Two (Serious) Observations

[diggerfoot]

For those who might not have figured this out, my PONs are not to be taken seriously. It was my mistake to touch on something that some might take seriously, rebounding and post play.

I was incredulous when I read Altavilla's post and "Harry" reacted by citing Dolson as a "defensive liability." First, every player has their own skill set. Dolson does not have the skill set of a Russell or Rodman to know where the ball will go before it hits the rim; or if she does have that skill she overrides it with a different skill that she has improved on every year: boxing out. How ironic that "Harry" also charitably commented he saw her even box out once and that the rebounds she gets falls into her hands.

Yes, "Harry," that's precisely how Dolson's approach to rebounding works. Dolson seeks first and foremost to box out her man, which is often the best rebounder on the other team. If other Huskies are doing there job as well they will either get the rebound, or it will fall into Dolson's hands. Stewart will probably be a better rebounder eventually, but right now she uses just her athleticism to rebound (which, I suppose, impresses "Harry" more) and that means she is often not in the right spot for the best team result. Let me make this clear, I'm not the least bit concerned about the trajectory of Stewart's rebounding career, but that comment about Dolson was more naive than anything I've seen on the Boneyard.

As for the overall "defensive liability" comment, I find Dolson's footwork now to be excellent, even reminiscent of Okafor to me. But I guess defensive prowess from a center, the most important defensive position, on a team with overwhelmingly the best defense in basketball is just mere coincidence. I'm beating back a "doggydaddy" like urge to say what I really think of "Harry's" comment.

Observation Two: Buck is our eleventh person. Why? She's strong, athletic, has some talent, and now five years of experience. Dovetailing on this puzzle is why she has done so well at guarding Griner. The common answer to both is reaction time. I'm not saying Buck is slow, but she is slow to react. Some people say she thinks too much, which could be the same thing. I did not see Griner play much last year, but before that I felt that was Griner's biggest liability as well. Griner is something special because of her size, athleticism, talent and, yes, I would even say her effort. Yet I felt that, at least her first two years, she lacked in rebounding mainly because she reacted slowly to situations (note that I'm not calling Griner physically slow either). Thus, Buck's biggest weakness had been neutralized by Griner's biggest weakness, while Buck had going for her a narrow focus and good strength in dealing with the best center in the country. OK, so that was more like a hypothesis than an observation.

 

[Phil]

I like both observations. My guess is that if the ball isn't coming to Dolson, and she goes for it, she may get it, but she may take out two opponents at the same time, and too many of those will be fouls. Stokes and Stewart seem to have a little better ability to reach and grab a ball, without their body having to follow through and take someone out.

Griner will go down in the history books as one of the best ever, but I agree she isn't the quickest on the court, so your theory about Buck holds water. As far as I am concerned, if Buck doesn't score another point (we seem to have a few scorers) but has 20 solid minutes against Griner, once, or possibly twice, forcing BG into awkward shots, that will be well worth the scholarship.

 

[vtcwbuff]

I thought the comment about Dolson was on target - had it been written at this time last year.

 

[Jonathan Husky]

For those who might not have figured this out, my PONs are not to be taken seriously. It was my mistake to touch on something that some might take seriously, rebounding and post play.

I was incredulous when I read Altavilla's post and "Harry" reacted by citing Dolson as a "defensive liability." First, every player has their own skill set. Dolson does not have the skill set of a Russell or Rodman to know where the ball will go before it hits the rim; or if she does have that skill she overrides it with a different skill that she has improved on every year: boxing out. How ironic that "Harry" also charitably commented he saw her even box out once and that the rebounds she gets falls into her hands.

Yes, "Harry," that's precisely how Dolson's approach to rebounding works. Dolson seeks first and foremost to box out her man, which is often the best rebounder on the other team. If other Huskies are doing there job as well they will either get the rebound, or it will fall into Dolson's hands. Stewart will probably be a better rebounder eventually, but right now she uses just her athleticism to rebound (which, I suppose, impresses "Harry" more) and that means she is often not in the right spot for the best team result. Let me make this clear, I'm not the least bit concerned about the trajectory of Stewart's rebounding career, but that comment about Dolson was more naive than anything I've seen on the Boneyard.

As for the overall "defensive liability" comment, I find Dolson's footwork now to be excellent, even reminiscent of Okafor to me. But I guess defensive prowess from a center, the most important defensive position, on a team with overwhelmingly the best defense in basketball is just mere coincidence. I'm beating back a "doggydaddy" like urge to say what I really think of "Harry's" comment.

Observation Two: Buck is our eleventh person. Why? She's strong, athletic, has some talent, and now five years of experience. Dovetailing on this puzzle is why she has done so well at guarding Griner. The common answer to both is reaction time. I'm not saying Buck is slow, but she is slow to react. Some people say she thinks too much, which could be the same thing. I did not see Griner play much last year, but before that I felt that was Griner's biggest liability as well. Griner is something special because of her size, athleticism, talent and, yes, I would even say her effort. Yet I felt that, at least her first two years, she lacked in rebounding mainly because she reacted slowly to situations (note that I'm not calling Griner physically slow either). Thus, Buck's biggest weakness had been neutralized by Griner's biggest weakness, while Buck had going for her a narrow focus and good strength in dealing with the best center in the country. OK, so that was more like a hypothesis than an observation.

Rebounding is the weakest of Griner's skills. She is not quick to the ball a major rebounding skill. Stokes is the best UConn rebounder both defensively and offensively because she is so quick to ball and so strong once she grabs it. Stefanie is average plus at rebounding but does a good job of blocking out. Breanna will be a great rebounder with more experience. She has height, strength and determination.

 

[baggerbob]

On the Big east site UConn as a team is tied for 2nd in defensive rebounding efficiency.

 

[UcMiami]

Nice OP. On Buck who I really like does not get lots of playing time more because of her offensive liabilty than because of her defense. She understands the offense, runs it properly, but is as you say too 'slow' in her decision making and too reluctant to be agressive in her shooting. Her hands are also not great. Two strengths are she has become quite a good offensive rebounder and she is a decent post passer.

 

[Icebear]

Kelly is the quickest to the ball. That is why despite giving away 3-4" she is the rebounding force that she is.

 

[Kibitzer]

Some of the discussion here reminds me of a memorable column written by Bob Ryan in the Boston Globe years ago, arguably his best and most assuredly the one most discussed (and cussed), dissected, and stimulating to thoughtful discussion and occasional argumentation.

His thesis was that there were two distinctive syles of play in the NBA then, "black" and "white." He was careful to not suggest that either was better than the other. The "black" style was characterized by players who placed great reliance of instincts, athleticism, and in general a more free-wheeling style of play. In contrast, the "white" style was more disciplined and controlled.

Players (I must now rely on my not always reliable memory) who exemplified the "black" style were guys like Earl the Pearl Monroe or Dennis Rodman. Examples of "white" play were players like Jerry West.

Then it got interesting when Ryan cited black players who played "white" (e.g., Paul Silas) and white ones who played "black" (e.g., Pete Maravich).

If you accept Ryan's basic thesis, you might see Heather Buck and Brittney Griner as two who play "white" and Breanna Stewart and Diana Taurasi as two who play "black."

My occasional discussions of this topic with other bb fans (both dominant races) have been have generated a lot of thoughtful and good-natured discussion and an abundance of laughter. I hope that if anyone follows up on Ryan's thoughts, as relayed by me, they will be made in that spirit.

 

[ndmb]

Some of the discussion here reminds me of a memorable column written by Bob Ryan in the Boston Globe years ago, arguably his best and most assuredly the one most discussed (and cussed), dissected, and stimulating to thoughtful discussion and occasional argumentation.

His thesis was that there were two distinctive syles of play in the NBA then, "black" and "white." He was careful to not suggest that either was better than the other. The "black" style was characterized by players who placed great reliance of instincts, athleticism, and in general a more free-wheeling style of play. In contrast, the "white" style was more disciplined and controlled.

Players (I must now rely on my not always reliable memory) who exemplified the "black" style were guys like Earl the Pearl Monroe or Dennis Rodman. Examples of "white" play were players like Jerry West.

Then it got interesting when Ryan cited black players who played "white" (e.g., Paul Silas) and white ones who played "black" (e.g., Pete Maravich).

If you accept Ryan's basic thesis, you might see Heather Buck and Brittney Griner as two who play "white" and Breanna Stewart and Diana Taurasi as two who play "black."

My occasional discussions of this topic with other bb fans (both dominant races) have been have generated a lot of thoughtful and good-natured discussion and an abundance of laughter. I hope that if anyone follows up on Ryan's thoughts, as relayed by me, they will be made in that spirit.

Don't you think that calling the styles of play 'black' and 'white' falls back on stereotypes about black players being more athletic and white players being more disciplined?

 

[Kibitzer]

Don't you think that calling the styles of play 'black' and 'white' falls back on stereotypes about black players being more athletic and white players being more disciplined?

Valid observation, but Ryan made the case for black guys playing "white" and vice versa as a means of weakening, certainly not reinforcing, the very stereotypes you alluded to. Which is why I and many others have enjoyed discussing this topic, and our conversations have invariably generated a lot of yuks, never anger or confrontation.