Weak Bench Night

[doggydaddy]

Who's discouraging you? It's kind of a funny forum where when objective basketball analysis is offered that certain posters start getting all pouty and start tossing out the usual bilge about anyone who disagrees with them and accuses them of such crimes as being overprotective of UConn players

Thanks for posting this.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Thanks for posting this.

Just channeling the my inner dd.

 

[WildEagle]

Ditto

 

[chrissaran]

Maybe you'll believe it when it comes directly from the horse's mouth. Geno said that Brianna and Saniya have to get better and fast.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Maybe you'll believe it when it comes directly from the horse's mouth. Geno said that Brianna and Saniya have to get better and fast.

In case you've never followed UConn before, the horse says that about every player who's ever come through the program. How many times did he say that about Stewie last year?

Every player can improve. Doesn't mean they're weak..........unless you just want to see it that way.

 

[Icebear]

Pure case of motivation. Geno knows the season is now riding on one major injury and wear and tear.

 

[chrissaran]

DobbsRover2, how about learning to read. The thread says Weak Bench Night. Night, Night, Night. The thread does not say the bench players are weak. Stop twisting my words around. It was a weak bench night. Kiah kept losing the ball, Brianna comes in and gets two quick fouls, and all of a sudden Saniya is reluctant to shoot. Weak Bench Night.

 

[DobbsRover2]

DobbsRover2, how about learning to read. The thread says Weak Bench Night. Night, Night, Night. The thread does not say the bench players are weak. Stop twisting my words around. It was a weak bench night. Kiah kept losing the ball, Brianna comes in and gets two quick fouls, and all of a sudden Saniya is reluctant to shoot. Weak Bench Night.

Do some reading yourself unless you are vision impaired, about which I am sorry. We already posted the stats showing that the UConn bench "night" was actually quite on par or even better than other top team's benches. Before posting try to catch up on the info so that you do not appear to be clueless. As noted it was not a weak "night", even if your super high expectations keeps you twisting in the winds.

Such a weak bench game against Temple. Brianna scored at a rate that would have given her 24 points if she had played 32 minutes. Kiah rebounded at a rate that would have given her 12 rebounds if she played 34 minutes. Saniya stole at a rate that would have given her 4 if she played 34 minutes. Heck, Tierney goes for 33 points if she plays 33 minutes.

But to you that's weak crap. That much I can read.

 

[chrissaran]

Maybe you should read what Geno said, since you always reference him when any poster has something negative to say in any way about any UConn player. He said that Brianna and Saniya had to get better, and fast. Why don't you email him and tell him he's wrong. I didn't think so.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Maybe you should read what Geno said, since you always reference him when any poster has something negative to say in any way about any UConn player. He said that Brianna and Saniya had to get better, and fast. Why don't you email him and tell him he's wrong. I didn't think so.

Once again, as has been pointed out a few times before, he says that about every player who comes through the system. Once you start following UConn a bit, you'll learn this type of stuff. It doesn't mean they're weak or disappointing, and some of they players move on to the MOP of the Final Four. No one says that Geno is wrong because obviously that what the players all have to do, and what he is there to demand of them. And yes, once again, if he doesn't make the standard comment about how a young player must improve, that's a very bad sign, because that means she's not even on his radar as a player who can get late-season playing time.

What a lot of us take issue with is the crabby patty posters who for some reason feel they need to vent at freshman pluggers and dump their usual denigrating comments about how weak and ineffective they are, even after you hand them the stats about how well these players are doing in comparison to peers and elite players.

Weak? I don't think so.

 

[huskybill]

That's what we all love about UConn fans so much. Whereas fans of other teams will point to the key contributions that the benches played in key wins off standard bench performances, Husky fans are never satisfied. Like the UConn coach, they want perfection, they want dominance, they want more. On a night when Stewie takes over a game and scores 37 in what could have easily been a 50+ point night, 3 other starters hit double figures, and MoJeff can only work in two shots, there is a feeling that the bench is weak and maybe that the starters shouldn't have to get their 90+% share of the points.

Not sure if I quite get it. Yes certainly Kiah needs to secure the rebounds better and whip her elbows around a bit because opponents kind of see her as a pocket to be picked at times. Brianna might be a little overeager at times though that seems understandable considering her recent situation. Saniya seems to be handling point-type duties well enough, but for some reason she seems to think maybe Stewie or Bria or Stef or Kaleena should get the first chances to shoot the ball.

Below, comparing the UConn bench last night to those of four other ranked teams who played the last two nights and had from 47 (UConn) to 78 (Stanford) bench minutes, I'm not quite ready to dive into full moan mode yet. Among the benches is the much touted ND bench. UConn's bench shot the best and had the most blocks and steals even in far fewer minutes than especially Stanford's and ND's. Their totals for points, rebounds, and assists are mainly less, but so are the minutes, and if you say it's a sign of bench weakness that UConn's subs got 47 minutes to say Louisville's 52, then you can't also complain about MoJeff or Stef getting less points than usual. There's only so many minutes to go around. (Stanford's bench situation was likely affected by the fact that a starting guard got only 10 minutes.) In any case, pretty respectable for such a bunch of reputed weak slackers. Oh, and on a night when UConn shoots nearly 60%, a lack of offensive rebounds isn't a big deal.

Although your comparison of the five teams is impressive. I don't think it is complete. There are no scores of the games so we can't see how close the games were. And even more important, we don't know what part of the bench is in the team's rotation and what part are players who come in when the outcome has been long decided.

 

[cabbie191]

If one looks at production from a points scored perspective, that is one thing. But the 5 benches here aren't heaving the shots at the same rate. Based on the above chart, UConn's bench took one shot for every 9.4 minutes played. The other benches:

Purdue - 3.6
Lvilee - 5.2
ND - 4.6
Stanford - 4.1

If you average it out, it took more than twice as long for the Huskies to take a shot. One could conclude that if our bench had taken shots at the same rate as the other teams, and kept the same shooting average, they would have scored 19 points.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Although your comparison of the five teams is impressive. I don't think it is complete. There are no scores of the games so we can't see how close the games were. And even more important, we don't know what part of the bench is in the team's rotation and what part are players who come in when the outcome has been long decided.

The answer to all your questions is 1.6.

Actually, since three of the opponents were MD, Rutgers, and USC, the benches of the listed teams were expected to contribute heavily. Among the bench players were Stanford's Samuelson sisters, the Mabry, Cable, Reimer connection at ND, Purdue's third-leading scorer Whitney Bays, and Louisville's Antonita Slaughter and Jude Schimmel, so not a scurvy bunch. As to how close the games were, if you weren't so little-inclined to dig up that small amount of info yourself, you would know that they were all pretty close except for Stanford's home blow-out of a halfway decent USC team.

As to Cabbie's point, yes other starters who were in with the subs were taking most of the shots, and if UConn's subs put up a shot every 4 minutes and kept the same shooting average, they would have scored more. Extrapolating from a certain percentage to a bigger scenario is always a questionable conjecture since you cannot say that the conditions that lead to the bench's 80% FG shooting would have been the same if they just doubled their shots (maybe some of them would have been bad ill-advised shots), but they almost certainly would have scored more points if they took 10 shots instead of 5.

 

[Bigpetunia]

What a lot of us take issue with is the crabby patty posters who for some reason feel they need to vent at freshman pluggers and dump their usual denigrating comments about how weak and ineffective they are, even after you hand them the stats about how well these players are doing in comparison to peers and elite players.

Weak? I don't think so.

What a lot of us take issue with is the existence of a core group of posters who, without any good reason, seem to have appointed themselves as the arbiters of what is, and what is not appropriate for others to post here. Take heart, you are not, in that regard, the worst offender and are but a minor leaguer compared to the Master of Self-Importance. This is not just a simple issue of differences of opinion. We all have differences of opinion, otherwise why even have a forum? I'm pleased that our opinions differ....well, in my own case my opinions will inevitably differ from yours because, generally speaking, I hold your opinions in such low regard. This is because, in a self-serving manner, those "opinions" consistently mischaracterize what others have said in order to make points. Your opinion to which I'm currently responding provides a good (and typical) example. I, and many others, have commented recently on the importance of contributions from the bench as we approach tournament time, no matter how brilliant the starting five may be (and is). All teams, irrespective of their skills, experience episodic foul trouble, fatigue, injuries, etc. In that regard, I have offered no posts, nor have I seen any, that could, by any stretch, be characterized as "venting." I have seen no words like "weak and ineffective." I have seen zero posts that are personal toward the players in any way, or that could be characterized by any normal person as "denigrating." I have seen posts that use language like playing "tentatively," playing "without confidence," or playing somewhat "fearfully," or maybe hitting a "freshman wall." In every case, the comments have been supportive of the players and expressive of hope that they can, with more playing time, work their way through their problems. Then, the head coach himself expresses identical sentiments, to which you respond, when that fact is pointed out to you, "Well, he says that about every player who comes through the system." I, and several others, have posted the hope that, given the inevitable in-conference blowouts that can be anticipated in February, Geno will give those players disproportionate playing time, and a longer leash than usual, to help them gain confidence so that their ample talents can be realized, to which, in typical fashion, you respond, "so you think their minutes are shockingly low?" Of course, no one ever said that. Yesterday's game, I'm pleased to say, offered hope that more minutes can help to remedy any concerns. At any rate, to conclude, your opinions are your opinions, and I, for one, am indifferent to what you post so long as you do not put words in my mouth (or of others) that were not spoken.

 

[doggydaddy]

Man, that was hard to read. Let me help.

What a lot of us take issue with is the existence of a core group of posters who, without any good reason, seem to have appointed themselves as the arbiters of what is, and what is not appropriate for others to post here.

Take heart, you are not, in that regard, the worst offender and are but a minor leaguer compared to the Master of Self-Importance.

This is not just a simple issue of differences of opinion. We all have differences of opinion, otherwise why even have a forum? I'm pleased that our opinions differ....well, in my own case my opinions will inevitably differ from yours because, generally speaking, I hold your opinions in such low regard. This is because, in a self-serving manner, those "opinions" consistently mischaracterize what others have said in order to make points.

Your opinion to which I'm currently responding provides a good (and typical) example. I, and many others, have commented recently on the importance of contributions from the bench as we approach tournament time, no matter how brilliant the starting five may be (and is).

All teams, irrespective of their skills, experience episodic foul trouble, fatigue, injuries, etc. In that regard, I have offered no posts, nor have I seen any, that could, by any stretch, be characterized as "venting." I have seen no words like "weak and ineffective." I have seen zero posts that are personal toward the players in any way, or that could be characterized by any normal person as "denigrating." I have seen posts that use language like playing "tentatively," playing "without confidence," or playing somewhat "fearfully," or maybe hitting a "freshman wall." In every case, the comments have been supportive of the players and expressive of hope that they can, with more playing time, work their way through their problems.

Then, the head coach himself expresses identical sentiments, to which you respond, when that fact is pointed out to you, "Well, he says that about every player who comes through the system." I, and several others, have posted the hope that, given the inevitable in-conference blowouts that can be anticipated in February, Geno will give those players disproportionate playing time, and a longer leash than usual, to help them gain confidence so that their ample talents can be realized, to which, in typical fashion, you respond, "so you think their minutes are shockingly low?" Of course, no one ever said that.

Yesterday's game, I'm pleased to say, offered hope that more minutes can help to remedy any concerns. At any rate, to conclude, your opinions are your opinions, and I, for one, am indifferent to what you post so long as you do not put words in my mouth (or of others) that were not spoken.

There....much better. Paragraphs are your friend.

 

[Kibitzer]

This thread serves as a reminder that perhaps some of us have too much time on our hands.

I include myself. After all, I took the time to read all of this discussion about the "weak bench" after watching Saniya, Kiah and Brianna play pretty well vs. Cincinnati.

 

[doggydaddy]

"Take heart, you are not, in that regard, the worst offender and are but a minor leaguer compared to the Master of Self-Importance."

Am I in the running?

 

[DobbsRover2]

What a lot of us take issue with is the existence of a core group of posters who, without any good reason, seem to have appointed themselves as the arbiters of what is, and what is not appropriate for others to post here.

Big P, no one wants to be the arbiter of what you post, though as dd reconstructed, I would hope the format you post it as would change a little.

I like to work off stats, something I got from long readings of Bill James. There are some posters here, and you are by no means the worst offender and can take that to heart, choose just to spout opinions with either little or limited facts and then get hurt and huffy when you question them about their remarks using numbers. And if you challenge them about the words in a thread title like "weak," they get a bit agitated and claim they are not denigrating the players because....., well, I guess just because. And as noted, some of us here have followed the Huskies for many years and we do know that Geno makes many comments about his players that would lead the newbies here into thinking that they are indeed "weak," though the vets here know that he doesn't really think that way about a Stewie last year, or she wouldn't be in the game.

There is no witch hunt here against you if you wish to criticize the Huskies on solid grounds, and if you say Bria couldn't get a block at a block party or that Stef shouldn't make a habit of shooting 3s, or that Kiah is maybe a little too foul prone, I'll gladly join that opinion. But opinions without good numbers behind them often tend to be of 0 importance.

 

[Bigpetunia]

Big P, no one wants to be the arbiter of what you post, though as dd reconstructed, I would hope the format you post it as would change a little.

I like to work off stats, something I got from long readings of Bill James. There are some posters here, and you are by no means the worst offender and can take that to heart, choose just to spout opinions with either little or limited facts and then get hurt and huffy when you question them about their remarks using numbers. And if you challenge them about the words in a thread title like "weak," they get a bit agitated and claim they are not denigrating the players because....., well, I guess just because. And as noted, some of us here have followed the Huskies for many years and we do know that Geno makes many comments about his players that would lead the newbies here into thinking that they are indeed "weak," though the vets here know that he doesn't really think that way about a Stewie last year, or she wouldn't be in the game.

There is no witch hunt here against you if you wish to criticize the Huskies on solid grounds, and if you say Bria couldn't get a block at a block party or that Stef shouldn't make a habit of shooting 3s, or that Kiah is maybe a little too foul prone, I'll gladly join that opinion. But opinions without good numbers behind them often tend to be of 0 importance.

Thank you for your measured response, Dobbs, and I formally apologize for the excessive edginess of my tone. But I do think that there exists a pervasive tendency on the board to label attempts (backed by Jamesian numbers or not) that seek to analyze those areas wherein the best team in the country might get even better (always a good goal) as efforts to "criticize the Huskies." Further, while some people on the forum are clearly more senior than others with respect to the forum itself, that does not translate into any deeper understanding of the game on their part, or deeper commitment to, or passion for, UConn Women's basketball. I guess what tends to get under my skin the most is that I think there's a tendency for a gender-related double-standard to exist here. Posters could make the same comments on the men's board that wouldn't even turn a hair, but generate a bit too much over-protectiveness (in my opinion) on this forum. I think that these are remarkably strong and driven young women who do not require protective behavior from us. Naturally, I'm as opposed to certain kinds of ad hominem attacks as I'm sure you are, but, maybe I'm not reading carefully enough, I NEVER see that kind of behavior here. Anyway, I apologize, and, starting tomorrow, I'll try to start employing paragraph breaks!

 

[calpedaler]

Anyway, I apologize, and, starting tomorrow, I'll try to start employing paragraph breaks!

 

[sawxfan23]

Big P, no one wants to be the arbiter of what you post, though as dd reconstructed, I would hope the format you post it as would change a little.

I like to work off stats, something I got from long readings of Bill James. There are some posters here, and you are by no means the worst offender and can take that to heart, choose just to spout opinions with either little or limited facts and then get hurt and huffy when you question them about their remarks using numbers. And if you challenge them about the words in a thread title like "weak," they get a bit agitated and claim they are not denigrating the players because....., well, I guess just because. And as noted, some of us here have followed the Huskies for many years and we do know that Geno makes many comments about his players that would lead the newbies here into thinking that they are indeed "weak," though the vets here know that he doesn't really think that way about a Stewie last year, or she wouldn't be in the game.

There is no witch hunt here against you if you wish to criticize the Huskies on solid grounds, and if you say Bria couldn't get a block at a block party or that Stef shouldn't make a habit of shooting 3s, or that Kiah is maybe a little too foul prone, I'll gladly join that opinion. But opinions without good numbers behind them often tend to be of 0 importance.

Can you please stop taking the "weak" comment out of context? It was said {not by me mind you} in regards to a "weak night" or poor performance and was not an attack on any person or persons directly. Also you should practice what you preach about opinions. When your opinion is different than some of the posters{"moaners"}, then the coach, and finally the player themselves that tells me it is of 0 importance!

 

[DobbsRover2]

Um yeah, the paragraph breaks would really help. And I apologize if the act of using numbers to question the adjectives in a thread title seems to be an attack on anyone's integrity.

But numbers are important in the critical analysis for WCBB, and dragging ugly behavior that's done on the men's board is way beside the point, unless you just want to post over there. If you respect the UConn Husky WCBB players, you'll extend them the same type of statistics based analysis that the men get and not run to the "overprotective fans" cries that the 3/4 glass empty posters sometimes use on being questioned when they have opinions but little in the way of any facts.

 

[UcMiami]

I think in general and very pleasantly this board unlike most sports forums takes pride in being less bombastic and less harsh in criticizing not just Uconn players but all players. We recognize these are college kids/women and not professional ball players and that they are learning skills and systems for the first time. Occasionally someone will go off on a Diggins or Simmons but generally others usually jump in to defend that player against the harshest of criticism (less like with those that wear Orange, but ... history.)
What I personally respond to the most is when one or two games get turned into a blanket criticism of a player as if even DT or Maya didn't have a few off games. And I cut freshman a lot more slack and tend to defend them more strongly. Chong had a good game this last time out, and I do not expect her now to have a smooth progression forward, just like after the Baylor/Rutgers games I did not expect her to fade into oblivion. And while before this Cinci game Geno said he wanted more from the bench, he also had praise for Chong's second half against Temple during which she took no shots grabbed no rebounds had no assists and a single steal. So to follow that game with a thread titled weak bench after Geno had praised Chong's second half effort seemed a little odd.
And I find it odd that people feel they have a right to post opinions in variance to other opinions on the board, but are surprised and displeased that those opinions are then challenged. Everybody who has posted here more than a few times has posted a comment that has been roundly criticized by many other posters. That is what happens on every forum I have ever read. What does not happen is the sort of name calling and personal attacks on other posters, the hijacking of threads into vendetta type back and forth postings, and the really over the top criticism of players and coaches that happen elsewhere. And we have the moderators to thank for that.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Can you please stop taking the "weak" comment out of context? It was said {not by me mind you} in regards to a "weak night" or poor performance and was not an attack on any person or persons directly. Also you should practice what you preach about opinions. When your opinion is different than some of the posters{"moaners"}, then the coach, and finally the player themselves that tells me it is of 0 importance!

Again, sawxsie, please read all the parts of the thread that addressed the performance on the"night," and how it stacked up against other team's benches.

There are other threads that deal with the "strong bench" and how much better it did when a very weak Cinci team was leaving Saniya open to hit some bombs, chances that weren't as easily available against a much better Temple team. And there are some numbers for you to look at, though that might be asking too much since you clearly couldn't handle any in this thread. Context is important as there is a difference between playing against a top team like Baylor versus a decent team like Temple and versus a very weak team like Cinci. As noted analyses without facts-stats-numbers often do tend to be of 0 importance.

And for the hundredth time, if you wish to see every comment that Geno uses to prod his player to a higher level as his judgment that they are weak or disappointing, you can do that. Those who have followed the Huskies for many years know that he is always using the "she can't guard a chair" about an ex-Husky or "she hasn't learned how to play defense" as he has said about Stewie (of the 60 blocks) this year. Most of us take these comments with a grain of salt and the assurance that he is trying to get under their skin a bit, but you can take them all at face value about the low worth of their performance. As noted, if he felt that way, those players wouldnt be out there.

 

[doggydaddy]

Can you please stop taking the "weak" comment out of context? It was said {not by me mind you} in regards to a "weak night" or poor performance and was not an attack on any person or persons directly. Also you should practice what you preach about opinions. When your opinion is different than some of the posters{"moaners"}, then the coach, and finally the player themselves that tells me it is of 0 importance!

"Kiah couldn't hold onto the ball, Brianna couldn't stop fouling and Saniya can't stop not shooting. Seventeen minutes and Saniya did not take one shot. Unacceptable. Tierney comes in and hits a three on her first shot. Saniya needs to shoot or it's four on five. Yes, there are much better options right now."

There was a tone and there are many ways to criticize without being a jerk about it.

The OP stated that "Kiah lost the ball a couple of times, Brianna had a couple of bad fouls and Saniya needs to shoot more" without the "Unacceptable" tone and comparing a walk on to Chong was not necessary.

Sure, I am sometime overprotective about the players, but I thought this thread after the Temple game was just looking for a problem to bring up. The fact that Geno mentioned the bench should do better after what the OP called a weak performance doesn't validate anything. Certainly not the patting on the back posts that we now have to read as if the posters noticed something everyone else didn't.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Everybody who has posted here more than a few times has posted a comment that has been roundly criticized by many other posters.

Geesh, UcM, I'm sorry I challenged you long ago about whether the 2009 or 2002 team was better. You were right, whichever one you picked.

Yeah, it's always a little draining when the "I am right because I say so and stats be damned and you hurt my feelings" posters start migrating to the BY. I'm sure if Bria goes 1-6 from the arc in her next game and Geno makes a crack about it, some of these posters will be just complaining that Hartley needs to step up her outside shooting because she's shooting less than 35% on the year.

 

[Bigpetunia]

dragging ugly behavior that's done on the men's board is way beside the point, unless you just want to post over there.

You cannot help yourself, I suppose. This is "the thing" that you do. In my suggestion that there is, and it's just my opinion, a pervasive double-standard here, did I in any way condone any ugliness that might or might not exist on the men's board (actually, I've never visited), or suggest that I wished to participate there, or engage in any ugly attack on players (which I never have)? I like having my opinions challenged. I do not like having them deliberately misconstrued or restated in a manner that seeks misrepresentation.

 

[VAMike23]

Such a weak bench game against Temple. Brianna scored at a rate that would have given her 24 points if she had played 32 minutes. Kiah rebounded at a rate that would have given her 12 rebounds if she played 34 minutes. Saniya stole at a rate that would have given her 4 if she played 34 minutes. Heck, Tierney goes for 33 points if she plays 33 minutes.

But to you that's weak crap. That much I can read.

Extrapolating from a certain percentage to a bigger scenario is always a questionable conjecture since you cannot say that the conditions that lead to the bench's 80% FG shooting would have been the same if they just doubled their shots (maybe some of them would have been bad ill-advised shots), but they almost certainly would have scored more points if they took 10 shots instead of 5.

I'd say that extrapolating from most any statistical figure under the kind of conditions being discussed to a bigger scenario [sic] is often, though not always, a 'questionable conjecture.'

But--one of your posts is not like the other.

 

[sawxfan23]

Again, sawxsie, please read all the parts of the thread that addressed the performance on the"night," and how it stacked up against other team's benches.

There are other threads that deal with the "strong bench" and how much better it did when a very weak Cinci team was leaving Saniya open to hit some bombs, chances that weren't as easily available against a much better Temple team. And there are some numbers for you to look at, though that might be asking too much since you clearly couldn't handle any in this thread. Context is important as there is a difference between playing against a top team like Baylor versus a decent team like Temple and versus a very weak team like Cinci. As noted analyses without facts-stats-numbers often do tend to be of 0 importance.

And for the hundredth time, if you wish to see every comment that Geno uses to prod his player to a higher level as his judgment that they are weak or disappointing, you can do that. Those who have followed the Huskies for many years know that he is always using the "she can't guard a chair" about an ex-Husky or "she hasn't learned how to play defense" as he has said about Stewie (of the 60 blocks) this year. Most of us take these comments with a grain of salt and the assurance that he is trying to get under their skin a bit, but you can take them all at face value about the low worth of their performance. As noted, if he felt that way, those players wouldnt be out there.

First off what do other teams benches have to do with the tea in china? We were posting about a "weak night" for Uconn's bench and UConn's bench only. The thing about stats that you constantly bring up{and you should know being a disciple of Bill James} is that they can be manipulated to show whatever to want them to. The constantly bring up lack of playing time as the main factor that the bench didn't play well. I say that playing well earns playing time. You can have whatever stats you want and I will rely on the eyeball stat. I have been around this game for a long time and competed in it at a high level and I know a hell of a lot. You bring up Geno's comments then dismiss them but I ask you again what about the comments that Saniya herself made that mirrored the posts of the "moaners" like me?

 

[chrissaran]

DobbsRover 2 and doggydaddy, since you two seem to know so much, how can you disagree with a player's opinion of their own play? Answer that.