Storm + Mercury + Key Arena = The Perfect Way to Market the WNBA to NBA Fans

When Bethlehem Shoals of FreeDarko.com (a blog about the NBA, but not merely about basketball) asked me to recommend a Seattle Storm game for us to go to, the choice seemed obvious.

“The best game for a NBA fan to see will be the Mercury on Aug 4 or Aug 21,” I wrote back.

The Mercury feature two of the top candidates for WNBA MVP in Phoenix wing players Diana Taurasi and Cappie Pondexter, a high-octane offense that almost any NBA fan would recognize as reminiscent to Phoenix’s NBA counterpart, and as Mechelle Voepel wrote last month, “Storm vs. Mercury just has that panache”.

And last night's game certainly did not disappoint. Nor did the Key Arena atmosphere.

Although the Storm lost to the Phoenix Mercury in overtime 101-90, the game featured heroics from Storm point guard Sue Bird (again) at the end of regulation, a Taurasi-like performance from Taurasi, and Storm guard Tanisha Wright torching the Mercury for 21 in the first half en route to a career-high 25 points.

And oh yeah, Bill Russell was there too…and even more importantly, a Storm Trooper tried to step onto the court after a particularly bad call from the ref in the second half.

However, I spent most of the game talking to Shoals and another male friend, who I shall call Rudy (yes, the basketball version). Neither of them had ever been to a Storm game and both had expressed interest in going at various times this summer.

All three of us fit that 18-35 year old male demographic and I’ve spent quite a bit of time watching both NBA and NCAA men’s basketball with them at various times. I would consider both informed NBA fans that appreciate professional basketball as a sport as much as for its entertainment value. Rudy is a New York Knicks fan who I’ve watched, played, and talked basketball with for about four years now. We have all attended graduate school and are overeducated to different degrees.

These guys aren’t the “average lunkhead male” – they appreciate the game of basketball and have the ability to formulate sentences without grunting and demeaning women.

So long story short – they both enjoyed the game (in different ways perhaps) and said they would like to come back.

During the game we had one of those running conversations full of tangents, non-sequiturs, and worm holes, talking about the league, making comparisons to the NBA, and talking about Bill Russell. And there were elements of our conversation during the game that I found interesting in the context of my ongoing interest in how the WNBA could market to male NBA fans.

So to help answer the question, how can the WNBA market the game to male fans?, I ask another question:

What sort of first impression(s) might the WNBA make on (over)educated male NBA fans?

The crossover worm hole

Shoals met Rudy and I on the east side of Key Arena and immediately tossed me into one of his warped worm holes. A tweet sums up the issue nicely:

"Talking with @kpelton about who has the best crossover-as-fake, not just handle, in the league. I vote Wade, he suggests Rose. Et toi?", he tweeted.

Good lord.

If you knew me, you would know that I was not actually annoyed at the question because it’s stupid or somehow insignificant. The question was annoying because I couldn’t stop thinking about it.

Shoals and I had been to the Adonai Hood Classic on Sunday as well and we talked about the issue there while watching Jamal Crawford. But as we started to come up with answers at the Storm game it became clear that the answer changed depending on any number of other variables that influence a player's decision to make a crossover.

Anyway...Pelton had apparently suggested that Cappie Pondexter had among the best crossovers in the WNBA and I agreed. So in addition to mentally running through every different variant of the “crossover” that I could imagine, I began the game paying close attention to Pondexter’s crossover. And of course, with Wright’s phenomenal first half performance, her ability to get to the basket with her crossover also became a part of the conversation.

But even though I’ve watched Pondexter play quite a bit, she never ceases to impress – as I told Shoals and Rudy, she is a triple-double threat almost every night. And her crossover is a major part of that.

She not only has arguably the best crossover in the WNBA, but also uses it extremely effectively in a number of different ways – on the fast break to get by whoever is standing in between her and the basket, in the half court to gain separation for whichever type of jumper she feels like punishing her defender with at the moment, or simply to penetrate to the basket to set up another player for a scoring opportunity.

Pondexter didn’t actually have a stellar game – going 6-19 from the field – but she also grabbed 8 boards and recorded 5 assists, at least backing up claim that she’s a triple-double threat.

Making NBA comparisons

At various points during the game we attempted to make comparisons to NBA players, since their frame of reference is the NBA. I normally hate doing that (because really it does a disservice to all sides), but since Rudy kept coming up with them, I rolled with it and it ends up being a good way to familiarize oneself with the game.

For example, we decided that Storm forward Lauren Jackson was like the Dallas Mavericks’ Dirk Nowitzki with the heart to play inside, Storm forward Swin Cash like the Oklahoma City Thunder’s Jeff Green with a better perimeter game, and DeWanna Bonner like Golden State Warriors forward Brandan Wright (not necessarily in terms of style play, but skinniness). Rudy at one point suggested that Storm guard Tanisha Wright is like the Utah Jazz’s Deron Williams, but I rejected that.

However, what’s interesting is that Pondexter – and Taurasi – seemed to defy comparison. Which is actually an interesting insight because it suggests that the WNBA actually adds something to the basketball universe. Imagine that?

WNBA player versatility

Skills seem to be much more evenly distributed across positions in the WNBA than the NBA, meaning you don’t have post players who have no skill other than being tall and dunking. On the perimeter, multiple players are able to initiate the offense.

And as Shoals mentioned later via email, “a bunch of versatile skilled players is the NBA's wet dream.”

Shoals was alarmed by the fact that 6’5” forward Lauren Jackson was hovering around the three point line and that guards Sue Bird and Tanisha Wright seemed to be splitting the responsibility of initiating the offense. Part of the reason why Rudy made the comparison of Wright to Utah’s point guard Deron Williams is that Wright almost appeared to be the point guard at times because she had the ball in her hands so often.

Taurasi was leading fast breaks, shooting threes, aggressively trying to block shots, and occasionally running the offense. Mercury center Tangela Smith was 4-6 from three point range and Storm center Camille Little hit a three to tie the game at 81 with 44.7 seconds left in regulation. I mentioned that if they watched a team like the Detroit Shock – who really don’t have a traditional distributing point guard – they might have been even more confused.

Shoals is a fan of versatile players and the blurring of positions that seemed to be occurring on both teams actually seemed to be one of the more exciting elements of the game to him. It makes basketball much more fluid and actually makes offenses much more interesting to watch, if you know anything about x’s and o’s.

Yes, males of the lunkhead persuasion will complain about missed layups and lack of dunks, but as Shoals pointed out, overall, few missed shots are actually bad shot attempts. Because there are so many versatile players who can move the ball and find different ways to score, the scoring opportunities created are pretty solid.

This is basketball in which style does not take precedent over substance, but the substantive abilities of the players give the game a style that the NBA aspires to (a “wet dream”)…or once had.

The WNBA as throwback game

It was interesting that Bill Russell was in the crowd because at multiple times throughout the game, Shoals mentioned how the game reminded him of the type of basketball you see in old footage of NBA basketball in the sixties.

“Weird Russell was there, that game reminded me of sixties ball,” he tweeted at one point.

For the uninformed, that is not a slight of the WNBA game – for someone who appreciates the sport of basketball, it’s a complement. In fact, both he and Rudy commented that given the choice between the WNBA and men’s NCAA basketball, they would probably watch a WNBA game. Shoals was quite adamant about this and I’ll leave him to explain that at some other point.

When you have versatile players and offenses predicated on passing and cutting without dunking, you don’t get worse basketball, you get sixties NBA basketball. Shoals noted at one point that even the post players get their points by cutting and being in the right position rather than on the two man isolation game that tends to dominate the NBA. Personally, as someone who appreciates ball movement and fluidity in basketball, that makes the WNBA one of the most appealing syles of play.

Framed in that way, it’s no wonder that someone like Bill Russell “is on record as being a big fan of the WNBA's style of play” as Kevin Pelton noted during the game on his live blog. As Bob Ryan alluded to in his article, “The Game You’re Missing” last year, if you actually know anything about basketball, you almost have to appreciate WNBA basketball.

If you don’t appreciate basketball, just say it… but don’t disrespect a game you know nothing about.

Engrossed to the point of standing during timeouts

In between all of our meta-analysis of basketball as a phenomenon, we did actually pay attention to the game.

Key Arena – and other arenas around the league – have a ritual of standing until the home team makes its first basket.

