Per-40 spreadsheet and rate rankings grid thru Ole Miss

[JRRRJ]

Download the spreadsheet here.

Neither of the last two games were pretty, but showed both showed glimpses of the kind of balletic offensive play we like to see. The defense remains quite good, excepting the Ole Miss 3rd quarter. Looking forward to the inevitable improvement. And no more games against that team of officials.

Kinda curious why Geno played so much zone against a team with 3 willing distance shooters. Even more curious as to why 3 players never saw the floor. Geno claims the goals are 1) win the conference 2) win the conference tourney 3) win the whole shooting match. So why not give the last 3 the opportunity to play against the first really physical defense they've encountered? Beside having Paige and Sara court fatigue and possible injury by playing more than 35 minutes against that defense. Ah, well. I'm not the one making the millions.



Some movement in the grid with a couple more players now eligible. We're now requiring a minimum of 100 minutes played.

Points	Paige 29.17	Jana 20.63	Sarah 19.55
ORB	Jana 5.47	Sarah/Ice ~2.2	Q/Ashlynn ~1.1
DRB	Jana 10.53	Sarah/Q ~8.0	Ice 5.67
TRB	Jana 16.00	Sarah 10.34	Q 9.14
Assists	Kaitlyn 6.48	KK 6.18	Paige 5.97
Blocks	Sarah 2.47	Jana 1.68	Ice/Q 1.1
Steals	Sarah 3.82	Paige/Ashlynn ~3.3	KK 2.93
TO	KK 0.65	Ashlynn 1.08	Sarah 1.57
Fouls	Ashlynn 0.54	Paige 0.88	KK 1.30
Made FT	Paige 3.31	Jana/Ice ~2.1	Kaitlyn 1.13

 

[Dugway]

@JRRRJ, Thank you for the information.

The summary report within your post #1 to this thread has Jana El Alfy’s points per 40 listed at 29.63, actually ahead of Paige. Within the spreadsheet it indicates she really scores at a rate of 20.63 per 40-min game. I suspect just a typo.

Thank you again!

 

[JRRRJ]

@JRRRJ, Thank you for the information.

The summary report within your post #1 to this thread has Jana El Alfy’s points per 40 listed at 29.63, actually ahead of Paige. Within the spreadsheet it indicates she really scores at a rate of 20.63 per 40-min game. I suspect just a typo.

Thank you again!

Fixed. Thank you!

 

[hoophuskee]

Even more curious as to why 3 players never saw the floor. Geno claims the goals are 1) win the conference 2) win the conference tourney 3) win the whole shooting match. So why not give the last 3 the opportunity to play against the first really physical defense they've encountered? Beside having Paige and Sara court fatigue and possible injury by playing more than 35 minutes against that defense. Ah, well. I'm not the one making the millions.

dont agree with your pov. When the game is close why not play your best players in order to have a better chance to win? While there are end of season goals, there is also a priority to win the game in front of you. And who says the 3 players that didn't play that they will play well in the ncaa tourney during those games that the team is struggling to win on that given night if you gave them minutes in this game? Why not work your core players as much as possible vs the tough teams so you can develop the best chemistry possible so when you play those tight games in March your core unit will be optimally prepared? Chemistry is very important.

 

[JRRRJ]

dont agree with your pov. When the game is close why not play your best players in order to have a better chance to win? While there are end of season goals, there is also a priority to win the game in front of you. And who says the 3 players that didn't play that they will play well in the ncaa tourney during those games that the team is struggling to win on that given night if you gave them minutes in this game? Why not work your core players as much as possible vs the tough teams so you can develop the best chemistry possible so when you play those tight games in March your core unit will be optimally prepared? Chemistry is very important.

Geno has stated more than once that "winning the game in front of you" is not a priority, those 3 goals are the priority. And, playing wonderfully or not, we've learned that it's possible that those 3 players may be part of the only 7 left standing at the end of the year. When up by 20+ points, it's not a brain-dead idea to put one or 2 of those players in with starters to get experience you may direly need at the end of the season, and decrease the likelihood of injury by giving your starters significant rest.

And the team is stronger yet if the chemistry spreads across all of them.

 

[hoophuskee]

Geno has stated more than once that "winning the game in front of you" is not a priority, those 3 goals are the priority. And, playing wonderfully or not, we've learned that it's possible that those 3 players may be part of the only 7 left standing at the end of the year. When up by 20+ points, it's not a brain-dead idea to put one or 2 of those players in with starters to get experience you may direly need at the end of the season, and decrease the likelihood of injury by giving your starters significant rest.

And the team is stronger yet if the chemistry spreads across all of them.

I come in peace! Please don't take offense. Here is my view - I disagree with yours.

He has? Do you have the quote (it’s okay if you don't. I can't find the YT quote I am referencing.)? Do you have 1 that winning a game is not a priority? I'd be shocked. Unless his team was injured or something along those lines? So if he isn't trying to win the game in front of him as a priority, then on occasion, would be okay if his players don't play to win on that day because he felt it not a priority?

Secondly, if you (Geno or any other coach) are so worried with injures then what's the point of trying to win these type of games instead of just playing everyone equal minutes?

Three The game got to a few points in the 4th qtr, didn't it? UCONN had a 20+ point lead and the other team cut the lead and put themselves in a position to make the game more than extremely tight, so I don't agree with your pov about 20 point leads.

Please don't get upset (nor will I if you have any quote) My point for 2 and 3 is that imo you misinterpreted his comments. I could be wrong as well. Geno surprised me with his "body language" comments from the past. But I also know he highly exaggerates too.

4th: When you say that these players maybe be direly needed, but imo and apparently Geno’s that the core players he assigns will be direly needed and that’s a certainty. your point is an "only if . . ." And with 8 player one injury you can still be very formidable. And UCONN has Aubrey coming back too. And you are a stat guy, I'm sure you can see some teams have won with a core of 7 or 8, right? And how many injuries did they go through for their core players and they still had at least 7?

5th: I don't mean this to be offensive, but in regard to injury, if you are going to coach to the degree you are stating then imo that is scared then you don't belong in coaching Div 1. A player plays one minute and they can be hurt,.. A person that drives a car that day they can get into an accident.

6th: All I have done is played measly High School basketball for a very strong team. I can't imagine my hs coach back then stating the game we played it wasn't a priority to win. Nor can I imagine in any manner Geno telling Paige or his team on that given day it's not a priority that they win. But just like not winning it all it is understandable that they don't, the same can be said for a game. Geno could be "okay" with it, but for a game you are competing on that night to say "it's not a priority that we win," - then with that attitude I don't understand why you'd even bother playing. Thus, I think our definition of "priority" is different. One game doesn't make a season but it matters enough that you compete to win.

Maybe we have a different definition of "priority?" I just found the quote(s) on YouTube (not sure I can send it on here) Geno said as long as his team is competing for Final Fours then that's all that counts (to paraphrase he was stating his team was there all the time; the last week of the season and "that’s all that matters" is how he phrased it.) So, does this mean that he doesn't feel winning the title is a priority because he is okay if his team doesn't win it? He could be okay with a loss but still he is coaching to win. And by coaching to win; that is a priority otherwise why bother to coach to win and instead just give everyone equal minutes? This is why he plays Paige 35-40 minutes in big games and why others don’t play.

 

[PJCLaw]

Download the spreadsheet here.

Neither of the last two games were pretty, but showed both showed glimpses of the kind of balletic offensive play we like to see. The defense remains quite good, excepting the Ole Miss 3rd quarter. Looking forward to the inevitable improvement. And no more games against that team of officials.

Kinda curious why Geno played so much zone against a team with 3 willing distance shooters. Even more curious as to why 3 players never saw the floor. Geno claims the goals are 1) win the conference 2) win the conference tourney 3) win the whole shooting match. So why not give the last 3 the opportunity to play against the first really physical defense they've encountered? Beside having Paige and Sara court fatigue and possible injury by playing more than 35 minutes against that defense. Ah, well. I'm not the one making the millions.



Some movement in the grid with a couple more players now eligible. We're now requiring a minimum of 100 minutes played.

Points	Paige 29.17	Jana 20.63	Sarah 19.55
ORB	Jana 5.47	Sarah/Ice ~2.2	Q/Ashlynn ~1.1
DRB	Jana 10.53	Sarah/Q ~8.0	Ice 5.67
TRB	Jana 16.00	Sarah 10.34	Q 9.14
Assists	Kaitlyn 6.48	KK 6.18	Paige 5.97
Blocks	Sarah 2.47	Jana 1.68	Ice/Q 1.1
Steals	Sarah 3.82	Paige/Ashlynn ~3.3	KK 2.93
TO	KK 0.65	Ashlynn 1.08	Sarah 1.57
Fouls	Ashlynn 0.54	Paige 0.88	KK 1.30
Made FT	Paige 3.31	Jana/Ice ~2.1	Kaitlyn 1.13

Geno wanted to win the game and the 8 players who played gave the team the best chance to win. This in not Little League where everyone gets to play every game. Geno knows who he can trust in what situations, and I trust his judgment (we all know his resume), so that is good enough for me.