Game thread! | Page 10 | The Boneyard

Game thread!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Icebear said:
Stef completely out played the best rebounder in America. She had 14 rebounds in 29 minutes to Chiney's 13 in 36 minutes. Chiney out scored Stef with 18 points on 6-22 shooting in contrast to Stef's 10 points on 4-8 shooting along with 3 assists to Chiney's 1.

Game set and match to Stef in the post.

Geno completely changed the game by putting Stef on Chiney instead of Kelly who covered her much of the game last year.
Expand ...
Amen Ice. All praise to Stef...she was a beast! :)

But given Chiney's still impressive stats in a futile cause tells me a few things: 1) Chiney is a star who will produce under any circumstances and make an immediate impact at the next level, and 2) Stanford is suspect beyond Chiney, and 3) Stanford's close call against SCU was no aberration and could easily replay itself early in the NCAA's.
 
Replicant said:
Amen Ice. All praise to Stef...she was a beast! :)

But given Chiney's still impressive stats in a futile cause tells me a few things: 1) Chiney is a star who will produce under any circumstances and make an immediate impact at the next level, and 2) Stanford is suspect beyond Chiney, and 3) Stanford's close call against SCU was no aberration and could easily replay itself early in the NCAA's.
Expand ...
Chiney is a great player but most of her success came once the pressure was gone. She had 7 offensive rebounds but giver the number of Stanford missed shots it is not really surprising.
 
Icebear said:
Chiney is a great player but most of her success came once the pressure was gone. She had 7 offensive rebounds but giver the number of Stanford missed shots it is not really surprising.
Expand ...
No argument here...most of her stats were meaningless and clean-up in nature. She also wears an officiating halo and gets every benefit of their doubt.
 
Most interesting and completely overlooked fact about the game. After Bonnie Samuelson hit her second 3 and Stanford was on a bit of a run UCONN clamped down on defense and Stanford scored 6 points in the last 11:40. That's right 6 points in the last 11 minutes and 40 seconds of the game. Total domination. 4 FTs and 1, that's one, basket by Chiney.

Also, note that UConn only had 7 TOs today. We took care of the rock and we made our FTs 13 for 14.

Today the team took care of the small details.
 
.-.
Icebear said:
I think since Samuelson hit the two 3s Stanford has scored 5 points.
Expand ...


Yes, after Samuelson's 2nd three...Geno called a time out...you know he reminded them to get out on the threes...but whatever he did in that time out...it must have worked because Stanford was completely ineffective after that.
 
rtm5 said:
Banks deserves to play more.
Expand ...

So, let me get this straight: the team just beat the #1 team in the country on their home floor, by 26, breaking an 83(?) game winning streak, playing historic defense..and, your contribution to the conversation is to complain about the distribution of playing time?

I'm a big BB fan, but...geez, you really need to gain some perspective. I've coached for many, many years, and you sure sound like one of those parents who only cares about their kid, and their kid's accomplishments. That's not what high school varsity is about, much less top-level D1 college sports.
 
.-.
sarals24 said:
I am here and it's filling up! Stanford pit a brand new net up on UConn's side. They interviewed Nneka before the game about breaking the streak. Rebecca looking lovely in green.



Go UConn!!!!!
Expand ...

Hey Sarals24, I came by Section 8 to look for you, but was a bit too crowded, and I was pushing someone in a wheelchair.

Congrats on an outstanding game. Hope you had a good time and enjoyed Maples. See you next time.
 
pinotbear said:
So, let me get this straight: the team just beat the #1 team in the country on their home floor, by 26, breaking an 83(?) game winning streak, playing historic defense..and, your contribution to the conversation is to complain about the distribution of playing time?

I'm a big BB fan, but...geez, you really need to gain some perspective. I've coached for many, many years, and you sure sound like one of those parents who only cares about their kid, and their kid's accomplishments. That's not what high school varsity is about, much less top-level D1 college sports.
Expand ...

baloney! what kind of perspective are you talking about? plain and simple, brianna should have played more. no one plays any harder than brianna. she's obviously earned the time. she's be so very effective game after game. it made no sense. it was the one sour part of the game.
 