Rudy liked this – it seemed to add to the collective atmosphere when everyone sat down at the same time after the first shot. Shoals, who nobody could describe as a “joiner”, was initially less enthusiastic, grumbling when I implored him to stand up at the beginning of the game.

However, in overtime, as Shoals and I were standing and chatting about something or other, he stopped mid-sentence and said, “Wait – do we have to stand during timeouts too?”

Why we were standing during a timeout like dunces is beyond me… but that’s beside the point.

The point here is that the game was engaging in a way that just sort of grabs you and forces you to get caught up. Part of that is a direct result of being in Key Arena – it’s just an amazing basketball venue and when the crowd gets going, it’s difficult not to find yourself caught up in a wave of Storm fanaticism.

But a major part of it is that this is just good basketball and true fans of the sport would find a hard time not getting swept up in it.

The other side of the 18-35 year old demographic

Petrel of the Pleasant Dreams blog emailed me yesterday in response to my post about WNBA marketing and reminded me that there really is no monolithic 18-35 year old male demographic. Within that demographic there are people who are non-sports fans or sports fans who are not moved by the idiocy of shock jock sports radio. But more importantly, there might also be a cross-section of that demographic who is able to appreciate the WNBA game simply because it’s good basketball.

The unfortunate reality is that precision ball movement, cutting, and versatility – the strengths of the WNBA game – are simply not conducive to the short attention span clips of Sportscenter that people have become so accustomed to. To appreciate the WNBA, you can’t expect to be wowed by a highlight reel dunk; to appreciate the WNBA, you have to learn to appreciate the nuance of basketball.

And the best way to do that is probably to show up to a game.

Transition Points:

Thanks to Patrick from the Chasing the Title blog for providing us with these tickets.

Part of Shoals’ infatuation with Bill Russell stems from his interest in having Russel write the intro to his next FreeDarko book, which he is currently doing research for. He’s spent quite a bit reading about the man. Rudy actually went over to Russell and shook his hand, but apparently got no real response from the legend. Just one of millions of hands shaken.

In an attempt to stop over-analyzing basketball, I missed most of the halftime show to go grab a beer. However, Shoals’ girlfriend who was with us, thought the dogs during the halftime show were among the best part of the Key Arena experience.

It’s hard not to admire Tanisha Wright’s game and Patrick Sheehy has a great article on SPMSportsPage profiling Wright. Definitely worth a read. Although I’ve often focused on her offensive abilities, Sheehy does a good job articulating her impact on the defensive end.

I also watched the Los Angeles Sparks’ loss to the San Antonio Silver Stars earlier in the day, a matchup between the Storm’s two previous opponents. Would those games – a triple-overtime win against the Sparks and an overtime win against the Silver Stars – be as effective in swaying NBA fans? I’m not sure… the Mercury’s high-octane style of play is really perfect to entice new fans…we’ll see what Shoals thinks of future games. By the way, down two with four Olympic caliber post players on the floor, why do you settle for a jumper from point guard Kristi Harrower and a three from a frigid cold Tina Thompson…I don’t get it.

Storm Troopers need to remain a prominent part of the Key Arena atmosphere. Here's why: Shoals commented at one point that the refereeing in the WNBA seems to be less invasive than that of the NBA game, making the point that there aren’t quite as many stoppages of play…but I think that was more a function of the Mercury’s style of play. For the most part, their calls were inexplicable. While I don’t complain about the refs often because they make consistently inexplicable calls against both teams, I thought it would have been plenty appropriate for a squad of Storm Troopers to rush the court, capture the refs, and detain them until further notice.

Continue reading...

Rolling My Eyes At the All-Star Starters & Looking Forward to Reserves

Well…at least the fans didn’t vote Candace Parker as an all-star starter.

That’s good!

But that also means that they were actually watching the games…and still left out Diana Taurasi, Cappie Pondexter, Jia Perkins, and Nicky Anosike, without doubt the best players on the ballot at their respective positions and easily among the top ten players in the WNBA overall this season.

I know, I know…the criteria people use for all-star voting is about as rigorous as that of an elementary school student council vice president election (the student council president’s selection might be more rigorous). You know how it goes: someone gives a speech and promises pink lemonade in the water fountains or video games during recess and everybody just blindly votes for the kid. But really, it doesn't matter what the candidates say or do because ultimately, it's a popularity contest.

I get that.

But wouldn’t it be nice to publicly honor the players who have worked hard over the years to get to the top of their games with a starting spot in the all-star game?

It’s not so much that the players selected don’t belong in the game. For example, the selection that at first appears most perplexing – Swin Cash – is not that bad once you look at what she has done this season. She could make a legitimate claim for a spot on the roster…there were just at least 3 players on the ballot who were as deserving if not more than Cash.

So ultimately, I believe that everyone who deserves an all-star bid will get one. And really, look on the bright side – this just means that the coaches’ job got a lot easier. They’re busy people and since there are about 7 or 8 no-brainer selections for the reserves, at least they won’t have to take too much time to think about it…

But wait…

Maybe not thinking is what got in the way of the starters’ selections…hmmmm…

So, ok... hypothetically, if there was any interest in making sure the best players made the game, here’s who should probably be included on the roster. Instead of a strict positional breakdown, I’ll just pick one player from each position and fill in the rest of the spots with the best players available.

Some of these will merely be arguments repeated from my previous post on all-star selections, but some things – especially near the bottom of the reserves – have changed.

Eastern Conference reserves

I’ll start with the East because Jia Perkins has been the best guard in the conference this season, if not the best player in the conference overall…and she plays for the Sky, who I happen to like. Here are my picks:

G- Perkins
F – Shemeka Christon
C – Erika Desouza
1 – Sancho Lyttle
2 – Lindsey Harding
3 – Lindsay Whalen

In my original all-star selections, I did say that assuming Perkins had one starting guard spot locked up, Beard, Douglas, and Lindsay Whalen all had legitimate claims for the other starting spot. That’s still true, though I think at this point, Whalen is probably a bit behind the other three. But Perkins is clearly the best of that bunch.

What separates Perkins from Beard and Douglas is that in addition to being one of the top scorers in the East, she’s also one of the best play makers in the conference (and the WNBA). She is putting up numbers that rival those of an elite point guard in addition to being her team’s top scorer. Her assist rate of 19% is in the top tier of the league and well above Beard (9.28%, bottom third) and Douglas (12.4%, middle third). Her pure point rating (2.70) is better than that of Harding (2.40) and Whalen (1.71), easily the best two point guards in the conference.

But beyond the stats, she has single-handedly taken over games and carried her team to victory in at least two games that I’ve watched this year – at Seattle on Sunday (to end a 15-game winning streak) and in Chicago against the Monarchs. When the team is in a tight game down the stretch, the ball is in Perkins’ hands. And she brings energy on defense. Just watching her play, she has something special and is clearly the leader of that Sky team on the court. If Dupree and Fowles are in, Perkins has to be.

Sancho Lyttle could have legitimate reason to feel snubbed as well…and I did dedicate a whole post advocating for her to be a starter… but as of Monday, she and Candice Dupree are playing neck and neck, so it’s not as egregious. So she does get a spot on the team. But for the first forward position, Christon is playing so well that she deserves it.

It’s not just that Christon is one of the top scorers in the East, it’s also that she is assuming the majority of the burden for her team’s limited “success” thus far this season, while also scoring very efficiently. I’m normally not a big fan of pure scorers, but she’s doing it so well this year that she deserves credit.

The center position is where it gets tricky in the East. Desouza, Tammy Sutton-Brown, and Janel McCarville have arguably played as well or better than Fowles to this point in the season, keeping in mind that even though Fowles missed games, she has still played only one less than Desouza nad Sutton-Brown. Fowles is just the best defender of the bunch and is a force in the paint, so she deserved the start. But picking the back-up is tough.

I’m tossing McCarville out because no matter how you think about it, she’s contributing the least to her team’s success this season. She is probably the most talented center in the East, but has not exactly outperformed the competition. That leaves Sutton-Brown and Desouza and they too are pretty even. However there is one glaring, and important, difference between the two that I think matters for post players – 2 point percentage.

Desouza has been an outstanding finisher around the basket this season with a 2 point percentage of 55.65% while Sutton-Brown is at 46.73%. Given that we’re talking about centers who are otherwise quite even, this large differential swings my opinion in favor of Desouza.

Harding is the best point guard in the conference statistically no matter how you want to measure it and with her shooting percentages creeping upward, she deserves a spot.

