One of the G.O.A.T talks about a Rising Superstar...

[Huskies Rule]

Maya, the 2nd greatest ever in UConn history talks about Stewie, the 2nd greatest currently playing at UConn (yes, after Moriah Jefferson...and that's totally serious.)

http://www.theuconnblog.com/2016/2/...-breanna-stewart-have-had-same-usa-basketball

 

[Scud49]

Now MoJeff is phenomenal, but can't say I have ever heard anyone make that claim about her...care to expand a bit?

 

[Wally East]

Wow, two swings and two misses

Maya, for her career:
19.7 points per game, 1st (by a lot, too)
8.3 rebounds per game, 6th
.404 3-pt fg%, 6th
3.5 assists per game, 12th
2.0 steals per game, 9th
1.3 blocks per game, 9th

No other Husky has comparable stats. No one who rebounded better scored or assisted nearly as much. No one who passed better scored or rebounded as well. No one ahead of her on the all-time blocks per game list is also ahead of her in steals per game and vice versa.

She was a do-it-all player who also scored like no one else at UConn ever has, both in total and on a per-game basis. Oh, and she was a significantly better shooter than Diana, too, both outside the arc and inside it.

And negative 10 points to anyone who says that Diana has three rings to Maya's two. You have to do better than that because we're talking about individual players over the course of their careers

 

[Huskies Rule]

Now MoJeff is phenomenal, but can't say I have ever heard anyone make that claim about her...care to expand a bit?

It's difficult to explain, but okay I'll try. I wasn't attempting to be outrageous or contrarian. I really do believe it. There are obviously incredible, god-given differences in terms of their physical attributes- Moriah will never dunk the ball, nor at a wiry 5'7" will she ever be able to defend a 6'4" power player inside. But her mid-range jumper and her 3-pointer are just as good as Stewie's; Moriah's handle and her passing skills are clearly superior; despite Stewie's incredible length, athleticism and the shot-blocking skills that come with it, Moriah is every bit as talented a defender, and one-on-one I think she's better while Stewie's strength is more as an off-ball, help defender. Stewie is incredibly tough, taking a beating on a regular basis, and so does Moriah, but Stewie is built a little better to handle it and gets a few more calls as the NCAA POY, while #4 continually takes a licking and keeps on ticking. Moriah's toughness and motor are epic.

That said, there's no doubt that a great and talented big kid almost always garners more attention and acclaim than a great little one. Objectively comparing a point guard to a forward is kind of impossible, apples and oranges, where very different skill sets have to be evaluated. (Another shaky justification for my claim.)

While it's not necessarily pertinent to this discussion, we constantly hear what an insane work ethic Stewie has, to become the best player she can be. The exact same can be said about Moriah. What Moriah does on both sides of the ball, the unreal energy she expends every second, the way she gets her team going as its leader (like a great Stewie play does) is spectacular. Both have been pretty much equally indispensable and significant to UConn's special run.

My reasoning is a lot intuitive, hard to verbalize, and based upon the eye test by a fan who is a profound neophyte in judging the nebulous determinants of "greatness."

But pound for pound (and inch for inch) there is nobody better and nobody tougher in WCBB today than Moriah Jefferson. [A mini-version of the USS Missouri- MIGHTY MO.]

 

[HardHatGuy#2]

stats...stats...stats...stats...stats...stats...stats...stats...stats...stats...stats...

There is a lot more to a player than stats. Stats are the Standard of the Simpleton. You need to watch the games, track the player WITHOUT the ball on offense, see how they play defensively, understand what they mean to their team...so much more. They are best used to support observations, not to replace them.

The best players sacrifice stats to help their team win. At UConn, all of the players do, just by coming here.

