Post? 4? 5?

[Kibitzer]

Very thoughtful first post. I don't completely share your views bt I am not fool enough to initiate a debate. Discussion? Sometime. Not just now.

 

[UcMiami]

islandgurl - I like your post and feel much the same - I think where the confusion comes in (like with Geno's comment of not caring particularly for the number system) is in a strict reliance on the defined properties of the numeric or alpha designations both in player assessment and in game play. His ideal backcourt is Sue and Diana - Sue being designated a 1 and Diana a 2, but both being completely capable of performing reverse roles at any moment of any game. And if you extrapolate out perhaps his perfect team would be:
Sue, DT, Maya, Breanna, and Stef - all equally capable of 'playing point' at any moment from different positions on the floor - And you could replace either Stef with Morgan or Breanna, replace Breanna with Morgan or Maya, replace Maya with Breanna, Nykesha, or Sveta or DT, replace DT or Sue with Bria or Moriah or Maya or Nykesha in a constant cycling of different 'designations' of multi-functional players - is Tina a 5 or a 4, it depends on who the other members of the team are on the floor at the moment, and which offensive set they are running. The same with all the others.
Sometimes you have a player that really is limited to a single viable role - a Swanier or Dixon who really could only function as a PG because they were offensively challenged, or a Kara who could only play center - and while the team can still be very good, it becomes more limited and easier to defend. Moriah unable to hit her jump shots and threes becomes just another PG, Moriah hitting 40+% from three changes from second to second as a play develops, from PG when she has the ball in her hands to shooting guard as soon as she passes to anyone else.

I think where Geno and others bristle at the designations is in assigning them to a player off the court - a recruit or a draft pick - and on the court by narrowing the possibilities of what you can run - it becomes restrictive and limits the imagination of what can be done. Saying Moore is a 3 may prevent you from thinking of how she can alter the game if she plays as a 2 or a 1 or a 4 in particular sets. Limiting thinking about Stewart to what a 4 designation usually means cuts off a large portion of her capabilities and wastes her true value on the court. The less restricted a players talents, the less meaningful the designations are as a way of thinking about them.

 

[islandgurl]

islandgurl - I like your post and feel much the same - I think where the confusion comes in (like with Geno's comment of not caring particularly for the number system) is in a strict reliance on the defined properties of the numeric or alpha designations both in player assessment and in game play. His ideal backcourt is Sue and Diana - Sue being designated a 1 and Diana a 2, but both being completely capable of performing reverse roles at any moment of any game. And if you extrapolate out perhaps his perfect team would be:
Sue, DT, Maya, Breanna, and Stef - all equally capable of 'playing point' at any moment from different positions on the floor - And you could replace either Stef with Morgan or Breanna, replace Breanna with Morgan or Maya, replace Maya with Breanna, Nykesha, or Sveta or DT, replace DT or Sue with Bria or Moriah or Maya or Nykesha in a constant cycling of different 'designations' of multi-functional players - is Tina a 5 or a 4, it depends on who the other members of the team are on the floor at the moment, and which offensive set they are running. The same with all the others.
Sometimes you have a player that really is limited to a single viable role - a Swanier or Dixon who really could only function as a PG because they were offensively challenged, or a Kara who could only play center - and while the team can still be very good, it becomes more limited and easier to defend. Moriah unable to hit her jump shots and threes becomes just another PG, Moriah hitting 40+% from three changes from second to second as a play develops, from PG when she has the ball in her hands to shooting guard as soon as she passes to anyone else.

I think where Geno and others bristle at the designations is in assigning them to a player off the court - a recruit or a draft pick - and on the court by narrowing the possibilities of what you can run - it becomes restrictive and limits the imagination of what can be done. Saying Moore is a 3 may prevent you from thinking of how she can alter the game if she plays as a 2 or a 1 or a 4 in particular sets. Limiting thinking about Stewart to what a 4 designation usually means cuts off a large portion of her capabilities and wastes her true value on the court. The less restricted a players talents, the less meaningful the designations are as a way of thinking about them.

UcMiami - ...I lost you on some names I'm familiar with, but whose exploits I'm not. I was quite young with varied interests and a growing preoccupation with the boy species, but I do remember when Lobo led UConn to its first NC in 1995. I became a fan of women's BB much later, beginning when I crushed on Ruth Riley of ND in their 2001 NC...my cupidity then was in flux . I also paid on-and-off attention to Sue Bird at the time. I half-crushed on Svetlana as well, height on women kind of bedeviled me in a good way....but I didn't want that kind of height for myself, I was 5'9" at 15, I'm glad I ended up just shy of 6 feet (must have been my lose height regimen, lol).

I was happy when Sue and the Huskies won in 2002. Then I marveled watching Diana, whom I've considered for some time to be the GOAT...she was also the best ever during her collegiate years, in my estimation. Maya came next, and she was also a stunningly skilled player. Stef, Kiah (omg, what a specimen!) and Stewie followed...it was when I began to pay closer attention year-round to just how great the Huskies were and would be. Which brings us to the present.

I know where you're coming from with interchangeability. Good coaches tailor game plans to their players attributes, and how the team will perform best, individually and collectively. When you have the right pieces, it nearly always simulates the 1-through-5 model, or some variable of it, coaches' denials notwithstanding.

