Nika now most important player

[diggerfoot]

The tangible evidence is our eyes. Data sets are not tangible, they are abstract, especially when the data set is small as in this case. But us BYers are astute observers of the game and know how to trust what we see. Trying to win, or even start a debate with data is like the guy who says of the kid who never takes 3 pt shots, “She hasn’t missed a single one.”

Lol. I’ll include @BobbyJ , @CocoHusky , and @TeamFirst! in this response and make it my last one.

First, I agree that the “eye test” can uncover things that stats do not. I also know enough about @BobbyJ and @CocoHusky to know they have more experienced eyes than me. Finally, as one who has had to both use and fault stats in my career, I have a pretty good idea when they are being abused.

So, for example, I never pointed at Fudd’s low assist totals as an argument against her. If I did, then the rationale you used that she was not being used in that manner, would legitimately have shot me down.

But I used A/T comparisons instead. While there is good reason to expect post players to have lower numbers than perimeter players, that reason does not apply between perimeter players. There were times in our recent past when Faris and Samuelson were our leading A/T players, well over 2.0, but neither were point guards.

As for the eye tests, while I concede that @BobbyJ and others have better “eyes,” I call BS on witnessing how Fudd and Muhl played this past year and claiming there was an obvious difference in their intuitive passing. Sorry, don’t buy it. Both thread the needle at times, both threw it away. To the extent that one is better than the other by “eye test,” it is a subtle difference at best.

And the same goes for using the “eye test” to compare Fudd’s AAU ball with Muhl’s European ball. I saw some pretty fine passing from both, and would claim BS to claims of obvious differences in both.

So that leaves comparing Fudd’s A/T stats from AAU to Muhl’s from European. I don’t have the foggiest idea what those numbers are, and I’m not inclined to look them up. If Fudd’s are noticeably better, than that raises the question of why they dropped last season. Admittedly it also leaves hope that it could improve substantially with further adjustment.

But this also leads to my final point on the matter. Muhl also had a lot of fine drives to the basket in European ball, but in her early days at UConn she drove to the basket a number of times and missed quite badly. Mind you she was able to get by defenders, that was not the problem, but when you drive for a lay up and toss an air ball that can mess with your mind, kind of the “Chuck Knoblauch” effect. So she stopped driving and, for some mysterious reason, thought her best course of action was always to get the ball to Bueckers.

It’s possible that Muhl can overcome this block and drive to the basket as she did in European ball. It’s possible that Fudd can overcome whatever created her inferior A/T numbers, if they were so much better during AAU ball. It would be consistent for a fan to hope for both to happen, in which case Muhl still should get the nod for PG, because that would work best for the system.

Thinking that giving Fudd a few months of training for the nuances of PG prepares her as well as six years of training for Muhl does not have much basis in either stats or eye tests.

 

[Bone Dog]

I agree that the “eye test” can uncover things that stats do not. I also know enough about @BobbyJ and @CocoHusky to know they have more experienced eyes than me. Finally, as one who has had to both use and fault stats in my career, I have a pretty good idea when they are being abused.

Nice try. You concede that stats can be abused to win an argument. Then you try to lure me and others into just such an argument. Sorry, not biting on this one.

If you think Nika is a great passer, then make an impassioned plea for her. That's what BY is good for, and I'd love to hear it. I'm one of her biggest fans. But don't waste your time trying to refute people, or to debate them. This isn't a debate club. It's a fan forum.

As for the rest of your post, I'm totally with you. Especially the part where you mention that Nika is good at shaking a defender and blowing by into the lane. She's good at that. Now we just want to see her take it to the hoop occasionally. Her passing will improve immediately.

 

[Bald Husky]

Here is the problem. Not until this year have I heard any indication that the coaches have been on Nika to improve her offensive game. We at the BY have been discussing this since she became a starter her freshman year. We all are frustrated when she gets in the lane, one step from a lay-up, and she kicks it out. Nothing wrong with that if there is an open player to shoot a 3, but she ALWAYS passes it out. In the lane, so many opportunities for a pull-up, but no, she passes it out. I'm not saying anything new or anything we have not talked about. My problem is why haven't the coaches said something, because if Geno did get on her I think we would have seen a difference in her play.
Now, to the thread title. If Nika can take at least 10 shots a game, and average 10-12 points a game, she will be the most important player. Azzi is here to score, Caroline is here to score, as is Lou and every "BIG" that needs someone to get them the ball. Nika is a very good passer, defender, rebounder, and if she can pick up her offence, she will be fine. Last year she told us that she likes to pass so two people will be happy, so evidently, nobody talked to her last year about scoring. She is going to surprise us this year and I just can't wait to see it.

 

[jchusky]

Here is the problem. Not until this year have I heard any indication that the coaches have been on Nika to improve her offensive game. We at the BY have been discussing this since she became a starter her freshman year. We all are frustrated when she gets in the lane, one step from a lay-up, and she kicks it out. Nothing wrong with that if there is an open player to shoot a 3, but she ALWAYS passes it out. In the lane, so many opportunities for a pull-up, but no, she passes it out. I'm not saying anything new or anything we have not talked about. My problem is why haven't the coaches said something, because if Geno did get on her I think we would have seen a difference in her play.
Now, to the thread title. If Nika can take at least 10 shots a game, and average 10-12 points a game, she will be the most important player. Azzi is here to score, Caroline is here to score, as is Lou and every "BIG" that needs someone to get them the ball. Nika is a very good passer, defender, rebounder, and if she can pick up her offence, she will be fine. Last year she told us that she likes to pass so two people will be happy, so evidently, nobody talked to her last year about scoring. She is going to surprise us this year and I just can't wait to see it.

I know it's beating a dead horse and she's gone, but Shea Ralph influence on guards will never go unnoticed. She just had a way of getting the best out of guards.

 

[BobbyJ]

Lol. I’ll include @BobbyJ , @CocoHusky , and @TeamFirst! in this response and make it my last one.

First, I agree that the “eye test” can uncover things that stats do not. I also know enough about @BobbyJ and @CocoHusky to know they have more experienced eyes than me. Finally, as one who has had to both use and fault stats in my career, I have a pretty good idea when they are being abused.

So, for example, I never pointed at Fudd’s low assist totals as an argument against her. If I did, then the rationale you used that she was not being used in that manner, would legitimately have shot me down.

But I used A/T comparisons instead. While there is good reason to expect post players to have lower numbers than perimeter players, that reason does not apply between perimeter players. There were times in our recent past when Faris and Samuelson were our leading A/T players, well over 2.0, but neither were point guards.

As for the eye tests, while I concede that @BobbyJ and others have better “eyes,” I call BS on witnessing how Fudd and Muhl played this past year and claiming there was an obvious difference in their intuitive passing. Sorry, don’t buy it. Both thread the needle at times, both threw it away. To the extent that one is better than the other by “eye test,” it is a subtle difference at best.

And the same goes for using the “eye test” to compare Fudd’s AAU ball with Muhl’s European ball. I saw some pretty fine passing from both, and would claim BS to claims of obvious differences in both.

So that leaves comparing Fudd’s A/T stats from AAU to Muhl’s from European. I don’t have the foggiest idea what those numbers are, and I’m not inclined to look them up. If Fudd’s are noticeably better, than that raises the question of why they dropped last season. Admittedly it also leaves hope that it could improve substantially with further adjustment.

But this also leads to my final point on the matter. Muhl also had a lot of fine drives to the basket in European ball, but in her early days at UConn she drove to the basket a number of times and missed quite badly. Mind you she was able to get by defenders, that was not the problem, but when you drive for a lay up and toss an air ball that can mess with your mind, kind of the “Chuck Knoblauch” effect. So she stopped driving and, for some mysterious reason, thought her best course of action was always to get the ball to Bueckers.

It’s possible that Muhl can overcome this block and drive to the basket as she did in European ball. It’s possible that Fudd can overcome whatever created her inferior A/T numbers, if they were so much better during AAU ball. It would be consistent for a fan to hope for both to happen, in which case Muhl still should get the nod for PG, because that would work best for the system.

Thinking that giving Fudd a few months of training for the nuances of PG prepares her as well as six years of training for Muhl does not have much basis in either stats or eye tests.

It's no problem that we slightly disagree, everyone usually sees things in a different way. I enjoy having an animated back and forth with someone who can make their points in an adult way.

 

[eebmg]

Let's just make sure you and @eebmg are not thinking my assessment was harsh because this is Nika we are talking about. As @BobbyJ pointed I/we made very similar assessments of ONO regarding the need for offensive improvement, her propensity to disappear in big games and get in foul trouble beginning when ONO was a freshman. On the current roster we have also made the same exact assessment of Aubrey Griffin's need to gain a better understanding of the UCONN offense and her inability to develop a a deep ball. In the aftermath of the Arizona we also accessed that Paige need to get stronger so as to be able to better handle contact.
Geno's method is not to go public as a first resort with criticism of his players. I'm fairly certain he's had the discussion with Nika privately before the article you quoted.

Nope. Never thought that. Took your assessment at face value. I am convinced you are equal opportunity harsh (just kidding ).

But I find it strange you say Geno's method is not to go public as a first resort with criticism of his players

Geno will criticize a player quite quickly if the skill is something critical to the team. Geno had plenty to say (in a humorous way of course) about Nika's fouling. Heck, Geno let the world know he is not super happy about Paige's pass first approach when it stifles her aggressiveness. Geno did mention that Nika has to be willing to shoot open 3's her freshman year and through hard work, she got better doing that and I am sure that was his biggest criticism

The real wrinkle we are hearing now is that Nika has to do better finishing around the basket and in the mid range. I am guessing this was not made so public since Nika had enough improvements on her list to work through as a freshman and sophomore and now she is ready (and now very much needed) to take the next step. So I am sure Nika will work very hard to fill in this latest part to her game

 

[diggerfoot]

Nice try. You concede that stats can be abused to win an argument. Then you try to lure me and others into just such an argument. Sorry, not biting on this one.

If you think Nika is a great passer, then make an impassioned plea for her. That's what BY is good for, and I'd love to hear it. I'm one of her biggest fans. But don't waste your time trying to refute people, or to debate them. This isn't a debate club. It's a fan forum.

As for the rest of your post, I'm totally with you. Especially the part where you mention that Nika is good at shaking a defender and blowing by into the lane. She's good at that. Now we just want to see her take it to the hoop occasionally. Her passing will improve immediately.

I see that at least @BobbyJ has the measure of what I am about. I do not do impassioned pleas. I am not an acolyte for any player, except when I think they might be unfairly treated. I often dislike impassioned pleas.

Nor do I claim to be certain when I am not. I am not certain, for example, that Muhl will dominate the PG minutes, but I am certain that is bad news for UConn if she does not.

What I am for is experience, both in the forms of eye tests and data, leading me to what I believe and not the other way around. My experience, my eye test, does not make Fudd an obviously better passer than Muhl. Comparing the experience embedded in assists data, of which Muhl has more than three times than Fudd, would be bogus and an example of abuse of data. Comparing the experience embedded in A/T is not abusing data. How is it so? A whole season is not statistically too small of a sample size.

The BY is not just for impassioned pleas, but also for people to present reliable evidence, data, the experience of their eyes, in support of their conclusions. If you do not think that some data can be abused but some appropriate, so that any data I use is inappropriate and an abusive lure, then the real contention between us has nothing to do with a comparison between Fudd and Muhl.

 

[CocoHusky]

I know the focus in this discussion has largely centered on who would be better at PG, Azzi or Nika. But don't most of us assume Azzi and Caroline will start and get major minutes? I consider that pretty much of a given, so the real decision is between Nika and Lou for that last starting position.

No. The discussion mostly centers around this @JoePgh original question; "Who will be Nika's backup at PG." The assumption that Nika would be a starter was challenged which then morphed in this question: Between Nika and Azzi who is best option to be the starting PG. If healthy most people are assuming Caroline will be the starting SF and that Nika is limited to play the PG position exclusively.

 

[TeamFirst!]

The thread starts out saying Nika is the most important player and then there are several pages of Nika as near worthless. Both are way off. We all know Nika is a valuable asset right? There is no question about that. She’s going to get 20 minutes of PT and maybe more. She almost definitely starts even. We NEED Nika. My only point is that Azzi is a better PG and we have Lou and Caroline as solid offensive assets, along with our bigs. With our depth situation we are going to need Nika badly. I wouldn’t be surprised if Azzi gets 35 minutes plus in big games, as well as Caroline. I’m hopeful Lou can be a major asset. We lose even one of them to injury and the rest are going to have to play major minutes.

 

[Bone Dog]

@diggerfoot I’m not arguing with you at all. I have no interest in debate or refutation. That has always struck me as a bizarre use of a fan forum.

My experience, my eye test, does not make Fudd an obviously better passer than Muhl. Comparing the experience embedded in assists data, of which Muhl has more than three times than Fudd, would be bogus and an example of abuse of data. Comparing the experience embedded in A/T is not abusing data.

You seem to have a theory of data and debate. I don’t care about any of that. I’m curious about your sense of how the players might perform in the coming season.

If you don’t want to share, fine. You don’t need to refute my prognostications. They’re just guesses. I’m happy to hear your disagreement with me, and any alternative views you have. Sharing each other’s guesses, relishing our differences of opinion, that’s the fun bit. Lecturing each other on data and rules of refutation is decidedly not fun.

Now to the fun part: you’re right that Nika had a lot more assists than Azzi. Why do you think that is? It’s an interesting fact.

 

[CocoHusky]

The real wrinkle we are hearing now is that Nika has to do better finishing around the basket and in the mid range. I am guessing this was not made so public since Nika had enough improvements on her list to work through as a freshman and sophomore and now she is ready (and now very much needed) to take the next step. So I am sure Nika will work very hard to fill in this latest part to her game

This is not a new wrinkle nor is it the first time we are hearing it. Nika began her UCONN career by missing her first 9 layup attempts. For her entire freshman season Nika shot the ball from mid-range exactly 2 times in105 FGA. Of those 105 FGA, 70 were from behind the 3Pt line. FF to her sophomore season and of her 116 FGA attempts 6 were from mid range and 73 were from behind the arc.
You may be correct in that the list of things needing improvement that was handed to Nika after her freshman season may have been too long. But how is it that for a player who is restricted to playing the PG position, that theneed to utilize the entire floor not at the top of that needs improvement list?

 

[Huskee11]

Nika is my favorite Husky, so take anything I have to say with a grain of salt.

Nika has shot a little over 34% from three point range in both the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 seasons. Last season, that percentage was better than the percentages for Christyn, Evina and Caroline. I recognize that those three probably took more contested three pointers, but still worth noting.

As I recall, in both seasons Nika has started slow but picked it up from three point range as the season went along, perhaps as her playing time increased. So I think I would like to see her get off to a quicker start from deep in the coming season and if so, she might get the percentage up to around 38%. I would take that.

It was clear to me from watching her warmup before games (I am a season ticket holder and always try to get there early) that she was working on her midrange game. Her movements were slow and deliberate, almost rehearsed, and it was clear that she had been following through on coaching she had received. She actually had some success from the midrange, not much but some, a little more than the previous year. I saw a video taken earlier this summer, I believe, where she was working on the midrange shots and she looked much more fluid, natural, and comfortable. I am hoping that she continues to progress in that area.

Introducing the three pointer has been an overall positive for basketball, I think, but it has been a negative in terms of players (many, not all) developing a midrange game.

I don`t know if that constant passing off the dribble drive is a European thing or not, but Anna Makurat was guilty of that as well. Nika is certainly capable of finishing at the hoop. I think it is a mindset more than anything else.

Geno certainly doesn`t need my advice, but I hope he would tell her to not worry if she misses a layup, a midrange jumper, or a three pointer. Or all three. You are my point guard, and I want you to take those shots in the flow of the offense. If you miss, you miss. That may help free her up mentally to take those shots.

On the defensive end, I think there will be nights when Nika finds herself in foul trouble. She will be aggressive, at times overly so, and on top of that the refs in WCBB call touch fouls on the perimeter all night while allowing felony assaults in the paint. We have to hope that she is able to stay on the floor in the biggest of games. I`m sure she is aware of this.

My larger concern is that her treating every defensive possession as Armageddon - diving and crashing into things and people after loose balls, rushing from 20 feet away to try and take a charge under the hoop, etc. - is going to catch up to her at some point. I found myself cringing and swearing under my breath at her for throwing herself in harm`s way last season more often than I can count. Difficult to tell the bull in the shop to be careful around the china - but I think she needs to protect herself more while still being Nika.

Something that (I think) has been overlooked in this thread but which I have observed - the offense works well when she is on the floor. Offenses can always get stagnant, but when she is on the floor there seems to be a lot of movement, and open shots are created. That is a benefit that goes beyond any deep dive analysis of her individual skills. Oh, and energy, there is that too, as in she has a whole lot of it and it is contagious.

If everything goes true to form, I would expect her to play about 28-30 minutes a game at the point guard position with Azzi playing more minutes than that, and probably playing the point much of the time Nika is on the bench.

 

[Bone Dog]

We might call Nika “the most important player” in a few senses. Best defender, best scorer, best passer, etc. We might also think she’s important as a sort of “canary in the coal mine.” If she succeeds in avoiding fouls and scores off the dribble enough to make her effective for longer, this may make it possible for the others to actually carry the team. If we see her regularly getting 25+ mins, even if her other stats don’t leap off the page, it might signal to us that we can run our usual offense, that she’s done enough.

 

[diggerfoot]

@diggerfoot I’m not arguing with you at all. I have no interest in debate or refutation. That has always struck me as a bizarre use of a fan forum.

You seem to have a theory of data and debate. I don’t care about any of that. I’m curious about your sense of how the players might perform in the coming season.

If you don’t want to share, fine. You don’t need to refute my prognostications. They’re just guesses. I’m happy to hear your disagreement with me, and any alternative views you have. Sharing each other’s guesses, relishing our differences of opinion, that’s the fun bit. Lecturing each other on data and rules of refutation is decidedly not fun.

Now to the fun part: you’re right that Nika had a lot more assists than Azzi. Why do you think that is? It’s an interesting fact.

My salient point is that I allow experience, whether in the form of eye tests or data, to determine what I believe and not the other way around. Using what you believe to determine what you see or what data you value exposes why the eye test can be abused just as surely as stats can. People’s a priori beliefs determines what they see, thus their eyes cannot be trusted.

I do not see, nor attempt to use, debates as contests to be won or lost. Rather, in their best forms I see them as negotiations to arrive at the truth, or at least consensus. I have no difference of opinion with those who think Fudd is a better all around player, so no negotiation is necessary to persuade me of that.

I see no evidence of Fudd being a better PG. There are declarations being made, most without any evidence of all, but a few like you declare she is a better passer. The evidence you gave was the eye test, but my eye test differs from yours, leaving the possibility in my mind that what you already believe is influencing what you see.

I offer data to counter that, considering that when not abused data does not suffer from the biases of an eye test. I did not use assist totals, because that is an unfair comparison considering what their roles were. Of course Muhl should compile a lot more assists, as that was more her job to have them, but perhaps Fudd could have chocked up the assists just as effectively if that were her role.

But there is not a good reason for Fudd’s A/T being 0.45 less than Muhl’s, other than she is not as good at taking care of the ball, a pretty important quality for a PG. But as I view “debates” as negotiations rather than contests, I am open to changing my mind based on new data. That is why I brought up AAU and European stats. If the stats reveal that Fudd’s A/T took a serious dive transitioning to UConn basketball, then I am willing to at least entertain the idea that Fudd is not innately worse than Muhl at taking care of the ball, but rather she needs to adjust more.

Still, Fudd only has a few months to either learn, or regain, a better ability of taking care of the ball, whereas Muhl has been in training for precisely this role for many years. It’s also possible that Muhl’s A/T dipped from European ball, her ability to make a lay up on a drive certainly has, and she has potential she needs to regain as well, rather than learn from scratch.

Generally, when I get the sense that a person views debates as only contests to win or lose I bow out. Negotiating to get at the truth or consensus is fruitless with such people. It could be they feel their self-esteem damaged if they don’t “win” a debate. Despite your reliance on the eye test only, usually a dangerous sign, I have not got that sense with you. Thus I continued to debate, though with a different objective than you apparently think I have.

 

[Bone Dog]

@diggerfoot, you’re absolutely right about one thing, beliefs do influence how we experience things, and this is true of me for sure. For example, I have a few friends who hate the Patriots, insist on calling them the Cheatriots. Naturally they’re Steelers fans. We can watch the same game and see very different things. This is one of the reasons I enjoy talking football with them.

Data can correct for these variations, and used well can raise the level of a conversation. But it does not as often enhance the mutual enjoyment of those conversations, since their main virtue is not accuracy.

This may mean the best use of data is as the starting point, not as the basis of a refutation, as you say. Like the one you started us with: why does Azzi have fewer assists, or a worse a/t ratio and yet seems so much more valuable a player to many of us? A similar question could be asked about Caroline. One thing we might ask is whether a single data point like a/t ratio captures the reality of the game flow. Were all the turnovers live ball turnovers? Every turnover costs us a possession, but they don’t all weigh the same in the result. Some directly cost a score, some lead directly to an opponent scoring, and so on. Other stats may capture this sort of difference better than a/t.

Caroline made a bunch of turnovers in her first several games. But she was also frequently the team’s savior. Situationally, those turnovers were disappointing and I hope she’ll improve in this area, but I was happy to trade them for everything else she contributed. I don’t have a stat for how many possessions were wasted without a turnover, because we were forced into a bad shot by poor passing from the point or poor execution of a motion offense. But I know there were quite a few from experience.

In the first DePaul game, the team was outhustled, and outplayed in the post by Morrow, and I’m sure Geno didn’t want it to come down to the a last second shot. But when it did, he wanted Caroline to take the last shot and she did it, thank goodness! In the rematch, we practically ran DePaul off the court even though Caroline didn’t play and Azzi shot poorly. It is not hard to see why after the fact in a few stats like points in the paint and points off turnovers. That’s what the change in “hustle” produced, I guess. But I still like our chances better with Azzi and Caroline on the floor the next time we play them.

 

[BobbyJ]

My salient point is that I allow experience, whether in the form of eye tests or data, to determine what I believe and not the other way around. Using what you believe to determine what you see or what data you value exposes why the eye test can be abused just as surely as stats can. People’s a priori beliefs determines what they see, thus their eyes cannot be trusted.

I do not see, nor attempt to use, debates as contests to be won or lost. Rather, in their best forms I see them as negotiations to arrive at the truth, or at least consensus. I have no difference of opinion with those who think Fudd is a better all around player, so no negotiation is necessary to persuade me of that.

I see no evidence of Fudd being a better PG. There are declarations being made, most without any evidence of all, but a few like you declare she is a better passer. The evidence you gave was the eye test, but my eye test differs from yours, leaving the possibility in my mind that what you already believe is influencing what you see.

I offer data to counter that, considering that when not abused data does not suffer from the biases of an eye test. I did not use assist totals, because that is an unfair comparison considering what their roles were. Of course Muhl should compile a lot more assists, as that was more her job to have them, but perhaps Fudd could have chocked up the assists just as effectively if that were her role.

But there is not a good reason for Fudd’s A/T being 0.45 less than Muhl’s, other than she is not as good at taking care of the ball, a pretty important quality for a PG. But as I view “debates” as negotiations rather than contests, I am open to changing my mind based on new data. That is why I brought up AAU and European stats. If the stats reveal that Fudd’s A/T took a serious dive transitioning to UConn basketball, then I am willing to at least entertain the idea that Fudd is not innately worse than Muhl at taking care of the ball, but rather she needs to adjust more.

Still, Fudd only has a few months to either learn, or regain, a better ability of taking care of the ball, whereas Muhl has been in training for precisely this role for many years. It’s also possible that Muhl’s A/T dipped from European ball, her ability to make a lay up on a drive certainly has, and she has potential she needs to regain as well, rather than learn from scratch.

Generally, when I get the sense that a person views debates as only contests to win or lose I bow out. Negotiating to get at the truth or consensus is fruitless with such people. It could be they feel their self-esteem damaged if they don’t “win” a debate. Despite your reliance on the eye test only, usually a dangerous sign, I have not got that sense with you. Thus I continued to debate, though with a different objective than you apparently think I have.

Another interesting factor to toss into the subject of ball security would be to look at how Auriemma viewed Muhl's last season. A big part of a PGs job is not only to take care of the ball but also be available to. In arguably the 5 most important games of the year, the last 5 NC tournament games, Auriemma chose not to put the ball in Muhl's hands beyond 11.8 mpg. And in the Indiana game, even if he had wanted to he couldn't because she managed to pick up 4 fouls in her 11 minutes on the floor. So beyond her lack of scoring, the coach didn't view her passing and ball security as enough to play her major minutes. Because he knows he needs a lot of points to beat good teams and the offense didn't function at it's best with her on the floor. That's why I say, never mind what Auriemma says, watch what he does.

 

[diggerfoot]

Another interesting factor to toss into the subject of ball security would be to look at how Auriemma viewed Muhl's last season. A big part of a PGs job is not only to take care of the ball but also be available to. In arguably the 5 most important games of the year, the last 5 NC tournament games, Auriemma chose not to put the ball in Muhl's hands beyond 11.8 mpg. And in the Indiana game, even if he had wanted to he couldn't because she managed to pick up 4 fouls in her 11 minutes on the floor. So beyond her lack of scoring, the coach didn't view her passing and ball security as enough to play her major minutes. Because he knows he needs a lot of points to beat good teams and the offense didn't function at it's best with her on the floor. That's why I say, never mind what Auriemma says, watch what he does.

This is changing the discussion. With Bueckers and Westbrook available in the tournament, the only reason Auriemma would be concerned about PG minutes for Muhl is to not overuse Bueckers. If Bueckers was available now we would not be having this discussion at all. When Bueckers was not available last year Muhl’s PG minutes went up, why would you not think the same to be true this coming year? Last year when Fudd, Ducharme and Muhl were the three guards on the floor together who generally played PG? Why should that change this year?

One reason could be what you bring up, Muhl’s tendency to foul. That could indeed hold her back and limit her minutes. Note that I never claimed with certainty that she was going to get major PG minutes, but I do claim it is bad news if she doesn’t. You say go by what Auriemma does. If the guards he puts on the floor are Fudd, Ducharme and Muhl, Auriemma already has demonstrated by his actions he wants Muhl as PG. The same was true if you swap C. Williams for Fudd or Ducharme.

Honestly, the best case you could make is that Senechal might be more suited for PG, of which I have no idea. But by your own criteria of Auriemma’s actions he has consistently chosen Muhl over Fudd and Ducharme as PG when using those three together.

 

[diggerfoot]

@diggerfoot, you’re absolutely right about one thing, beliefs do influence how we experience things, and this is true of me for sure. For example, I have a few friends who hate the Patriots, insist on calling them the Cheatriots. Naturally they’re Steelers fans. We can watch the same game and see very different things. This is one of the reasons I enjoy talking football with them.

Data can correct for these variations, and used well can raise the level of a conversation. But it does not as often enhance the mutual enjoyment of those conversations, since their main virtue is not accuracy.

This may mean the best use of data is as the starting point, not as the basis of a refutation, as you say. Like the one you started us with: why does Azzi have fewer assists, or a worse a/t ratio and yet seems so much more valuable a player to many of us? A similar question could be asked about Caroline. One thing we might ask is whether a single data point like a/t ratio captures the reality of the game flow. Were all the turnovers live ball turnovers? Every turnover costs us a possession, but they don’t all weigh the same in the result. Some directly cost a score, some lead directly to an opponent scoring, and so on. Other stats may capture this sort of difference better than a/t.

Caroline made a bunch of turnovers in her first several games. But she was also frequently the team’s savior. Situationally, those turnovers were disappointing and I hope she’ll improve in this area, but I was happy to trade them for everything else she contributed. I don’t have a stat for how many possessions were wasted without a turnover, because we were forced into a bad shot by poor passing from the point or poor execution of a motion offense. But I know there were quite a few from experience.

In the first DePaul game, the team was outhustled, and outplayed in the post by Morrow, and I’m sure Geno didn’t want it to come down to the a last second shot. But when it did, he wanted Caroline to take the last shot and she did it, thank goodness! In the rematch, we practically ran DePaul off the court even though Caroline didn’t play and Azzi shot poorly. It is not hard to see why after the fact in a few stats like points in the paint and points off turnovers. That’s what the change in “hustle” produced, I guess. But I still like our chances better with Azzi and Caroline on the floor the next time we play them.

Your question seems to assume the PG should be the most valuable player, which I guess is because of what started the thread. But the started PG does not have to be the most valuable player, does not have to be the best player, does not even have to be one of the players you want on the floor in the last minute. She needs to be the one who can best facilitate the offense for most of the game.

I took another look at Fudd’s assist totals, not to compare them with either Muhl or Bueckers, which would be unfair, but all the other guards besides them. Fudd’s assists per minute were the lowest …. by far! It’s not hard to understand why, she is the primary target to be set up, not to set others up. Fudd has shown the least inclination of being the facilitator needed for PG out of all the choices, whether by nature or design, yet people automatically think her being the best all around player naturally makes her the best PG.

Fudd is talented enough so she could possibly be trained as a great PG, but there are only a few months to do it and it would only be a temporary solution. Without that investment, Fudd really is not a logical choice for the PG position. At this point I would be more interested in hearing reasons why Senechal or even Ducharme might usurp Muhl’s minutes as a PG.

 

[sun]

Fudd is talented enough so she could possibly be trained as a great PG, but there are only a few months to do it and it would only be a temporary solution. Without that investment, Fudd really is not a logical choice for the PG position. At this point I would be more interested in hearing reasons why Senechal or even Ducharme might usurp Muhl’s minutes as a PG.

Because the team needs to be prepared by having a back up PG.
The team can't rely on only having a single PG can it?
Why does there need to be any other reason besides because it makes sense to have more than one PG?
Things don't need to be that complicated unless folks don't want to admit that we need more than one PG.
This isn't about putting a particular player first, it's about putting the team first.
A new PG needs to be trained, maybe 2 more for obvious reasons.
That can result in splitting up Nika's PT.

 

[BobbyJ]

This is changing the discussion. With Bueckers and Westbrook available in the tournament, the only reason Auriemma would be concerned about PG minutes for Muhl is to not overuse Bueckers. If Bueckers was available now we would not be having this discussion at all. When Bueckers was not available last year Muhl’s PG minutes went up, why would you not think the same to be true this coming year? Last year when Fudd, Ducharme and Muhl were the three guards on the floor together who generally played PG? Why should that change this year?

One reason could be what you bring up, Muhl’s tendency to foul. That could indeed hold her back and limit her minutes. Note that I never claimed with certainty that she was going to get major PG minutes, but I do claim it is bad news if she doesn’t. You say go by what Auriemma does. If the guards he puts on the floor are Fudd, Ducharme and Muhl, Auriemma already has demonstrated by his actions he wants Muhl as PG. The same was true if you swap C. Williams for Fudd or Ducharme.

Honestly, the best case you could make is that Senechal might be more suited for PG, of which I have no idea. But by your own criteria of Auriemma’s actions he has consistently chosen Muhl over Fudd and Ducharme as PG when using those three together.

1st bolded: I would agree with this however, I'm not sure how highly Auriemma rates Muhl's offensive PG skills. If he felt that they were strong enough that his offense ran at it's best with her on the floor, he could've used Bueckers at SG which is where some people seem to think is the best use of her, freeing her to hunt shots. Could've have rested Bueckers more and rotated the other SGs. But he knew that wouldn't enhance and make his offense better.
2nd bolded: That was obviously by default. And usually for limited minutes and I don't remember seeing those 3 in those 5 NC tourney games together. Must have been in the hodge podge lineups during the regular season. Ducharme has no PG skills and he needed Fudd at SG for the obvious reason, it wasn't going to be Muhl. Yes, you would think that Muhl's minutes would go up this year if all these supposed offseason improvements have taken place. But maybe not. That's why we're all waiting to see what she's got. But I know Auriemma won't hand it to her before exploring all his options.

 

[diggerfoot]

Because the team needs to be prepared by having a back up PG.
The team can't rely on only having a single PG can it?
Why does there need to be any other reason besides because it makes sense to have more than one PG?
Things don't need to be that complicated unless folks don't want to admit that we need more than one PG.
This isn't about putting a particular player first, it's about putting the team first.
A new PG needs to be trained, maybe 2 more for obvious reasons.
That can result in splitting up Nika's PT.