 

[UcMiami]

HuskiesRule - well said!
We talk of the big three - DT, Maya, and Breanna, but there are two others that I think deserve to be included in that 'pantheon' - Sue and Moriah. As you say it is difficult to compare bigs to guards and to quantify what constitutes greatness in a PG - it is not just leadership because the first three have that as well, but it is the quality that Maria provided to the last two of DT's NCs for which she often gets overlooked. It is like a neophyte trying to identify what makes a great conductor and a bad one - they can both stand up there and wave their arms and if the musicians are virtuosos the sounds coming out seem to be the same. I chose that because a lot of it has to do with tempo and direction being provided to the ensemble.
With Sue people are frequently pointing to other WNBA guards and their stats and wondering why Sue still leads the USA NT team, and I think Dawn was quoted as saying it has to do with a star player learning how to play when they are the fourth or fifth option instead of the first second or third on their team - which moments are the right moments for them to be selfish. and in those moments to succeed.*

So I applaud your stand.
We can compare and argue about Lobo or Charles, Bird or Jefferson, Maya or Sales or Abrosimova, DT or ____ um, never mind .
But you aren't going to argue that Maya can do what Tina or Sue can, or that DT can do what Moriah can.
Sue is in the conversation for best ever PG in women's basketball. Maya for best ever wing, DT as best ever off guard, Charles will probably be in the conversation for best ever post. When you start best ever across all positions it starts to break down into as you say apples and oranges. It is interesting because most other sports don't even go there - best ever baseball player is meaningless, even best ever fielder, or best ever hitter (are we talking average, power, or combination, dead ball era or steroid era or ...), with pitchers - starters or relievers and for starters pre or post bullpen usage changes. Football? Hockey might be the closest to basketball in terms of trying to pool all positions, but you still get arguments between forwards, defensemen, and goalies that really aren't comparable.

* That was about as good a description of the quality of a PG that I have heard - how to be a star, when being a star means you are the last option to score.

 

[boontonbomber]

It's difficult to explain, but okay I'll try. I wasn't attempting to be outrageous or contrarian. I really do believe it. There are obviously incredible, god-given differences in terms of their physical attributes- Moriah will never dunk the ball, nor at a wiry 5'7" will she ever be able to defend a 6'4" power player inside. But her mid-range jumper and her 3-pointer are just as good as Stewie's; Moriah's handle and her passing skills are clearly superior; despite Stewie's incredible length, athleticism and the shot-blocking skills that come with it, Moriah is every bit as talented a defender, and one-on-one I think she's better while Stewie's strength is more as an off-ball, help defender. Stewie is incredibly tough, taking a beating on a regular basis, and so does Moriah, but Stewie is built a little better to handle it and gets a few more calls as the NCAA POY, while #4 continually takes a licking and keeps on ticking. Moriah's toughness and motor are epic.

That said, there's no doubt that a great and talented big kid almost always garners more attention and acclaim than a great little one. Objectively comparing a point guard to a forward is kind of impossible, apples and oranges, where very different skill sets have to be evaluated. (Another shaky justification for my claim.)

While it's not necessarily pertinent to this discussion, we constantly hear what an insane work ethic Stewie has, to become the best player she can be. The exact same can be said about Moriah. What Moriah does on both sides of the ball, the unreal energy she expends every second, the way she gets her team going as its leader (like a great Stewie play does) is spectacular. Both have been pretty much equally indispensable and significant to UConn's special run.

My reasoning is a lot intuitive, hard to verbalize, and based upon the eye test by a fan who is a profound neophyte in judging the nebulous determinants of "greatness."

But pound for pound (and inch for inch) there is nobody better and nobody tougher in WCBB today than Moriah Jefferson. [A mini-version of the USS Missouri- MIGHTY MO.]

What's your take on global warming?

 

[NewCorn]

I vote for Moriah as, pound for pound, the best wcbb player ever.

 

[Wally East]

stats...stats...stats...stats...stats...stats...stats...stats...stats...stats...stats...

There is a lot more to a player than stats. Stats are the Standard of the Simpleton. You need to watch the games, track the player WITHOUT the ball on offense, see how they play defensively, understand what they mean to their team...so much more. They are best used to support observations, not to replace them.

The best players sacrifice stats to help their team win. At UConn, all of the players do, just by coming here.

1. Stats describe what you are seeing and do it better than just seeing it. For example, you can't tell a player who shoots 30% 3-pt shooter over a season from a 40% one over the course of one game (unless they're both taking 10 shots in that game and even then, players experience highs and lows). Not everything can be quantified, of course, but a lot of things can be.

2. Please don't assume I haven't watched the games. Thanks!

3. Diana was a better defender than Maya? Did you watch the games? Maya didn't have nearly twice as many steals as D for no reason. See, STATS.

4. If you can't explain why player X is better than player Y, even in a qualitative manner, your dismissal of arguments you don't care for is little more than nattering. Huskies Rule did a fine job of it.

5. Diana sacrificed stats, obviously, but you don't believe that Maya sacrificed stats, too? That's quite the cognitive dissonance you have going on.

6. "Understand what they mean to their team." Oh, did Maya mean something different to the team than Diana?

 

[cbraarj]

Wow, two swings and two misses

Maya, for her career:
19.7 points per game, 1st (by a lot, too)
8.3 rebounds per game, 6th
.404 3-pt fg%, 6th
3.5 assists per game, 12th
2.0 steals per game, 9th
1.3 blocks per game, 9th

No other Husky has comparable stats. No one who rebounded better scored or assisted nearly as much. No one who passed better scored or rebounded as well. No one ahead of her on the all-time blocks per game list is also ahead of her in steals per game and vice versa.

She was a do-it-all player who also scored like no one else at UConn ever has, both in total and on a per-game basis. Oh, and she was a significantly better shooter than Diana, too, both outside the arc and inside it.

And negative 10 points to anyone who says that Diana has three rings to Maya's two. You have to do better than that because we're talking about individual players over the course of their careers

I love Maya but Diana won 2 NC with out any other stars on the team.Connecticut won because they had Dee and they didnt.Never been done before or after her.

 

[cbraarj]

HuskiesRule - well said!
We talk of the big three - DT, Maya, and Breanna, but there are two others that I think deserve to be included in that 'pantheon' - Sue and Moriah. As you say it is difficult to compare bigs to guards and to quantify what constitutes greatness in a PG - it is not just leadership because the first three have that as well, but it is the quality that Maria provided to the last two of DT's NCs for which she often gets overlooked. It is like a neophyte trying to identify what makes a great conductor and a bad one - they can both stand up there and wave their arms and if the musicians are virtuosos the sounds coming out seem to be the same. I chose that because a lot of it has to do with tempo and direction being provided to the ensemble.
With Sue people are frequently pointing to other WNBA guards and their stats and wondering why Sue still leads the USA NT team, and I think Dawn was quoted as saying it has to do with a star player learning how to play when they are the fourth or fifth option instead of the first second or third on their team - which moments are the right moments for them to be selfish. and in those moments to succeed.*

So I applaud your stand.
We can compare and argue about Lobo or Charles, Bird or Jefferson, Maya or Sales or Abrosimova, DT or ____ um, never mind .
But you aren't going to argue that Maya can do what Tina or Sue can, or that DT can do what Moriah can.
Sue is in the conversation for best ever PG in women's basketball. Maya for best ever wing, DT as best ever off guard, Charles will probably be in the conversation for best ever post. When you start best ever across all positions it starts to break down into as you say apples and oranges. It is interesting because most other sports don't even go there - best ever baseball player is meaningless, even best ever fielder, or best ever hitter (are we talking average, power, or combination, dead ball era or steroid era or ...), with pitchers - starters or relievers and for starters pre or post bullpen usage changes. Football? Hockey might be the closest to basketball in terms of trying to pool all positions, but you still get arguments between forwards, defensemen, and goalies that really aren't comparable.

* That was about as good a description of the quality of a PG that I have heard - how to be a star, when being a star means you are the last option to score.

Maria Conlon was able to play like she did because Diana made those players around her better players.

 

[HardHatGuy#2]

1. Stats describe what you are seeing and do it better than just seeing it. For example, you can't tell a player who shoots 30% 3-pt shooter over a season from a 40% one over the course of one game (unless they're both taking 10 shots in that game and even then, players experience highs and lows). Not everything can be quantified, of course, but a lot of things can be.

2. Please don't assume I haven't watched the games. Thanks!

3. Diana was a better defender than Maya? Did you watch the games? Maya didn't have nearly twice as many steals as D for no reason. See, STATS.

4. If you can't explain why player X is better than player Y, even in a qualitative manner, your dismissal of arguments you don't care for is little more than nattering. Huskies Rule did a fine job of it.

5. Diana sacrificed stats, obviously, but you don't believe that Maya sacrificed stats, too? That's quite the cognitive dissonance you have going on.

6. "Understand what they mean to their team." Oh, did Maya mean something different to the team than Diana?

One out of control response.

I never stated that Diana played better defense than Maya, nor did I ever connote that you didn't watch the game. The statement is simple; statistics don't tell the story. Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

But in response to the general point you are trying to make, both players played an entirely different game, and that is the point; their differences statistically do not speak to their differences on the court. There is no stat that denotes how great Diana was offensively without the ball, or how smooth Maya was as a slasher, or any one of dozens of characteristics that defined their games. What Maya meant to her team was MUCH different than what Diana meant to hers, or Tina to hers, or Stewie to hers. They are all different players on different teams that cannot be reasonably compared to each other, and using bare stats as tools to differentiate is absurd.

To my point, I believe that Shoeblocker had more blocks, and shot a MUCH higher percentage, in her NCAA Finals career than Tina Charles, Rebecca Lobo, Kara Wolters, Jessica Moore, or Stephanie Dolson. Does that make her a better center? I think not.

 

[nd2tty]

It's difficult to explain, but okay I'll try. I wasn't attempting to be outrageous or contrarian. I really do believe it. There are obviously incredible, god-given differences in terms of their physical attributes- Moriah will never dunk the ball, nor at a wiry 5'7" will she ever be able to defend a 6'4" power player inside. But her mid-range jumper and her 3-pointer are just as good as Stewie's; Moriah's handle and her passing skills are clearly superior; despite Stewie's incredible length, athleticism and the shot-blocking skills that come with it, Moriah is every bit as talented a defender, and one-on-one I think she's better while Stewie's strength is more as an off-ball, help defender. Stewie is incredibly tough, taking a beating on a regular basis, and so does Moriah, but Stewie is built a little better to handle it and gets a few more calls as the NCAA POY, while #4 continually takes a licking and keeps on ticking. Moriah's toughness and motor are epic.

That said, there's no doubt that a great and talented big kid almost always garners more attention and acclaim than a great little one. Objectively comparing a point guard to a forward is kind of impossible, apples and oranges, where very different skill sets have to be evaluated. (Another shaky justification for my claim.)

While it's not necessarily pertinent to this discussion, we constantly hear what an insane work ethic Stewie has, to become the best player she can be. The exact same can be said about Moriah. What Moriah does on both sides of the ball, the unreal energy she expends every second, the way she gets her team going as its leader (like a great Stewie play does) is spectacular. Both have been pretty much equally indispensable and significant to UConn's special run.

My reasoning is a lot intuitive, hard to verbalize, and based upon the eye test by a fan who is a profound neophyte in judging the nebulous determinants of "greatness."

But pound for pound (and inch for inch) there is nobody better and nobody tougher in WCBB today than Moriah Jefferson. [A mini-version of the USS Missouri- MIGHTY MO.]

Great post.

I would say, for me as well, that they are equally as good.

I would probably take DT as #1, Maya as #2, and Stewie and Mo as tied for #3 (probably whether they win 4 or not, as much of their ability to win 4 has to with where UConn has gotten to as a dominant program, as well as their opportunity to play together for 4 years (and have Tuck as a third musketeer)).

Both are phenomenal two-way players: Moriah's ball pressure helps Stewie's help defense, and Stewie's help defense allows Moriah to gamble as much as she does. I would favor Stewie's 15-18 ft jumper slightly over Moriah's, though they are pretty much equal as 3pt shooters, finishers at the rim, jump shooters in the lane, transition players, and facilitators. While Stewie has the advantage in rebounding (for obvious reasons), Moriah has the advantage in assists; similarly in the comparison between blocks and steals. They are also about equal in intangibles: both somewhat introverted, though competitive; reluctant leaders, though doing much better as seniors.

 

[JS]

Please don't assume I haven't watched the games.

Let's not get needlessly personal, Wally.

To a third party observer, the little saying about stats Hardhat employed didn't seem intended as a personal reflection on you.

Nor his "You have to watch the games [to see XYZ factors]" -- i.e. "One has to watch the games . . ."

All too often a misunderstanding sets an unfortunate tone for your one's response.

 

[Huskies Rule]

HuskiesRule - well said!
We talk of the big three - DT, Maya, and Breanna, but there are two others that I think deserve to be included in that 'pantheon' - Sue and Moriah. As you say it is difficult to compare bigs to guards and to quantify what constitutes greatness in a PG - it is not just leadership because the first three have that as well, but it is the quality that Maria provided to the last two of DT's NCs for which she often gets overlooked. It is like a neophyte trying to identify what makes a great conductor and a bad one - they can both stand up there and wave their arms and if the musicians are virtuosos the sounds coming out seem to be the same. I chose that because a lot of it has to do with tempo and direction being provided to the ensemble.
With Sue people are frequently pointing to other WNBA guards and their stats and wondering why Sue still leads the USA NT team, and I think Dawn was quoted as saying it has to do with a star player learning how to play when they are the fourth or fifth option instead of the first second or third on their team - which moments are the right moments for them to be selfish. and in those moments to succeed.*

So I applaud your stand.
We can compare and argue about Lobo or Charles, Bird or Jefferson, Maya or Sales or Abrosimova, DT or ____ um, never mind .
But you aren't going to argue that Maya can do what Tina or Sue can, or that DT can do what Moriah can.
Sue is in the conversation for best ever PG in women's basketball. Maya for best ever wing, DT as best ever off guard, Charles will probably be in the conversation for best ever post. When you start best ever across all positions it starts to break down into as you say apples and oranges. It is interesting because most other sports don't even go there - best ever baseball player is meaningless, even best ever fielder, or best ever hitter (are we talking average, power, or combination, dead ball era or steroid era or ...), with pitchers - starters or relievers and for starters pre or post bullpen usage changes. Football? Hockey might be the closest to basketball in terms of trying to pool all positions, but you still get arguments between forwards, defensemen, and goalies that really aren't comparable.

* That was about as good a description of the quality of a PG that I have heard - how to be a star, when being a star means you are the last option to score.

UcMiami- better said!

I think the impossible task of objectively defining and identifying "greatness" clearly goes beyond quantifiable statistics. Although U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart was describing his threshold test for defining 'obscenity,' his simple words seem perfectly apropos to a discussion of what is greatness? "I know it when I see it."

 

[Wally East]

One out of control response.

I never stated that Diana played better defense than Maya, nor did I ever connote that you didn't watch the game. The statement is simple; statistics don't tell the story. Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

But in response to the general point you are trying to make, both players played an entirely different game, and that is the point; their differences statistically do not speak to their differences on the court. There is no stat that denotes how great Diana was offensively without the ball, or how smooth Maya was as a slasher, or any one of dozens of characteristics that defined their games. What Maya meant to her team was MUCH different than what Diana meant to hers, or Tina to hers, or Stewie to hers. They are all different players on different teams that cannot be reasonably compared to each other, and using bare stats as tools to differentiate is absurd.

To my point, I believe that Shoeblocker had more blocks, and shot a MUCH higher percentage, in her NCAA Finals career than Tina Charles, Rebecca Lobo, Kara Wolters, Jessica Moore, or Stephanie Dolson. Does that make her a better center? I think not.

Schumacher. Kelly Schumacher.

And why do you believe she had more blocks in a single game and shot a higher percentage? Is it because of stats?

That's why you look at a larger sample than a single game -- maybe as large as an entire four-year career.

It appears that you're saying, "Diana is better than Maya because Diana is Maya" or, alternatively, "Diana is better than Maya and I could tell just by watching."

Maybe stats shouldn't be kept at all? Why even keep score? Most observers will just feel that one team is better than the other team. What to do about close games though. Hmm.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is dragged out by people who can't find stats to support their position.

If one can find stats that will say anything, then find them. Find the stats that say D was better than Maya.

 

[Kibitzer]

Permit a comment that I have made before, but which I believe remains valid.

An important -- perhaps primary -- achievement by Diana had more to do with circumstance than mere stats. She alone of those iconic players under discussion had the opportunity to play against Pat Summitt's Tennessee teams when the Huskies vs. LadyVols rivalry was at white-hot intensity and bitterness. And Oh Baby! Did she ever make the most of that!!

Sure, Rebecca and Jen drilled the LV's a couple historic times, and so did several others. But if ever there was a BADASS wearing a UConn shirt, it was Diana vs. Tennessee -- over and over and over -- as if to say "In your face, Pat!"

Maya and Stewie and Moriah have been denied the same opportunity. Sure, some gratifying beatdowns of Notre Dame, but they didn't quite match the jubilation we experienced when Dee "smacked something orange!"

Who are the very greatest? You guys duke it out. I love them all. I don't need no steenkin' stats -- I have archived replays and unforgettable memories.

 

[meyers7]

Schumacher. Kelly Schumacher.

And why do you believe she had more blocks in a single game and shot a higher percentage? Is it because of stats?

That's why you look at a larger sample than a single game -- maybe as large as an entire four-year career.

It appears that you're saying, "Diana is better than Maya because Diana is Maya" or, alternatively, "Diana is better than Maya and I could tell just by watching."

Maybe stats shouldn't be kept at all? Why even keep score? Most observers will just feel that one team is better than the other team. What to do about close games though. Hmm.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is dragged out by people who can't find stats to support their position.

If one can find stats that will say anything, then find them. Find the stats that say D was better than Maya.

Simple stat, if I'm picking players for a pickup game, I'm taking DT before Moore. Everyday and twice on Sunday. Without even the slightest hesitation.

 

[Wally East]

Simple stat, if I'm picking players for a pickup game, I'm taking DT before Moore. Everyday and twice on Sunday. Without even the slightest hesitation.

Okay. Fair enough.

Why?

 

[nd2tty]

Look, the margin between DT and Maya as individual players is razor-thin. It was when you looked at them as UConn players, it was in their professional careers, it is now. I'm not sure I even know what the reason is that I put DT #1, it's feel more than anything. They are both winners, both competitors, they both make their teammates better. I go back to the sentiments Geno voiced during their respective UConn careers though: Maya gives her teammates confidence, makes them believe (much like he argues Stewie does), when Maya is flowing the rest of the team can relax. DT doesn't really work like that: she doesn't operate in the terms of "I'm feeling it" (though there are nights when she certainly does) or "it's just not my night". She forces/constructs/manufactures success. DT - in addition to the traits that Maya has - makes the whole system function, she "games the system", she elevates the team through Xs and Os, through tangibles (and intangibles, leadership, motivation), and her clutch prowess is second to no one (not necessarily just big game, but big last 10 seconds).

 

[meyers7]

Okay. Fair enough.

Why?

I want to win. And/or she's the best player available. Take your pick.

 

[Wally East]

I want to win. And/or she's the best player available. Take your pick.

Sorry to continue to pull teeth, but what makes you think D is the best player available?

 

[meyers7]

Sorry to continue to pull teeth, but what makes you think D is the best player available?

She just is. Years and years of watching her play. It's fairly obvious to me.

I have no problem with you disagreeing with me, I'll just consider you wrong. And you can pick Moore, and I'll take DT and we'll beat your team everyday and twice on Sunday.

 

[ThetaZoo]

Wow, two swings and two misses

Maya, for her career:
19.7 points per game, 1st (by a lot, too)
8.3 rebounds per game, 6th
.404 3-pt fg%, 6th
3.5 assists per game, 12th
2.0 steals per game, 9th
1.3 blocks per game, 9th

No other Husky has comparable stats. No one who rebounded better scored or assisted nearly as much. No one who passed better scored or rebounded as well. No one ahead of her on the all-time blocks per game list is also ahead of her in steals per game and vice versa.

