Women's Bball Loses to BC 67-56

[Chescat]

BC was clearly the better team. Pitt
playing without Harris is severely
weakened. BC had a player, Swartz
go off for 33 pts. She hit from
everywhere, FG's, 3's, and FT's.

As for Pitt, Everett had 22 and
was closely guarded. She single
handily brought the team back
to down only two at the half. I
was disappointed to see them
return to outta control.....not as
bad as before, but they have to
learn how to settle, before they
run and play such a fast pace
game.

Much work needs to be done for
these girls to improve. They're
young and played almost as well
as could be expected. today.
This might sound crazy, but IMO
the best thing they can do is
spend the off season playing
against guys on the playground.
Some of what they do makes me
scratch my head.....driving into
the lane stopping, and then
wondering what to do next. Emy
Hayford does this time and time
again. Coach has to break them
of this. I criticize Hayford's play
a lot. I see a very good and fast
athlete who is almost clueless
on the floor. Coach, get her
off the point and play her on the
wing. She can help there, she
can't run the offense.

The bigs need to do drills
catching the ball and also doing
repeated putbacks. There's many
drills for this stuff. I hope coach
can recruit a transfer big who
can play immediately.

 

[gary2]

BC was clearly the better team. Pitt
playing without Harris is severely
weakened. BC had a player, Swartz
go off for 33 pts. She hit from
everywhere, FG's, 3's, and FT's.

As for Pitt, Everett had 22 and
was closely guarded. She single
handily brought the team back
to down only two at the half. I
was disappointed to see them
return to outta control.....not as
bad as before, but they have to
learn how to settle, before they
run and play such a fast pace
game.

Much work needs to be done for
these girls to improve. They're
young and played almost as well
as could be expected. today.
This might sound crazy, but IMO
the best thing they can do is
spend the off season playing
against guys on the playground.
Some of what they do makes me
scratch my head.....driving into
the lane stopping, and then
wondering what to do next. Emy
Hayford does this time and time
again. Coach has to break them
of this. I criticize Hayford's play
a lot. I see a very good and fast
athlete who is almost clueless
on the floor. Coach, get her
off the point and play her on the
wing. She can help there, she
can't run the offense.

The bigs need to do drills
catching the ball and also doing
repeated putbacks. There's many
drills for this stuff. I hope coach
can recruit a transfer big who
can play immediately.

Agree on both Hayford and the need for a transfer big.

I would like to see a shorter, more defined rotation.

 

[HailToPitt725]

For those that follow the women’s program, how would you assess the job that White has done? Obviously it hasn’t led to many wins, but is there progress being made? By the way, I keep up with them based off the posts made here.... thanks for keeping me updated!

 

[MajorMajors]

I was very disappointed that they didn’t play better this season. Not much improvement at all in how they played.

Jayla Everett was a great addition to the team, but the good news pretty much stops there.

Day Harris played very much like she’s still a true freshmen, except for a couple of games. Too many turnovers and dribbling into trouble.

Our bigs struggled - but at least we have some bigs. Rita needs to work on her hands - and she’s a step slow. Cynthia is a nice rebounder, but is limited offensively. Hueston didn’t play her senior HS year, which may explain her lack of impact.

AB struggled with scoring in close. Emy looked a bit better, but way to many turnovers and no outside shot.

Everyone on the team seemed to show flashes of good play, but no long term consistency...

Next season will tell the tale. They will be Juniors and Sophs, versus Sophs and Frosh. Lots of work to do. A big with an offensive game would do wonders...

Go Pitt.

 

[gary2]

I was very disappointed that they didn’t play better this season. Not much improvement at all in how they played.

Jayla Everett was a great addition to the team, but the good news pretty much stops there.

Day Harris played very much like she’s still a true freshmen, except for a couple of games. Too many turnovers and dribbling into trouble.

Our bigs struggled - but at least we have some bigs. Rita needs to work on her hands - and she’s a step slow. Cynthia is a nice rebounder, but is limited offensively. Hueston didn’t play her senior HS year, which may explain her lack of impact.

AB struggled with scoring in close. Emy looked a bit better, but way to many turnovers and no outside shot.

Everyone on the team seemed to show flashes of good play, but no long term consistency...

Next season will tell the tale. They will be Juniors and Sophs, versus Sophs and Frosh. Lots of work to do. A big with an offensive game would do wonders...

Go Pitt.

I think you touched on all points. Good post.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

BC was clearly the better team. Pitt
playing without Harris is severely
weakened. BC had a player, Swartz
go off for 33 pts. She hit from
everywhere, FG's, 3's, and FT's.

I didn't see it, but I was following along with the Gamecast at work.

Swartz didn't even really shoot the ball all that well. I mean she was 4-8 on threes, which is certainly good but not otherwordly. And she was only 3-9 on twos. But she got to the line 16 times and made 15 of them. I can only surmise that whomever Pitt had trying to guard her failed miserably.

At one point about three minutes into the 2nd quarter BC had somehow only made 4 shots and yet had a 10 point lead. BC shot 24% in the first half, 7-29, and yet was leading by 2 points. And that came after a 13-0 Pitt run to end the 2nd quarter.

In the end, Pitt had six players, Ezeja, Clesca, King, Green, Hueston and Strother who played a combined total of around 74 minutes, or in other words the equivalent of two full time players, and those six combined for 2 points, a basket by Ezeja late in the 4th quarter. Those six were a combined 1-16 from the field. You just can't win when you essentially have two positions on the court at all times that are not scoring any points at all.

And of course the turnovers. Yikes! 22 for the game. And there is no better way to ensure that you don't get off to a good start than 6 turnovers in the first 5 minutes of the game. No wonder they fell behind so far so fast.

 

[gary2]

I didn't see it, but I was following along with the Gamecast at work.

Swartz didn't even really shoot the ball all that well. I mean she was 4-8 on threes, which is certainly good but not otherwordly. And she was only 3-9 on twos. But she got to the line 16 times and made 15 of them. I can only surmise that whomever Pitt had trying to guard her failed miserably.

At one point about three minutes into the 2nd quarter BC had somehow only made 4 shots and yet had a 10 point lead. BC shot 24% in the first half, 7-29, and yet was leading by 2 points. And that came after a 13-0 Pitt run to end the 2nd quarter.

In the end, Pitt had six players, Ezeja, Clesca, King, Green, Hueston and Strother who played a combined total of around 74 minutes, or in other words the equivalent of two full time players, and those six combined for 2 points, a basket by Ezeja late in the 4th quarter. Those six were a combined 1-16 from the field. You just can't win when you essentially have two positions on the court at all times that are not scoring any points at all.

And of course the turnovers. Yikes! 22 for the game. And there is no better way to ensure that you don't get off to a good start than 6 turnovers in the first 5 minutes of the game. No wonder they fell behind so far so fast.

Maybe it is because we don't have anybody, but it looks like there is a lot of indecision on who to play and who to play together.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Maybe it is because we don't have anybody, but it looks like there is a lot of indecision on who to play and who to play together.

I don't think it's necessarily that. I mean it could be, but I think the more likely scenario is that they spent this season trying to get a lot of younger players a lot of playing time, because they knew that they weren't going to be all that good. I mean they could have played (when everyone was healthy) Harris, Everett, Green and Brown all 35 minutes per game, but in the long run what good does that do you? Maybe you win another game or two this season, but to what effect?

The best way to find out if Hayford and Ezeja and Clesca and Strother and King and, well, you get the idea, can play is by actually letting them play.

Generally speaking, I agree that playing 10 or 11 or even 12 on a regular basis is too many. But I can understand why this team this season is an exception to that.

 

[gary2]

I don't think it's necessarily that. I mean it could be, but I think the more likely scenario is that they spent this season trying to get a lot of younger players a lot of playing time, because they knew that they weren't going to be all that good. I mean they could have played (when everyone was healthy) Harris, Everett, Green and Brown all 35 minutes per game, but in the long run what good does that do you? Maybe you win another game or two this season, but to what effect?

