Girls Open…. Mitty takes on Etiwanda.
- Thread starter kiddman32
- Start date
A great reply ... first, the data.
>2017 – LOST to Clovis West – Beat CW earlier in the year (lack of talent?). Lost a close game in the Open Ship.
The win was by one point in overtime. Two evenly matched teams, clearly. Played two games, split, and the final count was 119-116. Don't know that you can point to coaching here. Craig's pretty good, and the margin was thin.
>2018 – LOST to Pinewood – Mitty was crowned National Champs (big lack of talent?). Upset city.
Three overtimes. Haley Jones fouled out on a couple shaky calls, and I think someone else did too. Can't get much closer than three overtimes. And I've heard Doc can coach a little too.
2019 – LOST to Salesian – Most people thought they would see a Pinewood vs Mitty rematch the following round (lack of talent?). Upset city.
Definitely an upset, but Salesian was good. And Steve Pezzola is another top coach.
>2021 – LOST to Pinewood (@ Mitty) – TWELVE (12) D1 players on the Mitty roster (big lack of talent?). Upset city.
Lost by two. Of the 12 D1 girls on Mitty, one was a star -- and Cheli was a freshman then. Lots of depth, but no go-to player. Elle Ladine was the best player on the court. And Doc, again.
>
2023 - LOST to Etiwanda – Played a close game that they could’ve won (lack of talent?).
2024 - LOST to Etiwanda – Mitty ranked #1 in the US longer than any other team (big lack of talent?). Beats #1 LUHI at NIKE TOC. Etiwanda lost to LUHI by 30 this same season.
2025 – LOST to Etiwanda – Star player out. Uphill battle.
I would argue Etiwanda had more talent in every game. (Rankings mean nothing, as I should know -- I did them for 25 years or so.)
So you can make the argument that the results add up to more than luck. But close games against well-coached, talented teams are decided by luck. And did Sue have more talent in most of those games (excepting Etiwanda)? Yes. But it wasn't like she had all aces and the other very good coaches she faced had no face cards.
I think the four losses in question were by a total of 11 points in four total overtimes. Experience would suggest that if you played those games again, it would be no surprise if all four were wins.
Still, the scoreboard doesn't lie, so you can say she was outcoached by Craig Campbell, Doc Scheppler and Steve Pezzola. I don't think that makes her an average coach, unless you consider those three average. (Now if she had lost by 20 to each of them, you could make the claim she's a tier below.)
On to the next ...
More great data:
2017 – 17% 3pt
2018 – 23% 3pt
2019 – 15% 3pt
2020 – Covid
2021 – 28% 3pt
2022 – 25% 3pt
2023 – 27% 3pt
2024 – 7% 3pt
2025 – 28% 3pt
Grand total of 29 /132 or 22%. If we deduct the “exposed by talent” years we get 19 /94 or 20%. Underwhelming right?
Is there a shortage of shooters in Norcal that I don’t know about? Have kids across the world been inspired by Warriors shooting the last two decades but the kids in the Bay Area have not?
----
In general, you shoot worse against good teams. All those teams are good teams. (I wonder what they shot from three in those games, though as I recall Pinewood shot really well in the 3 OT game.)
Again, I toss out the last three against Etiwanda, but Sue generally does not rely on three-point shooting to win. That certainly could be considered a flaw in her system, but Etiwanda is not a three-point shooting team, and neither was the Salesian team that won (Angel Jackson, the 6-4 post, was the top player).
But legit criticism: Does not have the system or talent to deliver threes in big games.
An adjustment in recruiting might make sense. Shifting some offensive patterns might make sense. But Mitty has won lots of big games outside of the Open title as well.
I would also say that pressing early in the season, especially against weak teams, is counterproductive. You're going to beat the bad teams anyway, but will your press help you on a big court in postseason against well-coached teams with elite talent? My answer -- which I came to in the '90s as an assistant at Campolindo -- was no. Your system should be designed to beat good teams, as Acalanes found out this year.
Again, great reply. Considered, with detail.
Given this data, you could make the case that Craig, Doc and Steve are all better coaches than Sue (11 points better in four games). I don't think you can make the case that she's an average coach. There are reasons to criticize Craig, Doc and Steve too -- and Steve Kerr and every other coach. There is no perfect system, in basketball or life.
2017 – 17% 3pt
2018 – 23% 3pt
2019 – 15% 3pt
2020 – Covid
2021 – 28% 3pt
2022 – 25% 3pt
2023 – 27% 3pt
2024 – 7% 3pt
2025 – 28% 3pt
Grand total of 29 /132 or 22%. If we deduct the “exposed by talent” years we get 19 /94 or 20%. Underwhelming right?