She was a do-it-all player who also scored like no one else at UConn ever has, both in total and on a per-game basis. Oh, and she was a significantly better shooter than Diana, too, both outside the arc and inside it.

And negative 10 points to anyone who says that Diana has three rings to Maya's two. You have to do better than that because we're talking about individual players over the course of their careers

Equally impressive is her scoring in double digits in 149 of 154 career games.

 

[UcMiami]

nd2tty - nice post, but just one small correction - through the first three years of their respective careers Moriah and Breanna have both hit exactly 106 three pointers, but their percentages are a little different - as in Moriah at .414 and Stewart at .331 - Moriah's percentage qualifies as #4 all time and is likely where she will end up - too much ground to make up to reach #3 Wendy Davis and she is at .419 at this point so unlikely to fall back to #5. Stewart's biggest statistical leap this year is in 3 point shooting as she is .417, but whatever she does this year will still leave her well down in the middle of the pack for career percentage. (Moriah leads by a large margin as the most efficient scoring guard and most efficient passing guard of any of the great Uconn guards. You could also argue that she is the best defensive guard to ever play at Uconn.)
NB - it was sometime in December when Geno was quoted as saying 'Stewart being our best 3 point shooter is an indication that not everything is perfect in our world' or words to that effect - at the time Stewart was hitting .450+ from three. Well, I hope he is happy now! Stewart's percentage has fallen off while Moriah has raised hers and now leads the team, so by Geno's logic all must be well in the uconn universe! (Well, maybe he is right! I don't see a lot to complain about. )

Maria Conlon was able to play like she did because Diana made those players around her better players.

Absolutely agree, but the steadiness and reliability of Maria on both ends of the court also allowed DT to be her best creative self. (And in a previous thread I posted a long and tedious analysis trying to temper peoples ongoing impressions that 2003 and 2004 was Diana and a bunch of scrubs - she actually had a lot of good upper class support and three very important and good freshman who contributed a lot in tight games, and many of whom went on to very decent pro careers.)

I think both points being made about stats are valid - stats provide very clear benchmarks in player comparisons, but they very clearly do not provide the whole picture and leave out huge areas of the game that cannot be clearly recorded with standard or even advanced metrics. And in a team game where almost every play involves 5 players in some way on offense and on defense who picks up a particular stat on each play is somewhat determined by chance. Across different college teams statistical analysis is really difficult because the systems played and the team statistics vary wildly so the individual stats will as well. Within Uconn teams of different years it is more meaningful because the system remains the same and the year to year teams statistics are so consistent - Uconn shoots 48-52% every year, they get 18-22 assists every game, they hold opponents to 30-33% shooting and 46-52 ppg, and they score 84-88 ppg, etc. And individual stats are then also in pretty defined ranges - top scores are in the 16-19 point range, fifth scores are in the 9-11 point range, top assist getters are around 5 per game, and fifth players get around 2 per game, etc. The team really does play as an ensemble with occasional soloists breaking out for a brief flash.

And the hardest areas of play to define statistically are:
1. Defense because none of the defensive stats tell much about an individual - a steal is often dependent on the player applying pressure on the passer and not the one that intercepts the pass, a defensive rebound is often the result of someone else blocking out their player, a block is not much more effective than pressure on a shooter that causes a bad shot (and equally dependent on a rebounder to get the rebound for the defense.) And how do you define what a Kelly Faris provides or a Moriah playing denial defense on a shooter. You can look at the player Kelly was assigned to and say they had an off night, but with all the switching that Uconn does on defense, Kelly was the last defender on only maybe half of that players actual shots, and yet you know Kelly was instrumental in that off night. And did it consistently night after night.
2. PG play (and that aspect of play from any player on the court)- as i said above, how do you define a star performance when the star is the last option. Or how do you evaluate what Stef meant to how the offense flowed - her junior and senior seasons when she was on the floor the offense just looked 'right', when she went to the bench the offense just didn't look right most of the time. The aspect we all point to with DT 'beyond her stats' is one that Maya and Breanna also are great at, and that Moriah and Sue excel at.
3. Chemistry and what a player adds or subtracts from that aspect of the team - impossible to identify by anyone outside the circle.