|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 19, 2020 9:28:57 GMT -5
I agree that Larson is a great all around player. But so is KYK. I posted their respective performances in the World Cup; it's hard to argue that Larson was better at anything. And with OHs you always have to come back to how good they are offensively if there's a tiebreaker. Larson isn't on the same level as Zhu or KYK in regards to terminal ability. Maybe, it's pretty close. I guess I'd say KYK is the better attacker of the two. Regardless it's: 1 Zhu 2-3 Larson or KYK on any given day. Larson peaked several years ago. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 19, 2020 9:31:44 GMT -5
just curious to who your top 3 are? i think a case can be made larson is the clear #2 Over Kim Yeon-koung? KYK is more terminal, a better passer and a better blocker. Those two are the clear #1 and #2 imo. Are you using the World Cup numbers to support these claims? I think most would agree KYK is more terminal, and maybe a better blocker (although Larson is world class in that skill as well), but definitely not a better passer. I would go watch them play at Eczacibasi again. KYK was subbed out for Meliha (at first just situationally, but then pretty consistently) in the back row for passing. She's a good passer given her offense and height, but not better than Larson. I'm saying this as a huge Larson fan with some likely bias, but you can't just look at your basic stats to understand what Larson brings to the court. That has always been the case, and I think it's pretty widely accepted given her success at the club level. She's also a role player (she has spoken directly to this in interviews). So her game is going to look different at Dinamo Kazan, 2015 Eczacibasi or Shanghai, where she's needed to be more of an offensive juggernaut, than it was at Eczacibasi the last 2 years, or even at team USA. I would probably still put KYK at #2, but I think it's much closer than you do.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 19, 2020 9:33:41 GMT -5
Maybe, it's pretty close. I guess I'd say KYK is the better attacker of the two. Regardless it's: 1 Zhu 2-3 Larson or KYK on any given day. Larson peaked several years ago. Sorry. I'd go tell that to her season in Shanghai. And Larson and KYK both hit their peak at around the same time, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 19, 2020 9:43:44 GMT -5
Larson peaked several years ago. Sorry. I'd go tell that to her season in Shanghai. And Larson and KYK both hit their peak at around the same time, IMO. I would, but alas, I don't speak chinese. lol KYK's peak was higher, and her decline has not been as steep. KYK has the physical ability to continue to play at a high level (not as high or sustained as her peak certainly) for longer than Larson. I've always admired Larson's balanced all-around game and her contributions to a team, so I'm not bashing her. I've always felt that the best role for her was paired with a more terminal OH, but not as a top 3 OH in the world, even at her peak.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2020 9:45:16 GMT -5
Over Kim Yeon-koung? KYK is more terminal, a better passer and a better blocker. Those two are the clear #1 and #2 imo. Are you using the World Cup numbers to support these claims? I think most would agree KYK is more terminal, and maybe a better blocker (although Larson is world class in that skill as well), but definitely not a better passer. I would go watch them play at Eczacibasi again. KYK was subbed out for Meliha (at first just situationally, but then pretty consistently) in the back row for passing. She's a good passer given her offense and height, but not better than Larson. I'm saying this as a huge Larson fan with some likely bias, but you can't just look at your basic stats to understand what Larson brings to the court. That has always been the case, and I think it's pretty widely accepted given her success at the club level. She's also a role player (she has spoken directly to this in interviews). So her game is going to look different at Dinamo Kazan, 2015 Eczacibasi or Shanghai, where she's needed to be more of an offensive juggernaut, than it was at Eczacibasi the last 2 years, or even at team USA. I would probably still put KYK at #2, but I think it's much closer than you do. Allow me to clarify; in regards to the most recent competitive tournament in which both participated, KYK passed marginally better. KYK: 145 attempts, 2.35 grade, 61.4 GP%. Larson 124 attempts, 2.29 grade, 60.5 GP%. I'm not saying KYK has been a better passer throughout their careers (I don't think that) or that she's even a better passer consistently right now. I'm saying that across the last tournament in which they both participated, she passed better than Larson did. So the narrative that "Larson is a better passer" without to evidence to back it up is, at the very least, in question. But, as I stated above, KYK was significantly more terminal in that same tournament, while playing with less support offensively. In case of a tie between Outsides, I'll always lean to the more terminal player and that's still KYK. I'm cool with Larson at 3 though. Who else do we have that's top 3? Fun fact, Zhu terminated at 54.8% through that same competition and Yuan was at 63.5%. She took 137 swings and missed the line once. In 137 swings...
|
|
|
Post by Reach on Apr 19, 2020 9:50:34 GMT -5
Maybe, it's pretty close. I guess I'd say KYK is the better attacker of the two. Regardless it's: 1 Zhu 2-3 Larson or KYK on any given day. Larson peaked several years ago. Sorry. Well you expired but we still let you hang out and post.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 19, 2020 9:51:53 GMT -5
Larson peaked several years ago. Sorry. Well you expired but we still let you hang out and post. Take a look in the mirror. See what it says.
|
|
|
Post by Reach on Apr 19, 2020 9:53:54 GMT -5
Well you expired but we still let you hang out and post. Take a look in the mirror. See what it says. I can't. I'm afraid I might see Lori Lightfoot.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 19, 2020 9:56:12 GMT -5
I'd go tell that to her season in Shanghai. And Larson and KYK both hit their peak at around the same time, IMO. I would, but alas, I don't speak chinese. lol KYK's peak was higher, and her decline has not been as steep. KYK has the physical ability to continue to play at a high level (not as high or sustained as her peak certainly) for longer than Larson. I've always admired Larson's balanced all-around game and her contributions to a team, so I'm not bashing her. I've always felt that the best role for her was paired with a more terminal OH, but not as a top 3 OH in the world, even at her peak. Again, her season in Shanghai weakens your point about her peak and physical longevity (whereas ironically, KYK was injured for most of this season in Turkey), but I'm not going to try and prove to you the value in her game. If you don't think she was one of the top 3 OHs in the world from ~2014-2016, given her individual accolades and salary, I'm not sure what will convince you.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 19, 2020 10:07:31 GMT -5
I would, but alas, I don't speak chinese. lol KYK's peak was higher, and her decline has not been as steep. KYK has the physical ability to continue to play at a high level (not as high or sustained as her peak certainly) for longer than Larson. I've always admired Larson's balanced all-around game and her contributions to a team, so I'm not bashing her. I've always felt that the best role for her was paired with a more terminal OH, but not as a top 3 OH in the world, even at her peak. Again, her season in Shanghai weakens your point about her peak and physical longevity (whereas ironically, KYK was injured for most of this season in Turkey), but I'm not going to try and prove to you the value in her game. If you don't think she was one of the top 3 OHs in the world from ~2014-2016, given her individual accolades and salary, I'm not sure what will convince you. The original question was about top 3 OH's in the world. The way I am approaching it is that I would take the best, most terminal OH I can find, and build around that. I don't see Larson as that OH, but I do see the value in having her to "seal all the edges" of the team. Because of citizenship restraints, pro teams aren't free to load up with all the best available talent, so that is where Larson's value internationally comes in. A national team has a bit more freedom to approach team building in this way (but limited to their own citizens), but what are so many people pointing out as a need for the USA WNT? The need for a more terminal OH.
|
|
|
Post by Reach on Apr 19, 2020 10:26:20 GMT -5
Why is the best outside and the most terminal the same thing for some people?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2020 10:31:16 GMT -5
Why is the best outside and the most terminal the same thing for some people? I don't think it is but the ability to terminate, especially OOS, is the most important consideration at the Olympic level imo. Would you disagree?
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 19, 2020 10:31:34 GMT -5
Why is the best outside and the most terminal the same thing for some people? It's not necessarily, but points scored is a big deal.
|
|
|
Post by Reach on Apr 19, 2020 10:38:16 GMT -5
Why is the best outside and the most terminal the same thing for some people? I don't think it is but the ability to terminate, especially OOS, is the most important consideration at the Olympic level imo. Would you disagree? Yes, that's why we have opposites. The Chinese system is the only system in the world where they essentially use the outside as their opposite. Take Zhu Ting out of the equation for this and you'll see how much more valuable Larson is. Ting is not the passer or defender that Larson or KYK are. Put it this way. Would you choose Ting/KYK or Ting/Larson taking all skills into consideration for the makeup of your team?
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 19, 2020 10:45:34 GMT -5
Again, her season in Shanghai weakens your point about her peak and physical longevity (whereas ironically, KYK was injured for most of this season in Turkey), but I'm not going to try and prove to you the value in her game. If you don't think she was one of the top 3 OHs in the world from ~2014-2016, given her individual accolades and salary, I'm not sure what will convince you. Because of citizenship restraints, pro teams aren't free to load up with all the best available talent, so that is where Larson's value internationally comes in. Larson's value internationally came from her runs with Dinamo Kazan and Eczacibasi in 2013-2016 (in which she was more than just a "seal all of the edges" player). She was arguably the most sought after club player in the world, and that was reflected in her salary. If you don't think she was ever top 3, that's fine, but attributing her success to pro leagues' citizenship restraints is cheap, especially when those caps work against American players just as much as they may work for them.
|
|