This ridiculous obsession with dunking in WBB

[Icebear]

From someone that can only jump and touch the net, I love a dunk.

You suffer from dunking envy.

 

[doggydaddy]

The point is, uh, its two points. It may be an unusual occurance in the women's game (dunking) but the bottom line is its two points. I'm not dissing anything, its just not all that inpressive to me that someone that tall can dunk.
btw that 15 footer you referred to - well its not comparible. In BG's case, that's where she plays and is deadly from (within reach of the basket). Dolson, another big man, adds a completely different dimension to her game when she nails a 15 footer. The defense has to come out to guard her.

I guess it's me, but saying "it's only worth 2 points" is dissing.

 

[Husky7882]

I agree that it was a terrific dunk, the best I have seen from woman by far.

But ESPN's constant replays, as though nothing else happened yesterday in WCBB, is stupid and detrimental to the game.

ESPN really needs a total overhaul of not just the people (Trey and Peck) but the total package of the studio thing.. More in depth, candid analysis, less cliches and pretending teams were good when they really were not. The show has become very, very boring.

I wish I could "like" this post twice -- this is exactly how I feel. I think, in the end, this much attention defeats the purpose.

 

[HuskyNan]

The point is, uh, its two points. It may be an unusual occurance in the women's game (dunking) but the bottom line is its two points. I'm not dissing anything, its just not all that inpressive to me that someone that tall can dunk.

The dunk is a difficult shot to defend. When you see men 's dunks blocked it's usually because they're trying to do some razzle-dazzle or windmill style stuff. But when a big guy goes up and just flushes the ball, no one can stop them. It is, therefore, a high percentage shot something every coach wants his team to get.

 

[BooRadley]

The dunk is a difficult shot to defend. When you see men 's dunks blocked it's usually because they're trying to do some razzle-dazzle or windmill style stuff. But when a big guy goes up and just flushes the ball, no one can stop them. It is, therefore, a high percentage shot something every coach wants his team to get.

I think the "High Percentage" attribute is somewhat interesting.
If distance from the basket effects the number of points you get for the shot you make, why not award::

3 pts for shots from beyond the arc,
2 pts for shots taken between the inner and outer arcs,
1 pt for layups initiated inside the inner arc, and
.5 point for dunks....

Make each shots value match its degree of difficulty.

Let the Boo beheading begin!!!!

YOPB

 

[Biff]

I think the "High Percentage" attribute is somewhat interesting.
If distance from the basket effects the number of points you get for the shot you make, why not award::

3 pts for shots from beyond the arc,
2 pts for shots taken between the inner and outer arcs,
1 pt for layups initiated inside the inner arc, and
.5 point for dunks....

Make each shots value match its degree of difficulty.

Let the Boo beheading begin!!!!

YOPB

Setting the Biff way-back machine to Circa 1970? or so, many of my NCAA (men's) basketball discussions centered around my three rules I felt needed adoption:

1) A shot clock. At that time I favored something like 60 seconds or maybe 45 seconds. Just something to break the filibuster 4 corner play that could completely take the mustard out of a game.
2) A three point line. IIRC, the ABA was pretty much exclusively playing with the three point line and I liked it. I thought it kept the "moderately vertical" player in the game.
3) The one point dunk. I thought that the shot was easier than a layup in most cases and did not deserve equal points.

Over the years the first tow rules obviously did come to fruition...I'm sure due to my campaign to have them incorporated...couldn't be anything else. However, with the excitement that some seem to have over a dunk, I see the third rule never ever getting adopted.

Eh. I'm sure even Einstein didn't get it all right all the time.

 

[VAUConnFan]

I think the "High Percentage" attribute is somewhat interesting.
If distance from the basket effects the number of points you get for the shot you make, why not award::

3 pts for shots from beyond the arc,
2 pts for shots taken between the inner and outer arcs,
1 pt for layups initiated inside the inner arc, and
.5 point for dunks....

Make each shots value match its degree of difficulty.

Let the Boo beheading begin!!!!

YOPB

The uncontested dunk might have a low degree of difficulty, but the dunk in traffic or coming off the rim among other big bodies is more difficult than the uncontested three.
The goal of offensive basketball every time down the floor is to work for a high percentage shot. Quite often, the exhaustive effort of post players down low to attain that high percentage shot is downright brutal. Why even consider lowering the value of such brutally exhaustive work? Why make close games into jump shooting contests?
There is nothing wrong with the game that the dunk does not make more exciting for most fans.

