Who is better, Taurasi or Carnesecca?
Diana Taurasi leads with a GOAT score of 94.2 against 84.7 for Lou Carnesecca — a gap of 9.5 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently ranks Diana Taurasi above Lou Carnesecca: 94.2 vs 84.7. Diana Taurasi leads on Dominance, Honours, Statistics.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Taurasi wins: Dominance, Peak, Longevity, Honours, Statistics
Carnesecca wins: no category outright
Shareable URL · /compare/diana-taurasi-vs-lou-carnesecca
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Taurasi leads in 5 of 5 weighted categories.
Carnesecca — Insufficient verified career data to calculate a reliable GOAT Score.
Cumulative output season by season — the shape of each career against the other.
Setting the pace at age 22
No verified birth date for Carnesecca — shown in the pro-debut view instead.
Every career is cut at the season the athlete turned 22, so a rookie today is measured against exactly what a legend had banked by the same birthday.
| Metric | TaurasiRetired | CarneseccaRetired |
|---|---|---|
| WNBA points | 10,646 | — |
| WNBA titles | 3 | — |
| Olympic golds | 6 | — |
| All-Star selections | 11 | — |
| Finals MVP | 1 | — |
| Seasons played | 20 | — |
| College coaching wins | — | 526 |
| NCAA tournament appearances | — | 18 |
| NCAA Final Fours | — | 1 |
| National Coach of the Year awards | — | 1 |
| Seasons as a head coach | — | 24 |
| Dominance w25% | 94 | 78 |
| Peak w20% | 93 | 88 |
| Longevity w20% | 96 | 92 |
| Honours w20% | 94 | 80 |
| Statistics w15% | 94 | 88 |
Diana Taurasi leads with a GOAT score of 94.2 against 84.7 for Lou Carnesecca — a gap of 9.5 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Carnesecca does not lead any of the five categories; Taurasi is ahead or level on all of them.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Taurasi: 94.2, Carnesecca: 84.7.
Make your case for Taurasi vs Carnesecca. The scoring is published in full — if you can point at the pillar or the weight you disagree with, we read it. Read the methodology paper.