We're rolling on into the women's basketball season again. On Twitter, someone quoted a comment from Geno Auriemma (or maybe from an Auriemma fan) that out of the handful of players that have left the Connecticut program, none was ever successful anywhere else.
I countered with two. One was Elena Delle Donne, but both of us agreed that Delle Donne's case comes with a big asterisk. The other case is that of Samarie Walker, now a senior at Kentucky. Walker averaged 6.2 ppg/5.8 rpg during her lone season as a Huskie. At Kentucky, she's slightly better:
2011-12: 8.7 ppg/7.2 rpg
2012-13: 8.7 ppg/8.1 rpg
Maybe Walker was no more successful at UK than at UConn - but you couldn't argue that she was less successful, and she'll probably be a WNBA Draft pick.
The important thing - in Samarie Walker's eyes, anyway, is the following stat:
2010-11: 18.8 mpg
2011-12: 20.7 mpg
2012-13: 26.6 mpg
Walker left supposedly because she had other priorities - lost her passion for basketball, wanted to study design in Chicago, whatever - it looks like Connecticut cut her loose and basically shoved her out the door.
Anyway, the details aren't important to the point I want to make. The point I want to make comes from, of all places, one of those awful Star Trek paperback fiction novels I used to be into. It was about Commander Chekov's career outside of the Enterprise in a book that took place in the (old) movie universe.
Chekov faced a dilemma in his life. He was a talented officer, but he wasn't James T. Kirk. Chekov was never going to command the Enterprise, or a ship even remotely like the Enterprise. He thus faced two choices: he could be a first officer on a so-so ship like the Reliant, or he could be a role-player on a elite ship like the Enterprise. So which one is it going to be?
This is a question that a lot of recruits face. Take a look at the bottom part of Connecticut's bench. That would have been Kiah Stokes and Heather Buck if I'm reading things right. Both of them started a grand total of one game. They averaged 2.8 and 0.8 ppg, respectively.
At a low major program, they probably would have started. But they chose to be role players at Connecticut. They're the Ensign Chekovs of the Huskies.
Why? Well, I assume if you asked them in an unguarded moment, they'd say, "Because Connecticut wins national championships, and I want to win a national championship."
To which - if I'm being perverse here - I might ask, "Why?" (If I were recruiting against Connecticut, I'd ask this question.) What exactly do you get out of being the 10th or 11th bench player on a championship team? Not much, I'd say. You might get to go on a lot of trips and have Obama shake your hand. You might get a ring out of it and the chance to tell some great stories.
You also get a front row view of everyone else playing basketball, while you applaud from your bench seat. You also get to work as hard - even harder, perhaps, than Mosqueda-Lewis or Faris for the privilege of NOT getting to play.
Everyone knows who Diana Taurasi and Sue Bird are? Can you name the 10th or 11th players off the bench on those teams? Ever hear of Kiana Robinson or Stacey Marron? Unless you bleed Connecticut blue, you're probably scratching your heads. (Geno never talks about them.) Diana Taurasi might have heard of them; they were the bench players during the 2003-04 season when UConn beat Tennessee.
Someone recently pointed me to an essay on the movie Glengarry Glen Ross, particulary the famous "motivational" scene from Alec Baldwin. My wife - who is in sales - loved this movie, and I hated it because Baldwin's character was such a preening narcissist. But I finally understood it and appreciated it.
In it, Baldwin has been assigned to light a fire under an under-performing sales staff:
Blake: You certainly don't pal. 'Cause the good news is -- you're fired. The bad news is you've got, all you got, just one week to regain your jobs, starting tonight. Starting with tonights sit. Oh, have I got your attention now? Good. 'Cause we're adding a little something to this months sales contest. As you all know, first prize is a Cadillac Eldorado. Anyone want to see second prize? Second prize's a set of steak knives. Third prize is you're fired. You get the picture? You're laughing now? You got leads. Mitch and Murray paid good money. Get their names to sell them! You can't close the leads you're given, you can't close shit, you ARE shit, hit the bricks pal and beat it 'cause you are going out!!!
In the essay, the author talks about the idea of "prizes" as motivators. You can always work hard to get a set of steak knives. And if steak knives don't motivate you, there's always the negative motivator of being fired. The problem is that Levene and Moss and Aaronow need some kind of motivation, positive or negative.
But the essayists makes the point that guys like Blake aren't even motivated by the first prize - the Cadillac Eldorado. Oh sure, he'll show it off. "That watch cost more than your car". But the Blakes in this world are motivated to be the best. They don't need external motivations to do what they do.
"It takes brass balls to sell real estate," he later says, using an appropriate prop. That's Blake's motivation. To show the world that he has brass balls.
Pete Rose used to say that he'd run through hell in a gasoline suit to play basketball. I think that Diana Taurasi is the same way, she'd play just as hard for Binghamton as she'd have played for UConn.
So what is the point of playing basketball? It's to get better. The best players want to get better all the time. But if you're not on the court, how on earth are you really going to get better? You can't get better at basketball unless you play basketball. Who knows, maybe Kiah Stokes and Heather Buck are really, really great basketball players. But looking at the box scores, that's kind of hard to say.
The number one consideration for any basketball recruit should be playing time. There are lots of coaches out there who can make you better; Geno Auriemma doesn't hold the monopoly. Can you honestly tell me that Auriemma is really a better coach or a better developer of basketball talent than Kathy Delaney-Smith over at Harvard? And don't point to the national championships; Delaney-Smith will never have the raw talent that Auriemma has. One of Delaney-Smith's teams was the only team in NCAA basketball history where a #16 seed beat a #1 seed (with caveats).
You really think that Auriemma can make you a better player than Delaney-Smith could? Really? Tell me what metric measures that.
If I were in the shoes of the 11th or 12th player on the UConn bench, if it looked like I'd be saying "nice job!" to the Maya Moores and Tina Charleses and Sue Birds of the world, I'd ask for a transfer immediately. An NCAA basketball player gets four years to play basketball. A recruit should go to the place where her chances of playing basketball are maximized - period - because how is she going to get better if she doesn't play?
"But you'd be giving up a national championship!" That's an externality. That's like playing for the Cadillac Eldorado. The best players don't need the external motivation. They want to be the best they can be whether they're playing at Division I or Division III. The best players play hard all the time, no matter where they're playing. (Not coincidentally, those are exactly the players that Auriemma looks for.)
If someone told me that the cost of transferring out of UConn was abandoning a national championship, I'd reply that I'd rather be Chekov on the Reliant than Chekov on the Enterprise. You might end up with an earworm digging a tunnel into your brain -- but at least you'd be in command.
No comments:
Post a Comment