 

[tomcat]

There is an incredible amount of skill that goes into any number of things, including many of the orchestrated moves exhibited by the stars of the WWE. With all due respect, the ability to dunk should remain an oddity in WBB, which is why idiots like Whey Tringo get all excited when they report on it. That means the player considering a dunk has to think about whether it will be good or her team or not. Will it:
-- Motivate her teammates?
-- Demotivate her opponent? or
-- Make her opponents feel they've been dissed, and spur them on?

This actually means that, unlike in the men's game, the dunk could becoe a strategic weapon, as opposed to a battering ram. That said, I'm still against it, and my opinion will not change if/when Breanna or any other UConn player throws one down.

 

[HuskyNan]

That means the player considering a dunk has to think about whether it will be good or her team or not. Will it:
-- Motivate her teammates?
-- Demotivate her opponent? or
-- Make her opponents feel they've been dissed, and spur them on?

This actually means that, unlike in the men's game, the dunk could becoe a strategic weapon, as opposed to a battering ram. That said, I'm still against it, and my opinion will not change if/when Breanna or any other UConn player throws one down.

It's basketball, not an afternoon tea. The opponents know that the other team is going to attempt to score at any opportunity, in any way they can. They know this because it's exactly what they want, too. If a team gets demoralized by a dunk or by being down 20 points or by being forced into 20+ turnovers, it should just forget Div I hoops and join Div III or NAIA.

 

[Sonny44]

You suffer from dunking envy.

It's called vertically challenged.

 

[Wonkster]

I don't believe the stats are that different than 30 years ago. Shooting percentage are not up that much. Scoring is not either. It's a different game, but no changes to court is necessary.

How about soccer? There's a sport that needs some re-dimensioning.

Soccer goal nets haven't changed in the way that baseball has responded to a livelier ball (adjusting the strike zone). Goalies ar much bigger than they were when goal dimensions were set, what, 100+ years ago.

Wake me up when soccer games stop routinely coming out 1-0. And please don't lecture me about the finer points of soccer - I don't want to see nearly every baseball game a 1-0 pitchers' duel, either.

Now you know why I like basketball!
.

 

[Sonny44]

You suffer from dunking envy.

Not true Icy.
Here's a perfect analogy.
Once I crumpled up my napkin and threw it down into the kitchen pail. I didn't get that much satisfaction out of it, but it did get plenty of applause from my wife.

 

[easttexastrash]

I can see the point about the media blowing the dunk way out of proportion. I knew that this would be played over and over and that a lot of fans for other teams would get tired of it. I got tired of the talk about "the streak." Doris Burkey probably said "the streak" about 500 times last year. But, whenever something is done that is rare, it gets a lot of press.

Sports fans enjoy seeing a team or a player do something that has not been done before...seeing something spectacular. I love watching Hussein Bolt run because I know that he may set a WR. He is an incredible athlete and a incredible specimen. I felt the same way about Flo Jo and one of the greatest volleyball players ever, Flo Hyman, as well as Destiny Hooker. They didn't jump as high as men but they played way above the net and to watch a woman do that was beautiful to watch.

I do hope that Stewart throws a few down in her UCONN career, even if it's against Baylor. I welcome the evolution of the game and wishing it not to happen will not stop it from happening, so I am going to sit back and hope that more women can play above the rim. It means that women playing the game are becoming bigger and more athletic and I want to see how far it can be taken.

 

[Kait14]

How about soccer? There's a sport that needs some re-dimensioning.

Soccer goal nets haven't changed in the way that baseball has responded to a livelier ball (adjusting the strike zone). Goalies ar much bigger than they were when goal dimensions were set, what, 100+ years ago.

Wake me up when soccer games stop routinely coming out 1-0. And please don't lecture me about the finer points of soccer - I don't want to see nearly every baseball game a 1-0 pitchers' duel, either.

Now you know why I like basketball!
.

This post indicates to me you love the USWNT? With scores like 14-0? =)

 

[DishNSwish]

People go wild on here for a back door cut, or a touch pass, or anything the UConn posts do that is a thing of beauty to watch. Well, the men do that too.

So why the backlash over the dunk. The dunk is important because it is the highest percentage shot when you can make it comfortably. For Griner, it's a high percentage shot. She is the first woman that can claim that. She can go up, at will, in traffic, and throw it down. THE FIRST EVER. That's why it's important.

As for the game, it's even more important to her teammates. Not so much the second, because it was already a blow out, but that first dunk changed the game. It was a demoralizing dunk to the opponent, and her team was as fired up as I've seen all season.

