End of Regular Season Thoughts

[diggerfoot]

The raging topic before the season began was who would be the fifth starter. The season itself provided a little fuel for everyone's case; a few made sure to point out their own foresight on the matter. The Williams advocates were thrilled when she became the first one to start; Collier advocates were thrilled when she became the first freshman to start very soon after; Samuelson advocates were thrilled when she became the permanent starter.

Even the Butler advocates had a little something to hold onto. She will indeed grab her share of rebounds, her Georgetown success was no fluke in that regard, nor in regards to her points scored, as she has a great shooting touch. Butler advocates might also delight in her passing and screening skills as confirmation that, were she healthy from the start, she might have been a starter. I thought Butler would start before the injury occurred but, despite all the good news, either her footwork and/or positioning need more work in order to convince me she would have been a starter. Better positioning might have been remedied by being healthy and working with the starters, but I suspect better footwork is something she needs to work on just as much or more. I concede: I don't think she would have started and I was wrong.

Yet there is something else about both Butler and her teammates that excites me for the seasons ahead. In addition to being a great teammate she appears to be a fiery competitor; I bet there are Dolson-like leadership skills there as well. Perhaps she also will emulate Dolson by improving her footwork over time.

As much success as this team had the past four years there is one attribute they failed at miserably: they were 1-5 in games decided by less than ten points, 0-fer in overtime games. A tight game with five minutes to go might find someone making a dagger three to put the game into double digits, but a tight game with less than one minute often found players missing that same shot ... and turning the ball over as well.

I think that will change over the next few seasons. Stewart, Jefferson and Tuck all brought a good measure of competitiveness and leadership to the team, but not even Tuck provided all the intangibles of a Taurasi ... or even Nurse. With Nurse, Samuelson and, yes, Butler in the line-up for the next couple years the results may not dip as much as we fear. I add Samuelson because of the reports about her competitiveness and, quite frankly, the more high pressured a game the better she seems to shoot.

Let's assume the amount of close games will double. Instead of 6 close games in four years, we have 6 in two years. Yet let's also assume we will win 50% or more of those close games. That means the results will not differ all that much. Now let's assume that one of those close games we pull out would be the championship game. How cool would that be? Might even silence some critics .

Be well Boneyarders, may the tournaments be easy on our hearts and health.

 

[UcMiami]

Very nice! Always like your weekly forays onto the board!

I would quibble with the 1-5 in games decided by less than 10 points being used to conclude anything, because in the past four years they have zero losses by more than ten points so you are really looking at one end of their MOV bell curve and not a more central section of it. Four of those losses came in the first year of your study timeline, and I would posit that they came against teams that were better than them at the time of the loss (the only teams they played with that distinction), so the competitiveness was in being able to keep their MOL (margin of loss) in single digits in each of those games. That leave a single 'blip' on their record and every team over a four year period is allowed to lay an egg, which they did at Stanford.

 

[JoePgh]

I think UConn will have a number of close games and some losses next year, but will still be a decent bet to make the Final Four. However, it won't be the clearly most talented team as it has been for the last 3-4 years. Other teams with arguably more talent than UConn next year include Baylor, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Louisville, and Maryland. South Carolina will have the best individual player next year (A'ja Wilson), but probably not as much talent as UConn up and down the roster.

 

[EricLA]

I think UConn will have a number of close games and some losses next year, but will still be a decent bet to make the Final Four. However, it won't be the clearly most talented team as it has been for the last 3-4 years. Other teams with arguably more talent than UConn next year include Baylor, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Louisville, and Maryland. South Carolina will have the best individual player next year (A'ja Wilson), but probably not as much talent as UConn up and down the roster.

SC fans would likely argue with you on that account - they add transfers Kaela Davis (top 3 in her class) and Alisha Gray (top 10 or 15 in her class).

Still, when you consider KLS was #1, Collier was top 5'ish and Dangerfield top 3, not to mention 1 service had Gabby as #2, I actually would agree with you (regarding SC). Having said that I would also disagree slightly that all the teams you listed will have more talent than UCONN. Granted we are talking about kids who have NOT finished 4 years of college so all we can go off is their performances thus far as well as high school rankings, but...

This is more or less an average ranking coming out of HS based on BS, HG, ASGR and PN...

