Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="PacoSwede, post: 5337401, member: 120"] In the stats thread (OP [USER=3537]@DavidinNaples[/USER]) there was a comment that struck me: “... did Nika's defensive prowess make up for her offensive liability ...” This was not a core point. It was posted in passing, for illustrative reasons. That’s OK. But it also irked me a bit because: [SIZE=5][I]I think it reflects an unexamined but commonly accepted assessment of Nika[/I][/SIZE]. She did do awesome, outstanding things defensively, but she also was mercurial, took lots of chances, accummulated silly, harmful fouls, mouthed off to refs, etc. Yet the BY focuses on her defensive strengths (and why not? some were exceptional and often overlooked keys to victory). On the offensive side, there seems to be an opposite take. Nika was only tolerable, even a liability. Why? Because she couldn’t be counted on to put up big numbers in the FGM (or FGA) column. She didn’t put the ball through the net very often — herself. Therefore, her contributions offensively are discounted, a distinct contrast to her “beast” status as a defender. BYers seem eager to forget that Nika was the team’s all-time assists record holder, that she orchestrated the team in the half court, that she was quick to push the pace offensively. But she didn’t put the ball in the hoop much — though she was successful from behind the arc more than 40% of the time as a senior (yeah, but she didn’t take many, and only when wide open) — so she was a liability on offense. Sounds somewhat crazy, doesn’t it? I would hope we abandon the idea that Nika was a liability offensively. Or an impeccable defender, for that matter. Let’s give due credit to both aspects of her game. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach