Early January All-American Considerations

[bballnut90]

I wonder if Boston will go #1. It's possible, maybe even likely. But will professional teams consider her excellence in the paint sufficient without a corresponding excellence as an outside shooter? I don't know the answer to this, but just as a casual fan, to my untrained eye the WNBA seems to be full of bigs who can regularly knock down a 3 or a long 2.

I'm sure she'll be a 1st round pick, even a high one. But I can't help wondering if there isn't someone else who might look even more tantalizing to the pro scouts. I don't see a Rhine Howard type in this class, but I may not be well enough informed.

Boston is a lock for #1 and would've gone #1 over Howard last year. She's extremely skilled on both ends and has the size and frame to be an elite level post in the pros. She's the best big entering the league since A'ja Wilson 5 years ago. In the past Boston's showed good touch from the perimeter and she has a pro ready face up game even if we haven't seen much of it this year. It's an area that does need work, but vast majority of big players develop better perimeter touch throughout their career in the W. Boston right now has a much better shot than most big girls do when they enter the league. Worth noting--I think the pro game will be a lot easier for Boston than the college game this year where she gets doubled/tripled any time she touches the ball. In the pros she'll have better shooters to space the floor and she'll get a lot more 1 on 1 opportunities.

 

[GoChips20]

Boston is a lock for #1 and would've gone #1 over Howard last year. She's extremely skilled on both ends and has the size and frame to be an elite level post in the pros. She's the best big entering the league since A'ja Wilson 5 years ago. In the past Boston's showed good touch from the perimeter and she has a pro ready face up game even if we haven't seen much of it this year. It's an area that does need work, but vast majority of big players develop better perimeter touch throughout their career in the W. Boston right now has a much better shot than most big girls do when they enter the league. Worth noting--I think the pro game will be a lot easier for Boston than the college game this year where she gets doubled/tripled any time she touches the ball. In the pros she'll have better shooters to space the floor and she'll get a lot more 1 on 1 opportunities.

This post exactly. Boston very likely would have been the second or third pick in the draft as a freshmen had she been eligible to come out. She’s arguably been pro-ready from day one and SEC coaches (Joni Taylor and I think there was another) said as much. I won’t get into the All-American debate here because I think most everyone has made valid points, but I do think life will be easier overall for her in the W, even if she does need to refine and expand her face-up game.

 

[Reypl21]

I wonder if Boston will go #1. It's possible, maybe even likely. But will professional teams consider her excellence in the paint sufficient without a corresponding excellence as an outside shooter? I don't know the answer to this, but just as a casual fan, to my untrained eye the WNBA seems to be full of bigs who can regularly knock down a 3 or a long 2.

I'm sure she'll be a 1st round pick, even a high one. But I can't help wondering if there isn't someone else who might look even more tantalizing to the pro scouts. I don't see a Rhine Howard type in this class, but I may not be well enough informed.

Boston is above and beyond the #1 player in this draft class. She would have been it every year except for her Freshman year. After her physical transformation going into her junior year she wrapped thag distinction up.

She has had a face up game since her Freshman year, and she is capable of shooting from 3. The shooting definitely will need to improve, but her mechanics look great. No reason to not expect that to improve in her pro career. She will have have Nalyssa Smith next to her at the PF, so I can't imagine she will be getting double and triple teamed. I doubt any WNBA GM is putting any weight into her having lower numbers this year. Her dominance demands multiple defenders. In the W, she will have better teammates that can shoot and score.

 

[TC22]

Boston is a lock for #1 and would've gone #1 over Howard last year. She's extremely skilled on both ends and has the size and frame to be an elite level post in the pros. She's the best big entering the league since A'ja Wilson 5 years ago. In the past Boston's showed good touch from the perimeter and she has a pro ready face up game even if we haven't seen much of it this year. It's an area that does need work, but vast majority of big players develop better perimeter touch throughout their career in the W. Boston right now has a much better shot than most big girls do when they enter the league. Worth noting--I think the pro game will be a lot easier for Boston than the college game this year where she gets doubled/tripled any time she touches the ball. In the pros she'll have better shooters to space the floor and she'll get a lot more 1 on 1 opportunities.

THis right here. On point. Before we take Aliyah off the AA list let's wait and see what happens the rest of the season. We are getting into the part of the season where she will be asked to do more. If Zia and Brea keep hitting 3s at a 40% clip and if Kamilla keeps doing her thing then teams aren't going to be able to afford to double and triple team her. Better believe all this talk about Aliyah not being an AA will get to Dawn and Dawn will get that message to AB. She's a gym rat and film junkie. They are going to get it figured out.

 

[DefenseBB]

Ok so first, let me thank our fav Hoop stat mench, @maccca3232 for advising me on the "Herhoopstats" data assessment, much appreciated. I don't want to violate any copywrite infringement issues but the top 4 Winshares are closely aligned with the Efficiency ranking I posted.
1. Angel Reese 9.5
2. Maddie Siegriest 8.4
3. Ta'Niya Latson 6.9
4. Caitlin Clark 6.6
The number 5 score is 5.9 from USF so I cut the list. Boston is #15 with 5.3 winshares, Edwards is #27 with 4.8 so that is a pretty interesting assessment.

I did do an analysis of the Top 100 Winshares players with the following conference breakdown
1. Big Ten with 16 (Clark #4)
2. PAC12 with 15 (Brink #22)
2. SEC with 15 (Reese #1)
4. ACC with 14 (Latson #3)
5. Big East with 6 (Siegrist #2)
6. AAC with 4 (Fankam-Mendjiadeu #5)
6. Big12 with 4 (Taiyanna Jackson #13)

In my view, the voters will not use much advanced analysis to do their diligence as evidenced by the top 25 voting so expect to see the same drum being beaten and some undeserving names appear and some deserving names not appear.

 

[bballnut90]

Ok so first, let me thank our fav Hoop stat mench, @maccca3232 for advising me on the "Herhoopstats" data assessment, much appreciated. I don't want to violate any copywrite infringement issues but the top 4 Winshares are closely aligned with the Efficiency ranking I posted.
1. Angel Reese 9.5
2. Maddie Siegriest 8.4
3. Ta'Niya Latson 6.9
4. Caitlin Clark 6.6
The number 5 score is 5.9 from USF so I cut the list. Boston is #15 with 5.3 winshares, Edwards is #27 with 4.8 so that is a pretty interesting assessment.

I did do an analysis of the Top 100 Winshares players with the following conference breakdown
1. Big Ten with 16 (Clark #4)
2. PAC12 with 15 (Brink #22)
2. SEC with 15 (Reese #1)
4. ACC with 14 (Latson #3)
5. Big East with 6 (Siegrist #2)
6. AAC with 4 (Fankam-Mendjiadeu #5)
6. Big12 with 4 (Taiyanna Jackson #13)

In my view, the voters will not use much advanced analysis to do their diligence as evidenced by the top 25 voting so expect to see the same drum being beaten and some undeserving names appear and some deserving names not appear.

To be fair I don't think win share correlates with best player or best season as much as it indicates how important or heavily used a player is to their specific team. Dissecting the players listed:
-Angel Reese's numbers are amazing but they have come against an awful schedule (though Angel might keep up her current tear).

-Siegrist/Latson play for borderline top 25 teams, so while they're putting up great numbers, they aren't elevating their teams to be among the best in the country. It's a 2 way street since basketball is a team sport and neither has the teammates to get there, but the flip side is that their win-share numbers are also inflated compared to others because they're so heavily relied upon. There has to be a balance between individual stats and overall winning/team success. Both are elite with the former but not with the latter. A player like Boston/Brink/etc makes it with leading their team to success but neither has elite individual stats.

-Caitlin Clark finds that balance since her team is likely in the 10-15 range after this week, she is tearing it up against a tougher schedule, and is leading her team to victories in several of these big games.


Also, in regards to your last comment, I disagree voters will be lazy and just go with big names. Several players who weren't on top 25 teams still made the AP teams last year despite a lack of team success. Morrow was 2nd team without DePaul being top 25, Siegrist made 3rd team despite Villanova barely making the tournament, and Burton made 3rd team without leading her team to the tournament at all. This year Morrow made the preseason top 5 team and Siegrist received votes as well. Voters are recognizing players across the country even if they don't get a lot of exposure or play for elite teams.

 

[Bone Dog]

To be fair I don't think win share correlates with best player or best season as much as it indicates how important or heavily used a player is to their specific team. Dissecting the players listed:
-Angel Reese's numbers are amazing but they have come against an awful schedule (though Angel might keep up her current tear).

-Siegrist/Latson play for borderline top 25 teams, so while they're putting up great numbers, they aren't elevating their teams to be among the best in the country. It's a 2 way street since basketball is a team sport and neither has the teammates to get there, but the flip side is that their win-share numbers are also inflated compared to others because they're so heavily relied upon. There has to be a balance between individual stats and overall winning/team success. Both are elite with the former but not with the latter. A player like Boston/Brink/etc makes it with leading their team to success but neither has elite individual stats.

-Caitlin Clark finds that balance since her team is likely in the 10-15 range after this week, she is tearing it up against a tougher schedule, and is leading her team to victories in several of these big games.


Also, in regards to your last comment, I disagree voters will be lazy and just go with big names. Several players who weren't on top 25 teams still made the AP teams last year despite a lack of team success. Morrow was 2nd team without DePaul being top 25, Siegrist made 3rd team despite Villanova barely making the tournament, and Burton made 3rd team without leading her team to the tournament at all. This year Morrow made the preseason top 5 team and Siegrist received votes as well. Voters are recognizing players across the country even if they don't get a lot of exposure or play for elite teams.

Good post. I agree especially with your final remark that voters don't just go for the big names. I think they like being able to find someone special in an unusual or overlooked place.

I'm wondering about the individual/team stats distinction your propose. It sounds about right to me. Putting up lots of points, for example, for a team that doesn't go very far isn't finally as impressive as being the player a team depends on for big wins even if their individual numbers aren't the best. Clark is in a way the poster girl for this distinction, because she puts up big numbers and has helped her team get through the first couple rounds of the tournament. Latson hasn't shown herself to be this kind of player yet.

Of course, even for Clark, there are games in which she scores big and Iowa still loses, which isn't a good look for her... and I think she knows it. In the game against us this year -- which has to count as a big test for any opponent -- Iowa built a big lead in the 3rd quarter, and Clark helped achieve that without scoring much. But then they collapsed in the 4th quarter and she became a non-factor, and tellingly she hit a few big buckets toward the end, but they didn't matter. Not exactly junk points, but also not really big buckets either.

What I take from this is that SoS matters, but it's possible to score big against top competition and still not achieve much.

 

[The deacon]

This is one of the best and, in my opinion, fairest threads about potential All-Americans I've seen here in a while. For those of you who have read my posts, thanks. I offer the reminder what I have said to date has been responding to DefenseBB's concept of what the A-A team might be as of early January, and not what it'll likely be come early March.

Keep it going, my friends.

 

[LwrcasefaN]

I'm protesting until Lopez Senechal gets some SERIOUS consideration. What does she have to do to even get in the conversation?

 

[TheFarmFan]

I'm protesting until Lopez Senechal gets some SERIOUS consideration. What does she have to do to even get in the conversation?

I love Lou, but her stats outside of scoring are pretty underwhelming (almost no rebounds, more TOs than As, minimal steals/blocks), and she's not even the top scorer on her team. She is a great contributor to UConn, and a super high IQ player, but I wouldn't put her in the A-A contender category.

 

[LwrcasefaN]

I love Lou, but her stats outside of scoring are pretty underwhelming (almost no rebounds, more TOs than As, minimal steals/blocks), and she's not even the top scorer on her team. She is a great contributor to UConn, and a super high IQ player, but I wouldn't put her in the A-A contender category.

She's not the top scorer because the team is balanced. Her role on the team is to score. How many guards are shooting over 50%? A handful. And you won't find many more efficient. If you're going to 'consider or talk about Celeste Taylor, Zia Cooke, Jordan Horston (turnover machine, but IMO an AA)..., then I don't see how you can leave Lou out of the conversation. To me...consistency matters. I haven't even seen Rickea Jackson's name mentioned here....not to say it wasn't. How about Brea Beale? Sometimes you're the highest scorer on a bad team. Sometimes you're the average scorer on a great team. I'm playing devil's advocate to an extent. I know there are many factors to consider and that the reality is that there aren't enough "spots" to recognize all the elite talent.

