[81alum]

Yes, Tara challenged the team, some years ago, not to be "the nice girls from Stanford."  And clearly during COVID she challenged the team and it navigated the hardest schedule in the nation with nothing but road games, and they rode that all the way to a national championship.  So Tara is well aware of the need to cultivate fire and drive, and in the past she has found ways to do it.

If you watched the presser, Tara was thinking about ways to get her team to perform better.  And mental/physical rest was clearly at the top of the list.  I don't think diagnosing a problem and trying to fix it is making excuses.  

I've also wondered about this coincidence about our losses:
USC, away, 2nd game of the weekend after a win
Washington, away, 2nd game of the weekend after a win
Utah, away, 2nd game of the weekend after a win
UCLA, away, 2nd game after a win

Not sure what that says--maybe the second game is harder to install the scout, or maybe the team lets up its intensity after an away win, or could  it be pure coincidence?  I don't include South Carolina since that was not on the same schedule, and since I think we would agree we played better in that game than in the other four losses.  But the pattern is striking, and I hope it does not persist into the NCAAs.

[81alum]

Yes, Tara challenged the team, some years ago, not to be "the nice girls from Stanford."  And clearly during COVID she challenged the team and it navigated the hardest schedule in the nation with nothing but road games, and they rode that all the way to a national championship.  So Tara is well aware of the need to cultivate fire and drive, and in the past she has found ways to do it.

If you watched the presser, Tara was thinking about ways to get her team to perform better.  And mental/physical rest was clearly at the top of the list.  I don't think diagnosing a problem and trying to fix it is making excuses.  

I've also wondered about this coincidence about our losses:
USC, away, 2nd game of the weekend after a win
Washington, away, 2nd game of the weekend after a win
Utah, away, 2nd game of the weekend after a win
UCLA, away, 2nd game after a win

Not sure what that says--maybe the second game is harder to install the scout, or maybe the team lets up its intensity after an away win, or could  it be pure coincidence?  I don't include South Carolina since that was not on the same schedule, and since I think we would agree we played better in that game than in the other four losses.  But the pattern is striking, and I hope it does not persist into the NCAAs.

[chimera]

I don't think we should completely discount the effects of the very tough end of season schedule.  That surely had some effect.  It was no excuse for losing to UCLA after getting up by 16 or so points though.  Being up that much in a semi of a tournament should give a weary team, if they were weary, a second wind and a reason to try hard to put away the opponent.  The team seemed to go into slow down mode, trying not to lose mode, too early.  Slowdown mode allows a motivated opponent to make a strong run.  I tend to doubt it is intentional from the coaches or the players.  I think rather it is that by the end of a game, when maybe a team needs to kick it into a more intense, aggressive mode to seal a win, the players tighten up trying to make the perfect play or that the combo of players and scheme does not allow for the team to find another gear.  It could just be the bounce of the ball, that UCLA got lucky and hit shots against us that they did not hit against WSU, for instance.  Sometimes the other team just hits shots, gets the calls, gets the bounces their way.

Stanford's MO under Tara has been to not get too emotional, to be steady, to not get too high or low.  That works well most of the time, especially when they have a dominant team.  This team is not that dominant, not in conference for sure, so maybe that tone, mode, whatever you want to call it, doesn't work as well when the opponent is all fired up and playing hero ball.  When we've lost in conference it has mostly been when someone on the other team plays hero, starts taking over and hitting shots.  Sometimes it isn't about calmly running your stuff against a very intense and fired up defense, it is about someone taking the bull by the horn, taking and making that tough shot with supreme confidence, making that tough drive and getting a foul call for the effort, etc.  

To be less windy, aggressiveness wins those tough games, and in the losses we did not "match their energy" as someone said in the post-game presser, did not amp up the aggressiveness or really get supercharged with focus.

