Wilson over Tuck???

[LouS]

I can't believe that A'ja Wilson was chosen third team All-American and Morgan Tuck wasn't chosen. That is bull. A'ja is good (off the bench) but Morgan delivered time and time again, throughout the season and now in the post season.

 

[Sonny44]

It's all bogus. They want to spread the awards around to different teams. They don't want to admit UCONN is that dominant. So Morgan got squeezed out.

 

[Zorro]

So did MoJet. Gotta have at least one ND, I guess.

 

[Dougie]

I can't believe that A'ja Wilson was chosen third team All-American and Morgan Tuck wasn't chosen. That is bull. A'ja is good (off the bench) but Morgan delivered time and time again, throughout the season and now in the post season.

This is just political BS. Morgan is having a magnificent season, and while I think A'ja is having an excellent freshman year, Morgan's got it all over her. She's been rock steady all year and is a great leader to boot. I think that this just adds a little fuel to the fire.

 

[CocoHusky]

This is just political BS. Morgan is having a magnificent season, and while I think A'ja is having an excellent freshman year, Morgan's got it all over her. She's been rock steady all year and is a great leader to boot. I think that this just adds a little fuel to the fire.

With some of these awards the voters don't like to proven wrong. They pick a preseason AA team- a watch list so to speak- and despite the evidence to the contrary the stick with that. Wilson came in a much hyped best in the Freshman class Morgan was coming off an injury so she did have questions about a strong return. I disagree with with the voting and I feel bad for Morgan.

 

[BlueDevils]

Political BS. Lets not discredit Aja Wilson for the media bs, but no post player in the nation right now can guard Tuck one on one.

 

[triaddukefan]

With some of these awards the voters don't like to proven wrong. They pick a preseason AA team- a watch list so to speak- and despite the evidence to the contrary the stick with that. Wilson came in a much hyped best in the Freshman class Morgan was coming off an injury so she did have questions about a strong return. I disagree with with the voting and I feel bad for Morgan.

Do you think that she (or any players on teams that win the national title) care about being named to all american teams like this? Do you envision players sulking over not getting named to one of these lists?

 

[geneticrex]

Do you think that she (or any players on teams that win the national title) care about being named to all american teams like this? Do you envision players sulking over not getting named to one of these lists?

Since the selection of Wilson (or any other post not named Stewart) over Morgan Tuck, renders the list a farce, at the end of the day, I'd say a player at the level of a Morgan Tuck wouldn't be too upset being left off a farce of a list.

 

[Zorro]

What exactly did Wilson do this season to qualify as AA?

 

[cockhrnleghrn]

What exactly did Wilson do this season to qualify as AA?

Averaged 12.9 points, 6.5 rebounds, shot 53.1%, had 61 blocks and 31 steals in only 19.7 minutes per game. That's 26.19 points per 40 minutes and 13.2 rebounds per 40 minutes. You have to admit those are pretty good numbers.

 

[Bayareahusky]

In total agreement with everyone.... they want to spread out as much as possible so as not to reward UConn.... which they really should do.... as the ladies have earned it.... especially Morgan!!!! Morgan you rock!!!

 

[geneticrex]

Against the 3 best teams UConn played this year, ND, SC and Dayton (that's right DAYTON), Morgan Tuck was all but unstoppable. She has been consistantly good to great all season and at her best in the biggest games against the toughest competition.

Her numbers are excellent for the minutes she plays considering she shares the floor with 3 other AAs including the most dominate player in women's college basketball. She must be guarded at the arc since she can hit the 3 and on the block she is as close to automatic as there is.

If she is not considered by the so-called "experts" as one of the top 10 players in the game, perhaps it's time for a new set of experts.

 

[Alydar]

Averaged 12.9 points, 6.5 rebounds, shot 53.1%, had 61 blocks and 31 steals in only 19.7 minutes per game. That's 26.19 points per 40 minutes and 13.2 rebounds per 40 minutes. You have to admit those are pretty good numbers.

Yes, they are nice. But ...

Gabby Williams played 16.2 min/gm, averaged 8.5 pts, 6 rebounds and a 1.4 a/to. her 40 minute averages were 21.5 pts/gm and 15 rb/game

and she isn't even in the discussion while Wilson wins?

 

[Huskies Rule]

Averaged 12.9 points, 6.5 rebounds, shot 53.1%, had 61 blocks and 31 steals in only 19.7 minutes per game. That's 26.19 points per 40 minutes and 13.2 rebounds per 40 minutes. You have to admit those are pretty good numbers.

No No No, my Cocky friend. That's ridiculous. All America awards should be based upon actual performance, NOT on how possibly great a player's numbers MIGHT be when extrapolated for a full, 40 minutes of play. Using your 40 minute reductio ad absurdum reasoning, Kiah Stokes is unquestionably, undeniably a First Team All America and one of the greatest players in the history of women's basketball because she would be averaging 12 points per game, 16 rebounds per game, and 9 blocked shots per game!! And nobody has ever accomplished that! Those numbers would have completely obliterated the NCAA WCBB national records for most rebounds and for most blocked shots in a year !! EVER !! As insane as this Stokes extrapolation would be, A'ja Wilson's inclusion on any All America Team is no less far farcical.

* Awards should be given based upon real, actual accomplishments and NOT based upon what might have or could have been. Morgan Tuck absolutely deserved to be an All America this year. A'ja Wilson absolutely did not.

 

[triaddukefan]

I think Wilson will become a very good player, but like i said early in the season.... She isnt even the best freshman in the Carolina's

 

[Bayareahusky]

No No No, my Cocky friend. That's ridiculous. All America awards should be based upon actual performance, NOT on how possibly great a player's numbers MIGHT be when extrapolated for a full, 40 minutes of play. Using your 40 minute reductio ad absurdum reasoning, Kiah Stokes is unquestionably, undeniably a First Team All America and one of the greatest players in the history of women's basketball because she would be averaging 12 points per game, 16 rebounds per game, and 9 blocked shots per game!! And nobody has ever accomplished that! Those numbers would have completely obliterated the NCAA WCBB national records for most rebounds and for most blocked shots in a year !! EVER !! As insane as this Stokes extrapolation would be, A'ja Wilson's inclusion on any All America Team is no less far farcical.

* Awards should be given based upon real, actual accomplishments and NOT based upon what might have or could have been. Morgan Tuck absolutely deserved to be an All America this year. A'ja Wilson absolutely did not.

Totally agree should be based on actual numbers....

Ultimately best thing to be named is National Champions..... I hope Morgan gets 5 of them!

 

[HuskiesU]

I like the idea of Morgan being Snubbed because I remember she saying even tho she has 2 rings she wants one of her own meaning no one is going to stop her from getting it. Not even AJ'A WILSON

 

[ndmb]

No No No, my Cocky friend. That's ridiculous. All America awards should be based upon actual performance, NOT on how possibly great a player's numbers MIGHT be when extrapolated for a full, 40 minutes of play. Using your 40 minute reductio ad absurdum reasoning, Kiah Stokes is unquestionably, undeniably a First Team All America and one of the greatest players in the history of women's basketball because she would be averaging 12 points per game, 16 rebounds per game, and 9 blocked shots per game!! And nobody has ever accomplished that! Those numbers would have completely obliterated the NCAA WCBB national records for most rebounds and for most blocked shots in a year !! EVER !! As insane as this Stokes extrapolation would be, A'ja Wilson's inclusion on any All America Team is no less far farcical.

* Awards should be given based upon real, actual accomplishments and NOT based upon what might have or could have been. Morgan Tuck absolutely deserved to be an All America this year. A'ja Wilson absolutely did not.

No No No, you're the one who's being ridiculous. Points per 40 minutes is based on actual performance. Period. Tuck has scored 526 points and Wilson has scored 466. Any interpretation beyond that is a step away from the raw data. Tuck has played in 37 games and Wilson has played in 36; presumably you're OK with dividing points per game as a contextually appropriate way of interpreting that data. Tuck has played in 22.93 40 minute segments and Wilson has played in 17.75. Why is dividing by those segments any more of an extrapolation? (hint: it's not, both measure output in relation to opportunity)

Put another way, do you think that points per minute is an unreasonable extrapolation of what a player could have produced? Because points per minute and points per 40 minutes are functionally the exact same statistics.

As far as Stokes is concerned, she is absolutely the best shot-blocker and one of the best rebounders in UConn history. And the primary way you can tell is because of her per 40 minute stats.

 

[Huskies Rule]

So two important questions MUST be answered- 1) WHY ,by what legitimate, objective criteria, was A'ja Wilson named an All American, and 2) why is anyone else up at this ungodly hour?

 

[Huskies Rule]

"ndmb: Put another way, do you think that points per minute is an unreasonable extrapolation of what a player could have produced? Because points per minute and points per 40 minutes are functionally the exact same statistics."

- NO. I do not think that points per minute is"an unreasonable extrapolation of what a player could have produced." I don't. I just don't give a damn what a player COULD HAVE PRODUCED, or may one day in the future produce- whether it's extrapolated in terms of per minute or per 40 minutes.
- A player's actual bottom-line numbers in games is what counts, for however many minutes the coach chose to play them. What they did each game.

- When I played ball in college, my best friend on the team only managed to play in garbage time, in blowouts, never more than 2 minutes or so. But in that 2 minutes, being the shameless chucker he was, he would always manage to throw up several shots and make at least one or two, every game- but let's say he made just one bucket a game. So based on a 32 minute game (as it was long long ago), via extrapolation my buddy would have/could have scored 32 points per game. Jeez, in light of those numbers my pal was clearly screwed- no AA team, no Kentucky Colonel contract. Just saying nicely

 

[ndmb]

"ndmb: Put another way, do you think that points per minute is an unreasonable extrapolation of what a player could have produced? Because points per minute and points per 40 minutes are functionally the exact same statistics."

- NO. I do not think that points per minute is"an unreasonable extrapolation of what a player could have produced." I don't. I just don't give a damn what a player COULD HAVE PRODUCED, or may one day in the future produce- whether it's extrapolated in terms of per minute or per 40 minutes.
- A player's actual bottom-line numbers in games is what counts, for however many minutes the coach chose to play them. What they did each game.

- When I played ball in college, my best friend on the team only managed to play in garbage time, in blowouts, never more than 2 minutes or so. But in that 2 minutes, being the shameless chucker he was, he would always manage to throw up several shots and make at least one or two, every game- but let's say he made just one bucket a game. So based on a 32 minute game (as it was long long ago), via extrapolation my buddy would have/could have scored 32 points per game. Jeez, in light of those numbers my pal was clearly screwed- no AA team, no Kentucky Colonel contract. Just saying nicely

I misworded that question and you're missing the point. What a player produces per minute is what they did produce, divided by the number of minutes that they play. They are actual bottom-line numbers, and they're more reflective of performance than per game stats. Find me an advanced basketball metric that isn't in the box score that doesn't involve minutes played or pace and we can talk. If your friend is chucking up several shots (3? 4?) and making one, a 25% shooting percentage clearly doesn't warrant more playing time than he was getting.

I think that you're alluding to some biases that per minute stats can have, which are that a player who plays 2 minutes a game is generally playing against weaker opposition, and that players who play more minutes are generally better, and should get recognized for that. While it's true that you shouldn't compare the per minute statistics of a player who is playing 2 minutes to a player who is playing 35, that kind of reality check should come along with any statistical analysis.

A good example is Moriah Jefferson. She's playing 28 minutes per game, not because she's not crucial to the offense, but because UConn has blown out so many of the teams that they've played. When comparing her stats to Jewell Loyd (who's up at 32 minutes because her team has needed her to play for longer), do you think her production should get docked because she's playing fewer minutes? If that's the case, what's the value of per game stats at all, why not just look at totals on the season?

 

[ndmb]

So based on a 32 minute game (as it was long long ago), via extrapolation my buddy would have/could have scored 32 points per game.

Again, this is a misstatement of what I'm saying. Saying that a player scores 20 points per 40 minutes is NOT saying that they could have scored 20 points per game if they'd played every minute. It's saying that they scored 20 points for every 40 minutes that they played.

 

[reno tony]

Again, this is a misstatement of what I'm saying. Saying that a player scores 20 points per 40 minutes is NOT saying that they could have scored 20 points per game if they'd played every minute. It's saying that they scored 20 points for every 40 minutes that they played.

So if they don't start against the opponents starters but play the end of the game against the opponents bench players there is no statistical way to determine that. So the experts should take these types of information into consideration when choosing their AA teams but it is difficult to do without watching the teams play many games. Nothing against Wilson, but she is not even a starter on her own team. Stats are great but it all comes down to someone's subjective opinion when picking these teams.

 

[msf22b]

Speaking of five rings for Morgan:

I for one don't think it's going to happen.
Not because the team won't win five championships

But because Morgan will consider her balky knees and decide if she's to have a substantial pro career
She had better get on with it and leave with the class she entered with….Stewie and Moriah.

It will be a difficult but rational decision to forego her extra season of eligibility.
But after careful consideration, it is one she will make.

 

[Orangutan]

Averaged 12.9 points, 6.5 rebounds, shot 53.1%, had 61 blocks and 31 steals in only 19.7 minutes per game. That's 26.19 points per 40 minutes and 13.2 rebounds per 40 minutes. You have to admit those are pretty good numbers.

This is where I homer on in and point out that Brianna Turner averaged 13.7 pts, 7.8 rebounds, leads the nation in FG% at 65.6%, had 85 blocks and 37 steals. However, she was only named Honorable Mention (which I think is fair, by the way, I just think that's what Wilson should have got, too, at best).

But more to the point - I think it does matter how much you play. I know the voting was done before the tournament, but Wilson played 24 minutes COMBINED in the sweet 16 and elite 8, both very close games. We're supposed to believe that she's one of the best 16 players in the country yet she only played 30% of the time in the two biggest games of the season. Ridiculous.

Here's another stat - usage percentage. Wilson's is 31.8% Noted high-usage stars Jewell Loyd and Kelsey Mitchell check in at 31.1% and 32.2%, respectively. Basically, Wilson doesn't play that much and shoots a ton when she is in. Of course she has a high number of points per 40 minutes!

Every year ESPN picks one freshman and over-hypes them like crazy. Last year it was DeShields. This year it's Wilson. It looks like it's setting up to be Durr next year. So I'm sure we'll get to repeat this next year.

As for Tuck, her numbers don't look amazing on paper because of all the competition she has for points and rebounds - I think the eye test shows that she's an All-American.

Imagine you threw all the players in the country into a draft to choose teams for a new season of play. Tuck's going in the 1st 15 picks. Easy.