The best way to find out if Hayford and Ezeja and Clesca and Strother and King and, well, you get the idea, can play is by actually letting them play.

Generally speaking, I agree that playing 10 or 11 or even 12 on a regular basis is too many. But I can understand why this team this season is an exception to that.

Sounds right - Thanks for the reply

 

[Chescat]

I don't think it's necessarily that. I mean it could be, but I think the more likely scenario is that they spent this season trying to get a lot of younger players a lot of playing time, because they knew that they weren't going to be all that good. I mean they could have played (when everyone was healthy) Harris, Everett, Green and Brown all 35 minutes per game, but in the long run what good does that do you? Maybe you win another game or two this season, but to what effect?

The best way to find out if Hayford and Ezeja and Clesca and Strother and King and, well, you get the idea, can play is by actually letting them play.

Generally speaking, I agree that playing 10 or 11 or even 12 on a regular basis is too many. But I can understand why this team this season is an exception to that.

I'll give you my take on your last
two posts.
First of all forget Swartz's stats.
Many of her pts' came when they
opened up their leads. She hit em
when they needed them. Her 3's
broke the game wide open. BTW
50% ain't bad. 15-16 FT's show
she can shoot. Initially she was
standing unguarded and hit em
when open. Late in the game
Everett guarded her and defensed
her better than the others. Of
course Everett is the only one
who knows what ball denial is.
A concept lost on the others.

TO's..22 is unheard of IMO. Emy
led the way with 6. Everett had
5, but hers are of a different variety.
She throws no look passes to bigs
who can't handle em, and she
passes of the dribble to a moving
target who can't handle it. She's
sometimes playing on another
level than her team mates.

Both you and Gary mentioned the
number of players actually getting
game time. You both made good
points IMO on "rotation" and numbers.
I think coach probably mentioned
early game time was available in
this program. He's also getting a good
look at them and getting them real
game time experience.

He also wants a fast pace of play.
The problem with that is you have to
know how to actually play the game
first. Often their fast play and fast
breaks fall apart because a number ,
of the players are clueless.

As far as coaching, I give him a pass
for now. Once they get more experience
and they're still doing what I see now,
then it becomes the coach's fault. I really
wonder about the amount of teaching
being done or not done. Not getting them
to settle, not getting them to pull up when
it's not there, insisting on Hayford at the
point, dribbling into the lane or to the
baseline and stopping without a clue
are happening over and over...THAT is
lack of coaching. They have good
athletes right now who can play to a
degree....let's see where they are
next year. Obvious need..... a legit big.

 

[gary2]

I'll give you my take on your last
two posts.
First of all forget Swartz's stats.
Many of her pts' came when they
opened up their leads. She hit em
when they needed them. Her 3's
broke the game wide open. BTW
50% ain't bad. 15-16 FT's show
she can shoot. Initially she was
standing unguarded and hit em
when open. Late in the game
Everett guarded her and defensed
her better than the others. Of
course Everett is the only one
who knows what ball denial is.
A concept lost on the others.

TO's..22 is unheard of IMO. Emy
led the way with 6. Everett had
5, but hers are of a different variety.
She throws no look passes to bigs
who can't handle em, and she
passes of the dribble to a moving
target who can't handle it. She's
sometimes playing on another
level than her team mates.

Both you and Gary mentioned the
number of players actually getting
game time. You both made good
points IMO on "rotation" and numbers.
I think coach probably mentioned
early game time was available in
this program. He's also getting a good
look at them and getting them real
game time experience.

He also wants a fast pace of play.
The problem with that is you have to
know how to actually play the game
first. Often their fast play and fast
breaks fall apart because a number ,
of the players are clueless.

As far as coaching, I give him a pass
for now. Once they get more experience
and they're still doing what I see now,
then it becomes the coach's fault. I really
wonder about the amount of teaching
being done or not done. Not getting them
to settle, not getting them to pull up when
it's not there, insisting on Hayford at the
point, dribbling into the lane or to the
baseline and stopping without a clue
are happening over and over...THAT is
lack of coaching. They have good
athletes right now who can play to a
degree....let's see where they are
next year. Obvious need..... a legit big.

Would the team be better if Harris and Hanford did not play?

 

[Chescat]

Would the team be better if Harris and Hanford did not play?

Harris HAS to play. She's a true player,
She was guilty of playing way too fast
and often outta control. That can be
controlled, and for a few games
before her injury she was slowing
down and settling. She went cold for
a few games, but came back as good
as ever. She's different than Everett,
but both of them do things you can't
coach. They are clearly our two most
talented players. If you can, re watch
the tourney win over N. D. She wins
the game by herself despite being
heavily guarded. That play is pure
talent. She and Everett could do that.

Hanford?..I guess you mean Hayford,
right? She as I've said over and over is
a good athlete, good co ordination and
very good speed. She's also quick which
in Bball is more important than pure speed.
Her main problem is she doesn't have a
good "feel" for the game. In fact, she's
often clueless out there. Also, as I've also
posted over and over, she needs to play
as an off guard, and out on the wing. She
simply is NOT a pg. Why Coach insists on
trying to develop her as one is baffling to
me. Just go back and watch the beginning
of the second half. We had climbed to within
two points. The second half starts with her
on the point, and we have no offensive flow
at all. Play her, but out on the wing. I
mentioned weeks ago on here, get Sandrine
Clesca on the point. He's finally done it.
Sorry for sounding like a know it all, but
some of this is Bball 101.

 

[gary2]

Harris HAS to play. She's a true player,
She was guilty of playing way too fast
and often outta control. That can be
controlled, and for a few games
before her injury she was slowing
down and settling. She went cold for
a few games, but came back as good
as ever. She's different than Everett,
but both of them do things you can't
coach. They are clearly our two most
talented players.

Hanford?..I guess you mean Hayford,
right? She as I've said over and over is
a good athlete, good co ordination and
very good speed. She's also quick which
in Bball is more important than pure speed.
Her main problem is she doesn't have a
good "feel" for the game. In fact, she's
often clueless out there. Also, as I've also
posted over and over, she needs to play
as an off guard, and out on the wing. She
simply is NOT a pg. Why Coach insists on
trying to develop her as one is baffling to
me. Just go back and watch the beginning
of the second half. We had climbed to within
two points. The second half starts with her
on the point, and we have no offensive flow
at all. Play her, but out on the wing. I
mentioned weeks ago on here, get Sandrine
Clesca on the point. He's finally done it.
Sorry for sounding like a know it all, but
some of this is Bball 101.

Harris can be vey good and she can play in a manner that hurts the team.

As you say, she was a tendency to be wild, she scores but generally has to take a lot of shots to get hers.

It is also lost on her that she is no longer the best player on the team.

Both Hayford and Cynthia have not played as well as I expected. I thought with their international play they would be more impactful.

Didn’t Cynthia score a good bit in international play?

My thinking was to take the wildness out of our teams play and build around Everett. Get a few more inside players and play more under control.

Just my opinion.

If you are small and get killed inside, you can not commit the turnovers we do. I don’t know that wild can be coached out of ones game. See Xavier Johnson.

 

[gary2]

Harris HAS to play. She's a true player,
She was guilty of playing way too fast
and often outta control. That can be
controlled, and for a few games
before her injury she was slowing
down and settling. She went cold for
a few games, but came back as good
as ever. She's different than Everett,
but both of them do things you can't
coach. They are clearly our two most
talented players. If you can, re watch
the tourney win over N. D. She wins
the game by herself despite being
heavily guarded. That play is pure
talent. She and Everett could do that.