 

[DefenseBB]

I think the real question is prioritizing the Alpha, Beta and Tertiary recommendations for AA considerations. From UConn perspective, for it's durability and regular contribution is Aaliyah as the Alpha with Azzi as the current Beta due to all the injury time she's had but if she comes back to her prior productive self, she becomes the Alpha and Aaliyah is the Beta so at best Lou would be the third option which is never going to get serious consideration for AA as UConn is not dominant the way it was with Stewart/Jefferson/Tuck or Samuelson/Collier/Williams so is Lou having a great year, yes, has she put herself into WNBA consideration, yes, is she a viable candidate for AA, no, she can get the just as noteworthy "Honorable Mention" line though.

 

[baggerbob]

I think the real question is prioritizing the Alpha, Beta and Tertiary recommendations for AA considerations. From UConn perspective, for it's durability and regular contribution is Aaliyah as the Alpha with Azzi as the current Beta due to all the injury time she's had but if she comes back to her prior productive self, she becomes the Alpha and Aaliyah is the Beta so at best Lou would be the third option which is never going to get serious consideration for AA as UConn is not dominant the way it was with Stewart/Jefferson/Tuck or Samuelson/Collier/Williams so is Lou having a great year, yes, has she puut herself into WNBA consideration, yes, is she a viable candidate for AA,o, she can get the just as noteworthy "Honorable Mention" line though.

And Nurse is better at the next level then Samuelson or Williams. That is where it really counts, and Lou has the type of game to fit in the WNBA.

 

[DefenseBB]

And Nurse is better at the next level then Samuelson or Williams. That is where it really counts, and Lou has the type of game to fit in the WNBA.

While I agree about Nurse as a pro, and I think Lou could absolutely make the WNBA as she can create her own shot but your comparison is sort of saying that Lou would be a better pro than either Azzi or Aaliyah which is a bridge too far for me to agree with.

 

[The deacon]

And Nurse is better at the next level then Samuelson or Williams. That is where it really counts, and Lou has the type of game to fit in the WNBA.

I'm not so certain I'd fully agree with about Kia, saddled with injury, being better the past couple of years than Gabby and/or Katie Lou. Both of them have distinguished themselves in the Euro-league and have significantly upgraded their games.

Gabby was an important player for Seattle last year, was named to the all-WNBA second team defensive team while scoring 7 per game, and Katie Lou averaged 9 points for the Sparks and has been a starter for the past two seasons. Kia's shooting has fallen off dramatically and her bad knee has limited her defensive mobility.

As for Lou, anyone who can shoot as she does has a future somewhere, perhaps in the WNBA, definitely in France or elsewhere.

 

[TheFarmFan]

And Nurse is better at the next level then Samuelson or Williams. That is where it really counts, and Lou has the type of game to fit in the WNBA.

Sure. But this isn't a thread about WNBA draft prospects. And I think Lou will need to work on her size / physicality for the W, because she's a bit of a tweener size wise to be a true wing/forward, and I don't think she has either the ball handling or speed to function as secondary distributor / defensive specialist. She's almost got the inverse of the problems Haley Jones will have, where Jones is too big to distribute (though she's great at it), doesn't have a strong enough 3 point shot to be a wing, and is too small to pull the power forward moves she does now in the W. Somehow 6'0/6'1" is the most challenging size to be moving into women's pro hoops, because your height ceases to give you any kind of edge, but you've thus far relied on that your whole life.

And it's a testament to just how talented pros like Maya Moore were to be able to translate to the pro game so seamlessly.

 

[LwrcasefaN]

I think the real question is prioritizing the Alpha, Beta and Tertiary recommendations for AA considerations. From UConn perspective, for it's durability and regular contribution is Aaliyah as the Alpha with Azzi as the current Beta due to all the injury time she's had but if she comes back to her prior productive self, she becomes the Alpha and Aaliyah is the Beta so at best Lou would be the third option which is never going to get serious consideration for AA as UConn is not dominant the way it was with Stewart/Jefferson/Tuck or Samuelson/Collier/Williams so is Lou having a great year, yes, has she put herself into WNBA consideration, yes, is she a viable candidate for AA, no, she can get the just as noteworthy "Honorable Mention" line though.

