Kaleena Stats

[Aluminny69]

And it is very possible she was getting sick at that time.

Yes, it is possible. But she spent much of that time with friends and family. And if you remember that photo of K with her family, you might deduce that her body type is genetic. I believe she is doing the best she can with the cards she has been dealt.

Will her body type affect her WNBA career? Only time will tell. Did it affect Wilnett Crockett? Courtney Paris? Alison Bales? These were all big girls.

 

[Icebear]

Agreed. I noted genetics in the previous thread.

 

[j66kicker]

Yeah. It stinks that she is human and prone to the flu and stuff like that....

Was merely responding to HF21's question, "What else does she have to do to make everyone happy?" No commentary on sick/not sick - I have no knowledge on that. Just IMO getting it done against Stanford would have done it.

 

[PalPa]

Phil, with all due respect, your reference to naysayers getting their jollies is exactly what I'm talking about.

The thread has hardly begun and has already featured sarcasm, demeaning references and the topic of posters rather than a focus on the issue. These are not hopeful signs.

As far as the medical status in the Stanford game, BTW, we've already had implied assertions that it did and it didn't affect her game, when the reality is we don't know where it stood or how it affected her if at all.

I don't normally make multiple mod posts in a thread, and there's nothing awful about this one. I'm just using the thread to illustrate a current point of emphasis.

That point, to be more specific, is that we are seeking to improve on the board's receptivity to all points of view, including those some may regard as too "negative" or too "rah-rah."

That means civil, substantive disagreement, not attack posts -- which too often have an underlying suppressive intent -- in any of their forms.

What's wrong with sarcasm? I was always taught that it is a form of humor. It is certainly welcomed by me.

 

[VAMike23]

Honestly? I don't spend a lot of time on the types of folks out there. I posted what I felt was appropriate for me in this thread. that's all

Not a lot of time - gotcha. Well, 'Us' or 'Them' is much quicker, I agree.

Point being that this is a small example of how we get "black/white" viewpoints on the BY just as we do elsewhere, often to our detriment. 'We got problems!' v. 'We got no problems!' , etc.

You side with those who the folks who "have no problem with the way she is playing." OK. Since we only have two buckets, I take it that anybody who disagrees with any of your posts on the subject automatically gets put in the 'We got problems!' group. Or no?

I think KML has lost a step. Geno said so, too, and I believe he was sincere at the time that he said it, not like his "worst post player in America" -type stuff. You may see it differently. Where does that put Geno or me or anyone else who thinks she has lost a step? Does that mean we see problems? I guess so, but I don't think the sky is falling; I do think she's doing a great job overall; and I agree that a lot of her production doesn't show up on the stat sheet. Not sure if any of this is consistent with everyone else in the 'problems' bucket. Oops - maybe we need another bucket, or two, or.......

I also believe/agree that she may have been feeling the early effects of her recent illness at Stanford, so maybe that was responsible for her looking a little slower that night. Guess that puts me in your bucket? But to me she still doesn't look as nimble as she did at the beginning of last year, before the elbow injury. That was the 'peak' KML that I've seen. Purely subjective of course. YMMV. But this doesn't detract from all the other good things she does. It just means our perimeter D isn't quite as good as it could be and that K may be finding it somewhat harder to shake defenders and create in the midrange as I have seen her in the past. She's got some more pep back in the last two games; the ND game will be the next great test.

It's a lot easier to have real discussions about X's and O's, matchups, strengths/weaknesses that teams might exploit, and all of that, when we don't conflate viewpoints into simple 'this' or 'that' buckets.

Notice I made no reference to body type.

 

[JS]

What's wrong with sarcasm? I was always taught that it is a form of humor. It is certainly welcomed by me.

All depends on the context. Been known to use it myself, hard as that may be to believe.

In the context of our point of emphasis, it can be a weapon that turns the discussion personal, adds no substance and pushes the thread in a disrespectful direction.

Again, in that context it often seems intended to ridicule and suppress rather than to enlighten by a simple factual reference.

 

[RadyLady]

Not a lot of time - gotcha. Well, 'Us' or 'Them' is much quicker, I agree.

Point being that this is a small example of how we get "black/white" viewpoints on the BY just as we do elsewhere, often to our detriment. 'We got problems!' v. 'We got no problems!' , etc.

You side with those who the folks who "have no problem with the way she is playing." OK. Since we only have two buckets, I take it that anybody who disagrees with any of your posts on the subject automatically gets put in the 'We got problems!' group. Or no?

I think KML has lost a step. Geno said so, too, and I believe he was sincere at the time that he said it, not like his "worst post player in America" -type stuff. You may see it differently. Where does that put Geno or me or anyone else who thinks she has lost a step? Does that mean we see problems? I guess so, but I don't think the sky is falling; I do think she's doing a great job overall; and I agree that a lot of her production doesn't show up on the stat sheet. Not sure if any of this is consistent with everyone else in the 'problems' bucket. Oops - maybe we need another bucket, or two, or..

I also believe/agree that she may have been feeling the early effects of her recent illness at Stanford, so maybe that was responsible for her looking a little slower that night. Guess that puts me in your bucket? But to me she still doesn't look as nimble as she did at the beginning of last year, before the elbow injury. That was the 'peak' KML that I've seen. Purely subjective of course. YMMV. But this doesn't detract from all the other good things she does. It just means our perimeter D isn't quite as good as it could be and that K may be finding it somewhat harder to shake defenders and create in the midrange as I have seen her in the past. She's got some more pep back in the last two games; the ND game will be the next great test.

It's a lot easier to have real discussions about X's and O's, matchups, strengths/weaknesses that teams might exploit, and all of that, when we don't conflate viewpoints into simple 'this' or 'that' buckets.

Notice I made no reference to body type.

Honestly? I posted what I felt was appropriate for me in this thread. And it's clear that I feel differently than you do on this subject. that's all.

 

[VAMike23]

Honestly? I posted what I felt was appropriate for me in this thread. And it's clear that I feel differently than you do on this subject. that's all.

Not sure which subject you're referring to--the KML discussion itself or the broader point about us/them, black/white viewpoints--but it's OK. . . . honestly.

 

[FairView]

I watched KML very closely in the tourney. Against a physical, relentless and driven Green Bay team she looked quite good. She got better throughout the tourney and looks better on D than she did earlier in the season. She was not to the level she was in March, but it's November. She was fun to watch.

 

[OneTrickPony]

I can't think of anyone I'd rather have as a teammate than K...

 

[JSB60]

KML's game reminds me of Larry Bird, who was considered slow and also got a ton of steals.

 

[meyers7]

Again, in that context it often seems intended to ridicule and suppress rather than to enlighten by a simple factual reference.

What? Factual reference? This is the Boneyard. We don't deal on facts here.

 

[Rb335]

Kaleena has progressed already in the beginning of this season. From Stanford to Green Bay, I have watched her penetrate a bit more, attempt to post up more, and play better overall defense. She is doing exactly what I would expect an AA to do. Make adjustments and get better every game. She is a pleasure to watch.

I would like to see her get to the line more often with her high percentage (1.00) , but I was really happy to watch her do more on offense than solely lurk around the 3 point line. Her percentage from outside is remarkable and we all know thats her talent and specialty. I'm excited to see what she brings against ND.

All that being said, I do still believe she has lost a step and that Geno was being honest in that comment. Its evident she is in game shape by her ability to log minutes and her lost step could just be the way the cards are falling for her. But her "lost step" or perceived "lost step" only matters if it negatively affects the team. If she is slower than she was, it only matters if it is limiting her or limiting the team. I like seeing her push through this and see her get better at containing players on defense every game. She may have been a liability against Stanford, but she wasn't this tournament. She is an AA for a reason, and despite the fact that I do believe her peak was late sophomore year or pre elbow junior year, she is still a phenomenal player. As fans we all want to see our team and our players perform and get better. KML may not be the same player she was in her peak, and her peak may come later this season. Its all speculation and personal opinion, and everyone views level of play differently.

She is a great player and a great teammate and we only have one season left to watch her in a uconn jersey . We all have different perceptions of her, but we all tend to agree that she is one heck of a player. So me personally, I'm going to enjoy watching her last season and hopefully, watch her progress even more every game.

 

[tomcat]

This whole topic leaves me both astonished and cold at the same time. I suppose in some ways it is Stef's fault, for turning a little pudge into a lot of muscle and becoming an All American in the process. Now some people apparently expect that not only does every player owe UConn and its fans a total makeover, but that it doesn't matter that one some kids, the pudge will still look like pudge, even it it's muscle.

I'm as suspicious as the next guy. Scratch that. I've met the next guy, and I'm a lot more suspicious than him. But on this one, I choose to believe Geno, who I think said she worked hard this summer to get in the best shape ever. Other than the Stanford game, where she did not play well and may have been getting ill, what the hell else could anyone want? She is one of the best shooters ever, and seems to be playing decent defense (at least judging by the steals), and if she is not a vocal leader, she is at least a positive force on the team. (And by the way, I can think of several other players to fault for the problems at Stanford in addition to Kaleena. The mistakes were legion, the fundamentals often absent. Yes, her fault, but the fault of others, too).

I am not being Suzy Sunshine here, but let's cut the kid some slack. We've all seen what it looks like when a player is not putting in effort. This does not look like that to me.

And for the record, it's great if a player does a body makeover to improve her game. But not every player is ready or willing to do so, and it's not part of the contract they sign with UCOnn when they come on board, nor is it a part of any agreement the players have with the fans. Oh, wait.....there's no such agreement, is there?

 

[Buzzyboy]

Not a lot of time - gotcha. Well, 'Us' or 'Them' is much quicker, I agree.

Point being that this is a small example of how we get "black/white" viewpoints on the BY just as we do elsewhere, often to our detriment. 'We got problems!' v. 'We got no problems!' , etc.

You side with those who the folks who "have no problem with the way she is playing." OK. Since we only have two buckets, I take it that anybody who disagrees with any of your posts on the subject automatically gets put in the 'We got problems!' group. Or no?

I think KML has lost a step. Geno said so, too, and I believe he was sincere at the time that he said it, not like his "worst post player in America" -type stuff. You may see it differently. Where does that put Geno or me or anyone else who thinks she has lost a step? Does that mean we see problems? I guess so, but I don't think the sky is falling; I do think she's doing a great job overall; and I agree that a lot of her production doesn't show up on the stat sheet. Not sure if any of this is consistent with everyone else in the 'problems' bucket. Oops - maybe we need another bucket, or two, or..

I also believe/agree that she may have been feeling the early effects of her recent illness at Stanford, so maybe that was responsible for her looking a little slower that night. Guess that puts me in your bucket? But to me she still doesn't look as nimble as she did at the beginning of last year, before the elbow injury. That was the 'peak' KML that I've seen. Purely subjective of course. YMMV. But this doesn't detract from all the other good things she does. It just means our perimeter D isn't quite as good as it could be and that K may be finding it somewhat harder to shake defenders and create in the midrange as I have seen her in the past. She's got some more pep back in the last two games; the ND game will be the next great test.

It's a lot easier to have real discussions about X's and O's, matchups, strengths/weaknesses that teams might exploit, and all of that, when we don't conflate viewpoints into simple 'this' or 'that' buckets.

Notice I made no reference to body type.

I so agree that KML is a really important part of this UConn team and she contributes on so many different levels. Why is it that if people take note of one of her lesser abilities, some people act as if you threw her under the bus. The reality is that she is not fleet a foot and she isn't close to being the quickest person on the court and it occasionally results in a quicker or more athletic person having an advantage over her. There are tradeoffs and we should accept it as real. Stanford was able to take advantage of that in our loss to them and it is what it is. She's done so much on and off the court over her UConn career and she is loved by everyone that's on this site, I'm sure. Why can't anyone say anything that is less than flattering (but true) on this board without a big reaction? Is she in the running for defensive player of the year this year or has she been any year while in Storrs? No, certainly not, though she isn't some really awful defender. Her physical skills on the defensive end of the court aren't anything approaching what her offensive skills are on the other end of the court. She's improved her overall game immeasurably since arriving in Storrs but she isn't Maya or Diana and doesn't have nearly as well rounded a game. Does anybody dispute that???? Far and away her biggest ability is in putting the ball in the basket, particularly from distance. She's been a key contributor to our two previous national championships. Shouldn't that be enough! It seems that this topic has been beaten to death.

 

[ucdt3]

All I know (and it's a decent amount) is 1. a person's struggle with their weight is no one's business, no matter the business unless it effects their job performance and their boss (who's paying the bills) has an issue (then only the boss is allowed to make it his/her business) and 2. no matter what her weight, when KML isn't here next year swishing 3s left, right, and center, 99.9% of this board is gonna be wishing she was still around.

 

[phil sampieri]

I so agree that KML is a really important part of this UConn team and she contributes on so many different levels. Why is it that if people take note of one of her lesser abilities, some people act as if you threw her under the bus. The reality is that she is not fleet a foot and she isn't close to being the quickest person on the court and it occasionally results in a quicker or more athletic person having an advantage over her. There are tradeoffs and we should accept it as real. Stanford was able to take advantage of that in our loss to them and it is what it is. She's done so much on and off the court over her UConn career and she is loved by everyone that's on this site, I'm sure. Why can't anyone say anything that is less than flattering (but true) on this board without a big reaction? Is she in the running for defensive player of the year this year or has she been any year while in Storrs? No, certainly not, though she isn't some really awful defender. Her physical skills on the defensive end of the court aren't anything approaching what her offensive skills are on the other end of the court. She's improved her overall game immeasurably since arriving in Storrs but she isn't Maya or Diana and doesn't have nearly as well rounded a game. Does anybody dispute that???? Far and away her biggest ability is in putting the ball in the basket, particularly from distance. She's been a key contributor to our two previous national championships. Shouldn't that be enough! It seems that this topic has been beaten to death.

Personally, I have no problem with comments about her quickness even though I think she is quick, not fat quick but
I do have a problem when she is called overwieght. That in my mind becomes personal. LMO

 

[Bgillon]

Phil, with all due respect, your reference to naysayers getting their jollies is exactly what I'm talking about.

The thread has hardly begun and has already featured sarcasm, demeaning references and the topic of posters rather than a focus on the issue. These are not hopeful signs.

As far as the medical status in the Stanford game, BTW, we've already had implied assertions that it did and it didn't affect her game, when the reality is we don't know where it stood or how it affected her if at all.

I don't normally make multiple mod posts in a thread, and there's nothing awful about this one. I'm just using the thread to illustrate a current point of emphasis.

That point, to be more specific, is that we are seeking to improve on the board's receptivity to all points of view, including those some may regard as too "negative" as well as too "rah-rah."

That means civil, substantive disagreement, not attack posts -- which too often have an underlying suppressive intent -- in any of their forms.

Well said! Honest people can disagree. And in fact differences of opinions can raise the level of discourse and understanding. Attacking other people has the exact opposite result.

 

[iri10]

And for the record, it's great if a player does a body makeover to improve her game. But not every player is ready or willing to do so, and it's not part of the contract they sign with UCOnn when they come on board, nor is it a part of any agreement the players have with the fans. Oh, wait.....there's no such agreement, is there?

As a senior, it's no longer just about what she does at UConn, but also her upcoming professional career. For myself, I'm a fan of hers, and will continue to be so after she's gone.

In the WNBA, the posts are tall and strong enough to score over KML. Almost all the guards are faster. So for the most part, she'll be guarding wings. But there are a lot of very talented and agile wings out there. At that level I just feel that she would find it useful to have the speed that she had earlier in her UConn career...or even more, if possible. While there are players in the W that are slow and "not svelte," most of them are posts.

Having watched her at this tournament, despite the improved offensive output I would say that she has not entirely regained that "step" that Geno said she had lost. Some people are saying that because of her body type, she essentially "can't" achieve that improvement in agility and power/weight ratio...but I don't believe there's sufficient evidence to accept this. Perhaps if she's faced with a reduced role in the W, relative to what she's used to, that will be the final motivating factor to take that additional preparatory step.

 

[Zorro]

If not the #1 pick in the wnba draft, she will cetainly be in the top three. And the GMs in the wnba (with some exceptions) are not stupid.
http://www.draftsite.com/wnba/mock-draft/2015/

 

[iri10]

Oh, she'll be drafted at or near the top of the list, no doubt. Once she's in the WNBA, the role she has will depend on her performance. If she can continue to produce prodigious offensive output, this will more than make up for any defensive shortcomings. If not, her minutes will be a bit more limited. Increased agility will help with the defense, making her useful for more of the game. It will also help her get her shot off more often.

KML already has superb technical skills and good intelligence on the floor; that's her strength. The only thing that might prevent her from being as great a pro as she is in college is agility, IMO.

 

[phil sampieri]

Well said! Honest people can disagree. And in fact differences of opinions can raise the level of discourse and understanding. Attacking other people has the exact opposite result.

let's end this because you I guess do understand my last post. I was rude to your comment that K was overweight ( yes you said that)
not anything else she lost a step , she's slow etc etc,.I believe you were rude by your personal attack i'e overweight and I was rude (on purpose) because again I think that is off limits. Some agree some do not. The end.

 

[HuskyNan]

let's end this because you I guess do understand my last post. I was rude to your comment that K was overweight ( yes you said that)
not anything else she lost a step , she's slow etc etc,.I believe you were rude by your personal attack i'e overweight and I was rude (on purpose) because again I think that is off limits. Some agree some do not. The end.

If Bgillon walked up to Kaleena and said, "You're overweight", he would be rude. However, posting that he thinks Kaleena is overweight on a fan forum is not. It is also not a personal attack. It's an adjective that some here object to when applied to Kaleena but it is also a discussion point. Feel free to discuss but with civility, please.

 

[phil sampieri]

If Bgillon walked up to Kaleena and said, "You're overweight", he would be rude. However, posting that he thinks Kaleena is overweight on a fan forum is not. It is also not a personal attack. It's an adjective that some here object to when applied to Kaleena but it is also a discussion point. Feel free to discuss but with civility, please.

So you don't think these kids read this and the written word is not as offensive ? Sorry Nan I disagree but as I stated I'm done
responding to this issue.

 

[Bgillon]

If Bgillon walked up to Kaleena and said, "You're overweight", he would be rude. However, posting that he thinks Kaleena is overweight on a fan forum is not. It is also not a personal attack. It's an adjective that some here object to when applied to Kaleena but it is also a discussion point. Feel free to discuss but with civility, please.

Thank you. I would never say that to KML's face because it would be rude. I thought I could make an observation on the BY for discussion. I have a partner who met KML last year in Bridgeport and had his picture taken with her. He thinks she is a terrific person but when he saw her picture this year his first comment was that she looked overweight. Hopefully any poster who thought my intent was to be demeaning or disrespectful understand what I meant.