Is there a shortage of shooters in Norcal that I don’t know about? Have kids across the world been inspired by Warriors shooting the last two decades but the kids in the Bay Area have not?
----
In general, you shoot worse against good teams. All those teams are good teams. (I wonder what they shot from three in those games, though as I recall Pinewood shot really well in the 3 OT game.)
Again, I toss out the last three against Etiwanda, but Sue generally does not rely on three-point shooting to win. That certainly could be considered a flaw in her system, but Etiwanda is not a three-point shooting team, and neither was the Salesian team that won (Angel Jackson, the 6-4 post, was the top player).
But legit criticism: Does not have the system or talent to deliver threes in big games.
An adjustment in recruiting might make sense. Shifting some offensive patterns might make sense. But Mitty has won lots of big games outside of the Open title as well.
I would also say that pressing early in the season, especially against weak teams, is counterproductive. You're going to beat the bad teams anyway, but will your press help you on a big court in postseason against well-coached teams with elite talent? My answer -- which I came to in the '90s as an assistant at Campolindo -- was no. Your system should be designed to beat good teams, as Acalanes found out this year.
Again, great reply. Considered, with detail.
Given this data, you could make the case that Craig, Doc and Steve are all better coaches than Sue (11 points better in four games). I don't think you can make the case that she's an average coach. There are reasons to criticize Craig, Doc and Steve too -- and Steve Kerr and every other coach. There is no perfect system, in basketball or life.
above average…so lots of blah, blah, blah
What is the root problem or problems…
What are the solutions…at least swansongg
Is trying…
One thing you mentioned was changing the
Talent… over ten years doesn’t that happen…
Time to look in the mirror… ohhh not that
Can’t be….
What is the root problem or problems…
What are the solutions…at least swansongg
Is trying…
One thing you mentioned was changing the
Talent… over ten years doesn’t that happen…
Time to look in the mirror… ohhh not that
Can’t be….
And what is your contribution? And to return to my earlier question:
What makes John Cristiano of SRV a good coach and Sue Phillips an average coach? Be specific. Be technical. Describe what makes a good coach good, and an average coach average.
What exactly does he do better? Please elaborate.
And SRV would lose to Mitty by double digits very likely. Your criticism of Sue is based on her losing games to teams better than her or equal to her. SRV has done the same. Why is JC better? Specifically.
And SRV would lose to Mitty by double digits very likely. Your criticism of Sue is based on her losing games to teams better than her or equal to her. SRV has done the same. Why is JC better? Specifically.
Not sure if you’re talking to me or Becool. But since you’re replying to my posts, I’ll assume me. I said multiple times within my 3 posts Sue is a great coach. I am not debating who is average, above average or elite. I am stating that Mitty has and continues to have HALF COURT OFFENSE issues. I think you’re missing the point. When you make it to a certain level in the open section or state playoffs, you’re going to see other good/great coaches. My point is there is clear evidence, with supported data, that shows their offense is lacking. From FG% (post #59), 3pt% (post #79) to overall offensive system.
You said “exposed by talent” in post #65 and referred to talent in post #72. I laid out that is not the case, not only the open state ship but even the run to get there through the years. Your reply shows you agree (even though we don’t agree on all the Etiwanda matchups). However, you give Coach Sue tons of caveats and “buts” when she loses with more talent. However, no caveats or “buts” when she has losses with less talent. Again, excuses.
To that I say this, when a great coach gets outcoached its usually against another great coach. Fix the problem that keeps showing up and it won’t get exposed by great coaching.
FYI... I got a kick out of Elle Ladine vs 12 Div 1 players. Is this a real argument?
>In general, you shoot worse against good teams. All those teams are good teams. (I wonder what they shot from three in those games, though as I recall Pinewood shot really well in the 3 OT game.)
There is shooting worse and shooting 20% from 3pt at the end of every season.
>Again, I toss out the last three against Etiwanda, but Sue generally does not rely on three-point shooting to win. That certainly could be considered a flaw in her system, but Etiwanda is not a three-point shooting team, and neither was the Salesian team that won (Angel Jackson, the 6-4 post, was the top player).
Not about relying on the three, it's about it being in your arsenal. As I said in post #59 a constant theme is the "lack of half court offense" in general, not just 3pt shooting.
The three-point shooting is in Etiwanda's arsenal. Covered in post #59 on Coach Stan moving Puff to shooting guard. It paid off all year but particularly in the Ontario Christian game. Ontario went zone first half and Etiwanda went 8 for 9 from 3pt in the first half, Puff leading the way with 3 threes in the half (ended the game with 5). 6 different players made a three in the 1st half alone. Ontario went man 2nd half and Etiwanda went 5 for 8 from 3pt. If it's in your arsenal, you can make a zone pay but Ill let Coach Stan say it best:
"We played as a team... We are a tough guard in a zone. If you zone us it doesn't matter. We can shoot".
Now imagine if Mitty could say the same. May be sitting on 2 or 3 open titles.
>An adjustment in recruiting might make sense. Shifting some offensive patterns might make sense. But Mitty has won lots of big games outside of the Open title as well.
Explained my thoughts on Open vs games outside of Open in post #76.
I don't think it's recruiting, I think her defensive standard is so high that even the kids on the team that can provide offense on the bench can't get in. I've read other coaches in this forum talk about the hoarding of talent from Mitty and some of their bench players could be top scorers at other schools. I don't think you're going to find 8-10 players that can play defense to her standard and be offensively efficient. It's on the coach to adapt a little. Play what you have and evolve your offensive system. Again providing solutions.
Last edited:
Here's my last on the subject of talent. When it serves people they will throw the talent card out there (this is not directed at Clay, speaking in general). There is definitley a threshold level of talent needed to get through the Open. However, in most years, the coaching is more important. Doesn't mean a coach is mediocre. Just means some coaches are better at scouting, assessing, problem solving and game planning each opponent. Most importantly, preparing their team for what they may face ALL season. Not all great coaches are great at the same thing, thats why they usually have a great staff behind them.
It's debatable, that for 3 straight years Etiwanda had more talent in the ship (don't agree). It could also be said Etiwanda made it out of SoCal 3 straight years with less talent. At minimum, I think most can agree they weren't the favorite to make it to the ship each year.
2023 - Sierra Canyon and LJCD were more talented
2024 - Sierra Canyon more talented
2025 - Ontario Christian more talented
It all depends on how you look at it. But I'm not for the talent card (most years) nor excuses.
It's debatable, that for 3 straight years Etiwanda had more talent in the ship (don't agree). It could also be said Etiwanda made it out of SoCal 3 straight years with less talent. At minimum, I think most can agree they weren't the favorite to make it to the ship each year.
2023 - Sierra Canyon and LJCD were more talented
2024 - Sierra Canyon more talented
2025 - Ontario Christian more talented
It all depends on how you look at it. But I'm not for the talent card (most years) nor excuses.
Last edited:
Great detailed post. Weird that NorCal Preps didn't actually post it until recent. But I think you are spot on with your assessment. Sometimes the coaches have to let the actually players dictate who shines and not the preferences. You are correct. It is a war and as you mentioned, if you force Mitty to play half court offense and put pressure on the PG things haven't worked for them. I would love for Mitty to figure something out so NorCal can bring a Open Division State Title back home. The Days of Bishop O'Dowd and St Mary's Stockton being legitimate contenders are now nothing more than nostalgia. Mitty is the last great hope for NorCal Women's hoops. Go Monarchs!
To swansong: First, you are right. I tend to overreact to criticisms of Sue because Becool's dislike of her for no good reason (I will respond to him separately) has made me more sensitive. So yes, your criticisms are justified. They are backed with data and make sense.
She is a very, very good coach who has built a monster program that is in the national conversation every year, and yet can't seem to win close games in postseason. After a while, one can claim, with justification, that it's not luck.
I will add one more "but," however: I don't think any coach should be measured by the outcomes of single games, but rather by the body of work.
-----------
As for Elle Ladine comment ...
I've always believed that in the last two minutes of a close game, the team with the best player has an advantage -- even if the opponent has more good players. I could be wrong or right on this, but players like Ladine, who step up in big moments (as she did in the NCAA tournament), can have an outsize impact in the final minutes.
Having good players is great, but since you can only play five, whether you have 12 D-1 players or seven doesn't say much about the final minutes of a close game. And it's not as if Pinewood's other four were terrible -- they were very good players as well.
Reasonable people can disagree with my belief about the best player in the last two minutes, and it doesn't always apply, of course, but in general, I'd rather have a team with a clear go-to player and personality in clutch moments rather than several pretty good players who may or may not step up.
She is a very, very good coach who has built a monster program that is in the national conversation every year, and yet can't seem to win close games in postseason. After a while, one can claim, with justification, that it's not luck.
I will add one more "but," however: I don't think any coach should be measured by the outcomes of single games, but rather by the body of work.
-----------
As for Elle Ladine comment ...
I've always believed that in the last two minutes of a close game, the team with the best player has an advantage -- even if the opponent has more good players. I could be wrong or right on this, but players like Ladine, who step up in big moments (as she did in the NCAA tournament), can have an outsize impact in the final minutes.
Having good players is great, but since you can only play five, whether you have 12 D-1 players or seven doesn't say much about the final minutes of a close game. And it's not as if Pinewood's other four were terrible -- they were very good players as well.
Reasonable people can disagree with my belief about the best player in the last two minutes, and it doesn't always apply, of course, but in general, I'd rather have a team with a clear go-to player and personality in clutch moments rather than several pretty good players who may or may not step up.
Doing more with less:
San Ramon Valley went 28-4 against a strength of schedule of 24.3, second in NCS to Carondelet (which went 30-6 against a strength of schole of 25.5).
Archbishop Mitty went 27-4 against a strength of schedule of 31.5.
So how exactly, did the San Ramon coaches -- who are excellent -- do more with less?
San Ramon had more talent than almost every team on its schedule this year, and won most of its games. Mitty had more talent than most of the teams on its schedule and won most of its games.
So why specifically is John Cristiano a better coach than Sue Phillips? (Not saying he's worse, but you're claiming he's better -- back it up.)
San Ramon Valley went 28-4 against a strength of schedule of 24.3, second in NCS to Carondelet (which went 30-6 against a strength of schole of 25.5).
Archbishop Mitty went 27-4 against a strength of schedule of 31.5.
So how exactly, did the San Ramon coaches -- who are excellent -- do more with less?
San Ramon had more talent than almost every team on its schedule this year, and won most of its games. Mitty had more talent than most of the teams on its schedule and won most of its games.
So why specifically is John Cristiano a better coach than Sue Phillips? (Not saying he's worse, but you're claiming he's better -- back it up.)
First, kudos to Swansong and ClayK for one of the more thoughtful and data driven discussions I've had the pleasure to read on this forum.
Second, only having watched the Mitty high profile games this year, I was struck in January how disoriented Mitty looked during their rematch versus Ontario Christian after their star went down; the half court offense was stagnant, just passing the ball around the perimeter while the shot clock bled down to a bad rushed outside shot. Then compare that to the state final game where they played much different, did not rely so much on their full court press against a good team on that relatively massive court, and also clearly different in their half court offense, cutting and attacking leading to 60+ shot attempts and 30 free throw attempts.
Now of course Mitty shot horribly as they were clearly bothered by the Etiwanda length and not vice versa. And Mitty's half court defense was not as sound as I'm used to seeing. But my conclusion remains that I don't think this is a case of someone beating their head against the wall doing the same thing over and over again and wondering why they don't achieve a different result. I saw a two month metamorphosis, perhaps forced by injury, that may serve them well in the long run.
To Swansong's point, if fully healthy next year with everyone back, it will be interesting to see what style of play they employ right from the jump. The full court blitz that overwhelms lesser opponents, a post oriented offense surrounded by shooters, or a motion offense with more cutting and attacking? Or how about all of the above? If this was a growth learning experience, they could be hell to game plan for next year.
Second, only having watched the Mitty high profile games this year, I was struck in January how disoriented Mitty looked during their rematch versus Ontario Christian after their star went down; the half court offense was stagnant, just passing the ball around the perimeter while the shot clock bled down to a bad rushed outside shot. Then compare that to the state final game where they played much different, did not rely so much on their full court press against a good team on that relatively massive court, and also clearly different in their half court offense, cutting and attacking leading to 60+ shot attempts and 30 free throw attempts.
Now of course Mitty shot horribly as they were clearly bothered by the Etiwanda length and not vice versa. And Mitty's half court defense was not as sound as I'm used to seeing. But my conclusion remains that I don't think this is a case of someone beating their head against the wall doing the same thing over and over again and wondering why they don't achieve a different result. I saw a two month metamorphosis, perhaps forced by injury, that may serve them well in the long run.
To Swansong's point, if fully healthy next year with everyone back, it will be interesting to see what style of play they employ right from the jump. The full court blitz that overwhelms lesser opponents, a post oriented offense surrounded by shooters, or a motion offense with more cutting and attacking? Or how about all of the above? If this was a growth learning experience, they could be hell to game plan for next year.
Respect! I appreciate the healthy debate and grown man conversation.
Thank you. I think majority of the people in this post would love to see Coach Sue or any other Norcal top tier coach get Norcal back on the Open ship scoreboard. I agree, Mitty will be a tough guard if they can fix that offense.