[chimera]

I don't think we should completely discount the effects of the very tough end of season schedule.  That surely had some effect.  It was no excuse for losing to UCLA after getting up by 16 or so points though.  Being up that much in a semi of a tournament should give a weary team, if they were weary, a second wind and a reason to try hard to put away the opponent.  The team seemed to go into slow down mode, trying not to lose mode, too early.  Slowdown mode allows a motivated opponent to make a strong run.  I tend to doubt it is intentional from the coaches or the players.  I think rather it is that by the end of a game, when maybe a team needs to kick it into a more intense, aggressive mode to seal a win, the players tighten up trying to make the perfect play or that the combo of players and scheme does not allow for the team to find another gear.  It could just be the bounce of the ball, that UCLA got lucky and hit shots against us that they did not hit against WSU, for instance.  Sometimes the other team just hits shots, gets the calls, gets the bounces their way.

Stanford's MO under Tara has been to not get too emotional, to be steady, to not get too high or low.  That works well most of the time, especially when they have a dominant team.  This team is not that dominant, not in conference for sure, so maybe that tone, mode, whatever you want to call it, doesn't work as well when the opponent is all fired up and playing hero ball.  When we've lost in conference it has mostly been when someone on the other team plays hero, starts taking over and hitting shots.  Sometimes it isn't about calmly running your stuff against a very intense and fired up defense, it is about someone taking the bull by the horn, taking and making that tough shot with supreme confidence, making that tough drive and getting a foul call for the effort, etc.  

To be less windy, aggressiveness wins those tough games, and in the losses we did not "match their energy" as someone said in the post-game presser, did not amp up the aggressiveness or really get supercharged with focus.

[TonyLima]

It’s partly because we have more high skilled posts than we do high skilled wings, and I think as others have noted on this thread, we lack wings who can penetrate and finish.  I think Demetre or Bosgana might be able to develop the skills, but they don’t have them right now.  So, our resulting line-ups are an attempt to hide or minimize our weaknesses, which creates their own vulnerabilities.

Our three point field goal defense is 30.6% which is adequate.

BC

I think most agree that our mid-range game is our offensive Achilles heel.  I just can't believe that we don't have players that can fill this void.  If Demetre or Bosgana didn't have these shots at the start of the season, why don't they have them now?  Do we even know who is capable of penetrating and finishing, other than Jones?  It's just not part of the offense.

This is so frustrating.  I've got to stop throwing things at the TV.  Fortunately my aim is so bad that the TV is fine.

Might try one of these

[TonyLima]

It’s partly because we have more high skilled posts than we do high skilled wings, and I think as others have noted on this thread, we lack wings who can penetrate and finish.  I think Demetre or Bosgana might be able to develop the skills, but they don’t have them right now.  So, our resulting line-ups are an attempt to hide or minimize our weaknesses, which creates their own vulnerabilities.

Our three point field goal defense is 30.6% which is adequate.

BC

I think most agree that our mid-range game is our offensive Achilles heel.  I just can't believe that we don't have players that can fill this void.  If Demetre or Bosgana didn't have these shots at the start of the season, why don't they have them now?  Do we even know who is capable of penetrating and finishing, other than Jones?  It's just not part of the offense.

This is so frustrating.  I've got to stop throwing things at the TV.  Fortunately my aim is so bad that the TV is fine.

Might try one of these

[TheFarm07]

I don't think we should completely discount the effects of the very tough end of season schedule.  That surely had some effect.  It was no excuse for losing to UCLA after getting up by 16 or so points though.  Being up that much in a semi of a tournament should give a weary team, if they were weary, a second wind and a reason to try hard to put away the opponent.  The team seemed to go into slow down mode, trying not to lose mode, too early.  Slowdown mode allows a motivated opponent to make a strong run.  I tend to doubt it is intentional from the coaches or the players.  I think rather it is that by the end of a game, when maybe a team needs to kick it into a more intense, aggressive mode to seal a win, the players tighten up trying to make the perfect play or that the combo of players and scheme does not allow for the team to find another gear.  It could just be the bounce of the ball, that UCLA got lucky and hit shots against us that they did not hit against WSU, for instance.  Sometimes the other team just hits shots, gets the calls, gets the bounces their way.

Stanford's MO under Tara has been to not get too emotional, to be steady, to not get too high or low.  That works well most of the time, especially when they have a dominant team.  This team is not that dominant, not in conference for sure, so maybe that tone, mode, whatever you want to call it, doesn't work as well when the opponent is all fired up and playing hero ball.  When we've lost in conference it has mostly been when someone on the other team plays hero, starts taking over and hitting shots.  Sometimes it isn't about calmly running your stuff against a very intense and fired up defense, it is about someone taking the bull by the horn, taking and making that tough shot with supreme confidence, making that tough drive and getting a foul call for the effort, etc.  

To be less windy, aggressiveness wins those tough games, and in the losses we did not "match their energy" as someone said in the post-game presser, did not amp up the aggressiveness or really get supercharged with focus.

I've noticed that to this effect, sometimes not just this year, when we do have a good lead in the second half, our players sometimes seem surprised when the opposing team is still trying to create something (poke the ball away when someone is dribbling too much, boxing out for a rebound, etc.) and get back in the game.

[TheFarm07]

I don't think we should completely discount the effects of the very tough end of season schedule.  That surely had some effect.  It was no excuse for losing to UCLA after getting up by 16 or so points though.  Being up that much in a semi of a tournament should give a weary team, if they were weary, a second wind and a reason to try hard to put away the opponent.  The team seemed to go into slow down mode, trying not to lose mode, too early.  Slowdown mode allows a motivated opponent to make a strong run.  I tend to doubt it is intentional from the coaches or the players.  I think rather it is that by the end of a game, when maybe a team needs to kick it into a more intense, aggressive mode to seal a win, the players tighten up trying to make the perfect play or that the combo of players and scheme does not allow for the team to find another gear.  It could just be the bounce of the ball, that UCLA got lucky and hit shots against us that they did not hit against WSU, for instance.  Sometimes the other team just hits shots, gets the calls, gets the bounces their way.

Stanford's MO under Tara has been to not get too emotional, to be steady, to not get too high or low.  That works well most of the time, especially when they have a dominant team.  This team is not that dominant, not in conference for sure, so maybe that tone, mode, whatever you want to call it, doesn't work as well when the opponent is all fired up and playing hero ball.  When we've lost in conference it has mostly been when someone on the other team plays hero, starts taking over and hitting shots.  Sometimes it isn't about calmly running your stuff against a very intense and fired up defense, it is about someone taking the bull by the horn, taking and making that tough shot with supreme confidence, making that tough drive and getting a foul call for the effort, etc.  

To be less windy, aggressiveness wins those tough games, and in the losses we did not "match their energy" as someone said in the post-game presser, did not amp up the aggressiveness or really get supercharged with focus.

I've noticed that to this effect, sometimes not just this year, when we do have a good lead in the second half, our players sometimes seem surprised when the opposing team is still trying to create something (poke the ball away when someone is dribbling too much, boxing out for a rebound, etc.) and get back in the game.

[Mudhead]

At the outset, i confess to being the ultimate armchair second guessing coach. After all my experience coaching three years of 4th 5th and 6th grade boys YMCA teams entitles me to tell the winningest coach in college bb history how to coach .  And I do so constantly throughout the games.

I have backed off of criticizing Tara for going to a grind it out, defensive oriented  approach to winning…even though I believe this approach contributed a lot to out loss to UCLA.  And no, i haven  t mellowed.

I think .Tara wanted to have an open, flowing high powered offense this year . We spent most of the first half of the year playing this way; trying to find the right five to pull it off. Leopolo’s development as a point guard looked like the missing piece. But it turned out to be fools gold.

Those lineups and that style led to a high number of turnovers and I think  the coaches concluded correctly that they could not win the NATTy that way. Further, Haley’s inability to hit the three and Cams early inability to hit mid range shots took away some very important and necessary elements of an open , flowing almost positionless offense. 

By the way, I think Haley Jones is a generational talent and player. She is simply great and we will find out how important she was next year.

What Tara did have was an almost Chiney level inside talent in Cam and an astounding rebounding #4 in Haley. So she set out to grind people down with that; to limit turnovers and force other teas to score against our defense .. not off turnovers and in transition.

It worked pretty well. Eventually, other good teams decided to clog the middle and force us to win from the outside. As we know , that has worked also.

At the end of the day, i think we went to the grind it out, Def she focused inside scoring game because we had to, not because we wanted to. So I am no longer demanding that I replace Tara as head coach.

I am intrigued by the resurgence of  Brinks midrange game. If that’s for real, we could go,back to the open style with Betts and Kiki down low and Haley slashing. We can get enough 3 point action from Jump, Lepolo, Bosagna et Al to win..even with 15 to 20 turnovers?  

It’s worth a try especially if the goal is the NATTY rather than “a deep run”.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

[Mudhead]

At the outset, i confess to being the ultimate armchair second guessing coach. After all my experience coaching three years of 4th 5th and 6th grade boys YMCA teams entitles me to tell the winningest coach in college bb history how to coach .  And I do so constantly throughout the games.

I have backed off of criticizing Tara for going to a grind it out, defensive oriented  approach to winning…even though I believe this approach contributed a lot to out loss to UCLA.  And no, i haven  t mellowed.

I think .Tara wanted to have an open, flowing high powered offense this year . We spent most of the first half of the year playing this way; trying to find the right five to pull it off. Leopolo’s development as a point guard looked like the missing piece. But it turned out to be fools gold.

Those lineups and that style led to a high number of turnovers and I think  the coaches concluded correctly that they could not win the NATTy that way. Further, Haley’s inability to hit the three and Cams early inability to hit mid range shots took away some very important and necessary elements of an open , flowing almost positionless offense. 

By the way, I think Haley Jones is a generational talent and player. She is simply great and we will find out how important she was next year.

What Tara did have was an almost Chiney level inside talent in Cam and an astounding rebounding #4 in Haley. So she set out to grind people down with that; to limit turnovers and force other teas to score against our defense .. not off turnovers and in transition.

It worked pretty well. Eventually, other good teams decided to clog the middle and force us to win from the outside. As we know , that has worked also.

At the end of the day, i think we went to the grind it out, Def she focused inside scoring game because we had to, not because we wanted to. So I am no longer demanding that I replace Tara as head coach.

I am intrigued by the resurgence of  Brinks midrange game. If that’s for real, we could go,back to the open style with Betts and Kiki down low and Haley slashing. We can get enough 3 point action from Jump, Lepolo, Bosagna et Al to win..even with 15 to 20 turnovers?  

It’s worth a try especially if the goal is the NATTY rather than “a deep run”.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

[81alum]

At the outset, i confess to being the ultimate armchair second guessing coach. After all my experience coaching three years of 4th 5th and 6th grade boys YMCA teams entitles me to tell the winningest coach in college bb history how to coach .  And I do so constantly throughout the games.

I have backed off of criticizing Tara for going to a grind it out, defensive oriented  approach to winning…even though I believe this approach contributed a lot to out loss to UCLA.  And no, i haven  t mellowed.

I think .Tara wanted to have an open, flowing high powered offense this year . We spent most of the first half of the year playing this way; trying to find the right five to pull it off. Leopolo’s development as a point guard looked like the missing piece. But it turned out to be fools gold.

Those lineups and that style led to a high number of turnovers and I think  the coaches concluded correctly that they could not win the NATTy that way. Further, Haley’s inability to hit the three and Cams early inability to hit mid range shots took away some very important and necessary elements of an open , flowing almost positionless offense. 

By the way, I think Haley Jones is a generational talent and player. She is simply great and we will find out how important she was next year.

What Tara did have was an almost Chiney level inside talent in Cam and an astounding rebounding #4 in Haley. So she set out to grind people down with that; to limit turnovers and force other teas to score against our defense .. not off turnovers and in transition.

It worked pretty well. Eventually, other good teams decided to clog the middle and force us to win from the outside. As we know , that has worked also.

At the end of the day, i think we went to the grind it out, Def she focused inside scoring game because we had to, not because we wanted to. So I am no longer demanding that I replace Tara as head coach.

I am intrigued by the resurgence of  Brinks midrange game. If that’s for real, we could go,back to the open style with Betts and Kiki down low and Haley slashing. We can get enough 3 point action from Jump, Lepolo, Bosagna et Al to win..even with 15 to 20 turnovers?  

It’s worth a try especially if the goal is the NATTY rather than “a deep run”.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

That theory makes a lot of sense, Mudhead.  It does account for the change in offense and game play that came mid year.  Early in the year, Iriafen was hitting jumpers from the elbow, too.   More recently Brink's midrange game has perked up and Iriafen even hit one from the elbow.  Maybe it is time to give our original strategy another try.  It did, after all, get us to a tie in regulation with South Carolina.  And when would be a better time to give it another try than in the first two rounds, at home in Maples?  I like your story, and don't blame you for sticking with it.

[81alum]

At the outset, i confess to being the ultimate armchair second guessing coach. After all my experience coaching three years of 4th 5th and 6th grade boys YMCA teams entitles me to tell the winningest coach in college bb history how to coach .  And I do so constantly throughout the games.

I have backed off of criticizing Tara for going to a grind it out, defensive oriented  approach to winning…even though I believe this approach contributed a lot to out loss to UCLA.  And no, i haven  t mellowed.

I think .Tara wanted to have an open, flowing high powered offense this year . We spent most of the first half of the year playing this way; trying to find the right five to pull it off. Leopolo’s development as a point guard looked like the missing piece. But it turned out to be fools gold.

Those lineups and that style led to a high number of turnovers and I think  the coaches concluded correctly that they could not win the NATTy that way. Further, Haley’s inability to hit the three and Cams early inability to hit mid range shots took away some very important and necessary elements of an open , flowing almost positionless offense. 

By the way, I think Haley Jones is a generational talent and player. She is simply great and we will find out how important she was next year.

What Tara did have was an almost Chiney level inside talent in Cam and an astounding rebounding #4 in Haley. So she set out to grind people down with that; to limit turnovers and force other teas to score against our defense .. not off turnovers and in transition.

It worked pretty well. Eventually, other good teams decided to clog the middle and force us to win from the outside. As we know , that has worked also.

At the end of the day, i think we went to the grind it out, Def she focused inside scoring game because we had to, not because we wanted to. So I am no longer demanding that I replace Tara as head coach.

I am intrigued by the resurgence of  Brinks midrange game. If that’s for real, we could go,back to the open style with Betts and Kiki down low and Haley slashing. We can get enough 3 point action from Jump, Lepolo, Bosagna et Al to win..even with 15 to 20 turnovers?  

It’s worth a try especially if the goal is the NATTY rather than “a deep run”.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

That theory makes a lot of sense, Mudhead.  It does account for the change in offense and game play that came mid year.  Early in the year, Iriafen was hitting jumpers from the elbow, too.   More recently Brink's midrange game has perked up and Iriafen even hit one from the elbow.  Maybe it is time to give our original strategy another try.  It did, after all, get us to a tie in regulation with South Carolina.  And when would be a better time to give it another try than in the first two rounds, at home in Maples?  I like your story, and don't blame you for sticking with it.

[TheWildJacko]

Here’s a question I’ve been wondering: why start Agnes against Oregon, and then Kiki against UCLA? Agnes performed quite well against OR: 8 points, 3 boards, 50% shooting (including from 3), and a block. Yes 3 fouls and a TO, but she was an integral part of our victory against OR. But then she didn’t start against UCLA and only played 11 min., 4 min fewer than against OR, despite hitting both her shots and grabbing 2 boards in that limited time.

Kiki only played 4 minutes, came in, hit 1 shot, and picked up a quick foul every time she came in the game. I love Kiki’s play as well, but she didn’t have a good game vs. UCLA and she had barely played against OR. So why the lineup change?

[TheWildJacko]

Here’s a question I’ve been wondering: why start Agnes against Oregon, and then Kiki against UCLA? Agnes performed quite well against OR: 8 points, 3 boards, 50% shooting (including from 3), and a block. Yes 3 fouls and a TO, but she was an integral part of our victory against OR. But then she didn’t start against UCLA and only played 11 min., 4 min fewer than against OR, despite hitting both her shots and grabbing 2 boards in that limited time.

Kiki only played 4 minutes, came in, hit 1 shot, and picked up a quick foul every time she came in the game. I love Kiki’s play as well, but she didn’t have a good game vs. UCLA and she had barely played against OR. So why the lineup change?

[chimera]

Here’s a question I’ve been wondering: why start Agnes against Oregon, and then Kiki against UCLA? Agnes performed quite well against OR: 8 points, 3 boards, 50% shooting (including from 3), and a block. Yes 3 fouls and a TO, but she was an integral part of our victory against OR. But then she didn’t start against UCLA and only played 11 min., 4 min fewer than against OR, despite hitting both her shots and grabbing 2 boards in that limited time.

Kiki only played 4 minutes, came in, hit 1 shot, and picked up a quick foul every time she came in the game. I love Kiki’s play as well, but she didn’t have a good game vs. UCLA and she had barely played against OR. So why the lineup change?

I assume for more rebounding.  UO offense was very guard oriented, so she started Emma-Nnopu.  UCLA is known to be a good rebounding team, thus Iriafen.  I guess.  I no longer know which way is up.

[chimera]

Here’s a question I’ve been wondering: why start Agnes against Oregon, and then Kiki against UCLA? Agnes performed quite well against OR: 8 points, 3 boards, 50% shooting (including from 3), and a block. Yes 3 fouls and a TO, but she was an integral part of our victory against OR. But then she didn’t start against UCLA and only played 11 min., 4 min fewer than against OR, despite hitting both her shots and grabbing 2 boards in that limited time.

Kiki only played 4 minutes, came in, hit 1 shot, and picked up a quick foul every time she came in the game. I love Kiki’s play as well, but she didn’t have a good game vs. UCLA and she had barely played against OR. So why the lineup change?

I assume for more rebounding.  UO offense was very guard oriented, so she started Emma-Nnopu.  UCLA is known to be a good rebounding team, thus Iriafen.  I guess.  I no longer know which way is up.

[Hurlburt88]

And Big Red has not made her way back into any regular rotation, which puzzles me.

[Hurlburt88]

And Big Red has not made her way back into any regular rotation, which puzzles me.

[TheWildJacko]

And Big Red has not made her way back into any regular rotation, which puzzles me.

Me as well! Would love to see more of her!

[TheWildJacko]

And Big Red has not made her way back into any regular rotation, which puzzles me.

Me as well! Would love to see more of her!

[OCcardinal]

Here’s a question I’ve been wondering: why start Agnes against Oregon, and then Kiki against UCLA? Agnes performed quite well against OR: 8 points, 3 boards, 50% shooting (including from 3), and a block. Yes 3 fouls and a TO, but she was an integral part of our victory against OR. But then she didn’t start against UCLA and only played 11 min., 4 min fewer than against OR, despite hitting both her shots and grabbing 2 boards in that limited time.

Kiki only played 4 minutes, came in, hit 1 shot, and picked up a quick foul every time she came in the game. I love Kiki’s play as well, but she didn’t have a good game vs. UCLA and she had barely played against OR. So why the lineup change?

Both Agnes and Kiki had terrible defensive analytics vs UCLA. Each had a defensive rating of 150.4 and a 0% stop percentage.

[OCcardinal]

Here’s a question I’ve been wondering: why start Agnes against Oregon, and then Kiki against UCLA? Agnes performed quite well against OR: 8 points, 3 boards, 50% shooting (including from 3), and a block. Yes 3 fouls and a TO, but she was an integral part of our victory against OR. But then she didn’t start against UCLA and only played 11 min., 4 min fewer than against OR, despite hitting both her shots and grabbing 2 boards in that limited time.

Kiki only played 4 minutes, came in, hit 1 shot, and picked up a quick foul every time she came in the game. I love Kiki’s play as well, but she didn’t have a good game vs. UCLA and she had barely played against OR. So why the lineup change?

Both Agnes and Kiki had terrible defensive analytics vs UCLA. Each had a defensive rating of 150.4 and a 0% stop percentage.

[OCcardinal]

Brink wasn't a great three point shooter before this season but she was competent and made some key ones.  She has not taken threes as much or made as many, and has been used way more on the low block than earlier this season.  If she was back to hitting a three or two now and again not only do we get more threes made from non-Jump players but she pulls defenders out to open things up for Betts or Iriafen, or Jones to cut to the basket.  Brink is not a one dimensional player, but that's how she has mostly been used after January.

Brink's problem hasn't been taking fewer threes, it's been making fewer of them:

Season 3PA (3PM) 3P%
2022-23 47 (10) 21.3%
2021-22 31 (11) 35.5%
2020-21 30 (11) 36.7%

[OCcardinal]

Brink wasn't a great three point shooter before this season but she was competent and made some key ones.  She has not taken threes as much or made as many, and has been used way more on the low block than earlier this season.  If she was back to hitting a three or two now and again not only do we get more threes made from non-Jump players but she pulls defenders out to open things up for Betts or Iriafen, or Jones to cut to the basket.  Brink is not a one dimensional player, but that's how she has mostly been used after January.

Brink's problem hasn't been taking fewer threes, it's been making fewer of them:

Season 3PA (3PM) 3P%
2022-23 47 (10) 21.3%
2021-22 31 (11) 35.5%
2020-21 30 (11) 36.7%

[Spiny_Norman]

Brink wasn't a great three point shooter before this season but she was competent and made some key ones.  She has not taken threes as much or made as many, and has been used way more on the low block than earlier this season.  If she was back to hitting a three or two now and again not only do we get more threes made from non-Jump players but she pulls defenders out to open things up for Betts or Iriafen, or Jones to cut to the basket.  Brink is not a one dimensional player, but that's how she has mostly been used after January.

Brink's problem hasn't been taking fewer threes, it's been making fewer of them:

Season 3PA (3PM) 3P%
2022-23 47 (10) 21.3%
2021-22 31 (11) 35.5%
2020-21 30 (11) 36.7%

She started the season shooting as she had the prior 2 years. Through the first 11 games, she was 6 for 17 (35%). Since then she has gone 4 for 30.

[Spiny_Norman]

Brink wasn't a great three point shooter before this season but she was competent and made some key ones.  She has not taken threes as much or made as many, and has been used way more on the low block than earlier this season.  If she was back to hitting a three or two now and again not only do we get more threes made from non-Jump players but she pulls defenders out to open things up for Betts or Iriafen, or Jones to cut to the basket.  Brink is not a one dimensional player, but that's how she has mostly been used after January.

Brink's problem hasn't been taking fewer threes, it's been making fewer of them:

Season 3PA (3PM) 3P%
2022-23 47 (10) 21.3%
2021-22 31 (11) 35.5%
2020-21 30 (11) 36.7%

She started the season shooting as she had the prior 2 years. Through the first 11 games, she was 6 for 17 (35%). Since then she has gone 4 for 30.

