Height and Depth -- Evidence vs. Prejudice

[JoePgh]

I deliberately have avoided reading the Oregon Postgame thread, but I have read enough material on other threads to realize that (once again, as after Baylor) a comparison of facts against prejudices is a useful and necessary exercise. I'm addressing two specific myths about this year's UConn team:

1. Myth 1 is that UConn has a much thinner bench than other Top 10 teams, and that this is why they have come up short against the only two Top 10 teams they have played this year.
2. Myth 2 is that UConn's present lack of size (i.e., height) is a decisive reason why they have lost those two games.

With regard to bench depth, as with Baylor, checking the box score against Oregon easily disposes of this argument. In the February 3 game, Oregon's bench played a total of 27 minutes and scored zero points, grabbed zero rebounds, had 1 assist and 2 steals. To compare that fairly to UConn, it is necessary to treat Anna as a starter (she played 36 minutes) and Kyla as a bench player (she played 4). After making this adjustment, UConn's bench played 32 minutes and scored 3 points, got 5 rebounds including 2 offensive rebounds, had 1 assist, 3 steals, and 3 turnovers. All those stats are attributable to Aubrey, who played 22 minutes. So which team got more productivity from their bench?

With regard to the impact of height, the issue is not so clear. Oregon did have a somewhat significant height advantage (6-4, 6-4, 6-2 in the front court as compared to 6-5, 6-1, and 6-1 for UConn). Oregon did out-rebound UConn by 40 to 32, and got 12 offensive rebounds compared to UConn's 9. In percentage terms (which are more relevant), Oregon got back 12 of its 33 missed shots (36.3%), and UConn got back 9 of 34 misses (26.4%). Oregon's two tallest players (Sabally and Hebard) got 22 rebounds (Boley, the third member of their starting front court, got only 2), while UConn's three front-court starters got only 17. However, Ionescu (a 5-10 guard) got 9 rebounds for Oregon, while Christyn and Aubrey (5-10 and 6-1) also got a total of 9 rebounds. So for both teams, a significant part of the rebounding was done by players who did not possess a lot of size. So you could conclude from the box score that Oregon's greater size played some role in their rebounding advantage.

However, using the eye test, one has to ask whether it was the Oregon players' size that gave them a rebounding advantage, or was it their experience? Hebard is a senior and Sabally is (I believe) a 4th-year junior, who have both been starters since their freshman year. That is a lot more experience than Olivia, Megan, and Anna. In my opinion, which is supported by the stats from the Baylor game which were basically even in rebounding, the experience was the decisive factor. Three years ago in Bridgeport, these same Oregon players were rebounding against Gabby / Napheesa / Lou, and they were not successful then despite a height advantage. In that game, the experience advantage favored UConn.

One minor point of intersection between Myth 1 and Myth 2 exists in the 6-5 Oregon bench player Lydia Giomi. I remember Boneyard posters citing her as an example of the kind of height that other top teams possess, and that UConn could not match. Well, in last night's game, Ms. Giomi played all of 2 minutes and did exactly nothing. So much for that particular (alleged) source of height and depth.

UConn's height and depth will improve in the next 2-3 years because of the recruitment of bigs that Geno has already done. But if UConn is more successful in these years, it will probably be more attributable to the players on the current roster gaining experience and maturity than to the contributions of these new players. I really think that will happen.

 

[jonson]

I deliberately have avoided reading the Oregon Postgame thread, but I have read enough material on other threads to realize that (once again, as after Baylor) a comparison of facts against prejudices is a useful and necessary exercise. I'm addressing two specific myths about this year's UConn team:

1. Myth 1 is that UConn has a much thinner bench than other Top 10 teams, and that this is why they have come up short against the only two Top 10 teams they have played this year.
2. Myth 2 is that UConn's present lack of size (i.e., height) is a decisive reason why they have lost those two games.

With regard to bench depth, as with Baylor, checking the box score against Oregon easily disposes of this argument. In the February 3 game, Oregon's bench played a total of 27 minutes and scored zero points, grabbed zero rebounds, had 1 assist and 2 steals. To compare that fairly to UConn, it is necessary to treat Anna as a starter (she played 36 minutes) and Kyla as a bench player (she played 4). After making this adjustment, UConn's bench played 32 minutes and scored 3 points, got 5 rebounds including 2 offensive rebounds, had 1 assist, 3 steals, and 3 turnovers. All those stats are attributable to Aubrey, who played 22 minutes. So which team got more productivity from their bench?

With regard to the impact of height, the issue is not so clear. Oregon did have a somewhat significant height advantage (6-4, 6-4, 6-2 in the front court as compared to 6-5, 6-1, and 6-1 for UConn). Oregon did out-rebound UConn by 40 to 32, and got 12 offensive rebounds compared to UConn's 9. In percentage terms (which are more relevant), Oregon got back 12 of its 33 missed shots (36.3%), and UConn got back 9 of 34 misses (26.4%). Oregon's two tallest players (Sabally and Hebard) got 22 rebounds (Boley, the third member of their starting front court, got only 2), while UConn's three front-court starters got only 17. However, Ionescu (a 5-10 guard) got 9 rebounds for Oregon, while Christyn and Aubrey (5-10 and 6-1) also got a total of 9 rebounds. So for both teams, a significant part of the rebounding was done by players who did not possess a lot of size. So you could conclude from the box score that Oregon's greater size played some role in their rebounding advantage.

However, using the eye test, one has to ask whether it was the Oregon players' size that gave them a rebounding advantage, or was it their experience? Hebard is a senior and Sabally is (I believe) a 4th-year junior, who have both been starters since their freshman year. That is a lot more experience than Olivia, Megan, and Anna. In my opinion, which is supported by the stats from the Baylor game which were basically even in rebounding, the experience was the decisive factor. Three years ago in Bridgeport, these same Oregon players were rebounding against Gabby / Napheesa / Lou, and they were not successful then despite a height advantage. In that game, the experience advantage favored UConn.

One minor point of intersection between Myth 1 and Myth 2 exists in the 6-5 Oregon bench player Lydia Giomi. I remember Boneyard posters citing her as an example of the kind of height that other top teams possess, and that UConn could not match. Well, in last night's game, Ms. Giomi played all of 2 minutes and did exactly nothing. So much for that particular (alleged) source of height and depth.

UConn's height and depth will improve in the next 2-3 years because of the recruitment of bigs that Geno has already done. But if UConn is more successful in these years, it will probably be more attributable to the players on the current roster gaining experience and maturity than to the contributions of these new players. I really think that will happen.

A couple of corrections, and a few comments: 1) Sabally is in her third year (same as Megan); and 2) Sabally and Boley did not play in the game in Bridgeport (they weren't yet on the roster). Morgan Yaeger played 3 minutes, but seldom plays now due to back issues, Giomi was out with an injury. So Ionescu and Hebard are the only real holdovers.

As to height, many posters here do not believe that Hebard is close to 6'4" (ask @oldude); I think she is, but I suppose it really doesn't matter much. Boley has never been a very good rebounder so 2 is about as good as one gets from her. Ionescu is in fact the second leading rebounder on the team (after Hebard); Sabally is #3, but has been a monster on the offensive boards of late. Moore is also a very good rebounder for her size. So, yes, I don't think height is the only factor involved.

As for the bench, in this game Chavez missed shots she normally makes but was very good on the defensive end imo. I think the game was too big for Giomi, who has been getting solid minutes (about 12/game) and been reasonably productive throughout most of the season. The biggest change was the limited minutes for the freshman guard Shelley, who normally is on the court for 19 minutes/game (and averages about 5.5 points), but only 5 minutes in this one. (Chavez averages about 21/game and slightly more points than Shelley; she was on the court for 19 minutes on Monday.) The differences are, I believe, testimony to the challenges involved in playing UCONN at Gampel.

I do think that Graves is much more willing to play (and forgive) reserves than Geno; perhaps that stems from not having a roster filled with the stellar recruits UCONN regularly has (still true at Oregon; even more true at Gonzaga); perhaps he believes that's the best way to build a team; perhaps it's just temperamental. But I don't think it will change.

 

[oldude]

As to height, many posters here do not believe that Hebard is close to 6'4" (ask @oldude); I think she is, but I suppose it really doesn't matter much.

Exhibit A for my skepticism on Ruthy Hebard's listed 6'4" size......
Bing
Hebard certainly “plays big,” but I have to agree with Geno. There is no way she’s 6’4”.

 

[Charliebball]

I deliberately have avoided reading the Oregon Postgame thread, but I have read enough material on other threads to realize that (once again, as after Baylor) a comparison of facts against prejudices is a useful and necessary exercise. I'm addressing two specific myths about this year's UConn team:

1. Myth 1 is that UConn has a much thinner bench than other Top 10 teams, and that this is why they have come up short against the only two Top 10 teams they have played this year.
2. Myth 2 is that UConn's present lack of size (i.e., height) is a decisive reason why they have lost those two games.

With regard to bench depth, as with Baylor, checking the box score against Oregon easily disposes of this argument. In the February 3 game, Oregon's bench played a total of 27 minutes and scored zero points, grabbed zero rebounds, had 1 assist and 2 steals. To compare that fairly to UConn, it is necessary to treat Anna as a starter (she played 36 minutes) and Kyla as a bench player (she played 4). After making this adjustment, UConn's bench played 32 minutes and scored 3 points, got 5 rebounds including 2 offensive rebounds, had 1 assist, 3 steals, and 3 turnovers. All those stats are attributable to Aubrey, who played 22 minutes. So which team got more productivity from their bench?

With regard to the impact of height, the issue is not so clear. Oregon did have a somewhat significant height advantage (6-4, 6-4, 6-2 in the front court as compared to 6-5, 6-1, and 6-1 for UConn). Oregon did out-rebound UConn by 40 to 32, and got 12 offensive rebounds compared to UConn's 9. In percentage terms (which are more relevant), Oregon got back 12 of its 33 missed shots (36.3%), and UConn got back 9 of 34 misses (26.4%). Oregon's two tallest players (Sabally and Hebard) got 22 rebounds (Boley, the third member of their starting front court, got only 2), while UConn's three front-court starters got only 17. However, Ionescu (a 5-10 guard) got 9 rebounds for Oregon, while Christyn and Aubrey (5-10 and 6-1) also got a total of 9 rebounds. So for both teams, a significant part of the rebounding was done by players who did not possess a lot of size. So you could conclude from the box score that Oregon's greater size played some role in their rebounding advantage.

UConn's height and depth will improve in the next 2-3 years because of the recruitment of bigs that Geno has already done. But if UConn is more successful in these years, it will probably be more attributable to the players on the current roster gaining experience and maturity than to the contributions of these new players. I really think that will happen.

one of the main reasons Oregon won was because they had Ruthie Hebard and UConn didn't.............having a dominant inside presence who is expert at running the pick and roll with a career shooting percentage of .650 makes a huge difference in scoring effeciency...........perhaps UConn can emulate that next season when PB comes to town

 

[willtalk]

In respect to Giomi only playing two minutes. Hebard was playing well and so there was no real reason to play Giomi many minutes. Giomi is actually a better defender than Hebard, but she is not an offensive threat and that is why she does not get a lot of minutes. Unlike Uconn, Oregon does have a tall center who can come in and play defense and rebound if necessary.

 

[JoePgh]

one of the main reasons Oregon won was because they had Ruthie Hebard and UConn didn't.............having a dominant inside presence who is expert at running the pick and roll with a career shooting percentage of .650 makes a huge difference in scoring effeciency...........perhaps UConn can emulate that next season when PB comes to town

At the risk of repetition, is Hebard's value primarily in her height or in her experience and her chemistry with Sabrina? Or, to put it another way, can you imagine Napheesa (if she were still here) being just as effective offensively as Hebard was in this kind of game, despite her 6-1 height?

Do either you or willtalk think that if UConn had a Natalie Butler kind of player on its bench against Oregon, the result would have been different or even noticeably closer?

 

[jonson]

At the risk of repetition, is Hebard's value primarily in her height or in her experience and her chemistry with Sabrina? Or, to put it another way, can you imagine Napheesa (if she were still here) being just as effective offensively as Hebard was in this kind of game, despite her 6-1 height?

Do either you or willtalk think that if UConn had a Natalie Butler kind of player on its bench against Oregon, the result would have been different or even noticeably closer?

Yes, to the experience and Napheesa questions and, for Hebard's offense, certainly as to the Ionescu connection. Hebard has always been a very good rebounder, however. As to having Butler on the squad, I think Oregon would still win, because they are imo a better team, but having a backup 5 who is difficult to dislodge and can hit short jumpers surely would have helped.

Absent a tape measure I guess I'll have to fold on the Hebard height argument. (When did Geno question her height?) But, you're right, her actual height really doesn't matter, since she has been able to hold her own against posts who are taller: Liv, obviously, but also Fowles in the USA game and McGowan last year. (I omit the Baylor game since Hebard was dealing with an injured knee at that point in the season.) And, again, statistically, the second best rebounder on the team is Ionescu, who is supposed to be 5'10" and added 15 lbs. of muscle over the summer, because she believed she needed to be stronger (and she was already strong by guard standards). Pretty much all of this reinforces your argument regarding height differentials and rebounding. I have never viewed Oregon as a particularly tall team--maybe because of the height at Oregon State 40 miles up I 5--but next year will be different, with Satou at 6'4", Prince at 6'7", Nyara Sabally at 6'5" (if finally healthy), Giomi at 6'6", and two incoming recruits at 6'4" (assuming, of course, that these listings are reasonably accurate). Whether that will make up for the loss of Hebard and Ionescu (I am speaking of rebounding only) is an open question.

 

[CocoHusky]

@JoePgh I don't think you can effectively counter either myth with a numeric (box score) or players listed height as you have done.

Two reason why:
1) The analysis for Myth #1 includes Kyla numbers as a starter. Kyla played 4 minutes in the Oregon game and 32 minutes in the Baylor game each time contributing zero points. For an analysis of relative bench depth to be useful it must start with the gap (if any) that is created by the starters. Oregon and Baylor did not need the bench because the starters did not create a gap (deficit). The UCONN starters clearly did create a deficit .

2) Your analysis for myth 2 ignores the matchups that actually evolved during those games. As an example you mention that Sabrina snagged 9 rebounds and that she is 5'10". You failed to mention that for much of this game Sabrina was matched up against 5'6" (allegedly) Crystal Dangerfield. More importantly and to Oregon' credit Ruth Hebard was 10 of 14 in this game. Each of her finishes were at or near the basket where she was finishing over, nobody or 6'1" Megan, Aubrey or Anna. Sabally 6'4" & Boley 6'4" in the Oregon offense are perimeter players. The UCONN perimeter defensive players are 5'11" 6'1" and 5'6". That means that Oregon is getting a lot of clean looks from the perimeter and the box score definitely reflects that.

I don't think these are myths, more like real UCONN weaknesses that can be and were exploited by two very good coaches with very talented teams that were both taller and more skilled than this version of the Huskies.
Bench depth in both of those games was hardly a factor and not worth talking about.

 

[WestCoast]

In respect to Giomi only playing two minutes. Hebard was playing well and so there was no real reason to play Giomi many minutes. Giomi is actually a better defender than Hebard, but she is not an offensive threat and that is why she does not get a lot of minutes. Unlike Uconn, Oregon does have a tall center who can come in and play defense and rebound if necessary.

I believe that Hebard is the more effective defender. She brings a level of physicality and intensity to the Oregon interior that Giomi can't provide.

 

[CocoHusky]

one of the main reasons Oregon won was because they had Ruthie Hebard and UConn didn't.............having a dominant inside presence who is expert at running the pick and roll with a career shooting percentage of .650 makes a huge difference in scoring effeciency...........perhaps UConn can emulate that next season when PB comes to town

Ruthie was 10 of 14 (71%) in this game.

 

[WestCoast]

Exhibit A for my skepticism on Ruthy Hebard's listed 6'4" size......
Bing
Hebard certainly “plays big,” but I have to agree with Geno. There is no way she’s 6’4”.

For what it is worth, Hebard was more consistently listed at 6'3" in high school and "grew" to 6'4" when listed at Oregon.

 

[JoePgh]

@JoePgh I don't think you can effectively counter either myth with a numeric (box score) or players listed height as you have done.

Two reason why:
1) The analysis for Myth #1 includes Kyla numbers as a starter. Kyla played 4 minutes in the Oregon game and 32 minutes in the Baylor game each time contributing zero points. For an analysis of relative bench depth to be useful it must start with the gap (if any) that is created by the starters. Oregon and Baylor did not need the bench because the starters did not create a gap (deficit). The UCONN starters clearly did create a deficit .

No, as I stated in my original post, for the comparison I treated Anna as a starter for UConn and Kyla as a bench player during the Oregon game. Most of the bench minutes and all of the bench production came from Aubrey using this classification.

The argument that has been made for more depth on the UConn roster is that the starters are becoming exhausted from excessive minutes or are getting in foul trouble. Neither of those was an issue against Oregon -- the quarter with the biggest point deficit (by far) was the first quarter.

Regarding height (Myth 2), you have a more valid point. But again, do you really think that if UConn had a Natalie Butler type of player to provide height off the bench, Oregon would have had significantly more difficulty scoring its points in the paint? Watching the game (both live and on replay), most of the Oregon paint points were on plays where someone got away and had an uncontested layup. Without a very athletic big defender on the UConn roster (not Butler or anyone similar), and without better communication on defense, it would still have been easy for Oregon to score in the paint.

 

[southofnorth]

Something that doesn't show up in the box score is the length of taller players vs smaller players. Blocks and steals can be the result of this length, but shots can be altered/avoided because of a defender's length, too. Not saying that's the entire argument for more size, but it's something that (unfortunately) statistics in box scores don't show and can have a huge impact on the game.

 

[WestCoast]

The bottom line is that Oregon has a high level of overall team skill (shooting, passing, and effective ballhandling) and skilled size in Sabally and Hebard that Ionescu has what she needs to be extremely effective against teams with height, teams with quickness, and any combination of the above at the college level.

It will take a poor shooting performance by Oregon and/or a spirited defensive performance by a Top 15 level team to beat Oregon. It has happened twice this season so far. It can happen again. Teams (like Baylor and South Carolina) that can provide extensive ball pressure at all five positions are probably best qualified to beat Oregon. The PAC-12 Conference schedule has got Oregon ready to compete with anyone in the nation. Looking forward to seeing if Stanford can give the Ducks a more competitive effort in Palo Alto. Stanford is a very good defensive team, but its defense didn't show well during the first matchup between the two teams in January. I think Tara will have the Cardinal ready defensively later this month in the rematch.

 

[SCyankee]

I deliberately have avoided reading the Oregon Postgame thread, but I have read enough material on other threads to realize that (once again, as after Baylor) a comparison of facts against prejudices is a useful and necessary exercise. I'm addressing two specific myths about this year's UConn team:

1. Myth 1 is that UConn has a much thinner bench than other Top 10 teams, and that this is why they have come up short against the only two Top 10 teams they have played this year.
2. Myth 2 is that UConn's present lack of size (i.e., height) is a decisive reason why they have lost those two games.

With regard to bench depth, as with Baylor, checking the box score against Oregon easily disposes of this argument. In the February 3 game, Oregon's bench played a total of 27 minutes and scored zero points, grabbed zero rebounds, had 1 assist and 2 steals. To compare that fairly to UConn, it is necessary to treat Anna as a starter (she played 36 minutes) and Kyla as a bench player (she played 4). After making this adjustment, UConn's bench played 32 minutes and scored 3 points, got 5 rebounds including 2 offensive rebounds, had 1 assist, 3 steals, and 3 turnovers. All those stats are attributable to Aubrey, who played 22 minutes. So which team got more productivity from their bench?

With regard to the impact of height, the issue is not so clear. Oregon did have a somewhat significant height advantage (6-4, 6-4, 6-2 in the front court as compared to 6-5, 6-1, and 6-1 for UConn). Oregon did out-rebound UConn by 40 to 32, and got 12 offensive rebounds compared to UConn's 9. In percentage terms (which are more relevant), Oregon got back 12 of its 33 missed shots (36.3%), and UConn got back 9 of 34 misses (26.4%). Oregon's two tallest players (Sabally and Hebard) got 22 rebounds (Boley, the third member of their starting front court, got only 2), while UConn's three front-court starters got only 17. However, Ionescu (a 5-10 guard) got 9 rebounds for Oregon, while Christyn and Aubrey (5-10 and 6-1) also got a total of 9 rebounds. So for both teams, a significant part of the rebounding was done by players who did not possess a lot of size. So you could conclude from the box score that Oregon's greater size played some role in their rebounding advantage.

However, using the eye test, one has to ask whether it was the Oregon players' size that gave them a rebounding advantage, or was it their experience? Hebard is a senior and Sabally is (I believe) a 4th-year junior, who have both been starters since their freshman year. That is a lot more experience than Olivia, Megan, and Anna. In my opinion, which is supported by the stats from the Baylor game which were basically even in rebounding, the experience was the decisive factor. Three years ago in Bridgeport, these same Oregon players were rebounding against Gabby / Napheesa / Lou, and they were not successful then despite a height advantage. In that game, the experience advantage favored UConn.

One minor point of intersection between Myth 1 and Myth 2 exists in the 6-5 Oregon bench player Lydia Giomi. I remember Boneyard posters citing her as an example of the kind of height that other top teams possess, and that UConn could not match. Well, in last night's game, Ms. Giomi played all of 2 minutes and did exactly nothing. So much for that particular (alleged) source of height and depth.

UConn's height and depth will improve in the next 2-3 years because of the recruitment of bigs that Geno has already done. But if UConn is more successful in these years, it will probably be more attributable to the players on the current roster gaining experience and maturity than to the contributions of these new players. I really think that will happen.

You make a strong argument, however we lost because we lacked height, length, breadth, depth and experience in comparison. If we play our A game we might beat anyone but how many A games have we played this year?

 

[Charliebball]

Ruthie was 10 of 14 (71%) in this game.

like Geno said, some people complain that most of her shots are from close range but it doesn't matter where she shoots from, they usually go in

 

[Dokey]

Exhibit A for my skepticism on Ruthy Hebard's listed 6'4" size......
Bing
Hebard certainly “plays big,” but I have to agree with Geno. There is no way she’s 6’4”.

If that’s true, let’s hear it for 6’ 3” Edwards. If she can be our Hebard, it takes pressure off ONO. If not more. How about this starting five. Bueckers, Westbrook, Makurat, Walker and Edwards.

 

[WestCoast]

like Geno said, some people complain that most of her shots are from close range but it doesn't matter where she shoots from, they usually go in

Opposing teams try to make Hebard go left and/or shoot from beyond 7'. Unfortunately, it is difficult to do with Ionescu and Sabally being able to get into the paint to put pressure on opposing defenses.

 

[ABCDFE]

one of the main reasons Oregon won was because they had Ruthie Hebard and UConn didn't.............having a dominant inside presence who is expert at running the pick and roll with a career shooting percentage of .650 makes a huge difference in scoring effeciency...........perhaps UConn can emulate that next season when PB comes to town

Don’t forget Sabally. She was a force defensively and offensively. The eye test showed she is a great athlete and helped shut down Meg. We can dissect all the different stats myths etc. what it comes down to is talent level. We at the current time do not have the same talent as Baylor and Oregon. Will we develop the talent? That remains to be seen and that’s why most of us fans still have a sliver of hope for this year. Whereas we can say or sure Notre Dame has no hope this year

 

[CocoHusky]

Regarding height (Myth 2), you have a more valid point. But again, do you really think that if UConn had a Natalie Butler type of player to provide height off the bench, Oregon would have had significantly more difficulty scoring its points in the paint?

Yes I do. We can argue about the degree of significance but one of Natalie Butlers best attributes was that she played big. The offense had to finish over her 6'5" outstretched arms. Natalie was not much of a leaper but she was sturdy, & not easily boxed out. I believe @HuskyNan alluded to the impact of having a player like Cox just leaning on you thought a entire game. Moore got to the rim for layups a few times in the Oregon game. I don't want to take this thread left but my though at the time was she should have ended up on her ass the first time. A player like Natalie Butler would have gladly done that without hesitation and it might have made a difference. Below is a picture of Natalie coming off the bench to play big against Baylor-she definitely made a difference.

 

[DefenseBB]

If that’s true, let’s hear it for 6’ 3” Edwards. If she can be our Hebard, it takes pressure off ONO. If not more. How about this starting five. Bueckers, Westbrook, Makurat, Walker and Edwards.

Umm, you seem to be missing an emoji as there is no way you can be serious. MW, CW and ONO are locks for starting next year. I would say Evina and Anna have the inside track on the other two slots with Aubry, Paige and Edwards all seeing significant time.

 

[CocoHusky]

Umm, you seem to be missing an emoji as there is no way you can be serious. MW, CW and ONO are locks for starting next year. I would say Evina and Anna have the inside track on the other two slots with Aubry, Paige and Edwards all seeing significant time.

Based on what?

 

[WestCoast]

Umm, you seem to be missing an emoji as there is no way you can be serious. MW, CW and ONO are locks for starting next year. I would say Evina and Anna have the inside track on the other two slots with Aubry, Paige and Edwards all seeing significant time.

Would be very surprised if Bueckers is not starting during her very first game in a UConn uniform. She does things at the point against international competition that others haven't shown the ability to do.

 

[msf22b]

Joe
Your basic argument makes a whole lot of sense.
But there is one unknown and perhaps two additional factors that should be taken into account.

1. (Lets call it proclivity)...At the end of the day experience helps, but is not nearly as important as talent, athleticism, and the unknown...lets call it competitiveness (desire, confidence, toughness all rolled into one)...Yes Geno improved Stewie's game...but all was in place, Di, and others.

Ruthy learned a lot but the building blocks were there...lets not even speak of Sabrina. No one on the UConn team comes close to matching that...Correction: at least not yet.

2. Having a second player of experience size, agility and desire is a huge advantage, that cannot be overstated...as a garbage collector, second option on the pick and roll (very effective that night), rebounding, D...Sabally hit all the bases.

3. Winning the rebounding battle is nice but scoring more points is what decides the game...and they shot 8% better than us...had less turnovers, more free throws made, more steals...Surprisingly we
had a better % of 3's but their's were mostly in the 1st quarter, when the game was decided.
Unlikely to win with those stats against us.

Surely compare their team three years ago and now...and the experience of Ruthie and Sabrina in addition to how they have developed surely played a role...but in my view, our ability to match up inside was as important or more significant.

Wold be an interesting game...Ducks then, UConn now...

 

[WestCoast]

Don’t forget Sabally. She was a force defensively and offensively. The eye test showed she is a great athlete and helped shut down Meg. We can dissect all the different stats myths etc. what it comes down to is talent level. We at the current time do not have the same talent as Baylor and Oregon. Will we develop the talent? That remains to be seen and that’s why most of us fans still have a sliver of hope for this year. Whereas we can say or sure Notre Dame has no hope this year

Is there a player in America who looks more dangerous and difficult to match up with than Sabally, even when she shoots 6/17 like she did in recent games against both UConn and Oregon State? She hasn't shot the three well (29%) this season, but can get that shot whenever she wants it because opposing defenses would prefer that to having her drive into the paint. Her length and dribbling ability at 6'4" make the game look easy for her, regardless of how she is shooting.