higher usage, bigger scoring load, and still-elite efficiency make her offensive résumé broader. (And then, of course, there's defense, where Gianna is good and Azzi is elite.)

 

[Jonathan14]

Sarah was pre-season POY pick and all advanced metrics support her as the clear choice. Hannah was actually second on any analytical evaluation.

I agree that the advanced stats show that Sarah is heads and tails above everyone else in NCAAW, and Hannah is the best two-way guard.

Crooks was also ahead of Blakes whose year was phenomenal but the “narrative” on Vandy’s success is prompting the closer than it really should be,

Audi Crooks was much better than Joyce Edwards and Lauren Betts but her supporting staff was not nearly as good and her HC was…just way behind Dawn and Cori.

Audi has a great first-team offensive case and a weak first-team two-way case. Offensively, she was brilliant: 25.5 points per game on 64.7% shooting, 1.19 points per play, 1.35 points per scoring attempt, a 35.4% usage rate, and a 41.6 PER. Defensively, though, she lags well behind the other frontcourt candidates you mention: her player defensive rating was 92.4, her defensive WS/40 was just .03, and her event creation was limited for a star post at a 0.4% steal rate and 2.8% block rate. Compare that with Booker (75.7 Def Rtg, .09 Def WS/40), Betts (77.9, .08, 7.3% block rate), Edwards (78.9, .08), Strack (78.2, .08, 8.5% block rate), and even Doogan (84.0, .06), and Crooks is the clear defensive outlier in that group. She rebounds fine and scores at an elite level, but first-team All-America should reward whole-game impact, and her defense simply is not in the same class as the other top frontcourt candidates.

Azzi, for as wonderful as she was and much as we all appreciate her, her narrative was she’s a “sharp shooter”, yet that too rings hollow as Gianna Kneepkens was better in FG and 3pt shooting. Before anyone starts touting overall metrics, ESPN also ignored Kiki Rice who had as good year as any guard. This year is very “guard” led in star power with all the analytics showing Azzi behind Hidalgo, Blakes, Miles, Cambridge and Rice.

It hardly matters, but according to Bart Torvik, Azzi has a .446 3PG, and Gianna has a .442. But more to the point: I'm not sure which analytics show Azzi behind the guards you mention. In fact, advanced analytics show that she was one of the most complete guards in the country in 2025–26: 17.7 points per game on .489/.446/.951 shooting, a 60.0 eFG%, 1.13 points per play, a 26.1% usage rate, a 2.10 assist-to-turnover ratio, plus unusually strong defensive activity for a high-level scoring guard with an 4.2% steal rate and 2.0% block rate. On the all-in value metrics, she posted a 17.7 BPM, 32.5 PER and .27 WS/40, which is ahead of Rice (16.9, 31.0, .26), Miles (13.1, 30.4, .24), Cambridge (12.9, 32.0, .21), and Kneepkens (15.1, 26.3, .22), while Blakes’s (15.8, 36.3, .26) edge in PER is mostly volume scoring, not total two-way value. Miles is the better pure organizer, Rice is the cleaner connector, Kneepkens is the lower-usage efficiency specialist, and Blakes is the bigger-volume scorer, but that is not the same as saying Azzi is statistically behind all of them. The numbers say she belongs in that top guard tier and has one of the strongest all-around profiles in it.