Spread those minutes out Geno

[huskyd]

When the definitive book about Geno's coaching is written, I believe that subbing will be regarded as among his best qualities. Every season w/in memory, Coach has settled on his most reliable players and kept going back to them. Sometimes that means playing fewer players for fewer minutes. He's searching for the best combination to rely upon. There's a rationale for every player who starts and for every player who's considered "situational." Remember Kiah Stokes? Not a starter, but when the team needed rebounds and shut-down interior defense here came Kiah. In her senior year, wearing a knee brace the size of Texas, Caroline Doty started every game. She was there to run the offense because she knew it better than anyone on the team. Shortly, in deference to her dicey knee, she was pulled.
Having said that, I would ask "Where is that deep bench some you think is out there this season?" I only see two entirely reliable players among the starters (Liv and Paige). Who are the others? Christyn is streaky, and Evina and Ania are inconsistent. But who on the bench is going to step in w/out costing the team in some way? Aaliyah is, for the moment, a credible sub for Liv, but who else really has to be in the game? No one really.

 

[Cornell Lt]

It's a good thing that there are so many qualified coaches on this board, maybe they can teach Geno a thing or two

 

[donalddoowop]

Everybody! That's why I'm frustrated beyond belief. Geno runs his orchestrated passing game and we just miss the shot. These are easy shots. You ever play "around-the-world", shoot from the block on each side, then the short shot in the middle at the dashed-line, etc. That's the shot CW missed. One example. Brutal!
I guess this needs explaining: shots have different levels of difficulty. Everybody on the team should look for open shots which are easier. The star player can shoot under pressure. Geno is urging Paige to assume that role. I'm referring to outside shots. What are your expectations when our Huskies take an open shot? When EW got that open corner jumper and missed the rim by a foot, what were you thinking? If you had her take 10 shots from that spot in a game situation, how many should she make?
When I played, we used to work on our shots 3 hours a day outside of practice time. Sets of 20 shots on the move after a sharp cut. 18 out of 20, every time. Games of 1 on 1, that were won by whoever got the ball first.
I challenge you to watch an NBA game. Decide what an open shot is. Now keep track of their percentage on open shots.

These players are not NBA players. Was anyone guarding you when you were taking those 20 shots? You did not answer my question. You did not name one player, college or pro.

 

[hoophuskee]

I agree with the theme of this thread for several reasons. Rather than argue who should be playing more or less minutes this year, let me fast forward to next year. By any reasonable assumption that team will have a second unit that would probably be ranked by themselves, and a third unit that could beat most Division 1 team's starters.

Playing the best starters 35 minutes a game, and most of the other starters 30 minutes a game would be complete madness in my opinion, at least next year. My reasoning is this. I think our second unit next year could beat other teams second units by more not less, than our starters could beat their starters. If that is true you want more of the game to be a match up of the benches.

If you run as much as possible, and press most of the game you can wear out both teams starters. So suppose instead of the other team's starters playing 30 minutes and their subs 10 each, you reduce their starters to 25 minutes and increase their subs to 15 minutes. That is an advantage for us, a big one. You can find more time and happiness for a very deep bench, and by using the bench more run up the score and margin of victory at the same time. You also force many teams out of their comfort zone regarding style of play and substitution patterns.

Now this year is not quite as clear cut. Last year Megan, Crystal and Christyn were all heavily used because the alternative was more of Molly and Kyla. While not as good as next year's bench will be, Edwards, Muhl, and McLean are far more talented than Molly and Kyla, so you could make a similar case for this year, but the argument is not as strong.

I get the Baylor argument, particularly with a very young learning team. To a certain extent all the games up to this point are like preseason games getting ready for the Baylor opening, so more time for the core that will be used in that game might make sense. But against Big East competition why wait until the last two minutes of a 40 point blowout to yank the starters? In many cases that could have been done 5-10 minutes sooner in my opinion. This year might be ok, but next year it will be use them or lose them, and you can use them to increase the lead, not diminish it.

We've had these discussions before and I continue to find them interesting in part because of the different opinions of big bench vs. short bench from many.

I don't agree with your view however if if if you are suggesting don't play your superstars 35+ minutes in big games then I I see that as "madness."

Also, I don't agree with how you are breaking the game down: "2nd team vs 2nd team." The game isn't played like that. The other team won't play by your rules. Think of it as the other team's best player having an opportunity offensively to go against the 9th or 10th best player on UCONN because they don't take their superstar(s) out and instead the other team plays with only 8. Thus the other superstar will possibly get mismatches. And/or on defense their superstar player(s) have an opportunity to not have to work as hard on defense because they can guard the 9th or 10th best player. The 9th or 10th best player on UCONN has less strengths/and/or more weaknesses than the starters. You've possibility given the other team's superstars the ability to rest on defense. So for example they play zone on defense and it has the possibility of slowing the pace of play.

IMO this belief that UCONN will "wear down" other elite team superstar(s) by pressing won't necessarily work. Aside from big centers- you're not assured you are going to wear down other elite athletes. And while there is an argument to play more players and press press press and not doing so also limits the potential growth of the team's ability to cause havoc. But the same can be said as a counter that if you eventually face an elite team able to beat pressure and/or not turn the ball over- then you're potentially limiting the effectiveness of you're halfcourt sets because during the season you've limited UCONN's ability to work their halfcourt sets with their best players.

 

[Sluconn Husky]

IMO this belief that UCONN will "wear down" other elite team superstar(s) by pressing won't necessarily work.

Nearly every season now there's a notion that UConn will come at the opposition in waves and press non-stop. It's fun to imagine but not all that practical and not the way Geno has ever approached things. Have the Huskies pressed one time this season?

 

[Sluconn Husky]

The best team on the court last night was when Paige; Ono; Williams; Westbrook and Edwards were on the floor. To me that is these are the best set of five. You have offense when they connect and good on defense.

Perhaps this was posted in a thread I haven't perused but Alexa Philippou posted the following about that lineup. Do note that this is a tiny sample size.

 

[cbraarj]

Nika deserves more minutes. She has the track record playing against Pros in europe. The injury has slowed her quite a bit in terms of PT.

I agree and I think she will be a force defensively once she applies herself to the rules here and stops getting mad at the calls. Just play Nika.

 

[cbraarj]

Eh, I don't know if I'd call them spectacular assists. More like lucky. The one play Westbrook was trying to run off a screen and Griffin got in her way and messed that up. Ended up with the ball, wasn't sure what to do so threw it to Edwards who made a good move and scored.

Another assist, Griffin dribbled herself into the corner, was stuck and "luckily" Edwards defender left her alone under the basket. Granted, Griffin found her, but mostly luck.

I noticed that with Evina too and Aubrey just looks confused on offense.

 

[oldhusky]

We've had these discussions before and I continue to find them interesting in part because of the different opinions of big bench vs. short bench from many.

I don't agree with your view however if if if you are suggesting don't play your superstars 35+ minutes in big games then I I see that as "madness."

Also, I don't agree with how you are breaking the game down: "2nd team vs 2nd team." The game isn't played like that. The other team won't play by your rules. Think of it as the other team's best player having an opportunity offensively to go against the 9th or 10th best player on UCONN because they don't take their superstar(s) out and instead the other team plays with only 8. Thus the other superstar will possibly get mismatches. And/or on defense their superstar player(s) have an opportunity to not have to work as hard on defense because they can guard the 9th or 10th best player. The 9th or 10th best player on UCONN has less strengths/and/or more weaknesses than the starters. You've possibility given the other team's superstars the ability to rest on defense. So for example they play zone on defense and it has the possibility of slowing the pace of play.

IMO this belief that UCONN will "wear down" other elite team superstar(s) by pressing won't necessarily work. Aside from big centers- you're not assured you are going to wear down other elite athletes. And while there is an argument to play more players and press press press and not doing so also limits the potential growth of the team's ability to cause havoc. But the same can be said as a counter that if you eventually face an elite team able to beat pressure and/or not turn the ball over- then you're potentially limiting the effectiveness of you're halfcourt sets because during the season you've limited UCONN's ability to work their halfcourt sets with their best players.

I certainly agree that there are some teams that could probably consistently beat a full court press and make that a bad strategy against them. There are others where an aggressive overplaying trapping half court defense might work, but full court wouldn't etc. In other cases if our bench isn't better than theirs by more than the difference in starters, it might be inappropriate. If our starters were way better than theirs, but the benches were about equal, then it would be just the opposite, you want the game to be more a battle between starting units.

It's just with the anticipated bench next year in particular, it is hard for me to imagine many match-ups where the margin between our starters and their starters (while very high) is greater than the difference between the benches, when ours may be one of the best ever.

I know it's not 2nd team vs 2nd team in the purest sense. Usually some starters mixed with some bench. But if you increase the minutes both benches play the effect is the same.

If the other team doesn't "play by the rules" so to speak and they don't get tired at all, and their starters wind up playing against our subs, you could be right. I actually anticipate some of this strategy by the opposition, but I don't think it will be without consequence. Their coach could just reduce starter minutes, which obviously I think is a big advantage for us, or they could leave starters in, playing tired in my opinion, and nowhere close to 100%. Both of those are good for us and their coach has to pick the lessor of two evils.

If there is no drop-off or fatigue factor, or if it is very minimal, then you would be correct. Remember even if their tired starters could outplay our rested very talented bench, then we come back with our rested starters against their that are gassed.

Anyway that's how I see it, but regardless you are correct that the strategy would probably not work against teams that handle the press very well.

 

[meyers7]

I noticed that with Evina too and Aubrey just looks confused on offense.

I thought Westbrook looked a little perturbed too.

 

[Vowelguy]

If there is no drop-off or fatigue factor, or if it is very minimal, then you would be correct. Remember even if their tired starters could outplay our rested very talented bench, then we come back with our rested starters against their that are gassed.

This very scenario was cited by Geno in an NCAA game against Kentucky several years of ago. KY and their "40 minutes of dread" kept subbing in players and Geno's post-game comment was something like "they kept bringing in weaker & weaker players, it was great."

 

[JRRRJ]

Name a guard, forward, or wing that is shooting 70% when they are open. How many are there?

Very nearly three. Aaliyah is at 69% overall, Olivia at 67.7% and Aubrey at 65%.

 

[donalddoowop]

Very nearly three. Aaliyah is at 69% overall, Olivia at 67.7% and Aubrey at 65%.

The poster to whom I was responding was talking about open outside shots and not one of the people you named is hitting those percentages from outside. Not one of them has taken as many as ten outside shots total.

 

[Cuango]

Hey, I did better than just a question mark!! What's your deal? I like banter about hoops. What are you about?
I answered the question thoroughly. The shots we're missing are shots our players should make 7 out of 10. The one CW missed at the dashed line is 9 out of 10. You ever play ball? Well, if you did, your team runs a beautiful passing game sequence and gets you the ball in the corner, nobody within 10 feet of you, and you miss the rim right by a foot. What's your thoughts on that? How many of those are you going to make out of 10? I'm making at least 7, probably more like 9. I'm missing tough shots. That's why 50% is an acceptable %. You make the easy shots and struggle on the tough shots. Do you need a math lesson too?
I even told the poster to watch an NBA game and after establishing what an open shot is, see what the % is on open shots. I contend that it's impressive.
UConn women, some of the most skilled women basketball players in the world, have to make these shots.

 

[hoophuskee]

Board- Cuango doesn't know how to banter about hoops, so I'll have a conversation with myself. Why would someone just quote a post with no response. Wow, I guess Cuango in all his/her wisdom is trying to expose me as a quack.
So, I'll remake the point for the benefit of the board.
All shots are not created equal. There are even different point values for certain shots. Simple math: 3 out of 10 from 3 pt range= 9 points, 5 out of 10 from 2 pt range= 10 points. 30% vs 50%. Pretty much the reason why basketball in general is so dominated by 3-pt shooting. I played when there was no line, so we were always trying to find the best shot possible. Today, the worst shot you can possibly take is a jumper with your feet on the 3-pt line.
Now, nobody will argue that a wide-open layup should be made 100% of the time. So a layup and a forced jumper as the clock expires (like the one Paige had to throw up, BTW that counted in her stat-line), which is almost a sure miss add together. So, that's 2 shots, 1 for 2, or 50%. So, 2 distinctly different shots have different probabilities of resulting in a score and the overall shooting stats are an accumulation of these events.
Better execution of the offense=better shots= better probability of success= more points (or so it should).
My point for the 10th time is that we are missing wide open shots.
I hold to my "outrageous" statement that a good shooter can make 7 out of 10 shots wide open in the corner where EW missed the rim by a foot. I could have in my day. Bloggers asked who can do that? I said as a response, everybody. Most on the UConn roster can. Now, I would have forced 2 or 3 shots in the game with little chance of success and I would have driven to the hole and missed some forced drives. So, at the end of the day, hopefully my line was at least above 50%.
(sorry I had to explain that. Like LA says, please feel free to ignore)

I like your posts and I like cuango's posts. On here because you can't sit face-to-face with someone the "meaning" of posts can gets lost.

