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:
- 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.
- 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.
