A New Fan

[always a falcon]

One of the few interesting differences in the game was points from the bench for each team, UK had 19 from there bench and we had like 4 I think. UK just had the better talent at their 2 deep than us and their production off the bench was probably the other side factor.

I don't understand why you feel the need to make backhanded statements like the one above. It may in fact be true that UK does have a slight advantage in their overall 2 deep as you suggest. But, if you were to take the time to look a little closer, you would have noticed that it was 19-7 advantage in bench scoring (not 19-4) and that 13 of UK's 19 points were from Jenny Pfeiffer and BG's 7 came from Jasmine. Now as for Pfeiffer, she doesn't start, but just happens to be the third leading scorer on UK. Pfeiffer also played more minutes (39 minutes!!!) than any other UK "starter." Pfeiffer for intents and purposes is a starter. The similar situation for BG would be if BG was to start the game with our third leading scorer (Horne) on the bench and then bring Carin in like UK does with Pfeiffer a minute into each game. If this was the case with Horne coming off the bench, would you then insist that BG is better in their two deep despite depleating our starting five, because that is what UK does?

What you should really do is consider a girl who plays 39 minutes a starter, even though I know she technically isn't a starter. If we were to substract out Pfeiffer's points and insert the real "starter" Chante Bouman (0pts) on the bench scoring, then magically BG to UK's bench scroing was 7-6 in favor of BG. The fact is BG's top four players that start have a considerably higher average points per game than UK's top starting four because of Pfeiffer being considered a "bench player." Does this mean BG is then better in the top but UK is better in the two deep? I don't know and to tell the truth don't really care. BG and UK seem to mirror each other in many ways and to deem UK's 2 deep is just plain misguided. The fact is that BG's top four of Mann, Honegger, Horne and Achter are likely better than UK's top starting four of Mahoney, Elliot, Ormerod, and Humprey, but again that's because Pfeiffer isn't a "starter".

By making your uninformed post, you propagate the misnomer that UK is stronger than BG in the 2 deep, without acknowledging that Pfeiffer really should be thought of as a starter or the fact that BG's top four players may be better than UK's, at least statistically speaking. It just feels like it is the most difficult thing in the world for you to make a compliment of BG team with out sliding a backhanded comment in there about our depth our our lack of size, both of which I feel are incorrect assumptions. Anyways, enough of my ranting, I just had to get that off of my chest because when it comes to UK basketball you are out of your league and off base.

Breathe.....Falconboy has that effect on you.....the temptation to whap him up side of the head is great......

[PGY Tiercel]

Great post Dan. I had one written last night but felt the anger was coming out too much and that maybe it was the bourbon talking. This is the problem with someone posting about a game in which he only reads the box score and fails to take in the whole picture, and even moreso fails to read BG's stats. For a team that was too short and too weak to play with UK, some how both teams had 5 blocks. Or the fact that BG had more steals. To go along with your point about Pfeiffer, she isn't just the number 3 scorer on the team, she is averaging 10.7pts, which is only 0.2pts behind the #2scorer, Elliot, and less than 1pt behind the scoring leader Mahoney.

Anyway, It is just really old to only see someone pick out stats that demean our team. I can understand acknowledging the loss and talking about it being a tough game, but to consistantly pick out meaningless points and try to make these Ladies look like a second rate team is pathetic, petty and down right bullsh*t. BG game down to Memorial and played a tough game, which by all acounts the girls really thought they could win, and almost did. 4pts is not a convincing win and it easily could have gone either way at any point. This isn't a game in which any fan needs to find little points of no consequence. If it is of concern, Coach Miller will let his team know and they will work it out. Right now, we should all be excited that this team has proven it will be a major force in the MAC.

