Top 5 players (NCAA D1 women) in each position?

[hoophuskee]

Happy Holidays to you, too. I’ll keep this pretty short since the argument is getting off course from the main topic.

I mentioned that I do understand not listing Stanford as a big game, since in hindsight it wasn’t. I was just going by the teams in the top 25 right now where Stanford is included in both polls. And I did note Cal since they are in one of the polls.

Oklahoma was a closer game, but it was not a big game by any means. If you looked at last season, would you place more value on performances against Notre Dame and South Carolina or the 2-3 point game vs TCU? Quality of opponent is what’s important IMO, not how close the game was.

In regards to the one on one comment—I agree it’s far from the end all be all, but Arike has a lot of other skills that Kia doesn’t. Just the other day she carried Notre Dame and scored 10 points in the overtime period to create separation vs. Marquette. I don’t think you’d ever see Kia take over a game like that. And while Kia is a better shooter when she standstill catch and shoots, Arike is much stronger shooter off the dribble and is a better midrange scorer. They each have their strengths. To summarize, I’d just say we can agree to disagree. Nothing wrong with that.

But you did list Stanford as a big game and used those stats to sort of downplay Nurse. And looking back at last year of Stanford or Oklahoma etc imo is irrelevant. Is Stanford a big game this year? And the answer is no. I didn't look at the polls (do the polls show Stanford at 6-6?) - I looked at ncaa rpi and Sagarin - and I glanced at Massey. Stanford is rating in the 30's while California was rated higher. So I was just asking "why Stanford?" - when I believe they have no business this year being considered a big game for our discussion purposes. You mentioned California but used the Stanford stats to downplay Nurse. Further I included Oklahoma because so far they were the 3rd closest maybe even 2nd closest in terms of being close in the 2nd half. IMO that makes them much, much, much more relevant than Stanford. I'd think in evaluating player's it is far more important to see how they did when a game was close vs a 35 halftime blowout. Because you want me to look back at last year to determine if this year is a big game -- then you would never "after-the-fact" consider saying the Tulane game which UCONN won last year "as a big game" while using those stats to define a player "in big games?" IMO last year for example the Tulane game was big. We'd want to see who can perform in the clutch while also exposing a flaw or two. When it comes to evaluating a player-- when you are up 35 at halftime with a team that is nothing more than a 6-6 team, you're not a "big game team by any means." There si no pressure on the palyers. All we learned in that game was UCONN Team was far superior and Stanford was lousy.

While you want to give big kudos for Og what she did in Overtime vs Marquette- I'd be interested to know why 1-- the ball didn't see Shepard more. And 2-- WHy was she was 4-14 from the floor vs a a team which is far superior to Marquette? Taking bad shots or missing wide open ones or something else? But going 4-14 in a close game leading into Ovt in which she is the best player and her team is far superior- I wouldn't go give her a lot of Kudos in this game. It's not like I'm not giving her credit. But this game shouldn't have reached overtime. I have her as an all-american though. She would be in my 2nd grouping at this moment. I'm interested to see her future matchups with Durr.

The reason why I get into this -- is that I disagree with you and others is that all I see is that you must look at one-on-one as a priority vs efficiency. Am I wrong? Otherwise what else relevant is Og vs Nurse when you consider Nurse is averaging 16 and outplayed Og head to head-to-head? The efficiency from Nurse is "out-of-this world" and she is scoring. An secondly you arent' giving Nurse imo anything near the credit she deserves vs Oklahoma. On this site there were some UCONN fans that last year didn't seem to appreciate Lou's ability to shoot. And over and over I read many compare players using fg% and not efg% or some other variant. FG% is flawed if you are comparing players that also shoot 3's. One can always google efg calculator and see. So it's not hard. My point is -- efficiency is important. Winning and outplaying another player head-to-head is important. Because a player can go one-on-one better doesn't make them better. When Beard and DT came out college, quite a few thought Beard was better and would be the better pro. IMO this one-on-one is superior-- it's flawed thinking unless you prove to be unstoppable.

Bill Russell once said how they'd defend Wilt was throughout the game they'd guard Wilt a bit loose so he'd take many of the shots. Late int he game they'd guard him much tighter and force him to pass. His teammates though were out-of-rhythm. When Don Nelson was a good coach early on with the Bucks there was an article in which he stated something similar. Nelson gave an example of his coaching style = though he never gave the opposing player's name but said in 1st qtr they wouldn't guard him very tough. Each qtr they would subsequently guard him tougher. By the the 4ht qtr he would say that player would never give up the ball even if you threw multiple players at him. Just because Og can go better one-on-one -- doesn't maker her better. I'd like to know why Shepard and the other ND bigs didn't get more touches vs Marquette.

