Spread those minutes out Geno

[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

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

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

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?

 

[eebmg]

Molly 2.0?

Geno talks about Nika with alot of respect regarding defense and aggressiveness. She will show her stuff in time.

 

[cohenzone]

Yeah I gotta agree, Coach should spread some minutes around. I know we had two players coming back from injuries so naturally they will be limited but long term, coach gotta use that bench more. Just helps to reduce wear and tear on the others and also helps develop the bench and their confidence.

Maybe one of these years he’ll figure out this coaching thing. 😎

 

[baggerbob]

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.

Stewie got hurt in the 1st half of the 2015 championship game, and played the 2nd half on 1 leg. She couldn't move well , but rebounded and played defense to help win the championship. Injuries happen.

 

[MD#12Fan]

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.

Good comments.
I'm done explaining what 70% means and what a good shot is. What do they say, "if it's a duck..."
I'll say one more thing: Geno has constructed his offense in order to get certain shots. Consider that your answer to what open shots are. Re-watch the DePaul game and decide for yourself.
IMO this team moves fairly well. Like he says, sometimes are better than others. But if you run an offense perfectly and get a "great " shot and the result is clank, time after time, what do you do? I literally think we're real close to that point. 6 games is a pretty significant sample size.
Reminder: Geno can break out the notepad and run something different. I always vote for using more athleticism, which he has sitting over there, with attacking the rim and major defensive pressure.
There have been championship calibre teams on the men's side that shot so bad that it almost looked like they missed on purpose. They crashed the glass like assassins and played defense over the whole court. Phi Slamma Jamma, 40 minutes of Hell. That's not UConn Women, but the point is we can do different things.

 

[HuskylnSC]

Bit harsh Coco.

a bit truthfull

 

[HuskylnSC]

May I point out that this team has not had the usual preparation of a UConn team. Covid delays and a 14 day suspension of practice and the elimination of scrimmages and practice games has put this team way behind any other team in terms of in game cohesion. This team has played 5 games none of which was a 'secret' scrimmage or the two practice games. We have not played a quality opponent as we were scheduled to do. Therefore I think the coach, being privy to facts and details none of us are, is doing the perfect job to win the 2021 Division 1 Women's National Championship. Next year will take care of next year. Unless of course the Iranians do develop a nuclear bomb and allow the North Koreans to deliver one to the west coast of the United States. But don't worry about that it's just my next novel.

BTW seeing as how this is about playing time - here are the averages to date.
Williams, Christyn 36
Bueckers, Paige 35
Westbrook, Evina 30.3
Makurat, Anna 30.2
Nelson-Ododa, Olivia 23.2
Edwards, Aaliyah 16.6
Griffin, Aubrey 15.5
Mühl, Nika 11.3
McLean, Mir 6.3
Gabriel, Piath 2.7
Chassion, Autumn 1.6

 

[hoophuskee]

Good comments.

IMO this team moves fairly well. Like he says, sometimes are better than others. But if you run an offense perfectly and get a "great " shot and the result is clank, time after time, what do you do? I literally think we're real close to that point. 6 games is a pretty significant sample size.
Reminder: Geno can break out the notepad and run something different. I always vote for using more athleticism, which he has sitting over there, with attacking the rim and major defensive pressure.
There have been championship calibre teams on the men's side that shot so bad that it almost looked like they missed on purpose. They crashed the glass like assassins and played defense over the whole court. Phi Slamma Jamma, 40 minutes of Hell. That's not UConn Women, but the point is we can do different things.

1--- I don't think the team has been shooting "poorly" from 3 other than Anna (exclude Griffin and Autumn. They won't be taking 3's in a close game) . Evina is shooting 36% from 3. CWill is shooting 33%. Even counting Anna's numbers and excluding Griff and Autumn they have an EFG% of 51.87% (37-107). It makes no difference how open they are. Whether you hit a 3 with someone all over you or you hit a 3 wide open - it still is 3 points either way. Thus them being "wide open" and missing also has a counter in that they are hitting a lot too. If your EFG% from 3 is 51.87 - that's not poor.

2-- I don't see the relevance of there being championship teams on the men's side with lousy shooting. Because there has also been teams that have improved their shooting and won titles too. So why should one take precedence over another? It's clear Geno prefers coaching to one style- a style that has him winning more titles than anyone else- so "where's the beef?"

On the men's side Rick Pitino's Louisville teams and John Thompson's Hoyas teams as predominant press teams also lost games as big favorites because they couldn't get what they wanted out of the press. And imo Jim Calhoun scrapped pressure because in NCAA's in Rip Hamilton's soph year in S16 Washington was hurting the press badly/ keeping them in the game. They almost lost because of it. While that year they won a last second shot, but lost next game vs Dean Smith's Tar Heels. That game imo was springboard to winning the title the very next year.

As for Phi Slamma Jamma, they got beat by a halfcourt, vastly inferior team. Their "40 minutes of hell" wound up putting Clyde The Glyde in foul trouble. With the way how refs are- they could do the same to a team trying to be Phi Slamma Jamma.

The point is-- we don't have to do different things.

 

[MD#12Fan]

May I point out that this team has not had the usual preparation of a UConn team. Covid delays and a 14 day suspension of practice and the elimination of scrimmages and practice games has put this team way behind any other team in terms of in game cohesion. This team has played 5 games none of which was a 'secret' scrimmage or the two practice games. We have not played a quality opponent as we were scheduled to do. Therefore I think the coach, being privy to facts and details none of us are, is doing the perfect job to win the 2021 Division 1 Women's National Championship. Next year will take care of next year. Unless of course the Iranians do develop a nuclear bomb and allow the North Koreans to deliver one to the west coast of the United States. But don't worry about that it's just my next novel.

BTW seeing as how this is about playing time - here are the averages to date.
Williams, Christyn 36
Bueckers, Paige 35
Westbrook, Evina 30.3
Makurat, Anna 30.2
Nelson-Ododa, Olivia 23.2
Edwards, Aaliyah 16.6
Griffin, Aubrey 15.5
Mühl, Nika 11.3
McLean, Mir 6.3
Gabriel, Piath 2.7
Chassion, Autumn 1

1--- I don't think the team has been shooting "poorly" from 3 other than Anna (exclude Griffin and Autumn. They won't be taking 3's in a close game) . Evina is shooting 36% from 3. CWill is shooting 33%. Even counting Anna's numbers and excluding Griff and Autumn they have an EFG% of 51.87% (37-107). It makes no difference how open they are. Whether you hit a 3 with someone all over you or you hit a 3 wide open - it still is 3 points either way. Thus them being "wide open" and missing also has a counter in that they are hitting a lot too. If your EFG% from 3 is 51.87 - that's not poor.

2-- I don't see the relevance of there being championship teams on the men's side with lousy shooting. Because there has also been teams that have improved their shooting and won titles too. So why should one take precedence over another? It's clear Geno prefers coaching to one style- a style that has him winning more titles than anyone else- so "where's the beef?"

On the men's side Rick Pitino's Louisville teams and John Thompson's Hoyas teams as predominant press teams also lost games as big favorites because they couldn't get what they wanted out of the press. And imo Jim Calhoun scrapped pressure because in NCAA's in Rip Hamilton's soph year in S16 Washington was hurting the press badly/ keeping them in the game. They almost lost because of it. While that year they won a last second shot, but lost next game vs Dean Smith's Tar Heels. That game imo was springboard to winning the title the very next year.

As for Phi Slamma Jamma, they got beat by a halfcourt, vastly inferior team. Their "40 minutes of hell" wound up putting Clyde The Glyde in foul trouble. With the way how refs are- they could do the same to a team trying to be Phi Slamma Jamma.

The point is-- we don't have to do different things.

We do, if what we're doing isn't working!
I have 2 eyes. The most psyched I've been this year was with Paige's performance in game 2. I watch always thinking about NC's. When you have the best talent in the country every year, that's what you think about. IMO talent is like Baskin-Robbins, 31 flavors, not just 3 or 4. We don't need replicants of past heroes. We've got unique talents every year.
The main point is that basketball has many many strategies and philosophies. That should not be controversial. Full court basketball is one strategy with a million nuances. I personally love it. I think the court is 94 feet for a reason. Otherwise, let's just check the ball at the top. Like any sport you strategize according to your talent. And you want to get the most out of the talent you have. Geno IMO is not doing that. We fear (a lot because of these recent Final Four defeats) these 2 or 3 teams that have a player or two that we don't match up well with. Graduated Lauren Cox IMO is the definition of a marginal WNBA player. We had 43 ways to neutralize her last year and she was coming off a pretty major injury. IMO if used properly, we have 7 or 8 players that are tough for these teams to match up with.

