STrib: Whalen Remains Optimistic After Missing NCAA Goal

[Ignatius L Hoops]

Coach Lindsay Whalen optimistic, even after Gophers women missed NCAA goal

Whalen says she's pleased team was able to "finish as a group."

www.startribune.com

Kent Youngblood:

After a second-day ousting at the Big Ten women’s basketball tournament, Gophers coach Lindsay Whalen has not yet decompressed from a disappointing end to the regular season.

It was tiring, she admitted. Trying, at times. The team’s goals set at the season’s onset were not met.

“Going into the season our goal was to make the NCAA tournament,’’ Whalen said. “Not reaching that goal is disappointing.’’

...

But Whalen is still able to find some reason for optimism.

“I was happy the team was able to finish as a group the last month and a half,’’ Whalen said. “That they were able to finish the season together. That win [vs. Penn State] at the Big Ten tournament was a highlight.’’

...

But there is still much work to do.

“No question the bar will be raised next season,’’ Whalen said.

Job 1 is the team’s culture. “That is on the top of my mind,’’ she said. “That’s the No. 1 thing, to establish a strong culture, a winning culture.’’

But there are holes to fill.

 

[CutDownTheNet]

I think Whalen’s positive outlook for next year is generally consistent with what various GHers have posted recently in various threads - looking forward to some incoming shooting power, but a little bit nervous about filling Taiye’s shoes in the post (although there is some height arriving).

> But there are holes to fill. ... The biggest concern is the post. Taiye Bello became the fifth player in program history with 1,000 rebounds, and she was the team’s best interior defender. “That’s our No. 1 concern for next year, who will fill that role,” Whalen said. ... “But we’re missing one of the best centers in program history, and those will be huge holes to fill, for sure.”

Let’s fill in some of the holes in the following stats.

> Powell began as the backup point guard before moving into the starting lineup for the final 12 games, scoring in double figures in 11 of them. ... Powell ended up as the Gophers’ leading scorer (12.1 points per game) and was the top freshman scorer in the Big Ten during the regular season.

At end of season (but pre any potential WNIT games), Powell is the scoring leader (375 points), followed by T. Bello (354), Hubbard (348), Scalia (334), Brunson (284), Pitts (245), Adashchyk (135), Sconiers (43), K. Bello (35), Staples (21), and Tomancova (14).

Powell is the points per game leader (12.1 points per game) among players who played 16 or more games. But among all players, the PPG order is Pitts (16.3 for 6th place in the Big Ten and 104th place in the NCAA if she were still playing), Powell (12.1), T. Bello (11.8), Hubbard (11.2), Scalia (10.8), Brunson (9.8), Adashchyk (5.0), Staples (2.6), Sconiers (2.5), K. Bello (1.3), and Tomancova (0.8).

Leading rebounders were T. Bello (293 for 9.8 per game, 35th in the NCAA), Pitts (72 for 4.8), Scalia (128 for 4.1), Hubbard (105 for 3.4), Powell (94 for 3.0), K. Bello (78 for 2.9), Brunson (74 for 2.6), Adashchyk (70 for 2.6), Tomancova (33 for 1.8), Sconiers (27 for 1.6), and Staples (9 for 1.1). T. Bello also hauled in 4.0 offensive rebounds per game (for 20th in the NCAA and 119 total offensive rebounds). T. Bello logged 12 double-doubles in 30 games.

Our leaders in blocks were T. Bello with 49 (tied for 67th in the NCAA), and K. Bello with 13.

Our leaders in assists (with assist:turnover ratio) were Powell (96, 0.97), Brunson (88, 1.63), Hubbard (57, 1.50), Pitts (50, 1.04), Scalia (44, 1.16), T. Bello (25, 0.42), and Adashchyk (17, 0.43).

Our steals per game leaders were Hubbard (1.71 tied for 239th place in the NCAA), Powell (1.42), Brunson (1.38), Scalia (1.26), T. Bello (1.07), Pitts (1.00), and Adashchyk (0.56).

Our leaders in minutes between turnovers (reciprocol of turnovers per minute-played, so larger is better) are Tomancova (34.8), Hubbard (26.4), Scalia (26.3), Staples (22.8), Sconiers (18.0), Brunson (16.4), T. Bello (14.7), K. Bello (13.0), Adashchyk (11.9), Pitts (10.2), and Powell (8.2).