 

[CocoHusky]

You don't consider Brooke McCarty from Texas as a Top 5 PG?

No so far this year.

 

[bballnut90]

But you did list Stanford as a big game and used those stats to sort of downplay Nurse. And looking back at last year of Stanford or Oklahoma etc imo is irrelevant. Is Stanford a big game this year? And the answer is no. I didn't look at the polls (do the polls show Stanford at 6-6?) - I looked at ncaa rpi and Sagarin - and I glanced at Massey. Stanford is rating in the 30's while California was rated higher. So I was just asking "why Stanford?" - when I believe they have no business this year being considered a big game for our discussion purposes. You mentioned California but used the Stanford stats to downplay Nurse. Further I included Oklahoma because so far they were the 3rd closest maybe even 2nd closest in terms of being close in the 2nd half. IMO that makes them much, much, much more relevant than Stanford. I'd think in evaluating player's it is far more important to see how they did when a game was close vs a 35 halftime blowout. Because you want me to look back at last year to determine if this year is a big game -- then you would never "after-the-fact" consider saying the Tulane game which UCONN won last year "as a big game" while using those stats to define a player "in big games?" IMO last year for example the Tulane game was big. We'd want to see who can perform in the clutch while also exposing a flaw or two. When it comes to evaluating a player-- when you are up 35 at halftime with a team that is nothing more than a 6-6 team, you're not a "big game team by any means." There si no pressure on the palyers. All we learned in that game was UCONN Team was far superior and Stanford was lousy.

While you want to give big kudos for Og what she did in Overtime vs Marquette- I'd be interested to know why 1-- the ball didn't see Shepard more. And 2-- WHy was she was 4-14 from the floor vs a a team which is far superior to Marquette? Taking bad shots or missing wide open ones or something else? But going 4-14 in a close game leading into Ovt in which she is the best player and her team is far superior- I wouldn't go give her a lot of Kudos in this game. It's not like I'm not giving her credit. But this game shouldn't have reached overtime. I have her as an all-american though. She would be in my 2nd grouping at this moment. I'm interested to see her future matchups with Durr.

The reason why I get into this -- is that I disagree with you and others is that all I see is that you must look at one-on-one as a priority vs efficiency. Am I wrong? Otherwise what else relevant is Og vs Nurse when you consider Nurse is averaging 16 and outplayed Og head to head-to-head? The efficiency from Nurse is "out-of-this world" and she is scoring. An secondly you arent' giving Nurse imo anything near the credit she deserves vs Oklahoma. On this site there were some UCONN fans that last year didn't seem to appreciate Lou's ability to shoot. And over and over I read many compare players using fg% and not efg% or some other variant. FG% is flawed if you are comparing players that also shoot 3's. One can always google efg calculator and see. So it's not hard. My point is -- efficiency is important. Winning and outplaying another player head-to-head is important. Because a player can go one-on-one better doesn't make them better. When Beard and DT came out college, quite a few thought Beard was better and would be the better pro. IMO this one-on-one is superior-- it's flawed thinking unless you prove to be unstoppable.

Bill Russell once said how they'd defend Wilt was throughout the game they'd guard Wilt a bit loose so he'd take many of the shots. Late int he game they'd guard him much tighter and force him to pass. His teammates though were out-of-rhythm. When Don Nelson was a good coach early on with the Bucks there was an article in which he stated something similar. Nelson gave an example of his coaching style = though he never gave the opposing player's name but said in 1st qtr they wouldn't guard him very tough. Each qtr they would subsequently guard him tougher. By the the 4ht qtr he would say that player would never give up the ball even if you threw multiple players at him. Just because Og can go better one-on-one -- doesn't maker her better. I'd like to know why Shepard and the other ND bigs didn't get more touches vs Marquette.

Like I said, I was putting stats from games against teams in the top 25 since that’s usually the best measure of opponent quality. That’s why Stanford was included while Oklahoma wasn’t.

I value performances against stronger teams more than games against lesser teams that are close in margin. Typically the closer games are against better teams, but if not I usually believe it’s a reflection of UCONN not playing well rather than the opposing team proving they can hang with the Huskies.

I didn’t see the Notre Dame-Marquette game so I cannot comment on it other than what I saw in box score. It didn’t appear that she had a great first 40 minutes, but she took over overtime. Marquette is also on the cusp of being a top 25 team and pushed Notre Dame and Tennessee to overtime. I agree, it probably shouldn’t have gone to overtime based on talent, but Marquette is no slouch.