There is no doubt that the dunks were special plays in my mind. None at all. I still wonder if Parker had never done it against UConn if people would feel the same way here.

 

[easttexastrash]

People go wild on here for a back door cut, or a touch pass, or anything the UConn posts do that is a thing of beauty to watch. Well, the men do that too.

So why the backlash over the dunk. The dunk is important because it is the highest percentage shot when you can make it comfortably. For Griner, it's a high percentage shot. She is the first woman that can claim that. She can go up, at will, in traffic, and throw it down. THE FIRST EVER. That's why it's important.

As for the game, it's even more important to her teammates. Not so much the second, because it was already a blow out, but that first dunk changed the game. It was a demoralizing dunk to the opponent, and her team was as fired up as I've seen all season.

There is no doubt that the dunks were special plays in my mind. None at all. I still wonder if Parker had never done it against UConn if people would feel the same way here.

I do think this will be a much bigger part of Griner's game going forward. I believe that Mulkey was correct when she said that BG pulled back after "the punch." I think that she was afraid to show her aggressiveness in fear of being further categorized as violent. She can play the game at what appears to be a violent level simply by her size, strength and athleticism. It wasn't that long ago that she was considered a skinny, soft, tall girl that could be pushed around.

Some fans seem to think that it is unfair to the other players, like when she dunked in the blowout win over Texas Southern. It's DI basketball. Has a male player ever been asked not to dunk out of good sportsmanship? I would guess that she has less of a chance at getting hurt on a breakaway if she grabs them rim and can protect her fall a bit. I would much rather see that than some player undercutting her as she is coming down.

Mulkey is challenging Griner to go hard to the rim. A lot of fans, some on this board, criticized BG for not being tough enough or not playing the game to her full potential. The dunk is part of her full potential. I hope she does it in every game, regardless of the strength of the opponent.

But this is not just about BG wanting to dunk, it is also about her coach telling her to use all of her skills and get to the rim as forcefully as she can. And since she can dunk, that is part of being forceful. This is Griner being allowed to be Griner. Mulkey was even shown in a video clip telling Griner that if a player wants to pick up a charging foul on BG that it will probably be the last time she takes a charge from her.

If Griner doesn't get a championship her career will be viewed as a failure by many. It has been stated on this board that she cannot be considered the greatest ever without a title. It is her responsibility to her teammates and her coaches to take it to a new level and the dunk is probably going to be part of that new level. Let her do all she can to bring home a title.

 

[easttexastrash]

OK...I tried not to say too much up until now. I know that many will never change their minds about the dunk, and that is OK. I just had to shed a different light on the dunking debate.

 

[Icebear]

Yep, many would still feel the same because most of didn't like it before Parker because it adds nothing to the game itself. This board had a significant number who were against dunking long before Parker or even Snow.

Griner being able to dunk is largely irrelevant specifically because there is about one or two women at any point in the college game who can even sniff the possibility of dunking. None to date has been able to do so like Griner. It is not healthy for a sport to be dominated by a set of outlier physical characteristics based on a set of one. Therefore is can have no enduring impact on how the game is played and therefore is not a game changer. In the end the game is still about putting the ball in the basket by the masses not one or two.

If one wants the women's game to emulate the men's game then lower the rim to 9' and then there would be numerous players who could dunk and not a dog and pony show. A situation where Griner or Parker would likely still be the best but not the oddity or crio their efforts are today.

We used to do that on the adjustable baskets of the playground or the fixed 8 foot rims of the grade school courts and soon tired of it. But then we used to play lots of odd games for fun and skill development like "bank ball," a version of hoops where every shot had to be off the backboard, lay up or jumper. And then there was "swish" where the only hoops that counted touched nothing but net.

For many the men's college game was better in the era of Alcindor and Walton when the dunk was banned. It forced different skills to be developed.

I still think it should be called goaltending because the hand is on the ball within the cone of the rim. But that's just me.

 

[Icebear]

OK...I tried not to say too much up until now. I know that many will never change their minds about the dunk, and that is OK. I just had to shed a different light on the dunking debate.

It's ok, we understand for you it is Griner all the time. When she leaves college no one will think about until the next gene pool winner shows up.

 

[BooRadley]

People go wild on here for a back door cut, or a touch pass, or anything the UConn posts do that is a thing of beauty to watch. Well, the men do that too.

So why the backlash over the dunk. The dunk is important because it is the highest percentage shot when you can make it comfortably. For Griner, it's a high percentage shot. She is the first woman that can claim that. She can go up, at will, in traffic, and throw it down. THE FIRST EVER. That's why it's important.

As for the game, it's even more important to her teammates. Not so much the second, because it was already a blow out, but that first dunk changed the game. It was a demoralizing dunk to the opponent, and her team was as fired up as I've seen all season.

There is no doubt that the dunks were special plays in my mind. None at all. I still wonder if Parker had never done it against UConn if people would feel the same way here.

Dish,
I and a relatively small percentage of others, left men's BB in the 1980's because the game had changed in ways we neither enjoyed nor respected. These changes were not limited to the dunk, but were definitely most clearly highlighted by behaviors involving the dunk. I was primarily a Pro fan from the late 1950's as a kid until these changes to the game overtook the pro-game... I was primarily a MCBB fan from the 1980's until these changes to the game fully overtook the MCBB-game... Now I've been a fan solely of the WCBB game since the the 1980's... Where do I go when it comes time for my next move??? The women's game is the last bastion for the old pure game. Let's not blindly follow the men's game into its transformation to Rollerball. The women's game as we've know it is definitely on the "endangered species list," so why not protect it. Why not give it the same respect and protection you'd give the endangered "Dwarf Wedgemussel" or "Snow Leopard?" Watch the pro games on both sides of the gender line and/or watch the MCBB if you enjoy the newer more explosive game, but don't kill off the last of the old pure form of the game. Just to be clear, I stand fully in support of nuking the whales... endangered species be damned. Anything that big is taking up too much space!!! Go ahead, try carpooling with Humpback Whales in an, oh so, socially elite Prius.... It's tight... Very tight!!!

Although I am from Connecticut, I was a first a fan of Rutgers even before our very own CD took them to a NC. I loved Coach Grentz but sadly the time came when I knew it was time for her to go.... CVIV, well that's another story... Thank God for Geno & UConn... Anyway, Parker's dink was unwanted but not unexpected. Many of us have been dreading the day when each elite team has a dunk capability. We could hear it coming toward us for many years prior to ever hearing of Parker. This argument preceded good Ol' Candace by many years on this boards many earlier incarnations. I'm sure Nan is bored to tears by yet another dunking thread popping up. Read one, read 'em all....

Doing something for that is "the first ever" isn't much of an argument for anything... rarely, if ever, is anything of value is imbued in an instance of a "the first ever" act because it is a "The first Ever." Neil Armstrong... Well, Ok. You got me on that one... But in general my argument still holds some water... The first theft, the first adultery, the first lie... No positive attribute is automatically tied to any "the first ever" act that makes it "important." On the negative side the same cannot be said... The first ever theft... the first ever adultery... the first ever lie... the first ever dunk.... were each important because each was a new opening of Pandora's box... Once opened, never to be closed.... Pandora is one dirty bird... it's hard to name one positive thing we've released from her wicked little box.... Note to self... Apologize to Nan for this unfortunate wording, the next time I see her...

I would argue that the game itself has not kept up with the athletes much like the refs have not kept up with the athletes. When the game became a national game, it was played below the rim by all who played it. When the "tall" were just 6 foot, it was a game that suited the player. Now that the "tall" are high 6 foot to even over 7 foot tall, the hoop height hasn't kept up with the player. The court should be looked at too.

Obviously, the act of dunking, if stripped of any of the accompanying behaviors and adjusted for height changes, has no negative value. It was a sight to see Mugsy Boggs dunk... But then those pesky accompanying behaviors always seem to find a way into the game. The diminishment of team play, the rise of the "look at me" player, the "if the ball goes in to the post, it NEVER comes back out to the backcourt" mentality of the dunker, the showboat, the thug-like ritual domination moves post dunk, the thundering interruptions to what was sometimes a beautiful and almost musical flow to the game, the "I had way too much sugar in my Wheaties this morning" fan behavior that accompanies each dunk, the can't appreciate anything subtle because my sensors have been overloaded for far too long by the increase in the razor sharp staccato of thunder moments surrounding every part of modern sports life... Sadly, I could go on.... but won't.