[ZiggyZoomba]

I don't understand why you feel the need to make backhanded statements like the one above. It may in fact be true that UK does have a slight advantage in their overall 2 deep as you suggest. But, if you were to take the time to look a little closer, you would have noticed that it was 19-7 advantage in bench scoring (not 19-4) and that 13 of UK's 19 points were from Jenny Pfeiffer and BG's 7 came from Jasmine. Now as for Pfeiffer, she doesn't start, but just happens to be the third leading scorer on UK. Pfeiffer also played more minutes (39 minutes!!!) than any other UK "starter." Pfeiffer for intents and purposes is a starter. The similar situation for BG would be if BG was to start the game with our third leading scorer (Horne) on the bench and then bring Carin in like UK does with Pfeiffer a minute into each game. If this was the case with Horne coming off the bench, would you then insist that BG is better in their two deep despite depleating our starting five, because that is what UK does?

What you should really do is consider a girl who plays 39 minutes a starter, even though I know she technically isn't a starter. If we were to substract out Pfeiffer's points and insert the real "starter" Chante Bouman (0pts) on the bench scoring, then magically BG to UK's bench scroing was 7-6 in favor of BG. The fact is BG's top four players that start have a considerably higher average points per game than UK's top starting four because of Pfeiffer being considered a "bench player." Does this mean BG is then better in the top but UK is better in the two deep? I don't know and to tell the truth don't really care. BG and UK seem to mirror each other in many ways and to deem UK's 2 deep is just plain misguided. The fact is that BG's top four of Mann, Honegger, Horne and Achter are likely better than UK's top starting four of Mahoney, Elliot, Ormerod, and Humprey, but again that's because Pfeiffer isn't a "starter".

By making your uninformed post, you propagate the misnomer that UK is stronger than BG in the 2 deep, without acknowledging that Pfeiffer really should be thought of as a starter or the fact that BG's top four players may be better than UK's, at least statistically speaking. It just feels like it is the most difficult thing in the world for you to make a compliment of BG team with out sliding a backhanded comment in there about our depth our our lack of size, both of which I feel are incorrect assumptions. Anyways, enough of my ranting, I just had to get that off of my chest because when it comes to UK basketball you are out of your league and off base.

Heheheheh... you said "propagate the misnomer." I always said "the first person to say 'propogate the misnomer' on this website would win a million dollars." Well, that was a lie... I never said it, nor do I have a million to give, but it's a HELL of a phrase Dan!! Well played!

[Rightupinthere]

Wouldn't that be "propagate the misconception"?

You need a sharp razor to split hair, you know.

[ZiggyZoomba]

Wouldn't that be "propagate the misconception"?

You need a sharp razor to split hair, you know.

I didn't say I was excited he used it correctly... I was just excited he USED it!

[Falconfreak90]

And Mann and Horne both are just juniors? Yowsah.

as are honegger and thorburn.

I get goosebumps when I think all these players will be back again next year. And Achter is only a Soph.

[UK Peregrine]

Wouldn't that be "propagate the misconception"?

You need a sharp razor to split hair, you know.

I didn't say I was excited he used it correctly... I was just excited he USED it!

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I hear you both. I wasn't completely lucid towards the end of that rant. Perhaps I could have used "misconception" or misinformation. But if you really want me to stretch my usage of misnomer, you could make the case that the rant about Pfeiffer being technically called a "bench player" instead of what she really is, a "starter", then that would be propagation of a misnomer. So there! Now where's that smilie to stick his tongue out at you both, '87 where are you?

[Falconboy]

One of the few interesting differences in the game was points from the bench for each team, UK had 19 from there bench and we had like 4 I think. UK just had the better talent at their 2 deep than us and their production off the bench was probably the other side factor.

I don't understand why you feel the need to make backhanded statements like the one above. It may in fact be true that UK does have a slight advantage in their overall 2 deep as you suggest. But, if you were to take the time to look a little closer, you would have noticed that it was 19-7 advantage in bench scoring (not 19-4) and that 13 of UK's 19 points were from Jenny Pfeiffer and BG's 7 came from Jasmine. Now as for Pfeiffer, she doesn't start, but just happens to be the third leading scorer on UK. Pfeiffer also played more minutes (39 minutes!!!) than any other UK "starter." Pfeiffer for intents and purposes is a starter. The similar situation for BG would be if BG was to start the game with our third leading scorer (Horne) on the bench and then bring Carin in like UK does with Pfeiffer a minute into each game. If this was the case with Horne coming off the bench, would you then insist that BG is better in their two deep despite depleating our starting five, because that is what UK does?

What you should really do is consider a girl who plays 39 minutes a starter, even though I know she technically isn't a starter. If we were to substract out Pfeiffer's points and insert the real "starter" Chante Bouman (0pts) on the bench scoring, then magically BG to UK's bench scroing was 7-6 in favor of BG. The fact is BG's top four players that start have a considerably higher average points per game than UK's top starting four because of Pfeiffer being considered a "bench player." Does this mean BG is then better in the top but UK is better in the two deep? I don't know and to tell the truth don't really care. BG and UK seem to mirror each other in many ways and to deem UK's 2 deep is just plain misguided. The fact is that BG's top four of Mann, Honegger, Horne and Achter are likely better than UK's top starting four of Mahoney, Elliot, Ormerod, and Humprey, but again that's because Pfeiffer isn't a "starter".

By making your uninformed post, you propagate the misnomer that UK is stronger than BG in the 2 deep, without acknowledging that Pfeiffer really should be thought of as a starter or the fact that BG's top four players may be better than UK's, at least statistically speaking. It just feels like it is the most difficult thing in the world for you to make a compliment of BG team with out sliding a backhanded comment in there about our depth our our lack of size, both of which I feel are incorrect assumptions. Anyways, enough of my ranting, I just had to get that off of my chest because when it comes to UK basketball you are out of your league and off base.

Whether Pfeiffer is a true starter or not is beside the issue really. Its not a backhanded comment to realize or say that UK has more talent across the board than we do. That doesnt' mean BG is not talented or is vastly inferior at all. Its just a plain fact. Now having clearly better talent is not always the guarantee of success like I've said in other posts relating to football. UK is young and we were the more experiences team in my opinon with all or most of our juniors having played since day one of the their freshman seasons.

But in the end their athletism did win out by a very close margin. Kate must've had the toughest time in her whole career guarding the very quick Mahoney. Take that matchup for example Achter vs Mahoney, normally I believe Kate has been the best athlete and player at pg over the other teams we have played. But this time she had a girl who was just ask quick maybe quicker and more athletic and was bigger at 5"10 , thus she got into foul trouble and couldn't finish the game after fouling out. This doesn't meant that Kate is not a great athlete or great player just had a tough matchup against a slightly better , bigger athlete at her position.

Now , maybe the calls against Kate were mostly BS , I dont' know cuz I couldn't see the game , I can guess that we got homered on some calls. But that doesn't change the fact that UK had us edged in the talent department. This is just my opinon and personal assesment , you dont' have that opinon and thats great. My statements on these facts don't mean I'm pessamistic about this season in any way. In fact I'm just as optomistic about the upcoming MAC season as ever. I'm looking forward to us getting another win streak started.

[UK Peregrine]

Whether Pfeiffer is a true starter or not is beside the issue really.

I don't want to spend much time on this because I can see my comments fall on deaf ears, but just in case they don't, let me say this. First, according to your first post the two-deep talent differential was the issue and you go as far as to propose it as a possible explanation for UK winning. And I'm telling you that Pfeiffer plays more minutes than even the so-called starters play, which means she's really not part of the two-deep. Instead her counterpart Bouman is really part of the two-deep, so BG technically had the advantage in bench points and not UK.

But in the end their athletism did win out by a very close margin.

How can you even begin to insist that UK is more athletic? Did see the game? Have seen UK play this year? What or who gave you the impression that BG was overmatched? Oh wait...

I dont' know cuz I couldn't see the game

Nevermind, I can now see that you obviously are an expert in evaluating UK's talent versus some who has seen them play. I defer all questions and evaluations to your expertise.

[PGY Tiercel]

But in the end their athletism did win out by a very close margin. Kate must've had the toughest time in her whole career guarding the very quick Mahoney. Take that matchup for example Achter vs Mahoney, normally I believe Kate has been the best athlete and player at pg over the other teams we have played. But this time she had a girl who was just ask quick maybe quicker and more athletic and was bigger at 5"10 , thus she got into foul trouble and couldn't finish the game after fouling out. This doesn't meant that Kate is not a great athlete or great player just had a tough matchup against a slightly better , bigger athlete at her position.
.