Kia is the more efficient shooter. I’m not questioning that and I’ve admitted that. A big part of that is due to the vast vast majority of her shots being uncontested jumpers and layups. To her credit, she’s hitting her shots and is more efficient. That’s probably her strongest argument for being on a team at this point.

And in regards to focusing on one on one play, if you reread my post, I also stated, “Arike is much stronger shooter off the dribble and is a better midrange scorer.”

In addition to those skills, she’s a better ball handler, better at getting to the line, better at taking the ball to the basket, she’s quicker, a stronger rebounder, has a faster release and finishes better with contact. Lots of things outside of one on one play.

Also—passing wise, Arike is much improved and her assists and A/TO ratio is about the same as Kia’s this year.

I don’t find the Chamberlain comparison at all relevant when looking at Arike.

 

[GoCardinal]

UConn’s offense isn’t centered around isolation and me ball like Notre Dame’s sometimes is. So Kia likely won’t “take over a game” because their offense requires the ball to move around until there’s an open shot. This is why no one’s individual stats pop out. Any of them can go for 20+ any night.

 

[bballnut90]

UConn’s offense isn’t centered around isolation and me ball like Notre Dame’s sometimes is. So Kia likely won’t “take over a game” because their offense requires the ball to move around until there’s an open shot. This is why no one’s individual stats pop out. Any of them can go for 20+ any night.

True—but players at UCONN can take over games even if the offense is focused on ball movement. Gabby took over many games last year, any of the Big 3 from 2016 could take over games, KLS/Collier have taken over games too. Kia scores almost all of her points on layups and uncontested jumpers. She rarely makes big plays besides these on the offensive end, let alone stringing multiple plays together on the offensive end. Can she? Maybe, but we haven’t seen her do that yet. That’s what I’m referring to when talking about taking over a game.

 

[GoCardinal]

True—but players at UCONN can take over games even if the offense is focused on ball movement. Gabby took over many games last year, any of the Big 3 from 2016 could take over games, KLS/Collier have taken over games too. Kia scores almost all of her points on layups and uncontested jumpers. She rarely makes big plays besides these on the offensive end, let alone stringing multiple plays together on the offensive end. Can she? Maybe, but we haven’t seen her do that yet. That’s what I’m referring to when talking about taking over a game.

Fair point, but I think she just understands her role for that particular team. I think in international play for team Canada she takes on more of an aggressive scoring role.

 

[hoophuskee]

Like I said, I was putting stats from games against teams in the top 25 since that’s usually the best measure of opponent quality. That’s why Stanford was included while Oklahoma wasn’t.

I value performances against stronger teams more than games against lesser teams that are close in margin. Typically the closer games are against better teams, but if not I usually believe it’s a reflection of UCONN not playing well rather than the opposing team proving they can hang with the Huskies.

I didn’t see the Notre Dame-Marquette game so I cannot comment on it other than what I saw in box score. It didn’t appear that she had a great first 40 minutes, but she took over overtime. Marquette is also on the cusp of being a top 25 team and pushed Notre Dame and Tennessee to overtime. I agree, it probably shouldn’t have gone to overtime based on talent, but Marquette is no slouch.

Kia is the more efficient shooter. I’m not questioning that and I’ve admitted that. A big part of that is due to the vast vast majority of her shots being uncontested jumpers and layups. To her credit, she’s hitting her shots and is more efficient. That’s probably her strongest argument for being on a team at this point.

And in regards to focusing on one on one play, if you reread my post, I also stated, “Arike is much stronger shooter off the dribble and is a better midrange scorer.”

In addition to those skills, she’s a better ball handler, better at getting to the line, better at taking the ball to the basket, she’s quicker, a stronger rebounder, has a faster release and finishes better with contact. Lots of things outside of one on one play.

Also—passing wise, Arike is much improved and her assists and A/TO ratio is about the same as Kia’s this year.

I don’t find the Chamberlain comparison at all relevant when looking at Arike.

Ha- just like the old days on the old espn board in which you and I disagree on nearly everything.

Everything you said here is a combination of either wrong, irrelevant and bias/or just throwing things out there to keep the fight alive. I was about to post a detailed reply but decided against it. I didn't want to appear "mad" and maybe I thought many on this site would be bored with our continual debate. But everything you've said here just doesn't make sense/or not relevant/or bias or a combo vs our original argument of "college all-americans."

 

[Plebe]

View attachment 27157

I'm assuming that you meant Teaira McCowan (of Mississippi State), rather than Tierra McGowan (of Morehead State)?

Two different players—with uncannily similar names, and both of whom play for "MSU"—currently side-by-side in the NCAA rebounding stats: