RedlessWardrobe said:

---

Late in the season we started to adjust to this type of defense, by quite often spreading the floor and let Kayla drive and/or dish. Saw very little of that yesterday. Maybe it would have helped.

---

annarborbear said:

---

It has been a great season in many ways, and credit goes to the players and the coaches. But finishing 18th in the league in Assist/TO ratio and then saying that there is simply nothing that we can do about it?

---

ClayK said:

---

What no one says about women's basketball: There are more D1 scholarships than there are D1 players.

The talent pool is not deep.

---

ClayK said:

---

Cal was simply not as athletic as Mississippi State at any position.

That allowed MSU's defenders to play up on Cal's shooters and take away the three-pointer. When the Bears put the ball on the floor, there was a 6-8 post waiting at the rim.

The "lack of discipline" was really a lack of athleticism. Cal was forced to force the issue, and try to make low-percentage plays because they were not athletic enough to make high percentage plays.

In short, Mississippi State was the better team because of talent, not because of poor coaching or lack of effort or dumb play.

And there's no substitute for talent.

---

ClayK said:

---

There's such a fine line in coaching ...

If you punish every mistake, players play not to make mistakes.

If you let bad stuff go, then there's no accountability.

So the coach has to judge whether the player is

a) doing her best given her physical and mental limitations, and the defense facing her; or

b) willfully ignoring instructions and game plans.

When you are not as athletic as your defender -- and I have plenty of experience with that -- you get sped up. You have to think faster and move faster than you'd like, and you make decisions and physical errors that you wouldn't if you were athletically equal or superior. An example is Marta: When she takes smaller players inside, she's in control. When she's getting harassed by a quicker defender, she makes bad passes.

Against most teams, Cal's advantages (size, shooting ability) outweighed its disadvantages, and generally someone had an athletic advantage. Against Mississippi State, no one had an athletic advantage, and MSU exploited that when Cal had the ball. They sped Cal up the entire game. There were few open looks, few gaps to attack and quick hands everywhere.

Then again, that's an 8-9 game in the NCAA tournament. Each team has strengths and weaknesses, and MSU was better equipped to exploit Cal's weaknesses than vice versa.

And Charmin, or any coach, can't and shouldn't change what won 25 games. You have to dance with them that brung you ... warts and all.

---

ClayK said:

---

Players aren't perfect. They have flaws, physical and mental.

You can't correct some physical flaws, and you can't correct some mental flaws. As I've mentioned, anyone who's been a boss has had employees who just can't seem to grasp certain concepts that others can -- and yet you keep that employee because of her value in other areas.

Passing and decision-making are the two most difficult skills to teach basketball players. They are obviously interrelated, and what makes it difficult to coach/teach is that the time frame is very compressed (processing information on the court is what separates the elite athletes in the WNBA and NBA). It's also difficult to set up practice situations that can help improve those attributes.

You can easily work on rebounding, say, or shooting mechanics. But devising a drill to mimic unexpected patterns and maneuvers that happen in a split second is extremely difficult -- and it might not even help that much. Some people are really good at math in their heads; others aren't. Some people are really good at making decisions in basketball game; some aren't.

There are reasons players are available in the portal.

---

UrsineMaximus said:

---

ClayK said:

---

Players aren't perfect. They have flaws, physical and mental.

You can't correct some physical flaws, and you can't correct some mental flaws. As I've mentioned, anyone who's been a boss has had employees who just can't seem to grasp certain concepts that others can -- and yet you keep that employee because of her value in other areas.

Passing and decision-making are the two most difficult skills to teach basketball players. They are obviously interrelated, and what makes it difficult to coach/teach is that the time frame is very compressed (processing information on the court is what separates the elite athletes in the WNBA and NBA). It's also difficult to set up practice situations that can help improve those attributes.

You can easily work on rebounding, say, or shooting mechanics. But devising a drill to mimic unexpected patterns and maneuvers that happen in a split second is extremely difficult -- and it might not even help that much. Some people are really good at math in their heads; others aren't. Some people are really good at making decisions in basketball game; some aren't.

There are reasons players are available in the portal.

---

Passing into the low post is done to a "window" not directly to the player.
The low post has to create the opportunity for the "window".

Neither the passer nor the low post does this well at Cal. Both are teachable and trainable. For some players this is innate, for others it requires coaching and repetition. Cal, currently, does not have a passer or low post that naturally does this.

If, as you say, teaching this is "extremely difficult" than the obvious solution is to stop forcing passes into the low post. Is it not? And that is coaching by definition.

---

ClayK said:

---

So if, as mentioned, Michelle was the best option against MSU, then do you quit trying to throw the ball to her?

Of course, if you do try to throw the ball to her, you will turn it over because your defender is better than you and will prevent it.

You can teach how to enter to the window, but if your defender is quicker, longer and taller, it doesn't matter. You can't get the ball where you want without speeding up, and once sped up, your efficiency goes down.

Cal had a great season and won 25 games. Their weaknesses, however, were real, and MSU exploited them. A different first-round matchup might have resulted in a first-round win, but superior athleticism was going to shut the door sooner rather than later.

---

wvitbear said:

---

When Michele wasn't in foul trouble she scored in high double digits. Foul trouble limited her more than entry pass.

---