WTF, closer inspection of the box scores reveals how wrong you are in your assesments.

Kate didn't have a tough time guarding Mahoney. In the first half Kate had the bulk of her minutes at 14. In the first half Mahoney had no points and played only 7minutes. In the second half Kate played 8 minutes while Mahoney played 18minutes and had 12 pts. Kate didn't play OT, Mahoney did and had 5 more points. Where to you get this Mahoney out played Kate s**t. In fact if you really look through the play by play, you will see that when Kate was in Mahoney had very few points. (Ok I went through it with Kate in the game, Mahoney scored 6 pts.) Not until Kate had to sit because of foul trouble did Mahoney started scoring. Jassimine was in then, boy is she fast, but she is a freshman so doesn't have the experience Kate or Mahoney does. By watching the game I realized that Kate played very well and very tough. They weren't outmatched physically at all.

The point is, Coach Miller believed we have the better team. Losing by 4pts is not losing a physical battle, that is losing by 10 or more. Losing by 4pts is the difference of getting a good or bad break.

Again I'm not sure why you keep thinking UK is a really tough physical team. They are playing very well no doubt. But wait until the SEC rolls around to decide on their toughness. Most people will admit that they have had a fairly weak schedule (duely noted in the LHL that the BG game was not a gimmie). They couldn't keep up with a more physical UofL team either.

[Falconboy]

Whether Pfeiffer is a true starter or not is beside the issue really.

I don't want to spend much time on this because I can see my comments fall on deaf ears, but just in case they don't, let me say this. First, according to your first post the two-deep talent differential was the issue and you go as far as to propose it as a possible explanation for UK winning. And I'm telling you that Pfeiffer plays more minutes than even the so-called starters play, which means she's really not part of the two-deep. Instead her counterpart Bouman is really part of the two-deep, so BG technically had the advantage in bench points and not UK.

But in the end their athletism did win out by a very close margin.

How can you even begin to insist that UK is more athletic? Did see the game? Have seen UK play this year? What or who gave you the impression that BG was overmatched? Oh wait...

I dont' know cuz I couldn't see the game

Nevermind, I can now see that you obviously are an expert in evaluating UK's talent versus some who has seen them play. I defer all questions and evaluations to your expertise.

We can argue semantics all day over whether UK's bench production in that game was scewed cuz of this that and the other but , it is a fact that BG's bench did't produce alot of points except for McCall.

How do I know that UK is more athletic , its just a good ole fashioned educated guess, all though I don't think its that much of a guess really. I looked at the roster , by the body type of players, their yearly or season stats, I can usually get a decent feel of what the athletic abililty of a player likely is. Plus I add the factor of the kind of athletes I would expect a school like UK to recruit into the mix. That may sound totally retarted to you but I've been watching NBA and college baskeball and evaluating what is good talent for years since since age 5. Now actually seeing the players in person definitly makes it alot easier to judge physical talent. Now judging whether a player can shoot or not can only be made by watching a player in person and closely examining their shot or form, except for maybe examing their stats on shooting % and such. I'm not a total expert on these things and don't proclaim to be but I feel I'm pretty decent at it.

I know you wholly disagree with me and think I'm a total idiot , but big deal, and thats fine. We all have our opinons and we all see different things. Its not possible for all people to agree on stuff, so thats not really important. What should be important is that we're all fans of this team and loudly cheer for them to win. Thats what I aim to do this Sat at 1pm at AA.



GO LADY FALCONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! CRUSH THE LADY ZIPS!!!!!!!!!!!

[jacojdm]

How do I know that UK is more athletic , its just a good ole fashioned educated guess, all though I don't think its that much of a guess really. I looked at the roster , by the body type of players, their yearly or season stats, I can usually get a decent feel of what the athletic abililty of a player likely is. Plus I add the factor of the kind of athletes I would expect a school like UK to recruit into the mix. That may sound totally retarted to you but I've been watching NBA and college baskeball and evaluating what is good talent for years since since age 5. Now actually seeing the players in person definitly makes it alot easier to judge physical talent. Now judging whether a player can shoot or not can only be made by watching a player in person and closely examining their shot or form, except for maybe examing their stats on shooting % and such. I'm not a total expert on these things and don't proclaim to be but I feel I'm pretty decent at it.

he's a regular jerry west, this guy.

[Metz]

I dont' know cuz I couldn't see the game

I think that sums up everything you've said on here about UK. You can guess and have your opinions all you want, but don't try to force your opinions and guesses into people who are making factual statements. UK and PGY have watched their ladies play before...try believing them rather than arguing based off headshots and stats on their athletic site.

Kate's foul trouble was not because she was mismatched at all. It's because she was hustling everywhere. I think I saw her go for more rebounds than all of UK's team. She was seriously fighting for the ball every play.

[UK Peregrine]

How do I know that UK is more athletic , its just a good ole fashioned educated guess, all though I don't think its that much of a guess really. I looked at the roster , by the body type of players, their yearly or season stats, I can usually get a decent feel of what the athletic abililty of a player likely is.

Wow, if only I knew it was that easy I wouldn't have wasted my time going to the game and watching the game in person when all I really need to do is guess based on roster and season stats. Again, I defer to your vastly superior evaluative capabilities.

Plus I add the factor of the kind of athletes I would expect a school like UK to recruit into the mix.

You mean a women's program like UK's that has only ever won one SEC title back in 1982. Or did you mean a school like UK that hasn't been to the NCAA since 1999. Or perhaps you meant a school like UK that has had their women's program make the NCAA tournament atotal of 5 times. Is that what you meant by a school like UK? Then yeah I can see why UK would be so deep athletically compared to a school like BG that only has 6 MAC regular season titles (most recent last year), 7 MAC tournament titles (again last year), and 7 NCAA appearances. Obviously, from those numbers I can see why UK women's program which was last at the NCAA in 1999 would be so much more adept at getting the big time athletes with all of our success. Or is that you're contending that UK women's hoops should be deeper since they are in the SEC. Or is it that the men's hoops team is so good that women in general should want to play here as well, just because of the men's team. That must be it, because it's obviously working for UK's football team much the same way.

That may sound totally retarted to you but I've been watching NBA and college baskeball and evaluating what is good talent for years since since age 5.

No not at all, in fact you sound more like an idiot savant. Age of five, huh? You must of been a fun kid tohang with always watching sporting events while already evaluating professional players prowess. Impressive! I, on the otherhand was likely outside playing a sport or two, instead of evaluating professional sport league talent.

What should be important is that we're all fans of this team and loudly cheer for them to win. Thats what I aim to do this Sat at 1pm at AA.

Good for you. As outspoken as you are you should be going to the games cheering on the Falcons.

[Metz]

Plus I add the factor of the kind of athletes I would expect a school like UK to recruit into the mix.

You mean a women's program like UK's that has only ever won one SEC title back in 1982. Or did you mean a school like UK that hasn't been to the NCAA since 1999. Or perhaps you meant a school like UK that has had their women's program make the NCAA tournament atotal of 5 times. Is that what you meant by a school like UK? Then yeah I can see why UK would be so deep athletically compared to a school like BG that only has 6 MAC regular season titles (most recent last year), 7 MAC tournament titles (again last year), and 7 NCAA appearances. Obviously, from those numbers I can see why UK women's program which was last at the NCAA in 1999 would be so much more adept at getting the big time athletes with all of our success. Or is that you're contending that UK women's hoops should be deeper since they are in the SEC or that the men's hoops team is so good so the women should wat tno play here as well just because of the men's team. That must be it, because it's obviouslyworking for UK's football team much the same way.

I don't think he's made the distinction between men and women yet. Hence why our women's team is still too short and why he thinks Kentucky's women's team is so great. Just because their men do good doesn't mean their women have to.