Comparing UCONN players (or any team members) to one another and assigning them levels of "durability and contribution" to justify whether they should be AA has flaws. If you're on an elite team...numbers alone will probably not sell your resume. The best teams get contributions consistently from many positions. I don't care what option they may be on their individual team...it doesn't mean that they aren't better AA candidates than the #1 option on another team. The primary consideration should START with what you alluded to...is the player having a great year? In this scenario...the "third option", aka Lou is having a great year...and if we're honest...and using your suggested criteria...hasn't she been the UCONN second option? Azzi would meet the contribution criteria, but she, unfortunately, hasn't met the durable one...up to this point. No one doubts that she will. I'm not delusional and this isn't a perfect science and the perspectives are great. The conversations are credible. I could make an argument for almost any player over another...just some less convincing. Whatever criteria are used I think they should weigh more heavily towards "what have you done lately and against whom" versus "what you were expected to do based on past performances". NOW...after all that...Boston is an AA hands down and a player like Cooke is a beneficiary, currently on my AA short list, but she has work to do. I don't dismiss any of the mentioned players in this thread, but I think some contenders were left off.

 

[LwrcasefaN]

Sure. But this isn't a thread about WNBA draft prospects. And I think Lou will need to work on her size / physicality for the W, because she's a bit of a tweener size wise to be a true wing/forward, and I don't think she has either the ball handling or speed to function as secondary distributor / defensive specialist. She's almost got the inverse of the problems Haley Jones will have, where Jones is too big to distribute (though she's great at it), doesn't have a strong enough 3 point shot to be a wing, and is too small to pull the power forward moves she does now in the W. Somehow 6'0/6'1" is the most challenging size to be moving into women's pro hoops, because your height ceases to give you any kind of edge, but you've thus far relied on that your whole life.

And it's a testament to just how talented pros like Maya Moore were to be able to translate to the pro game so seamlessly.

I don't know too many players who don't need to make skill or physical adjustments as they move up. Kelsey Plum was deadly until...the WNBA. She just kept at it. I don't see Celeste Taylor or even Zia Cooke as ideal WNBA physical prospects, but adjustments can be made if you commit to the work and if you find the ideal fit.

 

[DefenseBB]

Comparing UCONN players (or any team members) to one another and assigning them levels of "durability and contribution" to justify whether they should be AA has flaws. If you're on an elite team...numbers alone will probably not sell your resume. The best teams get contributions consistently from many positions. I don't care what option they may be on their individual team...it doesn't mean that they aren't better AA candidates than the #1 option on another team. The primary consideration should START with what you alluded to...is the player having a great year? In this scenario...the "third option", aka Lou is having a great year...and if we're honest...and using your suggested criteria...hasn't she been the UCONN second option? Azzi would meet the contribution criteria, but she, unfortunately, hasn't met the durable one...up to this point. No one doubts that she will. I'm not delusional and this isn't a perfect science and the perspectives are great. The conversations are credible. I could make an argument for almost any player over another...just some less convincing. Whatever criteria are used I think they should weigh more heavily towards "what have you done lately and against whom" versus "what you were expected to do based on past performances". NOW...after all that...Boston is an AA hands down and a player like Cooke is a beneficiary, currently on my AA short list, but she has work to do. I don't dismiss any of the mentioned players in this thread, but I think some contenders were left off.

I live in the real world where rankings and national perception exist. As Azzi was and still is on the National POY radar, realistically, only Aaliyah and Azzi will get consideration. As the stats show, Azzi does a bit more across the board than Lou where Lou also struggles mightily on defense and prone to fouls. The hard truth is Lou is the 3rd best considered player on this team. Please say "hi" to the Mad Hatter for me in your world though.

 

[LwrcasefaN]

I live in the real world where rankings and national perception exist. As Azzi was and still is on the National POY radar, realistically, only Aaliyah and Azzi will get consideration. As the stats show, Azzi does a bit more across the board than Lou where Lou also struggles mightily on defense and prone to fouls. The hard truth is Lou is the 3rd best considered player on this team. Please say "hi" to the Mad Hatter for me in your world though.

I live in the fair consideration world and as best I can keep in mind..."early January". So is Boston an AA? Rickea Jackson? Mackayla Timpson? Jordan Horston? If you have rankings, what's the point of perception?

 

[bballnut90]

She's not the top scorer because the team is balanced. Her role on the team is to score. How many guards are shooting over 50%? A handful. And you won't find many more efficient. If you're going to 'consider or talk about Celeste Taylor, Zia Cooke, Jordan Horston (turnover machine, but IMO an AA)..., then I don't see how you can leave Lou out of the conversation. To me...consistency matters. I haven't even seen Rickea Jackson's name mentioned here....not to say it wasn't. How about Brea Beale? Sometimes you're the highest scorer on a bad team. Sometimes you're the average scorer on a great team. I'm playing devil's advocate to an extent. I know there are many factors to consider and that the reality is that there aren't enough "spots" to recognize all the elite talent.

I haven't heard anyone put Celeste Taylor's name in the hat for AA. Cooke has been talked about ad nauseam, most here feel she isn't deserving to be in consideration outside of SC fans. Horston is not a turnover machine this year--she's averaging 2 TO per game which is slightly less per game than Lou Lopez Senechal. Horston's numbers are strong across the board and her efficiency is good too. I'd also suggest looking at stats before making such claims. Brea Beale is on no one's radar for AA (and she shouldn't be averaging 5 points and 4 rebounds). LLS is a good scorer and filling her role extremely well for UCONN, but aside from scoring she doesn't thrive in any other area, and IMO she isn't an All American despite being a great pickup for the Huskies this year.

 

[LwrcasefaN]

I haven't heard anyone put Celeste Taylor's name in the hat for AA. Cooke has been talked about ad nauseam, most here feel she isn't deserving to be in consideration outside of SC fans. Horston is not a turnover machine this year--she's averaging 2 TO per game which is slightly less per game than Lou Lopez Senechal. Horston's numbers are strong across the board and her efficiency is good too. I'd also suggest looking at stats before making such claims. Brea Beale is on no one's radar for AA (and she shouldn't be averaging 5 points and 4 rebounds). LLS is a good scorer and filling her role extremely well for UCONN, but aside from scoring she doesn't thrive in any other area, and IMO she isn't an All American despite being a great pickup for the Huskies this year.

I think you should read what I wrote. And when Horston was averaging almost TOS last year...she was in every AA conversation...for other reasons. Stats don't mean everything...and that's part of my point. You can trust me or read all the posts and Taylor has been mentioned.

 

[bballnut90]

I think you should read what I wrote. And when Horston was averaging almost TOS last year...she was in every AA conversation...for other reasons. Stats don't mean everything...and that's part of my point. You can trust me or read all the posts and Taylor has been mentioned.

Last year at this point Horston was the clear standout for Tennessee who was top 5 in the country at the time. That alone deserves merit, even though she was wildly inefficient, she still had big all around stats, averaging 16/9/4.5 assists.

Regardless though of stats, what specifically about LLS makes you think she's an All American this year? To me she's an efficient scorer for UCONN who fills her role well but doesn't do a lot on the court besides make shots. I need more from a player if they're going to be an All American, or they need to be a team's go to player if their one trick is scoring the ball. I see her as an elite level role player in UCONN's offense, where Edwards is a true All American candidate and Fudd is too when healthy.

 

[LwrcasefaN]

Last year at this point Horston was the clear standout for Tennessee who was top 5 in the country at the time. That alone deserves merit, even though she was wildly inefficient, though still had big all around stats, too, averaging 16/9/4.5 assists.

Regardless though of stats, what specifically about LLS makes you think she's an All American this year? To me she's an efficient scorer for UCONN who fills her role well but doesn't do a lot on the court besides make shots. I need more from a player if they're going to be an All American, or they need to be a team's go to player if their one trick is scoring the ball. I see her as an elite level role player in UCONN's offense, where Edwards is a true All American candidate and Fudd is too when healthy.

She hasn't been a go-to? What was I thinking? She's leading the team in scoring (not including Fudd's 8 games). Shoots 51% from 3 and 50% overall. And is a 97% FT shooter. I'm guessing there may be no UCONN shooting guard to have these numbers. Maybe KML? And Fudd will probably get there. So...she exceeds my definition of a role player. In a blind test...who wouldn't ask...who is that? And again...you have to consider the team. In all the major statistical categories...NO UCONN player is the leader in more than one. No UCONN shooting guard is a big rebounder. And I'm not just advocating for Senechal, but many other players who are overlooked...Fair at Syracuse, Endiya Rogers at Oregon, Van Lith at Louisville, or even a Taina Mair at Boston College. There's parity in the game and there should be parity in examining possible candidates. That's all I'm saying.

 

[TheFarmFan]

She hasn't been a go-to? What was I thinking? She's leading the team in scoring (not including Fudd's 8 games). Shoots 51% from 3 and 50% overall. And is a 97% FT shooter. I'm guessing there may be no UCONN shooting guard to have these numbers. Maybe KML? And Fudd will probably get there. So...she exceeds my definition of a role player. In a blind test...who wouldn't ask...who is that? And again...you have to consider the team. In all the major statistical categories...NO UCONN player is the leader in more than one. No UCONN shooting guard is a big rebounder. And I'm not just advocating for Senechal, but many other players who are overlooked...Fair at Syracuse, Endiya Rogers at Oregon, Van Lith at Louisville, or even a Taina Mair at Boston College. There's parity in the game and there should be parity in examining possible candidates. That's all I'm saying.

I appreciate good homerism as much as the next guy, but Lou is tied for 73rd for D1 players in both PPG and FG%, and 39th for 3PTers made. Those are great stats, to be sure, but they are not, on their face, A-A-worthy. And as others have pointed out, the intangibles hurt rather than help her case (unlike Zia Cooke, whom I think is among the best at all the things that don't shot up in a stat sheet).

I'd say focus your fire power on advocating for Edwards's candidacy. She is legitimately sniffing at A-A consideration, which is all the more impressive given she's a Canadian!

 

[bballnut90]

She hasn't been a go-to? What was I thinking? She's leading the team in scoring (not including Fudd's 8 games). Shoots 51% from 3 and 50% overall. And is a 97% FT shooter. I'm guessing there may be no UCONN shooting guard to have these numbers. Maybe KML? And Fudd will probably get there. So...she exceeds my definition of a role player. In a blind test...who wouldn't ask...who is that? And again...you have to consider the team. In all the major statistical categories...NO UCONN player is the leader in more than one. No UCONN shooting guard is a big rebounder. And I'm not just advocating for Senechal, but many other players who are overlooked...Fair at Syracuse, Endiya Rogers at Oregon, Van Lith at Louisville, or even a Taina Mair at Boston College. There's parity in the game and there should be parity in examining possible candidates. That's all I'm saying.

I’m all for parity, I just don’t see compelling arguments for LLS or the players you listed. I’ll ask again though, aside from efficient shooting numbers, what is it about LLS’s game that makes you think she’s AA worthy this season?

 

[LwrcasefaN]

I’m all for parity, I just don’t see compelling arguments for LLS or the players you listed. I’ll ask again though, aside from efficient shooting numbers, what is it about LLS’s game that makes you think she’s AA worthy this season?

I answered that question...including context.

 

[Bone Dog]

Assuming no further injury disruptions and a season that continues along current trajectories, Azzi and Aaliyah are obvious contenders. There's no rule against having two first team AAs at the same school. There will surely be other contenders from other schools. When we win the NC, having had 2 AAs will all make sense to everyone.

 

[cancontent]

I appreciate good homerism as much as the next guy, but Lou is tied for 73rd for D1 players in both PPG and FG%, and 39th for 3PTers made. Those are great stats, to be sure, but they are not, on their face, A-A-worthy. And as others have pointed out, the intangibles hurt rather than help her case (unlike Zia Cooke, whom I think is among the best at all the things that don't shot up in a stat sheet).

I'd say focus your fire power on advocating for Edwards's candidacy. She is legitimately sniffing at A-A consideration, which is all the more impressive given she's a Canadian!

Hopefully they don't factor an exchange rate when counting votes. That could hurt based on current rates

 

[cancontent]

@LwrcasefaN - I don't see where you're argument puts Lopez-Senechal ahead of someone like Horston at the moment. Your arguments has been primarily about scoring. There's more to being an All-American than just that.

When I look at Horston's stats versus Lopez-Senechal's, Senechal only advantage is that she has a better FG and FT percentage. They close in scoring averages, so that's a wash.

If we're talking balanced, there's something to be said about being an all-around player which is where Horston has the advantage over Lopez-Senechal because she's doing better in rebounds, assists and steals. And it's been seen many times in games where she's a defensive liability. That has to be taken into account.


Horston's stats: Jordan Horston Stats, News, Bio | ESPN

Lopez-Senechal's stats: Lou Lopez Senechal Stats, News, Bio | ESPN