DiJonai Carrington top-3

[Kevin G]

Well, I don't need to convince you. But as noted she scored 21 on 8-15 shooting and grabbed 7 boards in a visit to Storrs in November of '17. UConn won handily but Carrington had herself a nice game.

She looked really good in December of '18 dropping 33 on 11-15 w/ 13 boards on the road against a previously undefeated Tennessee team. Of course I'm just cherry picking a few games, but it proves she can play at a very high level against talented teams.

I am not asking you to convince me nor do I care. My original inquiry was my confusion as to why a Carrington transfer made that team a national contender. You, sir/madam, sarcastically chimed in. Good day.

 

[GoCardinal]

Well, a key difference is that Carrington has more stellar performances against top teams than stinkers. As a sophomore, she put up 21 points against UConn. So, she typically has always shown up. By comparison, both Walker and Williams disappeared so much this season alone Lobo made an entire graphic demonstration.

Carrington is an emotional leader, even on her off nights offensively, she’s making a difference whether it be defensively or emotionally. UConn was quite notably missing a vocal leader this season. Dangerfield did her best, but there was only so much she could do. I’d go as far as saying the team with Collier and Samuelson was missing a vocal/emotional leader too. To me, Collier had her moments, but she struck me as a lead by example type.

With Carrington, you get a grittiness that some of the most recent UConn teams have been missing.

 

[DefenseBB]

Well, as most folks have noticed, the Pac 12 has changed quite a bit from 30 years ago. If I remember correctly, UCONN scored 56 points and shot 39% playing Oregon at Gampel this past season. And here are Massey's 2019-20 defensive ratings for 6 Pac12 schools: Arizona (9), Stanford (10), Oregon (11), Oregon State (13), Arizona State (16), and Colorado (36). UCONN is at #4, but with a weaker SOS than 3 of the above. I know it's Massey, but it does suggest that your assumptions about Carrington need to be adjusted.

I saw a significant number of PAC12 games this year as I ponied up the dough for the PAC12 Network and what I would say is besides Oregon, pretty much the rest of the conference was offensively challenged. I am on record as saying this conference does play good defense (and they do for the most part). However, I also completely agree with Scott Rueck that the league allows too much thuggery to go on-ASU, AZ, USC are by far the biggest offenders of physical play, restricting movement. On the offensive side, after Oregon #1, Stanford #33 has the most talent offensively but that was limited to Hull and Williams as the other players never found their consistent grove. Then UCLA #37 was 3rd with primarily Michaela Onyenwere then the Beavers #48 who lost Slocum and Pivec. This is not a great offensive conference so I wouldn''t get too carried away touting the defense. That said, PAC-12 is still, by far, the best WCBB Conference Top to Bottom.

 

[jonson]

I saw a significant number of PAC12 games this year as I ponied up the dough for the PAC12 Network and what I would say is besides Oregon, pretty much the rest of the conference was offensively challenged. I am on record as saying this conference does play good defense (and they do for the most part). However, I also completely agree with Scott Rueck that the league allows too much thuggery to go on-ASU, AZ, USC are by far the biggest offenders of physical play, restricting movement. On the offensive side, after Oregon #1, Stanford #33 has the most talent offensively but that was limited to Hull and Williams as the other players never found their consistent grove. Then UCLA #37 was 3rd with primarily Michaela Onyenwere then the Beavers #48 who lost Slocum and Pivec. This is not a great offensive conference so I wouldn''t get too carried away touting the defense. That said, PAC-12 is still, by far, the best WCBB Conference Top to Bottom.

Fair enough; it seems as if the conference has done a 180 re physical play from what it was many years ago.

 

[eebmg]

I saw a significant number of PAC12 games this year as I ponied up the dough for the PAC12 Network and what I would say is besides Oregon, pretty much the rest of the conference was offensively challenged. I am on record as saying this conference does play good defense (and they do for the most part). However, I also completely agree with Scott Rueck that the league allows too much thuggery to go on-ASU, AZ, USC are by far the biggest offenders of physical play, restricting movement. On the offensive side, after Oregon #1, Stanford #33 has the most talent offensively but that was limited to Hull and Williams as the other players never found their consistent grove. Then UCLA #37 was 3rd with primarily Michaela Onyenwere then the Beavers #48 who lost Slocum and Pivec. This is not a great offensive conference so I wouldn''t get too carried away touting the defense. That said, PAC-12 is still, by far, the best WCBB Conference Top to Bottom.

Over physical defense, weak offenses. That seems to describe just about all WCBB conferences. Which conference does not suffer from those signatures except for a team or 2?

