(07-11-2021, 09:50 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Maybe not notably better, but these women posted season numbers that are comparable (for the position they played) and worthy of consideration. I was surprised a bit when Bueckers swept the major WBB awards.
Rhyne Howard - 20.7 ppg, 7.3 rpg, 3.8 apg, 2.5 spg, 37% 3 point FG, 78% FT
Caitlin Clark - 26.6 ppg, 5.9 rpg, 7.1 apg, 47% FG, 41% 3 point FG, 86% FT, 1.49 assist to TO ratio
Naz Hillmon - 23.9 ppg, 11.4 rpg, 62% FG, 75% FT
Fair enough, there were women with comparable statistics; there wasn't one with such superior statistics that made it outrageous for Bueckers to have won any of the the awards. I definitely agree with you that it is surprising that Bueckers swept the awards. My reply was directed more at the instagram follower comparison between her and McDonald as being the reason for her ESPY.
(07-11-2021, 10:04 PM)81alum Wrote: DC86 makes good points. My impressions of Bueckers were influenced by the fact that she wilted a bit in the tournament, and that McDonald outplayed her head-to-head--most especially on defense. Taken as a season, though, Bueckers did have better offensive stats than McDonald--perhaps because Stanford played Arizona three times and never played UConn! That helps to illustrate the point that McDonald played in a MUCH more challenging conference than Bueckers, which (as DC indirectly alludes to) means that statistics are probably not a great way to make comparisons.
Despite Bueckers running the gamut of awards, I will remain a slight skeptic. I guess I could say that about all awards, which seem to be based in part on hype and visibility, as Stanford has discovered painfully all too often--usually in football. Fans, journalists, and even coaches will vote for the great player they know well over the great player they know less well. And being at UConn means you will be known well. Iowa or Arizona, not so much.
And I also thought of that other freshman, Caitlin Clark. She led the nation in scoring and was 2nd in assists per game--both significantly better than Bueckers. I think we will eventually have to play against each of them. Would be fun to see how Tara would defend them.
By the way, were there no memorable seasons for women athletes in all the other sports that were comparable to Bueckers' in basketball? If Macario and Plummer had not left I could have cited either of them, of course--but surely there must be comparable players out there in non-revenue sports who had similarly phenomenal seasons.
https://www.espn.com/womens-college-bask...layer-year
I think we generally agree. My theory is that with many awards (not just sports) a narrative sometimes forms early in the process and it's difficult to dislodge the frontrunner unless they stumble. Bueckers came in with enormous hype and to her credit she lived up to it immediately; at that point it's difficult for someone to have surpassed her in the eyes of awards voters absent a major change in her performance or those of the other candidates. I liken it to college football polls. If a big name team is ranked #1 in the preseason it's probably going to remain #1 until it loses, even when the #2 or #3 or lower ranked team is objectively playing better.
As far as the Espys go, I don't know the full history of the college awards, but among women's sports basketball has so much more visibility than other sports that I assume its best basketball player has a big advantage. Softball, soccer, volleyball get some attention in the postseason but basketball it the only women's college sport that gets a decent amount of coverage on ESPN throughout the regular season.