Analysis of post-game comments from 7 losses

[cardfan]

And yet, Stanford had Nneka Ogwumike and Chiney Ogwumike, both of whom were ranked #1 by at least one national recruiting service, and did not win a national title.

Elizabeth Williams was ranked as the #1 recruit by more than one recruiting service (over KML), and Duke has yet to make the Final Four in her first two seasons.

Agian, my point that UConn gets #1 player year and year in all positions. You can't win with just post player, see Griner. Stanford had two #1 players in twenty so odd years, they were two years apart and both post players. They did make it to 2 F4s when they played together, but we've always had bad luck with injuries to our guards. We should have won in Indy, but blew it, but A&M was a bad match-up for us in the back court, where the O sisters did not play. We should have won in San Antonio, too but Maya, clearly the #1 player, took over. Didn't help that Appel was hurt.

 

[TroyHouse66]

"So it’s a very good learning experience for us as a team.
"Without question it’s great for us to learn
There are some great lessons for us to learn from.
And I think, hopefully, we're going to learn a valuable lesson when we watch on film...
It's a great lesson for us. We need to learn.
we've got to learn from that.

QUESTION:
If we keep inviting her to Training Camp...
shouldn't we be charging tuition?

 

[Buzzyboy]

Everyone is saying what a great recruiter McCallie is and yes she has recently recruited a ton of talent but where is the growth of this Talent? As a coach is she getting the most out of her palyers?
Also Duke as a school has helped a great deal with the recruiting, strong academics, beautiful campus etc.
Bottom line with the talent she has had lately ,she has not done much in the NCAA tournaments. She is not a good X's and O's coach, cannot make half-time adjustments or game adjustments. I am not impressed. Also I have read a lot of things today and don't see much recognition for the job Uconn did against but rather " we did not rebound, play defense or offense", give Uconn credit for preventing this from Happening.

I think the major part of what "Duke needs" can't necessarily be resolved with half time adjustments or game adjustments. The coaching staff at UConn might tweak this a little or do that a little but primarily what makes them who they are starts in training camp. The relentless reinforcement of principles, the unwillingness to let the players have a play off, the demand for players to "strive for perfection", knowing that it'll never be attained but still the relentless search for it. To never be completely satisfied with your game because there's always something that you could have done a little better. When day after day, week after week you integrate these kids into that mindset, they're prepared for just about any contingency that could possible be put forth to them. They're less competing against Duke or Stanford or Louisville but more against themselves and that can't be something that could be thrown into a halftime coaches speech. You also have to have kids that are willing to buy into it because they've come to know what the rewards can and will be if they do so completely.

 

[TroyHouse66]

RE: Team Boneyard
(or "On a Wing and a Player")

I still have my ol' Bloomfield (orange 'n blue!) home whites.
I'll take a Wing!!

[However, if you take into consideration all of the drumsticks taken between then & now...
I wouldn't expect much on a "fast break"...
or any kind of fasting...
actually expect more like a coffee break...
is the Famous Manny's still open on Blue Hills Ave?]

 

[Buzzyboy]

I don't think for a second that McCallie is in the same league with Geno, but I would ask, assuming a UConn starting lineup of Dolson, Stewart, Mosqueda-Lewis, Hartley and Jefferson, 'which players on the Duke team would start at UConn?' ...certainly not Williams, Peters or Liston and probably not Jones...maybe Gray, but that's not a certainty either. 'Which Duke subs would play ahead of UConn's bench?' Chidom or Cooper over Tuck or Stokes? I don't think so. I don't think I'd take Jackson or Wells over Banks? Add in the best coaching staff in the game and is it so hard to see why Duke gets thumped?

Of course the UConn kids would be who you'd have in your starting lineup if you could have either. The reason is more how they developed in the UConn program than who was the better players coming out of high school. If you had a choice of Williams or Dolson coming out of high school, I think most people here would have probably gone with Williams but Williams hasn't developed to any extent at all while Dolson has continued to improve exponentially every year. Of course you'd have to be an idiot to prefer Williams at this point. You might have taken Gray instead of her UConn counterpart out of high school but at this point, probably not. Again, it has to do with how they've evolved. I think this holds true for most or all of the Duke players who's development hasn't been nearly as impressive as their counterparts on UConn. KML and Breanna are two exceptional players who anyone in their right mind would have taken out of high school before any of their peers. But even then, you can see how much KML has become so much more rounded a player in the two years plus she's been under Geno's wing. Hopefully, we'll see Breanna's development being comparable to KML's.

 

[Wbbfan1]

If Louisville gets to go to the Stanford regional with Stanford as the #1 seed, I can see them getting out of there to go to the Final Four. Louisville can shoot themselves into the Final Four like they did last year. I can also see them beating Duke if Duke is somehow able to get a #1 seed, especially if these two teams end up in Nebraska.

As of today, I like Louisville's chances of getting to the Final Four more then I like Duke's chances. Could easily change my mind if Duke is able to handle ND in ACC Conference Play.

 

[pap49cba]

Could easily change my mind if Duke is able to handle ND in ACC Conference Play.

IMO McGraw vs. McCallie will be another epic mis-match.

 

[doggydaddy]

Agian, my point that UConn gets #1 player year and year in all positions. You can't win with just post player, see Griner. Stanford had two #1 players in twenty so odd years, they were two years apart and both post players. They did make it to 2 F4s when they played together, but we've always had bad luck with injuries to our guards. We should have won in Indy, but blew it, but A&M was a bad match-up for us in the back court, where the O sisters did not play. We should have won in San Antonio, too but Maya, clearly the #1 player, took over. Didn't help that Appel was hurt.

"UConn gets #1 player year and year in all positions"

Not true.

2013? Nope. Chong, while she did win a couple of nice awards, is not the #1 player.
2012? Yep. Stewart
2011? KML some recruiting services but Williams was #1 in more
2010? Nope
2009? Nope
2008? For a minute. But Nope.
2007? Yep. Moore
2006? Charles? I don't know if she was #1 but close enough
2005? Nope
2004? Nope

Last 10 years.

Stewart - Forward/Center
KML - Forward/Guard
Moore - Forward
Charles - Center

I know they play like they have a #1 player at every position, but they don't. And guards are rarely #1. I hope you noticed that UConn didn't have any.

 

[DobbsRover2]

I don't think Louisville will make the F4, last year was freakish, or Kim Mulkey's choke job.

I understand the difference between h.s. and college ball, I'm talking about god given talent, KML and Stewie have it (like Diana, Maya, etc). Again, I'm not talking about highly ranked players, but THE #1 player. Those players are game changers, you have them, and others don't.

Sure, and Louisville won a few games after that choke job so it wasn't just a freak out, and being rated #3 so far puts them squarely in position to go back, which would be decidedly not freaky.

How many #1 players and AA's does it take to win an NC? Not sure. When you have a DT or a Parker that can take over a game, you just need a solid supporting cast. ND won a title with the main player being a post, though Riley had some strong players like Siemon and Ivey around her. But you wouldn't necessarily choose to go for an NC with MD's Langhorne, or Baylor's Young, or Texas A&M's Adams as your star player. Sometimes just a strong enough cast of non-superstars gets the job done.

And even with a DT for the 2003 and 2004 NCs against UTenn, who is the player that Vol fans often point to as the "killer"? Why a certain guard whose only god-given talent was to be slow and dependable, and whose crucial steals and 3's reminded the Orange that they never learned how to solve a problem like Maria.

 

[doggydaddy]

If Louisville gets to go to the Stanford regional with Stanford as the #1 seed, I can see them getting out of there to go to the Final Four. Louisville can shoot themselves into the Final Four like they did last year. I can also see them beating Duke if Duke is somehow able to get a #1 seed, especially if these two teams end up in Nebraska.

As of today, I like Louisville's chances of getting to the Final Four more then I like Duke's chances. Could easily change my mind if Duke is able to handle ND in ACC Conference Play.

If UConn beats Louisville by more than they beat Duke, does that change your mind?

 

[Wbbfan1]

No way Stanford beats Baylor if Sims plays 20+ minutes. Sims would have made more then a two point difference between 3 minutes played vs 20 minutes played. However, that game was an indication that Baylor's system relied on Sims and Griner for points and if either were taken out of the game for any period of time Baylor was beatable. That's what happened in Baylor's loss to Louisville.

Yes, it does. Look at the years UConn won vs when they didn't win or make it to the F4. Personnel (and health). I predicted Baylor would lose. Stanford beat them early in the year remember, even without Sims, because they didn't play like a team, 2 players cannot beat a good, smart team.

 

[pap49cba]

Geno always has said you need three great scorers to win a NC. Of course it doesn't hurt if you play great defense as well.

 

[CamrnCrz1974]

Agian, my point that UConn gets #1 player year and year in all positions. You can't win with just post player, see Griner. Stanford had two #1 players in twenty so odd years, they were two years apart and both post players. They did make it to 2 F4s when they played together, but we've always had bad luck with injuries to our guards. We should have won in Indy, but blew it, but A&M was a bad match-up for us in the back court, where the O sisters did not play. We should have won in San Antonio, too but Maya, clearly the #1 player, took over. Didn't help that Appel was hurt.

Actually, your point was they got the #1 player. Now it is that they get the #1 player at all positions?

Stanford had the Ogwumike sisters together for two years, plus the PAC 12 POY in Pohlen...and made the Final Four.

If you look at UConn, only KML and Stewart were the #1 players (and #1 at their positions). Hartley was highly regarded and a top ten player, but not #1 at her position. Dolson was not #1 at her position (and was a top 30-top 40 recruit by some recruiting services).

You are making your conclusion first, then trying to go back for the support. It is not there, and it is not true.

Duke has more elite level talent in terms of high school accolades/awards/All-American honors than any other team in the country and cannot sniff a Final Four. That has nothing to do with not getting the top overall player and more to do with the coaching and Xs and Os.

 

[intlzncster]

Having the #1 player in WCBB (not talking about high school rankings) usually results in a Championship (looking back through the 00s). But isn't that just common sense? Best player / best team is often a symbiotic relationship.

The only teams that failed to do it since 2001(looking at both AP and Naismith POY) were: LSU with Seimone Augustus. Duke With Beard. And Duke with Lindsey Harding. Admittedly, that's a very subjective calculation. The truly transcendent players in that time, were Maya, Diana, and Candace. They got 7 NCs among them.

All that said, it doesn't guarantee it. There are a whole lot of other variables.

 

[ScarlettB]

Actually, your point was they got the #1 player. Now it is that they get the #1 player at all positions?

Stanford had the Ogwumike sisters together for two years, plus the PAC 12 POY in Pohlen...and made the Final Four.

If you look at UConn, only KML and Stewart were the #1 players (and #1 at their positions). Hartley was highly regarded and a top ten player, but not #1 at her position. Dolson was not #1 at her position (and was a top 30-top 40 recruit by some recruiting services).

You are making your conclusion first, then trying to go back for the support. It is not there, and it is not true.

Duke has more elite level talent in terms of high school accolades/awards/All-American honors than any other team in the country and cannot sniff a Final Four. That has nothing to do with not getting the top overall player and more to do with the coaching and Xs and Os.

Cam, I feel your pain, RU has had lots of talent over the years and a Hall of Fame coach, but no NC. Sometimes I think it has a lot to do with team chemistry and too many talented kids not really buying into the coach's system, just doesn't work. In such situations, you would be better off with lesser talent, but kids who enjoy playing together and believe in what the coach is selling (i.e Butler on the men's side). IMO coach P is a decent coach, but not on the level of Geno, Muffet or even GG., but there really aren't many out there who are. Who would you like to see take over the program?

 

[DobbsRover2]

Having the #1 player in WCBB (not talking about high school rankings) usually results in a Championship (looking back through the 00s). But isn't that just common sense? Best player / best team is often a symbiotic relationship.

The only teams that failed to do it since 2001(looking at both AP and Naismith POY) were: LSU with Seimone Augustus. Duke With Beard. And Duke with Lindsey Harding. Admittedly, that's a very subjective calculation. The truly transcendent players in that time, were Maya, Diana, and Candace. They got 7 NCs among them.

All that said, it doesn't guarantee it. There are a whole lot of other variables.

What does "usually" mean? I guess to some it might mean more than 50% of the time.

In the last 20 years, the Naismith winner has played on the NC winner 11 times ( and in the 31 years of the award, it's just 14 times). That's a significant contribution for the last 20 years, but that still leaves 9 teams that didn't get the NC without the best player, and why Baylor in 2013 was left off your list, I'm not sure. Many would consider Griner a transcendent player by her stats.

Simply put, having the top player with either a very strong cast or another top-5 player can often get you an NC, but there are times like with Griner and Sims last year, or perhaps a Naismith winner Catchings in 2000 backed by Lawson and Clement that still falls well short. On the other hand, move Beard and the Duke team from 2004 to 2005 and they could well have won that NC game against MD in a diminished year. There is no magic formula for an NC other than true grit to the very end.

 

[pvdoggy]

Agian, my point that UConn gets #1 player year and year in all positions. You can't win with just post player, see Griner. Stanford had two #1 players in twenty so odd years, they were two years apart and both post players. They did make it to 2 F4s when they played together, but we've always had bad luck with injuries to our guards. We should have won in Indy, but blew it, but A&M was a bad match-up for us in the back court, where the O sisters did not play. We should have won in San Antonio, too but Maya, clearly the #1 player, took over. Didn't help that Appel was hurt.

Should have, could have, if and but...
sounds like what I say every time I tee it up.

 

[intlzncster]

What does "usually" mean? I guess to some it might mean more than 50% of the time.

In the last 20 years, the Naismith winner has played on the NC winner 11 times ( and in the 31 years of the award, it's just 14 times). That's a significant contribution for the last 20 years, but that still leaves 9 teams that didn't get the NC without the best player, and why Baylor in 2013 was left off your list, I'm not sure. Many would consider Griner a transcendent player by her stats.

Simply put, having the top player with either a very strong cast or another top-5 player can often get you an NC, but there are times like with Griner and Sims last year, or perhaps a Naismith winner Catchings in 2000 backed by Lawson and Clement that still falls well short. On the other hand, move Beard and the Duke team from 2004 to 2005 and they could well have won that NC game against MD in a diminished year. There is no magic formula for an NC other than true grit to the very end.

I did say it doesn't guarantee it. I only glanced at the lists (hence the Baylor omission). You could change the word 'usually' if you like.

I would argue that WCBB is so different from the past; you can throw out the old statistics. They are as meaningless as 1872 baseball stats (hyp). Where can you draw the line? I have no idea, but just in watching Geno's teams over the years, it is no longer the same game as it once was (as Lobo has mentioned several times). It makes sense to favor more recent history in that case. Which is why I looked at (arbitrarily) the 00's.

Using just the Naismith:

Past 5 years - 4x (80%)
Past 10 - 6x (60%)
Past 15 - 9x (60%)
Past 20 - 11x (55%)

Those are big numbers imo. Obviously, this is dependent on what voters say (which is subjective too) in this specific analysis. The person voted the best, isn't always the best. For instance, Parker was a better player than Harding, I don't care about their stats that year. If I'm making a team of college players, I'm taking Parker over Harding. Since 1998, that's the only one of the Naismith's I'd have a big issue with though.

This year, I expect voters to vote for Odyssey Simms. Even though the best player might play for UCONN. So the percentage would drop.

At any rate, in WCBB, I'd consider having the best player one the most significant factors in winning a championship. It doesn't guarantee anything, as we've seen, but the odds certainly favor it.

 

[cardfan]

But Geno got KML to post up and play defense and Stewie to pass. As Jim Foster said, he "does more with more."

He also made Stef, generally a top 30 high school player, into a consensus top 5-10 in her class.

I think that, in many years, one could argue that Stanford, Duke, ND, Baylor, or Tennessee has as much talent as UConn, based on expectations coming out of high school.

As another example, Tina Charles would have been an AA anywhere, but she became NPOY only because the UConn coaching staff pushed her.

Tina would have developed under Tara, Stanford has a long history of great post players. I remember all too well what post players like Val Whiting and Olympia Scott looked like their freshman years. They were less developed than Charles and they ended up having great careers, as did Nneka, Appel, Folkl, etc.

 

[cardfan]

"UConn gets #1 player year and year in all positions"

Not true.

2013? Nope. Chong, while she did win a couple of nice awards, is not the #1 player.
2012? Yep. Stewart
2011? KML some recruiting services but Williams was #1 in more
2010? Nope
2009? Nope
2008? For a minute. But Nope.
2007? Yep. Moore
2006? Charles? I don't know if she was #1 but close enough
2005? Nope
2004? Nope

Last 10 years.

Stewart - Forward/Center
KML - Forward/Guard
Moore - Forward
Charles - Center

I know they play like they have a #1 player at every position, but they don't. And guards are rarely #1. I hope you noticed that UConn didn't have any.

Now compare to other schools and you'll prove my pt. Of course I meant in general year in and year out. How many schools get #1 post, forward and guard strung together even over 4 ? None, as nobody, Nope.

Geez, Stewie and KML already won a NC, and how many did Moore and Charles get? 1 or 2? Again, proved my pt.

 

[cardfan]

Actually, your point was they got the #1 player. Now it is that they get the #1 player at all positions?

Stanford had the Ogwumike sisters together for two years, plus the PAC 12 POY in Pohlen...and made the Final Four.

