Womens hoops continues to suck now down 40

[Chescat]

Okay, maybe we can win a game in the ACC. That is, if Liatu doesn’t get totally worn out!

So Liatu scored 34. The other 4 starters scored a total of 5 points. Huh?

The bench scored 27 points. What Liatu is doing is amazing.

Go Pitt.

Ok, now that you've brought this up.....consider the
two frosh guards. They came in the game when we were
getting blown out. They played the last three Qrts. Both
of them Battle and Timmerson made a huge difference.
I already posted about Marley and Perkins in above
post. We suddenly became a whole different team when
they sat. Let's see who Verdi goes with out front from now
on. To me it's obvious, Battle and Timmerson.

As for King.....once again, she's a legit ACC talent.

 

[whirlybird optio]

I talked about that in one of my other posts up above. It boggles my mind when coaches do that, and yet it seems like women's coaches do that on a pretty frequent basis. Almost like it's unsporting to foul in the women's game or something. It really makes no sense, and tonight it absolutely reduced Pitt's chance to win.

I mean a win was unlikely any way, but you've got to foul there and extend the game. You just have to.

I don’t watch much women’s hoops…but is the reason that the free throw shooting is just better?

 

[Chescat]

I don’t watch much women’s hoops…but is the reason that the free throw shooting is just better?

The reason is simple......if you just sit back and don't
foul at that point in the game, you're not gonna get the
ball back. Even worse, you're conceeding defeat. You're
gambling that they might miss. Even if they do hit the
FTs you want the ball so you can go down and score, and
then go on D and maybe get a steal. It does happen, not
always of course, but it can, and it sometimes does. This
is basic stuff, not an opinion.

 

[whirlybird optio]

The reason is simple......if you just sit back and don't
foul at that point in the game, you're not gonna get the
ball back. Even worse, you're conceeding defeat. You're
gambling that they might miss. Even if they do hit the
FTs you want the ball so you can go down and score, and
then go on D and maybe get a steal. It does happen, not
always of course, but it can, and it sometimes does. This
is basic stuff, not an opinion.

Yea, I know. So why didn’t we foul?

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Notre Dame pulls away in the 4th by making 10 of 11 from the line. Notre Dame 71-66.

King finishes with 34 points on 13-18 from the field and 8-11 from the line, and had 13 rebounds, 2 assists, 3 blocks and 1 steal.

The end of this game was another example of a difference between men's and women's college basketball that I just don't understand. King made a layup with 38.6 seconds left in the game to cut ND's lead to five. And Pitt doesn't foul. They let ND run almost the whole 30 seconds off the clock before shooting. So yeah, they missed, and Pitt got the rebound, but by that time there were about 10 seconds left to go in the game. So you need to score five points in 10 seconds just to tie the game.

I see that all the time in the women's game, and I just don't get it. A men's coach that allowed the end of a game to play out like that would get roasted for it. But other than the PBP announcer saying that Pitt wasn't fouling (like she couldn't believe it) there will be nothing said.

Not fouling in that situation is crazy but maybe women are better FT shooters than men. What do the numbers say? So maybe women's coaches prefer to trust their defense instead of giving them an automatic 2. Men's players are pretty bad FT shooters on the average.

 

[Chescat]

The above recap of the last 38.6 seconds of the game is
exactly why we should have fouled. Don't foul and
you're basically conceeding defeat. No one has yet
explained why we stayed back in a zone during those
last few possessions. Oh wait, we weren't gonna foul
so stay in a zone. What? This logic is against anything
I've ever seen or been involved with when it comes to
bball.

Your idea about "women are better FT shooters than
men" is a ridiculous rational for no fouls, no double teams,
no pressure. But then again, maybe you stumbled on
something that to me goes against any bball logic in
situations like last night. If you're right, maybe we guys
ought to re read Men are From Mars, Women are From Venus.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

The above recap of the last 38.6 seconds of the game is
exactly why we should have fouled. Don't foul and
you're basically conceeding defeat. No one has yet
explained why we stayed back in a zone during those
last few possessions. Oh wait, we weren't gonna foul
so stay in a zone. What? This logic is against anything
I've ever seen or been involved with when it comes to
bball.