With that said-- that player in the corner will hit 70% of his or her shots depending on the type of shooter they are. For example- if Allen Iverson was wide open for a corner 3 vs Ray Allen - Ray was going to make more. Not all "wide open players" will hit the same. I can recall earlier this year the poster UCONNKAT had a quote from Geno saying something to the effect that Evina was not a shooter or "pure shooter" or something like that. My point is-- Evina doesn't seem to be looking for 3's so she will mostly shoot when she is open from 3- and yet she is going to miss more than 30% of the time. Her strength is penetrating and passing and can finish inside. She is shooting 36% from 3 despite primarily taking all good shots. That's pretty good with an EFG% of 54%. But many, many have been open looks.

Somedays she will go 3-4 from 3 but eventually that 3-4 is going end up being 0-4 no matter how wide open she is. Obviously rooting for more 3-4's than 0-4's. I understand the corner 3 is the easiest - but I wonder if she doesn't already have a very good % from the corner (despite the 1 airball) vs from other spots. But looking at her numbers overall- it's pretty good. I'm sure if we were to predict season most would have said she would be 4th bets shooter from 3. Right now she is 2nd. SHootign 35% to just under 40% is her floor -ceiling imo if she takes enough 3's.

 

[MD#12Fan]

I like your posts and I like cuango's posts. On here because you can't sit face-to-face with someone the "meaning" of posts can gets lost.

With that said-- that player in the corner will hit 70% of his or her shots depending on the type of shooter they are. For example- if Allen Iverson was wide open for a corner 3 vs Ray Allen - Ray was going to make more. Not all "wide open players" will hit the same. I can recall earlier this year the poster UCONNKAT had a quote from Geno saying something to the effect that Evina was not a shooter or "pure shooter" or something like that. My point is-- Evina doesn't seem to be looking for 3's so she will mostly shoot when she is open from 3- and yet she is going to miss more than 30% of the time. Her strength is penetrating and passing and can finish inside. She is shooting 36% from 3 despite primarily taking all good shots. That's pretty good with an EFG% of 54%. But many, many have been open looks.

Somedays she will go 3-4 from 3 but eventually that 3-4 is going end up being 0-4 no matter how wide open she is. Obviously rooting for more 3-4's than 0-4's. I understand the corner 3 is the easiest - but I wonder if she doesn't already have a very good % from the corner (despite the 1 airball) vs from other spots. But looking at her numbers overall- it's pretty good. I'm sure if we were to predict season most would have said she would be 4th bets shooter from 3. Right now she is 2nd. SHootign 35% to just under 40% is her floor -ceiling imo if she takes enough 3's.

I like your posts too.
Lost in this was just my basic frustration with poor shooting. And yes open shots. A little hyperbole to make a point.
I remember last year's Baylor game in which there was somewhat of an argument on the board about our shooting in that game. I actually think our shots last year, especially in that game, were challenged shots. I wanted us to up-the-tempo, so as to get more open shots. I actually believe that if our open shooting this year doesn't improve, we've got to move to plan B. With me that means up-tempo. Layups.
Not to appear as a know-it-all (just one point of view) I think Geno's exasperated about it too. One reason he's pushing Paige to shoot more. He's frustrated with her would be dimes ending up as clankers.
I appreciate you!

 

[eebmg]

I like your posts and I like cuango's posts. On here because you can't sit face-to-face with someone the "meaning" of posts can gets lost.