Our best three-point shooters were Adashchyk (.465 for 2nd in the Big Ten and 5th in the NCAA if only she’d had enough attempts), Pitts (.458 for 3rd in the Big Ten and 6th in the NCAA if she were still playing), Scalia (.369 for 72nd in the NCAA*), Brunson (.354 for 92nd in the NCAA if only she’d had enough attempts), Hubbard (.352 for 98th in the NCAA), and Powell (.300 for 152nd in the NCAA*). (*: Not listed in NCAA stats since those are either inaccurate and/or have a ridiculously high minimum three-pointer attempts.)

The Minnesota team snags 20th place in the NCAA in three-point field-goal percentage at .364. Big Ten teams ahead of them are Maryland (17th place at .366) and Iowa (11th place at .372), with Northwestern behind us (26th place at .360). First place is UConn at .401.

The Minnesota team is 38th in the NCAA in three-point field goals made (238), and tied for 82nd in the NCAA in three-point field goals attempted (653).

Our best free throw shooters were Adaschyk (.917 on 11-12 for 3rd in the NCAA if only she’d had enough attempts), Pitts (.857 for 29th in the NCAA if she were still playing), Brunson (.855 for 30th in the NCAA and 1st in the Big Ten*), Scalia (.822 for 62nd in the NCAA*), Hubbard (.797), Powell (.756), Sconiers (.714 on 5-7), and T. Bello (.667). (*: Not listed in NCAA stats since those are either inaccurate and/or have a ridiculously high minimum FT attempts.)

Just noticed that after graduation we will have lost the top three of our 8 best free-throw shooters - the ones that pulled up our team FT percentage to the best in the Big Ten (and 34th in the NCAA at .754). Hope the incoming recruits bring some good FT shooters too, to build on Scalia/Hubbard/Powell/Sconiers.

 

[CutDownTheNet]

The number of points due to graduating seniors (808 in all games) represent 26 points per game that we need to replace next season. The latter does not include the (266) points from Pitts and Staples (which is 8.6 points per game when amortized over the 31 games), which we figure has already been lost but at least partially made up via other players, and in any event spent mostly on non-conference play, thus legitimately ignored. So we need to replace about 26 points just to get to the same approximate results next year.

But let's just assume that we can do fairly well in next-year's non-conference season, and focus solely on what we need for an equal (namely 11th place in the NCAA and no NCAA Tournament appearance) or better (e.g., NCAA Tournament appearance) Big-Ten season. Doing a similar calculation on the 18 Big-Ten games only from this past season, the number of Big-Ten points due to graduating seniors (456 in 18 games) represent 25.33 points per game that we need to replace next season (not much different than the calculation for all games).

To guestimate the additional beyond-replacement points that we need to perhaps get to the NCAA Tournament next year, we'll compute the deficit in total "points to tie" in our 18 Big Ten season games this year, which is 1316 opponent points minus 1178 Gopher points = 138 points, then divide that by 18 conference games to get 7.66 points. So we need another 7.66 points or so beyond breakeven replacement points. That's 25.33 + 7.66 = 43 additional points per game that we need next year to replace and augment the points of the graduating seniors sufficiently to build a winning Big Ten team that is likely to get to the Big Dance. Note that these 43 points can come from new players and/or via additional scoring by returning players and/or via better defense that reduces opponents' scoring and/or via fewer turnovers and/or via more rebounds (in fact, ideally we would get some from each of these).

Nevertheless, given that we want to add 43 points to get to our (higher) target of about 73 points worth of Big-Ten offensive production (or equivalent reduction in opponents' offense), that 43 points represents all except 30 points worth of that target. In other words, we need to "replace + add" about 43 points, which is 13 points more than the estimated 30 points that we can expect to just "roll over" from this season to next season. We thus hope that next year's freshmen are able to contribute quite rapidly, as was the case for Scalia and Powell this year.

Let's repeat the same exercise for rebounds. We need to at least replace 307 Big-Ten-season rebounds from our graduating seniors. That 17 rebounds per game represents 45.8% of the rebounds from this just-concluded Big-Ten season. In addition, we need an extra 34 rebounds (call it 2 per game) to at least match our Big-Ten opponents' rebounding (at about 39 per game). So we want to get about 17 + 2 = 19 rebounds per game from new players, while assuming the returning players can continue to contribute rebounds at their usual rate. And the three still-filled guard positions are playing about 33 minutes per game already, so we probably can't squeeze too many more rebounds out of them. So the 19 more rebounds need to mostly come from the other two positions (be they be post + guard or double-post or a mix thereof).

As Whalen rightly anticipated, replacing the 8.83 Taiye rebounds per Big-Ten game is challenge enough; but actually, we need an extra 10 or so rebounds beyond Taiye-equivalent in order to be competitive in the Big Ten next year. We need the equivalent of a couple Taiye Bellos next year, rebounding-wise.

Just on the basis of that requirement (for being competitive in the Big Ten) alone, one can guess that next year we're very likely going to need to play double posts a significant percentage of the time. And so we're really going to need 1-2 competent true Centers plus 2-3 competent Power Forwards.

 

[bbwannabe]

The number of points due to graduating seniors (808 in all games) represent 26 points per game that we need to replace next season. The latter does not include the (266) points from Pitts and Staples (which is 8.6 points per game when amortized over the 31 games), which we figure has already been lost but at least partially made up via other players, and in any event spent mostly on non-conference play, thus legitimately ignored. So we need to replace about 26 points just to get to the same approximate results next year.

But let's just assume that we can do fairly well in next-year's non-conference season, and focus solely on what we need for an equal (namely 11th place in the NCAA and no NCAA Tournament appearance) or better (e.g., NCAA Tournament appearance) Big-Ten season. Doing a similar calculation on the 18 Big-Ten games only from this past season, the number of Big-Ten points due to graduating seniors (456 in 18 games) represent 25.33 points per game that we need to replace next season (not much different than the calculation for all games).

To guestimate the additional beyond-replacement points that we need to perhaps get to the NCAA Tournament next year, we'll compute the deficit in total "points to tie" in our 18 Big Ten season games this year, which is 1316 opponent points minus 1178 Gopher points = 138 points, then divide that by 18 conference games to get 7.66 points. So we need another 7.66 points or so beyond breakeven replacement points. That's 25.33 + 7.66 = 43 additional points per game that we need next year to replace and augment the points of the graduating seniors sufficiently to build a winning Big Ten team that is likely to get to the Big Dance. Note that these 43 points can come from new players and/or via additional scoring by returning players and/or via better defense that reduces opponents' scoring and/or via fewer turnovers and/or via more rebounds (in fact, ideally we would get some from each of these).

Nevertheless, given that we want to add 43 points to get to our (higher) target of about 73 points worth of Big-Ten offensive production (or equivalent reduction in opponents' offense), that 43 points represents all except 30 points worth of that target. In other words, we need to "replace + add" about 43 points, which is 13 points more than the estimated 30 points that we can expect to just "roll over" from this season to next season. We thus hope that next year's freshmen are able to contribute quite rapidly, as was the case for Scalia and Powell this year.

Let's repeat the same exercise for rebounds. We need to at least replace 307 Big-Ten-season rebounds from our graduating seniors. That 17 rebounds per game represents 45.8% of the rebounds from this just-concluded Big-Ten season. In addition, we need an extra 34 rebounds (call it 2 per game) to at least match our Big-Ten opponents' rebounding (at about 39 per game). So we want to get about 17 + 2 = 19 rebounds per game from new players, while assuming the returning players can continue to contribute rebounds at their usual rate. And the three still-filled guard positions are playing about 33 minutes per game already, so we probably can't squeeze too many more rebounds out of them. So the 19 more rebounds need to mostly come from the other two positions (be they be post + guard or double-post or a mix thereof).

As Whalen rightly anticipated, replacing the 8.83 Taiye rebounds per Big-Ten game is challenge enough; but actually, we need an extra 10 or so rebounds beyond Taiye-equivalent in order to be competitive in the Big Ten next year. We need the equivalent of a couple Taiye Bellos next year, rebounding-wise.

Just on the basis of that requirement (for being competitive in the Big Ten) alone, one can guess that next year we're very likely going to need to play double posts a significant percentage of the time. And so we're really going to need 1-2 competent true Centers plus 2-3 competent Power Forwards.

25.33 + 7.66 is 32.99 or 33 points per game. You mentioned 43....Is that calculating for the refs??

 

[CutDownTheNet]

25.33 + 7.66 is 32.99 or 33 points per game. You mentioned 43....Is that calculating for the refs??

Haha - looks like an addition mistake - my bad for adding in my head when I should have used Excel or something. I proofed it but didn’t catch it.

Well OK, what the heck, let’s shoot for adding 43 points anyway instead of the minimal 33 that we need to get competitive. Another 10 points seems like a reasonable insurance premium against the eventuality of getting bad refs, lol. Yeah, I like that suggestion, let’s run with it. Plus maybe it gives us more than a snowball’s chance of beating Maryland. We’ll call it the ref-proof plan for getting to the Big Dance in 2020-21 (subject also to the rebounding requirement and other minor conditions, such as better defense and nixing the high turnovers).