 

[Steelerone]

Pete Maravich scored 3667 points in college which is the current record. What makes this remarkable is the rule changes since he played. At the time he played there was no 3 point shot, no shot clock and fewer games. And freshmen could not play varsity. Of course someone with his skills would not play three years today since they would go pro so I think his record is safe.

(edit) not sure how I put this in the wrong thread. Apologies to all.

Saw him play at the Civic Center against the Celts. I think he never got the proper credit for his ability as a ball handler. The big three at that time, Maravich, Mount and Murphy (Calvin). The problem with Pete's record is that his father, Press, was the coach at the time and the other players were ordered to feed him the ball no matter where he was on the court. I don't have a positive recollection of what his shooting percentage was but as I recall from some of the newpaper reports it was quite low.

 

[diggerfoot]

In this latest page of discussion I see the most persuasive arguments yet both for and against Harrington. My own bias is that, if the result in the tournament is the same, and good basketball is being played during the regular season, I rather see four year players being developed than transfers. However, I am fine with a transfer coming in if it makes a difference in the tournament. The only trouble is one cannot be sure when that makes a difference. In fact, I cannot now think of a year when we know a transfer made such a difference in our tournament results. Anyways, that is my bias, now for the logic of the situation.

GoCardinal brings up a compelling argument in favor. The one thing Carrington might bring that we have been lacking is emotional leadership. Her rebounding? Covered by multiple guards. Her slashing? Covered by multiple guards ... if it fits into the system. Emotional leadership? That has not been covered for awhile.

On the other hand, though oldhuskie was making an argument in favor of Carrington, he points out that "insurance" should not be a reason for bringing her in. She's more Stevens than Adebayo. She likely expects to be a major contributor wherever she goes and it would be a disservice to her to use her as insurance, regardless of how comforting that may be to the BY or coaching staff. Unless ... if her injury has lowered her expectation to be a major contributor, then she might be OK with a limited role.

Yet we know Williams, Westbrook, Makurat and Bueckers all have reasonable expectations to be major contributors. It could be that Muhl would be reasonable to expect to be a major contributor as well. With six players having those expectations, and two of them transfers, even with a three guard line-up that is a likely recipe for bad team chemistry.

No doubt being the emotional leader we have needed would more than compensate for that problem, but I would expect Bueckers to exert herself as the emotional leader as soon as possible.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

I'd like to know what an "emotional leader" is. Actually I know. It is someone who is a energy cheerleader on the court. Not to be confused with a team floor leader.

 

[HuskylnSC]

I'd like to know what an "emotional leader" is. Actually I know. It is someone who is a energy cheerleader on the court. Not to be confused with a team floor leader.

I agree with @RockyMTblue2 in that the type of leadership that is needed is what we got from Crystal last year. The calm head to slow things down and order players into the correct positions or when to speed things up to press the advantage. The 'coach on the floor' responsibilities will have to fall to CW and EW until Pige/Nika mature.

 

[GoCardinal]

I'd like to know what an "emotional leader" is. Actually I know. It is someone who is a energy cheerleader on the court. Not to be confused with a team floor leader.

To me, an emotional leader is someone that rallies the troops when things start unraveling on the floor. The type of player you can trust to not get rattled or shrink. A coach calling a timeout to light a fire under the group shouldn’t always happen. It seems as though Geno has had to be the one to fire the team up when everyone is struggling. As great as Collier and Samuelson were, there were times they looked rattled when things weren’t going their way. I’d argue Williams was somewhat the same when she moved into a larger role.

An emotional leader can simply be someone to celebrate after an and-1, or motion to the crowd to back to team up when they are done. Having someone to do that is valuable.

Aja Wilson, Marina Mabrey, Sophie Cunningham, Ruthy Hebard, Ayana Mitchell, Kathleen Doyle, Haley Gorecki, Anriel Howard, Mikiah Hebert Harrigan (and I’m sure there are many others) have all been “emotional leaders” for their teams at some point. Does that always translate to being the best player on the roster? No, but often times you’ll hear coaches say “the heart and soul” of the team; and that’s equally as important.

 

[Sluconn Husky]

The primary need is finding post backup for Olivia. Someone who can spell her for 3 minutes 3 times a game without a significant drop off on the defensive end.

I don't think there will be an issue with subbing for Olivia. UConn will be able to handle most teams with her playing 25 MPG. For the toughest opponents she's likely to play 30+ out of necessity and UConn should be fine with smaller lineups composed of super athletic players (Edwards, Mclean, Griffin) for the few minutes she's out. The bigger concern would be if Olivia gets injured; that's where depth would be more impactful. But it would be nearly impossible to replace her in that case anyway.

 

[GoCardinal]

I agree with @RockyMTblue2 in that the type of leadership that is needed is what we got from Crystal last year. The calm head to slow things down and order players into the correct positions or when to speed things up to press the advantage. The 'coach on the floor' responsibilities will have to fall to CW and EW until Pige/Nika mature.