Part of the training is Auriemma saying “if anything goes wrong it’s your fault.” I agree there can and should be more than one person prepared to put minutes in at the point. Obviously, even if Muhl turns out fantastic, she is not going to play the whole game. The psychological preparation of “this is your offense to run,” at least historically, is targeted for one.

 

[diggerfoot]

1st bolded: I would agree with this however, I'm not sure how highly Auriemma rates Muhl's offensive PG skills. If he felt that they were strong enough that his offense ran at it's best with her on the floor, he could've used Bueckers at SG which is where some people seem to think is the best use of her, freeing her to hunt shots. Could've have rested Bueckers more and rotated the other SGs. But he knew that wouldn't enhance and make his offense better.
2nd bolded: That was obviously by default. And usually for limited minutes and I don't remember seeing those 3 in those 5 NC tourney games together. Must have been in the hodge podge lineups during the regular season. Ducharme has no PG skills and he needed Fudd at SG for the obvious reason, it wasn't going to be Muhl. Yes, you would think that Muhl's minutes would go up this year if all these supposed offseason improvements have taken place. But maybe not. That's why we're all waiting to see what she's got. But I know Auriemma won't hand it to her before exploring all his options.

This has dragged on long enough. I do not believe you are really addressing my points head on right now, but more like looking to circumvent them.

Do you live in Connecticut? I will bet you a large pizza that Muhl gets more minutes at PG than Fudd. Deal?

 

[Bone Dog]

Obviously, even if Muhl turns out fantastic, she is not going to play the whole game.

I completely agree with this observation. But I want to pull your leg a bit, if that’s okay.

“Where’s your evidence for this?What data?”

We could probably gin up some statistics, or we could rely on what our eyes tell us. Players need a break, and even Nika will, and Azzi and Caroline absolutely will. If Lou and Nika (with a little help from Ayanna and Aubrey) can play more than 50 mins between them, that means Azzi and Caroline won’t have to play 35 mins/game. Experience tells me that’s a good thing.

 

[BobbyJ]

Lol. And Muhl’s own chaos, also with injury and adjusting to our style of basketball, is not a factor in her performance?

I get it. If UConn played truly positionless basketball across all five positions, Muhl would not be one of the five starters, and would not even be one of the five most important players, let alone most important player.

But PG is a specialized role even within the UConn system, which involves directing the offense with a minimum of mistakes. Muhl has been and will continue to be trained specifically for that role. No one else besides Bueckers was being trained for that, and if Bueckers was here this year, or with Arnold next year, you can bet Fudd would not be groomed for it.

I included your quote because in your objection to Muhl not being one of the most important you supported that with saying Muhl is not a better passer than Fudd. If true, the proof lies in your faith in Fudd’s abilities and not on what has been actually demonstrated. Making excuses for her ”chaos” does not suffice as real evidence in support of what you believe.

So once again, it may be that Muhl plays a lesser role this year while Fudd handles a significant part of the PG duties, but if that happens that is not good news for UConn. Any program would want to first and foremost to groom and keep giving experience to Fudd as a SG or playing “positionless,” with some amount of confidence she will be the best in the country in that role, allowed to blossom that way by continuing to use a person specifically groomed for PG in that position. If they can’t do that and have to use Fudd or anyone else in the PG role, destined to only be a temporary fix, that has both short term and long term consequences for the program.

I went back in your posts and if I'm not wrong, the bolded area seems to be your main point. My point mainly is that if Muhl handles a significant part of the PG duties, that is not good news for UConn to reach their highest potential this season (say FF). As I've said, using Fudd there is not ideal but TO ME it's the better alternative based on the reasons I've given. If Auriemma decides to go with Muhl, so be it, you'd be correct. I'm just saying that would not be my choice. And no, I'm not in Conn.

 

[diggerfoot]

I went back in your posts and if I'm not wrong, the bolded area seems to be your main point. My point mainly is that if Muhl handles a significant part of the PG duties, that is not good news for UConn to reach their highest potential this season (say FF). As I've said, using Fudd there is not ideal but TO ME it's the better alternative based on the reasons I've given. If Auriemma decides to go with Muhl, so be it, you'd be correct. I'm just saying that would not be my choice. And no, I'm not in Conn.

Ah, thanks, that clarifies your position for me, it’s not exactly what I thought, and perhaps explains why this has dragged on.

Playing Fudd at PG to me is not a better option unless Muhl can’t stay in the game, or resists instruction. Fudd would be playing out of position for something she may not even be psychologically suited for, let alone her problematic A/T and sparsity of assists over all.

All along you’ve said that players have to earn things with Auriemma, yet you think he may give Muhl the major minutes even if that proves to be bad news? By logical inference that would mean Fudd would be even worse at PG, so he’s stuck with Muhl regardless. I’m a little more optimistic about both Muhl and Fudd to come to that conclusion, so I guess we agree to disagree at this point.