If you look at UConn, only KML and Stewart were the #1 players (and #1 at their positions). Hartley was highly regarded and a top ten player, but not #1 at her position. Dolson was not #1 at her position (and was a top 30-top 40 recruit by some recruiting services).

You are making your conclusion first, then trying to go back for the support. It is not there, and it is not true.

Duke has more elite level talent in terms of high school accolades/awards/All-American honors than any other team in the country and cannot sniff a Final Four. That has nothing to do with not getting the top overall player and more to do with the coaching and Xs and Os.

I wasn't talking about Dolson or Hartley being #1. I know what they ranked out of h.s. they are great players who obviously help the 1's on their team now - KML and Stewie.

Yea, I remember Pohlen, and both O sisters losing in Indy. I was sitting very close to the action and still pissed. They were best team that year and lost. To me, that the 2nd worst loss in Stanford history, the first being ODU in Cincy. Against A&M, Nneka has 31 pts and Pohlen wasn't 100% and only had 11. Chiney got in foul trouble (like in Denver too vs. Baylor). She was also not a good match up for A&M guards. In Denver F4 vs. Baylor, I thought Nneka outplayed Griner, but Baylor beat us at the 3pt line and guard play. Had Tara told Nneka to take it to Griner in the 1st half vs. shooting threes, I think we would have won.

As I said before, I agree McCallie has underachieved with the talent she has signed, and I wonder how the hell she gets such great athletes, but I'm sure Duke is a big factor. I was yelling at the TV like Lawson did during halftime show. I don't think she is a good X&O's coach either, but Duke has not signed the same number of 1 ranked players out of high school as Uconn, not even very close. A good friend who knows a lot of about the women's game, said McCallie is better suited for a school like MSU or Maine, where she overachieved with not as talented kids.

 

[DobbsRover2]

A good friend who knows a lot of about the women's game, said McCallie is better suited for a school like MSU or Maine, where she overachieved with not as talented kids.

Ah, the old Peter Principle, that you get pushed up the ladder of success until you reach the rung where you're a failure. Interesting point with McCallie, though many coaches make the adjustments as they rise up and even thrive on the challenges of working with stronger players. But some coaches are better at getting a bunch of less talented pluggers to buy into a system than they are with muli-talented players who may feel entitled to certain things. And some coaches are able to handle the basic offensive and defensive systems, but when it comes to the intricacies of the programs run by a Geno, Muffet, Jeff, or Tara, they are lost. And unless you have a big bag of tricks, you can't beat the top teams, who all have defenses that can clamp down on the simple systems that a team like Duke can use to beat the non-elite teams without a problem.

 

[doggydaddy]

Now compare to other schools and you'll prove my pt. Of course I meant in general year in and year out. How many schools get #1 post, forward and guard strung together even over 4 ? None, as nobody, Nope.

Geez, Stewie and KML already won a NC, and how many did Moore and Charles get? 1 or 2? Again, proved my pt.

Proved your point? No, you said they get the top player every year. They don't. Not even every other year.

But when they do, they win, unlike Stanford.

Now, if your point was that Uconn gets the top player more than other schools, you would be correct. And if your point was that Uconn wins when they have those players, you would be right again.

But neither of those points were made in your hyperbolic post. In your haste to overstate Uconn's talent advantage, you made no point at all.

 

[RSHERMVIKES]

I have posted previously, that there are some big-name coaches that are great recruiters but lousy game coaches! Add J.P. McCallie to the list! Carolyn Peck, Nell Fortner, Andy Landers, Jim Foster, Sylvia Hatchell, Holly Warlick, "deer in the headlights" Goestenkors, C. Vivian Stringer, etc. I had thought Kim Mulkey was one of the great ones but she was totally outcoached by Jeff Walz in NCAA's! She never considered L'ville a threat and had her Baylor girls already in the FF, then pow, a ton of made 3's and Baylor was out hustled and Baylor in the Brittany Griner era won only one NC!

 

[cardfan]

Proved your point? No, you said they get the top player every year. They don't. Not even every other year.

But when they do, they win, unlike Stanford.

Now, if your point was that Uconn gets the top player more than other schools, you would be correct. And if your point was that Uconn wins when they have those players, you would be right again.

But neither of those points were made in your hyperbolic post. In your haste to overstate Uconn's talent advantage, you made no point at all.

Read your list of 1 players UConn has signed over the years. No other school has had that many. Stanford has signed two #1 post players, (over UConn) and they played together for 2 years, and lost in F4 semis. Awful, I know.