Offensively....Stewie at 6'4" with tremendous versatility fits the small forward or wing position better than she does any other. As well, Geno's spread formation, ball movement and motion offense took her all over the court, and she did her damage from everywhere, she was "programmed" to do what she does best, end result is a great player. Nearly all post up passes went to Stewie and Tuck, the two primary interior players on offense. Mo, Kia and Lou rarely set foot in the paint, unless they were crisscrossing the floor, except for Lou going for a rebound. They were the perimeter players, the 1, 2, and 3. When the defense collapsed on Stewie and Tuck, they had the open perimeter shot....when the defense stretched out to cover them, Stewie and Tuck had one-on-one situations in the paint.

Still offensively....Stewie played the 5, 4 or 3...Tuck the 4 or 3....Lou the 3 or 2....Kia the 2 or 1 ....Mo the 1. So, you had a 1, plus a 1-2, and 2-3, and 3-4 and 3-4-5 switchers. As moving targets running defenders through screens, and with crisp ball movement, they were that much harder to contain. On-court players variably played more than one position, save Mo. It wasn't so much interchangeability, but tremendous versatility (the latter is the same as the former, the former isn't necessarily the same as the latter)....which made the type of offense employed by Geno so much more potent, and compelling to watch...(with Gabby and/or Napheesa in, both were good role players, so you still had the basic model).

Defensively....Stewie mostly played the 5, she was essentially your Cleaner and Rim Protector, and Tuck the 4. Against teams with big(s), Tuck would sometimes play the 5, Stewie the 4. The other three go with the best match ups to neutralize. What is so impressive with the Huskies is their help-defense against the screen, wherein any of the 5 players switch off and wind up guarding every opponent at one time or another. Even more remarkable, they are so adept at switching back, they actually look around at who-is-doing-what-to-whom, our side and their side, to minimize mismatches in height or speed, and quickly re-balance their defense. I'd attribute half of their 40-point margin of victory to defense. Huskies defense is a work of art.

The assumption or notion that coaches, at least from high school on up, will restrict players to a positions' description is not at all valid nor credible. Neither is the idea that it would limit imagination or creativity. If such regimented "coaches" exists, they're at best casual participants who shouldn't be coaching....n'est pas?

(I've seen D1 college teams playing mostly with 4 guards and 1 forward....I'd give odds the coach was only making do with what he had. As well, it's fairly common that coaches may play 2 or 3 shorter forwards, without a center, while a much taller and likely less talented player sits).

My ideal all-UConn team would also be Sue, Diana, Maya, Breanna and Stef. On the other hand I disagree a little about "all equally capable", and with one comment about Moriah....and some other thoughts....for next time, this post is too long as it is.

 

[CocoHusky]

UcMiami - ...I lost you on some names I'm familiar with, but whose exploits I'm not. I was quite young with varied interests and a growing preoccupation with the boy species, but I do remember when Lobo led UConn to its first NC in 1995. I became a fan of women's BB much later, beginning when I crushed on Ruth Riley of ND in their 2001 NC...my cupidity then was in flux . I also paid on-and-off attention to Sue Bird at the time. I half-crushed on Svetlana as well, height on women kind of bedeviled me in a good way....but I didn't want that kind of height for myself, I was 5'9" at 15, I'm glad I ended up just shy of 6 feet (must have been my lose height regimen, lol).

I was happy when Sue and the Huskies won in 2002. Then I marveled watching Diana, whom I've considered for some time to be the GOAT...she was also the best ever during her collegiate years, in my estimation. Maya came next, and she was also a stunningly skilled player. Stef, Kiah (omg, what a specimen!) and Stewie followed...it was when I began to pay closer attention year-round to just how great the Huskies were and would be. Which brings us to the present.

I know where you're coming from with interchangeability. Good coaches tailor game plans to their players attributes, and how the team will perform best, individually and collectively. When you have the right pieces, it nearly always simulates the 1-through-5 model, or some variable of it, coaches' denials notwithstanding.

Offensively....Stewie at 6'4" with tremendous versatility fits the small forward or wing position better than she does any other. As well, Geno's spread formation, ball movement and motion offense took her all over the court, and she did her damage from everywhere, she was "programmed" to do what she does best, end result is a great player. Nearly all post up passes went to Stewie and Tuck, the two primary interior players on offense. Mo, Kia and Lou rarely set foot in the paint, unless they were crisscrossing the floor, except for Lou going for a rebound. They were the perimeter players, the 1, 2, and 3. When the defense collapsed on Stewie and Tuck, they had the open perimeter shot....when the defense stretched out to cover them, Stewie and Tuck had one-on-one situations in the paint.

Still offensively....Stewie played the 5, 4 or 3...Tuck the 4 or 3....Lou the 3 or 2....Kia the 2 or 1 ....Mo the 1. So, you had a 1, plus a 1-2, and 2-3, and 3-4 and 3-4-5 switchers. As moving targets running defenders through screens, and with crisp ball movement, they were that much harder to contain. On-court players variably played more than one position, save Mo. It wasn't so much interchangeability, but tremendous versatility (the latter is the same as the former, the former isn't necessarily the same as the latter)....which made the type of offense employed by Geno so much more potent, and compelling to watch...(with Gabby and/or Napheesa in, both were good role players, so you still had the basic model).

Defensively....Stewie mostly played the 5, she was essentially your Cleaner and Rim Protector, and Tuck the 4. Against teams with big(s), Tuck would sometimes play the 5, Stewie the 4. The other three go with the best match ups to neutralize. What is so impressive with the Huskies is their help-defense against the screen, wherein any of the 5 players switch off and wind up guarding every opponent at one time or another. Even more remarkable, they are so adept at switching back, they actually look around at who-is-doing-what-to-whom, our side and their side, to minimize mismatches in height or speed, and quickly re-balance their defense. I'd attribute half of their 40-point margin of victory to defense. Huskies defense is a work of art.

