Assists and Passes, Then and Now | The Boneyard

Assists and Passes, Then and Now

diggerfoot

Humanity Hiker
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,591
Reaction Score
8,939
When Samuelson commented that you could expect a pass from Dangerfield when she was not looking at you, it brought me back to a comment made about Bird by Auriemma, saying much the same thing. Of course, at the time he was saying it with his customary sarcasm, really implying that it was occasionally OK for your teammates to be expecting a pass, but the similarities yet underscored the differences between then and now.

Bird was not the only no-look passer back then, Taurasi was as well. Abrosimova also threw the occasional no-look pass. Taurasi in particular created a problem as a freshmen, similar to what Scoop reported about Magic Johnson, in that her teammates really had to learn that a pass from Taurasi could be coming at any time, from any where.

We've had some great passers since, then including Williams and Samuelson for the present, but Dangerfield really is the first guard since Taurasi to have that no-look ability to yet thread the needle. I think it was oldude who suggested Dangerfield is a cross between Jefferson and Bird. Until her defense becomes closer to Jefferson's (and it may be getting there), I see Dangerfield as simply like Bird.

This brings to mind something else about assists then and now. Our A/T ratios seems to have improved over time as a whole. 2:1 used to be the gold standard. Now that's h0-hum for this team. When a player nears 3:1 is when it's worth taking notice. I think there might be a few reasons for that, where the invitation for discussion comes in.

1. We have more 40+% shooters on one team than in the old days. A pass to a 3 point shooter is a much easier assist than in the post, much less likely to end up as a turnover.

2. I think the coaches and system have continued to improve over time, with efficiencies and other performance related stats improving over time as well.

3. We have not had the concentration of no-look, thread the needle passers that happened in succession with Abrosimova/Bird/Taurasi. Their fantastic skill yet increases the odds for turnovers.

The question now is how will Dangerfield fit into that lineage. Being a throwback to those previous passers, yet in a system that seems to feature more perimeter assists and better efficiencies than back then, will her A/T look more like Bird's and Taurasi's? Or more like Jefferson's, Chong's, Samuelson's, Williams, etc. etc.?
 

Nuyoika

Destroyer of Baked Goods
Joined
Sep 22, 2014
Messages
1,607
Reaction Score
3,370
To answer your question, I have no idea; but I can't wait to find out.
 

meyers7

You Talkin’ To Me?
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
23,480
Reaction Score
60,733
Well let's take a look at our assist leaders (PGs/CGs) and see what we're looking at.

  1. Jefferson 659/249 2.65
  2. Taurasi 648/353 1.84
  3. Rizzotti 637/407 1.57
  4. Montgomery 632/351 1.80
  5. Bird 585/277 2.11
  6. Hartley 559/367 1.52
  7. Webber 546/364 1.50
  8. Swanier 479/256 1.87
  9. Conlon 315/167 1.89
  10. Chong 308/112 2.75
  11. Dangerfield 208/89 2.34
 

JoePgh

Cranky pants and wise acre
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
3,731
Reaction Score
21,823
Well let's take a look at our assist leaders (PGs/CGs) and see what we're looking at.

  1. Jefferson 659/249 2.65
  2. Taurasi 648/353 1.84
  3. Rizzotti 637/407 1.57
  4. Montgomery 632/351 1.80
  5. Bird 585/277 2.11
  6. Hartley 559/367 1.52
  7. Webber 546/364 1.50
  8. Swanier 479/256 1.87
  9. Conlon 315/167 1.89
  10. Chong 308/112 2.75
  11. Dangerfield 208/89 2.34
If what you are showing is assists, turnovers, and A/TO ratio, then it seems to support Diggerfoot's hypothesis that A/TO ratios have gotten better in recent times. Let me try to re-order this list to sort on A/TO ratio:

1. Chong
2. Jefferson
3. Dangerfield
4. Bird
5. Conlon
6. Swanier
7. Taurasi
8. Montgomery
9. Rizzotti
10. Hartley
11. Webber

That list correlates very strongly with reverse chronological order. I'm not sure whether it indicates talented teammates more recently or a better offensive system over time, but most likely some combination of the two.

Don't you think that UConn's defense (especially turnovers caused and points off TO's) has gotten noticeably better since the Bird/Taurasi era?
 

meyers7

You Talkin’ To Me?
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
23,480
Reaction Score
60,733
If what you are showing is assists, turnovers, and A/TO ratio,
Yes. I thought that was kinda obvious. I didn't label stuff, but didn't think I'd need to.

then it seems to support Diggerfoot's hypothesis that A/TO ratios have gotten better in recent times.
Eh, somewhat.

That list correlates very strongly with reverse chronological order.
Again, somewhat. Bird and Hartley are outliers for sure.
 

JoePgh

Cranky pants and wise acre
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
3,731
Reaction Score
21,823
And I would also be curious to know: Where do Kia Nurse and Kelly Faris line up with respect to A/TO ratio? Would they be in the "Top 15" when measured by that ratio?
 

Golden Husky

The Midas Touch
Joined
Apr 16, 2017
Messages
1,472
Reaction Score
7,785
When Samuelson commented that you could expect a pass from Dangerfield when she was not looking at you, it brought me back to a comment made about Bird by Auriemma, saying much the same thing. Of course, at the time he was saying it with his customary sarcasm, really implying that it was occasionally OK for your teammates to be expecting a pass, but the similarities yet underscored the differences between then and now.

Bird was not the only no-look passer back then, Taurasi was as well. Abrosimova also threw the occasional no-look pass. Taurasi in particular created a problem as a freshmen, similar to what Scoop reported about Magic Johnson, in that her teammates really had to learn that a pass from Taurasi could be coming at any time, from any where.

We've had some great passers since, then including Williams and Samuelson for the present, but Dangerfield really is the first guard since Taurasi to have that no-look ability to yet thread the needle. I think it was oldude who suggested Dangerfield is a cross between Jefferson and Bird. Until her defense becomes closer to Jefferson's (and it may be getting there), I see Dangerfield as simply like Bird.

This brings to mind something else about assists then and now. Our A/T ratios seems to have improved over time as a whole. 2:1 used to be the gold standard. Now that's h0-hum for this team. When a player nears 3:1 is when it's worth taking notice. I think there might be a few reasons for that, where the invitation for discussion comes in.

1. We have more 40+% shooters on one team than in the old days. A pass to a 3 point shooter is a much easier assist than in the post, much less likely to end up as a turnover.

2. I think the coaches and system have continued to improve over time, with efficiencies and other performance related stats improving over time as well.

3. We have not had the concentration of no-look, thread the needle passers that happened in succession with Abrosimova/Bird/Taurasi. Their fantastic skill yet increases the odds for turnovers.

The question now is how will Dangerfield fit into that lineage. Being a throwback to those previous passers, yet in a system that seems to feature more perimeter assists and better efficiencies than back then, will her A/T look more like Bird's and Taurasi's? Or more like Jefferson's, Chong's, Samuelson's, Williams, etc. etc.?
That's amazing. Abrosimova passed? ;)
 

diggerfoot

Humanity Hiker
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,591
Reaction Score
8,939
Well let's take a look at our assist leaders (PGs/CGs) and see what we're looking at.

  1. Jefferson 659/249 2.65
  2. Taurasi 648/353 1.84
  3. Rizzotti 637/407 1.57
  4. Montgomery 632/351 1.80
  5. Bird 585/277 2.11
  6. Hartley 559/367 1.52
  7. Webber 546/364 1.50
  8. Swanier 479/256 1.87
  9. Conlon 315/167 1.89
  10. Chong 308/112 2.75
  11. Dangerfield 208/89 2.34

Thanks for looking this up! One request for clarification: this is not the top eleven in assists, it it? G. Williams for one must have more than Dangerfield, along with Dolson and others. Is this just for point guards? Even so, I'm surprised R. Williams does not have more than Dangerfield, though Dangerfield obviously will climb the ranks quickly.

Also, I see Bird and Hartley not so much as outliers as the exceptions that prove the rule. The pros confirmed Sue's ability; had she been the point guard in the past few years I suspect her a/t would be much higher, rising above those around her now as she did then.

Finally, I'm curious about a comparison between Ralph and Faris (though, obviously, too lazy to do anything about it). The eye test to me suggested very similar roles and abilities for the two in feeding the post from the wing. However, if my thesis is correct, then the A/T for Faris likely is higher than that for Ralph.

Thanks again! I appreciate this.
 

eebmg

Fair and Balanced
Joined
Nov 28, 2016
Messages
20,034
Reaction Score
88,652
I think the A/TO stats are hard to interpret. Not all assists are equal. Some assists are really probing and can really excite the team while others are more mundane. Same with TO. A TO in an attempt to make a strong play is different than a silly back court TO. Even though Saniya led in the A/TO number, the eye test imho shows Crystal as a more complete and exciting leader of the offense. So for me, less stats and more enjoyment. :D
 

meyers7

You Talkin’ To Me?
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
23,480
Reaction Score
60,733
Thanks for looking this up! One request for clarification: this is not the top eleven in assists, it it? G. Williams for one must have more than Dangerfield, along with Dolson and others. Is this just for point guards? Even so, I'm surprised R. Williams does not have more than Dangerfield, though Dangerfield obviously will climb the ranks quickly.

Also, I see Bird and Hartley not so much as outliers as the exceptions that prove the rule. The pros confirmed Sue's ability; had she been the point guard in the past few years I suspect her a/t would be much higher, rising above those around her now as she did then.

Finally, I'm curious about a comparison between Ralph and Faris (though, obviously, too lazy to do anything about it). The eye test to me suggested very similar roles and abilities for the two in feeding the post from the wing. However, if my thesis is correct, then the A/T for Faris likely is higher than that for Ralph.

Thanks again! I appreciate this.
PGs/CGs. Point Guards, Combo Guards. Faris/ Ralph were more 2/3's. Williams, Dolson, Moore, Hayes, Abrosimova also had a lot.

Faris was 545/282 1.93
Ralph was 456/290 1.57

I guess while I'm here
Moore was 544/301 1.81
Dolson was 378/358 1.06
Hayes was 483/331 1.45

Also
Debbie Baer 413/288 1.43
Svetlana Abrosimova 474/428 1.12
Laura Lishness 531/352 1.51

And I suppose we should look at

G Williams 414/236 1.75
Nurse 408/198 2.06
 

Online statistics

Members online
350
Guests online
2,128
Total visitors
2,478

Forum statistics

Threads
158,947
Messages
4,174,781
Members
10,042
Latest member
coolbeans44


.
Top Bottom