Inside The Numbers:  UConn Women's Team

Mulder.  Hudson.  Zito.  The Big 3!  At one time, in this emotionally adolescent boys' mind, they were The Big 3.  Well, apparently now there is a new Big 3.  Bigger than that Big 3.  Moore, Charles, and Montgomery.   I predict any one of them could pitch better than Mulder, Hudson, and Zito combined this season.  All they'd have to do is pitch better than Barry Zito and, sad to say, that is some low hanging fruit right there.

Tina Charles, listed at Center, is a sensational player.

1745553_medium

Tina Charles via grfx.cstv.com

Rene Montgomery, listed at Guard, is one of the best players in the nation.

1745464_medium

Renee Montgomery via grfx.cstv.com

But perhaps their best player is Maya Moore, listed at forward.

1745523_medium

Maya Moore via grfx.cstv.com


After the fold, we take a look at this team and see what chance Cal stands against them.

All numbers are from here.

 

TEAM STATISTICS                  UCONN          OPP
---------------------------------------------------
SCORING.................. 2955 1849
Points per game........ 84.4 52.8
Scoring margin......... +31.6 -
FIELD GOALS-ATT.......... 1101-2155 687-2075
Field goal pct......... .511 .331
3 POINT FG-ATT........... 253-689 198-663
3-point FG pct......... .367 .299
3-pt FG made per game.. 7.2 5.7
FREE THROWS-ATT.......... 500-697 277-419
Free throw pct......... .717 .661
F-Throws made per game. 14.3 7.9
REBOUNDS................. 1502 1112
Rebounds per game...... 42.9 31.8
Rebounding margin...... +11.1 -
ASSISTS.................. 705 338
Assists per game....... 20.1 9.7
TURNOVERS................ 484 637
Turnovers per game..... 13.8 18.2
Turnover margin........ +4.4 -
Assist/turnover ratio.. 1.5 0.5
STEALS................... 306 224
Steals per game........ 8.7 6.4
BLOCKS................... 173 78
Blocks per game........ 4.9 2.2
WINNING STREAK........... 35 -
Home win streak........ 15 -
ATTENDANCE............... 164911 86504
Home games-Avg/Game.... 15-10994 11-4409
Neutral site-Avg/Game.. - 9-4223

SCORE BY PERIODS: 1st 2nd Total
------------------------------ ---- ---- ----
Connecticut................... 1574 1381 - 2955
Opponents..................... 866 983 - 1849

 

 

Jesus Christo, this team is good.  Gabby Hayes good!  31.6 scoring margin!  Shooting over .500!  Cal, by comparison, is shooting .443 on the year.  Maybe a negative is that UConn is shooting 3s at a rate only about .20 higher than Cal.  That's about the best negative you can get here.  Le sigh!

 

They have over double the assists of their opponents.  Ai!  Honestly, these numbers speak for themselves.  You don't need me to tease anything out or focus on anything.

 

 

POINTS                G  Pts  Pts/G             SCORING AVERAGE       G  Pts Avg/G
----------------------------------- ----------------------------------
Moore, Maya......... 35 665 19.0 Moore, Maya......... 35 665 19.0
Charles, Tina....... 35 586 16.7 Charles, Tina....... 35 586 16.7
Montgomery, Renee... 35 565 16.1 Montgomery, Renee... 35 565 16.1
Greene, Kalana...... 35 302 8.6 Doty, Caroline...... 17 147 8.6
Hayes, Tiffany...... 35 277 7.9 Greene, Kalana...... 35 302 8.6
McLaren, Kaili...... 34 152 4.5 Hayes, Tiffany...... 35 277 7.9
Doty, Caroline...... 17 147 8.6 McLaren, Kaili...... 34 152 4.5
Williams, Tahirah... 29 88 3.0 Williams, Tahirah... 29 88 3.0
Dixon, Lorin........ 35 87 2.5 Dixon, Lorin........ 35 87 2.5
Gardler, Meghan..... 28 58 2.1 Gardler, Meghan..... 28 58 2.1
Fernandes, Jacquie.. 26 23 0.9 Fernandes, Jacquie.. 26 23 0.9
Kerns, Cassie....... 15 5 0.3 Kerns, Cassie....... 15 5 0.3

 

As noted previously, UConn has its Big 3, Moore, Charles, and Montgomery.  Nobody else comes close in point scoring.  The worst of the 3 scores 16 a game.  Cal only has 1 player score more than 13 a game and that's superstud Ashley Walker.  UConn has 3.  The document speaks for itself.

 

 

FG PERCENTAGE         FG ATT   Pct              FIELD GOAL ATTEMPTS   G  Att  Att/G
---------------------------------- -----------------------------------
Charles, Tina....... 236 382 .618 Moore, Maya......... 35 483 13.8
Greene, Kalana...... 125 211 .592 Montgomery, Renee... 35 436 12.5
McLaren, Kaili...... 59 104 .567 Charles, Tina....... 35 382 10.9
Williams, Tahirah... 33 60 .550 Hayes, Tiffany...... 35 213 6.1
Moore, Maya......... 254 483 .526 Greene, Kalana...... 35 211 6.0
Doty, Caroline...... 52 116 .448
Montgomery, Renee... 194 436 .445 FIELD GOALS MADE G Made Made/G
Hayes, Tiffany...... 92 213 .432 -----------------------------------
Gardler, Meghan..... 19 47 .404 Moore, Maya......... 35 254 7.3
Dixon, Lorin........ 27 71 .380 Charles, Tina....... 35 236 6.7
Fernandes, Jacquie.. 8 23 .348 Montgomery, Renee... 35 194 5.5
Kerns, Cassie....... 2 9 .222 Greene, Kalana...... 35 125 3.6
Hayes, Tiffany...... 35 92 2.6

 

That .618 FG% by Tina Charles is toads re-dick.  I mean this whole team is toads re-dick!  Again, compare it to Cal's numbers (available here).  Cal has 2 players shooting over .431 (Walker; Hampton).  It's shorter to count UConn's players shooting under that number.  They have 4.  So, UConn has 8 players compared to Cal's 2.  Not good!  And, of course, their Big 3 shoot the most buckets.

 

 

 

3-POINT PERCENTAGE   3FG ATT   Pct              3-POINT FG ATTEMPTS   G  Att  Att/G
---------------------------------- -----------------------------------
Doty, Caroline...... 30 75 .400 Montgomery, Renee... 35 238 6.8
Moore, Maya......... 80 201 .398 Moore, Maya......... 35 201 5.7
Montgomery, Renee... 92 238 .387 Hayes, Tiffany...... 35 107 3.1
Fernandes, Jacquie.. 3 8 .375 Doty, Caroline...... 17 75 4.4
Hayes, Tiffany...... 35 107 .327 Greene, Kalana...... 35 30 0.9
Gardler, Meghan..... 5 16 .313
Greene, Kalana...... 6 30 .200 3-POINT FGS MADE G Made Made/G
Dixon, Lorin........ 2 12 .167 -----------------------------------
McLaren, Kaili...... 0 1 .000 Montgomery, Renee... 35 92 2.6
Williams, Tahirah... 0 1 .000 Moore, Maya......... 35 80 2.3
Hayes, Tiffany...... 35 35 1.0
Doty, Caroline...... 17 30 1.8
Greene, Kalana...... 35 6 0.2

 

As noted previously, the one place where they don't completely and totally out-class Cal is at the 3.  Tina Charles hasn't even attempted one.  And Moore's .390 and Montgomery's .387 are comparable to the 4 or 5 or so Cal players shooting around that mark.  So, if there's one opportunity here it's for Cal to out shoot UConn at the 3.  By the numbers, we have comparable or even better 3 shooters.  And if UConn is forced to go for 3s, it takes one of their Big 3 out of the game partially.  A man can dream, right?

 

FT PERCENTAGE         FT ATT   Pct              FREE THROW ATTEMPTS   G  Att  Att/G
---------------------------------- -----------------------------------
Doty, Caroline...... 13 15 .867 Charles, Tina....... 35 169 4.8
Hayes, Tiffany...... 58 75 .773 Montgomery, Renee... 35 112 3.2
Greene, Kalana...... 46 60 .767 Moore, Maya......... 35 102 2.9
Montgomery, Renee... 85 112 .759 Hayes, Tiffany...... 35 75 2.1
Moore, Maya......... 77 102 .755 Greene, Kalana...... 35 60 1.7
Williams, Tahirah... 22 30 .733
McLaren, Kaili...... 34 47 .723 FREE THROWS MADE G Made Made/G
Charles, Tina....... 114 169 .675 -----------------------------------
Dixon, Lorin........ 31 48 .646 Charles, Tina....... 35 114 3.3
Gardler, Meghan..... 15 27 .556 Montgomery, Renee... 35 85 2.4
Fernandes, Jacquie.. 4 8 .500 Moore, Maya......... 35 77 2.2
Kerns, Cassie....... 1 4 .250 Hayes, Tiffany...... 35 58 1.7
Greene, Kalana...... 35 46 1.3

 

Actually, I take that back.  The numbers here with free throws are comparable to ours.  Tina Charles, their big inside threat, has only 1 fewer FT than Walker, our big inside threat.  But Walker shoots at a much better rate.  Montgomery and Moore compare almost evenly with Grey-Lawson and Hampton, but the UConn people do shoot a lot better there.  So, it evens out.  This isn't as big an opportunity as with the 3s, but it's also not a place where UConn is destroying Cal statistically.

 

REBOUNDS              G  Reb  Reb/G             ASSISTS               G  No.    A/G
----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
Moore, Maya......... 35 317 9.1 Montgomery, Renee... 35 182 5.2
Charles, Tina....... 35 296 8.5 Moore, Maya......... 35 118 3.4
Greene, Kalana...... 35 157 4.5 Hayes, Tiffany...... 35 87 2.5
Hayes, Tiffany...... 35 146 4.2 McLaren, Kaili...... 34 70 2.1
McLaren, Kaili...... 34 114 3.4 Dixon, Lorin........ 35 68 1.9

REBOUND AVERAGE G Reb Avg/G STEALS G No. S/G
----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
Moore, Maya......... 35 317 9.1 Moore, Maya......... 35 71 2.0
Charles, Tina....... 35 296 8.5 Montgomery, Renee... 35 52 1.5
Greene, Kalana...... 35 157 4.5 Hayes, Tiffany...... 35 39 1.1
Hayes, Tiffany...... 35 146 4.2 Greene, Kalana...... 35 34 1.0
McLaren, Kaili...... 34 114 3.4 Charles, Tina....... 35 33 0.9
Doty, Caroline...... 17 57 3.4

 

 

Tina Charles at 8.5 averages .2 boards fewer than Walker a game.  And she's their #2!  Moore is even better!  UConn has 4 players who average over 4 boards a game.  Cal has 2 (although, in the interest of fairness, Grey-Lawson averages 3.9).

 

The numbers are the same with assists.  Cal's highest assister is Vital, who has 108 on the year and averages about 3.3.  Even though UConn has played 2 more games than Cal, they still have 2 players who average more assists per game than Vital!

 

Final Thoughts:

Much had been made about how good UConn is.  But it is not until you actually look at the numbers, that you see just how amazing they are.  In specific, points scored, which is, in some interesting way, one of the metrics by which competitive sporting events are marked.  When a team is undefeated.  And they win, on average, by over 30 points.  ON AVERAGE!  They are a good team.  When they have multiple players playing around the point of your best player (who is REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY good herself).  They are a good team.

This is a good team.  This is David.  We are Goliath.  Or, wait, do I have that one backwards?  I always forget my old mythology.  I'm pretty sure UConn is the face that launched a thousand ships.  Will we be squashed?  Or will we slingshot our way into the record books?  If you had to ask me, which you in no way did, I'd say we get squashed.  Cal is a great team and Cal had a great season!  No denying that.  But this UConn team is just too amazing.

There's a chance that Cal will shoot some 3s, get a lead, force UConn to hit their 3s, take Charles off her game and win.  There's also a chance I climb Mount Everest.  Naked.  With CBKWit going piggy-back the entire time.  Also naked.  So, you never know. 

The fact of the matter is that UConn is the overwhelming favorite to win it all.  And even if Cal was wildly successful otherwise, at some point, be it in the 16, 8, 4, or even 2 points of this Tourney, we'd have to face them.  And most likely lose.  Unless we win, in which case, CBKWit strip down, because we are going hiking!

It sucks that we have to face UConn in the 16 as compared to 8, 4, or 2.  But that doesn't change that Cal had an amazing season, an amazing run, and have a lot to build for next year.

As for this year, hope you enjoyed the Virginia game, because unless something outstanding happens, we are going to get crushed on Sunday and it's not going to be funny.  Unless it's all sped up and Yakety Sax is played at the same time.  Because that'd make it kind of funny.

But hey, at least I saved 15% for switching to Geico for all my insurance needs!  GO BEARS!

X
Log In Sign Up

forgot?
Log In Sign Up

Forgot password?

We'll email you a reset link.

If you signed up using a 3rd party account like Facebook or Twitter, please login with it instead.

Forgot password?

Try another email?

Almost done,

Join California Golden Blogs

You must be a member of California Golden Blogs to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at California Golden Blogs. You should read them.

Join California Golden Blogs

You must be a member of California Golden Blogs to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at California Golden Blogs. You should read them.

Spinner.vc97ec6e

Authenticating

Great!

Choose an available username to complete sign up.

In order to provide our users with a better overall experience, we ask for more information from Facebook when using it to login so that we can learn more about our audience and provide you with the best possible experience. We do not store specific user data and the sharing of it is not required to login with Facebook.

tracking_pixel_9341_tracker