Hanford?..I guess you mean Hayford,
right? She as I've said over and over is
a good athlete, good co ordination and
very good speed. She's also quick which
in Bball is more important than pure speed.
Her main problem is she doesn't have a
good "feel" for the game. In fact, she's
often clueless out there. Also, as I've also
posted over and over, she needs to play
as an off guard, and out on the wing. She
simply is NOT a pg. Why Coach insists on
trying to develop her as one is baffling to
me. Just go back and watch the beginning
of the second half. We had climbed to within
two points. The second half starts with her
on the point, and we have no offensive flow
at all. Play her, but out on the wing. I
mentioned weeks ago on here, get Sandrine
Clesca on the point. He's finally done it.
Sorry for sounding like a know it all, but
some of this is Bball 101.

Do you think Hayford will play any differently if they “tell” her she is off the point?

I don’t believe she is a spot up shooter. When she gets the ball in her hands she will be Xavier Johnson at the 2G.

 

[MajorMajors]

I’m puzzled as to Emy Hayford’s future role might be. I see her as a backup at the point to Day/Clesca/Everett, which would mean not a lot of minutes. She doesn’t seem to shoot well enough to play the two or wing.

And despite her athleticism, I’m not sure how well she defends - seems to foul a good bit when one-on-one...

Go Pitt.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

I’m puzzled as to Emy Hayford’s future role might be.

I agree with that. I think when they brought her in that what they were hoping is that she would develop into a good point guard, and I think that's why they keep trying to force her into that role. Because I don't think they (and I would agree with this) think that she is ever going to be a good enough shooter to play the two on a regular basis.

It would not surprise me at all if everyone comes back and is healthy that she has a hard time finding playing time next season.

 

[Chescat]

I agree with that. I think when they brought her in that what they were hoping is that she would develop into a good point guard, and I think that's why they keep trying to force her into that role. Because I don't think they (and I would agree with this) think that she is ever going to be a good enough shooter to play the two on a regular basis.

It would not surprise me at all if everyone comes back and is healthy that she has a hard time finding playing time next season.

Nobody has been as critical of Hayford's
play as I have been. I now will actually
surprise here. I do think she could play
(not as a starter) as an off guard. She
gets downcourt and out on the break,
she often gets by the defender with her
quickness. The problem is she has no
clue what to do in these situations. If
I were coaching her, I'd have her work
on a mid range jumper off the dribble.
She's quick and athletic enough to be a
good defender. She gets into the lane
with the ball often, then she stops. I've
never seen this in a player to the extent
that she does this. She can be taught to
break these habits. If she doesn't, then
sit her!

In the offseason I'd have her playing with
better players as much as possible. Court
awareness, vision, are intangibles that come
with playing experience. This stuff happens
in the off season. Players have been doing
it for years. You don't just come into the
season and learn this stuff. Anyone who's
played knows that players are made to a
great degree in the off season.

How she develops or not develops is not
just on her, but also on her coach.

 

[Chescat]

Both Hayford and Cynthia have not played as well as I expected. I thought with their international play they would be more impactful.

Didn’t Cynthia score a good bit in international play?

That's interesting Gary. I have no
knowledge of women's international
Bball. What I can say is, on the guys
side, international players are often
very good shooters. The international
game stresses that part of the game.

Cynthia "scoring a good bit in international
play?" Again no idea here, but I can't
imagine it after seeing her play here. Her
offensive play is basically non existent.
Watch her when she gets an offensive
rebound and what she does next. Her
putbacks are usually off balance. Yesterday
she went right up with a rebound,
unfortunately she was directly under
the basket. She jumped and then looked,
now what? She just threw it up with
no concept of a planned shot. The point?
she had no idea where she was. Court
awareness? ...not there.
So, what can she do? She's one hell
of a rebounder. She takes no crap
from anyone inside. She's tough.
Problem is...she's no big in a league
like the ACC. There's drills that
help with putbacks, she needs to
be doing them repeatedly during
the off season. Her lack of court
awareness can only be improved
by playing repeatedly with better
players, again.....in the offseason

Pitt needs legitimate bigs. Key word
is, legitimate. Every other ACC team
has at least one. Neither of ours are
what I would call a legitimate ACC big.

 

[gary2]

That's interesting Gary. I have no
knowledge of women's international
Bball. What I can say is, on the guys
side, international players are often
very good shooters. The international
game stresses that part of the game.

Cynthia "scoring a good bit in international
play?" Again no idea here, but I can't
imagine it after seeing her play here. Her
offensive play is basically non existent.
Watch her when she gets an offensive
rebound and what she does next. Her
putbacks are usually off balance. Yesterday
she went right up with a rebound,
unfortunately she was directly under
the basket. She jumped and then looked,
now what? She just threw it up with
no concept of a planned shot. The point?
she had no idea where she was. Court
awareness? ...not there.
So, what can she do? She's one hell
of a rebounder. She takes no crap
from anyone inside. She's tough.
Problem is...she's no big in a league
like the ACC. There's drills that
help with putbacks, she needs to
be doing them repeatedly during
the off season. Her lack of court
awareness can only be improved
by playing repeatedly with better
players, again.....in the offseason

Pitt needs legitimate bigs. Key word
is, legitimate. Every other ACC team
has at least one. Neither of ours are
what I would call a legitimate ACC big.

Maybe I am wrong about her being ascorer, but she was a starter for the U18 Greek National Team.

cynthia ezeja basketball - Bing images

 

[Chescat]

Maybe I am wrong about her being ascorer, but she was a starter for the U18 Greek National Team.

cynthia ezeja basketball - Bing images

You're probably right, and if you are,
that speaks volumes of the level of
play on that Greek National team.

I seriously doubt that any other ACC
team would even consider recruiting
her. My guess is there's only so many
bigs available (sound familiar?... think
Pitt's men's Bball team). She and
Igbokwe are bigs that Coach White
COULD recruit and sign.

 

[Chescat]

When she gets the ball in her hands she will be Xavier Johnson at the 2G.

The difference is, X is an incredibly
talented player. Of course we all
have seen Bad X. This is more of
an internal, mental, and emotional
issue with him IMO. The Good X,
and we've seen it on a number of
instances speaks to his talent level.

Ms Hayford right now is nowhere
near that talent level. She's nowhere
near an average starting guard
level in women's ACC play.

Anyway, I do get the point you're
making.

 

[MajorMajors]

Couple scary stats from this season:

Day and Emy — both 2 for 19 from 3.

Cynthia — 4 for 22 from the foul line.

Yikes!

Go Pitt.

 

[Chescat]

Couple scary stats from this season:

Day and Emy — both 2 for 19 from 3.

Cynthia — 4 for 22 from the foul line.

Yikes!

Go Pitt.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Day and Emy — both 2 for 19 from 3.

They had to tell Harris to stop shooting threes this year, because last year she shot 75 of them.

If she could get her three point percentage up to even around 32% so that people had to respect her shooting from out there she'd be so much better an overall player.

 

[MajorMajors]

They had to tell Harris to stop shooting threes this year, because last year she shot 75 of them.

If she could get her three point percentage up to even around 32% so that people had to respect her shooting from out there she'd be so much better an overall player.

I thought Day’s 3-point shooting improved at the end of her freshman season - and she really was a triple threat. But that progression certainly didn’t make it into this season.

Coach Mitchell said that Day needs to work hard all summer on her 3-point shooting so teams can’t just play off of her...

Go Pitt.

 

[Chescat]

I thought Day’s 3-point shooting improved at the end of her freshman season - and she really was a triple threat. But that progression certainly didn’t make it into this season.

Coach Mitchell said that Day needs to work hard all summer on her 3-point shooting so teams can’t just play off of her...

Go Pitt.

Coach White......her 3 pt. shooting
is only part of her issues.
- Slow down and take what's there,
don't force it; both on the break and
in the half court offense.
- Settle, and run the offense getting
your team mates more involved.
- Stop trying to dribble between
2 players doubling up on you.
- Continue to work on your pull
up jumper. It's there, take it.

Threes are important, but if other
teams continue to double up on
her, she won't be getting very many
three attempts. The issues I stated
above are IMO, as important or
even more important than threes.

Harris is a very talented player, but
real coaching would break her (and
others) of head scratching, repeatable,
habits that are all too evident with
this team.