Game Thread: No. 16 Baylor Women’s Basketball Returns to Waco, Hosts Colorado

Just win Lady Bears!

Terribly sloppy from both teams in the first half. We have gotten some open looks from 3 that just haven't fallen

Thought this was going to be an easy game.

Instead, we find ourselves trailing in the 3rd, courtesy of a whopping 5-point 2nd quarter.

Ugly doesn't even begin to describe this game.

Only 4 points so far in the 3rd lol.

Closed the 3rd on a 10-2 run. Up 39-35 end 3.

Starting backcourt is 4/23 from the field, and 1/12 from beyond the arc.

If it weren't for Deng and Bella closing out that 3rd, we'd likely be trailing heading into the 4th.

Hopefully we wake up and pull away somehow.

16 turnovers
17 opponents offensive rebounds
35% shooting

How the heck are we up in this game?

Foster seems 20-25% full at the most. Maybe 1,500 fans? I think less.

21 TOs and starting guards 5-25, but we got the W

Couldn't watch live. Lots of offensive fouls called on Baylor - especially Scott and JVG. For those who watched, good calls or not? Can't remember a time when a team's two primary ball handlers fouled out in regulation.

Mercifully its over. My advice - flush it and move on.



W

DP4LIFE said:

---

Couldn't watch live. Lots of offensive fouls called on Baylor - especially Scott and JVG. For those who watched, good calls or not? Can't remember a time when a team's two primary ball handlers fouled out in regulation.

---

Not really. Colorado was called for a lot of obvious fouls where they bulled over us, but we were getting called for touch fouls. Twice CU reached around us and drew a jump ball call by the official who was blocked from view by the players' bodies.

Anyway, we did just enough, and their atrocious FT shooting down the stretch certainly helped.

pilgrim said:

---

Foster seems 20-25% full at the most. Maybe 1,500 fans? I think less.

---

.

geewago said:

---

pilgrim said:

---

Foster seems 20-25% full at the most. Maybe 1,500 fans? I think less.

---

.

---

The other side, behind the benches, was fuller than the side shown. Still not a great showing but.... a Thursday night game vs a meh opponent, opposite the CFP will never produce a great crowd in Waco, TX. That's just a fact.

Under 1,000.

3172 announced

Attendance announced at 3417. I know.. tickets sold.

Delmar 2.0 said:

---

geewago said:

---

pilgrim said:

---

Foster seems 20-25% full at the most. Maybe 1,500 fans? I think less.

---

.

---

The other side, behind the benches, was fuller than the side shown. Still not a great showing but.... a Thursday night game vs a meh opponent, opposite the CFP will never produce a great crowd in Waco, TX. That's just a fact.

---

BearFan33 said:

---

Ugly game. Brick city.

Offensively we were just a little less bad than them.

I was really hoping Coach would have dipped into the bench more when no one on our team could score. But we got the win regardless

---

We won the game because of our defense. We couldn't hit open shots. Colorado had some open looks that missed, but we contested their shots way much better than they did ours.

"Bricking" is what makes basketball, IMO, the most unexpected outcomes of most other sports. Unlike something like football where you can just run people over if the passing game isn't working, some nights you can't hit the ocean even when standing on the beach. Fortunately, Deng who had actually been a liability earlier in the game because of her missed shots, turnovers (5) and not being able to count to 3 when in the lane, went back to her normal production. What made the game close at the end was Jana and Scott fouling out. They have got to be more careful. Scott had two really bad fouls.

As far as dipping into the bench, I can see where there would have been a hesitation on the staff's part to rely on players off the bench that could have disrupted our defensive intensity and effectiveness because of their lack of experience or past demonstrating that those on the court are better defensively. Whatever benefit you think might have been achieved by those that didn't play or played little, I think would have been outweighed by the points that Colorado could have scored by our defense being just even a little bit less intense.

I think everyone needs to realize there are no easy games for anyone in this league. That is not going to change. Too many perceptions of opponents are done by fans based on projections of prior years or the name on their jersey. And any team that presents some height down low is going to cause us problems if our mid range and outside shooting is off such that we can't pull some away from the basket to mount much of an inside game. We really got hurt last night also by Colorado's ability to get second and third opportunities because of their offensive rebounding advantage.

If you are expecting an easy game come Sunday because KU has a 1-3 record (look at their games), best you not watch. That one is going to be tough. I assume the students will be back from break so that should help a little.

blackie said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

Ugly game. Brick city.

Offensively we were just a little less bad than them.

I was really hoping Coach would have dipped into the bench more when no one on our team could score. But we got the win regardless

---

We won the game because of our defense. We couldn't hit open shots. Colorado had some open looks that missed, but we contested their shots way much better than they did ours.

"Bricking" is what makes basketball, IMO, the most unexpected outcomes of most other sports. Unlike something like football where you can just run people over if the passing game isn't working, some nights you can't hit the ocean even when standing on the beach. Fortunately, Deng who had actually been a liability earlier in the game because of her missed shots, turnovers (5) and not being able to count to 3 when in the lane, went back to her normal production. What made the game close at the end was Jana and Scott fouling out. They have got to be more careful. Scott had two really bad fouls.

As far as dipping into the bench, I can see where there would have been a hesitation on the staff's part to rely on players off the bench that could have disrupted our defensive intensity and effectiveness because of their lack of experience or past demonstrating that those on the court are better defensively. Whatever benefit you think might have been achieved by those that didn't play or played little, I think would have been outweighed by the points that Colorado could have scored by our defense being just even a little bit less intense.

I think everyone needs to realize there are no easy games for anyone in this league. That is not going to change. Too many perceptions of opponents are done by fans based on projections of prior years or the name on their jersey. And any team that presents some height down low is going to cause us problems if our mid range and outside shooting is off such that we can't pull some away from the basket to mount much of an inside game. We really got hurt last night also by Colorado's ability to get second and third opportunities because of their offensive rebounding advantage.

If you are expecting an easy game come Sunday because KU has a 1-3 record (look at their games), best you not watch. That one is going to be tough. I assume the students will be back from break so that should help a little.

---

A few more observations:

CU was long and lanky, but lacked finesse. NC commented on the postgame radio interview that it gave us problems.

So many of their fouls were ones that were totally out of control (especially on offense--8 of their first 10 fouls were charges or moving screens), and they resembled the Aggettes of 15 years ago. Commit so many blatant fouls that the refs eventually quit calling all of them, or didn't call the ones that weren't as obvious.

To counter their length, we successfully relied a lot on our lanky ones: KJ and Abraham. We didn't always get the rebound, but they disrupted a lot of shots inside. Nelms never saw the floor, because her bulk and relative lack of size would not have been as effective.

Scott was forcing it too much: kept jacking it up (especially in the 1st half) and you could tell it was off when it left her hands. A couple of her fouls were frustration fouls after misses or having the ball stripped.

Bella was hot early, and we suffered when she went out after the first of 3-4 hard falls/knockdowns. Had she been able to stay on track game might not have been so close.

As bad as our shooting was, theirs was worse. In the end, it didn't really matter that they got so many offensive rebounds if they put up 3-4 shots in a possession, and came away empty half the time anyway.

The last 2 games our FT shooting has vastly improved. We finished only 10-14, but I'm discounting Abraham missing both: that was pretty much to be expected. And CU's woeful FT shooting in clutch time cost them the game.

The CU coach needs to eat a sandwich.

Delmar 2.0 said:

---

canoso said:

---

pilgrim said:

---

Foster seems 20-25% full at the most. Maybe 1,500 fans? I think less.

---

Wasn't one of the stated "reasons" to build Foster to give BU a stronger home court advantage?

It ain't working, friends.

---

Nobody bought that reasoning. Everyone knows they built the tiny arena so they could reduce supply & increase demand & therefore jack up ticket prices and price out Joe & Judy Waco. That, my friends, is working.

---

Most astute observation. Hat is off to you.

So you're saying Nelms wouldn't have been effective, and that CNC made some genius call by keeping her on the bench for the ENTIRE game?

Well, let's see:

Our other posts had a combined 6 points with 3 minutes left in the contest.

Finished with 8 altogether.

And we were badly outrebounded (gave up 22 offensive boards alone).

So given the info I just provided, are you still certain that Nelms couldn't have been somewhat effective?

Because from where I'm sitting, she couldn't have done much worse.

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Not understanding the fixation with Nelms. She is used when the matchups dictate it.

Nelms is undersized. Colorado was a really tall team.
Nelms had issues learning our base offense over 1.5 years. We installed new O actions before the ISU game. If Nelms can't learn the base O in 1.5 years, what proof do you have that she showed any understanding of the new stuff in less than 2 weeks?
The new O actions are screening intensive. Please tell us in which games Nelms demonstrated a penchant for screening.

You keep harping on a single point and totally ignore the points of her weak areas.

---

So when we were struggling against Southern, and were absolutely getting slaughtered against OSU with our other posts, did Nelms NOT play well and help us win both of those games?

And in our other recent games, where we have struggled against everyone else's post players, was she not on the bench for most of those contests?

For someone who loves to break down every game and pick on our PG constantly for not getting free, one would think you'd be open to inserting someone who frees up space for EVERYONE ELSE when she is on the floor.

Nelms may be 6'1, but she plays as if she's 6'3.

Very similar to Draymond with Golden State, minus the antics.

Look, at the end of the day she has shown that she is capable of producing when given a chance.

We've got a weapon on the roster, and we choose not to use it.

As an opposing coach, I would be thrilled to face Baylor, since there will likely be a good chance that we mismanage our personnel (and I haven't even hit on the fact that we don't play Deng as much as we should).

Bottom Line: When Nelms is used (particularly with Scott and Deng), we actually resemble a Top 10 Team.

When Nelms isn't utilized, we end up finding ourselves in dogfights, or just losing games altogether.

I'd prefer looking like a Top 10 Team and winning comfortably, instead of sweating out contests night in and night out.

Perhaps you don't.

LTBear19 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

Not understanding the fixation with Nelms. She is used when the matchups dictate it.

Nelms is undersized. Colorado was a really tall team.
Nelms had issues learning our base offense over 1.5 years. We installed new O actions before the ISU game. If Nelms can't learn the base O in 1.5 years, what proof do you have that she showed any understanding of the new stuff in less than 2 weeks?
The new O actions are screening intensive. Please tell us in which games Nelms demonstrated a penchant for screening.

You keep harping on a single point and totally ignore the points of her weak areas.

---

So when we were struggling against Southern, and were absolutely getting slaughtered against OSU with our other posts, did Nelms NOT play well and help us win both of those games?

And in our other recent games, where we have struggled against everyone else's post players, was she not on the bench for most of those contests?

For someone who loves to break down every game and pick on our PG constantly for not getting free, one would think you'd be open to inserting someone who frees up spacing for EVERYONE ELSE when she is on the floor.

Nelms may be 6'1, but she plays as if she's 6'3.

Very similar to Draymond with Golden State, minus the antics.

Look, at the end of the day she has shown that she is capable of producing when given a chance.

We've got a weapon on the roster, and we choose not to use it.

As an opposing coach, I would be thrilled to face Baylor, since there will likely be a good chance that we mismanage our personnel (and I haven't even hit on the fact that we don't play Deng as much as we should).

Bottom Line: When Nelms is used (particularly with Scott and Deng), we actually resemble a Top 10 Team.

When Nelms isn't utilized, we end up finding ourselves in dogfights, or just lose games altogether.

I'd prefer looking like a Top 10 Team and winning comfortably, instead of sweating out contests night in and night out.

Perhaps you don't.

---

Once again you fail to address the specific points about her D and O scheme knowledge.
Tripling down on the same point while steadfastly refusing to address others isn't persuasive.

I laid out all of the positives she brings to the table in a separate thread (titled Nelms).

And apparently, her knowledge of schemes was good enough to fluster our opponents and lead to comebacks when we were struggling or down and out.

Even the announcers for the OSU game, who were there in person and had a front row seat, applauded her impact and effort in that game - which before she entered that contest, we were absolutely getting mauled in with all of the players with knowledge of your so-called schemes.

Basketball is about bottom-line production, is it not? Isn't that why you are all over JVG every chance you get?

When given a fair shake, Nelms has produced.

LTBear19 said:

---

I laid out all of the positives she brings to the table in a separate thread (titled Nelms).

And apparently, her knowledge of schemes was good enough to fluster our opponents and lead to comebacks when we were struggling or down and out.

Even the announcers for the OSU game, who were there in person and had a front row seat, applauded her impact and effort in that game - which before she entered that contest, we were absolutely getting mauled in with all of the players with knowledge of your so-called schemes.

Basketball is about bottom-line production, is it not? Isn't that why you are all over JVG every chance you get?

When given a fair shake, Nelms has produced.

---

Are you not recognizing the difference in sample size?

And again you are focused solely on one side of the ball. Johnson and Abraham are far superior shot blockers. Buggs is a vastly better rebounder. Those are the only three players that she positionally overlaps.

Nelms matched up well against OSU (and played well) and got minutes. She had no decent matchup against Tech or ISU so she didn't play much. She logged no minutes against Colorado because we were getting killed on the boards even with us playing taller and more athletic players. Clearly the size limitations matter to CNC. Basically Nelms plays against smaller and less athletic teams. You have yet to provide any answer as to why her size doesn't matter.

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

LTBear19 said:

---

I laid out all of the positives she brings to the table in a separate thread (titled Nelms).

And apparently, her knowledge of schemes was good enough to fluster our opponents and lead to comebacks when we were struggling or down and out.

Even the announcers for the OSU game, who were there in person and had a front row seat, applauded her impact and effort in that game - which before she entered that contest, we were absolutely getting mauled in with all of the players with knowledge of your so-called schemes.

Basketball is about bottom-line production, is it not? Isn't that why you are all over JVG every chance you get?

When given a fair shake, Nelms has produced.

---

Are you not recognizing the difference in sample size?

And again you are focused solely on one side of the ball. Johnson and Abraham are far superior shot blockers. Buggs is a vastly better rebounder. Those are the only three players that she positionally overlaps.

Nelms matched up well against OSU (and played well) and got minutes. She had no decent matchup against Tech or ISU so she didn't play much. She logged no minutes against Colorado because we were getting killed on the boards even with us playing taller and more athletic players. Clearly the size limitations matter to CNC. Basically Nelms plays against smaller and less athletic teams. You have yet to provide any answer as to why her size doesn't matter.

---

How do you know for certain she wouldn't have done much better than what we were putting on the floor last night?

It's not like we were exactly tearing it up out there.

And you should know that blocks are just one stat. How about altering shots? Is that not something you pay attention to? Because I sure do, and Nelms is excellent at doing just that, along with having more of a presence down low than our other post players.

A good coach will identify the opposing team's 'headache' players beforehand. Those are players that a coach is praying they don't have to deal with, because they can be a problem during the course of a game.

Not to knock our other post players, but I think many of the other coaches in the Big XII would rather take their chances with KJ or Kyla than have to deal with Nelms wearing their own post players down.

The occasional block doesn't make up for the minimal scoring output and getting beat on defense (pick and rolls in particular). Nor does it make up for giving the other team a ton of second chance opportunities (I'll repeat, in case you missed it - we gave up 22 offensive boards last night).

And before you want to make it strictly about height, the 3 players who went to work on us were their guards - Wooten (5'8) & Walker (5'11), and Dutat (their 6'0 forward).

Wooten had 13 points, Walker had 16 points, and Dutat had 9 points and 12 boards.

Not bad for a trio of players who aren't even 6'1 (Nelms's height).

In Dutat's case, she led the Buffs in rebounds and was their 3rd leading scorer last night.

I guess it's a good thing CU's coach didn't get caught up in height alone and decided to play someone who gave them the best chance to win.

You sound like those folks who would have declined putting Miami in the CFP because you THOUGHT they didn't deserve to be in.

Well, we all know how that is playing out at the moment.

So here's a novel idea: How about we play Nelms for an extended period of time and see how everything unfolds (instead of just ASSUMING she would play poorly or not match up well against an opponent).

Because if we're going to ASSUME, then I'll play that game, and ASSUME she would have tallied more than 6 points after 37 minutes of playing time.