Women's team escapes with W against Holy Cross

[MajorMajors]

Couldn't make it to the game, but Pitt squeaked out a 6 point win by outscoring HC by 21 to 9 in the 4th quarter.

Some thoughts based on the box score only:
--Pitt had 20 turnovers - reducing crazy turnovers would be a nice first step in maturing as a team.

--Pitt was only 2 for 15 from three-point range. Pitt has yet to find a 3-point shooter on this team. Fred Potvin is really struggling with her shot. Freshmen Tania Lamb and Cassidy Walsh need to get about a year's worth of experience over the next month...

--Inconsistent play is to be expected with a team so young, but you really never know what you'll get from even our "experienced" players like Yacine Diop and Stasha Carey - who need to be the scoring leaders on this team. Stasha came on strong last season as the season progressed and we need that to happen again.

--Freshman Kalista Walters is looking more and more like a good solid player. Had a nice 5 for 7 game today (but only had 4 rebounds).

--Backup guard Brittany Gordon provided a spark in the comeback. I expect to see her play a bigger role since she's been around for a while. She's not spectacular, but she plays a pretty solid game and can score some.

I saw where Princeton easily beat Michigan 74 to 57 today -- after Michigan stomped all over Pitt last week. Pitt plays at Princeton on Dec. 12th...

Go Pitt.

 

[ricflair4LIFE]

Couldn't make it to the game, but Pitt squeaked out a 6 point win by outscoring HC by 21 to 9 in the 4th quarter.

Some thoughts based on the box score only:
--Pitt had 20 turnovers - reducing crazy turnovers would be a nice first step in maturing as a team.

--Pitt was only 2 for 15 from three-point range. Pitt has yet to find a 3-point shooter on this team. Fred Potvin is really struggling with her shot. Freshmen Tania Lamb and Cassidy Walsh need to get about a year's worth of experience over the next month...

--Inconsistent play is to be expected with a team so young, but you really never know what you'll get from even our "experienced" players like Yacine Diop and Stasha Carey - who need to be the scoring leaders on this team. Stasha came on strong last season as the season progressed and we need that to happen again.

--Freshman Kalista Walters is looking more and more like a good solid player. Had a nice 5 for 7 game today (but only had 4 rebounds).

--Backup guard Brittany Gordon provided a spark in the comeback. I expect to see her play a bigger role since she's been around for a while. She's not spectacular, but she plays a pretty solid game and can score some.

I saw where Princeton easily beat Michigan 74 to 57 today -- after Michigan stomped all over Pitt last week. Pitt plays at Princeton on Dec. 12th...

Go Pitt.

A win is a win. We'll take it.

 

[mike10003]

I watched the game after the men's. A few things I noticed:

Stasha basically didn't play the second half, she really struggled against Holy Cross's two big girls. Through the 4th quarter, Gordon, Wise, and Bugg made big shots to close the game out.

Fred had some nice passes, but she has become really hesistant to shoot. Several times she passed open threes to drive instead, and I'm not sure if that is her strength. Like you said, she came to Pitt as a shooter and that hasn't really come to fruition.

I didn't watch closely, but i don't recall Gibbs and Lamb doing much of anything. Our bench scoring is pretty much nonexistent. That needs to develop or else conference play will be a struggle.

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

No decent post players is biggest problem,IMHO.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

No decent post players is biggest problem,IMHO.

We had the same player getting most of the post minutes last season when we made it to the second round of the NCAA tournament as we do this season. The problem, or one of the problems, is that she has not played very well so far.

 

[MajorMajors]

We had the same player getting most of the post minutes last season when we made it to the second round of the NCAA tournament as we do this season. The problem, or one of the problems, is that she has not played very well so far.

Course last season Stasha was playing with the 6'3" Monica Wignot, while this season she's got a 6-footer at the forward spot. Based on the small sample that I've seen, Pitt doesn't seem to be trying to get the ball to Stasha yet - I figure they're mainly trying to see who can do what at this stage of the season.

As the season progresses, and especially once the conference games begin, I expect to see Stasha touching the ball, and shooting the ball, a lot more.

Go Pitt.

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

Major--I am sure you are right about the experimenting. However, I still believe the problem is more structural. Trying harder to get the ball inside to Carey won't be enough, IMO. This team doesn't have enough frontcourt height. They need to have at least one more "big" (i.e., 6-3 or taller) to be sufficiently competitive on the inside for the ACC. Its remains a huge (no pun intended) recruiting need, IMHO.

 

[MajorMajors]

Major--I am sure you are right about the experimenting. However, I still believe the problem is more structural. Trying harder to get the ball inside to Carey won't be enough, IMO. This team doesn't have enough frontcourt height. They need to have at least one more "big" (i.e., 6-3 or taller) to be sufficiently competitive on the inside for the ACC. Its remains a huge (no pun intended) recruiting need, IMHO.

I agree. I'm still surprised that Coach Suzie wasn't able to bring in a taller post player. Coach seems to have assembled all the pieces for a very good team (once they get experience), with the glaring exception of that taller post player. This despite having more scholarship players than Pitt normally carries.

Makes me wonder if some post players were reluctant to consider Pitt because the 6'11" Bubbles is still listed as being on the team as a RS Junior...

Go Pitt.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

So if Stasha Carey was one inch taller, 6 foot 3 instead of 6 foot 2, Pitt would be just fine in the post? I just don't see how that makes much sense.

Pitt goes 6-2, 6-0, 6-0 across the starting front line. That's plenty big enough. The problem isn't size (at least among the starters), it's adjusting to losing a point guard who always had the ball in her hands and who may very well be the best player in school history.

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

Joe--I don't disagree that losing the best PG in Pitt history isn't also a major factor in this year's struggles so far. On the other hand I disagree that 6-2, 6-0, 6-0 is tall enough given the strength and size of women's basketball in the ACC. It isn't that if Carey were 6-3 vs 6-2 the problem would be fixed.

It is that we need to have at least two more players on the roster that are 6- 2 or taller. One to help Carey on the inside and another one or two taller players for front court depth.

The pre-season ACC teams ranked in the top 25 have the following numbers of players 6-2 and taller--

#3 Notre Dame 1 x 6-5, 2 x 6-4, 1 x 6-3, 1 x 6-2
#7 Fla St 1 x 6-5, 1 x 6-4, 1 x 6-2
#8 Louisville 1 x 6-4, 2 x 6-3, 1 x 6-2
#14 Duke 1 x 6-6, 4 x 6-4, 1 x 6-3
#22 UNC 4 x 6-2
#23 Syracuse 2 x 6-4, 1 x 6-2

With only one 6-2 player and everyone else shorter we are definitely undersized for the ACC.

 

[MajorMajors]

Joe--I don't disagree that losing the best PG in Pitt history isn't also a major factor in this year's struggles so far. On the other hand I disagree that 6-2, 6-0, 6-0 is tall enough given the strength and size of women's basketball in the ACC. It isn't that if Carey were 6-3 vs 6-2 the problem would be fixed.

It is that we need to have at least two more players on the roster that are 6- 2 or taller. One to help Carey on the inside and another one or two taller players for front court depth.

The pre-season ACC teams ranked in the top 25 have the following numbers of players 6-2 and taller--

#3 Notre Dame 1 x 6-5, 2 x 6-4, 1 x 6-3, 1 x 6-2
#7 Fla St 1 x 6-5, 1 x 6-4, 1 x 6-2
#8 Louisville 1 x 6-4, 2 x 6-3, 1 x 6-2
#14 Duke 1 x 6-6, 4 x 6-4, 1 x 6-3
#22 UNC 4 x 6-2
#23 Syracuse 2 x 6-4, 1 x 6-2

With only one 6-2 player and everyone else shorter we are definitely undersized for the ACC.

DC - you really did your homework there. Not to say that Stasha Carey can't compete against a lot of those post players, but that list really puts it into perspective that she and our other forwards are going to have big challenges in a lot of Pitt's games.

I agree with both of you that there's no question that Pitt cannot even come close to replacing B. Kiesel this season, though I think that Bugg is going to end up being pretty good once she accumulates enough experience. And the things that Monica Wignot did last season also can't be replaced this season.

It will take some more consistent recruiting before we can have impact-type players graduate and be replaced by nearly equivalent underclassmen.

Go Pitt.

 

[tps48]

Couldn't make it to the game, but Pitt squeaked out a 6 point win by outscoring HC by 21 to 9 in the 4th quarter.

Some thoughts based on the box score only:
--Pitt had 20 turnovers - reducing crazy turnovers would be a nice first step in maturing as a team.

--Pitt was only 2 for 15 from three-point range. Pitt has yet to find a 3-point shooter on this team. Fred Potvin is really struggling with her shot. Freshmen Tania Lamb and Cassidy Walsh need to get about a year's worth of experience over the next month...

