Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="diggerfoot, post: 4371634, member: 1673"] Lol. I’ll include [USER=4250]@BobbyJ[/USER] , [USER=5823]@CocoHusky[/USER] , and [USER=11538]@TeamFirst![/USER] 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 [USER=4250]@BobbyJ[/USER] and [USER=5823]@CocoHusky[/USER] 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 [USER=4250]@BobbyJ[/USER] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach