- Joined
- Apr 1, 2013
- Messages
- 7,197
- Reaction Score
- 18,768
If UCONN fans were asked who was mostly likely to be a 1st Team AA between KLS and Kia, nearly everyone would choose KLS. She can do things Kia can't because of her size, and lanky build as well, but perception is a funny thing, and it can be deceiving. I'm not disparaging KLS; I think she's great. But if you go to the UCONN website and check out stats, you might be surprised. As of today, right now, comparing just these two players, Kia has played more minutes per game, has more field goals attempted and made as well as a higher field goal % made, has more 3-pointers attempted, made and higher % made, has more assists (60 to Lou's 50), and actually more blocked shots (surprisingly, 9 to Lou's 2). Lou, on the other hand, is averaging 1.7 more points per game than Kia (surprisingly, less than a bucket a game) and 4.4 rebounds per game to Kia's 3.5 (less than a rebound more per game, again, a surprise given Lou's height). I don't think many would question that Kia is the better defensive player (I'm not knocking Lou's defense, which has certainly improved considerably over the course of the season!). So, other than physical characteristics and perception, is there really that great a statistical difference between the two players, enough to say that one deserves 1st Team AA more than the other? # of Bad Ass Awards doesn't count. This board is very stats-minded, so check out the stats for yourself. I'm not saying that Kia is the better player so Lou fans should not get their shorts twisted in a bunch. I am saying that, statistically, among UCONN players, Kia has every right to be considered for 1st Team AA selection as any other UCONN player, including KLS, at this moment in time. I rest my case. All rebuttals welcome!
What you aren't looking at are "games played." That matters too. Thus to say "Kia has taken more shots and has more assists." What the voters will recognize which we will recognize is that when Lou is in the game, the team will find Lou for more shots. And when you mention "number of assists" -- as if it is relevant -- it isn't relevant much. Which do you think more relevant? "Assist average" or "more assists.?"