OT: A new criterion for evaluating players or recruits.

[Kibitzer]

A recent comment by a UConn player's dad (either Gabby's or Kia's - I forget) got me to thinkin'. His comment was that his daughter was "nasty" when playing. And I loved it!

Here on the Boneyard we are of course blessed by the frequent presentations of our stats experts who not only ferret out a host of arcane numbers but process them analytically to make these data meaningful and comprehensible. We thus acquire deeper insights about all facets of UConn wcbb.

I am grateful to our resident "stats geeks" for their diligence and perspicacity.

Partly because I am too lazy to perform all that due diligence, I take a different approach to player/recruit evaluation. I used to simply rely on the old-fashioned (and convenient) "eye test," and it served me well. When Kaleena was a mere freshman I received some derisive remarks when I opined that she was the best perimeter shooter I ever saw (eye test). More recently (about one year ago) I caught some flak when I insisted that "Morgan is too good to not start." My eyes had it!

Next, Bill Russell helped me refine my eye test. During the clamorous discussions about whether NFL teams should draft an openly gay college player, Russ suggested that only one consideration mattered: "Can he play?"

Looking back again, I recall my two cents of wisdom I inserted into a thread about what Kiah Stokes should do to maximize her potential, AKA "upside." I admired her phyaical attributes (especially her gorgeous smile) but suggested that she needed to become an on the court badass to fulfill her potential. Which she has done!

Looking back again, we have had other great players with angelic smiles who were Honest-to-God badasses once the game clock started ticking: Sue, Rebecca, Jenn, Svet - and countless others. Tough call as to which was the baddest bad ass of all between Diana and Maya. Of our current players, there can be no question that Stewie, Moriah, Morgan and Kia now qualify for badass rating. The jury is still out on our bench players and incoming recruits, including Natalie - though it appears that Gabby and Napheesa are already on the cusp.

In summary, I suggest two steps to use when evaluating players or recruits: (1) Consider the stats and analysis; then (2) apply the eye test to answer two questions - Can she play? and, if she can, Is she a badass?

Thoughts, anyone?

(PS - I'll be away for a few days so I'll catch up next week. I hope)

 

[Huskies Rule]

A recent comment by a UConn player's dad (either Gabby's or Kia's - I forget) got me to thinkin'. His comment was that his daughter was "nasty" when playing. And I loved it!

Here on the Boneyard we are of course blessed by the frequent presentations of our stats experts who not only ferret out a host of arcane numbers but process them analytically to make these data meaningful and comprehensible. We thus acquire deeper insights about all facets of UConn wcbb.

I am grateful to our resident "stats geeks" for their diligence and perspicacity.

Partly because I am too lazy to perform all that due diligence, I take a different approach to player/recruit evaluation. I used to simply rely on the old-fashioned (and convenient) "eye test," and it served me well. When Kaleena was a mere freshman I received some derisive remarks when I opined that she was the best perimeter shooter I ever saw (eye test). More recently (about one year ago) I caught some flak when I insisted that "Morgan is too good to not start." My eyes had it!

Next, Bill Russell helped me refine my eye test. During the clamorous discussions about whether NFL teams should draft an openly gay college player, Russ suggested that only one consideration mattered: "Can he play?"

Looking back again, I recall my two cents of wisdom I inserted into a thread about what Kiah Stokes should do to maximize her potential, AKA "upside." I admired her phyaical attributes (especially her gorgeous smile) but suggested that she needed to become an on the court badass to fulfill her potential. Which she has done!

Looking back again, we have had other great players with angelic smiles who were Honest-to-God badasses once the game clock started ticking: Sue, Rebecca, Jenn, Svet - and countless others. Tough call as to which was the baddest bad ass of all between Diana and Maya. Of our current players, there can be no question that Stewie, Moriah, Morgan and Kia now qualify for badass rating. The jury is still out on our bench players and incoming recruits, including Natalie - though it appears that Gabby and Napheesa are already on the cusp.

In summary, I suggest two steps to use when evaluating players or recruits: (1) Consider the stats and analysis; then (2) apply the eye test to answer two questions - Can she play? and, if she can, Is she a badass?

Thoughts, anyone?

(PS - I'll be away for a few days so I'll catch up next week. I hope)

What's going on here, professor K?
1) The correct spelling is 'physical' not 'phyaical.'
2) Two independent clauses connected by the coordinating conjunction "so" must employ a comma. "I'll be away for a few days COMMA so I'll catch up next week."

These egregious mistakes must be avoided. The need to take off a few days is certainly warranted.

