Sun-Fever game

[UConn990411]

As a neutral observer, it appears the home crowd has had quite an effect on the officials' whistles.

I had almost forgotten how horrible the refs are in the women's game.

edit: And the Sun choke in typical fashion of a Thibault-coached team.

 

[VAUConnFan]

1. I would not classify the loss as a choke
2. Tina Charles has become one heckuva free throw shooter.

 

[UConn990411]

Hightower bricks a free throw that could have put the Sun up. Then, the team gets beat in transition with under 10 seconds to go, before Briann January...maybe the smallest players on the floor...came up with the offensive board despite being outnumbered 3-1.

That's a choke job.

 

[MilfordHusky]

1. I would not classify the loss as a choke
2. Tina Charles has become one heckuva free throw shooter.

Tina shot .802 for the regular season, good for 21st in the league. Outstanding! That must be a career high.

Speaking of improving, Maya shot .879, 4th best in the league.

Kara Lawson, who shot the lights out from the arc this season, led the league at .935. Really outstanding!

Renee, Tiffany, and Swin also finished in the top 30.

 

[01Neaggrad02]

I cannot get over how Katie Douglas was able to take steps whenever she wanted. I saw at least two walks that were ignored.

 

[ThisJustIn]

As a neutral observer, it appears the home crowd has had quite an effect on the officials' whistles.

You're right, CT got called for 16 while Indy was called for 14. HUGE advantage -- especially that last call.

I had almost forgotten how horrible the refs are in the women's game.

I know. That's why I only watch men's sports. Never any issues THERE!

edit: And the Sun choke in typical fashion of a Thibault-coached team.

Couldn't agree with you more -- I think the essence of an entire team choking is a missed free throw. Of course, some might argue that the Fever played with heart, but why would one want to do that?

 

[tnvolfan65]

I cannot get over how Katie Douglas was able to take steps whenever she wanted. I saw at least two walks that were ignored.

Refs suck, but it was equally bad for both teams. They showed the replay of Charles walking in slow-mo. And the in bounds pass from Green that Montgomery had to sky for took at least 7 seconds to get in. Benefit of DVR and rewinding, but still. I was surprised by the lack of over the back calls.

 

[Kibitzer]

I keep reading everything in this thread and am astonished that with all the analysis of the players, shooting percentages, lousy refereeing, etc., that I still wait in vain for that seemingly inevitable post: "The Fever wanted it more."

 

[pinotbear]

Nah, Kib. It's because some player on the Fever does a better job of making her teamates better players.

 

[FairView]

So would the ultimate weapon be a player who wants it more when it comes to making her teammates better players?

 

[psconn]

As a neutral observer, it appears the home crowd has had quite an effect on the officials' whistles.

I had almost forgotten how horrible the refs are in the women's game.

edit: And the Sun choke in typical fashion of a Thibault-coached team.

This was a very tough loss for the Sun and I think there are several individual plays down the stretch you could point to for a cause... several 'easy' missed shots and some turnovers among them a hard-hearted individual could certainly characterize these as chokes. The implication that Coach Thibault is somehow responsible for that is baffling. The Sun were right there in a position to win and a few players couldn't rise to the moment. That's the Coach's fault? I could see if you were saying that better coaching would have had the Sun up by 10 at that point in the game but you are actually implying that something Coach T does causes his player to 'choke'. I don't buy that.

 

[UConnChapette]

I keep reading everything in this thread and am astonished that with all the analysis of the players, shooting percentages, lousy refereeing, etc., that I still wait in vain for that seemingly inevitable post: "The Fever wanted it more."

Well, maybe the Fever DID want it more!

 

[alexrgct]

The fever wanted it 1.27% more. I watched the game again and am certain I'm right.

 

[Icebear]

Oh, you stat guys quantifying everything.

 

[meyers7]

Oh, you stat guys quantifying everything.

Everything can be quantified.

 

[Samanthabrown3]

The fever wanted it 1.27% more. I watched the game again and am certain I'm right.

You are a wise guy, Alex.

 

[Icebear]

Everything can be quantified.

No, you can attempt to quantify everything. It is not always successful.

 

[alexrgct]

No, you can attempt to quantify everything. It is not always successful.

A position I would certainly expect a pastor to have!

 

[alexrgct]

You are a wise guy, Alex.

I does what I cans!

 

[meyers7]

No, you can attempt to quantify everything. It is not always successful.

Nope, everything CAN be quantified. Didn't say it has been done yet, or we as humans can do it. But everything can be quantified.

 

[bruinbball]

The Fever win if Katie scores 20 or more. You hold her to 10-12 and the Fever get beat easily.

 

[diggerfoot]

Nope, everything CAN be quantified. Didn't say it has been done yet, or we as humans can do it. But everything can be quantified.

The purpose of quantifying is to make the interpretation of something more reliable. A measurement is an object that in theory is independent of subjective interpretation. Yet determining what and how to measure is inevitably subjective and there are things that by "successfully" quantifying you've established reliability but undermined validity of the data, the other side of the empirical coin, the more important one at that. This is particularly true when assumption upon assumption is piled up in order to measure. I actually doubt you can quantify everything but, assuming you can, much would lack validity ..... which doesn't stop your average think tank.

Of course, "it can be done, we just don't know how" is a convenient argument immune to testing.

 

[meyers7]

The purpose of quantifying is to make the interpretation of something more reliable.

I see where you are going with this, but no. There are purposes, but they don't matter anyway, as yours doesn't. Things don't need a reason to be quantifiable. , they just are.

Of course, "it can be done, we just don't know how" is a convenient argument immune to testing.

None the less, true.

 

[Icebear]

Nope, everything CAN be quantified. Didn't say it has been done yet, or we as humans can do it. But everything can be quantified.

Nor am I sure that the technology to quantify everything exists. Therefore in pragmatic terms not everything can be quantified.

Plus the Heisenberg uncertainty principle would call into question the ability to quantify certain things because the very act of observing and quantifying alters the reality.

There are entire schools of philosophy that would reject the possibility of anything being quantified.

 

[Wonkster]

Nope, everything CAN be quantified. Didn't say it has been done yet, or we as humans can do it. But everything can be quantified.

I think it was Max Plunk who invented Quantified Theory. Eins Stein (Gertrude's brother) thought everything was relative, but what did he know? He only had two relatives.