With that said-- that player in the corner will hit 70% of his or her shots depending on the type of shooter they are. For example- if Allen Iverson was wide open for a corner 3 vs Ray Allen - Ray was going to make more. Not all "wide open players" will hit the same. I can recall earlier this year the poster UCONNKAT had a quote from Geno saying something to the effect that Evina was not a shooter or "pure shooter" or something like that. My point is-- Evina doesn't seem to be looking for 3's so she will mostly shoot when she is open from 3- and yet she is going to miss more than 30% of the time. Her strength is penetrating and passing and can finish inside. She is shooting 36% from 3 despite primarily taking all good shots. That's pretty good with an EFG% of 54%. But many, many have been open looks.

Somedays she will go 3-4 from 3 but eventually that 3-4 is going end up being 0-4 no matter how wide open she is. Obviously rooting for more 3-4's than 0-4's. I understand the corner 3 is the easiest - but I wonder if she doesn't already have a very good % from the corner (despite the 1 airball) vs from other spots. But looking at her numbers overall- it's pretty good. I'm sure if we were to predict season most would have said she would be 4th bets shooter from 3. Right now she is 2nd. SHootign 35% to just under 40% is her floor -ceiling imo if she takes enough 3's.

You might find this article interesting where large scale stats of 3pt shots in the NBA 3pt shooting contest were studied.

To make a long story short, among professionals, the standard is approx 50% (corner) to 55% top of key

Everything you ever wanted to know about the Three-Point Contest | NBA.com

A (mostly) complete look back at the stats, facts, minutiae and more from the NBA's Three-Point Contest

www.nba.com

 

[eebmg]

Board- Cuango doesn't know how to banter about hoops, so I'll have a conversation with myself. Why would someone just quote a post with no response. Wow, I guess Cuango in all his/her wisdom is trying to expose me as a quack.
So, I'll remake the point for the benefit of the board.
All shots are not created equal. There are even different point values for certain shots. Simple math: 3 out of 10 from 3 pt range= 9 points, 5 out of 10 from 2 pt range= 10 points. 30% vs 50%. Pretty much the reason why basketball in general is so dominated by 3-pt shooting. I played when there was no line, so we were always trying to find the best shot possible. Today, the worst shot you can possibly take is a jumper with your feet on the 3-pt line.
Now, nobody will argue that a wide-open layup should be made 100% of the time. So a layup and a forced jumper as the clock expires (like the one Paige had to throw up, BTW that counted in her stat-line), which is almost a sure miss add together. So, that's 2 shots, 1 for 2, or 50%. So, 2 distinctly different shots have different probabilities of resulting in a score and the overall shooting stats are an accumulation of these events.
Better execution of the offense=better shots= better probability of success= more points (or so it should).
My point for the 10th time is that we are missing wide open shots.
I hold to my "outrageous" statement that a good shooter can make 7 out of 10 shots wide open in the corner where EW missed the rim by a foot. I could have in my day. Bloggers asked who can do that? I said as a response, everybody. Most on the UConn roster can. Now, I would have forced 2 or 3 shots in the game with little chance of success and I would have driven to the hole and missed some forced drives. So, at the end of the day, hopefully my line was at least above 50%.
(sorry I had to explain that. Like LA says, please feel free to ignore)

You might find this article interesting where large scale stats of 3pt shots in the NBA 3pt shooting contest were studied.

To make a long story short, among professionals, the standard is approx 50% (corner) to 55% top of key

Everything you ever wanted to know about the Three-Point Contest | NBA.com

A (mostly) complete look back at the stats, facts, minutiae and more from the NBA's Three-Point Contest

www.nba.com

 

[MD#12Fan]

You might find this article interesting where large scale stats of 3pt shots in the NBA 3pt shooting contest were studied.

To make a long story short, among professionals, the standard is approx 50% (corner) to 55% top of key

Everything you ever wanted to know about the Three-Point Contest | NBA.com

A (mostly) complete look back at the stats, facts, minutiae and more from the NBA's Three-Point Contest

www.nba.com

To me, that's impressive. That NBA line is deep. I've been watching a lot of NBA the last couple of years. (bought the package when the Celtics had Kyrie) Those stats would include Jason Tatum step back bankers.

 

[Kevin G]

I can't understand why Geno is giving double digits minutes to only 6 players? He has good bench players,

I tend not to comment on anything questioning Geno’s coaching but I will here ?
I question the same notion. I know he likes to keep the core players on the court to gain cohesiveness with playing alongside one another. I also know he is big on player attitude and how you perform in practice dictating playing time.
But, this group is so talented. I see heart and hard play with the few minutes they get so why not give more?!

