I Think It Was Must Meant To Be, That Kelly. . .

[CCinCT]

Hansmeyer was 2 years earlier to Svet.

But these examples only prove the points:
(1) Geno rarely changes the starting lineup,
(2) when he does so it is a permanent not game-to-game, and
(3) it is only when the starter is underperforming.

Also I'm pretty sure that the Sauer/Schu change came over the summer, not mid-season.

Hansmeyer one year earlier to Svet, 2 to Swin. Injured her ankle in preseason 1998-99 and never regained her starting position (she only started on a regular basis as a soph).

 

[Icebear]

MOVED FROM THE OTHER THREAD: My point is limited only to the point that it is a big who must play beside Stef. The loss last year was not because there was no big available to play beside Stef but because when Stef was out no big was available to play as her backup. I consider the difference between those two things to be huge. Geno, also, identified the issue with the FF loss as centered around over focussing on getting Maya shots, nothing having to do with having two bigs on the floor at the same time.

My response was, specifically, to NCor concerning the need to replace Kelly beside Stef and VA's later comment and their following posts. Hope that helps.

 

[blackbird]

The freshman is not going to replace the five veterans, who have all been to a final four, the last time they started.

There was one starting spot up for grabs, and Geno said he's giving it to Doty.

 

[Phil]

Absolutely. Too many people here are discounting Auriemma's loyalty to his players. I'll admit to being memory challenged, but I cannot remember a player losing their starting job because there is a "better" player waiting in the wings.
Faris starts every game 'til she graduates.

I grant that it is rare, which supports your point, but Hansmeyer lost her starting position to Abrosimova.

 

[Phil]

Stacy Hansmeyer also lost her starting spot that same year to Swin Cash, I believe.

Sveta, I believe

 

[CCinCT]

Sveta, I believe

Arguing about trivia here, but if we can believe the minutes played on Wikipedia, we're probably both wrong and it was to either Tamika or Ashja. Swin doesn't show starter's minutes until 99-00. Svet shows starters' minutes from her freshman year - the year before BamBam's minutes declined.

But to the point - Paige and Stacy DID lose their starting positions.

 

[Vowelguy]

Arguing about trivia here, but if we can believe the minutes played on Wikipedia, we're probably both wrong and it was to either Tamika or Ashja. Swin doesn't show starter's minutes until 99-00. Svet shows starters' minutes from her freshman year - the year before BamBam's minutes declined.

But to the point - Paige and Stacy DID lose their starting positions.

(1) I don't know what you mean by "starter's minutes". Geno does not necessarily play starter's the most. Eg Pam Webber vs Kesha, and Shea vs Amy Duran.

(2) Hansmeyer lost her starting position as a sophomore, when Sveta was a frosh (97-98). There is no inconsistency.

(3) Swin started her freshman year, regardless of what the minutes show. Her time decreased as she played for a while with a stress fracture.

(4) Yes, players sometimes lose their starting spot. However, it is rare and it is because the player is ineffective. Note that both players mentioned (Hansmeyer & Sauer) both saw an increasingly smaller presence after this change was made.

For Faris, you'd have to argue that the game will pass her by and Geno will have no choice but to start someone over her.

 

[CCinCT]

(1) I don't know what you mean by "starter's minutes". Geno does not necessarily play starter's the most. Eg Pam Webber vs Kesha, and Shea vs Amy Duran.

(2) Hansmeyer lost her starting position as a sophomore, when Sveta was a frosh (98-99). There is no inconsistency. INTERESTING TO NOTE THOUGH, THAT STACY PLAYED HER MOST MINUTES AS A SOPHOMORE.

(3) Swin started her freshman year, regardless of what the minutes show. Her time decreased as she played for a while with a stress fracture.

(4) Yes, players sometimes lose their starting spot. However, it is rare and it is because the player is ineffective. Note that both players mentioned (Hansmeyer & Sauer) both saw an increasingly smaller presence after this change was made.

For Faris, you'd have to argue that the game will pass her by and Geno will have no choice but to start someone over her.

BARRING INJURY, THAT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.

 

[dtbtbtb]

IMO the only way Kelly does not start is if teams leave her alone and double the other players and Kelly does not make them pay for it on a regular basis.

 

[Icebear]

Vs Assumption

34 Faris, Kelly........ g 4-9 ... 0-3 ... 2-2 ... 2 ... 4 ... 6 ... 1 ... 10 ... 6 ... 3 ... 1 ... 3... 27
.............................................. 3s .... ft .... or .. dr .. rb . pf ... Tyler Phommachanh ... a ... to .. b ... s ... m

10 points
6 rebounds
6 assists
3 steals
1 foul
=an excellent night

plus taking 3 3s showed a willingness to shoot that shot.

 

[connboy77]

Kelly is one of the best defensive players in the country. That alone should keep her as a starter. If she continues to improve on the offensive end, how can she possibly be taken out of the starting lineup. KML is a great player with a world of potential who will get alot of playing time regardless if she starts or not. I hope Caroline stays healthy all year, but if she is out for a time because of an injury, its nice to know that we have a great player on the bench like KML.

 

[Cafe Poliziano]

Permit me to state that I never meant to infer that Kelly is inferior to the other five players (Caroline, Tiffany, Bria, Kaleena, and Stefanie). For a combination of reasons, it seemed to me that she would logically get her minutes (lots of them) coming off the bench to replace anyone except Stefanie.

I also subscribe to the theory that the "sixth man" is not necessarily the sixth best player. Think Havlicek, who was certainly a better player than one or more of those Celtics in the starting lineup. His versatility (G or F) was a powerful "wild card" for Red to play to energize the team.

Exactly, I don't see it as negative in the slightest, but a viable use of the talent available, nothing more. Kinda comes down to who can score more points more frequently and do the other things that are needed while on the court. KF is a great ball player and will get her minutes, KML well I suspect she will blossom quickly and be racking up the minutes, I suspect getting minutes for all the talent on this team is a good problem to have if your Geno.

 

[Cafe Poliziano]

It seems in this thread there is a theme of Kelly vs. Kaleena. Why????

For those who think Kaleena must/should start because she is so good -- and that's arguable ... arguable that the best should start, not that she is so good -- then how does it follow that Kaleena replaces Kelly?

If you are going to start your best players ... well, then, Kelly has to start. If Kaleena also starts, the obvious odd-girl-out is Caroline. I'd find it very unlikely Kelly would be bumped before Bria, too ... or even Tiff, if she's in a funk or her leadership is lacking. Apparently, some fans don't appreciate Kelly's vital contributions to team success.

It is not about one vs another, it is about "team" success , The actual discussion as I see it is about how to get the likely highest scorer we have on the court most of the time, if that meant KF or anyone else coming of the bench to improve the chances the "team" being successful so be it. If the goal is post season and a championship then you play your highest scorers as much as possible, this is not hard to follow as a point of logic. Good thing you and I don't have to make that decision, I"ll let Geno suffer with this one.

 

[PacoSwede]

It is not about one vs another, it is about "team" success , The actual discussion as I see it is about how to get the likely highest scorer we have on the court most of the time, if that meant KF or anyone else coming of the bench to improve the chances the "team" being successful so be it. If the goal is post season and a championship then you play your highest scorers as much as possible, this is not hard to follow as a point of logic. Good thing you and I don't have to make that decision, I"ll let Geno suffer with this one.

Kind of two distinct themes: (1) a potential potent scorer should be added to the starting line-up (2) Kelly would be the one to leave the starting lineup to accomplish that.

I strongly disagree with (2). Part of the reason for that is that I don't buy (1).

My bottom line about bball is that it's ultimately all about putting the ball through the hoop the most -- the various ways to accomplish that are secondary considerations. Having five superior scorers playing seems like the most logical way to score points, but it doesn't follow that would be the most logical way to score the most points ... stopping the opponent from scoring points factors in, for example. Ya gotta weigh offense vs. defense. Not news, I know.

I think that in UConn's situation, the team has sufficient ways to score without KML, and am skeptical that any added scoring KML would provide outweighs the contributions Kelly makes, especially since Kelly's contributions, on this team, are more important to team success than is finding additional points. Only one ball = only one person can score each possession (discounting free throw oddities). You get diminishing returns from having more scorers as the number of scorers rises. The additional benefit of having 5 scorers vs. 4 scorers is not as significant as the added benefit of a second scorer or a third scorer. Concurrently, as the value of scoring ability decreases, the value of other contributions rises. When you have a team of Kelly Mezzantes and Kristi Tollivers, your Kalana Greenes and Jess Moores become more crucial to winning.

If you want Kaleena playing -- not a bad idea -- then it would help the team more to have her replace another scorer and not bump someone who provides a rarer commodity, such as rebounds or defense or 'glue.' With the Huskies, there's no shortage of scorers, relatively.

 

[John Fryer]

Kind of two distinct themes: (1) a potential potent scorer should be added to the starting line-up (2) Kelly would be the one to leave the starting lineup to accomplish that.

I strongly disagree with (2). Part of the reason for that is that I don't buy (1).

My bottom line about bball is that it's ultimately all about putting the ball through the hoop the most -- the various ways to accomplish that are secondary considerations. Having five superior scorers playing seems like the most logical way to score points, but it doesn't follow that would be the most logical way to score the most points ... stopping the opponent from scoring points factors in, for example. Ya gotta weigh offense vs. defense. Not news, I know.

I think that in UConn's situation, the team has sufficient ways to score without KML, and am skeptical that any added scoring KML would provide outweighs the contributions Kelly makes, especially since Kelly's contributions, on this team, are more important to team success than is finding additional points. Only one ball = only one person can score each possession (discounting free throw oddities). You get diminishing returns from having more scorers as the number of scorers rises. The additional benefit of having 5 scorers vs. 4 scorers is not as significant as the added benefit of a second scorer or a third scorer. Concurrently, as the value of scoring ability decreases, the value of other contributions rises. When you have a team of Kelly Mezzantes and Kristi Tollivers, your Kalana Greenes and Jess Moores become more crucial to winning.

If you want Kaleena playing -- not a bad idea -- then it would help the team more to have her replace another scorer and not bump someone who provides a rarer commodity, such as rebounds or defense or 'glue.' With the Huskies, there's no shortage of scorers, relatively.

Wow. I don't mean to challenge your well reasoned Reply. But, in addition to being an excellent scorer, almost everything that I have seen/read about KML suggests that she will be every bit as versitile as KF, in other aspects of the game. Plus, I also read/heard that she can/will be very vocal on the court.

Peace,

John Fryer

 

[PacoSwede]

Wow. I don't mean to challenge your well reasoned Reply. But, in addition to being an excellent scorer, almost everything that I have seen/read about KML suggests that she will be every bit as versitle as KF, in other aspects of the game. Plus, I also read/heard that she can/will be very vocal on the court.

Peace,

John Fryer

But it's not about Kelly vs. Kaleena. That's my point. I have no problem with the idea that Kaleena can contribute more than Kelly. Or that she should be a starter. But then, if she's that good, she also can contribute more than other starters as well.

I just argue that if Kaleena takes minutes, it wouldn't/shouldn't be from Kelly, who offers contributions that some others -- Bria and Caroline, for example -- don't.

 

[Vowelguy]

You guys are conflating starting with playing time. A non-starter can play a lot, and a starter doesn't have to play a ton of minutes.

See: Pam Webber, Shea Ralph, etc.

Kelly will start; I have no doubt.

 

[Cafe Poliziano]

Kind of two distinct themes: (1) a potential potent scorer should be added to the starting line-up (2) Kelly would be the one to leave the starting lineup to accomplish that.

I strongly disagree with (2). Part of the reason for that is that I don't buy (1).

My bottom line about bball is that it's ultimately all about putting the ball through the hoop the most -- the various ways to accomplish that are secondary considerations. Having five superior scorers playing seems like the most logical way to score points, but it doesn't follow that would be the most logical way to score the most points ... stopping the opponent from scoring points factors in, for example. Ya gotta weigh offense vs. defense. Not news, I know.

I think that in UConn's situation, the team has sufficient ways to score without KML, and am skeptical that any added scoring KML would provide outweighs the contributions Kelly makes, especially since Kelly's contributions, on this team, are more important to team success than is finding additional points. Only one ball = only one person can score each possession (discounting free throw oddities). You get diminishing returns from having more scorers as the number of scorers rises. The additional benefit of having 5 scorers vs. 4 scorers is not as significant as the added benefit of a second scorer or a third scorer. Concurrently, as the value of scoring ability decreases, the value of other contributions rises. When you have a team of Kelly Mezzantes and Kristi Tollivers, your Kalana Greenes and Jess Moores become more crucial to winning.

If you want Kaleena playing -- not a bad idea -- then it would help the team more to have her replace another scorer and not bump someone who provides a rarer commodity, such as rebounds or defense or 'glue.' With the Huskies, there's no shortage of scorers, relatively.

"if that meant KF or anyone else coming of the bench to improve the chances the "team" being successful so be it." The "or anyone else" part may have been missed. The passing up of shots open or otherwise throughout last season by starters in the end bit the team in the backside, I'm not the only one to say as much, MM's points and defensive presence need to be replicated this season on top of what the others bring to the table, and KML will be relied on to fill a notable portion of that scoring and defensive presence. Again as I stated in my previous post "It is not about one vs another" it is about team success and the structure and methods needed to score more points than everyone we play.

just my opinion...