--Inconsistent play is to be expected with a team so young, but you really never know what you'll get from even our "experienced" players like Yacine Diop and Stasha Carey - who need to be the scoring leaders on this team. Stasha came on strong last season as the season progressed and we need that to happen again.

--Freshman Kalista Walters is looking more and more like a good solid player. Had a nice 5 for 7 game today (but only had 4 rebounds).

--Backup guard Brittany Gordon provided a spark in the comeback. I expect to see her play a bigger role since she's been around for a while. She's not spectacular, but she plays a pretty solid game and can score some.

I saw where Princeton easily beat Michigan 74 to 57 today -- after Michigan stomped all over Pitt last week. Pitt plays at Princeton on Dec. 12th...

Go Pitt.

Diop may have been the worst player in this game. This team is very young and it shows. They'll get better, but they really need some size. They were quicker than HC, but smaller too.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

The pre-season ACC teams ranked in the top 25 have the following numbers of players 6-2 and taller--

#3 Notre Dame 1 x 6-5, 2 x 6-4, 1 x 6-3, 1 x 6-2
#7 Fla St 1 x 6-5, 1 x 6-4, 1 x 6-2
#8 Louisville 1 x 6-4, 2 x 6-3, 1 x 6-2
#14 Duke 1 x 6-6, 4 x 6-4, 1 x 6-3
#22 UNC 4 x 6-2
#23 Syracuse 2 x 6-4, 1 x 6-2

With only one 6-2 player and everyone else shorter we are definitely undersized for the ACC.

I'm not arguing that we aren't a bit undersized, but your numbers are misleading at best. For instance Notre Dame has a 6-5, 6-4, 6-4, 6-3 and 6-2 on their roster. But they don't all play. The 6-5 player averages 5 minutes per game. One of the 6-4s and the 6-3 have only played in half of their games. The other 6-4 plays 19 mpg and the 6-2 plays 26mpg. In other words they aren't giving big minutes to all these tall players, in fact they get very little minutes from most of them.

Here's a better way to look at a team like Notre Dame. They just had a big game against UConn. In that game their starting lineup was 6-2, 5-10, 5-10, 5-9 and 5-8. They played three players off the bench, 6-4, 5-11 and 5-8. No one else played. The fact is that the lineup they put out there in their biggest game of the season (at least so far) is smaller than the lineup that Pitt plays. It's not size that makes them good, it's skill. A good 6-0 is better than a mediocre 6-4.

Florida State is similar. They start a 6-4, 6-1 and 5-8 (yes, 5-8) on the front line. Of the three bigs you mention two of them play 11 minutes a game (the 6-4 plays 31). So yeah, they have some bigger players than Pitt but those aren't the players who are in the game most of the time.

UNC has four 6-2s, but one of them has not played at all this season and one other only averages 4 mpg. They start 6-2, 6-2 and 6-0. Syracuse starts 6-4, 6-0 and 5-11. One of their 6-4s plays 11 mpg and the 6-2 plays 6 mpg. Louisville starts 6-3, 6-2, 6-0. Their 6-4 plays 8 mpg and one of their 6-3s plays 13 mpg.

So could Pitt be bigger? Sure. Is it preferable to be bigger? Well, only if those bigger players are good players. How much good is the 6-4 player at Notre Dame who is only good enough to get into half of their games doing them? Or the 6-5 who plays 5 mpg? And so on.

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

Of course you want taller players who are talented. I am not suggesting we recruit players simply because they are tall. But, bottom line is you have to be able to rebound as well or better than your opponents and I don't think we are doing that this year against stronger opponents and our overall lack of height may be a contributing factor. I don't have the time to check the box score in the games against better opponents where we were solidly beaten but I suspect we were beaten off the backboards.

Update: I checked rebounding for our two blowout losses (Maryland & Michigan--teams equivalent to the top of the ACC) and we were soundly beaten on the Boards in both games.

Maryland out-rebounded us 50-22 and Michigan out-rebounded us 39-25.

So, yes we appear to have a rebounding problem against teams like those at the top of the ACC. That problem can be solved by more quality players with height and width and/or players with superior "hops." Of course, it can also be partly fixed by young players maturing and playing better. But, I remain unconvinced that it is entirely fixable by the latter route. I still believe we need another 2-3 taller players (quality ones) to fully fix our rebounding vs top 25 teams--which is where I think we want to get. We want to be a top of the ACC team and we want to go to the NCAAs every year. I don't think it is happening this year.