2 minutes of all Tiff

[DaddyChoc]

she scored straight 5pt in 2 minute span snagged 2DR and a OR... and got a steal.

She stopped Stanford's run after they went up 2pts and energized the Huskies with her dirty work.


GOOD! JUMPER by Dolson, Stefanie 14:33 36-36 T 8
ASSIST by Hayes, Tiffany 14:33
REBOUND (DEF) by Hayes, Tiffany 14:02
MISSED 3 PTR by MOSQUEDA-LEWIS, K. 13:47
REBOUND (OFF) by Dolson, Stefanie 13:47
GOOD! LAYUP by Hayes, Tiffany [PNT] 13:40 38-36 H 2
ASSIST by Faris, Kelly 13:40
GOOD! 3 PTR by Hayes, Tiffany 13:10 41-38 H 3
ASSIST by Hartley, Bria 13:10
REBOUND (DEF) by Hayes, Tiffany 12:45
MISSED FT SHOT by Faris, Kelly 12:24
REBOUND (OFF) by (DEADBALL) 12:24
MISSED FT SHOT by Faris, Kelly 12:24
REBOUND (OFF) by Hayes, Tiffany 12:24

and that kick out pass to Doty for the 3 was awesome

 

[VAMike23]

Truly awesome stretch by Tiff Hayes !!!

So by posting about this 2 minute stretch and not bringing up any info in your post, you're implying that she was incredible and perfect the entire game, right.....? [This is for the sake of argument hehe.]

 

[Phil]

That wasn't my interpretation - I've seen a surprising amount of negative posting, so it is understandable that someone might want to counter with some actual evidence that she was very involved.

 

[Icebear]

Stretches like that happen for almost every player. Statistically they mean nothing. Tiff should and does have stretches like this regularly.

 

[VAMike23]

That wasn't my interpretation - I've seen a surprising amount of negative posting, so it is understandable that someone might want to counter with some actual evidence that she was very involved.

Understood - however such evidence is also well-represented in those same threads as 'push-back', hence the long, drawn out and heated nature of those threads.

 

[NCorBust]

That wasn't my interpretation - I've seen a surprising amount of negative posting, so it is understandable that someone might want to counter with some actual evidence that she was very involved.

.
Right on! Geno said Tiff had a great deal to do with UCONN beating Stanford. Anyone else's opinion pales in my mind. Scoring is one of many ways to contribute. She was not the only player having trouble shooting the b-ball. But they all contributed with their overall efforts.
.

 

[VAMike23]

.
Right on! Geno said Tiff had a great deal to do with UCONN beating Stanford. Anyone else's opinion pales in my mind. Scoring is one of many ways to contribute. She was not the only player having trouble shooting the b-ball. But they all contributed with their overall efforts.
.

I happen to completely agree with you...! But this has nothing to do with why asked DC the question.

 

[NCorBust]

I happen to completely agree with you...! But this has nothing to do with why asked DC the question.

.
Personnally I don't think he was implying she played a perfect game. He was simply taken with her performance and contributions in a 2 minute span. The reader provides the implication.
.

 

[DaddyChoc]

crucial point in the game IMO... as Stanford came back AND took the lead for a few seconds.

 

[VAMike23]

.
Personnally I don't think he was implying she played a perfect game. He was simply taken with her performance and contributions in a 2 minute span. The reader provides the implication.
.

Cool--you already made my point for me!

DC talks about a great stretch of play by Tiff Hayes, and the reader provides any other implications. He is not passing judgment on her whole performance, or saying she was perfect for the entire game, or that she sucked the entire game, or that the moon is made of cheese. He is saying, here was a great stretch by Tiff, to show evidence of her positive impact. All good.