 

[MD#12Fan]

I tend not to comment on anything questioning Geno’s coaching but I will here ?
I question the same notion. I know he likes to keep the core players on the court to gain cohesiveness with playing alongside one another. I also know he is big on player attitude and how you perform in practice dictating playing time.
But, this group is so talented. I see heart and hard play with the few minutes they get so why not give more?!

I'd also argue that different players have different strengths to offer. The team is able to have different looks. Different strategies. These guys aren't chicken liver, they are highly acclaimed and recruited athletes. Coach 'em up, Coach! Like my job as a teacher. Child can't learn the concept or skill, it's on me to figure out how to reach them. Basketball ain't rocket science. Let them learn on the floor. I want to see some of that physical talent dazzle.

 

[rt bb fan]

In fairness, it was mentioned that Griffin was dealing with back spasms Monday and barely practiced during shoot around so he may have been trying to see where she’s at before the Baylor game when he’ll actually need her. She played well while she was in (3 assists in 6 minutes, I think) and still showed her athleticism despite her back. I’m hoping Aaliyah and McClean get more minutes. Both are great on the offensive boards and Aaliyah looked great playing with Liv. Also, maybe Nika will get more playing time as the season goes on and she figures out what she can do to be an effective teammate. Her drive and dish to CW for the corner three was a flash of what she could bring to the offense.

Right now Nika has not shown me why is back up to Evina.

 

[HopJim]

Usually when I question Geno's decisions it is to understand his reasoning since he always is working a team plan or player development issue. Interesting when he opens up. While its too early in the year to spend much time on player minutes, I am concerned about Paige's playing time. Few would question that the team performance is at its best when she is in the game, but she is taking a beating when driving to the basket. I remember the impact on past lost championships when Nurse or Crystal were a step slow due to injuries. In Geno we trust but I am starting to hold my breath every time Paige gets hit hard. Hoping Geno trusts the subs more, particularly at end of games.

 

[meyers7]

Board- Cuango doesn't know how to banter about hoops, so I'll have a conversation with myself. Why would someone just quote a post with no response. Wow, I guess Cuango in all his/her wisdom is trying to expose me as a quack.
So, I'll remake the point for the benefit of the board.
All shots are not created equal. There are even different point values for certain shots. Simple math: 3 out of 10 from 3 pt range= 9 points, 5 out of 10 from 2 pt range= 10 points. 30% vs 50%. Pretty much the reason why basketball in general is so dominated by 3-pt shooting. I played when there was no line, so we were always trying to find the best shot possible. Today, the worst shot you can possibly take is a jumper with your feet on the 3-pt line.
Now, nobody will argue that a wide-open layup should be made 100% of the time. So a layup and a forced jumper as the clock expires (like the one Paige had to throw up, BTW that counted in her stat-line), which is almost a sure miss add together. So, that's 2 shots, 1 for 2, or 50%. So, 2 distinctly different shots have different probabilities of resulting in a score and the overall shooting stats are an accumulation of these events.
Better execution of the offense=better shots= better probability of success= more points (or so it should).
My point for the 10th time is that we are missing wide open shots.
I hold to my "outrageous" statement that a good shooter can make 7 out of 10 shots wide open in the corner where EW missed the rim by a foot. I could have in my day. Bloggers asked who can do that? I said as a response, everybody. Most on the UConn roster can. Now, I would have forced 2 or 3 shots in the game with little chance of success and I would have driven to the hole and missed some forced drives. So, at the end of the day, hopefully my line was at least above 50%.
(sorry I had to explain that. Like LA says, please feel free to ignore)

A few things for you.

1 - you didn't explain very well at the beginning what you meant by shooting 70%. Or you've purposely moved the goal posts. So the "outrageous" response was appropriate at the time.

2 - you still haven't defined what an "open" shot, in your opinion, is. No one within X feet of the shooter? Shooter being closed down/not closed down? Is it a place where the shooter normally shoots? Is the player set/not set? Is the player being rushed/ not rushed? Is the offense being rushed / not rushed?

3 - yes the UCONN players need to, and should be shooting better. No argument there.

 

[bluedevil]

Right now Nika has not shown me why is back up to Evina.

Molly 2.0?