The assumption or notion that coaches, at least from high school on up, will restrict players to a positions' description is not at all valid nor credible. Neither is the idea that it would limit imagination or creativity. If such regimented "coaches" exists, they're at best casual participants who shouldn't be coaching....n'est pas?

(I've seen D1 college teams playing mostly with 4 guards and 1 forward....I'd give odds the coach was only making do with what he had. As well, it's fairly common that coaches may play 2 or 3 shorter forwards, without a center, while a much taller and likely less talented player sits).

My ideal all-UConn team would also be Sue, Diana, Maya, Breanna and Stef. On the other hand I disagree a little about "all equally capable", and with one comment about Moriah....and some other thoughts....for next time, this post is too long as it is.

Welcome aboard. Very surprised that an "Island" gurl would pick Stef over Tina Charles for a All-UCONN team. Which Island are you reppin?

 

[islandgurl]

kibitzer - ....thanks for your equally thoughtful reply....no need to debate, but we can exchange viewpoints, differing as they might be.

CocoHusky - ....I appreciate your welcome. I don't know why, as islandgurl, my pick of Stef surprises you . Tina could probably take Stef one-on-one....but Stef is the more effective team player, and alongside S,D,M,B, everyone would shine, each making the others better.
I don't really represent anyone or anything, but thanks for asking. I've used islandgurl for some time, it's an affirmation of my origins. I'm predominantly of European stock, but contrastingly flavored with Hawaiian and Japanese bloodlines....it's a teensy but compelling sliver of my lineage. I'm generations removed from long ago ancestors borne of the Hawaiian Islands, or settled there, yet I'm a composite at odds with my appearance ;-) .

 

[CocoHusky]

CocoHusky - ....I appreciate your welcome. I don't know why, as islandgurl, my pick of Stef surprises you . Tina could probably take Stef one-on-one....but Stef is the more effective team player, and alongside S,D,M,B, everyone would shine, each making the others better.

Stef is great no doubt but Tina is better IMO. That National Player of the Year award has got to count for something right? Especially when you had to beat out Maya to win it.

 

[hoophuskee]

kibitzer - ....thanks for your equally thoughtful reply....no need to debate, but we can exchange viewpoints, differing as they might be.

CocoHusky - ....I appreciate your welcome. I don't know why, as islandgurl, my pick of Stef surprises you . Tina could probably take Stef one-on-one....but Stef is the more effective team player, and alongside S,D,M,B, everyone would shine, each making the others better.
I don't really represent anyone or anything, but thanks for asking. I've used islandgurl for some time, it's an affirmation of my origins. I'm predominantly of European stock, but contrastingly flavored with Hawaiian and Japanese bloodlines....it's a teensy but compelling sliver of my lineage. I'm generations removed from long ago ancestors borne of the Hawaiian Islands, or settled there, yet I'm a composite at odds with my appearance ;-) .

you should have read the discussions of GOAT Stewie vs DT vs Maya.

I'd take MoJeff over Bird and Tina over Stef. Tina io would be more effective team palyer because in the low blocks she'd be such a force.

 

[UcMiami]

you should have read the discussions of GOAT Stewie vs DT vs Maya.

I'd take MoJeff over Bird and Tina over Stef. Tina io would be more effective team palyer because in the low blocks she'd be such a force.

Stef is great no doubt but Tina is better IMO. That National Player of the Year award has got to count for something right? Especially when you had to beat out Maya to win it.

The idea being discussed was the ability of the various players to transition from position to position on the floor, and while I would agree that Tina is a superior post player she did not have the range of Stef nor the ability to function as well as a 'point forward' in the offense. Sue vs. Moriah is really a toss-up, but the Sue/DT back court was a reality in college and has continued in the pros in Europe and on the NT team, so that is why I stuck with that. (I think Moriah has replaced Sue as the best PG in Uconn history, but I would give the slight edge to Sue as a spot up shooter (more of a 2 guard capability along the lines of the rest of the discussion.)

 

[CocoHusky]

The idea being discussed was the ability of the various players to transition from position to position on the floor, and while I would agree that Tina is a superior post player she did not have the range of Stef nor the ability to function as well as a 'point forward' in the offense. Sue vs. Moriah is really a toss-up, but the Sue/DT back court was a reality in college and has continued in the pros in Europe and on the NT team, so that is why I stuck with that. (I think Moriah has replaced Sue as the best PG in Uconn history, but I would give the slight edge to Sue as a spot up shooter (more of a 2 guard capability along the lines of the rest of the discussion.)

Even in a 1 dimension argument (offense only) I would still take Tina over Stef. It is not like Tina couldn't score-3rd all time on the UCONN scoring list, Stef is 16th. This idea of Stef range being overwhelming better also needs to looked at more carefully. Stef only attempted 49 3Pt attempts for her career. The majority (46) coming in Jr & Senior years. So on average Stef attempted 1 3pt shot every 3 games. The vast majority of both players shot attempts 96% for Stef & 99.999 % for Tina came from the same position in the post or mid post. Even if you account for Stef's 3Pt attempts, Tina was the better shooter, never shooting below 60%. I guess it deepens what you value most, range or accuracy.
I agree that Sue vs Moriah is a toss up but if you are talking offense only then I would take Sue.

