When the Washington Mystics face the Los Angeles Sparks tonight in Los Angeles it will include a match-up of two former Minnesota Lynx point guard teammates who are enjoying career years in their third season on new teams.
Last year, Mystics point guard Lindsey Harding and Sparks point guard Noelle Quinn split point guard duties in Minnesota and both experienced drop-offs in production from their rookie year in 2007. Both were among the worst shooters at the point guard position and both seemed to struggle coming up with consistent performances on the Lynx.
So perhaps sometimes a change of scenery is all that is needed.
Clearly, the similarities between these players only exists at the broadest level of analysis – not only are they very different types of point guards, but by any reasonable standard, Harding is by far the better player. Harding was a strong Rookie of the Year candidate in 2007 and a fringe All-Star this year.
Harding’s numbers are up across the board and combined with the athleticism that was previously limited due to injury – one commentator recently said it looks like she’s on ice skates on the fast break compared to everyone else – she has arguably been the best point guard in the East.
In contrast, Quinn is on the opposite end of the point guard spectrum. She has typically been the most basic of point guards, one that merely gets the ball over half court and initiates the offense.
But this season, Quinn has been much more than that for the point guard-starved Sparks. She has come up huge in fourth quarters (and overtimes) for the Sparks attacking the rim and loosening up defenses to give her four Olympian teammates room to operate.
Quinn is definitely not having an All-Star caliber season, definitely not the leader of her team, and she isn’t starting. But she has a role on the Sparks and she has fit it well.
Not too long after the Los Angeles Sparks traded for point guard Noelle Quinn, I asked the following question:
Which Noelle Quinn will the Sparks get – the one that was a rather efficient distributor in 2007 or the one that was a marginal initiator in 2008?
My thinking was that the Sparks were a great fit for Quinn because she would be able to fill a role that matches her capabilities and wouldn’t be expected to do anything beyond that given the number of talented players around her.
Really, that line of reasoning applies to both Quinn and Harding – Harding is playing a system and under a coach that seem to maximize her capabilities.
Honestly, Harding's whole mindset seems to have changed this year – last year she appeared to be much more focused on her own scoring -- and while it’s hard to account for that, it’s obvious that the 2009 Mystics are a much better fit for her than the 2008 Lynx.
Ultimately, when evaluating point guards it’s helpful to consider the context – what the player has demonstrated they are capable of and what role they fit on a team. If being a point guard is more than just creating assists, but making decisions that make teammates better and helping the team win, then the structure within which those decisions occur is important.
So these latest point guard rankings – my ongoing obsession – are an attempt to do all of that: evaluate decision making within the roles players fill, and how much they’re able to contribute to their teams. Coincidentally, it was Harding and Quinn that gave me the hardest time in the process.
Moving beyond the statistics…but keeping them close to my heart…
In my past rankings, I’ve just taken the critical statistical categories, ranked each point guard (and others who fill the lead guard role) and just added up the points.
However, that seemed to contradict my argument about point guard styles – if each player is different, then how could I possibly argue that I could judge them on one blanket standard?
For example, I fully admit that comparing Phoenix Mercury guard Temeka Johnson’s assist rate – the percentage of plays she makes that end in an assist – to Seattle Storm guard Sue Bird’s assist rate is unfair.
Bird is a point guard that also assumes a large portion of the Storm’s scoring burden and that’s because she is the better shooter and craftier scorer. Therefore, Johnson’s plays end in assists more often simply because she’s not asked to do other things as much.
But that’s hardly a knock on Johnson or a claim that she should do more. It’s just an argument that most knowledgeable sports fans are already familiar with: the numbers describe a fragment of the story, but don’t necessarily explain the entire story.
So what is to be done?
Bob Corwin of Full Court Press suggested I weight numbers. However, that still assumes that some point guard traits are more valuable than others, which I don’t think is always true. As Bird said in response to the suggestion that she is the best point guard in the world, part of being a good point guard is understanding “what’s needed and when”.
However, that does provide some guidance – it is fair to say that some styles of point guard objectively do more than others, not just do things differently.
Last week I revisited the point guard styles I created last year defining five types of point guard – initiator, distributor, facilitator, scorer, and combo guard. And if you look at how I defined those there is a clear hierarchy although each one of those styles can be effective within the right system.
For example, having a player that can create scoring opportunities for others is probably objectively a more skilled player than one whose limit is bringing the ball across half-court and initiating the offense. And I can also say that a player who’s able to balance scoring and creating for others is better than almost any other type of point guard.
So by looking at a) the relative quality of each point guard within their style, b) comparing players across styles, and c) looking at the influence of each player on the game given their style, I think I can find a more reasonable way to rank point guards.
So which players fit which styles? And then what?
I fit players into styles and ranked them based on four criteria:
1) Using the point guard styles framework described last week to categorize the league’s point guards and rank them based on their relative ability within those styles.
2) Using the previous framework for evaluating point guards – which evaluated players on the ability to distribute, score, and impact the game – as it applies to their style. So for example, in looking at distributors, I evaluated them primarily on their distributor statistics whereas I looked more at scoring statistics to rank scorers…and for combo guards I looked at both. I looked at their game impact of each style.
3) Using a standard that I drew from the rookie evaluation framework – a player’s ability to make plays (usage %) for their team efficiently (Chaiken scoring efficiency) while contributing to wins (Boxscores).
4) Defense: it matters. So I took that into account using a combination of observation and some numbers I’ve been playing with.
Yes, this is not exactly an example of statistical parsimony, but the constellation of statistics helps to describe overarching patterns in a player’s game and make arguments about why one player is better than another. In addition, there’s a much more subjective quality this time – I am looking at what the statistics describe and making judgments rather than allowing the numbers to explain themselves.
And another change – although I think players like Jia Perkins, Cappie Pondexter, and Tanisha Wright are very effective lead guards, the reality is that they are not usually the primary ball handlers when they are on the court. So I decided not to include them in the rankings, though all three of them compare very favorably to the players below, which is a testament to their quality as players.
So don’t fear math phobes – I actually did not rely entirely on the statistics to make my arguments. It’s just a way to complement my own observations/biases and describe each point guard’s play in terms that allow for comparisons.
The Rankings:
10. Noelle Quinn, Los Angeles Sparks – Initiator: Trust me this one strikes me as odd too. But the fact is, Quinn is having the best season of any initiator in the league. And when you compare her impact on the game to the lower tier of distributors or even combo guards who just don’t do anything particularly well, it’s easy to make the argument for her in this spot.
Quinn has emerged as a strong fourth quarter scorer for the Sparks recently, but overall she is more of an initiator who brings the ball up and passes it off. While her Sparks teammates are a large part of that, she actually fell in the initator category last year.
What sets her apart from the rest of the players in my mind are two things: scoring efficiency and defense. Quinn has the best two point percentage of the group and among the best efficiency ratios of the entire league.
9. Ticha Penicheiro, Sacramento Monarchs -- Distributor: She’s arguably the best point guard in WNBA history. And it’s hard not to include Penicheiro on the list even though her career is on the decline and I have to admit a major reason she’s here is that I’m biased: she’s the first WNBA player I ever saw play in person and I fell in love with her game.
However, as a distributor she’s still performing well and has one of the highest pure point ratings of any point guard. But what makes Penicheiro especially valuable as a distributor is that she is still one of the best ball handlers in the league and has the ability to penetrate and find open teammates. Her free throw rate is among the top third of the league and is by far the best of any other point guard that fits the distributor category.
8. Kristi Harrower, Los Angeles Sparks – Distributor: I know Sparks fans are not particularly fond of Harrower, but she’s really having a solid year in terms of distributing the ball from the point guard position.
The key to Harrower’s game is that she’s efficient – she doesn’t take a whole lot of risks (she has the second lowest turnover percentage among point guards) and makes solid decisions with the ball (highest pure point rating in the WNBA).
She is not the quickest, the best ball-handler, or the greatest defender. But in terms of a player who is able to bring the ball up the court and find players open for scoring opportunities she’s solid. And a team like the Sparks – which is already overflowing with talent – does not need a whole lot more than that.
If you were picking players based on reputation or overall talent, you might take Penicheiro over Harrower. However if you’re judging Harrower on performance within the Sparks system this season, there are not many point guards having a better season.
7. Loree Moore, New York Liberty – Distributor: Moore is not a player that immediately jumps to mind when I think about the league’s best point guards, but she’s having a solid year, on both ends of the ball. I’ll borrow a comment from Liberty forward Shameeka Christon from after their recent victory over the Sparks:"Loree Moore was the difference in the second half for us,'' Christon said. "She pushed the ball for us in transition which led to easy baskets which we needed. She was also everywhere on defense. She stepped up big for us.''
She is one of the better defensive point guards in the league and that means that she is not only facilitating offense for her teammates, but also disrupting the offense for opponents. She does a little bit of everything, but seems to disappear for long stretches of time. And unfortunately, her high turnover percentage limit her effectiveness as a distributor.
6. Tully Bevilaqua, Indiana Fever – Distributor: Bevilaqua was not even supposed to be the starter for the Fever this season but has ended up having one of the best seasons of any point guard in the league. She is still one of the best defenders at the position, if for no other reason due to the effort she puts into just bothering opposing ball handlers, and she is extremely decisive with the ball and almost always seems to make the right decision at the right time.
In addition to having one of the lowest turnover percentages of any point guard, she also has among the highest scoring efficiency ratio. Which means that even though she does not take a whole lot of shots, when she does she is selecting opportunities that result in points for her team as well as any other point guard.
5. Temeka Johnson, Phoenix Mercury – Distributor: Although Johnson has among the best assist ratios and pure point ratings of any point guard, she is actually not the best of this group. What sets her apart is her game impact – she has among the highest plus/minus ratings of any point guard in addition to the highest Boxscore rating of this group. And that pretty much reflects what you might expect based on observation – Johnson makes excellent decisions and has been an essential part of the Mercury’s success this season.
She dropped a little from the last rankings I made because her numbers have leveled out as the season has worn on, but she is still by far the best point guard of her type in terms of getting the ball in the hands of her teammates within the flow of the offense.
4. Sue Bird, Seattle Storm -- Facilitator: So if saying that Sun point guard Lindsay Whalen is better than Bird doesn’t get me run out of Seattle, putting her fourth among all WNBA point guards might.
Again, the issue is Bird’s talent, but her performance this season. She disappears for long stretches of time and as I described previously, she shoots a large number of jumpers at a very low percentage. As a result, her impact on the game can be limited, despite single-handedly winning games at times. Although Storm fans would probably not agree, all three of the point guards listed ahead of Bird on this list are having demonstrably better seasons than Bird.
3. Lindsey Harding, Washington Mystics – Combo guard: So here’s the justification of Harding over Bird: Harding has been both an efficient scorer and distributor as well as being arguably the better defender. And the thing that really sets Harding apart from Bird this season is that Harding goes aggressively to the basket – she has among the highest 2 point percentages of any point guard and a much higher free throw rate than Bird. In other words, Harding does a very good job of creating easy scoring opportunities for herself both from the field and from the free throw line, hence allowing her to do more for her team.
So the argument for Harding this season is simply that she brings more to the court overall as a point guard…and perhaps is able to do so more consistently.
2. Lindsay Whalen, Connecticut Sun – Combo guard: I made my argument in favor of Whalen the other day and stand by it. But what separates her from Harding? On the offensive side of the ball, there really is not much that Harding does that Whalen does not do better, with the exception of a small advantage for Harding in terms of 2 point percentage. The argument in favor of Harding is that she has one of the best plus/minus ratings in the WNBA and she is probably the better on ball defender. But its hard to find much beyond that.
Based on observation, it’s harder to think of a point guard who sees angles and is able to creatively use those angles better than Whalen right now (a few years ago, the answer would have been Penicheiro). And she uses that ability to draw fouls and get herself to the free throw line if she doesn’t finish with an array of creative shots. And while she is not a great defender, she has the instincts to play the passing lanes and play pretty good help defense.
It’s hard not to argue that Whalen is the best “traditional” point guard in the game right now.
1. Becky Hammon, San Antonio Silver Stars – Scoring point guard: So last week I wondered aloud if Hammon was the best point guard in the league this season and after watching all the other top point guards, I came to the conclusion that she definitely is.
Here’s why – she’s a weapon on the court from the point guard position that is almost impossible to stop right now. She is by far the best overall player playing the position by a long shot – she is the only point guard who is among the league’s best in terms of the ability to make plays (usage %) for her team efficiently (Chaiken scoring efficiency) while making a large individual contribution to the team’s wins (Boxscores).
It goes right back to the quote from Bird – no point guard in the league is better at understanding what’s needed and win and getting it done.
If she’s not scoring, she’s setting up others. If her team needs her to score, she can do that from anywhere on the court at a high percentage. And moreso than any other player in the league right now, Hammon is able to create plays for herself and others seemingly out of nothing.
People can try to dismiss her as “just a scorer” but ultimately, her abilities as a distributor are comparable to most of the players on this list and her decision making with the ball in her hands is arguably the best in the league.
Transition Points:
Rather than dissect it, I thought I would redirect to a more nuanced and less myopic approach to the same subject by Shoals at the Baseline. Shoals clearly has a bone to pick with Berri, but he makes a solid argument. To summarize his argument: statistics are fine as long as they are placed in context and based upon common sense assumption. Out of context and devoid of common sense, statistics are completely pointless. Taking an anti-statistics position is silly unless you want to also claim that your observations are honed to perfection...and if that's so, more power to you. All the numbers do is allow us to see trends and make comparisons that are very difficult to make otherwise...and if you care about make substantive arguments with some nuance, yes stats help.
I am not as anti-Berri as Shoals is because honestly, I think the premise of many of Berri's arguments is solid -- our observations are often based on completely arbitrary assumptions about the game that really don't reflect the things that every coach knows lead to victory. But ultimately, both the "Basketball is not math" and the "Basketball is econometrics" arguments are misguided and incomplete.
For the record, she classified as a "distributor", which means she does more than just bring the ball upcourt -- she finds ways to get it to players in scoring position. Never an all-star, but she has a career in his league likely as a strong back-up.
Continue reading...
Point Guard Rankings (New & Improved!): Harding, Quinn Recovering Nicely from Minnesota Sophomore Slumps
Hammon's Playmaking Ability Beats Lynx: Is Hammon the Best Point Guard in 2009?
With 12 seconds left and the game tied at 87, San Antonio Silver Stars’ All-Star guard Becky Hammon stood near the mid-court line and faced up one-on-one against Minnesota rookie forward Rashanda McCants.
As she dribbled the clock down to about 7 seconds before really making a move to initiate a play, it seemed logical that the Silver Stars had put the ball in Hammon’s hands to take the final shot.
And why not?
Hammon is one of the craftiest offensive weapons in the WNBA and a rookie didn't seem to stand a chance against her.
With about five seconds left, Hammon dribbled around a Sophia Young screen, in a play that seemed to be a pick and roll. With Young quickly covered by Lynx defensive stalwart Nicky Anosike in the paint, Hammon kept the ball, temporarily mishandling it after taking one of those “not me” bumps from Lynx forward Tasha Humphrey on the wing.
Then Hammon worked some All-Star magic and showed why she's among the league's best players.
Hammon kept the ball for herself turning the corner and splitting McCants and Lynx guard Renee Montgomery. With two seconds left and Anosike in between her and the basket, Hammon took to the air trying to hit a running jumper. Seeing that she had no shot with Anosike in front of her and two other players around her, Hammon spotted center Ann Wauters wide open just inside the free throw line after Humphrey got lost on the rotation after bumping Hammon on the wing.
Wauters hit an uncontested jumper at the buzzer, sending the Lynx home with an 89-87 loss after a hard-fought fourth quarter comeback.
Add the Lynx to the list of teams who have been victimized by Hammon’s playmaking ability.
She set up a similar buzzer beating play to All-Star forward Sophia Young for a Silver Stars victory over the Storm on July 28th. But she’s also been dominant in losses to Sacramento, Seattle (August 1st), and Atlanta.
Nevertheless, when I talk to people about the league’s best point guards this year, they’ll normally list Sue Bird, Lindsay Whalen, Lindsey Harding, and then Temeka Johnson.
When they come to Hammon, they give a response like, “Well, she’s a great player, but not really a point guard.”
To be honest, since I’ve started watching the WNBA consistently last year, that’s how I’ve felt about Hammon. Despite the fact that WNBA GM’s voted Hammon as the third best point guard in the league in the pre-season survey (tied with Ticha Penicheiro and Katie Smith), it has always struck me as difficult to cast her as what people might traditionally consider a point guard.
Hammon definitely handles the ball well enough to be considered a point guard, but shoots the ball enough to seem more like a shooting guard. It has thus been tempting to cast her as a small scoring guard instead of a point guard.
However, after watching her in person at Key Arena on August 1st and against the Lynx last night, I think it’s probably time that we stop qualifying statements about Hammon and just consider her a point guard.
And if we consider her a point guard, has any point guard in the league been better this season?
Probably not.
What is a Point Guard?
Coincidentally, an article from a San Antonio NBA blog entitled "What is a Point Guard?" holds some insight into how we might expand our traditional notions of who “counts” as a point guard.
The blog essentially characterizes a point guard in much simpler terms than I have in the past with my analysis of point guard styles:
Once it is established that a player can effectively bring the ball up the court and initiate the offense – which is no easy task against pro-level athleticism and defense – defining a point guard is more a matter team-specific expectations than a rigid set of attributes.
He uses Tony Parker as an example of how a point guard fits within a specific system:However, it's not just individual man-to-man pressure that a point guard has to handle. They also have to handle traps both full court and half court. At times last year, George Hill struggled with all three. Full court man-to-man. Full court traps. Half court traps. When he struggled, we ended up with Bruce bringing the ball up court or a turnover. Neither of which is conducive to the Spurs scoring.
Of course, Parker’s particular style of play and athletic attributes are not necessary to play the point guard position – we can all think of a range of much slower and non-scoring point guards who have played the position well over time (Mark Jackson comes to mind).
Why don't teams do this against Tony? Well, a couple reasons. One, Tony is a very good dribbler. He is very difficult to trap because of both his dribble and quickness. Because of this, he can frequently beat the trap alone which puts the Spurs in a 5 on 3 situation. If the other team puts full court man-to-man pressure on Tony, Tony is usually fast enough to blow by his man which leads to a 5 on 4 situation. In short. Tony is dangerous offensively. The Spurs run a lot of very high screens to be able to have him shake his man and attack a big at the free throw line. Why would the other team GIVE them this situation by employing a full court press? The answer is, they don't.
The same type of analysis could be applied to any basketball team in order to establish what they might expect from a point guard: what are they trying to accomplish? And does this particular player allow them to do it?
Hammon-as-Point-Guard
The reason people may tend to disregard Hammon as a point guard is that she might appear to be spending more time scoring than initiating a team’s offense.
Her assist ratio – the percentage of plays on which she creates an assist -- is18.53%, just outside the top 50, well below that of most point guards in the league. Her pure point rating – a metric that measures how well a player creates scoring opportunities for others when on the floor – is also just outside the top 50 and well below that of the league’s top point guards.
In addition, although she is a rather efficient scorer, she is also a volume shooter. So when you add it all up, it just seems that Hammon would not be the type of player whom we would label a point guard.
However, what Hammon does extremely well is use the threat to score as a means by which to create opportunities for others. She’s not a point guard who is racking up assists just by swinging the ball to an open shooter – Hammon is often driving and forcing the defense to shift in ways that create open shooters.
And right now, Hammon is doing the job of creating scoring opportunities for others better than anyone else in the WNBA.
If being a point guard comes down to a matter of decision making – more specifically, making the decisions that help their team score points – then understanding Hammon as a point guard should come down to an evaluation of her decision making. If she is the best scorer on the floor in almost any game she plays, then creating scoring opportunities for herself is actually a good decision.
Her team needs a player who can penetrate and create offense for themselves and they need someone who can get the ball to All-Star forward Sophia Young and center Ann Wauters. Hammon’s ability to make efficient scoring decisions in addition to finding ways to set up others should put her in conversations as one of the best – if not the best -- point guards in the league.
But maybe the discussion of how we classify Hammon really doesn’t matter. Maybe it’s sufficient to just say she’s a great player, as Sue Bird commented after the Silver Stars' August 1st loss in Seattle. “She’s such a tough player,” said Bird, who guarded Hammon at times throughout the game. “She’s really, really creative. Really, really deceptive. She’s able to separate herself, even at her height, against players that are 6-5 and get her shot off. And I think the one thing I would use to describe her – the one quality – is that she’s just a winner. And she makes plays down the stretch that not many people in this league can make.”
If Hammon can win enough games to get the Silver Stars to the playoffs, she will be a strong candidate for MVP of the WNBA.
Transition Points:
Renee Montgomery was very impressive down the stretch of this game, ending a 12-0 run by the Silver Stars in the 3rd quarter and catalyzing a 10-2 Lynx run in the 4th that got started the Lynx’s comeback. And really for Montgomery it was more of the same – her outstanding ball handling ability allows her to get by defenders and get herself open for layups off the drive. Her athletic ability makes her an extremely effective finisher.
But the most impressive thing about Montgomery to me is her defensive intensity. She’s tough and willing to take on just about any defensive challenge. With her athleticism, she’s able to stay in front of most players in the league and pick up steals. If she develops her range and continues to grow as a defender, Montgomery may be among the top point guards in the WNBA in the near future.
Continue reading...
WNBA Midseason Awards & Review: Liberty Struggling…and Anosike for MVP?
Late in the fourth quarter of the New York Liberty’s loss to the Phoenix Mercury on Sunday, I heard a little song on the web cast that I assume was also played in the arena.
The line that grabbed my attention was one that seemed to perfectly capture why I liked the Liberty so much last year.
Our team is built to win. Everybody pitches in. The Liberty – United We Play.
If you read this blog last year, you may remember that the Liberty were an early favorite of mine. Leilani Mitchell’s amazingly efficient point guard play caught my eye, I vaguely recalled Janel McCarville from her NCAA tournament run with Lindsay Whalen at the University of Minnesota, and they appeared to be a well-rounded team. But most of all, I liked the fact that they seemed to play so well as a unit. An excerpt from something I wrote last year:
It’s the intangibles, the little things that won’t show up in the box score and are difficult to describe. They’re tough and they play with heart. Their seemingly endless rotation allows them to play with great energy (usually). Of all the teams in the WNBA, they seem to have the strongest collective personality.Watching them on Sunday, I couldn’t believe that I was even watching essentially the same team.
But what I like most about them is that they seem to have a nothing-to-lose swagger. Not much was expected of them at the beginning of the season – while they were expected to make the playoffs, nobody really expected them to make much noise in the playoffs. So in a way, they are the WNBA’s consummate underdog.
It’s not that they played terribly on Sunday…they just didn’t play particularly well. And to stick with the theme, it didn’t really look like they’re playing very united this year.
So what’s wrong?
I compared their Four Factors numbers for this year and last year. Contrary to what I might have thought, their assisted field goal percentage is not that much different than what they ended with and they have about the same relative position (7th) as they did last year.
However, the one number that really stood out was their offensive rebounding percentage. It is way down from last year. But I’ll spare you the esoteric numbers and just go with what’s listed at WNBA.com – the Liberty are currently last in the WNBA in rebounding differential with a differential of -5.81 per game. At the end of last year, they were at -2.1, which is not much better, but wasn’t exactly league worst.
The other number that stood out was free throw rate, which is the rate at which they get to the free throw line. This number is partially an estimate of a team’s aggressiveness as the theory goes that getting to the foul line often probably means that you’re putting enough pressure on the defense to draw fouls.
Although the Liberty are shooting very well from the free throw line at 81%, their free throw rate is second to last in the league (the LA Sparks are the worst). That’s down from last year when they were just below average.
Even more interesting is that most of their opponents’ numbers are about the same or slightly worse, meaning that the problem seems to be that their performance has dropped off rather than the opponents’ play improving. And the numbers that have fallen – offensive rebounding and free throw rate – seem indicative of a lack of energy and aggressiveness rather than some sort of slump.
So the question for the Liberty in the second half is simple: can they find that energy that made them successful last season?
If they can, there is still time for them to leap frog erratic Atlanta Dream and Chicago Sky teams as the Liberty are only 1 game out. But moreso than any other team, it seems like the Liberty will require a shift in mindset rather than a performance upgrade to make a playoff run.
What’s funny is that during last season’s playoffs I was hoping for a Liberty-LA Sparks finals, especially given the amazing game those two teams had on July 25, 2008 in Madison Square Garden. Almost exactly a year later, both teams are fighting for playoff spots. And the sad part is that – as I described yesterday -- with Sparks forward Candace Parker getting better by the game and center Lisa Leslie returning from injury, the Sparks might in fact have more reason to hope for a turnaround that the Liberty…
Anyway, more to come about teams as I watch games over the next week…for now, I turn to players and hand out some mid-season awards: Defensive Player of the Year, Most Outstanding Player, Rookie of the Year, Sixth Woman of the Year and MVP, what I consider the easiest to hardest right now. Most Improved Player just has way too many candidates to choose one.
Defensive Player of the Year candidates: Nicky Anosike…Tamika Catchings, Alana Beard, Jia Perkins, Sancho Lyttle.
I would like someone to present me with an argument for someone other than Nicky Anosike to win the DPOY for their performance thus far this season. Any defensive statistics you look at make the argument clear that it’s not worth looking at. But I heard something during the All-Star game broadcast that sort of summarizes what makes her the clear favorite for DPOY: “She’s a center and she’s leading the league in steals.”
That’s unheard of in basketball.
She is one of the most dominant defensive players I’ve ever watched. And what makes her so dominant is that she can do the dirty work in the paint but then step out to the perimeter, guard guards, and take the ball from them too. It’s quite remarkable. She’s a defensive weapon almost unparalleled in the basketball world.
If you think I’m exaggerating, watch her and try to prove otherwise…but she’s having an amazing defensive season.
Winner: Anosike
Most Outstanding Player candidates: Nicky Anosike, Becky Hammon, Cappie Pondexter, Diana Taurasi
Notice that I’m dividing MOP and MVP…because I think MVP is a lot less clear. But so far, the most outstanding player, no matter how you want to slice it, is Cappie Pondexter. This one is not nearly as clear cut as Anosike for DPOY…and in fact both Anosike and Diana Taurasi both have legitimate claims on this (fictitious) honor. But I’ve said it a number of times – Pondexter’s transformation from a pure scorer into an all-around player who can both score and make teammates better has been fascinating to watch.
She’s a triple-double threat every night at this point and plays solid defense on a team not normally noted for its defense. She’s made herself almost impossible to defend because even on an off night, she’s demonstrated the ability to take over the game with her playmaking ability. It’s hard to imagine Phoenix having the type of success they’ve experienced without Pondexter’s contribution.
Anosike’s defensive ability makes her a clear candidate for this honor and Diana Taurasi’s typically outstanding play makes her a strong candidate as well. Becky Hammon is also a candidate here as she has put up very impressive numbers after missing some games early in the season to play with the Russian National Team.
Winner: Pondexter
Rookie of the Year candidates: DeWanna Bonnner, Angel McCoughtry, Renee Montgomery, Kristi Toliver, Shavonte Zellous
For rookie of the year, I went through the same statistical process I went through when I last posted rookie rankings two weeks ago on July 14th. The process was essentially designed to answer the question of what we can expect a player to contribute to the team with the ball in their hands, adding some nuance to the standard points per game standard of assessment.
And there’s really no difference in the outcome since that point: DeWanna Bonner is clearly the top rookie thus far, still ranking among the top players in the league in usage rate (how often they attempt to make plays), Chaiken Efficiency Ratio (the ratio of scoring plays they make to non-scoring plays), and Boxscores (how much they contribute to team winning). Meanwhile, she is almost indisputably the most productive player of any rookie thus far.
But Angel McCoughtry is still right on her heels and if she can turn it around she might give Bonner a challenge. I still believe she is probably the most talented player in this rookie class, she just needs time to develop and refine her skills. However, at this point in the season, McCoughtry is the only other rookie to rank in the top tier of the league in the three aforementioned statistical categories and also brings passing ability. What will make her a tough sell, even if she does improve her performance, is that she is still a below average rebounder for a forward. But who knows – if Bonner hits a rookie wall and McCoughtry improves, McCoughtry could win this contest.
The only major change is that Shavonte Zellous has probably moved firmly into third place for ROY. She is still being carried by her amazing free throw rate, but her defensive ability doesn’t exactly hurt – she might be the best defensive rookie guard. Renee Montgomery remains interesting to watch having earned a starting spot and Kristi Toliver is slowly becoming a more efficient player. And statistically, Courtney Paris is making herself relevant, but not yet in the mix for ROY.
Winner: Bonner
Sixth Woman of the Year candidates: DeWanna Bonner, Roneeka Hodges, Angel McCoughtry, Noelle Quinn, Tan White
Whereas Candace Parker took home both ROY and MVP last year, DeWanna Bonner could very well win ROY and Sixth Woman of the Year this year. In fact, Bonner is probably more clearly sixth woman of the year than ROY.
Put simply, Bonner is outplaying most starters this season – as I previously described, she’s one of the few players to rank in the top tier in Boxcores, usage rate, and efficiency ratio. That means you know when she comes off the bench, she’s going to contribute.
The runners-up really are not close, but have all contributed directly to their team’s success off the bench in some way – Tan White and Roneeka Hodges with scoring, Noelle Quinn by scoring and occasionally running the Sparks’ offense, and Angel McCoughtry has a very good all-around game that has made her an important piece to the Atlanta Dream’s bench. But like I said…making an argument for anyone besides Bonner is a real stretch.
Winner: Bonner
Most Valuable Player candidates: Anosike, Catchings, Shameeka Christon, Hammon, Lauren Jackson, Jia Perkins, Pondexter, Taurasi
MVP is going to be a tough one this year and will likely depend upon whether someone is able to carry their team to the playoffs in the second half of the season.
Fundamentally, I think the MVP is not only the player who contributes the most to her team, but also the player who contributes the most with the least help, thus making them most valuable. In other words, the player whose team can least afford to go without them. When you take the MVP away from their team, the team’s likelihood to win games should decrease considerably.
This is of course my belief about how the award should be given rather than the way I think it’s actually voted upon…but here are the five criteria I use to assess a player’s MVP worthiness.
1. As an individual award, I don’t believe that the relative quality of one’s team should decide the MVP award – logically, the best player on the best team might not be the most valuable…it might have just been a very good team. So I’m judging based on the player’s individual contribution to their team.
2. It’s also quite possible that the best player in the league is not the most valuable in the league. Theoretically, a player who is not even considered All-WNBA caliber could be the most valuable to her team if she is single-handedly carrying the team to whatever wins they get. This is why I selected my Most Outstanding Player above – two different awards.
3. The Superstar Teammate principle: I will still find it difficult to argue that a player who is playing next to a superstar teammate could possibly be the most valuable in the league. If the best two players in the league are playing together how can one of them possibly be the most valuable to their team in the league? Chances are if the team was missing one of them – for say a two-game suspension – the other star would step up and help the team win. It’s unfair to the players because one of them might be more valuable in ways that we fans cannot perceive…but if you do make the argument, what would you use to defend it aside from the criteria for MOP?
4. The player should be someone who you want with the ball in their hands at the end of a game or who can at least be expected to be used as a convincing decoy. The player doesn’t necessarily have to be able to score, but when they have the ball, you should expect a MVP to make plays. The same argument could be used to justify voting a strong defensive player MVP, it’s just not as convenient to measure as the points per game that people normally use.
5. When the player is on the court, they should make their team better somehow, not worse. This is obviously leading to an argument for the use of plus/minus in MVP analysis and I acknowledge it’s an imperfect statistic. But if you look at the players who have a negative plus/minus rating, I think it’s reasonable to say a MVP should be on the plus side of the equation.
So these five criteria will be applied to the players who made the 2009 All-Star team – you have to figure that a player who did not make the All-Star team is probably not their team’s MVP.
The candidates above represent two things: the players with the top five Boxscores in the WNBA (in order: Taurasi, Pondexter, Anosike, Catchings, and Jackson) in addition to three other players who are carrying a significant amount of the load for their team’s this season (Christon, Hammon, and Perkins).
To start, the eight players chosen are also the players who have contributed the most value to their teams this season based on David Sparks’ val pct metric:
Anosike: 26.3%
Christon: 25.6%
Perkins: 23.7%
Hammon: 23.1%
Jackson: 22.8%
Catchings: 21.8%
Taurasi: 21.1%
Pondexter: 20.4%
So what makes Taurasi and Pondexter absolutely remarkable as players is that they are among the most productive players in the league and have managed to divide the burden to help the Mercury almost equally between them (note: they might not actually even be the top duo in the league this season – Hammon and Sophia Young have combined for 43.1% of their team’s statistical production).
All Boxscores does is take that percentage of the team’s statistical production and applies it directly to the number of wins the team has for the season. So essentially, Boxscores is a metric that measures the player’s statistical contribution in terms of wins. Here are those numbers:
1. Taurasi: 2.74
2. Pondexter: 2.65
3. Anosike: 2.63
4. Catchings: 2.61
5. Jackson: 2.51
6. (Tanisha Wright: 2.01)
7. (Katie Douglas: 1.93)
8. Perkins: 1.89
9. (Charde Houston: 1.87)
10. (Tammy Sutton-Brown: 1.87)
19. Hammon: 1.61
24. Christon: 1.53
So what we have now is the player who is responsible the largest percentage of their team’s statistical production (Anosike) and the player whose production has contributed the most wins (Taurasi). But to further reinforce the point about the player whose team can least afford to lose them, let’s go one step further and look at who has done the most with the least help from a teammate (the teammate’s Boxscore is in parentheses).
Anosike: +.76 (Houston: 1.87)
Catchings: +.68 (Douglas: 1.93)
Christon: +.52 (Janel McCarville 1.01)
Jackson: +.50 (Wright: 2.01)
Perkins: +.31 (Candice Dupree: 1.58)
Hammon: +.20 (Young: 1.41)
Taurasi: +.09 (Pondexter: 2.65)
Pondexter: -.09 (Taurasi: 2.74)
So obviously the players are only separated by fractions of a win – there’s no way a decision could be made based on these numbers alone. Nevertheless, it becomes an interesting way to look at the players relative to each other. Anosike has probably done the most in the league relative to her teammates -- even though Charde Houston is also an All-Star, Anosike’s performance has been a clear step above hers.
Christon is also an interesting case – although nobody would put her in the conversation for MOP, she is clearly contributing a lot to her team’s ability to win. Meanwhile Taurasi and Pondexter are almost playing each other even, making it extremely difficult to make a clear argument for one being more valuable than the other to the Mercury, much less in comparison to other team leaders.
So perhaps more is needed…
If we look at usage rates – the number of offensive plays the player is individually responsible for – Anosike is the only player in this eight who doesn’t rank in the top 50 of the league. However, in terms of defensive plays, there is no player who makes more of those in the league, so it doesn’t necessarily exclude Anosike from the discussion. But here are those numbers:
Hammon: 28.17
Taurasi: 26.329
Pondexter: 26.325
Jackson: 25.40
Perkins: 25.16
Catchings: 23.82
Christon: 21.94
Anosike: 20.28
And I have yet to find an overall productivity metric that doesn’t have Taurasi #1 and Anosike #2 (MEV, EFF, Tendex). Kevin Pelton’s WARP rating has Anosike #1 and Taurasi #2. So perhaps plus minus number can provide some insight…? Here they are:
Anosike: +20.5
Jackson: +14.4
Perkins: +12.7
Christon: +12.4
Catchings: +11.9
Pondexter: +9.4
Hammon: +8.7
Taurasi: +5.1
This is interesting when compared to the previous usage numbers – Anosike has the 4th best plus/minus rating in the league but doesn’t have the ball in her hands to make plays as often as Taurasi. Taurasi has the ball in her hands and is relied upon to make plays as a ball handler and thus has a much lower plus/minus.
But for me it looks like it’s between Taurasi and Anosike for the MVP. And yes, I acknowledge that Pondexter should still remain in the conversation as a third option who is really almost even with Taurasi. But really it comes down to a potent offensive player vs. a potent defensive player.
So how do you choose?
Looking at any further statistics (rebounding, passing, shooting efficiency) would be so position specific that it would be difficult to gain any clarity.
If it truly came down to Anosike, Pondexter, and Taurasi, I think it’s fair to say Taurasi would win a vote on star power alone, despite the DUI controversy. By the end of the season that will be forgotten if she continues producing wins.
However, here’s the way I’m going to think about it – the one knock against Anosike is her usage rate and that she’s not a player who can create a lot offensively. So you might think that her offensive weaknesses would hurt her overall production as a player, especially since there really is no good metric for defense. And yet despite the obvious “weakness”, she’s right behind Taurasi in any metric you look at as the second most productive player in the league.
So if you consider that with the fact that Anosike is indisputably the best defensive player in the league, it’s hard not to select her as MVP. And just in case you feel adamant about her offensive ineptitude, perhaps you should watch her – I don’t know whether it’s Jennifer Gillom or just a natural progression as a young player, but she is a vastly improved offensive player from last year, displaying an array of moves from both the post and the perimeter. In other words, if Anosike won the award, it would not be solely as a defensive player. It would be as arguably the best post player in the WNBA right now.
Of course, it’s only mid-season – all of this could change by the end and Taurasi or Pondexter could emerge as the clear candidates for MVP. But at mid-season let’s put it to the test – can you imagine the Minnesota Lynx winning even 10 games without Anosike?
Personally, I can’t.
Continue reading...
Revisiting the Storm-Sparks Triple Overtime Classic: Do the Sparks Still Have a Shot at the Playoffs?
With less than a minute remaining in the third quarter of last Wednesday’s triple overtime classic in Key Arena, LA Sparks forward Candace Parker had the ball on the wing guarded by Storm forward Camille Little.
Parker had not yet scored to that point in the game and had been the last player down the court on multiple plays. There was no reason for optimism that Parker could suddenly put the team on her back and make something happen, but there was a lingering feeling from 2008 that she could make something happen.
Although Little had done a very good job defending Parker throughout the game, Parker seemed to have a glimmer of you-can’t-guard-me in her eyes. It was a look of determination, intensity and focus. It was a reason to believe that the momentum of the game was about to shift. Down by five points at the time, it appeared as though Parker was not quite ready to let this game slip away, even if the odds – and the Key Arena crowd – were in the Storm’s favor.
The clip played in Key Arena during overtime.
Parker passed the ball, got it back quickly, turned the corner after recognizing some confusion in the Storm’s defensive rotations, and scored over a helpless Storm help defender with a driving layup punctuated by an authoritative slap of the backboard, more reminiscent of the bravado exhibited in a pick-up game than what the average person might expect from a women’s basketball game.
She went on to finish the quarter with another contested layup and started the fourth quarter by assisting Tina Thompson on a three to put the Sparks up four points. Later, she hit a big jumper down the stretch and at one point gave MVP candidate and former Defensive Player of the Year, Lauren Jackson a challenge, drawing a foul on a short jumper.
It appeared Parker was starting to put the league on notice: she’s hitting her stride and once she does, she could return to embarrassing defenders nightly any game now.
Of course, the Sparks lost the game in triple overtime, partially due to a heroic effort by Storm guard Sue Bird in the third overtime, partially due to the Sparks’ mental lapses and inability to execute down the stretch. The Sparks played well enough to win, but in the end, the Storm just had a little bit more, even after losing some of their star power with Tanisha Wright fouled out and Lauren Jackson ejected.
Unfortunately for the Sparks, this scenario is reminiscent of a narrative that could potentially describe their entire season once the WNBA reaches playoff time.
Even if the Sparks turn it on, show the flashes of determined brilliance required of a champion, and hit their stride as a team instead of a collection of talented individuals, it’s very possible that it simply won’t quite be enough to send off a retiring Lisa Leslie with a trip to the post-season.
But can you really count out a team with four Olympians and a volume shooter having an all-star worthy season if they manage to get that determination, focus and intensity required to win? Do they still have a shot at the playoffs?
Reasons for Optimism
Watching Parker starting to turn it on for that momentum-shifting seven minute stretch in the second half is plenty of reason to spark optimism. Parker went on to finish last week’s game with 10 points, 10 rebounds, 6 blocks, and 5 assists, not bad for a player who is still not playing her best ball consistently. Parker’s increasing comfort on the court combined with Lisa Leslie’s expected return in the next few games, is certainly reason for confidence.
However, Parker’s performance alone was not the only reason for optimism evident in that game. As one might have expected, the Sparks got off to a decent start in the Storm game by playing with a higher energy level and outworking the Storm in the paint – in the second quarter, the Sparks had an offensive rebounding percentage of 70%. During that quarter, they only took one three pointer but had a free throw rate of 72%. So focusing on rebounding, high percentage shots, and moving the ball well, helped them overcome 11 first half turnovers and build an 8 point first half lead.
Further reason for optimism is a matter of scheduling, as described by The Root.com’s Martin Johnson:
…the Sparks have played more than twice as many games on the road as they have at home. They are 1-8 on the road and 3-1 at home. In the second half of the season, that split will reverse, giving a bit of hope for the rest of their season.Johnson doesn’t even mention that the Sparks have three games against the struggling Sacramento Monarchs, who they defeated by 20 points in LA on June 21st.
If the Sparks can bring it all together and continue to play like they did in the second quarter, in addition to Parker playing the way she did for seven minutes in the second half, as well as Leslie contributing on both ends of the floor, they could dominate the second half of the season.
That would be the hope.
However reality might not be so kind.
Their best might not be enough.
Practically speaking, the Western Conference might just be too tough. If the Sparks were to sneak in, who might we expect to fall out?The Phoenix Mercury and Seattle Storm – both on pace to win at least 21 games -- would have to completely collapse in order to fall out of the playoffs. When Ann Wauters returns to the Silver Stars, they’ll likely return to last year’s form. The Minnesota Lynx seem to be the most vulnerable team with star player lost for the season due to injury and left with a very young rotation of players, that could collapse. So Lynx coach Jennifer Gillom’s statement that it would take 20 games to make the playoffs this year might be a good barometer for the Sparks.
The Lynx are on pace to win about 20 games, with a record of 10-7 halfway through their schedule. The Sparks would have to win 16 of their remaining 21 games – a winning percentage of 76% -- to get to 20 games. They already lost one game to the Lynx on the road, so if it came down to a tie-breaker, they would need to win all three of their remaining games against the Lynx (2 home, 1 road) to win that. And therefore to avoid a tie-breaker, they’d actually have to win 21 games.