My point is that on the flip side, readers are far too quick to get bent out of shape by providing their own 'implication' when it comes to posts that offer criticism or 'negative' info. Sure there may be a few posts that put out a blanket statement that Tiff or someone else was just bad the whole game, but this is a distinct minority--and I'd disagree with that statement just as much as you would. But mostly you have people that said she rushed shots, or that she didn't play with the poise you'd like to see in a senior on the offensive end (I posted to that effect in one of the threads) or things like that. There shouldn't be so many automatic, knee-jerk reaction to these things. They aren't personal attacks--those have no place on the BY, as mods have made clear. If I say a critical thing about Tiff against Stanford, as an example, it doesn't mean that's the only thing I have to say about her performance. It just means it's the only thing I talked about in that post. I may very well have said made positive statements about the same player's performance in another thread or another post. Should we start cluttering up the board by copying and pasting this stuff as a disclaimer in every post that has anything remotely critical to say? I don't think that would be too popular.

Many of the threads on the BY that grow into 5 and 6 page arguments could be reduced to 2 pages if people were not in such a rush to add their own implications to posts that are negative or critical in some way. Argue the point--but we don't need to argue against our own implications, straw man or whatever.

 

[EricLA]

Right on! Geno said Tiff had a great deal to do with UCONN beating Stanford. Anyone else's opinion pales in my mind. Scoring is one of many ways to contribute. She was not the only player having trouble shooting the b-ball. But they all contributed with their overall efforts..

i think that is a terrific point and agree whole heartedly. having said that, she still does things that are head scratching...

having said that, you pointed out that Geno said Tiff h ad a great deal to do with the win. if he says that, it's good enough for me. i also am a bit surprised at the amount of real negative criticism of Tiff - but i think maybe people felt expectations were too high for her.

I recall Geno's comments that Tiff was practicing great, or that she was the best player on the court, or that she improved the most, or whatever - i don't recall exactly, but it was something along those lines no? if he says things like that it's bound it heighten fans' expectations for Tiff...

then again, i think he also said Kelly's offense was vastly improved...

 

[01Neaggrad02]

she scored straight 5pt in 2 minute span snagged 2DR and a OR... and got a steal.

She stopped Stanford's run after they went up 2pts and energized the Huskies with her dirty work.

GOOD! JUMPER by Dolson, Stefanie 14:33 36-36 T 8
ASSIST by Hayes, Tiffany 14:33
REBOUND (DEF) by Hayes, Tiffany 14:02
MISSED 3 PTR by MOSQUEDA-LEWIS, K. 13:47
REBOUND (OFF) by Dolson, Stefanie 13:47
GOOD! LAYUP by Hayes, Tiffany [PNT] 13:40 38-36 H 2
ASSIST by Faris, Kelly 13:40
GOOD! 3 PTR by Hayes, Tiffany 13:10 41-38 H 3
ASSIST by Hartley, Bria 13:10
REBOUND (DEF) by Hayes, Tiffany 12:45
MISSED FT SHOT by Faris, Kelly 12:24
REBOUND (OFF) by (DEADBALL) 12:24
MISSED FT SHOT by Faris, Kelly 12:24
REBOUND (OFF) by Hayes, Tiffany 12:24

and that kick out pass to Doty for the 3 was awesome

MISSED LAYUP by Hayes, Tiffany 16:59
REBOUND (OFF) by Hayes, Tiffany 16:59
MISSED LAYUP by Hayes, Tiffany 16:57
REBOUND (OFF) by Hayes, Tiffany 16:57
TURNOVR by Hayes, Tiffany 16:55

 

[Ozzie Nelson]

That wasn't my interpretation - I've seen a surprising amount of negative posting, so it is understandable that someone might want to counter with some actual evidence that she was very involved.

Exactly, Phil.

 

[Phil]

Cool--you already made my point for me!

Many of the threads on the BY that grow into 5 and 6 page arguments could be reduced to 2 pages if people were not in such a rush to add their own implications to posts that are negative or critical in some way. Argue the point--but we don't need to argue against our own implications, straw man or whatever.

You say that like it is a good thing. Some of us are paid by the word, and reducing a six page discussion to two is not in our interests.

 

[tomcat]

I really appreciated this post because it pointed out something I hadn't realized as I watched the game. I remember the sequence and how well UConn had played at that point. What I didn't realize was how much Tiffany had to do with it. As someone who has found her play to most often be a source of frustration, it's nice to see her make a very solid contribution, and at a time when the team really needed it.