 

[UcMiami]

Even in a 1 dimension argument (offense only) I would still take Tina over Stef. It is not like Tina couldn't score-3rd all time on the UCONN scoring list, Stef is 16th. This idea of Stef range being overwhelming better also needs to looked at more carefully. Stef only attempted 49 3Pt attempts for her career. The majority (46) coming in Jr & Senior years. So on average Stef attempted 1 3pt shot every 3 games. The vast majority of both players shot attempts 96% for Stef & 99.999 % for Tina came from the same position in the post or mid post. Even if you account for Stef's 3Pt attempts, Tina was the better shooter, never shooting below 60%. I guess it deepens what you value most, range or accuracy.
I agree that Sue vs Moriah is a toss up but if you are talking offense only then I would take Sue.

Again, no disagreement about Tina - but would say that Tina in college was a free throw line in player, and Stef in her last two years had extended her range to the top of the key (not three point range.) Stef was also a far superior passer who became the pivot of pretty much every offensive set the last two years. In creating the 'ideal' lineup, I was choosing 5 players who had all performed as 'point' players - Stef had almost 200 more assists which represent more than double Tina's total - I suspect she had the highest assist total for any center in Uconn history finishing with 378. Tina was clearly a much bigger threat to score, Stef was far more likely to create a scoring opportunity for a teammate. Tina was a much bigger threat in the low post, Stef was more threatening away from the blocks with greater range and better passing skills.

 

[islandgurl]

Again, no disagreement about Tina - but would say that Tina in college was a free throw line in player, and Stef in her last two years had extended her range to the top of the key (not three point range.) Stef was also a far superior passer who became the pivot of pretty much every offensive set the last two years. In creating the 'ideal' lineup, I was choosing 5 players who had all performed as 'point' players - Stef had almost 200 more assists which represent more than double Tina's total - I suspect she had the highest assist total for any center in Uconn history finishing with 378. Tina was clearly a much bigger threat to score, Stef was far more likely to create a scoring opportunity for a teammate. Tina was a much bigger threat in the low post, Stef was more threatening away from the blocks with greater range and better passing skills.

I'd like to know a little about the posters here. I've shared little bits about myself in a couple of earlier posts. I'm hoping for some reciprocity from others....any small thing one may care to share, so we're not such strangers. Here's my "gem" for this post....I'm a 30 y.o. financially secure, independent woman, but I still live with mom and dad, probably until the day I get married, which won't be anytime soon ;-) .

To the issue(s) at hand. I believe I was unambiguous in stipulating that Tina is the better individual player, while Stef is the better team player. People may disagree on both counts, which is fine.
Teamed with a great PG who can also shoot (Sue), together with 3 prolific scorers (Diana, Maya, Stewie), Stef's game can effectuate a more balanced offensive force. As UcMiami points out, she's another "point" player, has superior passing skills, and most of all, creates scoring opportunities.
Stef has a good mid-range shot to draw her defender out, leaving Breanna more room to work inside, or Maya and Diana cutting through screens for layups and closer-to-the-basket Js. These 3 are proven finishers who in turn will bring out the best in Stef's game. Each-makes-the-others-better beats any other dynamic in team play.

Tina instead of Stef means sharing the ball with yet another scorer. In a heavily offensive-minded lineup, fighting for their share of the ball is a trap which leads to one-on one isolation plays. I'll stick with Stef.

 

[hoophuskee]

I'd like to know a little about the posters here. I've shared little bits about myself in a couple of earlier posts. I'm hoping for some reciprocity from others....any small thing one may care to share, so we're not such strangers. Here's my "gem" for this post....I'm a 30 y.o. financially secure, independent woman, but I still live with mom and dad, probably until the day I get married, which won't be anytime soon ;-) .

To the issue(s) at hand. I believe I was unambiguous in stipulating that Tina is the better individual player, while Stef is the better team player. People may disagree on both counts, which is fine.
Teamed with a great PG who can also shoot (Sue), together with 3 prolific scorers (Diana, Maya, Stewie), Stef's game can effectuate a more balanced offensive force. As UcMiami points out, she's another "point" player, has superior passing skills, and most of all, creates scoring opportunities.
Stef has a good mid-range shot to draw her defender out, leaving Breanna more room to work inside, or Maya and Diana cutting through screens for layups and closer-to-the-basket Js. These 3 are proven finishers who in turn will bring out the best in Stef's game. Each-makes-the-others-better beats any other dynamic in team play.

Tina instead of Stef means sharing the ball with yet another scorer. In a heavily offensive-minded lineup, fighting for their share of the ball is a trap which leads to one-on one isolation plays. I'll stick with Stef.

I'm in my 50's-- long time basketball fan near 50 years. was never much of a player but got the chance to compete against some very good players. would never have expected when I was 10 -20 that I'd be a wcbb (also now a pro women's fan) fan and now even moreso than the men both in college and the NBA.

I would rather have tina. It's like saying to me I wouldn't want Shaq or Wilt. The other 4 players can pass well enough especially with MoJeff and DT. I would also take Lobo over Stef. In Tina's sr year, she was unstoppable. She beat out Maya Moore for POY. She schooled the freshman Griner. I don't see the trap you see. Tina could have set picks just as good as anyone else too but she was too unstoppable. If she can score on a frosh Griner- the only one I've seen over the pat 20 years in wcbb that could probably stop her is the older Griner. In her frosh year she score very well against Fowles but got schooled in the 2nd matchup. It takes a ton to stop the sr Tina Charles. You have to collapse.

And if you collapse with the other players we have? Devastating.

I didn't see enough of Lobo play. So I'll pass with her. But after three years from now- after Kate Lou's senior year- it is possible I would consider a lineup of Stewie, Moore, Katie Lou, DT and MoJeff. That accounts for the new 3pt era. I would consider a MoJeff, Sue Bird, DT, Maya and Stewie lineup. DT can play sf. I dont believe she ever did for maybe a minute or two here or there if that. But she could have if she didn't. DT imo among the best ever sg rebounders. I know some like to call EDD a sg- but she is only that "Style" on offense. And Angel is really a sf so is Augustus.

