Why Was Geno Displeased With Gabby vs. Colgate?

[Geno-ista]

I don't know. First off in the title game she was 2-2 scored 4 points. SO I wouldn't say "She was exceptional." One of her 2 baskets was off an offensive rebound. And the other it's questionable if it was a low post or because a guard drove and forced her defender which meant Kiah received a pass and hit a wide open layup. I wouldn't call this "exceptional."

Secondly, listen to Doris Burke in that championship game. She was RIPPING Stokes for not even looking at the basket. Then we have to read after season is over all the "experts" criticize Stokes offense when it came to draft day. When you have people like Doris on National TV over-exaggerating Stokes deficiencies- that is the point I'll agree with you "reality vs perception."

She was never guarded unless she was 2-6' from the hoop. They dared her to shoot. She had no confidence in her shot. Doris Burke was 100% correct. What reality vs perception. She was an offensive liability. If she could score she would have been the first draft pick with her other assets. How do you watch every game and come up with this? You are blaming Doris Burke for the fact that Stokes never raised her offensive game for four years. Wow- can't we just be honest about certain facts?

 

[PhillyCoach]

You're the one who quoted overall shooting %. Not an accurate presentation. I recommended halves because it's definitely more accurate than overall. In UConn games, most are over at half, resulting in more of a scrimmage in the second half. Not all, but most. Much easier to "pad" the stats in garbage time.

Basketball is all about situational match-ups. That's why overall stats mean very little (especially on UConn). The idiot media love to try to compare players for end of year awards/AA teams using stats. Highly inaccurate.

Hey WestCoast Fan - I like your insights on most posts. I am just a little confused with your last two lines. If we are comparing players to determine awards/AA teams---wouldn't we at least start with stats? If not, then what metrics are used to compare?
I know many times the old "eye test" can tell the difference between players, better than stats. Just wondering, what do you suggest? I am always looking for new methods.

 

[DobbsRover2]

She was never guarded unless she was 2-6' from the hoop. They dared her to shoot. She had no confidence in her shot. Doris Burke was 100% correct. What reality vs perception. She was an offensive liability. If she could score she would have been the first draft pick with her other assets. How do you watch every game and come up with this? You are blaming Doris Burke for the fact that Stokes never raised her offensive game for four years. Wow- can't we just be honest about certain facts?

Well, Stokes' stats in college weren't hugely different from her first year in the WNBA, but the interesting thing is now she has the advanced basketball.reference.com-type stats to show the things that her critics like Doris are clueless about. Yes she had an Offensive Rating was among the top 20 in the league because she had a great FG%, pulled down a lot of offensive rebounds, and did all the other things on the offensive end to help the Liberty more than her 5+ ppg indicated, just as she did with the Huskies. Loyd was the #1 pick and the acclaimed offensive player, but her offensive efficiency stats are very poor compared to Kiah's, and let's not even start on the defensive end.

Yeah I know it's always a fan's eye test that counts more than stats and how really well a team does when a player like Kiah is on the court, but as we mentioned endlessly during the WNBA season, the stats did show that Kiah's basic package in college and the pros is far above where Doris might put her, no matter how many times you say that the stats mean nothing. Kiah can just smile because she knows where the truth lies even if she can't pop from 15 feet, or even at the 20.8% rate for 3s that Loyd managed last season in the WNBA.

 

[Geno-ista]

Well, Stokes' stats in college weren't hugely different from her first year in the WNBA, but the interesting thing is now she has the advanced basketball.reference.com-type stats to show the things that her critics like Doris are clueless about. Yes she had an Offensive Rating was among the top 20 in the league because she had a great FG%, pulled down a lot of offensive rebounds, and did all the other things on the offensive end to help the Liberty more than her 5+ ppg indicated, just as she did with the Huskies. Loyd was the #1 pick and the acclaimed offensive player, but her offensive efficiency stats are very poor compared to Kiah's, and let's not even start on the defensive end.

Yeah I know it's always a fan's eye test that counts more than stats and how really well a team does when a player like Kiah is on the court, but as we mentioned endlessly during the WNBA season, the stats did show that Kiah's basic package in college and the pros is far above where Doris might put her, no matter how many times you say that the stats mean nothing. Kiah can just smile because she knows where the truth lies even if she can't pop from 15 feet, or even at the 20.8% rate for 3s that Loyd managed last season in the WNBA.

A point was originally made that she was an "exceptional" offensive talent. She's built for the WNBA. Robb's Rover- you aren't drinking the cool aide too -are you? Now Kiah is a better offensive threat than Jewell Llotd too?

 

[hoophuskee]

She was never guarded unless she was 2-6' from the hoop. They dared her to shoot. She had no confidence in her shot. Doris Burke was 100% correct. What reality vs perception. She was an offensive liability. If she could score she would have been the first draft pick with her other assets. How do you watch every game and come up with this? You are blaming Doris Burke for the fact that Stokes never raised her offensive game for four years. Wow- can't we just be honest about certain facts?

1-- You're right in some cases and imo wrong on others. First off just a FYI I didn't say Kia was exceptional in the finals.

2-- When Stokes catches the ball outside - why would it ever matter that she doesn't face the basket if the team drops back on her? Notre dame was even dropping off on MoJeff and Nurse. Why is the center getting slammed on National TV in the finals for being left wide open 15+ feet from the basket while the guards were also being left wide open? THAT is one of the problems I have with Doris.

3-- And you and I agree - Stokes has to be accounted for around the basket. You just can't have a small guard on her. Thus she does have some value. NOTE -and I say NOTE - the moment she comes in for the finals vs ND she immediately gets an offensive rebound in which she got tied up. Next time down she got her hands on the ball. The next time she scored on an offensive rebound. Her offensive rebounding MUST BE ACCOUNTED FOR. Yet all we keep hearing on National TV is how Stokes is unaccounted for. Yeah Doris - she was unaccounted for 15 feet from the basket as was half the UCONN team.

4-- What Doris FAILED to understand is BECAUSE OF PLAYER LIKE STOKES HAS such Size AND length- SHE MUST BE ACCOUNTED FOR. Thus the guards of MoJeff and Nurse for UCONN and even Tuck were given wide open looks from the perimeter. You (ND) need size in the paint to combat UCONN's potential offensive rebounding.

5-- The perception was Doris and many of the analysts felt Stokes HAD NOTHING on offense when in fact she IS / WAS a decent offensive rebounder so she can score around the basket and if you foul her she can knock down free throws. It's not a lot but it is NOT nothing. She was NOT being left WIDE OPEN inside. BUT listen to that game again. The way Doris made it sound was that no one was even guarding her close to the basket. THAt si part of the perception vs reality which relates to NUMBER 6.

6-- The point I was making of perception vs reality - is that Doris and other supposed experts for the WNBA failed to realize is that UCONN HAD four really good shooters / players that can score around her Thus the silly perception was questioning if she was worthy of being a WNBA first round pick. People like Doris that continually slammed her in the finals - change the perception - yet they don't understand she had a touch and has size and athleticism that was worthy of being accounted for at a pro level and being a 1st round pick. - Laimbeer understood it. It's just that UCONN didn't NEED Stokes to score. There was NO REASON for her to be a threat 15+ feet from the basket with the other talent UCONN had. So when Doris slammed her for not even looking at the basket- -- IT IS BY DESIGN that she isn't looking to score. It was preferred she make a quick pass then get back inside.

7--- If you get a chance - google those pre-draft analysis. How was Stokes NOT considered a lock 1st round pick? That kid from South Carolina who had no shot whatsoever was thought of as being just as good as her? Please!!!!

 

[HuskyNan]

Once doesn't measure shooting performance by halves. It is always possible to select a period to show bad performance.

Why not? Those games were more competitive in the first half...maybe thru 3 quarters. Her shooting % seems to improve once the game is out of reach.