[Card10Fan]

Brink wasn't a great three point shooter before this season but she was competent and made some key ones.  She has not taken threes as much or made as many, and has been used way more on the low block than earlier this season.  If she was back to hitting a three or two now and again not only do we get more threes made from non-Jump players but she pulls defenders out to open things up for Betts or Iriafen, or Jones to cut to the basket.  Brink is not a one dimensional player, but that's how she has mostly been used after January.

Brink's problem hasn't been taking fewer threes, it's been making fewer of them:

Season 3PA (3PM) 3P%
2022-23 47 (10) 21.3%
2021-22 31 (11) 35.5%
2020-21 30 (11) 36.7%

Since February 1, Brink has taken 1 three point attempt and missed in 11 games. 0-1. She's not been attempting them near as frequently as earlier in the year. I think she will become a reliable  3point threat with time. Hopefully by next year.

[Card10Fan]

Brink wasn't a great three point shooter before this season but she was competent and made some key ones.  She has not taken threes as much or made as many, and has been used way more on the low block than earlier this season.  If she was back to hitting a three or two now and again not only do we get more threes made from non-Jump players but she pulls defenders out to open things up for Betts or Iriafen, or Jones to cut to the basket.  Brink is not a one dimensional player, but that's how she has mostly been used after January.

Brink's problem hasn't been taking fewer threes, it's been making fewer of them:

Season 3PA (3PM) 3P%
2022-23 47 (10) 21.3%
2021-22 31 (11) 35.5%
2020-21 30 (11) 36.7%

Since February 1, Brink has taken 1 three point attempt and missed in 11 games. 0-1. She's not been attempting them near as frequently as earlier in the year. I think she will become a reliable  3point threat with time. Hopefully by next year.

[martyup]

But, she's got that top-of-the-key shot dialed in.

[martyup]

But, she's got that top-of-the-key shot dialed in.

[Hieronymus]

Brink wasn't a great three point shooter before this season but she was competent and made some key ones.  She has not taken threes as much or made as many, and has been used way more on the low block than earlier this season.  If she was back to hitting a three or two now and again not only do we get more threes made from non-Jump players but she pulls defenders out to open things up for Betts or Iriafen, or Jones to cut to the basket.  Brink is not a one dimensional player, but that's how she has mostly been used after January.

Brink's problem hasn't been taking fewer threes, it's been making fewer of them:

Season 3PA (3PM) 3P%
2022-23 47 (10) 21.3%
2021-22 31 (11) 35.5%
2020-21 30 (11) 36.7%

Since February 1, Brink has taken 1 three point attempt and missed in 11 games. 0-1. She's not been attempting them near as frequently as earlier in the year. I think she will become a reliable  3point threat with time. Hopefully by next year.

Her massive improvement at the FT line makes it likely she gets there. A focus this offseason may well get it done.

[Hieronymus]

Brink wasn't a great three point shooter before this season but she was competent and made some key ones.  She has not taken threes as much or made as many, and has been used way more on the low block than earlier this season.  If she was back to hitting a three or two now and again not only do we get more threes made from non-Jump players but she pulls defenders out to open things up for Betts or Iriafen, or Jones to cut to the basket.  Brink is not a one dimensional player, but that's how she has mostly been used after January.

Brink's problem hasn't been taking fewer threes, it's been making fewer of them:

Season 3PA (3PM) 3P%
2022-23 47 (10) 21.3%
2021-22 31 (11) 35.5%
2020-21 30 (11) 36.7%

Since February 1, Brink has taken 1 three point attempt and missed in 11 games. 0-1. She's not been attempting them near as frequently as earlier in the year. I think she will become a reliable  3point threat with time. Hopefully by next year.

Her massive improvement at the FT line makes it likely she gets there. A focus this offseason may well get it done.