 

[islandgurl]

I'm in my 50's-- long time basketball fan near 50 years. was never much of a player but got the chance to compete against some very good players. would never have expected when I was 10 -20 that I'd be a wcbb (also now a pro women's fan) fan and now even moreso than the men both in college and the NBA.

I would rather have tina. It's like saying to me I wouldn't want Shaq or Wilt. The other 4 players can pass well enough especially with MoJeff and DT. I would also take Lobo over Stef. In Tina's sr year, she was unstoppable. She beat out Maya Moore for POY. She schooled the freshman Griner. I don't see the trap you see. Tina could have set picks just as good as anyone else too but she was too unstoppable. If she can score on a frosh Griner- the only one I've seen over the pat 20 years in wcbb that could probably stop her is the older Griner. In her frosh year she score very well against Fowles but got schooled in the 2nd matchup. It takes a ton to stop the sr Tina Charles. You have to collapse.

And if you collapse with the other players we have? Devastating.

I didn't see enough of Lobo play. So I'll pass with her. But after three years from now- after Kate Lou's senior year- it is possible I would consider a lineup of Stewie, Moore, Katie Lou, DT and MoJeff. That accounts for the new 3pt era. I would consider a MoJeff, Sue Bird, DT, Maya and Stewie lineup. DT can play sf. I dont believe she ever did for maybe a minute or two here or there if that. But she could have if she didn't. DT imo among the best ever sg rebounders. I know some like to call EDD a sg- but she is only that "Style" on offense. And Angel is really a sf so is Augustus.

hoophuskee, thanks for the personals. A question if I may, what was it that drew your interest towards wcbb?
My personals....I was athletic enough to play in a number of HS sports, but I couldn't commit to any one endeavor. I had more interests, with their attendant obligations, than I had time for. When available, I was permitted to scrimmage or practice with the players, many were my friends. The coaches were so gracious to me, and I learned a lot from them.

On Tina v Stef: I tend to think a little differently. Individual player skills, in and of itself, is a good baseline. But it's the right player combinations which give rise to great synergy, the interaction of players that when combined produces an effect greater than the sum of their individual skills. A coach is critical as well. I'm good with Stef .

My Gramps also impressed upon me the old 60s Celtics v Lakers rivalry....between the teams, LA had the 3 best offensive players on the court, in their prime....Boston had the greater synergy. The Celtics owned the Lakers through most of their years-long rivalry.

Anyway, it's an interesting discussion, let's agree to disagree on Tina v Stef.

 

[hoophuskee]

hoophuskee, thanks for the personals. A question if I may, what was it that drew your interest towards wcbb?
My personals....I was athletic enough to play in a number of HS sports, but I couldn't commit to any one endeavor. I had more interests, with their attendant obligations, than I had time for. When available, I was permitted to scrimmage or practice with the players, many were my friends. The coaches were so gracious to me, and I learned a lot from them.

On Tina v Stef: I tend to think a little differently. Individual player skills, in and of itself, is a good baseline. But it's the right player combinations which give rise to great synergy, the interaction of players that when combined produces an effect greater than the sum of their individual skills. A coach is critical as well. I'm good with Stef .

My Gramps also impressed upon me the old 60s Celtics v Lakers rivalry....between the teams, LA had the 3 best offensive players on the court, in their prime....Boston had the greater synergy. The Celtics owned the Lakers through most of their years-long rivalry.

Anyway, it's an interesting discussion, let's agree to disagree on Tina v Stef.

A friend had tickets. At the time I still loved to go out a lot- so I went. Then again. Then again etc. Then started reading up more on recruiting which I always did for the men. Just became more and more of fan as I watched them play team ball. Synergy. Like the 69-70 Knicks. They always said the sum was greater than it's parts. Like many of the old timers - me included I was brought up watching the land of the Giants dominate the game. But I loved guard and wing play. The Knicks were small bvvs Lakers and Bucks then vs Celts - didn't have Cowens power. Later Bernard King's team was small/ or nto as much power vs Celts.

Unfortunately even in the 90's and early to mid 200's I saw power win a lot - Shaq and Duncan for example. SO that's why I favor Tina. A combo in her sr year of power and athleticism.

*****Speaking of synergy what did you think of MoJeff, Bird, DT, Maya and Stewie as a synergistic lineup? When you look at one specific season for each, every one of them has at least a 2-1 assist to turnover ratio along with being over 40% from 3. Their EFG% would be 61.44% by picking a select year for all while having at least the 2-1 ratio. Who can Stef guard in this manner? There is no reason why DT could not play sf in college. And Maya was a pf and Stewie has played center. This team would arguably be the top 5 players in UCONN history. The offensive fundamentals for each are outstanding other than offensive rebounding (rebounding being a fundamental.).

 

[DaddyChoc]

Welcome aboard. Very surprised that an "Island" gurl would pick Stef over Tina Charles for a All-UCONN team. Which Island are you reppin?

 

[DaddyChoc]

the Boneyard turns into this during the off-season

 

[UcMiami]

A friend had tickets. At the time I still loved to go out a lot- so I went. Then again. Then again etc. Then started reading up more on recruiting which I always did for the men. Just became more and more of fan as I watched them play team ball. Synergy. Like the 69-70 Knicks. They always said the sum was greater than it's parts. Like many of the old timers - me included I was brought up watching the land of the Giants dominate the game. But I loved guard and wing play. The Knicks were small bvvs Lakers and Bucks then vs Celts - didn't have Cowens power. Later Bernard King's team was small/ or nto as much power vs Celts.

Unfortunately even in the 90's and early to mid 200's I saw power win a lot - Shaq and Duncan for example. SO that's why I favor Tina. A combo in her sr year of power and athleticism.

*****Speaking of synergy what did you think of MoJeff, Bird, DT, Maya and Stewie as a synergistic lineup? When you look at one specific season for each, every one of them has at least a 2-1 assist to turnover ratio along with being over 40% from 3. Their EFG% would be 61.44% by picking a select year for all while having at least the 2-1 ratio. Who can Stef guard in this manner? There is no reason why DT could not play sf in college. And Maya was a pf and Stewie has played center. This team would arguably be the top 5 players in UCONN history. The offensive fundamentals for each are outstanding other than offensive rebounding (rebounding being a fundamental.).

Ok - so history - born and raised as a faculty brat here in Storrs, went away for college, and worked in NY doing technical theater and TV stuff before joining a friend's business that took me to upstate NY, Jamaica (my island), Chicago, and then worked from home in London, Miami, and finally back to the homestead in Storrs. My dad got me started back in the 90s on watching the women, and he was pretty excited by the prospect of TASSK arriving, but died the summer they arrived on campus, so I carry on the tradition. With the advent of streaming, I was able to actually watch most of the season instead of selected 'big games' and have been addicted ever since. Was a huge fan of the Celtics in the 60s, but have slowly lost interest in the NBA as it has become a slam dunk fest. (Bill or Wilt would have sent any guard who dared come into the lane off to the ER every game until they learned that 15' and out was close enough!) Last teams I really followed were the Magic/Bird era.

So ... Hoophuskee - have never really liked Stewart playing center as she just doesn't have the bulk/strength for the match-ups and she is much more effective as a help defender against a power center than playing one straight up. Tina, Stef, and Morgan were and are more effective in that role even with Morgan's size disadvantage. Defensively Morgan is the only 'center' Uconn has deployed who could really effectively guard on the perimeter, and the last two years are the only time I can remember Uconn switching on everything - Stef's and Tina's teams proved that Uconn can play hedge defense very effectively. But the switch on everything defense was truly shocking to opponents whose 'pick and role' offenses were completely unprepared for it and generally ground to a halt - the most effective offenses against Uconn in the last two years were teams that generally played four or five out with little 'power' offense - DePaul, Stanford, ND and even Maryland.

 

[meyers7]

I've used islandgurl for some time, it's an affirmation of my origins. I'm predominantly of European stock, but contrastingly flavored with Hawaiian and Japanese bloodlines....it's a teensy but compelling sliver of my lineage. I'm generations removed from long ago ancestors borne of the Hawaiian Islands, or settled there, yet I'm a composite at odds with my appearance ;-) .

 

[hoophuskee]

Ok - so history - born and raised as a faculty brat here in Storrs, went away for college, and worked in NY doing technical theater and TV stuff before joining a friend's business that took me to upstate NY, Jamaica (my island), Chicago, and then worked from home in London, Miami, and finally back to the homestead in Storrs. My dad got me started back in the 90s on watching the women, and he was pretty excited by the prospect of TASSK arriving, but died the summer they arrived on campus, so I carry on the tradition. With the advent of streaming, I was able to actually watch most of the season instead of selected 'big games' and have been addicted ever since. Was a huge fan of the Celtics in the 60s, but have slowly lost interest in the NBA as it has become a slam dunk fest. (Bill or Wilt would have sent any guard who dared come into the lane off to the ER every game until they learned that 15' and out was close enough!) Last teams I really followed were the Magic/Bird era.

So ... Hoophuskee - have never really liked Stewart playing center as she just doesn't have the bulk/strength for the match-ups and she is much more effective as a help defender against a power center than playing one straight up. Tina, Stef, and Morgan were and are more effective in that role even with Morgan's size disadvantage. Defensively Morgan is the only 'center' Uconn has deployed who could really effectively guard on the perimeter, and the last two years are the only time I can remember Uconn switching on everything - Stef's and Tina's teams proved that Uconn can play hedge defense very effectively. But the switch on everything defense was truly shocking to opponents whose 'pick and role' offenses were completely unprepared for it and generally ground to a halt - the most effective offenses against Uconn in the last two years were teams that generally played four or five out with little 'power' offense - DePaul, Stanford, ND and even Maryland.

I am so sorry to hear about your dad. I'm so sorry. Whoa he would loved TASSK. Great that you are carrying on the tradition!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I never saw prime Wilt or Bill.

As for Stewie- she guarded players with height -- such as vs Texas and Oregon State. yes she is better vs a non-power player but how many teams have great power players? and at the other end- they have to guard Stewart which I don't know of any college power player could do. Stwart's EFG% is 62.79% her senior ear. Plus her passing is 147 assists vs 60 turnovers. that is over 2-1. Any real threat power player such as the kid from MD - can't pass. I'd have an unstoppable halfcourt offense plus my center could run like a gazelle.

Overall the team I put forth the efg% and passing is tremendous. A slow power center can't defend and the ones that are quicker aren't as much power so Stewie can defend them better.

And imo Stewie is a superior defender than Tuck on the perimeter. IMO Stewie has better lateral quickness and better recoverability. IMO Tuck's superiority comes from she can handle bulk - smaller power players better.

But when you brought up Bird and DT and the team overall- you're holding yourself to higher standards while I also had 01-02 Bird and DT, I cheated a bit putting DT in a position she never played one can believe DT may not have played well or as well at that position so my cheating wouldn't make a difference anyways. This was all fun anyways.