But as far as the "beating their head against a wall doing the same thing over and over again" I will have to disagree. I've watched high level and low level Mitty games throughout the years. As stated before, the offense looks the same every year but I can't just go off what I see... I think I did a disservice only giving half of the FG% stats but all of the 3pt% stats. Not putting your analysis/observation down, just want to finish what I started.
Lets look at the pattern of offense in these games:
2017 - 35% FG%
2018 - 38% FG%
2019 - 32% FG%
2020 - Covid
2021 - 35% FG%
2022 - 29% FG%
2023 - 39% FG%
2024 - 32% FG%
2025 - 29% FG%
As you can see Mitty has not shot at least 40% in any of these games. Overall, 164/487 or 33% FG%. In some of these matchups they had the bigger team FG% shouldn't be this low. This is a symptom of a problem. People can bury their heads or try something new. I don't think any changes will lead to shooting less than 33% in big moments. Again, not an indictment on Sue. This is not a Sue bashing post. I am just pointing out the offensive issues. Not saying she has a million problems or is less than as a Coach. I think this is more of what other great coaches (opponents) are saying with their game planning and execution.
Last edited:
I learned one thing long ago: What you practice is what you're good at, but there's never enough practice time to be good at everything.
In short, you have to pick something you don't do as well as you like. Mitty's offensive output, from my admittedly limited viewings, is greatly fed by its press/defense and its superior talent. Perhaps more emphasis on halfcourt offense would improve part of the offense but subtract from other strengths.
And the shooting numbers are interesting. I will say, though, that the elite teams I have been associated with have never shot as well as you might think, and only a few were over 40% for the entire season. I think my Campo team that won 25 games and was third in the section in scoring shot around 37%.
It's one reason lots of threes make sense in high school:
1) If you shoot 50% from inside the arc -- and no girl I've ever coached has come close to that -- that's the same as 33% from beyond the arc (and I had a JV girl do that this year).
2) If you shoot 37.5% from inside the arc, that's the same as 25% -- one out of four -- from beyond the arc.
And since most high school teams don't shoot 37.5% from inside the arc, there are times when one out of five from three will help you win.
In short, you have to pick something you don't do as well as you like. Mitty's offensive output, from my admittedly limited viewings, is greatly fed by its press/defense and its superior talent. Perhaps more emphasis on halfcourt offense would improve part of the offense but subtract from other strengths.
And the shooting numbers are interesting. I will say, though, that the elite teams I have been associated with have never shot as well as you might think, and only a few were over 40% for the entire season. I think my Campo team that won 25 games and was third in the section in scoring shot around 37%.
It's one reason lots of threes make sense in high school:
1) If you shoot 50% from inside the arc -- and no girl I've ever coached has come close to that -- that's the same as 33% from beyond the arc (and I had a JV girl do that this year).
2) If you shoot 37.5% from inside the arc, that's the same as 25% -- one out of four -- from beyond the arc.
And since most high school teams don't shoot 37.5% from inside the arc, there are times when one out of five from three will help you win.
You got it, that is the entire argument, adding some offense in exchange of some defense. At some point you have to look at the field and say leaning on press defense, transition scoring and superior talent ( "exposed by talent" to "superior talent") is not working in these big moments.
Honestly, there are games in league play where their half court offense doesn't work. It's just hidden behind the final score.
The best coaches try to take away what the other team does best. They make you play left handed. So what's Mitty's counter? I say half court offense adjustments (rotations, sets, motion, zone O etc...). I'd love to hear another solution.
The difference between 33% FG and 35% FG is probably 2 titles. I'm not suggesting a DNA change. Nobody is saying become the greatest offense on earth.
If we look at the last three years Etiwanda has shot 40% FG 2023, 45% FG 2024 and 59% FG 2025 against Mitty. Even if we say the loss of Woliczko caused a 19% increase in Etiwanda FG% this year, that's still 40%.
Honestly, there are games in league play where their half court offense doesn't work. It's just hidden behind the final score.
The best coaches try to take away what the other team does best. They make you play left handed. So what's Mitty's counter? I say half court offense adjustments (rotations, sets, motion, zone O etc...). I'd love to hear another solution.
The difference between 33% FG and 35% FG is probably 2 titles. I'm not suggesting a DNA change. Nobody is saying become the greatest offense on earth.
If we look at the last three years Etiwanda has shot 40% FG 2023, 45% FG 2024 and 59% FG 2025 against Mitty. Even if we say the loss of Woliczko caused a 19% increase in Etiwanda FG% this year, that's still 40%.
Similar threads