 

[hoophuskee]

We do, if what we're doing isn't working!
I have 2 eyes. The most psyched I've been this year was with Paige's performance in game 2. I watch always thinking about NC's. When you have the best talent in the country every year, that's what you think about. IMO talent is like Baskin-Robbins, 31 flavors, not just 3 or 4. We don't need replicants of past heroes. We've got unique talents every year.
The main point is that basketball has many many strategies and philosophies. That should not be controversial. Full court basketball is one strategy with a million nuances. I personally love it. I think the court is 94 feet for a reason. Otherwise, let's just check the ball at the top. Like any sport you strategize according to your talent. And you want to get the most out of the talent you have. Geno IMO is not doing that. We fear (a lot because of these recent Final Four defeats) these 2 or 3 teams that have a player or two that we don't match up well with. Graduated Lauren Cox IMO is the definition of a marginal WNBA player. We had 43 ways to neutralize her last year and she was coming off a pretty major injury. IMO if used properly, we have 7 or 8 players that are tough for these teams to match up with.

Overall I don't agree with what you're seeing, and for me I have seen enough 94 foot pressing wind up as failing too, along with Geno Auriemma - the most successful wcbb ever has a philosophy of not going with a deep bench press press press like Phil Slamma Jama. Hard to criticize this.

And the same with imo with men - Coach K - the best college coach on the modern era - and prior to him Dean Smith - he won one of his titles with a short bench beat the great GTOWN team.- so overall I don't believe in it. So If some of the greatest coaches in the History of the sport didn't find much use for it-- my opinion - I go with trying to work on great halfcourt execution. Use your superstars. If you feel you only have 6 or 7 - then just use 6 or 7.

When you mention Phil Slamma Jamma- what a great team! But using it as an example- I use it too. But I use it opposite as you. Phil Slamma Jamma lost to the the type of team that had superior halfcourt execution. And they weren't that good. while Phi Slamma Jamma was super. The style of 94 feet can also be flawed.

 

[MD#12Fan]

Overall I don't agree with what you're seeing, and for me I have seen enough 94 foot pressing wind up as failing too, along with Geno Auriemma - the most successful wcbb ever has a philosophy of not going with a deep bench press press press like Phil Slamma Jama. Hard to criticize this.

And the same with imo with men - Coach K - the best college coach on the modern era - and prior to him Dean Smith - he won one of his titles with a short bench beat the great GTOWN team.- so overall I don't believe in it. So If some of the greatest coaches in the History of the sport didn't find much use for it-- my opinion - I go with trying to work on great halfcourt execution. Use your superstars. If you feel you only have 6 or 7 - then just use 6 or 7.

When you mention Phil Slamma Jamma- what a great team! But using it as an example- I use it too. But I use it opposite as you. Phil Slamma Jamma lost to the the type of team that had superior halfcourt execution. And they weren't that good. while Phi Slamma Jamma was super. The style of 94 feet can also be flawed.

I respect your opinions. You always back them up.
I mention Phi Slamma Jamma because I honestly believe they shot the ball just to put the ball over the rim so they could go after it. I'd argue without proof that Hakeem didn't develop his touch and footwork until the pros.
I think a fun exercise for us is to pick the best college teams of all time and compare their styles of play. To be devils advocate, I'll throw you UNLV 1990. One loss, beat Duke by 30 in the championship game. Full-court basketball at its finest. In my best Maddog Russo voice, "Now that's a basketball team". They even beat LMU minus Hank Gathers in the final 8. The 30 for 30, "Guru of Go" is my bible.
I truly believe the great all-time coaches get "formulaic". They build their programs out of granite and then become a little less adventuresome. Golf analogy alert, sorry: Like a veteran star player, less inclined to gamble or be aggressive when doing it could yield the best score.