 

[islandgurl]

DaddyChoc....I like your humor, I've only seen a few Gilligan Island episodes, on TVLand I think, or was it on YouTube, it's been a while.

meyers7....I like some of Elton John's music, this one I don't recall listening to, so I turned to my time traveler to the past, my Gramps....he says this is a song with lyrics about a 6'3" Jamaican red light pro plying her trade in the Caribbean. I'm fairly tall, just shy of 6'0", but I'm not Jamaican, my long ago ancestors were from the islands of Hawaii....in the Pacific Ocean. As for the tie-in to a lady-for-sale, intended or otherwise....you might well be surprised ;-) . I do appreciate you trying to connect me to my origins, even if you got the wrong islands, in the wrong pond.

 

[islandgurl]

A friend had tickets. At the time I still loved to go out a lot- so I went. Then again. Then again etc. Then started reading up more on recruiting which I always did for the men. Just became more and more of fan as I watched them play team ball. Synergy. Like the 69-70 Knicks. They always said the sum was greater than it's parts. Like many of the old timers - me included I was brought up watching the land of the Giants dominate the game. But I loved guard and wing play. The Knicks were small bvvs Lakers and Bucks then vs Celts - didn't have Cowens power. Later Bernard King's team was small/ or nto as much power vs Celts.

Unfortunately even in the 90's and early to mid 200's I saw power win a lot - Shaq and Duncan for example. SO that's why I favor Tina. A combo in her sr year of power and athleticism.

*****Speaking of synergy what did you think of MoJeff, Bird, DT, Maya and Stewie as a synergistic lineup? When you look at one specific season for each, every one of them has at least a 2-1 assist to turnover ratio along with being over 40% from 3. Their EFG% would be 61.44% by picking a select year for all while having at least the 2-1 ratio. Who can Stef guard in this manner? There is no reason why DT could not play sf in college. And Maya was a pf and Stewie has played center. This team would arguably be the top 5 players in UCONN history. The offensive fundamentals for each are outstanding other than offensive rebounding (rebounding being a fundamental.).

hoophuskie.....some personals: Mom birthed me, non-bio Dad "acquired" me....or is it I acquired him? My BFF lives with us, since we were 8....she's Mom's and Dad's other daughter....I have three moms, I do call each "Mom"....one is my BFF's birth mom, who also happens to be our Big Boss at work....there's more, but that's it for now. I kinda have unconventional relationships .

Thanks for the insight on your wcbb appetite. You lean towards power, but I can see you appreciate the full game. My Gramps disagrees about Cowens as a power player, more an, quote, all out hustle kind of a guy....he thinks the old Celtics were more artful than power. I'm familiar with Duncan, he's more finesse than power (it's a given you have to have some power to play the paint). Re Shaq, I wouldn't consider him a great player, he was more thuggish than anything else, I being of the gentler gender ;-) . Almost forgot, Gramps also liked the old Knicks with 4 or 5 Hall of Famers blending well together.

I don't like Mo and Sue playing the point together, both are great PGs and good shooters, but not on the level of a true SG, which I'd prefer. I don't know enough about other past UConn SGs. I do like Lou, she'd fit as a 2, I think she'll prove herself one of UConn's all-around best when all is said and done.

 

[RSHERMVIKES]

Hey islandgurl, I'm 68 and losing my mind as most BYers can attest to.
Born in the Bronx, NY, College in Liberty, MO (home of Jessie James first bank robbery).
Taught/Wrestling Coach in Polo, MO 1 year & Plattsburg, MO 2 years
1973 moved on to East Lyme, Ct, was Elementary PE and Head Wrestling Coach, retired teaching 2000 and coaching 2002.
I've been a CT season ticket holder since 1999.
Not afraid to upset the apple cart with "out-there" statements! Strong defender of my UCONN girls over imposters from want-a-be equals!

 

[islandgurl]

UcMiami.....I'm sorry to read about your dad. I agree with you about Stewie as not really suited for the role of center. She can play all 5 positions to varying effectiveness, doesn't mean she should. Playing center v being a true center....two different things.
------------------
Rshermvikes....nice to meet you....you've gone from NY to Mizzou to Ct, Jesse James is in your geographic history, you were a teacher, wrestling coach, you're 68, now retired, losing your mind, got it all. Your last paragraph....I don't get it, I don't know what to do with it.
------------------
Re remarks comparing Sue vs Mo....it makes sense only with their collegiate careers. Mo achieved excellence her last 2 years. Sue achieved excellence her last 3. It's almost even, but I'd give a slight edge to Sue.
Any other comparative analysis lacks fairness and practical considerations. Mo has only been tested against college level talent. Sue has had a sustained run of more than 12 years as a preeminent PG playing against professionals and international competition. It's no contest, Mo doesn't belong at Sue's level just yet. Revisit the issue in 5-10 years, and it may turn out differently.

 

[hoophuskee]

hoophuskie.....some personals: Mom birthed me, non-bio Dad "acquired" me....or is it I acquired him? My BFF lives with us, since we were 8....she's Mom's and Dad's other daughter....I have three moms, I do call each "Mom"....one is my BFF's birth mom, who also happens to be our Big Boss at work....there's more, but that's it for now. I kinda have unconventional relationships .

