Not just Lou: bodes well for now & the future

[UcMiami]

Not sure what Jefferson & Stewart Tuck's Freshmen numbers have to do with this thread but I like your closing sentence. Try this: Next year team will be different ("likely not as good") (duh). Specific to KLS: IMO she will become UCONN's primary scoring option next year. Because of the incredible amount of talent departing UCONN, KLS will find it harder to score next year than she does this year- (duh X 100).

Like the addition to my sentence.
I brought in those freshman stats to show that freshman and first year players at Uconn who become AAs and NPOY candidates do not necessarily amaze in their first year, and that our current players like Collier and Butler are putting up some pretty comparable numbers while seeing very limited time with the first string that is in fact a lot better than the team Stewart, Jefferson, and Tuck joined. (Dobson, Hartley as seniors, Faris as a junior, and KML as a sophomore were very good players, but not in the same conversation with Stewart, Jefferson, and Tuck as seniors, and Nurse as a sophomore.)

 

[hoophuskee]

I did not say she won't be able to shoot, just not as easy as it has been in the last month couple months, which has been at a prolific rate since the opponent has to guard people like Stewie and Tuck on the inside.

Really? Why did you make this post then? Can't you say this about every single player on UCONN that they will have it tougher because the Big 2 probably 3 won't be there? No offense, but you felt a need to post that? Seriously, just asking -- no malice in my question. Did you feel a need to stick it to the optimists for next year? Don't you think everyon knows the entire team will have it tougher?

Do you think she'll be voted among the top ten players next year? I say yes.

 

[bags27]

Maybe to rebalance....We all think Lou is great. How great? Geno has already said she won't be the 2nd coming of Stewie; he said she just wasn't that talented. More like Svet, he said. Well, maybe instead, we should say that Lou will be more like Lou.

Here's a few things to ponder:
1. She was a defensive disaster in November; by February she was a force on defense.
2. She was missing her 3s badly, yet when she began to start, she would often take the very first shot for her all-American filled team.
3. She goes down very badly on Saturday; gets up and drains the foul shot.

I think what we all see is an immensely talented, self-assured oversized wing who is completely coachable and ambitious and can't wait for Geno & Co. to set even more challenges before her.

 

[hoophuskee]

Only "credible" offensive threat as in the one opposing defenses will be geared up to stop. The Big three (Morgan, Stewie & Moriah) will all depart with FG% that are higher than what KLS is currently shooting. The other starter Kia is shooting 44% to KLS 49%. Next year will not be a scenario where you have to pick your poison among UCONN shooters because, as has already been pointed out, ALL the potential replacements as starters ( Gabby and Natalie especially) have limited range and that is compounded by the gaudy assists numbers of the departing Big three.

Your post highlights why I disagree with you college views so often (not your recruiting info). Please don't take offense to this. We can agree to disagree, can't we? No malice meant from me!!! There are many ways to win.

1--- Your view of what a "credible" offensive threat is, my opinion and yours going into next year is MUCH different. IMO "credible" IS KLS, Nurse and Gabby. Potential "credible" threat is Collier and Danger.

2-- More importantly than number 1, is that you are using fg% comparing for example Tuck vs KLS. That is such an archaic way to compare players shooting. Using fg% to compare, you could highlight Brook Lopez has a higher fg% than Steph Curry but that has no real meaning. They aren't even on the same planet in terms of efficiency. Back to your point. Tuck takes a lot more twos. Yes she may have a higher fg% but KLS has a higher EFG%. MUCH higher. In fact KLS has a slightly higher EFg% than MoJeff by .09. So actually KSL is 2nd in terms of efficiency between the four you mentioned. It's not the point of mine to argue who do I want with the ball in their hands late. The point is you used FG% to compare KLS vs Tuck.

The fact that you are very savvy when it comes to hoop and you know in terms of efficiency that 6-10 from the floor taking two's is equivalent to a player going 4-10 from three in terms of both points scored and EFG%, it make me wonder why you chose to ignore this when you compared KLS vs. the others? You KNOW KLS takes many, many 3's.

The fact you ignored that a predominant 3pt shooter is likely to have a lower fg% vs a pf/c, it makes me curious if you favor the low post game. You used an archaic stat in an attempt to justify Tuck's FG% over KLS had some sort of meaning. That's an archaic pov. Just curious who you believe should be the starting 5 next year? Is it more low-post oriented?

 

[bags27]

I've been thinking about CocoHusky's points as well, and I'd like to suggest also the following considerations:
1. Currently, the double picks are being set for Stewie; and as Coco is saying, Lou benefits from being weak-side for the swing or skip pass, and sometimes for a pick from Morgan. Next year, Lou will get the double picks. There are wide bodies in Natalie and Kyla just waiting to rub off Lou's defenders.
2. As I wrote earlier, Lou has a powerful fake 3 and mid-court jumper, and a very long strided baseline drive.
She'll be cool.

 

[CocoHusky]

Your post highlights why I disagree with you college views so often (not your recruiting info). Please don't take offense to this. We can agree to disagree, can't we? No malice meant from me!!! There are many ways to win.

1--- Your view of what a "credible" offensive threat is, my opinion and yours going into next year is MUCH different. IMO "credible" IS KLS, Nurse and Gabby. Potential "credible" threat is Collier and Danger.

2-- More importantly than number 1, is that you are using fg% comparing for example Tuck vs KLS. That is such an archaic way to compare players shooting. Using fg% to compare, you could highlight Brook Lopez has a higher fg% than Steph Curry but that has no real meaning. They aren't even on the same planet in terms of efficiency. Back to your point. Tuck takes a lot more twos. Yes she may have a higher fg% but KLS has a higher EFG%. MUCH higher. In fact KLS has a slightly higher EFg% than MoJeff by .09. So actually KSL is 2nd in terms of efficiency between the four you mentioned. It's not the point of mine to argue who do I want with the ball in their hands late. The point is you used FG% to compare KLS vs Tuck.

The fact that you are very savvy when it comes to hoop and you know in terms of efficiency that 6-10 from the floor taking two's is equivalent to a player going 4-10 from three in terms of both points scored and EFG%, it make me wonder why you chose to ignore this when you compared KLS vs. the others? You KNOW KLS takes many, many 3's.

The fact you ignored that a predominant 3pt shooter is likely to have a lower fg% vs a pf/c, it makes me curious if you favor the low post game. You used an archaic stat in an attempt to justify Tuck's FG% over KLS had some sort of meaning. That's an archaic pov. Just curious who you believe should be the starting 5 next year? Is it more low-post oriented?

Of course we can agree to disagree. I would not know what malice looks like in the context of a basketball blog. It was not my intent to use " FG% to compare KLS vs Tuck". In fact I did not intend to compare Tuck to KLS-what would be the point of such a comparison? Let me try this again: among the 5 starters this year KLS has the 4th best shooting percentage. If you are an opposing coach you do not go into a game saying KLS must have an off shooting night for us have a chance because there are potentially 3 other UCONN shooters that could prove to be fatal before you get to KLS. BTW those three graduating players are also your #1, #2, #3 on the team in assists which makes it easier for KLS to score this year.

 

[MilfordHusky]

Maybe to rebalance....We all think Lou is great. How great? Geno has already said she won't be the 2nd coming of Stewie; he said she just wasn't that talented. More like Svet, he said. Well, maybe instead, we should say that Lou will be more like Lou.

Here's a few things to ponder:
1. She was a defensive disaster in November; by February she was a force on defense.
2. She was missing her 3s badly, yet when she began to start, she would often take the very first shot for her all-American filled team.
3. She goes down very badly on Saturday; gets up and drains the foul shot.

I think what we all see is an immensely talented, self-assured oversized wing who is completely coachable and ambitious and can't wait for Geno & Co. to set even more challenges before her.

Well, Sveta was a 3x All-American. I'll take that, though I think Lou has NPOY potential.

 

[hoophuskee]

Of course we can agree to disagree. I would not know what malice looks like in the context of a basketball blog. It was not my intent to use " FG% to compare KLS vs Tuck". In fact I did not intend to compare Tuck to KLS-what would be the point of such a comparison? Let me try this again: among the 5 starters this year KLS has the 4th best shooting percentage. If you are an opposing coach you do not go into a game saying KLS must have an off shooting night for us have a chance because there are potentially 3 other UCONN shooters that could prove to be fatal before you get to KLS. BTW those three graduating players are also your #1, #2, #3 on the team in assists which makes it easier for KLS to score this year.

Good- glad no malice!!

Well we just keep going around in circles. I disagree 100% with your using FG% when EFG% is far superior. As stated before it's like comparing Brook Lopez vs Steph Curry. Brook Lopez has a higher fg% but he isn't in Stephs' efficiency universe. You say you aren't comparing Tuck vs KLS. You certainly are. Tuck is a starter and you are comparing her fg% vs KLS's.

Also- who do you think should be the starting 5 next year?

 

[Geno-ista]

Here is UConn's dilemma for next year. If (as many here including me expect assuming a Tuck-less year), the starting lineup is Buter / Collier / Samuelson / Williams / Nurse, then (based on presently demonstrated skills), 3 of those 5 players cannot reliably make shots from more than about 10 feet from the basket. If that is really true, then Geno will not be able to spread the floor on offense, which will make things much more difficult at the offensive end.

Now if either Napheesa or Gabby (or ideally both of them) could develop greater range on their jump shot, at least to the point where they would have to be guarded at a greater distance from the basket, that would open up the offense very significantly.

If that doesn't happen, then Geno will probably have no choice except to have either Saniya or Crystal in the lineup for a lot of minutes, just to add a credible shooting threat and open up the floor. But that would surely come at a cost in defensive effectiveness, rebounding, and/or errors due to inexperience.

Joe- Gabby has shown the ability to hit mid range jumpers. Collier has as well. I think Collier is really emerging now. To your point- I'm not convinced that Butler is a starter by a long shot next year. KLS is 6'3", Gabby plays much bigger and so does Collier! Athletic slashers like this bunch can cause as many match up problems as having a traditional center. If Saniya can't learn how to be a defensive presence, I'm not so sure how much of an inside track she has on anything.