Hogville Info
• 10,564,597 Posts
• 415,986 Topics
• 23,893 Hogvillians
THE RULES (Read 'em!)
Quick Links
Pick'Ems:Football      Basketball      Baseball
Sister Sites:Gridiron HistoryFearless Friday
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: women's BB scoring averages  (Read 833 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

flippinhogmana

  • Hall of Fame Hogvillian
  • *******
  • Total likes: 259
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 8,075
  • Nathan J Allison - Brothers to the Bone Books
women's BB scoring averages
« on: August 30, 2019, 02:01:41 am »

Feel free to do you own analysis and as many players as you choose or cumulatively for the whole team.

Chelsea Dungee actually averaged more in conference than for the whole year overall.  That is generally not the way it works out.  Most of our best players in the past have dropped off a couple of points in conference but Chelsea picked up to 21.6 for conference play (from 20.5 for the whole year).  The whole team averaged 73.9 points per game for the year, but only 69.8 points per game in conference play.  Her play the last ten games picked up the team even more dramatically.  So what does she average this year? 

She was one of three players mentioned in one article capable of leading the nation in scoring.  If you watched her in the SEC tournament against SC (31), GA (31), or even against MsST (24), you could see it as a possibility.  I think she is apt to see a lot of box and one, or even triangle and two defensive schemes against her, but if that is the case, she is an excellent passer and the team's scoring average should reap the benefit.

That is why I think CD will average at least 26.5 points per game, and that the team will average at least 80 points per game for the year (90 in the non conference portion of the schedule).  What say you?
Logged

LadybackBBFan

Re: women's BB scoring averages
« Reply #1 on: August 30, 2019, 11:26:42 am »

Feel free to do you own analysis and as many players as you choose or cumulatively for the whole team.

Chelsea Dungee actually averaged more in conference than for the whole year overall.  That is generally not the way it works out.  Most of our best players in the past have dropped off a couple of points in conference but Chelsea picked up to 21.6 for conference play (from 20.5 for the whole year).  The whole team averaged 73.9 points per game for the year, but only 69.8 points per game in conference play.  Her play the last ten games picked up the team even more dramatically.  So what does she average this year? 

She was one of three players mentioned in one article capable of leading the nation in scoring.  If you watched her in the SEC tournament against SC (31), GA (31), or even against MsST (24), you could see it as a possibility.  I think she is apt to see a lot of box and one, or even triangle and two defensive schemes against her, but if that is the case, she is an excellent passer and the team's scoring average should reap the benefit.

That is why I think CD will average at least 26.5 points per game, and that the team will average at least 80 points per game for the year (90 in the non conference portion of the schedule).  What say you?
Although everything that Flippin reports is accurate from the stats, I think his conclusions are not correct because I have looked into the numbers deeper and because I believe we are a lot deeper this year.  Last year, I predicted that Chelsea would lead us in scoring while Flippin and many others were predicting Tolefree.  Flippin later said that he thought Chelsea was too much of a team player to lead us in scoring.  I believe that is true as far as her averaging over 20 points a game this year as long as we remain healthy. 
Taking a deeper look into the numbers, I discovered the following: Chelsea averaged 17 points per game in the 14 games prior to the SEC tournament.  In the first 10 games of the SEC schedule when we were 5 - 5, she averaged 19.5 pts/game.  While Chelsea was averaging 19.5 points per game for those first 10 games in the SEC, Monk was averaging 16.2 points per game.  What happened in the 11th game on Feb. 10 against Auburn.  Monk got injured - first her knee and then her right hand which was broke for the rest of the season.  In that loss, Monk got 2 points and Chelsea go 41.  From that point on, Chelsea averaged 25+ points per game for our last 13 games while Monk averaged 8.1 for the remaining SEC games plus the SEC tournament and 9.8 points per game if you include the three NIT games where she played like she did before the injury in spite of having a broken hand.
With Monk injured and really no other consistent scorer, Chelsea had to pick up the slack. 
This year Ramirez will easily replace Monk's scoring but in a different way - pushing Chelsea for leading scorer.  Barnum will push Williams and Thomas - also adding additional scoring.  We lost Bailey and RNB off the bench who at best were not consistent scorers.  Davis and Rokia will push Tolefree to be a more consistent scorer or she will see a lot of bench time.  Throw in AT and Daniels and I can see us easily averaging 80+ points per game, but Chelsea not averaging 25+ as teams would double and triple team her and others will be open and have the ability to score including Mason if the defense concentrates on Chelsea.  It will be an exciting season if everyone remains healthy and accepts their role which might be difficult with so many talented players.
Logged

Sponsored Ad



Hogville encourages you to do business with the following...

flippinhogmana

  • Hall of Fame Hogvillian
  • *******
  • Total likes: 259
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 8,075
  • Nathan J Allison - Brothers to the Bone Books
Re: women's BB scoring averages
« Reply #2 on: August 30, 2019, 03:21:16 pm »

Although everything that Flippin reports is accurate from the stats, I think his conclusions are not correct because I have looked into the numbers deeper and because I believe we are a lot deeper this year.  Last year, I predicted that Chelsea would lead us in scoring while Flippin and many others were predicting Tolefree.  Flippin later said that he thought Chelsea was too much of a team player to lead us in scoring.  I believe that is true as far as her averaging over 20 points a game this year as long as we remain healthy. 
Taking a deeper look into the numbers, I discovered the following: Chelsea averaged 17 points per game in the 14 games prior to the SEC tournament.  In the first 10 games of the SEC schedule when we were 5 - 5, she averaged 19.5 pts/game.  While Chelsea was averaging 19.5 points per game for those first 10 games in the SEC, Monk was averaging 16.2 points per game.  What happened in the 11th game on Feb. 10 against Auburn.  Monk got injured - first her knee and then her right hand which was broke for the rest of the season.  In that loss, Monk got 2 points and Chelsea go 41.  From that point on, Chelsea averaged 25+ points per game for our last 13 games while Monk averaged 8.1 for the remaining SEC games plus the SEC tournament and 9.8 points per game if you include the three NIT games where she played like she did before the injury in spite of having a broken hand.
With Monk injured and really no other consistent scorer, Chelsea had to pick up the slack. 
This year Ramirez will easily replace Monk's scoring but in a different way - pushing Chelsea for leading scorer.  Barnum will push Williams and Thomas - also adding additional scoring.  We lost Bailey and RNB off the bench who at best were not consistent scorers.  Davis and Rokia will push Tolefree to be a more consistent scorer or she will see a lot of bench time.  Throw in AT and Daniels and I can see us easily averaging 80+ points per game, but Chelsea not averaging 25+ as teams would double and triple team her and others will be open and have the ability to score including Mason if the defense concentrates on Chelsea.  It will be an exciting season if everyone remains healthy and accepts their role which might be difficult with so many talented players.

what you say is true, however, I would add a couple of points.  Although Chelsea is very much the team player, she has always been a team leader as well.  its difficult to be that as a freshman at OU or as a transfer to begin with here for the first half of the year.  But coach is famous for asking just a little bit more out of his players.  I think he asked more of Dungee.  Whether he did or not the circumstances demanded it.  She stepped up her scoring because it was required simple as that.  She gave the others the chance first though.  But even when she picked it up, she wasn't a ball hog, she also threw dimes.   But by the way the back side generally cleared, you can tell that most of her drives were coach designed, hence very much teach oriented as well. 

Tolefree is a streak shooter it appears, my hope is that she does get pushed but more than that, she is finally comfortable with the team and her role and she can play lights out as she continues to get better defensively and not gamble so much but just play hard nosed defense.

AT is better than some of you apparently think she is too.  I think she will either be a starter or the sixth woman.  That role could be Tolefree's too, however.  You might remember Vinnie JOhnson from Baylor, the Microwave.  He came in hot and brought a lot of scoring.  Tolefree could be that.  But its not even impossible that a freshman could start and both AT and Tolefree could come off the bench as the nucleus of the second wave.  Chemistry wise that would have its benefits. 

Mason is just good and steady.  Good on offense and defense, and rarely makes mistakes.  The games where she hit three or four threes certainly helped and that will help again this year.  But I think she steps it up her final year as well.  As far as Dungee and trick defenses, yes she will step up her assists, but she will also continue to drive (and score from the line as she picks up fouls on the opposition).  I dont think most teams will fare much better than SC in the tournament at that (some will most wont).  They didn't come out of the box and one because they felt charitable, they came out because Chelsea got three of their players in foul trouble.  One result of the box and one was 13 shots from the line that night.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2019, 08:52:33 pm by flippinhogmana »
Logged

LadybackBBFan

Re: women's BB scoring averages
« Reply #3 on: September 01, 2019, 04:08:54 pm »

Quote from Flippin: AT is better than some of you apparently think she is too.  I think she will either be a starter or the sixth woman. 
I also think At is a very good player and a valuable asset for the team but she has limits that you fail to take into account with your reasoning.  Coach likes two type of shots - layups with or without being falled and 3 point shots.  He does not like 2 point jump shots which is what AT excels at.  She is not a three point shooter.  She played 391 minutes last year and took 10 - 3 pt. shots making 2.  Contrast that to Grace Spangler who played a whole 37 minutes and took 14 making 7.  Rokia even took 13 in 133 minutes.  Raven played an equal amount of minutes - 410 - and took 95.  AT will not beat out Ramirez as the starter -Ramirez, Mason and Dungee are the sure starters, but the only ones.  AT needs to be comfortable with the role that she best helps this team and that is to provide a spark and speed off the bench while giving Ramirez a rest.
Logged

flippinhogmana

  • Hall of Fame Hogvillian
  • *******
  • Total likes: 259
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 8,075
  • Nathan J Allison - Brothers to the Bone Books
Re: women's BB scoring averages
« Reply #4 on: September 01, 2019, 05:20:07 pm »

Quote from Flippin: AT is better than some of you apparently think she is too.  I think she will either be a starter or the sixth woman. 
I also think At is a very good player and a valuable asset for the team but she has limits that you fail to take into account with your reasoning.  Coach likes two type of shots - layups with or without being falled and 3 point shots.  He does not like 2 point jump shots which is what AT excels at.  She is not a three point shooter.  She played 391 minutes last year and took 10 - 3 pt. shots making 2.  Contrast that to Grace Spangler who played a whole 37 minutes and took 14 making 7.  Rokia even took 13 in 133 minutes.  Raven played an equal amount of minutes - 410 - and took 95.  AT will not beat out Ramirez as the starter -Ramirez, Mason and Dungee are the sure starters, but the only ones.  AT needs to be comfortable with the role that she best helps this team and that is to provide a spark and speed off the bench while giving Ramirez a rest.

just because I dont list a player's deficiencies doesn't mean that I dont know them or factor them.  For the present she AT has a drive first, (midrange game second) point guard approach.  But she was less likely to charge that was MM and she played better as the year went on (as a number of our players did, including Spangler.  In fact if you take Spangler's stats from the NIT out of the equation she doesn't look nearly as good in the scenario you cite).  Ultimately your diagnosis is probably spot on, I just dont want it to be a foregone conclusion.  But there is much to yet be decided/proven.

I am less concerned about guard play and shooters than I am about the front line and particularly Barnum and the recovery of Weaver.  If we have three or four inside players and at least one of them is a better scorer than we had last year (likely Barnum would have to fill that role if it is to be filled by who we have on the roster) it wont take much to push us into the top three or four in the conference as Psych previously suggested.  The top three or four in the conference, imho, is in the top 25 in the nation in the coming year.

I do think that AR will be the starter just for the record, its just a matter of whether she is from day one or not, Amber hasnt played in a whole year and she will have to get back into the swing of things and into game shape as well. 
Logged

LadybackBBFan

Re: women's BB scoring averages
« Reply #5 on: September 02, 2019, 08:39:48 am »

Remember she practiced the whole year with them - just like Chelsea and AT did the year before.  She also has been the hardest worker outside of practice time.
Logged

nwahogfan1

Re: women's BB scoring averages
« Reply #6 on: September 02, 2019, 09:29:07 am »

I am not a fan of Tolefree's game so I am hoping someone(s) will get most of her minutes.   She shoots both her 2s and 3s for under 30%, 2 TOs for every assist, not a good rebounder or defensive player. 

I would only play her a few minutes a half hoping she will come off the bench with a hot hand.  If she does then extend her minutes but if not then set her back down.   
Logged

nwahogfan1

Re: women's BB scoring averages
« Reply #7 on: September 02, 2019, 09:51:01 am »

This year we have 6 ladies who are 6'0 and taller and except for 6'3 Weaver and Oberg they are all very athletic so I like that we now have allot more competition in practice for PT.   Weaver probable needs to RS and get stronger so she can be more physical but I do not see that happening.  What I see is Neighbors recruiting better 4/5's. 

I am curious how ready Oberg is??  I am hearing many on here saying she needs to RS.   I am hoping if her back is completely well her helping us down low. 

She has a big body so hoping she can play several inches taller than her height  We sure could use her against those 6'6 centers.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2019, 10:03:22 am by nwahogfan1 »
Logged

flippinhogmana

  • Hall of Fame Hogvillian
  • *******
  • Total likes: 259
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 8,075
  • Nathan J Allison - Brothers to the Bone Books
Re: women's BB scoring averages
« Reply #8 on: September 04, 2019, 01:58:35 am »

Some players do more scoring than others in terms of minutes played, but generally the more you are on the court the higher your ppg average is likely to be if you are prone to score.  You sure cant score from the bench. 

So, the way I read the various skills of the individual players, I will lay out in as best a quantifiable way as I can.  Lets give one point to those players who have demonstrated their ability to create their own shot, those that can hit from the three, those who can hit mid range on the run, and who can dish on the way to the basket.   We should also have points for superior one on one defense, rebounding, those that create team chemistry, and one point perhaps for intangibles.  The freshmen and those who have yet to have significant playing time at D! level cannot score as high even though they might wind up getting more playing time meritoriously as they prove themselves in the non-conference season.

Chelsea Dungee (1) should get as many as 7-8 points in this scale.  Her defense has some weakness depending on what position she is required to play.  At the four a star player such as Harrigan for SC out rebounds her and can score over her (Chelsea still scores on her however).  But its a given that CD get max playing time apart from injury or fouls.

Amber Ramirez (2) might work out to be our best on ball defender and best three point shooter that doesn't have to be set up particularly and who has max range, who can also drive for midrange shots and who can dish on the drive or take it all the way to the hole.  Imho she scores almost equal to, or maybe even higher than CD but will still has to prove it on the court for us (not just in HS, team USA, or TCU).  7-8 and will have max playing time with the same qualifications as CD.

Jailyn Mason (3) - 5-7 doesnt demonstrate the same drive/dish capabilities as the top two but makes few mistakes and who hits from the three as a spot up shooter (from someone else's dish usually) or can drive for the midrange shot, but who doesnt take it all the way to the hole except on a fast break.  Defense is good and she is a very good team player, should be number three in minutes generally.

Alexis Tolefree (4) - 4-7 - biggest knock on Alexis is her defense and her streaky shooting (although imho she got better in the  2nd half of the season on both accounts for various reasons, some of which was due to her efforts, some of which was due to CD's changed role making more spot ups for her).  She like Mason is a good spot up three shooter generally but can also take it all the way to the hole despite being only 5-6.

A. Gaulden - (5) 3-6, doesnt have the range for the three pointer as yet but she was imho a better driver and disher than MM last year.  She is a decent rebounder and on ball defender for her size.  Decent team player.

K.  Wiliams (6) - 3-5 doesnt have the green light to shoot from the arc but is our best demonstrated inside player on both offense and defense.  Her playing time will largely be impacted by fouls or just rotation.  Depending on how well Barnum fits into the rotation and performs, it is likely that Williams will get just over half of the remaining minutes at the five spot.

T. Taylor (7)3-4 same limitations as Williams.  Both Taylah and Kiara run the floor well and can be fed the ball on the break or can get follow-up boards

positions 8, 9, 10, and 11 are likely to be highly situation from game to game and based on matchups, fouls, injuries.

Rokia (8-9 in rotation) 3-4 pts (or 2-3) is a true lefty which gives her an advantage on the baseline (at least on one side) for both driving and passing.  However, she has to control her tendency to make unforced errors or to put up ill advised shots if she is going to inspire the coaches for more playing time.  She like Tolefree is not guaranteed even the amount of playing time she got last year because of us having more depth this year.  Someone described her as raw and that she is.  She has a lot of upside and this is the year she needs to work hard on her own to develop that.  But she is a superior athlete and could develop to the the sixth woman just as much as several other woman might.

Spangler, ((9-12) 2-3, which Grayce Spangler shall we see this year?  Will it be the one who found her range in the NIT, or will it be the one we saw the rest of the year before that?  She has some similar qualities (a lot of drive that can lead to wild shots and gambling on defense) as Rokia.  She could emerge some more this year, I wouldn't put it past her, but then neither would I bet the farm on her getting much more playing time that last year unless its just because we blow more people out this year over last.

Davis (9-11) - unknown quantity although the physical skills are there.  I am not one who automatically transfers performance at a lower level to there predictability in D-1.  About the only player I have done that with is Dungee but I observed her over a four year HS career and one year of D-1 at OU.  I sometime equate some level of Juco performance similar although we have generally not fared particularly well with juco all-americans such as Alecia Cooley, Devon Cosper, and the latest Alexis Tolefree.  its just a different stage and the competition they are going against is much higher, and it is doubly so for HS to D1. 

Daniels (9-11) skill level and size puts her very much in the mold of Amber R, AT, and MM.  She should get significant playing time if Davis gets playing time at the three and particularly the four position and if Weaver and Oberg dont get a lot of playing time in front of Davis to lead to DAvis getting playing time at the three only. 
Still she will be playing behind at least two point guards most of the time (AT and AR) or at the two guard spot, at least JM, or more depending on how much CD might move to the three spot and tolefree might go to the two.

Barnum (imho only, as previously stated dont have much data to base this on) (8-9)  lot of upside shown in HS in skill level and body type for this offense.  A lot of perseverance shown otherwise.  I am guess she gets number 8 minutes for no other reason than she will be given the opportunity with Williams and Thomas foul trouble and energy expenditure to show her stuff.  If her long arms and ability to cut into passing lanes solidifies her playing time, she can earn more playing time if she shows expanded scoring ability and doesn't make mistakes.   




Logged

LadybackBBFan

Re: women's BB scoring averages
« Reply #9 on: September 04, 2019, 09:14:09 am »

From an outsider's view (one who has not seen all of the players as Flippin readily admits), Flippin's analysis is pretty good.  Where we differ, I believe it is because of two factors: I have seen two players play that Flippin has not - Barnum and Davis.  In addition, I have the benefit of hearing coach Neighbors and Schaffer comments on players and what they can and can not do.  I have listened to them for two years - sometimes disagreeing with their comments but finally coming to realize that they have never mislead the fans and have so far always been spot on with their comments which for the most part have been spoken in public - not just to me.  That is why I am so confident about Ramirez.  I also have confidence in Davis and Barnum because I have  both seen them play and heard the coaches comments about them.  I believe both will be in the top 8 rotation.  Daniels has the potential to push for playing time as both a backup to Ramirez and also Mason.  I agree with all the points that Flippin said on Rokia, but coach said she will be ready this year.  The second year is where most players make their big jump if they are going to do that.  Regarding freshman - Flippin has a thing about them not being ready to play.  Most players who are going to have a significant career are ready to play as freshman - there are exceptions but they are few.  Mason started as a freshman over some good sophomores who had significant playing time as freshmen - Danbury.  As far as Spangler - her minutes will be no better than last year - maybe less as we have more players.
Logged

flippinhogmana

  • Hall of Fame Hogvillian
  • *******
  • Total likes: 259
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 8,075
  • Nathan J Allison - Brothers to the Bone Books
Re: women's BB scoring averages
« Reply #10 on: September 04, 2019, 09:25:08 pm »



Well my dear sister coach, I might just be at a bit more variance with you on this one than our usual one tenth of one per cent.  You state that I have a thing about freshmen players.  But in reality it is about unproven players in a new system at a new level.  Guys like Eddie Sutton had the same 'thing" .  That is not to say that I didnt play them or wouldnt play them.  But I have always tried to put the best team on the floor, not just the best players I had.  Players who dont make mistakes and who play disciplined (even if they arent quite as physically talented) sometimes add to the team more than some who turn the ball over at inopportune times or who gamble on defense, etc.

You also say:   In addition, I have the benefit of hearing coach Neighbors and Schaffer comments on players and what they can and can not do.  I have listened to them for two years - sometimes disagreeing with their comments but finally coming to realize that they have never mislead the fans and have so far always been spot on with their comments which for the most part have been spoken in public - not just to me.  That is why I am so confident about Ramirez.  I also have confidence in Davis and Barnum because I have  both seen them play and heard the coaches comments about them.  I believe both will be in the top 8 rotation.

In rating both freshmen you mention in the top eight, you are demoting (one would presume) Rokia.  If this is the year she is to have the most growth (and I dont disagree with your assessment on that) then she is likely to be the number eighth player barring injury to her or one of the ones in the depth chart above her. 

Coach N also said that we would need a couple of these freshmen (one assumes he meant Davis and Danels, and that "he didnt bring them here just to 'wave a towel', so you arent far off regardless.  They might be nine and ten (as I figure them to be) but not too far from the top eight as you suggest unless other players really turn it on.  We will soon see, but aren't we all excited on how it will play out this year?

Logged

LadybackBBFan

Re: women's BB scoring averages
« Reply #11 on: September 06, 2019, 02:54:01 pm »

Flippin, I read your comments to assume that players who were starters last year are assumed to be automatically starters this year and sixth and seventh players are automatically assumed to be there or better this year.  Let's see, BZ was a starter in Mike's first year but Chelsea replaced her in the second year.  I believe there are 10 or 11 players who have a chance to be in the top 8.  We have six back from the top 8 last year - that gives room for only two new ones according to my understanding of your analysis.  I guarantee that Ramirez and Barnum will be in that top 8.  All I am saying is that Rokia, Davis and Daniels all have a chance to also be in the top 8.  However, this year it might be a top 10 - I doubt that we will go 11 deep on a regular basis.  As you say, "we will soon see, but aren't we all excited on how it will play out this year".
Logged

flippinhogmana

  • Hall of Fame Hogvillian
  • *******
  • Total likes: 259
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 8,075
  • Nathan J Allison - Brothers to the Bone Books
Re: women's BB scoring averages
« Reply #12 on: September 06, 2019, 05:28:29 pm »

Flippin, I read your comments to assume that players who were starters last year are assumed to be automatically starters this year and sixth and seventh players are automatically assumed to be there or better this year.  Let's see, BZ was a starter in Mike's first year but Chelsea replaced her in the second year.  I believe there are 10 or 11 players who have a chance to be in the top 8.  We have six back from the top 8 last year - that gives room for only two new ones according to my understanding of your analysis.  I guarantee that Ramirez and Barnum will be in that top 8.  All I am saying is that Rokia, Davis and Daniels all have a chance to also be in the top 8.  However, this year it might be a top 10 - I doubt that we will go 11 deep on a regular basis.  As you say, "we will soon see, but aren't we all excited on how it will play out this year".

No automatics, except CD, AR and JM nearly are.  I assume (based on past performance and skill sets) they will all be starters and in the top 3 almost certainly.  From there my analysis is mainly on last years stats which was either one year or in some cases two years of playing (either in game time or game time plus transfer practice time) in Mke's system. 

Consider Gaulden.  I probed a bit deeper into individual stats and noticed that despite having significantly less playing time per game and overall, she was less that three-quarters of one assist per game behind MM who was our assist leader.  or consider Tolefree in the steal department.  She actually led us in steals despite the fact that imho she needs to pick up her one on one defense (her on ball defense).   So, looking at their overall stats, including them in the top eight, possibly in the top six, isnt too much of a stretch.   

That isnt to say that someone such as Barnum couldnt bust through and become even in the top five, not just the top eight or nine.  I think that Barnum has a better chance to be ranked ahead of Daniels and Davis, not because she would be any better than them, but for two different reasons:  First, there is such a critical need for her length and skill set at her position and two, she has a year in redshirt of already playing in this system:  Including as Mike says that 'they could keep her from scoring".  Finally with her agility and length she might produce the same sort of match up problems that CD does. 

I see the possibilities in her, that you have always mentioned.  But for the first probably two-thirds of the season last year I saw a lot of possibilities in Tolefree but otherwise except for a glimpse here or there in a game or two, she didn't show us much.  But her, Dungee and mason then seemed to get it all together at the same time and off they went like a rocket. 

I dont rule similar performances out for anyone.  All I generally say is that the players seem to require a period of adjustment to each other and to Mike's concept, so the ones who have at least one year in system have some advantage.  Maybe the size of the fight in Davis and Daniels could overcome that, I dont know.  But they will get more opportunities in following years if they dont accomplish all they want individually this year.
Logged

flippinhogmana

  • Hall of Fame Hogvillian
  • *******
  • Total likes: 259
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 8,075
  • Nathan J Allison - Brothers to the Bone Books
Re: women's BB scoring averages
« Reply #13 on: September 10, 2019, 10:48:18 am »

It is interesting to note that the appx. combined minutes of Malica Monk, Zimmermann, RNB and Stout is sixty (just over).  Thats actually 62 minutes available from departing players, add the past minutes of players returning who had lesser roles and you come up to appx. 90 minutes average per game total.

Assuming that CD stays at 30+-35, Mason stays at 30, Tolefree stays at 24, Williams stay at 21, and TT at 17, AT goes up a bit to  20, you take a little more than five from the 90, or down to no more than 80-85.  Assuming that Amber takes MM's time if not more (30 minutes), and the pool is reduced to 50-55 minutes per game to parcel out among Davis, Daniels, Barnum, Spangler (3 min), Weaver (4+), Oberg, Reece and RD (who averaged just under six this year). 

My best guess is that Davis will start out with about 10, the same for Daniels, and the same for both Rokia and Barnum, they can/will prove themselves and self allocate pt from there.  That takes up all but ten minutes or so for Spangler, Weaver, Oberg, and Reece (avg 2.5 +)
Logged

LadybackBBFan

Re: women's BB scoring averages
« Reply #14 on: September 10, 2019, 03:49:02 pm »

It is interesting to note that the appx. combined minutes of Malica Monk, Zimmermann, RNB and Stout is sixty (just over).  Thats actually 62 minutes available from departing players, add the past minutes of players returning who had lesser roles and you come up to appx. 90 minutes average per game total.

Assuming that CD stays at 30+-35, Mason stays at 30, Tolefree stays at 24, Williams stay at 21, and TT at 17, AT goes up a bit to  20, you take a little more than five from the 90, or down to no more than 80-85.  Assuming that Amber takes MM's time if not more (30 minutes), and the pool is reduced to 50-55 minutes per game to parcel out among Davis, Daniels, Barnum, Spangler (3 min), Weaver (4+), Oberg, Reece and RD (who averaged just under six this year). 

My best guess is that Davis will start out with about 10, the same for Daniels, and the same for both Rokia and Barnum, they can/will prove themselves and self allocate pt from there.  That takes up all but ten minutes or so for Spangler, Weaver, Oberg, and Reece (avg 2.5 +)
Flippin, I know you were not a math major.  We played 37 games and not everyone got into games.  Take Stout for instance, she averaged 2.5 minutes for 15 games which is an average of 1 minute for the 37 game schedule.  The bottom four all have similar analysis.  If you just add up the minutes/game for all of the players on the roster - you will see that you come up with a per game average of 212.1 minutes per game while we only have 200 minutes available every game.  Granted we did have 25 extra minutes in our 37 games due to either overtime.  That equates to an available 200.675 minutes per game - not 212.1.
Due to the talent level that we have this year and the depth that we have, I believe that in all likely - the top seven that you mention will all have their minutes go down.  The only returning player that I believe minutes will definitely go up is Rokia plus the number of games that she plays in will be significantly higher than last year - probably every game unless she is injured like AT was this year.  You have significantly underestimated the minutes that Barnum, Davis and Rokia will get.  It would not surprise me if that is not the case for Daniels also, but as we say we will soon see.  Players who only play in a few games - their minutes per game is not a stat worth talking about as it does not mean anything.  A significant injury to one or more key players can throw all of our predictions out the window
Logged

flippinhogmana

  • Hall of Fame Hogvillian
  • *******
  • Total likes: 259
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 8,075
  • Nathan J Allison - Brothers to the Bone Books
Re: women's BB scoring averages
« Reply #15 on: September 11, 2019, 01:59:48 am »

yeah, hence the use of the word appx.  In addition, the use of the word (with four of them, to start with).  You well know that Mike has tendencies that he has gone back to each of the past two years that also goes back to his previous coaching experience (and yours or mine for that matter).

The prudent coach slowly but surely is apt to retreat to proven, reliable players in crunch time, particularly as it gets into conference play.  Mike has started the exhibition games and then the non-conference schedule with a liberal use of players (more minutes for minor and new players).  I will buy you a steak dinner if he doesnt do the same next year. 

He has said (albeit it was last year and might have something to do with his available roster but based on his track record at Washington and the amount of players he played as the season went on there, I dont think so) you only want to play no more than eight or nine players as a rotation.  He said that in an interview.  It fits the way he manages a game (and again, I doubt it is all that dissimilar to the way you or I managed a game).

There is always a tension between how much to develop younger players and how much you develop the team in any given year.  We have also talked about this.  I tend to give younger players a bit more time (knowing I am not developing them for the present year but years to come, but being careful how much I can do that), I am not sure how much Mike is going to do that much.  I can only look to how he coached at Washington and he didnt have a deep rotation there despite the fact that he had higher ranked recruited players and more of them. 

But we will also know in about two or at most three months how Mike is going to play it.  With respect to Rokia and Barnum, if they get more minutes, fine.  I am sure if they do if will lift us as a team because I am equally sure that the minutes wont just have been handed to them but that they will have earned them with their on court play.   It should be a given that the same applies to Davis, Daniels or any other player.
Logged

LadybackBBFan

Re: women's BB scoring averages
« Reply #16 on: September 11, 2019, 07:50:39 am »


Quote: "With respect to Rokia and Barnum, if they get more minutes, fine.  I am sure if they do if will lift us as a team because I am equally sure that the minutes wont just have been handed to them but that they will have earned them with their on court play.   It should be a given that the same applies to Davis, Daniels or any other player."
Flippin, finally something we can agree upon.  Our difference is that I have confidence that they will earn it and also because players that you have a head of them have deficiencies.
Logged

flippinhogmana

  • Hall of Fame Hogvillian
  • *******
  • Total likes: 259
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 8,075
  • Nathan J Allison - Brothers to the Bone Books
Re: women's BB scoring averages
« Reply #17 on: September 11, 2019, 08:12:51 am »

Quote: "With respect to Rokia and Barnum, if they get more minutes, fine.  I am sure if they do if will lift us as a team because I am equally sure that the minutes wont just have been handed to them but that they will have earned them with their on court play.   It should be a given that the same applies to Davis, Daniels or any other player."
Flippin, finally something we can agree upon.  Our difference is that I have confidence that they will earn it and also because players that you have a head of them have deficiencies.

Because I had followed Chelsea Dungee for years before she got here I had much more confidence in her than some.   Seeing a player and applying their skills to the areas that we know they will be tested in, but with some fore knowledge of how they will respond helps to that confidence (because we have seen them in applicable similar tests).  Its not always a guarantee that they will perform at the level we expect them too, but it certainly helps.

As I understand it you have seen Davis and Barnum play so I dont have any doubts about your assessment.  I am just unsure how much Mike will expand his past rotation.  If he increases it to a sold 10, then everything that you forecast will no doubt come to pass.  But if he continues to restrict it to seven, eight or at the most nine, every one of those restrictions gives the younger players less chance to prove themselves.  Thats what I leaned in calculus and trig, as well as my graduate level stat classes.

I really hope you are right, however.  For you to be right about the younger players means he will go with an increased rotation.  As good as Mason, Dungee and Ramirez can be playing 30-35 minutes, I think they can do nearly as much in 25-30.  The difference just puts the program a step ahead, or at least that is the way I always approached it when I had enough quality players (which wasnt as often as I would have liked). 


 

I dont always agree with MN if its any consolation!
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
 

KARK
KWNA
Fox 16 Arkansas