 

[DaddyChoc]

MISSED LAYUP by Hayes, Tiffany 16:59
REBOUND (OFF) by Hayes, Tiffany 16:59
MISSED LAYUP by Hayes, Tiffany 16:57
REBOUND (OFF) by Hayes, Tiffany 16:57
TURNOVR by Hayes, Tiffany 16:55

thanks.... tack on 2 more rebounds, 2 misses and a TO

2-4FG's 50%....and 6 rebounds in about 5 minutes and ONE turnover, Tiff was awesome as Stanford was rallying early in the 2nd half!

BTW 5'10 going hard against the tree is what I see, back to back attempts and rebounds GO Hayes

 

[MilfordHusky]

Geno was happy with Tiff's contributions, which is the important point. I'd like to see her reduce the wild shots on drives, but I am a big Tiffany supporter. We've won 117 games since she arrived.

 

[Kibitzer]

It was not especially remarkable that a fine player helped to effect a turnover in our fortunes at a moment when the issue was in doubt.

What WAS remarkable was that apparently several Boneyarders all answered a bladder call simultaneously as this momentous sequence of plays occurred. As a result, they were blissfully unaware that Tiffany made an important contribution to the UConn victory.

Once relieved, they were able to return to their TV and focus their attention on other moments in the game. Then write about it tirelessly, critically, and tediously.

 

[Icebear]

Geno was happy with Tiff's contributions, which is the important point. I'd like to see her reduce the wild shots on drives, but I am a big Tiffany supporter. We've won 117 games since she arrived.

And as always that is the only thing that counts.

I did notice something in the game. Stanford players were, finally, overplaying Tiff to her left and forcing her to her right. Two or three times when they did that she got her footwork tangled up when driving to the hoop and attempted awkward shots or passes. That is indeed not unusual when folks are forced to one's offhand. For a long time teams have not made that adjustment on her. Tiff, also took three 3s early in shot clocks that were probably too early. I mention simply to note that these are all highly visible and far easier for most to see than than equally critical and needed work she did on the boards, especially offensive boards, and defensively.

As to the issue of basketball IQ and whether it is a bigoted term and attack, yes and no. That ambiguity makes it fraught with danger when it is used. Nykesha, Swin, Ashley Battle, Brittany Hunter, Kaili, Rene, Bria, and Kaleena all have demonstrated high basketball IQ as I have watched games over the years. I could even add a few more. Oh, and I could even add some, not all of the white players. Point is that basketball IQ doesn't have a racial basis. It is about how kids, and observers, see the game, it's flow, anticipate where it is going and react to it in a proactive manner. It is a combination of knowledge and intelligence involving interpretation and reaction.

Unfortunately, it, basketball IQ, can be used in a bigoted and dismissive manner and in therein lies the rub.

Equally unhelpful, however, is constant defensiveness about such things because both the bigotry and the defensiveness undermine real discussion and, most of all, insight and understanding.

As great as Tiff's game is there are numerous things she can do better, pointing out those things in a concrete manner and with understanding of how to correct it is not attacking her, when you get paid for it it is called coaching. When done well and accurately without pay it can be being a fan.

 

[NCorBust]

Read this: Tif played great
.

MISSED LAYUP by Hayes, Tiffany 16:59
REBOUND (OFF) by Hayes, Tiffany 16:59
MISSED LAYUP by Hayes, Tiffany 16:57
REBOUND (OFF) by Hayes, Tiffany 16:57
TURNOVR by Hayes, Tiffany 16:55

 

[boontonbomber]

I really appreciated this post because it pointed out something I hadn't realized as I watched the game. I remember the sequence and how well UConn had played at that point. What I didn't realize was how much Tiffany had to do with it. As someone who has found her play to most often be a source of frustration, it's nice to see her make a very solid contribution, and at a time when the team really needed it.

one of the reasons that we don't always know who is contributing what, is the poor play-by-play that we get, no matter who the announcers are. the game is much better followed if the visual is accompanied by thorough audio , identifying players who shoot,foul, rebound, pass,etc. i thought that mowins and lobo did a very poor job handling the stanford game. almost like they were graduates of the picozzi,culmo school.