Your idea about "women are better FT shooters than
men" is a ridiculous rational for no fouls, no double teams,
no pressure. But then again, maybe you stumbled on
something that to me goes against any bball logic in
situations like last night. If you're right, maybe we guys
ought to re read Men are From Mars, Women are From Venus.

NBA players dont foul as much as college players towards the end of games and its because NBA players don't miss FTs. I dont know if women are better FT shooters than college men but I do know college men suck at it. So that could partially explain it. But in this scenario, you have to foul even if everyone is a 95% FT shooter.

 

[Chescat]

NBA players dont foul as much as college players towards the end of games and its because NBA players don't miss FTs. I dont know if women are better FT shooters than college men but I do know college men suck at it. So that could partially explain it. But in this scenario, you have to foul even if everyone is a 95% FT shooter.

What usually happens in a timeout huddle near
the end of the game is the coach telling his players
the following........first, go for the steal. If you don't
get the steal, foul them. They probably would go
either into a full court press, a double team, or both.
Regardless, you can't let them just sit on the ball and
drain the clock. Once again, a zone where they're just
sitting back there and watching? Never heard of it.


Like I said above, I don't get the women thing, nor do
I get they're better FT shooters. You gotta be proactive
in those situations. Be reactive and you conceed defeat.
It's really pretty simple, and very basic.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

I don’t watch much women’s hoops…but is the reason that the free throw shooting is just better?

maybe women are better FT shooters than men. What do the numbers say?

The women actually are, on the average, better foul shooters than the men. But the difference is only a couple of percentage points. Not nearly enough to completely change your end of game strategy.

I mean let's look at last night. There is no way, and I mean no way, that Pitt had a better chance to win of they didn't foul, even if Notre Dame was a good foul shooting team. If you let the clock run down, first of all if ND makes their shot then you lose. 100% guaranteed, you lose. But even if they miss the shot, you've got to get the ball up the court, make a shot, get a steal (or foul then, when the opponent making them again means you lose), get the ball up the court, and make another shot. And that might not even get you a win, but just overtime.

And Notre Dame actually isn't a particularly good foul shooting team. They make about 70% of their foul shots (a little below average for a college women's team). That means if you foul them there's about a 40% chance they miss one, and a 10% chance that they miss both (all numbers approximate). Sure, with that amount of time left if they do make them all then you aren't going to win. But you have to count on the fact that they actually aren't likely to make them all.

And of course you have to make shots, preferably threes. And Pitt didn't actually make any of them all game yesterday. So like I said, unlikely in any event. But you have to try. It might only be the difference between a 2% chance to win and a 4% chance to win, but you have to do it.

 

[Chescat]

But you have to try. It might only be the difference between a 2% chance to win and a 4% chance to win, but you have to do it.

TRY! That is the only thing that matters. If you don't you're conceeding
defeat. That is something no coach or player should ever do. I'm not
going to do an on line search for games that turned it around when it
appeared to probably be over. (Gary, you're good at that, wanna do it?)

It's happened, not often but sometimes with even lesser odds than last
night's game. What's the coach gonna say in the locker room? How about
this...... Ok girls! Good game, no one expected you to take it to em like that.
I didn't go for it at the end, because it was really just about over no matter
what we did.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

It's happened, not often but sometimes with even lesser odds than last
night's game.

Yeah, like I said, fouling probably only increases your chance to win by 1 or 2 or 3%, something like that. But that's still a 1 or 2 or 3% better chance than you have without fouling. You have to go for it.

And as I said, this isn't the first time I've seen it. I've seen Pitt do it with other coaches. I've seen other teams do it when they were losing to Pitt. I've seen it in games that don't involve Pitt at all. It's almost like there is some sort of "gentleman's agreement" that fouling like that is unsporting, so teams generally don't do it.

The odd thing is that you see men's teams fouling when there is no chance on god's green earth that they can come back and win. But they still do it. And then you have women's teams that don't do it when they should.

 

[Chescat]

Yeah, like I said, fouling probably only increases your chance to win by 1 or 2 or 3%, something like that. But that's still a 1 or 2 or 3% better chance than you have without fouling. You have to go for it.

And as I said, this isn't the first time I've seen it. I've seen Pitt do it with other coaches. I've seen other teams do it when they were losing to Pitt. I've seen it in games that don't involve Pitt at all. It's almost like there is some sort of "gentleman's agreement" that fouling like that is unsporting, so teams generally don't do it.

The odd thing is that you see men's teams fouling when there is no chance on god's green earth that they can come back and win. But they still do it. And then you have women's teams that don't do it when they should.

I basically agree with everything you're saying except I haven't
seen it all that often. I have seen it though. Good or bad FT
shooting in my mind should have nothing to do with it.

Jim Valvano's famous speech should resonate with every coach
and or player.......Don't give up, don't ever give up.
I realize Valvano's speech was over a far more important situation
than what's being discussed here, but still.

 

[Franb]

I basically agree with everything you're saying except I haven't
seen it all that often. I have seen it though. Good or bad FT
shooting in my mind should have nothing to do with it.

Jim Valvano's famous speech should resonate with every coach
and or player.......Don't give up, don't ever give up.
I realize Valvano's speech was over a far more important situation
than what's being discussed here, but still.

Right, FT shooting has nothing to do with end of game strategy, other than trying to foul the worst shooter. It is all about extending the game and getting more possessions. If it is a 2-possession game, you need 2 possessions, and the only way to do that is either with steals or fouls.

 

[mike412]

I think the reason they didn’t foul late was because the coach had conceded the game.

I watched the third and 4th quarters. With 4 players out, including 3 starters, ND was not a top 25 team. Still, we were up 50-49 when what for me were some agonizing and head scratching things happened.

First, their leading scorer had 4 fouls at that point. Yet, the rest of the game Pitt never took it to her; never tried to draw that 5th foul.

Second, for the next 7-plus minutes, ND scored every time they had possession. The defense was just terrible, and when ND missed the first shot, they got second and third shots. I don’t know if Pitt just was too tired to play defense or what. But, ND had a shorter bench than Pitt did because of the players who were out, and they kept playing hard.

Third, Pitt’s entire offense in the last 8 minutes was to get the ball to King. Clearly, she has to be the hub of the offense, but there have to be other options. Timmerson took one shot during that period and swished it. The announcers remarked what a pretty shooting stroke she had. But, there never was an attempt after that to get her the ball for a shot.

I would have thought being up on a ranked team at home, Pitt would have wanted it more, but they didn’t. They got beat to every loose ball, they didn’t grab a defensive rebound for more than 7 minutes, and the offense was 4 players watching King do her thing.

After how well they played in the 3rd quarter, the performance in the final 8 minutes was disheartening.

About Agnus, she did a good job at Pitt before and during the two straight NCAA appearances, but I think a lot of it was luck. She recruited two players who weren’t that highly recruited out of HS, and both turned out to be stars. She ended up with a team featuring a future WNBA player at PG and a Center who was immovable in the post because of her wide body. After they left, the program went downhill rapidly. She never capitalized on that success to recruit better and she never got lucky again with an underrecruited player.

 

[whirlybird optio]

I think the reason they didn’t foul late was because the coach had conceded the game.

I watched the third and 4th quarters. With 4 players out, including 3 starters, ND was not a top 25 team. Still, we were up 50-49 when what for me were some agonizing and head scratching things happened.

First, their leading scorer had 4 fouls at that point. Yet, the rest of the game Pitt never took it to her; never tried to draw that 5th foul.

Second, for the next 7-plus minutes, ND scored every time they had possession. The defense was just terrible, and when ND missed the first shot, they got second and third shots. I don’t know if Pitt just was too tired to play defense or what. But, ND had a shorter bench than Pitt did because of the players who were out, and they kept playing hard.

Third, Pitt’s entire offense in the last 8 minutes was to get the ball to King. Clearly, she has to be the hub of the offense, but there have to be other options. Timmerson took one shot during that period and swished it. The announcers remarked what a pretty shooting stroke she had. But, there never was an attempt after that to get her the ball for a shot.

I would have thought being up on a ranked team at home, Pitt would have wanted it more, but they didn’t. They got beat to every loose ball, they didn’t grab a defensive rebound for more than 7 minutes, and the offense was 4 players watching King do her thing.

After how well they played in the 3rd quarter, the performance in the final 8 minutes was disheartening.

About Agnus, she did a good job at Pitt before and during the two straight NCAA appearances, but I think a lot of it was luck. She recruited two players who weren’t that highly recruited out of HS, and both turned out to be stars. She ended up with a team featuring a future WNBA player at PG and a Center who was immovable in the post because of her wide body. After they left, the program went downhill rapidly. She never capitalized on that success to recruit better and she never got lucky again with an underrecruited player.

Their leading scorer, who had 4 fouls, didn’t play the rest of the game after she got her 4th foul due to an injury. So, not sure how you “take it to” a player on the bench lol.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Their leading scorer, who had 4 fouls, didn’t play the rest of the game after she got her 4th foul due to an injury. So, not sure how you “take it to” a player on the bench lol.

I'm guessing he means their leading scorer for the game, which was Hidalgo, but Hidalgo wasn't the leading scorer when Westbeld left the game. She became the leading scorer by scoring 11 points in the 4th when Westbeld was out of the game. She is also a guard, and it's a lot harder to "take it to her" when the player is a guard rather than an inside player.

Timmerson took one shot during that period and swished it. The announcers remarked what a pretty shooting stroke she had. But, there never was an attempt after that to get her the ball for a shot.

Timmerson has taken 15 shots all season. She's made four of them. Two of those four were on Thursday night. Of course they didn't try to get her the ball. She hasn't played a lot (even after 31 minutes on Thursday she's only played 104 minutes all season), when she does play she rarely shoots, and when she shoots she rarely makes them (26.7% from the field, 14.3% from three). Of course they aren't going to try to get her shots. And in any event, she was playing a lot at the point. If she wanted shots, as a point guard she sometimes needs to find her own shot. And she doesn't seem to have much interest in doing that. In time maybe she will. But not now.

 

[Chescat]

Speaking of Timmerson, she's gone from seeing
almost zero minutes to playing all of Qtrs 2, 3, and
4. She was paired up at that time with Battle, another
Frosh. When they entered the game we were getting
blown out. I posted above about this. Verdi has a
decision to make regarding these two. Stay with
Marley W and Perkins? Those two gave us nothing.
Start the two frosh? While I'm at it, Malcolm had a
terrible game against ND. She couldn't get off a shot
for most of the game, and then in the second half
she did get open, but missed wide open looks. I
know she's local and a fan favorite, but if she's not
hitting there's not much there because she's not only
slow, but more importantly not quick.

Again, Battle and Timmerson starting? At least Battle
should, and Timmerson should probably get more
minutes especially if Marley doesn't improve.

 

[Chescat]

And as I said, this isn't the first time I've seen it. I've seen Pitt do it with other coaches. I've seen other teams do it when they were losing to Pitt. I've seen it in games that don't involve Pitt at all. It's almost like there is some sort of "gentleman's agreement" that fouling like that is unsporting, so teams generally don't do it.

I responded back that I'd seen it but not often. Well, here
ya go. I started the thread about ST. John's and WVU a month
ago. The WVU coach did the the very same thing as Verdi against
ND. Not only that, he stayed in a zone the last 35 seconds, no foul,
no pressure, no double team. Finally fouled when it was meaningless
I'd show it here if I knew how to move it LOL. But if you check the
original post in that thread, you'll see my reaction. I forgot all about
it until another poster today showed that thread making fun of WVU..