Thanks for the insight on your wcbb appetite. You lean towards power, but I can see you appreciate the full game. My Gramps disagrees about Cowens as a power player, more an, quote, all out hustle kind of a guy....he thinks the old Celtics were more artful than power. I'm familiar with Duncan, he's more finesse than power (it's a given you have to have some power to play the paint). Re Shaq, I wouldn't consider him a great player, he was more thuggish than anything else, I being of the gentler gender ;-) . Almost forgot, Gramps also liked the old Knicks with 4 or 5 Hall of Famers blending well together.

I don't like Mo and Sue playing the point together, both are great PGs and good shooters, but not on the level of a true SG, which I'd prefer. I don't know enough about other past UConn SGs. I do like Lou, she'd fit as a 2, I think she'll prove herself one of UConn's all-around best when all is said and done.

nah. if I did lean towards power - I wouldn't have suggested a lineup of Stewart at center and Maya at pf. I like fastbreak basketball, an fine shooting and passing. though I've seen often power overtake this. And over the last two years - I've bene one to scoff at the comments made by Rebecca and Doris that pounding them inside was the formula after the MD game. I scoff at Duke's supposed great rebounding team two years ago. And two years ago before the game I said USC had no chance to beat us. Have felt and continue to feel ND is the best chance of winning this year. Some will say Baylor because of their size. I have to see their guards.

I don't agree on anything else you've s with this one specific post said here- but that's the beauty of the game- different ways to skin a cat. And you have a wonderful temperament. Unlike the Notre Dame poster this site calling my opinion regarding a player in and out as ignorant (he or she might have thought my posts to him or her were over-the-line thus on a separate thread made a comment in kind- though I don't think it was.). you seem to have a wonderful even keel.

I love Stef's game though I prefer shooting and speed vs what Stef brings when I have Stewie. I love and agree with how Geno has had some of his players play up in position such as Maya. Whatever you score against them with power- they'll offset that and beat you with skill. I'm also hopeful KLS over her career can play up as at least a 4. At the end of 1972 Jerry Lucas going head-to-head vs Abdul-Jabbar had two games of 29 and 30 vs Jabbar. He was hitting a lot of outside bombs that would have been 3's today. I do appreciate the style of skill to bring out the big man from the paint. Wilt later in his career let a guy like Reed take 15 footers. Many bigs don't want to go outside. that would be Stewie's advantage. the standard center can't defend her. I prefer that. Which is why I'm looking for to Azura. She won't be a power center either.

Or I prefer tina's power and athleticism. But Stef- her wonderful passing game- certainly is terrific. Stef making passes and setting picks certainly would mean a very free-flowing synergistic offense.

 

[islandgurl]

nah. if I did lean towards power - I wouldn't have suggested a lineup of Stewart at center and Maya at pf. I like fastbreak basketball, an fine shooting and passing. though I've seen often power overtake this. And over the last two years - I've bene one to scoff at the comments made by Rebecca and Doris that pounding them inside was the formula after the MD game. I scoff at Duke's supposed great rebounding team two years ago. And two years ago before the game I said USC had no chance to beat us. Have felt and continue to feel ND is the best chance of winning this year. Some will say Baylor because of their size. I have to see their guards.

I don't agree on anything else you've s with this one specific post said here- but that's the beauty of the game- different ways to skin a cat. And you have a wonderful temperament. Unlike the Notre Dame poster this site calling my opinion regarding a player in and out as ignorant (he or she might have thought my posts to him or her were over-the-line thus on a separate thread made a comment in kind- though I don't think it was.). you seem to have a wonderful even keel.

I love Stef's game though I prefer shooting and speed vs what Stef brings when I have Stewie. I love and agree with how Geno has had some of his players play up in position such as Maya. Whatever you score against them with power- they'll offset that and beat you with skill. I'm also hopeful KLS over her career can play up as at least a 4. At the end of 1972 Jerry Lucas going head-to-head vs Abdul-Jabbar had two games of 29 and 30 vs Jabbar. He was hitting a lot of outside bombs that would have been 3's today. I do appreciate the style of skill to bring out the big man from the paint. Wilt later in his career let a guy like Reed take 15 footers. Many bigs don't want to go outside. that would be Stewie's advantage. the standard center can't defend her. I prefer that. Which is why I'm looking for to Azura. She won't be a power center either.

Or I prefer tina's power and athleticism. But Stef- her wonderful passing game- certainly is terrific. Stef making passes and setting picks certainly would mean a very free-flowing synergistic offense.

Hi hoophuskee....brief personals....next to Dad, my Gramps is the most influential man in my life. Since forever, I love all our times together....best are the nights we spend talking about anything and everything, we'd get 4 hours of sleep, capped off by his signature bountiful breakfasts. He is impressively contemporary, and my portal to the world as it was.

Overall, I favor finesse over power; however, the argument can go either way. As I understand it, Wilt (power) got the better of Russell (more finesse, some power); Jabbar (finesse) artfully floated his sky hook over everyone, including Wilt. I remember Olajuwon (finesse) schooled Shaq (nothing but power) in a finals sweep. On the other hand, Shaq overwhelmed weaker defenders with thuggish physicality, while referees swallowed their whistles.

Stewie wasn't/isn't a natural center. As a pro, playing the 5 will needlessly drain her energy, hence durability, as well as diminish her offensive production. On occasion, fine; consistently, no. Stewie has some power, but she brings a more finesse-oriented game, on either side of the ball....more of all she does is of the artful variety than anything else. Maya also wasn't/isn't a 4. I'm still good with Stef. Otherwise you're spot on .

Thanks for the kind words about my temperament....we're expressing mostly opinions, after all. Disagreements are inevitable, wherein I prefer to leave things be....there's not much to be gained otherwise. But I do have a more provocative side, if randomly....(there is this masculine fervor I sense surrounds me on this board, lol).