There’s a difference between a calming presence and an emotional leader. Those surrounding the Gamecocks this year would be first to admit that Herbert-Harrigan was the emotional leader, while Ty Harris was more of the calm and cool type.

Typically the calm types don’t show a lot of emotion, and are even-keeled no matter what’s happening. For some players, that works wonders. However, there are some players that get fired up seeing a teammate exhibit a certain level of feistiness/fieriness. It makes them want to go harder for that teammate because they see how hard said teammate is going behind them.

Two different styles of leadership, but both are effective and necessary. To an outsider, specifically more recently, there have been times where it seems Geno has shown more emotion during the course of a game than the actual players.

 

[GoCardinal]

Same goes for coaching styles. Say what you want about Mulkey, and maybe even Frese, but a lot of kids take on their feistiness and it shows. Muffet, Vic, and Dawn are also very emotional and their teams respond. I seem to remember the year Kentucky was struggling, Mitchell was on record saying he HAD to be that emotional leader because there wasn’t one on the roster.

Players always respond well when Tara shows a little emotion, because that isn’t something she typically does. But the team responds positively when it happens.

On the other hand, there are coaches that are typically calm no matter what. Rueck is someone that comes to mind.

 

[Alydar]

Yes, I did say talented, because that team had talent. Several of their players will be in the WNBA. It was a very poorly coached and underachieving team, but that doesn't wipe out the raw abilities of some of their players.

edit--if in your opinion there was no talent on that team, why did Geno take a transfer player from that squad?

I would say the question is whether a talented team is the same as a team with talent. Tenn was the later and not the former. There's no question that Carrington played tough opponents but Tenn wasn't one of them and was picked as one because Carrington had a great game.

 

[DefenseBB]

Same goes for coaching styles. Say what you want about Mulkey, and maybe even Frese, but a lot of kids take on their feistiness and it shows. Muffet, Vic, and Dawn are also very emotional and their teams respond. I seem to remember the year Kentucky was struggling, Mitchell was on record saying he HAD to be that emotional leader because there wasn’t one on the roster.

Players always respond well when Tara shows a little emotion, because that isn’t something she typically does. But the team responds positively when it happens.

On the other hand, there are coaches that are typically calm no matter what. Rueck is someone that comes to mind.

Frese is feisty? Who new that that signature lean against the scorers table with one hand is viewed by some as "Feisty"...

 

[nwhoopfan]

I would say the question is whether a talented team is the same as a team with talent. Tenn was the later and not the former. There's no question that Carrington played tough opponents but Tenn wasn't one of them and was picked as one because Carrington had a great game.

Okay, during that season she scored 30 against UCLA, 17 against Arizona St., 22 against Oregon in the Pac 12 Tourney final and 18 against Notre Dame in the Regional Final. Those were 4 quality teams, right? (2 Final 4 and 2 Sweet 16 teams). Stanford won all of those games except vs ND, so it's not like she was putting up good numbers in a losing effort. And she didn't do most of her scoring against bad teams and disappear against the better opponents on their schedule.

 

[Alydar]

Okay, during that season she scored 30 against UCLA, 17 against Arizona St., 22 against Oregon in the Pac 12 Tourney final and 18 against Notre Dame in the Regional Final. Those were 4 quality teams, right? (2 Final 4 and 2 Sweet 16 teams). Stanford won all of those games except vs ND, so it's not like she was putting up good numbers in a losing effort. And she didn't do most of her scoring against bad teams and disappear against the better opponents on their schedule.

I don't think anyone disagrees. I mean she was all conference so she must have played well. The only disagreement was over Tenn being a quality opponent. That just won't fly here.

 

[nwhoopfan]

The only disagreement was over Tenn being a quality opponent.

But I didn't call them a quality opponent. I said they had talent.

I know they aren't what they used to be, but any time a player goes into Thompson-Boling and has a game like she did, it's notable.

 

[EdSaid]

“West coast experience?” Are you worried she’s going to show up 3 hours late for games?

What exactly is the difference between East coast experience and West coast experience?

 

[Alydar]

, but I would expect Bueckers to exert herself as the emotional leader as soon as possible.
[/QUOTE]


So do others.

 

[oldude]

, but I would expect Bueckers to exert herself as the emotional leader as soon as possible.

So do others.
[/QUOTE]
As soon as possible most assuredly. Difficult to do for any freshman, unless she’s named Maya. Even more difficult to do if there’s no summer sessions on campus.

 

[bluedevil]

So the boneyard sez DC isn't gonna make her decision untill late summer....please..what is going to change between now and July or August?

 

[Argonaut]

So the boneyard sez DC isn't gonna make her decision untill late summer....please..what is going to change between now and July or August?

In the radio interview she did, DC said that she planned on enrolling for summer school, so I doubt it’ll be that long. She said that as soon as she felt 100% on the decision, she’d announce — might be tomorrow, might be in a few more weeks...

 

[Carnac]

To me, an emotional leader is someone that rallies the troops when things start unraveling on the floor. The type of player you can trust to not get rattled or shrink. A coach calling a timeout to light a fire under the group shouldn’t always happen. It seems as though Geno has had to be the one to fire the team up when everyone is struggling. As great as Collier and Samuelson were, there were times they looked rattled when things weren’t going their way. I’d argue Williams was somewhat the same when she moved into a larger role.

An emotional leader can simply be someone to celebrate after an and-1, or motion to the crowd to back to team up when they are done. Having someone to do that is valuable.

Aja Wilson, Marina Mabrey, Sophie Cunningham, Ruthy Hebard, Ayana Mitchell, Kathleen Doyle, Haley Gorecki, Anriel Howard, Mikiah Hebert Harrigan (and I’m sure there are many others) have all been “emotional leaders” for their teams at some point. Does that always translate to being the best player on the roster? No, but often times you’ll hear coaches say “the heart and soul” of the team; and that’s equally as important.

As I was reading your comments, a player that immediately came to mind was Sebrina Ionescu. She was a leader the first day she set foot on campus. Her no-nonsense demeanor and her will to win was immediately observed and noted by her coaches and teammates. I remember her taking charge (her freshman year) in a brief huddle players take right after a whistle. SHE was talking and the other 4 were listening.

 

[DEpup]

DT is the ultimate leader and the rest are just trying to be like D.....

 

[GoCardinal]

As I was reading your comments, a player that immediately came to mind was Sebrina Ionescu. She was a leader the first day she set foot on campus. Her no-nonsense demeanor and her will to win was immediately observed and noted by her coaches and teammates. I remember her taking charge (her freshman year) in a brief huddle players take right after a whistle. SHE was talking and the other 4 were listening.

Oof, how could I forget Sabrina. But yes, that’s such an important skill.

 

[uconnfan68]

Oregon will never have multiple high draft picks again? Can you guarantee that?

No, maybe it’s your decade... we’ll see.

 

[soxfan23]

I don't agree with calling it cherry picking when you look at each player's last full season. I think you're wrong for example if you ever look at player's freshman year and try to draw a conclusion form those numbers when they are a senior.

As for CWill's stats just trying to draw a comparison between the two for their last full year which I think is the best way to compare. It's not cherry picking. It's using stats in a better way. CWill was an honorable mention A/A. Just trying to highlight Carrington's last full season - she wasn't a "bad" shooter. Alydar said she can't shoot. Well her last full season she did shoot decent enough.

Carrington is an ABYSMAL shooter, that is evidenced by the fact that she has shot over .300% from 3pt range just one year in her career!

 

[Tonyc]

We lack experience and we could use another big. Experience comes during this season. Geno knows what he wants and what he needs. Is Westbrook healthy? Is that why there is interest in Carrrington? Is there another reason? I expect CW and Liv to have great seasons this year. Anna will be much better as she showed alot of confidence late in the season. I also expect Griff to have a good outside shot. The big question is Westbrook healthy and can she play the minutes Megan had? If not they who? Could Carrington help while our incoming class develops? Alot of questions.

 

[oldude]

Carrington is an ABYSMAL shooter, that is evidenced by the fact that she has shot over .300% from 3pt range just one year in her career!

Abysmal in CAPS is pretty strong wording. But to get a true picture, we really have to look at Carrington’s 4 seasons at Stanford individually.

As a freshman, Carrington played mop-up minutes only, taking 21-3’s all season while making 5. As a sophomore, Carrington became a primary reserve for the Cardinal. She did start 7 games. Carrington took over 100-3’s and shot 28%, which is pretty average.

As a junior, Carrington started all 36 games for the Cardinal, improving her 3-pt shooting to 33% on 37/112 shots, while upping her rebounding totals to 7.5 per game. As a senior, Carrington played in only 5 games, took 7-3’s, making 2. It certainly would have been interesting to see what Carrington might have done had she been healthy for her entire senior season.

I would not call Carrington’s shooting “abysmal.” Like a lot of kids who get to college, they need to improve their shooting mechanics as well as learning to release their shot quicker with a defender’s hand in their face. It takes time. Think Megan Walker, who really improved her 3-pt shooting each and every year with UConn, or Mo who couldn’t throw the ball in the ocean when she got to UConn, but became a deadly 3-pt shooter by her senior season.