I love punk rock... I love most classical music... some of the deep German and Russian tunes are a bit depressing and possibly beyond mind-bendingly repetitive in their darkness. My point is, basketball with the dunk is like 40 hours of sacktime with the Ramones and the Boomtown Rats dooking it out in your Bose ears. Is the energy higher... What did you say???? oh, yeah, Yes mame! The old game as played below the rim was more like music that ranged from slow, patient and subtle to fast, fun, and shock clear. A backdoor cut followed by an inbounds tip steal over to a teammate, followed by a perfectly time block. It's the constantly changing & melodic pace that adds the beauty to physical movement. It's the complexity of subtlety that offers new levels of game interest as one masters a game, it's the complex backbeat as opposed to the completely rhymic thunder beat of simpler forms of gaming that can offer a lifelong learning experience with respect to a fan/game relationship. For me the dunk helps to limit the game in far to many ways. It detracts from "team," it carries along with it the "showboat" style of play, it seems to be one of the "drug" answers to our over sugared addictions for ever loader explosions in order for us to even feel alive, the game becomes boring to me as the changes to the game make it more a game of simple and repetitive and insanely load beats of the sports drum.

Dish, I enjoy your writings... Thanks

Your Ol' Pal Boo

 

[Blue Huskie]

People go wild on here for a back door cut, or a touch pass, or anything the UConn posts do that is a thing of beauty to watch. Well, the men do that too.

So why the backlash over the dunk. The dunk is important because it is the highest percentage shot when you can make it comfortably. For Griner, it's a high percentage shot. She is the first woman that can claim that. She can go up, at will, in traffic, and throw it down. THE FIRST EVER. That's why it's important.

As for the game, it's even more important to her teammates. Not so much the second, because it was already a blow out, but that first dunk changed the game. It was a demoralizing dunk to the opponent, and her team was as fired up as I've seen all season.

There is no doubt that the dunks were special plays in my mind. None at all. I still wonder if Parker had never done it against UConn if people would feel the same way here.

First of all the first sentence of your post points out that "We" or many of us, love the well executed back door or touch pass. Perhaps we love it more because it is a team function rather than a dunk which is an individual play. As has been stated before and the reason for starting the thread isn't a dislike of dunking per say but the need of the media to replay it and talk about it ad-nauseum after it happens.
And I will not feel any differently about this when we have a player who dunks. (Which may be next year). Doesn't matter that Parker did it. Won't matter when a Husky does it. It just isn't a big deal. It's a once in a while play for the women and it won't be elevated to an art form like it is for the men anytime soon.

 

[grizz36]

It wasn't enough to just click a button to like your post, Boo. I have to tell you it was a thing of beauty also.

Your friendly neighbor, Atticus

 

[easttexastrash]

First of all the first sentence of your post points out that "We" or many of us, love the well executed back door or touch pass. Perhaps we love it more because it is a team function rather than a dunk which is an individual play. As has been stated before and the reason for starting the thread isn't a dislike of dunking per say but the need of the media to replay it and talk about it ad-nauseum after it happens.
And I will not feel any differently about this when we have a player who dunks. (Which may be next year). Doesn't matter that Parker did it. Won't matter when a Husky does it. It just isn't a big deal. It's a once in a while play for the women and it won't be elevated to an art form like it is for the men anytime soon.

Oddly enough I didn't see BG pass the ball to herself. I believe that Brooklyn Pope gave her the perfect pass, so how is that not a function of good team play. Would it have been better team play had BG just shot a layup instead of dunking the ball? On BOTH of BG's dunks she was assisted by a teammate.

 

[Icebear]

Oddly enough I didn't see BG pass the ball to herself. I believe that Brooklyn Pope gave her the perfect pass, so how is that not a function of good team play. Would it have been better team play had BG just shot a layup instead of dunking the ball? On BOTH of BG's dunks she was assisted by a teammate.

I believe it was a reference to the play in men's hoops which is dominated most days by one on one.

 

[easttexastrash]

It's ok, we understand for you it is Griner all the time. When she leaves college no one will think about until the next gene pool winner shows up.

I think the next gene pool winner has the last name of Stewart and she will be showing up next year. I hope to see her dunk, as well.

 

[easttexastrash]

I believe it was a reference to the play in men's hoops which is dominated most days by one on one.

I don't believe this was meant about men. It was a general statement about dunking being an individual accomplishment and on neither of BG's dunks could she have dunked had she not been give a good pass.

 

[Icebear]

I think the next gene pool winner has the last name of Stewart and she will be showing up next year. I hope to see her dunk, as well.

Given some her personal comments she can, but may not. She understands the points are more important than the adulation.

 

[Bestiarius]

The problem I have with dunking is it gives me the urge to eat donuts!

 

[easttexastrash]

The problem I have with dunking is it gives me the urge to eat donuts!

LOL! Thanks for adding some levity to the conversation. It probably needed it.

 

[HuskyNan]

Given some her personal comments she can, but may not. She understands the points are more important than the adulation.

During one of the Geno Shows, Geno guaranteed Breanna would dunk at UConn.