diggerfoot
Humanity Hiker
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2011
- Messages
- 1,591
- Reaction Score
- 8,947
Over the course of a player's career a defining narrative develops. Sometimes this narrative can be driven by a single poster, such as the narrative of Conlon being too slow for DI basketball (I keep wondering if Bball***** has a new handle whenever I see a similar negative agenda against a player). Sometimes the narrative can be driven by none other than Coach Auriemma, such as Samuelson needing to get the California knocked out of her (to grossly paraphrase).
In reality, I remember reading reports on Samuelson being a fiery high school competitor, much more driven than her sisters and, for that reason, desirous of coming to a place like UConn. I watched during her freshman season as she demonstrated a much greater willingness to mix it up throughout the season than her predecessor Stewart (please, don't misconstrue this as me saying Samuelson is better, or will be better, just that out of the two it's Stewart who needed "California knocked out of her," not Samuelson). Then I watched her play sixteen minutes on a broken foot. Yet somehow this season a narrative has developed that she's blossomed into the fiery competitor she needed to be, accentuated by hitting a different kind of bucket in an important game.
Nope. We know that Auriemma is a master motivator. It is precisely because Samuelson is so naturally competitive that he pushes those buttons, why she takes those buttons being pushed so hard yet responds so well. No doubt that puking in a bucket cements Samuelson as the leading candidate for a NPOY award from the Husky roster, but I bring the topic of narratives up not so much because of Samuelson but everyone else.
In reality, there are four good choices for MOP or MVP on the Husky roster. As each one as her own proponents (and detractors in the case of Nurse, though she has made enough shots now to shut them up) narratives have developed for each of them. These narratives are mainly positive, as people advocate for their champion. The only problem I have with that is when I see a comment like "it's not even close." Well, of course it's close, that's why it generates so much (mainly positive) debate.
Yet precisely because we have such positive narratives for the "core four" I get a little concerned about the narrative developing for the "scary dropoff" when we turn to the bench. One of them, a center with little hoopla coming out of high school, leads to a "burden of proof" similar to what I used to see about Conlon, except now from multiple posters. The other, a highly regarded point guard out of high school, for that reason seems to receive more of a "benefit of doubt."
A post made early in the season accentuates this contrast. The poster blamed Butler for not handling passes from Dangerfield. My take on this is similar to what I've read from BroadwayVa; allow me to back up to the Baylor game for context. I was as high on Dangerfield as the next guy. One thing I noticed is that she would pull up short to make a jumper, leaving too much of a gap and no chance for her shot to get blocked. As the natural tendency for any player is to drive as close to the basket as possible I thought at the time: "Great! She's learned how to minimize her height disadvantage!"
Yet I saw this "savvy" working to her disadvantage when it came to making passes to Butler in a subsequent game. She maximized the probability of making a pass into the post, but often at the worst time possible for the post player. To somewhat defend Butler on another front, I've seen references to both good and bad footwork. What I see is both. When opponents run plays Butler responds well and her footwork is excellent. Jones, while extremely efficient, did not score much for two reasons: the main reason was Williams but the other was Butler. However, when a play is busted, due to a loose ball or rebound, Butler does not recover well. I'm afraid only a lot of in game experience will remedy that, which leads me to my main response to all these narratives.
"Play for more than you can afford to lose and you will learn the game." Churchill
If Conlon was on the roster today I'm afraid BBall***** would have a field day. She would seldom play and her detractors could crow forever about how slow she is for DI basketball. But she played for a great coaching staff that placed her in a situation where she had no choice but to "learn the game," and she responded well. With Charles departing, Dolson was placed in a similar situation. Given her initial athletic shortcomings, being the brunt of jokes for not being able to jump (take heart Butler), one could imagine an alternative scenario of development for Dolson, but she was instead forced to "learn the game" by a great coaching staff.
As the point guard heir apparent, I have no doubt Dangerfield will "learn the game" as well. As long as she is willing to learn she will end up among our top three point guards. So, too, will Butler "learn the game" to the extent that is necessary for this roster, but what she needs to learn is not as great as it was for either Conlon or Dolson. So, too, will all the starters. Fortunately for UConn fans, the real narrative is what "more than you can afford to lose" means for this particular program and the impact that has on how our players "learn the game."
In reality, I remember reading reports on Samuelson being a fiery high school competitor, much more driven than her sisters and, for that reason, desirous of coming to a place like UConn. I watched during her freshman season as she demonstrated a much greater willingness to mix it up throughout the season than her predecessor Stewart (please, don't misconstrue this as me saying Samuelson is better, or will be better, just that out of the two it's Stewart who needed "California knocked out of her," not Samuelson). Then I watched her play sixteen minutes on a broken foot. Yet somehow this season a narrative has developed that she's blossomed into the fiery competitor she needed to be, accentuated by hitting a different kind of bucket in an important game.
Nope. We know that Auriemma is a master motivator. It is precisely because Samuelson is so naturally competitive that he pushes those buttons, why she takes those buttons being pushed so hard yet responds so well. No doubt that puking in a bucket cements Samuelson as the leading candidate for a NPOY award from the Husky roster, but I bring the topic of narratives up not so much because of Samuelson but everyone else.
In reality, there are four good choices for MOP or MVP on the Husky roster. As each one as her own proponents (and detractors in the case of Nurse, though she has made enough shots now to shut them up) narratives have developed for each of them. These narratives are mainly positive, as people advocate for their champion. The only problem I have with that is when I see a comment like "it's not even close." Well, of course it's close, that's why it generates so much (mainly positive) debate.
Yet precisely because we have such positive narratives for the "core four" I get a little concerned about the narrative developing for the "scary dropoff" when we turn to the bench. One of them, a center with little hoopla coming out of high school, leads to a "burden of proof" similar to what I used to see about Conlon, except now from multiple posters. The other, a highly regarded point guard out of high school, for that reason seems to receive more of a "benefit of doubt."
A post made early in the season accentuates this contrast. The poster blamed Butler for not handling passes from Dangerfield. My take on this is similar to what I've read from BroadwayVa; allow me to back up to the Baylor game for context. I was as high on Dangerfield as the next guy. One thing I noticed is that she would pull up short to make a jumper, leaving too much of a gap and no chance for her shot to get blocked. As the natural tendency for any player is to drive as close to the basket as possible I thought at the time: "Great! She's learned how to minimize her height disadvantage!"
Yet I saw this "savvy" working to her disadvantage when it came to making passes to Butler in a subsequent game. She maximized the probability of making a pass into the post, but often at the worst time possible for the post player. To somewhat defend Butler on another front, I've seen references to both good and bad footwork. What I see is both. When opponents run plays Butler responds well and her footwork is excellent. Jones, while extremely efficient, did not score much for two reasons: the main reason was Williams but the other was Butler. However, when a play is busted, due to a loose ball or rebound, Butler does not recover well. I'm afraid only a lot of in game experience will remedy that, which leads me to my main response to all these narratives.
"Play for more than you can afford to lose and you will learn the game." Churchill
If Conlon was on the roster today I'm afraid BBall***** would have a field day. She would seldom play and her detractors could crow forever about how slow she is for DI basketball. But she played for a great coaching staff that placed her in a situation where she had no choice but to "learn the game," and she responded well. With Charles departing, Dolson was placed in a similar situation. Given her initial athletic shortcomings, being the brunt of jokes for not being able to jump (take heart Butler), one could imagine an alternative scenario of development for Dolson, but she was instead forced to "learn the game" by a great coaching staff.
As the point guard heir apparent, I have no doubt Dangerfield will "learn the game" as well. As long as she is willing to learn she will end up among our top three point guards. So, too, will Butler "learn the game" to the extent that is necessary for this roster, but what she needs to learn is not as great as it was for either Conlon or Dolson. So, too, will all the starters. Fortunately for UConn fans, the real narrative is what "more than you can afford to lose" means for this particular program and the impact that has on how our players "learn the game."