Why not? Because Geno doesn't want players giving full effort for only a half. If Gabby is going flat out for a half then dogging it in the other half, then she'll sit until she understands Geno want her to have some impact on the game, whether it's scoring, rebounding, defending, etc, every minute she's on the floor.

 

[WestCoastFan]

Hey WestCoast Fan - I like your insights on most posts. I am just a little confused with your last two lines. If we are comparing players to determine awards/AA teams---wouldn't we at least start with stats? If not, then what metrics are used to compare?
I know many times the old "eye test" can tell the difference between players, better than stats. Just wondering, what do you suggest? I am always looking for new methods.

Hey Philly C...depends on the stats. I was really referring to the obvious ones...ppg, rpg, %s . Those can be padded based on the competition. I always like to use "team value"...hard to quantify sometimes, but if you dig deeper, you can find it. Minutes per game against top competition, assist/turnovers, strength of schedule. I always like the "best players on the best teams" approach. How would you quantify most UConn players? With the exception of Maya, most never had overly impressive points and rebounds per game. Think Morgan. Does most everything well...but not real glitzy.

Problem is most of those who vote for the awards never/rarely see most players. Hence, "we'll he/she scores a lot, rebounds a lot, shoots 70%, great athlete. Must be an AA."

 

[WestCoastFan]

Why not? Because Geno doesn't want players giving full effort for only a half. If Gabby is going flat out for a half then dogging it in the other half, then she'll sit until she understands Geno want her to have some impact on the game, whether it's scoring, rebounding, defending, etc, every minute she's on the floor.

You're absolutely right about having an impact and full effort. However, I wasn't talking about effort...I was talking about stats. Don't know of a stat that measures leadership, hustle, or sacrifice...other than winning %. Overall stats are not necessarily a good indicator of individual effort. But if you want to use them and be a better indicator of true impact, use them while the game is still competitive...hence the half approach. We all know what "normally" happens in the second half of most UConn games.

 

[WestCoastFan]

Hey Philly C...depends on the stats. I was really referring to the obvious ones...ppg, rpg, %s . Those can be padded based on the competition. I always like to use "team value"...hard to quantify sometimes, but if you dig deeper, you can find it. Minutes per game against top competition, assist/turnovers, strength of schedule. I always like the "best players on the best teams" approach. How would you quantify most UConn players? With the exception of Maya, most never had overly impressive points and rebounds per game. Think Morgan. Does most everything well...but not real glitzy.

Problem is most of those who vote for the awards never/rarely see most players. Hence, "we'll he/she scores a lot, rebounds a lot, shoots 70%, great athlete. Must be an AA."

BTW, too bad we don't have a individual stats for leadership, sacrifice, hustle, teamwork. We only have team stats...called Championships.

 

[boontonbomber]

I don't get people focusing so much on Gabby's ability to score. She really impacts the game in so many ways with her athleticism. More than anyone else, except for Breanna and Moriah. She's a great rebounder, is disruptive defensively with her quickness, and I think she is a pretty sound passer. I do see her as being more tentative lately, perhaps because she feels like she's on a short leash. She was pulled quickly in the second half Friday, after committing a foul. She'd only been in for a couple of minutes.

 

[PhillyCoach]

BTW, too bad we don't have a individual stats for leadership, sacrifice, hustle, teamwork. We only have team stats...called Championships.

WCF - right on! The individual stats for leadership, sacrifice, hustle, teamwork really come from the voters who actually know WBB. In particular, to have seen many games & players in numerous situations (big games & blowouts.) With the technology that should be easier to do. Joe Shmoe from Gabip votes for the Pts. & rebounds, as you state. Mostly points as we all know.

 

[Geno-ista]

1-- You're right in some cases and imo wrong on others. First off just a FYI I didn't say Kia was exceptional in the finals.

2-- When Stokes catches the ball outside - why would it ever matter that she doesn't face the basket if the team drops back on her? Notre dame was even dropping off on MoJeff and Nurse. Why is the center getting slammed on National TV in the finals for being left wide open 15+ feet from the basket while the guards were also being left wide open? THAT is one of the problems I have with Doris.

3-- And you and I agree - Stokes has to be accounted for around the basket. You just can't have a small guard on her. Thus she does have some value. NOTE -and I say NOTE - the moment she comes in for the finals vs ND she immediately gets an offensive rebound in which she got tied up. Next time down she got her hands on the ball. The next time she scored on an offensive rebound. Her offensive rebounding MUST BE ACCOUNTED FOR. Yet all we keep hearing on National TV is how Stokes is unaccounted for. Yeah Doris - she was unaccounted for 15 feet from the basket as was half the UCONN team.

4-- What Doris FAILED to understand is BECAUSE OF PLAYER LIKE STOKES HAS such Size AND length- SHE MUST BE ACCOUNTED FOR. Thus the guards of MoJeff and Nurse for UCONN and even Tuck were given wide open looks from the perimeter. You (ND) need size in the paint to combat UCONN's potential offensive rebounding.

5-- The perception was Doris and many of the analysts felt Stokes HAD NOTHING on offense when in fact she IS / WAS a decent offensive rebounder so she can score around the basket and if you foul her she can knock down free throws. It's not a lot but it is NOT nothing. She was NOT being left WIDE OPEN inside. BUT listen to that game again. The way Doris made it sound was that no one was even guarding her close to the basket. THAt si part of the perception vs reality which relates to NUMBER 6.

6-- The point I was making of perception vs reality - is that Doris and other supposed experts for the WNBA failed to realize is that UCONN HAD four really good shooters / players that can score around her Thus the silly perception was questioning if she was worthy of being a WNBA first round pick. People like Doris that continually slammed her in the finals - change the perception - yet they don't understand she had a touch and has size and athleticism that was worthy of being accounted for at a pro level and being a 1st round pick. - Laimbeer understood it. It's just that UCONN didn't NEED Stokes to score. There was NO REASON for her to be a threat 15+ feet from the basket with the other talent UCONN had. So when Doris slammed her for not even looking at the basket- -- IT IS BY DESIGN that she isn't looking to score. It was preferred she make a quick pass then get back inside.

7--- If you get a chance - google those pre-draft analysis. How was Stokes NOT considered a lock 1st round pick? That kid from South Carolina who had no shot whatsoever was thought of as being just as good as her? Please!!!!

I appreciate your well laid out response. I alway believed she would be a 1 St rd top 10 draft pick. I luang he'd when I heard "smart guys" calling her in the 2nd3rd rds.
Her body was pro ready. The orig posts of exceptional offensive skills, good 3 pr shooter, and was knocking Geno, because Geno was mad she took & missed a three in the Stamford loss. That was incorrect because she panicked early in the shot clock and threw up a shot that wasn't her shot, when we needed to use the clock- I think we were still ahead. I remember Doris alluding to her lack of offensive skills, but didn't realize she had made numerous comments about it. The original comment was it would have been great to have Stokes and KML to break N Dame's def zone. KML yes. I go back to my original premis- how in the world does Stokes help us ever in her career beat a solid 2-3 zone defense? And I don't think she does vs other players we could use. Her offensive skills at UConn were limited. I think Doris is/was stating the truth to educate the audience that the defense can double or sluff off to defend others or the paint- it was all true. Even if we didn't want to hear it. And defenses have always tried to play to encourage the opponents worst shooters to shoot, and or force good shooters to take bad shots. I never took Doris's comments personal. I don't think there is a more pro UConn admirers announcer than Doris. And I like when they call it the way they see it- the original note that triggered me was making Stokes something she wasn't- or she would have been the first pick and first team AA- now we're beating a dead horse!

 

[DaddyChoc]

I don't get people focusing so much on Gabby's ability to score. She really impacts the game in so many ways with her athleticism. More than anyone else, except for Breanna and Moriah. She's a great rebounder, is disruptive defensively with her quickness, and I think she is a pretty sound passer. I do see her as being more tentative lately, perhaps because she feels like she's on a short leash. She was pulled quickly in the second half Friday, after committing a foul. She'd only been in for a couple of minutes.

we'll be talking about her confidence soon

 

[hoophuskee]

I don't get people focusing so much on Gabby's ability to score. She really impacts the game in so many ways with her athleticism. More than anyone else, except for Breanna and Moriah. She's a great rebounder, is disruptive defensively with her quickness, and I think she is a pretty sound passer. I do see her as being more tentative lately, perhaps because she feels like she's on a short leash. She was pulled quickly in the second half Friday, after committing a foul. She'd only been in for a couple of minutes.

If her defense was such an impact, why then did DePaul and ND score so many points off of UCONN? I know it's also the other player's fault too - but at least they can score, right? They weren't going to lose the games, but it's not like individually she's been shutting her offensive player down vs DePaul or ND, right?

 

[boontonbomber]

I said she impacts the game in many ways. Her individual defense will improve as she matures and is a bit less excited out there. She commits dumb fouls at times, but I don't like seeing her pulled when her hustling gets a little out of control. Especially when the games are well in hand, which they usually are.
Gabby is 6th in minutes played, yet is 2nd in rebounds and "defensive" rebounds, is averaging more than 2 steals per game, is 2nd in blocks( though only 6), and actually does score( 9 ppg). Again, all in just 19 mins. per game. I said her defense is disruptive because of her quicknes. She's often getting a hand in, is making steals, is diving for balls, is disrupting opponents trying to throw the ball inbounds with her jumping ability, etc. You know, all the littl things.
Re Depaul and ND scoring so much: I'm glad that you recognize that defense is a team effort.

 

[hoophuskee]

I said she impacts the game in many ways. Her individual defense will improve as she matures and is a bit less excited out there. She commits dumb fouls at times, but I don't like seeing her pulled when her hustling gets a little out of control. Especially when the games are well in hand, which they usually are.
Gabby is 6th in minutes played, yet is 2nd in rebounds and "defensive" rebounds, is averaging more than 2 steals per game, is 2nd in blocks( though only 6), and actually does score( 9 ppg). Again, all in just 19 mins. per game. I said her defense is disruptive because of her quicknes. She's often getting a hand in, is making steals, is diving for balls, is disrupting opponents trying to throw the ball inbounds with her jumping ability, etc. You know, all the littl things.
Re Depaul and ND scoring so much: I'm glad that you recognize that defense is a team effort.

I understand she impacts the games in many ways but so does NC and KLS. In this case, suppose someone were to prefer them because they impact the games in many ways along with being able to score vs any type of team?


And as far as Gabby being pulled with games well in hand. Who does he put in her place? Mostly it’s NC and KLS that replace her. What if you love all three – love them – really love them and their games - but prefer KLS or NC a little more?


You can cherry-pick stats but how are those stats vs the tougher teams after the Ohio State game?


I agree about her defense, but it wasn’t disruptive DESPITE her quickness vs DePaul or ND.


Absolutely I understand defense is team. But if one player can’t score and her defense isn’t very effective in a particular game and you have other kids also hungry to play, why not play the others too while making a statement to any player if they aren’t playing/producing at a certain level they will get pulled too?


I hate to make it sound like I don’t like Gabby (and I know you didn’t say that or imply that I do.). Couldn’t be farther from the truth. I’m pretty darned excited about Gabby/KLS and NC on the court together for many minutes some day in the future. And I hate to sound cold, but right now, I want Stewie and Tuck getting “the minutes” up front. And MoJeff gets big minutes as the pg. That doesn’t leave a lot. And if you don’t pull Gabby when she isn’t playing well or commits dumb fouls etc, then when would you pull her and give the other kids you recruited a chance?