[SkiBum80]

in my opinion Leopolo hinders the offense  not a viable 3 pt shooter so the defense still plays off her. also seems much slower.
rather see Harriel at point, and Ogden or Clardy start

I think last year Coach Tara liked using Lepolo so much (when not injured) cause of her ball control.
Not a lot of turnovers.  Just bring it up, dish off to a big or a wing. Maybe you're done for that possession.
Her defense a mixed bag, could argue was/is tenacious, maybe, but also can be shot over by opponent especially if switched off onto by a screen.
On D this year her stats show no steals, so not impressing in that regard.
And this year is more emphasis on everyone needs be a scoring threat, so I agree others may be better options.
Coach Paye might agree somewhat too, as Lepolo playing time is not a lot, is 8th on team.

---

Live by the three…

BC

We shot 5/20 (25%) from the 3, several of the misses were of the in-and-out variety.  Had we shot 8/20, which would have been very good, but still a much lower percentage than the first three games, it would have been a 78-56 win (ignoring second order effects), which would have felt like much less of a close game.

This is the challenge with being three-point dependent; although most advanced analytics say that the expected value of a three point shot is higher than a two point shot in most circumstances, it does increase the variance, so a bad shooting day is going to affect you more.

For math geeks:
Imagine a team that shoots 45% from 2 and 33% from 3.  The expected points are 0.9 pts from 2 and 1 from 3.  But the SD around that is ±1 .41 points from 3 and ±0.995 from 2, so you are more prone to particularly bad days of shooting if you shoot a lot of threes and are unlucky.

Good points.
One second order effect hard to quantify (I have not tried) is the reduced chance of getting an Off Rebound when you shoot a 3 compared to a 2.
I would guess the chance is slightly higher for the 2 than the 3. 
Cause the 2 shooter, being closer to the rim, might be more likely in the rebound play than the 3 shooter.
Also 3's have a higher chance of no defender being super close in coverage, compared to 2's, meaning that defender is significantly closer to the rim than the 3 shooter.
But I would guess a third order effect, is who is the shooter.
If it is one of our bigs, then the difference is likely more noticeable.
In other words, I guess the lowest chance of an Oboard when Maxime or Nunu taking the 3.
Cause your best rebounder is almost entirely out of the rebound play.

[SkiBum80]

in my opinion Leopolo hinders the offense  not a viable 3 pt shooter so the defense still plays off her. also seems much slower.
rather see Harriel at point, and Ogden or Clardy start

I think last year Coach Tara liked using Lepolo so much (when not injured) cause of her ball control.
Not a lot of turnovers.  Just bring it up, dish off to a big or a wing. Maybe you're done for that possession.
Her defense a mixed bag, could argue was/is tenacious, maybe, but also can be shot over by opponent especially if switched off onto by a screen.
On D this year her stats show no steals, so not impressing in that regard.
And this year is more emphasis on everyone needs be a scoring threat, so I agree others may be better options.
Coach Paye might agree somewhat too, as Lepolo playing time is not a lot, is 8th on team.

---

Live by the three…

BC

We shot 5/20 (25%) from the 3, several of the misses were of the in-and-out variety.  Had we shot 8/20, which would have been very good, but still a much lower percentage than the first three games, it would have been a 78-56 win (ignoring second order effects), which would have felt like much less of a close game.

This is the challenge with being three-point dependent; although most advanced analytics say that the expected value of a three point shot is higher than a two point shot in most circumstances, it does increase the variance, so a bad shooting day is going to affect you more.

For math geeks:
Imagine a team that shoots 45% from 2 and 33% from 3.  The expected points are 0.9 pts from 2 and 1 from 3.  But the SD around that is ±1 .41 points from 3 and ±0.995 from 2, so you are more prone to particularly bad days of shooting if you shoot a lot of threes and are unlucky.

Good points.
One second order effect hard to quantify (I have not tried) is the reduced chance of getting an Off Rebound when you shoot a 3 compared to a 2.
I would guess the chance is slightly higher for the 2 than the 3. 
Cause the 2 shooter, being closer to the rim, might be more likely in the rebound play than the 3 shooter.
Also 3's have a higher chance of no defender being super close in coverage, compared to 2's, meaning that defender is significantly closer to the rim than the 3 shooter.
But I would guess a third order effect, is who is the shooter.
If it is one of our bigs, then the difference is likely more noticeable.
In other words, I guess the lowest chance of an Oboard when Maxime or Nunu taking the 3.
Cause your best rebounder is almost entirely out of the rebound play.