 

[HuskylnSC]

We do, if what we're doing isn't working!
I have 2 eyes. The most psyched I've been this year was with Paige's performance in game 2. I watch always thinking about NC's. When you have the best talent in the country every year, that's what you think about. IMO talent is like Baskin-Robbins, 31 flavors, not just 3 or 4. We don't need replicants of past heroes. We've got unique talents every year.
The main point is that basketball has many many strategies and philosophies. That should not be controversial. Full court basketball is one strategy with a million nuances. I personally love it. I think the court is 94 feet for a reason. Otherwise, let's just check the ball at the top. Like any sport you strategize according to your talent. And you want to get the most out of the talent you have. Geno IMO is not doing that. We fear (a lot because of these recent Final Four defeats) these 2 or 3 teams that have a player or two that we don't match up well with. Graduated Lauren Cox IMO is the definition of a marginal WNBA player. We had 43 ways to neutralize her last year and she was coming off a pretty major injury. IMO if used properly, we have 7 or 8 players that are tough for these teams to match up with.

For me, the greatest thing about UConn Basketball during both Geno's and Jim Calhoun's reigns is the focus on team. The object is not to maximize the talent, but to maximize the team. Just as Evina is doing now. She has sublimated her skill set to play the role the team needs her to play. At UT it was necessary for Evina to score. Here she works within the structure of the team. This will not be her greatest statistical year. Geno is not maximizing her talent. She is playing a role that is exactly what this team needs right now with 3 returning players (I leave Aubrey out) and 7 new players. She sets the tone and provides stability. As you said there are a number of ways to play the game and after 37 years Geno's is the best.

 

[Geew1992]

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

You know Nika is working through a foot injury. Started the season with it. Sat out games with it. And pretty sure she’s now working her way back into game form

 

[Twolf]

You know Nika is working through a foot injury. Started the season with it. Sat out games with it. And pretty sure she’s now working her way back into game form

Sometimes it would be nice if people would take themselves back to age 19-20 and recall everything that was going on in their life at that age before being critical of players who are only a handful of games into their college career. If they did that & thought about traveling half way around the world from Croatia during a global pandemic, quarantining before the first game, and trying to play through an injury, just maybe understanding why everything hasn’t fallen exactly into place might make a little more sense.
IMO Nika has a tremendous amount of upside in becoming a very physical lockdown perimeter defender and a very good distributor of the basketball. At this stage of her career it doesn’t appear she will be a high volume scorer, but she won’t have to be with the current (and future) roster makeup. She will definitely fill a niche this team needs if she is able to do the above and will become a valuable asset to this group. I do know I want to wait until she’s fully healthy, and gains game experience before expressing any doubts about why the staff recruited her, is high on her, or why she is getting minutes in games.

 

[hoophuskee]

I respect your opinions. You always back them up.
I mention Phi Slamma Jamma because I honestly believe they shot the ball just to put the ball over the rim so they could go after it. I'd argue without proof that Hakeem didn't develop his touch and footwork until the pros.
I think a fun exercise for us is to pick the best college teams of all time and compare their styles of play. To be devils advocate, I'll throw you UNLV 1990. One loss, beat Duke by 30 in the championship game. Full-court basketball at its finest. In my best Maddog Russo voice, "Now that's a basketball team". They even beat LMU minus Hank Gathers in the final 8. The 30 for 30, "Guru of Go" is my bible.
I truly believe the great all-time coaches get "formulaic". They build their programs out of granite and then become a little less adventuresome. Golf analogy alert, sorry: Like a veteran star player, less inclined to gamble or be aggressive when doing it could yield the best score.

Same here- I respect your opinion. As I told the poster oldhuskie that when this topic comes up I find it very interesting.

I agree that Running Reb Team might be GOAT but my prior posts did include Rick Pitino at Louisville and John Thompson for Hoyas. They won titles too. And I said the style can be flawed. So yes you could win - but you could win other ways too. . As I've said - there are other options (which I prefer) is to do what Geno is currently doing.

In addition, the team UNLV beat by 30-- the very next year that inferior team Duke beat the Running Rebs. So I see it as the Rebs as a one-hit wonder sort-of. While UCONN is more like Duke than UNLV. They play a style and recruits to a style that sustains excellence. So bottomline is--UNLV had this super elite team and were only able to get one title out of it and being upset the following year. Their fullcourt press / man-to-man in your-face got negated by an inferior team. So which Running Reb team are we getting? Which UCONN team would we get? I'm concerned we get the UNLV team that lost the following year.

Beyond this season but for future in regards to those who always want a very deep bench-- for anyone that wants to read they can google a NY Times Article "The Recruiting of Kenny Anderson." In that article you can read how Kenny was regarded as supreme H/S player and he had the super teams recruiting him. Read the part about Georgetown.

One of his reasons for not going to GTOWN - he spoke of how he loved GTOWN and the exciting style they played when he was younger. But as he got older he thought better of it. Getting pulled -- going-in-and-out frequently playing that style; He didn't want to be pulled.

So the way I see it- 50-50 who wins- 94 feet might get you there- but long term imo we won't be able to sustain getting number 1 recruits. And UCONN could win just as easy halfcourt as fullcourt. So I am fine with Geno going with a short bench. I just think it's not really 50-50 anyway, and I think UCONN can get more easily exposed by an inferior team by going all out 94 feet with 9-10 players. Any mention from others that UCONN will wear down with 7 or maybe even 8 considering they play in the Big East imo is a myth or a fan just being "afraid of the dark."

 

[cohenzone]

I want to push back a little bit on this by framing it a little differently. I can't speak for the others who want to expand the roster and pick up the pace, but my reasons should not be viewed as some kind of a major rebuff on Geno's coaching.

His record speaks for itself, mostly using a more limited rotation, but occasionally expanding it a little more when he has the talent. Beyond the pros and cons of game strategies, which have been debated effectively on both sides, I also look at this very much from a recruiting and program strategy standpoint.

If your coaching strategy is to use the best 8 players only until mop up minutes, how does that coexist with recruiting a roster which next year could have top recruits on the third team, not just at number 9 and 10. Maybe the thought process is if you can't make the top 8, screw it, go ahead transfer, who cares. Could Geno win that way? Of course, but is that what's best for the program?

I don't think recruiting way beyond your intended use is good for the program. Do we want to be one of the programs that leads the nation is players leaving? If Geno sticks to 8 next year, that is probably what we will be.

Many coaches have a favored approach or strategy that they really would like to pursue, but have to mold their approach to the hand they were dealt, or the talent at hand. In this case Geno recruited these kids, and at least for these back to back classes got much of what he wanted.

Most of the people expressing their opinion here have strong feelings about whether the team would be better or worse expanding the rotation, I get that. What I am getting at, is it is not just an issue of which approach produces the largest margin of victory. If it was even close to a neutral, I would still be in favor of expanding the rotation, because if gives at least some meaningful minutes to more of the roster, and increases the chance we can retain more of them.

Geno could even expand the rotation for the vast majority of the games and stick with his comfort level in the handful of games that really matter. That might make the people on both sides of this issue happy. Play your favored 8 against say Baylor and South Carolina, and a rotation of 10 or 11 against everybody else.

Next year I don't think there is any lineup Geno could put on the floor that is likely to shrink the lead against most teams. This year it might somewhat, but against the teams where the outcome is not in doubt, does it matter if we win by 36 or 37 instead of 40 because we increased the minutes for players that don't get any prime time action?

We’ve had years with two or three key players getting hurt. Beyond that, while I enjoy watching all the players get a chance, it’s Geno’s call as to who and when. If you look at this year, and the kids who haven’t had that much time he has tried to mix in Muhl who has been hampered by an injury, Griffin will get a bunch of minutes. She was hurt last game. McClean will likely get a bit more time as the season goes on and as we demolish a bunch of teams. Gabriel is a project but will get time in blow outs. Chaisson is a walk on and will likely get little time like most of our walk on. Geno,coaches for the big games and likes to give the players who he knows need to operate well as a unit play a bunch of minutes together. The trick for him is that we are generally so dominant in so many games that it looks like overkill not to give some players more time. He wants his prime time players playing together a lot.

While we do have better depth this year, who should be getting less time? The biggest issue is Anna. And that centers mostly on shooting. She rebounds and passes wel. I think the offense runs better with her on the floor. The trade off if Griffin starts is more active D, maybe a few more rebounds and less precise ball movement. She would get some inside points but not much from the outside where Anna has shown she can be a threat.

Next year looks to be more crowded. Westbrook might not return. If Fudd is what she’s cracked up to be, Anna might be seeing a reduced role especially if Westbrook returns. The others who knows? How are Muhl and McClean impacted? Freshmen are freshmen. I just hope I live to see what happens. I ain’t so young.