That leaves one more spot and I think it’s a really tough choice between Whalen, Asjha Jones and Crystal Langhorne. Each one of them brings something very different to the table – Whalen brings intangibles and court leadership, Jones is one of the best scoring power forwards in the conference, and Langhorne is an outstanding rebounder. Any one of these three would be legitimate choices in my mind.

However, I would put Langhorne aside because she is really the third most important on her team behind Beard and Harding, whereas Whalen and Jones are leaders for their team, and I think that should count for something. But choosing between Whalen and Jones is difficult. There’s not a lot of separation there as neither is clearly the best at their respective position and they’re both pretty much equally responsible for the team’s success.

But I’m throwing my support to Whalen because in addition to being the leader of that team on the court, she is almost indisputably the best at running an offense in the conference, despite having an off year. And even in that off year, she’s really only second best to Harding who is having a great year. Jones is playing well, but is only an average rebounder this year, which make it tough to select her as a forward.

Western Conference

Independent of whether Taurasi will be able to play in the all-star game, she should be selected to the team. She’s having an amazing season. If the league suspends her, they can choose a replacement. With that in mind, here are my Western Conference picks:

G- Cappie Pondexter
F – Diana Taurasi
C – Nicky Anosike
1 - Charde Houston
2 – Tanisha Wright
3 – Temeka Johnson

The argument in favor of Pondexter and Taurasi should be relatively simple – they are arguably two of the top candidates for Most Valuable Player in the league on the best team in the West. Nobody in the West deserves it more than them.

After that, Anosike is the best center in the league this season, hands down. She is a top tier player in every single statistical category except usage rate and assist rate (where she’s right in the middle with a rate of 16.71%). But most importantly, she’s probably the front runner for Defensive Player of the Year – any time your center can come out to the perimeter and steal the ball from opposing guards you know you have something special. Anosike is that something special.

Anosike’s teammate Charde Houston is also having an outstanding season, carrying a large proportion of the scoring load and doing it efficiently in addition to doing a good job rebounding and taking on a large portion of the burden to win in Augustus’ absence.

Where the West gets tricky is with the last two spots. For me it’s between Wright, Johnson, Sophia Young and Ruth Riley. DeWanna Bonner looks good statistically as well and it’s hard to ignore her as a candidate for the all-star game. Of course, if Leslie is unable to play and Taurasi is suspended/unable to play, four of these players should get in making it easier to decide.

So first, Bonner is the best all-around athlete and basketball player of those five players. So why not just pick her? A very easy argument could be made that each of the other players except Riley means more to their team than Bonner. So perhaps that should eliminate Riley.

Next, Tanisha Wright is having the most productive season of this bunch, and similar to Perkins, she gets my respect for being a guard that’s putting up both scoring and facilitating numbers. In the Storm’s tough home loss to the Sky on Sunday, Wright was pretty much running the team when Bird disappeared. Kevin Pelton has nicely summarized Wright’s success already, so I won’t go on.

So that leaves Bonner, Johnson, and Young. To be honest, I’m partial to Johnson because she’s one of the top point guards in the league this season. While she and Bonner are close in terms of production or success metrics, the big difference is plus/minus – when Johnson is on the floor, she is not just producing, but the Mercury play better (+12.8). In contrast, Bonner is at -5.1. When their respective roles on their own team are considered, it would be very difficult to make an argument for Bonner over Johnson. Young is having a good season, but she is a scorer and her percentages are down thus far this season. So I’m choosing Johnson.

Looking Forward to Coaches’ Choices

Obviously, a lot of things are still up in the air in terms of who deserves to be on the all-star teams, especially with the players near the end of the roster. All of these players are in the top 30 or so in the league this season, so any of them would make a worthy participant in the all-star game.

An argument could be made that all four of those players I last considered in the West are more deserving of a spot than Cash, who is an all-star starter, but Cash is having a solid season on a good team.

In any event, it will be interesting to see how the coaches disentangle these issues and select rosters. Part of it is a matter of personal preference – I’m partial to players who produce wins and do so while doing the least harm to their team’s chances at winning. It’s a delicate balancing act, but it’s part of what differentiates great players from good ones.

Transition Points:

Fan voting is not only a WNBA problem -- it’s a problem across professional sports. I would actually be all for the players and coaches voting in the starters and having the fans vote in the reserves. The reason is simply – we can at least be sure the players have seen the players play…because they play each other. And wouldn’t it be cool to make the starting spots a peer choice award? At least the selection might have some credibility. Let the fans save their wacky selections for the bench.

In my scheme, Sacramento and Detroit would have no representation at the all-star game (in addition to Los Angeles, if Leslie is unable to play). But going back to that problem I have with focusing on players who win games, it’s hard to make an argument that a player on a cellar dwelling team is having an all-star season.

My “no-brainers” for the all-star team would also be my MVP candidates. Based on the season so far and the arguments I’ve just made above, my short list would be Taurasi, Pondexter, Lauren Jackson, Nicky Anosike and Jia Perkins. Right now, I’m going with Jackson, but of course we have a lot of season left to play.

If Perkins is not selected as a reserve, she should revive Rodney Dangerfield’s “No Respect” comedy tour (but I hope she has a better social life)...because it would clearly be a tragedy of epic proportions.



And by the way, the reference to elementary school student council races was not a manifestation of any long-held bitterness – I actually did campaign for and win a spot in third grade with some ridiculous slogan. I don’t even remember what we did except get the privilege to feel important attending.

Continue reading...

How The Mercury Beat the Sparks in LA: From 0 to 22 in About 5 minutes 30 seconds

The Phoenix Mercury’s impressive 104-89 road victory over the Los Angeles Sparks last night was one of those games that simply cannot be appreciated by reading the box score or even the play by play alone.

It’s not just that the Mercury posted a season-high 36-point third quarter, that they managed to out-rebound the Sparks 40-31, or that they ran off 11 straight points to start the fourth quarter. It’s how they did it that is noteworthy.

Although the game ended up a blow out, it was going back and forth until about three minutes left in the 3rd quarter when DeLisha Milton-Jones was whistled for a touch foul on DeWanna Bonner that forced Jones to the bench with her fourth foul.

After Bonner made the two free throws, the Mercury were up five. Then the shifting tide of momentum that the Sparks had seemingly held off for the previous three and a half minutes, swung completely in the Mercury’s favor.

What the Mercury did to the Sparks during the ensuing five and a half minute stretch spanning the 3rd and 4th quarters really cannot be measured, quantified, or even fully articulated without watching it.

To describe it as the Sparks “falling apart” would be to completely ignore that the Mercury got into a zone in which they seemed to be optimally coordinated as a team while almost effortlessly taking control of the game.

Commentator Tracy Warren may have described the sequence of events best at the end of the third quarter after Cappie Pondexter set up Bonner for a three to put the Mercury up 10.

You could see with that three a little bit of deflation from the Sparks. They’re feeling like wow. We’re can’t stop Taurasi, we’re having trouble with Pondexter, and now you’re us the rookie Bonner is gonna hit from outside. Tough matchup problems for the Sparks right now in the third.

That was before Cappie Pondexter took an outlet pass without about 6.5 seconds left, beat Shannon Bobbitt down the length of the court, and hit a seemingly ridiculous floating jumper from the wing with 1.2 seconds left to put the Mercury up 11.

That’s demoralizing. And sometimes that just means more on the court than anyone off the court can understand rationally.

What the Mercury did to the Sparks during that stretch was not just Mercury basketball at its best, but it was an almost perfect realization of what a fast paced offense should be. All the elements of what it takes to run successfully were on display: defense (to prevent the other team from making shots), rebounding (to initiate the fast break), and high percentage shots (to keep the pressure on the opposing defense).

When a team with three all-stars (yes, Temeka Johnson is having an all-star season) gets in that kind of zone, it’s difficult to imagine anybody stopping them…even if they are on the road.

From an analytical standpoint, the Mercury’s play during that condensed period of time is perfect for a case study of what the Mercury do at their best. However, it also reinforces the argument that the Sparks are simply not a running team but a team designed to thrive off of their Olympic frontcourt. And once they get all their pieces back in game shape, a team like the Mercury might not even get the opportunity to run them like that.

A tale of two halves

Obscured by the final outcome of the game is that the Sparks played a very strong first half despite Candace Parker returning to play her first game after pregnancy and Lisa Leslie still sidelined by injury. Forget whatever you thought about the Mercury prior to the season – the Sparks were playing neck and neck with the best team in the West without a full roster. That’s impressive.

In the second quarter, when the Sparks built a six-point lead, the Sparks completely neutralized the Mercury – the Mercury only shot 26.7%, made four unforced turnovers, and gave up five offensive rebounds. The Mercury were forced into a number of contested shots or bad decisions just from the aggressive defense of the Sparks. With 3:22 left in the second quarter, I wrote the following note to myself: “pho falling apart”.

Granted, the Sparks needed a miracle shot at the halftime buzzer to take a 5 point lead, but they played well and kept the Mercury at bay.

But of course a five point lead is not what one would normally consider “safe”.

With 8:56 left in the 3rd, the Sparks were up 8 after a layup by Kristi Harrower. What allowed the Mercury to cut the lead was the Sparks settling for perimeter shots or getting contested shots inside. Meanwhile, the Mercury were starting to heat up, getting open looks from the three point line within the flow of their early offense and getting to the free throw line 12 times. They were getting easy points.

And that was before the Mercury started demoralizing the Sparks.

How the Mercury can demoralize an opponent

Last season I noted that the Mercury were best when they started moving the ball. While Taurasi can certainly single-handedly take over games, when she can get help it makes the Mercury extremely difficult to defend, as described in the aforementioned Warren quote. However, both ball movement and rebounding are what made the Mercury’s run possible.

The Mercury’s six third quarter assists matched their assist total from the first half. That’s not including at least four other “lost assists” – missed open shots or plays on which a player got fouled on a shot after receiving a pass -- that I counted. When the Mercury get into their uptempo zone, it’s not just one player leading the way, it’s a team effort.

There are at least three key reasons for the Mercury being so effective in the open court this season. First, the addition of Temeka Johnson has been perfect for the Mercury’s system. She not only has the speed and ball skills to get out on the break and find players in rhythm, but she can also spread the defense by hitting perimeter shots.

Second, the addition of Bonner was perfect for this team. Bonner is able to beat everyone down the court for easy baskets, which only enhances the Mercury attack. However, another key asset Bonner brings is offensive rebounding. Bonner had five offensive rebounds in the game, three of which came in the third quarter.

The Mercury as a team are not known for their rebounding, but they out-rebounded the Sparks 25-10 in the second half. In the third quarter, they grabbed 57% of all the available offensive rebounds, which is dominant. That means they were not only getting easy baskets and wide-open shots, but also extending their possessions and giving themselves second chances to score. Bonner’s tenacity in the paint despite her slight build was a large part of that.

Third, the other major “addition” to the Mercury is Cappie Pondexter’s improvement as a facilitator. It is well known that Johnson and Taurasi are playmakers with great court vision, but Pondexter has been an outstanding playmaker in her own right this season. Whereas last season she spent a lot more time looking for her own shot, often literally bulldozing her way to the basket with her head down, this season, she's looking to set up her teammates. Last night, she recorded a pure point rating of 5.74 to lead the team.

That means that not only do opponents have to keep up with the pace of the Mercury, but they also have to find a way to defend a team with three perimeter players that can facilitate plays for all the other moving parts like Bonner, Le’Coe Willingham, and Tangela Smith.

It’s not easy.

However, most important is the Mercury’s defense. As coach Corey Gaines said in the pre-season, they are employing the Rover defense differently this season, choosing to alternate between that and a man-to-man defense. With about 4:30 left in the third, they briefly started alternating between the two defenses which worked to slow the Sparks down just as the Mercury were starting to heat up.

The Sparks looked as though they were having trouble recognizing exactly what defense the Mercury were in. When they play the Rover effectively and use it as a tactic to sway the tempo rather than their base offense, they further keep their opponents on their toes.

In the last 2:58 of the third quarter, all those pieces came together at once, along with Taurasi being Taurasi. That is near unstoppable.

Of course, with Leslie and Parker healthy, one would imagine that the Mercury could not possibly have been so dominant on the boards and that would definitely have changed the face of this game. Not to mention the fact that Milton-Jones was out for much of this third quarter stretch after picking up her fourth foul.

But at the end of the third quarter, this is the Mercury you saw: working extremely well together, scoring from all over the floor, and limiting the Sparks’ scoring opportunities on the defensive end. That team is going to be competitive any night of the week.

Anatomy of a fourth quarter run: The Sparks’ search for someone to step up

However, things just worsened for the Sparks at the beginning of the fourth. And what became obvious at that point is that the Sparks are still trying to figure out their roles on the team.

Warren mentioned that Tina Thompson has said that she would defer to Leslie and Parker as the leaders on this talented team. Lennox is a good scorer, but usually inefficient. Milton-Jones was clearly the third wheel on last season’s Sparks team.

In other words, when the Sparks still had a chance to get back in this game despite the demoralization process, they didn’t know where to look to get out of the rut. There is a leadership void without Leslie and Parker at full strength.

Meanwhile, Taurasi and, to a lesser extent, Johnson had a field day.

However, as I was watching I took note of who was taking the shots for each team. Here’s an excerpt from my notes in the 4th quarter until the 6:30 mark when the Sparks found themselves down 22:

LA to Hayden
Pho to Taurasi 83-70
LA to Quinn for 3
85-70: TJ for 2, open free throw line J
Lennox missed j
TJ to Bonner, fast break lay 87-70
Mercury switching zones
DMJ bad throw in, Swanier fast break lay + ft 1-1, 90-70
DMJ to, Taurasi fast break lay, 92-70
LA timeout

While the Sparks are looking for Vanessa Hayden, Noelle Quinn, or Betty Lennox, the Mercury have the ball in the hands of Johnson and Taurasi and getting layups or free throws. I’ll take Johnson and Taurasi in that contest any day. Warren made the following comment late in the fourth quarter that sums up what happened to the Sparks.

This is a team that has shown they’ve got multiple offensive weapons and unless someone can stop them all, they’re going to have their hands full.

There is no way the Sparks could have matched up with the Mercury last night, given their personnel. But again, it’s important to reiterate that if the Sparks had one of their designated leaders on the floor during that stretch, the play by play would look a lot different.

Last night’s game should not Spark panic in L.A.

However, the easiest thing to focus on in the Sparks’ loss is the fourth quarter when they looked completely discombobulated and without leadership. One could imagine that the 11-0 fourth quarter run is what motivated Milton-Jones’ post game comments (quoted in the LA Times), that seemed to have a sense of urgency about solving the Sparks’ problems.

As a team that has already played nine games and had their coach question their effort, the Sparks know their own rebuilding effort can't take too much time.

"We cant keep patching up the leaks," said Sparks forward DeLisha Milton-Jones, who tied her season high with 15 points but was scoreless in the second half.

"We need to re-pipe the system with copper piping to make sure there is no more damage later on. Right now we're suffering a lot of water damage and our foundation is slowly cracking. But we have to find ways to get wins, bottom line."

While Milton-Jones is probably correct that there are leaks that need to be fixed in the Sparks’ foundation, one could conceivably modify the metaphor – it’s as though the Sparks’ foundation of Leslie and Parker was removed altogether and the water is just creating a mudslide in the dirt below.

This season’s team was put together with the assumption that they would have Leslie and Parker playing together in the post. Without that, they will have an extremely difficult time finding wins. Until that point, it’s difficult to critique the Sparks, coach Michael Cooper, or the personnel.

They have to remain patient and looking forward to establishing their system so that they are ready to win once Leslie and Parker return.

Warren’s comment with 50.3 seconds left speaks directly to that point:

Now I think It’s a different game if you get a healthy Lisa Leslie and a healthy Candace Parker and you see what happens in August and September.

The Sparks will still have to fight their way into the playoffs and likely need help…but if they do get in with a healthy roster, they will absolutely be dangerous.

Transition Points:

BobsScoutingReport made a post on Rebkell saying that Nikki Teasley will be working out with the Sparks today for a possible signing. One would assume that means the Sparks will be dropping a point guard. That brings up two obvious questions: 1) would Teasley add anything to their existing group? and 2) if so, which point guard should go?

First let me say that I think Teasley's performance in Atlanta was inconsistent, but not nearly as horrific as some Dream fans make it out to be. But anyway...

My vague general opinion: it depends on how the Sparks want to play.

A more specific analysis:

If they're looking for a distributor who can protect the ball, Kristi Harrower is by far the best of the bunch -- she has an outstanding pure point rating of 9.55 and an assist ratio of 37.05...while only turning the ball over on 3% of the possessions she uses. Quinn is by far the odd person out if they want a distributor.

If they're looking for a point guard who can distribute and score, Teasley is the best shooter of this bunch with a 56% true shooting percentage, but again Harrower is more efficient -- she has a 2 point shooting percentage of 45% and scores 2 points for almost every possession she ends with a missed shot or turnover. Quinn is not nearly the playmaker of the other three, but is by far the best shooter, with a 52% true shooting percentage and a 54% 2 point shooting percentage.

Quinn's scoring ability makes her the best player overall according to any overall metric I use and has the highest plus/minus rating. In addition, coach Michael Cooper has said that he likes her versatility. So she's probably not going anywhere.

That leaves Shannon Bobbitt without any obvious statistical value to the team over any of the other players. However, while she is probably the least effective scorer of the bunch, she's by far the quickest player, as she's able to get the ball up the court quickly, distribute the ball efficiently (pure point rating of 7.16) and apply pressure defensively. And hmmm...isn't she friends with Candace Parker?

The only thing that Teasley offers is a higher true shooting percentage than any of the current Sparks point guards at 56.68%, which is among the best of any point guard in the league.

So if it comes down to the Sparks choosing between Bobbitt, Harrower, or Teasley to fit their style of play, I would probably opt with maintaining team chemistry and just not signing Teasley -- I'm just not sure what she adds to what they already have. But if they're looking for (very little) additional scoring and size, while not losing much on the distributor end, waiving Bobbitt and signing Teasley does make sense. Either way, I'm not sure it's a move that would substantially improve or hurt this team.

Fast break points: Phoenix 23, Los Angeles 4

Warren commented on Phoenix’s style of play with about 2:20 left in the 4th quarter: “And you wonder how long Phoenix can keep this pace up? They really go about 7, maybe 8, deep – but typically about 7 players deep. So in August, can they still keep up this high-powered offense? They’ve done it the past three years.” So an interesting tidbit from last night's game: Phoenix used nine players for significant minutes. Those four bench players put up 37 points to the 22 points of the Sparks' significant bench players (Wisdom-Hylton didn't come in until late in the game).

Continue reading...

Can We Quantify How Important a Player is to Her Team?

Wednesday night's Mercury-Storm game was one of the better played games I've watched this season, refereeing notwithstanding.

As ESPN's Mechelle Voepel wrote today, part of what makes the Mercury-Storm games so great is that this matchup has "star power":

And by “star” we mean “star,” not just terrific player. Phoenix’s Diana Taurasi and Cappie Pondexter, Seattle’s Lauren Jackson, Sue Bird and Swin Cash. And yes, we’re heavy on the UConn/Big East connection here, but that’s part of it. These players have been in the spotlight for a long time.

Sometimes when I watch games with that much star power, I find it hard to figure out which player or players contribute the most to the victory or which player is carrying the team or -- even more intriguing -- which non-stars stepped up and really contributed to the team's victory.

Of course, one could respond, "Who cares??? A team wins a game, not individual players." True...and I imagine those folks aren't reading this blog anyway. But ultimately, when it comes down to analyzing a team's strengths and weaknesses, we also want to know what each part of the whole is contributing.

While there are many different ways to think about that, among the most intriguing I've come across is David Sparks' "Credit" statistic that he created last summer. I first used this approach last summer during the Olympics (click here), but have also applied it to a few regular season WNBA games whenever the feeling strikes me (as I did yesterday with the Sky-Monarchs game).

I've applied a lot of Sparks' work to the WNBA, partially because I like the fact that he has come up with a set of statistics to look at player performance, player styles, and team performance. Although he created and weighted his metric for the NBA, they also seem to work pretty well for the WNBA (click here for an explanation of the Credit formula).

Most important to me is that the Credit statistic seems to not only quantify my subjective observations of a game, but also illuminate things that I might have missed during the course of a game or help me figure out who deserves credit other than the players who always get the spotlight.

For example, when I look at the headlines for Wednesday night's Mercury-Storm game, I see a lot of focus on Pondexter and Taurasi. After all, they were the top scorers and the top scorers. However, when I take a look at the credit statistics it looks like another player deserves mention for the Mercury's victory: Tangela Smith.

So how should we understand this metric? And how might it help us analyze a player's contribution to a game?

Here are the Mercury's credit statistics for Wednesday night:

Pondexter 16.16%
Smith 11.44%
Taurasi 11.33%
Willingham 6.23%
Bonner 4.17%
Ohlde 2.99%
Swanier 2.32%
Quigley 0.00%
Mazzante -0.21%
Johnson -0.98%

*Note: as described by Sparks on his old site, this does not add up to 100% but is a percentage of the total production of both teams. Therefore, the top players on a team that wins in a blow out would get more credit whereas the top players on a team that wins a tight game would get slightly less.

This is not to say that Tangela Smith is a better player than Diana Taurasi. Neither is it to say that Taurasi is more important -- an argument could be made that since Taurasi demands the attention of the opposing defense, players like Smith are able to take advantage of the relative lack of attention they receive. Nor does this say that Smith is significantly more important than Smith to the team overall -- take Taurasi off of this team and surely they would win a lot less games (that's what Sparks' Boxscores were for).

What credit does tell us is a player's statistical contribution to a game and frames it in terms that we can easily talk about and compare from game to game. For example, we see that in this game, Pondexter, Smith, and Taurasi were by far the most important players in the game, with Pondexter being the most important. If you watched the game, that just about makes sense -- Pondexter was doing everything and her ability to break down her defender, get into the lane, and set up other players was hugely important throughout the game.

Smith's greatest contribution was her rebounding and blocked shots, but she was also extremely efficient shooting, including two threes. In addition, her ability -- along with Le'Coe Willingham -- to provide scoring inside is a huge asset to the Mercury and something that they will likely need to make a serious run in the Western Conference playoffs.

So even though Smith's contributions were valuable to this game, it's not like we should consider her a star on the level of Taurasi. A star's impact on the ebb and flow of a game goes well beyond the final score. And clearly, there's more that goes into a basketball game than scoring.

So how might we contextualize a player's contribution to the final score with some understanding of how they contributed to the ebb and flow of a game?

It seems like pairing plus/minus and credit might be one interesting approach.

I was talking to someone about plus/minus the other day and he mentioned how it doesn't seem to mean very much for basketball game to game. And he's completely right. It can be an extremely misleading statistic on the game to game level because it depends so heavily on matchups, teammates, and in some cases game strategy. He thought it was a better statistic for hockey than basketball because of the way in which hockey flows. Plus/minus works much better to look at over the course of an entire season than from game to game.

However, if we pair plus/minus with credit for one game, I think we get a pretty full picture of what a player has done in a given game.

Take Wednesday night's plus/minus numbers for the Mercury (from Swanny's stats):

Swanier +20 (41-21)
Pondexter +19 (83-64)
Willingham +14 (50-36)
Taurasi +12 (82-70)
T.Smith +5 (71-66)
Bonner +5 (34-29)
Ohlde 0 (31-31)
Mazzante -7 (21-28)
Johnson -8 (52-60)

So suddenly Swanier jumps to the top. How do we understand that? She only played 13 minutes 11 seconds -- should she be playing more? Not necessarily.

Plus/minus tells us how well the team functions when a player is on the floor, not necessarily how much an individual contributes to the team's success.

Swanier did come in and run the offense for the Mercury extremely well. Despite a few small miscues in which she mishandled the ball, she had a pure point rating of 10.25 and an assist ratio of 29.06% and no turnovers. So she gave the team a huge boost off of the bench by helping run the offense...and for the majority of the first half Wednesday night, she did so much better than Temeka Johnson.

But while this tells us a little something about how the game flowed while she was in, it does not necessarily tell us how much she individually contributed to the victory -- it would be silly to claim that a player who only played 13 minutes played a large part in the team's success.

That's what makes the combined plus/minus and Credit numbers of players like Pondexter and Taurasi so impressive -- they had a positive impact on the team when they were on the floor and were also responsible for a majority of the team's production.

So just for the sake of comparison, let's take a look at the Storm.

Wright 10.46%, -12 (67-79)
Cash 10.18%, -13 (68-81)
Jackson 8.69%, -17 (68-85)
Bird 5.84%, 0 (76-76)
Little 5.22%, -11 (59-70)
Johnson 3.49%, -4 (45-49)
Burse 1.94%, 0 (19-19)
Geralds 0.41%, +1 (3-2)
Walker 0.31%, -2 (0-2)

Again here, credit does a little more to illuminate a player's impact on the game despite being on the losing team. While Bird had a neutral (yet best) impact on the team in terms of plus/minus, we also see that she was not exactly individually contributing a whole lot to the team's success while on the floor. And since Credit takes into account the final scoring differential, we also see that performance of the players on the losing team is weighted in terms of their contribution relative to the total production in the game.

So can Credit and plus/minus help us quantify star power?

This seems to move closer to the definition of a star -- being able to individually contribute to the win but also helping the team perform better while on the floor. It's a player that is able to balance between individual and mutual responsibility (in more political terms)...and do so while playing significant minutes.

To me it provides a much more nuanced understanding of a player's contribution to the game than any statistic can accomplish individually...but also doing so in a much simpler fashion than using 7 or 8 statistics like I've used in the past (though something to measure defensive impact would be nice).

Without looking at the numbers right now, I would make an educated guess that the best players in the WNBA (or NBA) are able to make a positive contribution to the team in big minutes while also taking assuming a large portion of the burden to contribute to the team's success. But that is clearly a much larger project...

Continue reading...

“At Last”: Opening Day Preview

Finally.

By some strange coincidence, every single WNBA pre-season game was during a meeting, class, or the NBA playoffs (and I think I overslept a morning one or two). So aside from the Storm game that I went to, I have to confess that I have not seen enough of the WNBA pre-season to give a full preview.

But hey, that didn’t exactly stop a few major national publications from writing something…so why shouldn’t I?

So instead of the typical season preview that either does the impossible and predicts the outcomes or gives a roster analysis, I thought I would present a few themes that I intend to follow throughout the season.

A first will probably come as no surprise if you followed this blog last season: the role of the point guard.

I was talking to some folks the other day about how some people were claiming that last year in the NBA was the “Year of the Point Guard”, that point guards like Chris Paul, Deron Williams, and Rajon Rondo were emerging to dominate the league.

Then of course, when you look at this year’s NBA playoffs, of the four teams that made the semifinals, only one (Denver) had an established point guard (Mo Williams is solid but not quite “established” yet). So the point guard match-ups in the Finals are as follows: Derek Fisher, Tony Farmar, and Shannon Brown vs. Rafer Alston, Jameer Nelson (still recovering from injury), and Anthony Johnson?

Does it look to you that point guards are the key to these teams? On the surface, not really…but that’s where I took the argument a bit further.

My whole point about the point guard is that it’s a position about decision making and goodness of fit. Successful teams don’t absolutely need a superstar point guard capable of completely dominating a game (e.g. Chris Paul, Chauncey Billups). They need a style of point guard that both defines and fits what they want to do.

The decision making framework becomes a particularly relevant point once you reach the second tier of point guards – does your point guard know when to push the ball and when to slow it down? Do they know when to drive or when to shoot? Do they know when to take the ball and swing it or reset the offense? Can they make an eff-ing entry pass?

All of these things sound super simple, right? Yeah, but some people simply don’t have it even though they have all the physical tools in the world.

What we have seen from the point guards playing in the Finals is solid decision making frm…even if that means pass to Kobe and clear. Derek Fisher’s style of play – as much as I despise him for his performance with and against the Warriors – is a great fit for the Lakers because he generally makes good decisions (as in limiting turnovers). Farmar is nice as a change of pace to pick up the tempo with the second unit, which has been extremely effective at times. Rafer Alston is perfect for the Magic because he can penetrate and find open shooters.

It seems likely that we will see a similar pattern in the WNBA this year – the best point guards in the league (Sue Bird & Lindsay Whalen) might be at home watching the conference finals. But I would argue that the point guard play of this year’s pre-season front-runner (the Sparks) will be huge.

And there will be a few teams whose playoff hopes might be riding on the play of a rookie point guard by the end of the season – there were three point guards taken in the first six picks of the draft and by the end of the season, all three could be starters.

So with that, my top five players and teams to watch as the season begins.

Top 5 Players to Watch

5. Lifelock’s Diana Taurasi: Always interesting to watch and will have quite a burden trying to get her team to the playoffs. Having Lauren Jackson would have been nice, but she showed last year that she can take a team to the brink of the playoffs almost by herself. When you look around at the Western Conference, it will be tough to make the playoffs…and if the Mercury want it, Taurasi will have to have an amazing season. I think she can do it.

4. Kristi Toliver, Renee Montgomery, and Briann January: All three of these point guards could be starting by mid-season depending on how the veterans around them play and how they fit into their respective systems. And I think following the progression of rookie point guards is fascinating. January has already been announced the starter of her team, Toliver has a good chance to challenge Chicago’s shooting guards filling the point guard spot, and Montgomery will have to work. But this will be interesting to watch – by the end of the season, who will be the best point guard in the 2009 draft?

3. Sylvia Fowles: the main storyline this season will probably be Lisa Leslie retiring and passing the torch to Candace Parker. But I see it slightly differently – the torch in terms of WNBA post play is being passed to Fowles. And she’s more than ready. The big question will be how the Sky use her. Last year, it just seemed like she was not incorporated into the offense very well. This year having demonstrated what she can do both in Europe and the Olympics, it seems unfathomable that she would not be the focal point of this team. No pressure, Coach Key.

2. Lindsay Whalen: This might seem like an odd pick, but she just seems like the eternal underdog. The GMs selected Sue Bird as the best point guard in the league in something of a landslide, which makes me wonder, what does Lindsay Whalen have to do to establish herself as the best? Well, winning a championship would be nice, but it seems unlikely this year. Some of their young players will have a year more under their belts though which could give Whalen more support so they don’t go through another 8 game slump like last year. But ultimately the Sun’s chances will boil down to Whalen. And if they do well, might she be anointed the top point guard in the league next year?

1. Candace Parker: Duh. That was easy. Coming back off her MVP season and off-season pregnancy, can she get her first championship?

Top 5 Teams to Watch

5. Diana Taurasi’s Lifelock (aka Phoenix Mercury): I love Diana Taurasi…and really, how can you not? She all about helping the children stay healthy and everything. But seriously – and no disrespect to Cappie Pondexter – the Mercury will live or die based on Taurasi’s performance this season. And if this Mercury team somehow gets to the playoffs – as 50% of WNBA GMs predicted – she is hands down the 2009 WNBA MVP. How 50% of GMs predicted the Mercury making the playoffs and only one predicted Taurasi winning the MVP is actually baffling to me.

4. New York Liberty: OK, ok… yes, I just really like Leilani Mitchel as a point guard. But that’s not really the point. The question for the Liberty is whether they can take that next step and return to the WNBA finals…which ultimately comes down to a question of whether they can take down Detroit.

3. Sacramento Monarchs: This is my dark horse team of the 2009 season. I’ve seen some people write this team off but as usual, this frontcourt is absolutely loaded. And when this team is clicking on all cylinders, they will be extremely difficult to stop. They have added Courtney Paris – who I think will be a force on the boards – and have a constantly improving Crystal Kelly to make up a potentially dominant frontcourt of the future. They have also added Hamchetou Maiga-Ba who should be able to just adds another veteran presence. This is a team with the capacity to challenge the top teams in the Western Conference while simultaneously having a bright future. And that’s always fascinating to watch. And I will never ever…evaevaevaevaeva count out Ticha Penicheiro…ok?

2. Chicago Sky: I just love the Sky. I love the combination of talent they have: two great post players, an outstanding all-around perimeter player in Jia Perkins, and Armintie Price who is just one of the league’s great personalities. Not that personalities win games…but it makes it even more fun to root for (or in the case of Kobe Bryant, against). I have gone on and on about them in the past, so I spare you here. But I’m really really interested in seeing how Kristi Toliver fits into this team. She could easily take the starting spot by mid-season.

1. LA Sparks: the Sparks have put together one of those fantasy teams that almost try to shape destiny by bringing together a group of players that just seems unstoppable…you know, if they all play the way they’re supposed to and actually come together to work as a team. It’s almost as with these squads are supposed to overwhelm you with star power before you even step on the court.

And as we saw last year with the Storm, this doesn’t always work…

In the NBA, the 2000 Portland Trailblazers and the 2004 LA Lakers immediately come to mind. Really, they had two different problems – the Blazers were just loaded top to bottom whereas the Lakers had four Hall of Famers and little depth. What’s interesting is that in this year’s WNBA just as in the NBA in 2004, it could be a gritty Detroit team that was assembled for a particular style of play that topples the fantasy team.

But in addition to trying to bring this talent and mold them into a team, there will be the additional adjustment once Candace Parker comes back to the team. So they will have to do a double adjustment this season…and that doesn’t sound easy in the WNBA’s short regular season. The key will be to see where they’re at near the end of the season. And you have to wonder how that will influence home court advantage in the Western Conference.

Continue reading...

Expect Great ’09: A case study and reflection

Unfortunately, I don’t have any juicy information about the opening of WNBA training camps that you couldn’t get elsewhere.

So instead, I thought this was a good opportunity to comment about another major occurrence yesterday – the television premiere of the newest Expect Great ads.

As excited as I was about yesterday’s NBA game sevens, they were a huge disappointment, which is probably why my mind just wandered to this post.

I watched with 3 of my friends at my friend C’s house (pseudonyms have been used to protect the identities of the innocent). As the games continued to suck, our attention wavered and we started talking about all kinds of random stuff, including watching YouTube clips of C’s brother’s band at one point.

So what ended up grabbing my attention was my friends’ responses to the Expect Great commercials. Of course, the commercials are what inspired me to write this blog so naturally I’m interested in how well this newest iteration “works”. And what better way to do that than with a bunch of over-educated dudes watching basketball?

Anyway, C is in love with his DVR and has now decided that he has no use for commercials. So we “accidentally” caught the WNBA commercials only twice (I’m not sure if they were on more than that throughout the afternoon). But I think the conversation (and non-conversation) was enough to make a point about this year’s first iteration of ads.

We are all graduate students (meaning we have a lot of time on our hands to think about inconsequential aspects of the world around us). None of them are WNBA fans and they don’t watch as far as I know. I’m not sure if they’ve ever been to a game. None of them played high school basketball, though I have played intramural basketball with C and R, both of whom did play a high sport. All of us, however, are NBA fans, and at least C and G are NCAA fans as well.

A random note that should not matter, but usually manages to come up in conversations:
C just got married last year (no kids yet), R is engaged, and G is pathetically single, like me.

Obviously, I had seen the ads before online and I’m assuming they had not. And prior to watching it with them, here’s essentially what I thought:

I agree with those who say they are an upgrade from last year – the gloomy tone is gone and the images are…interesting – but they still fall way short of building a buzz about the league among their target audience.

After watching it with my friends, here’s what I think now:

Whereas last year’s initial spots targeted men, grabbed their attention, and challenged them to interrogate their own biases (thus turning off a number of lunkheads who were shocked that women were allowed to leave the kitchen), this year’s ads are still targeted at men, but fail to grab their attention and hardly get them to interrogate their own biases.

My thoughts on last year’s ads

Just to recap, here’s what I thought about last year’s Expect Great ads:

My friend and I were trying to figure out if these “Expect Great” commercials were effective and whether we liked them. After some deliberation, the verdict was “no” on both counts.

The tone was probably too gloomy and it was just uninspiring. I also have a hard time getting over the grammatical incorrectness of “Expect Great”. I guess it grabs attention because it’s so awkward….but whatever…

So after thinking about what the commercials needed to communicate, here’s what we came up with: in order to appreciate the WNBA people have to stop comparing it to the men’s basketball as inherently “inferior”.

People have to be able to envision basketball without 300 pound 7-footers and highlight reel dunks. Somehow people need to redefine their own conceptions about what basketball is and how the women’s game fits under an umbrella that includes many distinct variations: the NBA, FIBA rules, And1 Mix Tapes, NCAA basketball, and everyday streetball.

That of course essentially frames the goal of this blog – to just appreciate the WNBA on its own terms and find ways to highlight its bright spots (some of the best female athletes in the world competing to see whose team is best).

So here’s what happened yesterday.

Data: My friends’ responses

So when the ad flashed on the screen for the first time, we were all just zoned out or in the middle of a conversation or something. The ad passed by without anyone even bothering to pay attention to it. If anyone did have a thought, they just didn’t share. My only thought was – man, that fell as flat on the big screen as it did on my computer.

But when it came on the second time, there was a different response, it went roughly as follows.

[Commercial ends]

[Collective reflective pause]

“You know I was just reading that Sheryl Swoopes is coming out of retirement this year…like she just had a baby two years ago or something,” says R.

[Collective bewildered pause]

“Yeah, I just read that Candace Parker is having a baby and might not be playing this year,” says C.

[Pause]

“Actually R, Swoopes played last year,” I say. “In fact, she played right here in Seattle for the Storm.”

“Oh,” says R somewhat surprised. “Well I thought someone was coming out of retirement or something.”

[Pause – I realize now he’s talking about Holdsclaw…but before I can respond…]

“You know I would really like to go to one of those games this summer if any of you are up for it,” says R.

“Yeah, I’ve been to a few. I was planning on going this summer,” I say. “We should get together and go sometime.”

“Cool.”

Data analysis: Conflating old narratives

What I find absolutely fascinating about this is that R had essentially conflated three different major WNBA “narratives”:

• Holdsclaw coming out of retirement
• Swoopes, clearly a star around the time we were in college, who did have a child
• And Parker, who just had a child

Clearly, R has some fledgling interest in the game and would go if given a reason (in this case, I would take him). But do the commercials on their own really tell him anything about the league or somehow give him a narrative to latch onto?

No.

And thus he is left grasping at straws to create connections among a bunch of images of players he doesn’t even know.

The Holdsclaw story would certainly grab attention, but given that she’s left teams twice for personal reasons, making that story prominent for this season is probably inappropriate.

However, it is Lisa Leslie’s last season. People do know Swoopes. But I imagine the average male who knows those players knows nothing about the current league or who is even playing in their own city – even when it is Sheryl Swoopes.

C might have read the ESPN the Mag article about Parker or seen something on ESPN.com, but probably couldn’t tell you who Parker plays for.

Keep in mind, this was one of the most intelligent conversations I’ve had with men about the WNBA since the league started (I had a college roommate who is now a sports producer who just knew everything about every sport).

So where does this leave us?

Implications for Future Research

Obviously, I can't really generalize or make any causal claims based on this case study "data". However, it does lead me to some insights we could gain from this.

First of all, if the WNBA wants to target male fans (which I'm not saying is the best strategy) my group of friends are the type who I think the WNBA should be targeting. They're far more likely to show up at a game than the clown in the bar who is looking forward to lingerie football. Lingerie football and the WNBA are just incommensurable. Let the lunkheads do as they please, WNBA. We'll address them at some later date...

In this particular group of males, we do not see the blatantly disrespectful and dismissive remarks that we might find at the local dive bar or a Lingerie Bowl fan club. So they, like me, would probably be interested in the WNBA purely for the sport of it. They just need a reason.

However for this group – and many males like my friends – I imagine the WNBA equation looks something like the following:

WNBA = Leslie + Swoopes + Holdsclaw + Parker

I’m sure that there would be additional names added to this equation depending on location and age. And there may be additional individual differences based on where people went to college. But in my experience – this and others – even players like Lauren Jackson, Sue Bird, and Diana Taurasi are relative unknowns on a national scale.

The problem, of course, is that Leslie, Swoopes and Holdsclaw are past their primes, if not retiring. And Parker won’t be playing for a while this season.

So when taking this “data” (really just grounded assumptions) into consideration, what can we say about WNBA marketing?

The first impulse might be to say that we need to pump up these “unknown” stars to demonstrate that indeed, the league has made progress since inception and there are reasons to watch.

But upon further reflection I thought of something else – with Leslie retiring, isn’t this the perfect time to come up with some “passing the torch” campaign? Something reminiscent of the “We Got Next” campaign? Like who has next after Leslie, Swoopes, and Holdsclaw are off the radar? Yeah, sure there’s Parker but now that she’s out for a bit, why not introduce the next squad who has next?

I thought the Olympics set the stage nicely for a “passing the torch” campaign – the Leslie to Fowles handoff was essentially executed in Beijing as far as I’m concerned. So why not expand that theme a little?

In addition to Fowles, there’s Candice Wiggins, who’s like lightning in a bottle off the bench. Then there’s a set of young players like Cappie Pondexter, Candice Dupree, Sophia Young and Seimone Augustus who can flat out play.

Fowles, Wiggins, Pondexter, Dupree, Augustus, Young…and of course there are others...

They got next. Why not tell us to watch them in your commercials?

Why not give people an actual story to follow of some sort?

This is not to say that Bird, Jackson, and Taurasi are somehow uninteresting – you know I love Taurasi. But why not build a narrative – no matter how contrived – that people might hear about and talk about and actually want to go see develop?

What if the conversation with my buddies involved hearing about the next dominant post player in the WNBA in Fowles? Or the scoring ability and intensity of Candice Wiggins (who some people may know from her NCAA days? Or Augustus’ ability to score 30 points on 80% shooting on one of the best defenses in the league?

You want my buddies to Expect Great? Tell them what’s been going on in the last decade since they last paid attention to Leslie, Swoopes, and Holdsclaw. Tell them what’s on the horizon and help them step into a developing story.

I’m not even suggesting a second iteration of “We Got Next” – the slogan could certainly change, but I think that spirit would be perfect for the WNBA right now. But everybody likes to be the one who picked up on the next big thing before they were the big thing. Why not help people get there?

Random images of people they don’t recognize and pictures of girls in the crowd ain’t gonna do it.

Transition Points:

The NBA has had similar campaigns “passing the torch” campaigns to promote Kobe and Tim Duncan in the post-Jordan years. Of course, it was all with the help of their corporate friends:

Sprite - Kobe Bryant and Tim Duncan - 1998
Uploaded by GarfieldFan2000. -

But some of it was the NBA’s own promotion of the game. Anybody remember the hype around the Kobe-MJ matchup in the 1998 all-star game?


There was also a brief effort to compare Dwyane Wade to Jordan (a disservice to both men) on a lesser scale as well.

We can debate whether these efforts were “effective” – and honestly, they annoyed me to no end -- but there’s no doubt that this set of players have ended up carrying the torch for the NBA while the world waited for LeBron to just take over.

Lebron james nike commercial
Uploaded by barkich. - Music videos, artist interviews, concerts and more.

And as though the anticipation around a Kobe-LeBron NBA finals showdown needed more hype this year, the commercial that got us all going during yesterday’s games was Nike’s Kobe-LeBron puppets commercials.


The thing is, I could imagine Kobe being that…um…”proud” of his accomplishments… I think it would even funnier if they added a Carmelo Anthony puppet just begging for some attention…

Something else I thought about: Right now may not even be the time to really campaign hard for the WNBA -- it's not starting until June 6th. So maybe right now is just the time to plant the seeds since there's not much to watch yet...maybe the WNBA will have a second iteration closer to June 6th tip-off? Who knows...

Continue reading...

Diana Taurasi visits Phoenix school to promote fitness (and milk)

Diana Taurasi is looking forward to getting into a rhythm with the Mercury when the pre-season starts on Sunday.

In the meantime, she's certainly using her time wisely -- on Tuesday she visited North High School in Phoenix to promote fitness and nutrition as part of the NBA's Get Fit By Finals program.

In a political climate in which high-stakes testing and accountability have dominanted the national discourse about education, news of Taurasi’s visit is like a breath of fresh air.

While the explicit purpose of the visit was to promote fitness and nutrition, she implicitly promoted a model of good citizenship that is sorely lacking amidst a disastrous financial crisis. And of course, while the adults are busy bickering about vouchers, performance pay, and tweaking standardized tests, the civic and physical development of our youth is often ignored, if not openly dismissed

According to the WNBA website,

Adolescent obesity has tripled over the last two decades, so ’it’s never been more important for teenagers to make better food and physical activity choices, according to certified sports dietitian Tara Gidus, RD, a nutrition consultant to the Orlando Magic NBA team. That’s why Get Fit By Finals will call on teens of all activity levels to take simple steps to help improve physical fitness and nutrition – such as being active for at least 60 minutes a day and drinking 3 glasses of lowfat or fat free milk each day.

“Exercise and good nutrition helped me achieve my goal of playing in the NBA and maintaining the high-level of fitness required to stay at the top of my game, “said Taurasi. “Along with other top athletes, fitness and nutrition experts, I’m excited to help teens reach their own personal best and help them Get Fit By Finals.”

Apparently, Tamika Catchings of the Indiana Fever – the 2009 Rev. Charles Williams Award for youth service in Indianapolis -- also visited Cathedral High School in Indianapolis as part of the program.

So what is this Get Fit by Finals program?

And why is it important?

Get Fit by Finals

The program is based on the 2008 Federal Physical Activity Guidelines, which were signed back in September by the outgoing Secretary of Health and Human Services (under George W. Bush). Those guidelines include aerobic, muscle-strengthening, and bone-strengthening guidelines for youth, adults, older adults.

North and Cathedral High Schools are two of thousands of schools involved in the program that have received Get Fit activation kits that include NBA sponsored fitness and nutrition tools and tips as well as posters for school cafeterias and gyms. North High School also received a $1000 “got milk?” Get Fit Grant to help them implement health and fitness programs. There is an online “Personal Fitness Tracker” tool as well designed to help students log their progress and journal online.

Why is this program important?

The importance of the program is actually best articulated on the letter that came from former Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt:

There is strong evidence that physically active people have better health-related physical fitness and are at lower risk of developing many disabling medical conditions than inactive people.

Prevention is one of my top priorities. Although physical activity is clearly vital to prevention, it is easy for many of us to overlook. These Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans provide achievable steps for youth, adults, and seniors, as well as people with special conditions to live healthier and longer lives.

Although hardly a novel idea, an emphasis on the universal prevention of health problems instead of treatment would be a major step forward in our thinking about health policy. Starting with youth in schools through fitness promotion would theoretically save society money in healthcare down the line, especially for those on government programs.

While it’s great that sports leagues like the NBA and WNBA are doing this work, one would certainly hope that one day we as a country would value the future of our children enough to systematically promote healthy lifestyles as a means of preventing future health problems.

However, in the current economic and political climate, promoting health – not to mention citizenship (which is known to promote school engagement which increases the likelihood one might graduate) – in schools will clearly be a tough sell. Peter Levine writes the following about increasing youth media production in schools as a means of promoting youth civic engagement:

To influence educational policy, I believe we need randomized field experiments that measure the impact of digital media creation on relatively hard measures, such as high school completion or valid and reliable measures of skills.

If such experiments showed positive results, then NCLB and the standards movement that
it typifies would provide some leverage. But these laws also create a challenge by focusing on basic literacy and mathematics as measured by pencil-and-paper tests. That focus makes it harder to devote instructional time to media production; media skills are not directly tested, yet what is tested is taught. Nevertheless, NCLB and other current policies could accommodate youth media work if we could show that providing creative opportunities is an efficient way to keep kids engaged in school.

Certainly, if we could find a way to measure the impact of youth media or health promotion programs, it would be easier to influence educational policy.

Of course, the idea of hard science justifying youth development outcomes like skill acquisition or healthy lifestyles – clearly things that are difficult to quantify to begin with – is almost silly to the point of being counter-productive. Even with intensive longitudinal research, one would end up with sketchy and inconclusive data.

What counts as a healthy lifestyle? What about other variables that lead to “health problems” outside of an individual’s control?

At some point, we will just have to decide as a country that health promotion is just important enough to make a leap of faith and promote it on a wide scale.

Related Links:

Additional photos are available at Yahoo Sports.

Information about North High School.

Information about Cathedral High School.

Transition Points:

One question about the program: what type of follow-up support could/will the W/NBA provide to the schools that receive with grants?

I find it absolutely hilarious that Wolverine is also one of the celebrity sponsors in this thing. I mean, if you already have adamantium bound to your skeleton, do you really need milk that much? That just seems like a stretch. ;)

Please note that I’m not putting Taurasi on a pedestal – I actually already did that last year. Regardless she, Catchings, and the WNBA should be commended for their work with this program. Watch though -- I might start the MVDee campaign early this season...

Of course, it’s also worth noting that the whole Get Fit program is ultimately about promoting milk sales:

MilkPEP's 10-person staff manages an annual $90 million integrated marketing budget. In addition to the famous ad campaign, programs like the Milk Mustache Mobile tour and the NBA Get Fit By Finals program generate billions of positive media impressions a year. In-store promotions also give regular boosts to milk sales in retail outlets.

But come on – there are many worse things that the WNBA could be tied to…(e.g. Exxon).


Continue reading...