CocoHusky
1,000,001 BY points
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2015
- Messages
- 17,203
- Reaction Score
- 73,827
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.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?