She was not as effective when she was in against Stanford. Almost immediately she tried to force a play by herself which was an old habit. The best thing she did was the joint trap with Kelly and the reulting layup for Kelly. Don't over state the situation. She is coming along really well and Geno and the staff may not have wanted to over test it yet. Besides why assume she was able to play more several others were under the weather in one manner or another. We never know the whole story.
 
boontonbomber said:
baloney! what kind of perspective are you talking about? plain and simple, brianna should have played more. no one plays any harder than brianna. she's obviously earned the time. she's be so very effective game after game. it made no sense. it was the one sour part of the game.
Expand ...

Geez, where to begin? "Plain and simple"..well, to you, but obviously not to the incredibly successful coaching staff.
"no one plays any harder than brianna"..oh, really? Not one single player on that squad - not Kelly, not KML, not anybody - plays any harder? How many play "as hard"? Do ties count?
"She's obviously earned the time" Obviously? Over who?
"It made no sense" Again, to whom?
"One sour part of the game" Which goes to the point of my post, where I objected to your being more concerned with one player's court time than any other aspect of the game - or, at least the only aspect that moved you to post. Again, focusing on your perception of one player's being used insufficiently, over anything else, is a middle-school parent mentallity. And, not a very learned middle-school parent, at that.
 
.-.
pinotbear said:
Geez, where to begin? "Plain and simple"..well, to you, but obviously not to the incredibly successful coaching staff.
"no one plays any harder than brianna"..oh, really? Not one single player on that squad - not Kelly, not KML, not anybody - plays any harder? How many play "as hard"? Do ties count?
"She's obviously earned the time" Obviously? Over who?
"It made no sense" Again, to whom?
"One sour part of the game" Which goes to the point of my post, where I objected to your being more concerned with one player's court time than any other aspect of the game - or, at least the only aspect that moved you to post. Again, focusing on your perception of one player's being used insufficiently, over anything else, is a middle-school parent mentallity. And, not a very learned middle-school parent, at that.
Expand ...
where you might have begun , actually, was to have answered my question regarding perspective , since i still have no idea what you meant by that. that said:
- plain and simple, based upon her average of 19 minutes, and effectiveness in tougher games against maryland and penn st.
- no one plays harder,means no one plays harder. what's so hard about that for you to understand? and i don't believe anyone plays any harder than kml or kelly either.i hope that i'm not confusing you, but we are talking about something that is subjective.
-it makes no sense to me and to the poster that you originally responded to, that , based upon her effective play in earlier games , that she only played 9 minutes. i see no reason why our incredibly successful coaching staff can't say a bit about such things post-games. coaches do that at times. what's the big deal? oh,i know, when you're so incredibly successful you just don't have to worry about explaining such things. but fans do wonder. well, at least 2 of us do.
-" it was the one sour part of the game" doesn't sound to me like anyone was more concerned about that aspect than any other part of the game. it was one of the best uconn efforts that i witnessed in 27 years, and yet i still wonder why brianna's playing time was half her season's average.
- i can only guess that you have had too many middle school parents question you over the years. if that's the case, i can almost understand your overreaction to our statements.
-
 
boontonbomber said:
where you might have begun , actually, was to have answered my question regarding perspective , since i still have no idea what you meant by that. that said:
- plain and simple, based upon her average of 19 minutes, and effectiveness in tougher games against maryland and penn st.
- no one plays harder,means no one plays harder. what's so hard about that for you to understand? and i don't believe anyone plays any harder than kml or kelly either.i hope that i'm not confusing you, but we are talking about something that is subjective.
-it makes no sense to me and to the poster that you originally responded to, that , based upon her effective play in earlier games , that she only played 9 minutes. i see no reason why our incredibly successful coaching staff can't say a bit about such things post-games. coaches do that at times. what's the big deal? oh,i know, when you're so incredibly successful you just don't have to worry about explaining such things. but fans do wonder. well, at least 2 of us do.
-" it was the one sour part of the game" doesn't sound to me like anyone was more concerned about that aspect than any other part of the game. it was one of the best uconn efforts that i witnessed in 27 years, and yet i still wonder why brianna's playing time was half her season's average.
- i can only guess that you have had too many middle school parents question you over the years. if that's the case, i can almost understand your overreaction to our statements.
-
Expand ...

Here are some logical counterpoints to your position.

1. As far as we know everyone plays as hard as Banks in practice; they certainly seem to be giving their all in the game. Thus, playing hard is not a factor by which we can distinguish playing time in this case. This particular counterpoint automatically assumes you are not mistaking Banks's greater athleticism from most as playing harder. Perhaps you think Banks is playing even harder than all the other hard working Huskies, but there's no empirical evidence to substantiate that and it is just as reasonable to assume otherwise. That makes it an irrelevant point on your part, what's so hard to understand about that?

2. By my eye Banks looked the most tentative she had yet this year. That's very subjective and I'm not suggesting that my observation is superior to yours. However, given that was my observation it is a logical counterpoint for why her minutes went down. Perhaps my observation is inferior to yours, but quite calmly logical, and it would be hard to establish empirically which one of us is right.

3. In post game comments Auriemma emphasized that this was Banks's first big game away from home and that was a factor in how he played her. He also expressed satisfaction with the results. This may be doubling up on my observation for counterpoint 2, maybe not. Whatever it was that Auriemma thought was significant about reducing her playing time for the first big game away from home he expressed satisfaction with the results. We can assume he acted logically, albeit misguided in your estimation. It also refutes your assertion that he did not address this afterwards. Given a previous discussion, I'm wondering if you have some kind of weird filter going on that only allows you to witness only the things you want to regarding Auriemma. This, once again, from a fan who likewise thinks Auriemma makes mistakes, though I'm not sure he made any against Stanford (except for the technical).
 
diggerfoot said:
Here are some logical counterpoints to your position.

1. As far as we know everyone plays as hard as Banks in practice; they certainly seem to be giving their all in the game. Thus, playing hard is not a factor by which we can distinguish playing time in this case. This particular counterpoint automatically assumes you are not mistaking Banks's greater athleticism from most as playing harder. Perhaps you think Banks is playing even harder than all the other hard working Huskies, but there's no empirical evidence to substantiate that and it is just as reasonable to assume otherwise. That makes it an irrelevant point on your part, what's so hard to understand about that?

2. By my eye Banks looked the most tentative she had yet this year. That's very subjective and I'm not suggesting that my observation is superior to yours. However, given that was my observation it is a logical counterpoint for why her minutes went down. Perhaps my observation is inferior to yours, but quite calmly logical, and it would be hard to establish empirically which one of us is right.

3. In post game comments Auriemma emphasized that this was Banks's first big game away from home and that was a factor in how he played her. He also expressed satisfaction with the results. This may be doubling up on my observation for counterpoint 2, maybe not. Whatever it was that Auriemma thought was significant about reducing her playing time for the first big game away from home he expressed satisfaction with the results. We can assume he acted logically, albeit misguided in your estimation. It also refutes your assertion that he did not address this afterwards. Given a previous discussion, I'm wondering if you have some kind of weird filter going on that only allows you to witness only the things you want to regarding Auriemma. This, once again, from a fan who likewise thinks Auriemma makes mistakes, though I'm not sure he made any against Stanford (except for the technical).
Expand ...
1. i never said she played harder than anyone else, only that in my opinion no one plays harder than she. i thought that was clear. and i did not mean that by playing so hard she deserved the time. i was just gushing about her effort. i said that based upon her level of play this entire season it made no sense that she played only 9 minutes.
2. nowhere do i claim to have superior powers of observation. the original poster made an observation, and pinotbear seemed to think that he was out of line , with a rather testy response i might add. i simply agreed with the poster's observation, and, while i was at it, disagreed with the tone of pinotbear's response. by the way, what do you mean by "quite calmy logical"? you can't mean that you think that i'm not calmy logical, because that is most certainly subjective. i must add that if you're going to base your observation on such a small sample ( 9 minutes), it does call into question your observation.
3. i did not see geno's comment, but if he was satisfied with her play, it makes even less sense that she played so little. what am i missing here? don't know if it's a weird filter, but i guess it's fair to say that , as much as i appreciate what he's done with the uconn program, i'm otherwise not very fond of the guy. i also did not think much of the technical. a bit of an attention grabber, that probably would not happened if the game was actually close at the time. but, again, i really don't like the guy.
 
boontonbomber said:
1. i never said she played harder than anyone else, only that in my opinion no one plays harder than she. i thought that was clear. and i did not mean that by playing so hard she deserved the time. i was just gushing about her effort. i said that based upon her level of play this entire season it made no sense that she played only 9 minutes.
2. nowhere do i claim to have superior powers of observation. the original poster made an observation, and pinotbear seemed to think that he was out of line , with a rather testy response i might add. i simply agreed with the poster's observation, and, while i was at it, disagreed with the tone of pinotbear's response. by the way, what do you mean by "quite calmy logical"? you can't mean that you think that i'm not calmy logical, because that is most certainly subjective. i must add that if you're going to base your observation on such a small sample ( 9 minutes), it does call into question your observation.
3. i did not see geno's comment, but if he was satisfied with her play, it makes even less sense that she played so little. what am i missing here? don't know if it's a weird filter, but i guess it's fair to say that , as much as i appreciate what he's done with the uconn program, i'm otherwise not very fond of the guy. i also did not think much of the technical. a bit of an attention grabber, that probably would not happened if the game was actually close at the time. but, again, i really don't like the guy.
Expand ...

Well, I guess you and I have extended this thread way beyond it's normal lifespan. For my part this will be the last of it. You demonstrate a comprehension issue in your counterpoints to my counterpoints given the larger context of the thread. For the briefest example, for my counterpoint #2 that I'm making in the context of the overall thread, it's irrelevant whether you are calmly logical or not. In regards to counterpoint #1 you did not start with "Banks plays just as hard as anybody," a logical argument for why there should be no bias against her playing time, in prelude to other reasons for providing more. Instead, you started with "no one plays harder" which is the logical phrasing for implying others play less hard and justifying more playing time over others based on that criteria alone. Maybe you meant the former rather than the latter all along, but that does not play to normal comprehension.

Your very last clause reveals why there might be a comprehension issue in addition to a "weird filter." For someone with your predisposition "resistance is futile." You don't have to worry about me challenging you again.
 
diggerfoot said:
Well, I guess you and I have extended this thread way beyond it's normal lifespan. For my part this will be the last of it. You demonstrate a comprehension issue in your counterpoints to my counterpoints given the larger context of the thread. For the briefest example, for my counterpoint #2 that I'm making in the context of the overall thread, it's irrelevant whether you are calmly logical or not. In regards to counterpoint #1 you did not start with "Banks plays just as hard as anybody," a logical argument for why there should be no bias against her playing time, in prelude to other reasons for providing more. Instead, you started with "no one plays harder" which is the logical phrasing for implying others play less hard and justifying more playing time over others based on that criteria alone. Maybe you meant the former rather than the latter all along, but that does not play to normal comprehension.

Your very last clause reveals why there might be a comprehension issue in addition to a "weird filter." For someone with your predisposition "resistance is futile." You don't have to worry about me challenging you again.
Expand ...

no doubt this thread has been overextended. but it's not the first one.
but, regarding "no one plays harder" : you may think that that implies that others are playing less hard, but i don't see that implication. i did not mean the former, which makes no difference anyway, since the implication is the same. to say that" banks plays as hard as kml or anyone else"is certainly no different than saying that"no one,neither kml or anyone else , plays harder than banks". to say kml doesn't play harder than banks doesn't logically mean that she can't play as hard as banks.
you refer to my comprehension issues and weird filter, which , in fact , i admitted to in mentioning my dislike of geno . i might suggest, though, that you come out from behind your logical this and that and counterpoints, at times, and just pay attention to the english language as understood by most people.
 
boontonbomber said:
no doubt this thread has been overextended. but it's not the first one.
but, regarding "no one plays harder" : you may think that that implies that others are playing less hard, but i don't see that implication. i did not mean the former, which makes no difference anyway, since the implication is the same. to say that" banks plays as hard as kml or anyone else"is certainly no different than saying that"no one,neither kml or anyone else , plays harder than banks". to say kml doesn't play harder than banks doesn't logically mean that she can't play as hard as banks.
you refer to my comprehension issues and weird filter, which , in fact , i admitted to in mentioning my dislike of geno . i might suggest, though, that you come out from behind your logical this and that and counterpoints, at times, and just pay attention to the english language as understood by most people.
Expand ...
Given the logic above it is then meaningless and unnecessary to observe how hard anyone is playing since they all play equally hard.
 
.-.
Icebear said:
Given the logic above it is then meaningless and unnecessary to observe how hard anyone is playing since they all play equally hard.
Expand ...

c'mon, ice, that's not the kind of reasoning that all here have come to expect of you.
 
The other factor that Geno undoubtedly considered was that Caroline was playing very well, despite not scoring. As I said in another thread, I thought Caroline made a greater contribution against Stanford than Brianna, even after allowing for the difference in minutes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,370
Messages
4,568,731
Members
10,474
Latest member
MyStore24


Top Bottom