 

[jcoton56]

Still recall Ms. Hansmeyer planting more than one opponent into the seats under the basket. She took box outs to be a divine calling! Definite BA!

 

[Bonpland]

I'm not sure exactly where the deffinition of "badass" will land relative to our current team members but I can't imagine anyone being placed ahead of Taurasi on the all-time list. Others have been "competitive" and "driven" and some may have also been a badass, but when it comes to using the eye test to judge performance on the court D stands alone ahead of the pack as, to paraphrase Kia's father, "a nasty piece of work."

 

[UcMiami]

Interesting concept, but I am not sure I agree - there have certainly been players at Uconn that I would classify as 'Badass' or 'Nasty' (in a nice way), but there have been many who I would more comfortably describe as 'silent assassins'. You cannot compete well without being 'aggressive' on the court, but that doesn't necessarily translate to 'in your face' that I associate with 'badass' or 'nasty'. Maya for example or Stewart and Jefferson currently are very aggressive on both ends of the court, but except for a few exceptional moments do not have that 'Nasty' streak.

And I would say Kiah was always aggressive on defense, but her problem was being too passive on offense - nasty or not!

 

[Huskies Rule]

Interesting concept, but I am not sure I agree - there have certainly been players at Uconn that I would classify as 'Badass' or 'Nasty' (in a nice way), but there have been many who I would more comfortably describe as 'silent assassins'. You cannot compete well without being 'aggressive' on the court, but that doesn't necessarily translate to 'in your face' that I associate with 'badass' or 'nasty'. Maya for example or Stewart and Jefferson currently are very aggressive on both ends of the court, but except for a few exceptional moments do not have that 'Nasty' streak.

And I would say Kiah was always aggressive on defense, but her problem was being too passive on offense - nasty or not!

My nominee is my all-time favorite Husky (well, definitely in my top three)- Kelly Faris- a beautiful kid who surely was a "badass" (a lousy word choice) on the court. Though not even close to being in the same talent galaxy as DT, MM, Stewie, Moriah or a score of other Husky greats, Kelly gave everything she had on every play. Nobody played harder, not DT, not Maya. She shut down kids defensively who had 4, 5 inches on her. She was unafraid to mix it up inside, fighting for rebounds against anybody, no matter how big. A quiet assassin (YES, UcM). Diving for loose balls. An absolute winner. Utterly fearless. I LOVE THAT KID.

 

[Gus Mahler]

A recent comment by a UConn player's dad (either Gabby's or Kia's - I forget) got me to thinkin'. His comment was that his daughter was "nasty" when playing. And I loved it!

Here on the Boneyard we are of course blessed by the frequent presentations of our stats experts who not only ferret out a host of arcane numbers but process them analytically to make these data meaningful and comprehensible. We thus acquire deeper insights about all facets of UConn wcbb.

I am grateful to our resident "stats geeks" for their diligence and perspicacity.

Partly because I am too lazy to perform all that due diligence, I take a different approach to player/recruit evaluation. I used to simply rely on the old-fashioned (and convenient) "eye test," and it served me well. When Kaleena was a mere freshman I received some derisive remarks when I opined that she was the best perimeter shooter I ever saw (eye test). More recently (about one year ago) I caught some flak when I insisted that "Morgan is too good to not start." My eyes had it!

Next, Bill Russell helped me refine my eye test. During the clamorous discussions about whether NFL teams should draft an openly gay college player, Russ suggested that only one consideration mattered: "Can he play?"

Looking back again, I recall my two cents of wisdom I inserted into a thread about what Kiah Stokes should do to maximize her potential, AKA "upside." I admired her phyaical attributes (especially her gorgeous smile) but suggested that she needed to become an on the court badass to fulfill her potential. Which she has done!

Looking back again, we have had other great players with angelic smiles who were Honest-to-God badasses once the game clock started ticking: Sue, Rebecca, Jenn, Svet - and countless others. Tough call as to which was the baddest bad ass of all between Diana and Maya. Of our current players, there can be no question that Stewie, Moriah, Morgan and Kia now qualify for badass rating. The jury is still out on our bench players and incoming recruits, including Natalie - though it appears that Gabby and Napheesa are already on the cusp.

In summary, I suggest two steps to use when evaluating players or recruits: (1) Consider the stats and analysis; then (2) apply the eye test to answer two questions - Can she play? and, if she can, Is she a badass?

Thoughts, anyone?

(PS - I'll be away for a few days so I'll catch up next week. I hope)

Thoughts:
Taurasi is the gold standard for a BA. If there is ever to be a BA of the Year award, it should be named for her.
Facebook introduced me to a new Internet acronym recently on this subject: BAMF. The full translation is left to the reader.
I think the Russell quote pertained to one of the Collins twins, the first openly gay player in the NBA.

 

[Gus Mahler]

I'm not sure exactly where the deffinition of "badass" will land relative to our current team members but I can't imagine anyone being placed ahead of Taurasi on the all-time list. Others have been "competitive" and "driven" and some may have also been a badass, but when it comes to using the eye test to judge performance on the court D stands alone ahead of the pack as, to paraphrase Kia's father, "a nasty piece of work."

As a well intentioned nitpick, I think the quote is "...a nasty piece of business." Same thrust, obviously.

 

[Kibitzer]

Thoughts:
Taurasi is the gold standard for a BA. If there is ever to be a BA of the Year award, it should be named for her.
Facebook introduced me to a new Internet acronym recently on this subject: BAMF. The full translation is left to the reader.
I think the Russell quote pertained to one of the Collins twins, the first openly gay player in the NBA.

Concur about Diana. As for the quote by Russ, he made it during discussions about the football player coming out (!) of U.Missouri to enter NFL draft.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

According to a number of coaches I have talked to over the years, a certain amount of "BA" ness is a necessity. I'll vouch for the fact that when Rutgers lacked players that had an on-court aggressiveness, the results just were not there.

But I really like Kib's "eye test" comments. I don't really see enough of any one teams games to "eye test" individual players, but I "eye test" teams, their schedules, their coaches behaviors, etc., etc.

 

[DaddyChoc]

Kalana Greene was the nastiest to me, now its Gabby Williams... KML is nasty after a made 3 with the fist pump (or strong arms pose).

Marisa Moseley is good too, she never drops her pen nor clipboard after jumping 5 feet in the air after a KML 3... surprised she hasnt bopped Geno in the head (by mistake)

 

[BroadwayVa]

A recent comment by a UConn player's dad (either Gabby's or Kia's - I forget) got me to thinkin'. His comment was that his daughter was "nasty" when playing. And I loved it!

Here on the Boneyard we are of course blessed by the frequent presentations of our stats experts who not only ferret out a host of arcane numbers but process them analytically to make these data meaningful and comprehensible. We thus acquire deeper insights about all facets of UConn wcbb.

I am grateful to our resident "stats geeks" for their diligence and perspicacity.

Partly because I am too lazy to perform all that due diligence, I take a different approach to player/recruit evaluation. I used to simply rely on the old-fashioned (and convenient) "eye test," and it served me well. When Kaleena was a mere freshman I received some derisive remarks when I opined that she was the best perimeter shooter I ever saw (eye test). More recently (about one year ago) I caught some flak when I insisted that "Morgan is too good to not start." My eyes had it!

Next, Bill Russell helped me refine my eye test. During the clamorous discussions about whether NFL teams should draft an openly gay college player, Russ suggested that only one consideration mattered: "Can he play?"

Looking back again, I recall my two cents of wisdom I inserted into a thread about what Kiah Stokes should do to maximize her potential, AKA "upside." I admired her phyaical attributes (especially her gorgeous smile) but suggested that she needed to become an on the court badass to fulfill her potential. Which she has done!

Looking back again, we have had other great players with angelic smiles who were Honest-to-God badasses once the game clock started ticking: Sue, Rebecca, Jenn, Svet - and countless others. Tough call as to which was the baddest bad ass of all between Diana and Maya. Of our current players, there can be no question that Stewie, Moriah, Morgan and Kia now qualify for badass rating. The jury is still out on our bench players and incoming recruits, including Natalie - though it appears that Gabby and Napheesa are already on the cusp.

In summary, I suggest two steps to use when evaluating players or recruits: (1) Consider the stats and analysis; then (2) apply the eye test to answer two questions - Can she play? and, if she can, Is she a badass?

Thoughts, anyone?

(PS - I'll be away for a few days so I'll catch up next week. I hope)

Bill Russell, a U San Francisco grad (If memory is correct) was my all time favorite player and color analyst--when an announcer would say you get 5 fouls (college) Bill would say--no you get 4 and your are out o the 5th.

No one will out tough Kia Nurse or Moriah Jefferson--no one. Can they play He-- Yes!! I don't know what constitutes a bad-ass, I only look at the good ones. No stats or analysis just simply using the gift God gave me ---Sight!!
In terms of can they play at a high level---Collier and Gabby (if reports of improvements are correct) These two can take the bumps and bruises and keep on ticking. I'm very high on Collier. If what I read of Boykin is only half true she'll be superb. Tough nose to nose kids.
Enjoy your (fill in the blank) business trip, vacation, whatever!!! See ya when ya get back, ya all!!

Shea--with an angelic smile--I never punched that kid who tried to strangle me--not me!!!

 

[UcMiami]

Certainly one of the original badasses for this team would have to be Eliot! She carried that trait over to her job as assistant coach!

 

[MattF]

My nominee is my all-time favorite Husky (well, definitely in my top three)- Kelly Faris- a beautiful kid who surely was a "badass" (a lousy word choice) on the court. Though not even close to being in the same talent galaxy as DT, MM, Stewie, Moriah or a score of other Husky greats, Kelly gave everything she had on every play. Nobody played harder, not DT, not Maya. She shut down kids defensively who had 4, 5 inches on her. She was unafraid to mix it up inside, fighting for rebounds against anybody, no matter how big. A quiet assassin (YES, UcM). Diving for loose balls. An absolute winner. Utterly fearless. I LOVE THAT KID.

A million times--yes!! When she was on the floor, she made things happen team-wise.
May her pro coaches recognize the invaluable asset she is.

 

[BroadwayVa]

A recent comment by a UConn player's dad (either Gabby's or Kia's - I forget) got me to thinkin'. His comment was that his daughter was "nasty" when playing. And I loved it!

Here on the Boneyard we are of course blessed by the frequent presentations of our stats experts who not only ferret out a host of arcane numbers but process them analytically to make these data meaningful and comprehensible. We thus acquire deeper insights about all facets of UConn wcbb.

I am grateful to our resident "stats geeks" for their diligence and perspicacity.

Partly because I am too lazy to perform all that due diligence, I take a different approach to player/recruit evaluation. I used to simply rely on the old-fashioned (and convenient) "eye test," and it served me well. When Kaleena was a mere freshman I received some derisive remarks when I opined that she was the best perimeter shooter I ever saw (eye test). More recently (about one year ago) I caught some flak when I insisted that "Morgan is too good to not start." My eyes had it!

Next, Bill Russell helped me refine my eye test. During the clamorous discussions about whether NFL teams should draft an openly gay college player, Russ suggested that only one consideration mattered: "Can he play?"

Looking back again, I recall my two cents of wisdom I inserted into a thread about what Kiah Stokes should do to maximize her potential, AKA "upside." I admired her phyaical attributes (especially her gorgeous smile) but suggested that she needed to become an on the court badass to fulfill her potential. Which she has done!

Looking back again, we have had other great players with angelic smiles who were Honest-to-God badasses once the game clock started ticking: Sue, Rebecca, Jenn, Svet - and countless others. Tough call as to which was the baddest bad ass of all between Diana and Maya. Of our current players, there can be no question that Stewie, Moriah, Morgan and Kia now qualify for badass rating. The jury is still out on our bench players and incoming recruits, including Natalie - though it appears that Gabby and Napheesa are already on the cusp.

In summary, I suggest two steps to use when evaluating players or recruits: (1) Consider the stats and analysis; then (2) apply the eye test to answer two questions - Can she play? and, if she can, Is she a badass?

Thoughts, anyone?

(PS - I'll be away for a few days so I'll catch up next week. I hope)

Kibtizer: Since you brought it up--Criteria , Criterion. I only took 2 semesters of Latin before I was ejected so i'm a novice. From what I remember--Criteria is the assembling of data (singular or plural in English) from a singular or multiple areas into a single packet. Criterion would be a number of packets of Criteria. True or not so true???

 

[BroadwayVa]

Still recall Ms. Hansmeyer planting more than one opponent into the seats under the basket. She took box outs to be a divine calling! Definite BA!

BAM--BAM she wasn't called that for handing out cookies.

 

[UcMiami]

Kibtizer: Since you brought it up--Criteria , Criterion. I only took 2 semesters of Latin before I was ejected so i'm a novice. From what I remember--Criteria is the assembling of data (singular or plural in English) from a singular or multiple areas into a single packet. Criterion would be a number of packets of Criteria. True or not so true???

I believe you have it backwards 'ia' and 'a' indicating latin plural and 'ium', 'ion', um, and 'us' being singular endings. So criterion is a single datum point and criteria being a series of data points. So the single criterion for being a man is having a Y chomosome , for being a gentleman there are multiple criteria - manners, honesty, etc.

 

[BroadwayVa]

I believe you have it backwards 'ia' and 'a' indicating latin plural and 'ium', 'ion', um, and 'us' being singular endings. So criterion is a single datum point and criteria being a series of data points. So the single criterion for being a man is having a Y chomosome , for being a gentleman there are multiple criteria - manners, honesty, etc.

I guess my computer is wrong. The site I checked and there were multiple sites there--You may be right. I forgot most of my conjugation of Latin---You've given me enough to recheck what I thought I read. I do remember enough to know data, datae, datum comes out differently in English/modern American. Data was always singular--now it's either. Don't confuse me it took me years to see data as plural along with singular---Thank you Father !!! (Priests are the only ones today that maybe remember Latin).
You had to throw in that bit about being a gentleman--

 

[jcoton56]

Certainly one of the original badasses for this team would have to be Eliot! She carried that trait over to her job as assistant coach!

If I had to absolutely have one rebound, she is the woman to get it. She has the scowl ass good as Clint Eastwood, now that is bad ass!

 

[BroadwayVa]

I believe you have it backwards 'ia' and 'a' indicating latin plural and 'ium', 'ion', um, and 'us' being singular endings. So criterion is a single datum point and criteria being a series of data points. So the single criterion for being a man is having a Y chomosome , for being a gentleman there are multiple criteria - manners, honesty, etc.

By Jov (as professor Henry Higgins said) I got it. Criterion singular, Criteria multiple Criterion. Thanks.
The site was a bit misleading--.
Shows to go you are never to old to relearn what you should have learned while learning what you shouldn't.
Thanks.

 

[TroyHouse66]

Gus
<<... a new Internet acronym ... on this subject: BAMF. The full translation is left to the reader.>>

UConn Judgement Standards
Agreed that Diana3 sets the standard for BA, if you got between her and her aim... be it a hoop, a game, or a title.
But...
There is only one UConn Standard... never surpassed, never tied, never even approached... for Top-Dog BSMF. There are few Brothers left from the old UConn Sigma Nu house & any eyewitnesses are, now, fifty years in the Past.
But, let no one forget...
"Yogi" Contoulis70
UConn (and, later, NY football Giant) defensive tackle who ruled the Yankee Conference for as long as he was here.
(And remember... "Mother" is only half a word!)

 

[Gus Mahler]

I guess my computer is wrong. The site I checked and there were multiple sites there--You may be right. I forgot most of my conjugation of Latin---You've given me enough to recheck what I thought I read. I do remember enough to know data, datae, datum comes out differently in English/modern American. Data was always singular--now it's either. Don't confuse me it took me years to see data as plural along with singular---Thank you Father !!! (Priests are the only ones today that maybe remember Latin).
You had to throw in that bit about being a gentleman--

Datum is singular; data plural. Always has been. Consider medium/media, agendum/agenda, and stadium/stadia.

In business and IT these days, "data" is treated as singular. It appears as though academics in the hard sciences treat it as singular, but I'm not sure--might be a mix. In the social and behavioral sciences, and in education, academics (mostly) still treat data as plural. It's like fingernails on a chalk board to hear "the data is," but that's the world we live in. Probably a classic case of people not wanting to say or write "these data are" because they're concerned about sounding/looking foolish to others.

BTW, most people pronounce it "dayt'-uh," but some say "dat'-uh." Also grating, in my opinion.

 

[BroadwayVa]

Datum is singular; data plural. Always has been. Consider medium/media, agendum/agenda, and stadium/stadia.

In business and IT these days, "data" is treated as singular. It appears as though academics in the hard sciences treat it as singular, but I'm not sure--might be a mix. In the social and behavioral sciences, and in education, academics (mostly) still treat data as plural. It's like fingernails on a chalk board to hear "the data is," but that's the world we live in. Probably a classic case of people not wanting to say or write "these data are" because they're concerned about sounding/looking foolish to others.

BTW, most people pronounce it "dayt'-uh," but some say "dat'-uh." Also grating, in my opinion.

I was properly corrected on my remembrance of my Latin lessons (no wonder I was ejected). Data when I was confronted with it in the design of really huge (2 plus billion dollar ) system in discussions data was pronounced or mis pronounced in many ways. I had a real problem when first confronted, back then, with "the cloud"concept. Cloud to me was when the Fleet, thru electronic countermeasure, on Radar became a Void or Cloud where aircraft disappeared into and out of.

Because of "aggravated usage" it's Latin origin is forgotten and too whether it is singular or plural). Educators/Academicians have mostly accepted the unacceptable ubiquitous kind of meaning for DATA/Datum

I too was first informed with DATA pronounced DATE AH Not Diss-AH and DAT AH~~!!!