OSU-Gonzaga NCAA Second Round Official Game thread

Not necessarily! It is blanket statement like this that I feel compelled to respond to. It depends upon the match ups and the game situation. Gonzaga was a really good match up for Maddie and she played really well in this game. While I defended Scott not playing Maddie more in the previous games, it was obvious to me early on that Maddie was a better choice and Scott should have played Maddie even more in this particular game for a variety or reasons. Lets look at those reasons. 

To begin with the Zags either did not have a player to attack and take advantage of her lack of height, so she was not a defensive liability. The team needed scoring from somewhere and Maddie was hitting her short jumpers in the key and the Zags had no one to stop her. The guards also were able to get her the ball in the paint via bounce passes which is something the can not do with Jo because when she gets the ball low they tie her up quickly. They also constantly were putting a body on her, bringing in double teams which clogged up the painta and eliminated drives by the rest of the team. This team has a hard time getting the ball to Jo high. It is usually just off her finger tips. With her you need to get it just a bit lower because she doesn't jump. They need to get more arch on their inlet passes so they do not have to throw the ball so high. The Zags would also get below Jo's center of gravity in this game and push her off balance. You saw the effects of that in that Jo hit the floor or be seen stumbling.  In contrast, with Maddie she prefers and actually does better getting the ball low via bounce passes. When she is on and facing the right match up it is far easier to get the ball to Maddie in her spot.  

Maddie has shown that against the right match ups she is very effective. The thing is that often that is not known till the game is being played. Who is more effective is all about match ups and trade offs. Match ups are sometimes obvious but with trade offs it often depends on game situations. Even if Maddie or any other player was a defensive liability it still would not automatically mean they should not be on the court. What they supply on offense might be more important to the team in that game than the defensive trade off. In the past I have seen Scott keep a player on the court even though they contributed 0 points, because their defense was important in that game. I have also seen him do the reverse by pulling a scoring player who became a defensive liability. Scott will always value defense over offense, but that also depends if the team needs scoring or defense is of greater value in a game. Greaves, on the other hand values offense even above greater defense.  

My responses in respect to who or who should not be playing has as much to do with the game situations as it does the players themselves. It also depends on how well the individual players are playing at any given point in time and how that translates into the teams needs during any game.  Players are not machines and they have good and bad days. They also have medium games somewhere in between their best and worst showings. 

While not perfect , Scott does as well as any coach i have ever seen in utilizing his roster and making in game adjustments.