Chong - 40
Ekmark - 20
Williams - 10
Nurse - 11
Collier - 5
Butler - not ranked
Lou - 1
Danger - 3
Irwin and Bent - somewhere in the 50-60 range...

My point is UCONN has 5 kids legitimately ranked in the top 10 (or close to it) for their respective classes. I don't have all the HS rankings for each those other teams, but tell me one team besides ND who, on paper, has a better "team" than UCONN... And UCONN already has a pair of top 25'ish kids for 2017. I think right now Hunter is considered "better" than Gordon, but I think Gordon's stock is rising faster than almost any other player in her class and I'm excited to see how she does this summer if she tries out for any USA teams etc...

 

[RockyMTblue2]

The raging topic before the season began was who would be the fifth starter. The season itself provided a little fuel for everyone's case; a few made sure to point out their own foresight on the matter. The Williams advocates were thrilled when she became the first one to start; Collier advocates were thrilled when she became the first freshman to start very soon after; Samuelson advocates were thrilled when she became the permanent starter.

Even the Butler advocates had a little something to hold onto. She will indeed grab her share of rebounds, her Georgetown success was no fluke in that regard, nor in regards to her points scored, as she has a great shooting touch. Butler advocates might also delight in her passing and screening skills as confirmation that, were she healthy from the start, she might have been a starter. I thought Butler would start before the injury occurred but, despite all the good news, either her footwork and/or positioning need more work in order to convince me she would have been a starter. Better positioning might have been remedied by being healthy and working with the starters, but I suspect better footwork is something she needs to work on just as much or more. I concede: I don't think she would have started and I was wrong.

Yet there is something else about both Butler and her teammates that excites me for the seasons ahead. In addition to being a great teammate she appears to be a fiery competitor; I bet there are Dolson-like leadership skills there as well. Perhaps she also will emulate Dolson by improving her footwork over time.

As much success as this team had the past four years there is one attribute they failed at miserably: they were 1-5 in games decided by less than ten points, 0-fer in overtime games. A tight game with five minutes to go might find someone making a dagger three to put the game into double digits, but a tight game with less than one minute often found players missing that same shot ... and turning the ball over as well.

I think that will change over the next few seasons. Stewart, Jefferson and Tuck all brought a good measure of competitiveness and leadership to the team, but not even Tuck provided all the intangibles of a Taurasi ... or even Nurse. With Nurse, Samuelson and, yes, Butler in the line-up for the next couple years the results may not dip as much as we fear. I add Samuelson because of the reports about her competitiveness and, quite frankly, the more high pressured a game the better she seems to shoot.

Let's assume the amount of close games will double. Instead of 6 close games in four years, we have 6 in two years. Yet let's also assume we will win 50% or more of those close games. That means the results will not differ all that much. Now let's assume that one of those close games we pull out would be the championship game. How cool would that be? Might even silence some critics .

Be well Boneyarders, may the tournaments be easy on our hearts and health.

You don't post enough, Digger.

 

[diggerfoot]

Very nice! Always like your weekly forays onto the board!

I would quibble with the 1-5 in games decided by less than 10 points being used to conclude anything, because in the past four years they have zero losses by more than ten points so you are really looking at one end of their MOV bell curve and not a more central section of it. Four of those losses came in the first year of your study timeline, and I would posit that they came against teams that were better than them at the time of the loss (the only teams they played with that distinction), so the competitiveness was in being able to keep their MOL (margin of loss) in single digits in each of those games. That leave a single 'blip' on their record and every team over a four year period is allowed to lay an egg, which they did at Stanford.

Actually, I agree with you on everything, though Stanford obviously had enough of the intangibles to beat a superior team last year. Why can't we? Aside from that, I'll even pile on to your case. To the extent that games were lost in the last minute in those past years that was more the responsibility of players like KML and Hartley rather than the triumvirate. My "data" is extremely unreliable. However, let's call what I'm talking about "edge." As unreliable as comparisons of that may be to qualify or quantify, that intangible characteristic is a valid term that people agree has an impact on performance in games. I predict there will be a greater edge to future teams with the likes of Nurse, Samuelson and Butler, though of course not as talented; that greater edge should translate to being able to win close games, though of course I can't prove any of that. That's why sports discussions can get so intense .

 

[UcMiami]

Actually, I agree with you on everything, though Stanford obviously had enough of the intangibles to beat a superior team last year. Why can't we? Aside from that, I'll even pile on to your case. To the extent that games were lost in the last minute in those past years that was more the responsibility of players like KML and Hartley rather than the triumvirate. My "data" is extremely unreliable. However, let's call what I'm talking about "edge." As unreliable as comparisons of that may be to qualify or quantify, that intangible characteristic is a valid term that people agree has an impact on performance in games. I predict there will be a greater edge to future teams with the likes of Nurse, Samuelson and Butler, though of course not as talented; that greater edge should translate to being able to win close games, though of course I can't prove any of that. That's why sports discussions can get so intense .

Actually, I think the AAC award voters just proved your point for you!!!
Morgan Tuck gets a 'Sportsmanship' award! What is this BS!!!! Did Jen R ever even get one vote for a sportsmanship award? Shea? DT? Tina? Sveta? Stef? Swin? Who was the last Uconn player to get a sportsmanship award?!!! Probably someone back on that losing 1985-6 team!

I tell you this coaching staff is going soft - if this happened in 2002, the whole team would be running suicides for a week!

 

[hoophuskee]

The raging topic before the season began was who would be the fifth starter. . . . I thought Butler would start before the injury occurred but, despite all the good news, either her footwork and/or positioning need more work in order to convince me she would have been a starter. Better positioning might have been remedied by being healthy and working with the starters, but I suspect better footwork is something she needs to work on just as much or more. I concede: I don't think she would have started and I was wrong.

.

Are you sure you "were wrong?" I thought this specific "raging" debate of who starts was 1st few games only? Who can know how season progresses? I didn't take those specific raging debates as who will get the most starts by the end of the year or who will come on at the end and "own" the 5th spot. Are you sure you really did that?

Secondly, imo we can all recall the DePaul game. Anyone can go back and google - Geno was concerned that he wasn't getting enough good guard/wing play during the game yet he kept KLS on the bench in the 2nd half while playing Gabby and Collier. I can't find the link but I KNOW I read that he specifically turned to his staff and said to paraphrase -- "Can we put Katie Lou in the game? Can we trust her?" To this day I'm still very surprised at Geno's comment. If there were a couple of things I thought KLS was really good at early on was passing and ball-handling even if the assists vs turnovers weren't so hot. She excelled in that 2nd half of that game once he put her in. What does this tell us? IMO it tells us Geno is "searching" a lot at the beginning of the season. Other than his starting 4, he was very unsure what he had.

If he couldn't trust KLS's passing ball-handling to help things settle the tempo a bit vs DePaul - this leads me to believe he also saw other big flaws in all of the players vying for that 5th spot to start the season. He needs to see them quite a bit in game action too imo. So after the fact we see Butler has a footwork issue (which Geno would have known early), to start the season her footwork issue may not have been as big of an issue as the other player's issues. Heck, he didn't even "trust" a "strength" from KLS even after 4 games. So imo to start the year - he would have gone the way of experience. In this case I still think Butler. He would have wanted to see in her game situations. Gradually KLS and Gabby etc would have overtaken her very early maybe after game 2 or game 3.

**I was "wrong" about Butler too but as I say to start every season I reserve the right to change my mind. I thought she would get more minutes because she was more "refined of UCONN play" along with "college experience" and along with what you had said in the past that Geno generally didn't bring bigs off the bench if he didn't have to. . However, she isn't as good as I thought but she is not bad. Next year imo Geno is going to put Natalie through the ringer. However in all of these preditcions for anyone to claim "they are wrong" unless it is some philosophical debate of position or specific head-to-head after a year or two comparison etc it really is "pushing it" to claim that one is "wrong." For example, I think I said last year KLS would get about 18 mintues then with my caveat of I reserve the right to change my mind. Once I see her play at start of season and see her passing and ball-handling that I haven't seen as much before and at that time Butler was hurt and couldn't play, I fully expect her to get more minutes. Was I then "wrong" earlier before the season started about KLS?

 

[Zorro]

One thing is certain; next season will be lest restful and much more exciting than this one! All of y'all who have been wishing for less predictable, more adrenalin-producing games will have your wishes all come true.

 

[ChicagoGG]

One thing is certain; next season will be lest restful and much more exciting than this one! All of y'all who have been wishing for less predictable, more adrenalin-producing games will have your wishes all come true.

Y'all nailed that one, Z!