An argument could certainly be made that the Lynx will fail to maintain their current pace in the second half of the season. Kevin Pelton’s expected wins standings have the Lynx finishing with 17.1 wins (and the Sparks with 14.7). Considering that the Sparks are likely to improve on their first half performance as they get their personnel healthy, they are probably more likely to exceed their expected wins than the Lynx.
However, while this is all mathematically possible, it would require an historic run – consider that the Indiana Fever who went on a 11 game win streak in the first half of the season, won 75% of their 16 games. To put it in perspective, the Sparks would have to play a little bit better than the Fever have to this point, for a longer period of time. It’s not unheard of, but it would take a significant turn-around.
Moving to actual game play, the Sparks’ point guard situation has been inconsistent, at best. They get flashes of solid point guard play from either Kristi Harrower, Shannon Bobbitt, or Noelle Quinn, but it’s difficult to predict when any of those players will turn it on, much less which player will do it.
In last week’s game against the Storm, it was Quinn who turned it on, scoring all but one of her 10 points in the overtime periods, including 6 points in the first overtime period just driving right through the Storm’s defense. Bobbitt played well along with Parker at the end of the third, but for most of the game, they did not get much from the point guard position.
For a post-dependent team, it can be a fatal vulnerability – the easy way to beat the Sparks would be to pressure the guards full court and prevent them from getting the team into the offense until late in the shot clock.
Ultimately, this is impossible to predict, which makes it fun to watch.
I said the Sparks would be the number team to watch at the start of the season and I don’t think that’s changed now after a difficult start. Parker will hit her stride. And eventually Parker and Leslie will be playing together. It will be interesting to see what they’re capable of.
However, my biggest reservation about the Sparks at the beginning of the season and the reason I was hesitant to anoint them the pre-destined champion is that I am always skeptical of these type of all-star teams that franchises assemble for one-year runs. They rarely work. When they do it’s because they lack the type of major vulnerability like the Sparks have at point guard.
The number one problem is always figuring out a way to find roles for every player and then finding a chemistry that maximizes each player’s talent within a particular style, not going play to play searching for an option and waiting for someone to step up.
And if they do pull it off, it would actually be a storybook ending for Leslie’s career.
Transition Points:
The energy at Key Arena last Wednesday was amazing. It's not often in life that you get the privilege of being present for a triple overtime game that is as well played as the Sparks-Storm game was (especially in the 4th quarter and overtime(s)). It got so good that Bird's third overtime run was almost anti-climactic -- it felt as though a last second jumper would have been more befitting for the game.
That was one of the games that I wish people on the fence about the WNBA could see -- it had all the passion, big plays, and excitement that you could want for a sport. If you can't appreciate the game after a game like that, then it's not for you...and that's perfectly fine.
Continue reading...
Wright’s Playmaking Ability Essential To Storm’s 72-69 Victory Over the Lynx
If what All-Stars do is make plays, then Seattle Storm guard Tanisha Wright should be named to the 2009 WNBA All-Star team as a reserve.
Nothing speaks to her ability to make plays more clearly than Storm coach Brian Agler’s decision to put the ball in Wright’s hands with 18.1 seconds left to make a play with the Storm down 68-69 to the Minnesota Lynx Sunday night. Wright scored the go-ahead basket on a contested lay-up between two Lynx defenders to help the Storm to a 72-69 victory over the Minnesota Lynx, ending their Key Arena slump.
Part of what makes Agler's decision so significant is that the play was drawn up for Wright instead of All-Star guard Sue Bird (who was the second option as a shooter on the wing) and All-Star forward Swin Cash (who was on the opposite side of the play).
“We felt like Tanisha was best in that scenario because we felt she can get to the rim, one, and we put Sue in the open corner where they couldn't help away from her,” said Agler. “Tanisha’s got great body control so she can go hard and go straight up because she's so strong. So it was a great play on her behalf.”
While Camille Little sealed the victory by drawing an offensive foul on Lynx guard Candice Wiggins in the waning seconds of the game and was the Storm’s top scorer with a season-high 18 points, Wright’s ability to make plays throughout the game was vital to the Storm’s victory.
“Whatever role I can take to help us win games, I’m willing to do,” said Wright. “I just think I’m willing to do whatever.”
Last night, Wright's willingness "to do whatever" included making plays for others, thus making her entire team better while she was on the floor. The ability to function as an effective distributor sets her apart from most shooting guards in the WNBA.
Wright had four assists and no turnovers last night, in addition to setting up her teammates for shots that led to free throws on a couple of other occasions. With the Storm’s traditional floor leader – Sue Bird – having an off-night, Wright’s contribution was absolutely essential.
Early on in the fourth quarter, that contribution came on the defensive end as well. Wright kept the crowd in the game and helped bring the Storm back to within one point early in the fourth quarter with three consecutive steals.
However, prior to the Storm’s impressive fourth quarter comeback – punctuated by a game finishing 15-2 run – they seemed to lack the energy needed to beat a young Lynx team. After three quarters, the Lynx were up seven points and looked poised to beat the Storm who put forth a lackluster performance.
For most of the game, Nicky Anosike was dominant on both ends of the floor, creating scoring opportunities on offense and disrupting a number of Storm plays defensively, knocking away entry passes, blocking shots, and rebounding. Anosike’s athleticism and developing ability to face the basket and take her defender off the dribble or hit a short fade away jumper were particularly valuable in this game.
Roneeka Hodges had an impressive second quarter, hitting a string of contested perimeter shots and recording 7 of her 12 points. Tasha Humphrey made her first appearance with the Lynx, making an important contribution off of the bench with seven points in 12 minutes.
Renee Montgomery made the first start of her career for the Lynx and played a steady, more patient game than she has in the past, despite having a statistically mediocre game with eight points on 2 of 6 shooting as well as 2 assists and 2 steals. However, we can probably expect more from Montgomery in the future.
“She has to learn a lot. It’s going to be a learning process,” said Lynx coach Jennifer Gillom before the game. “Game by game she’s been huge for us and she’s shown signs of having a great future.”
Transition Points:
Jennifer Gillom is a pleasure to watch on the sidelines. She responds to the game with the unrestrained passion that a fan would while maintaining a level of intensity and seriousness that clearly make her a great coach.
Continue reading...
Renee Montgomery's Breakout Game and the Minnesota Youth Movement
Those who watched the Minnesota Lynx’s 96-94 victory over the Washington Mystics witnessed a special performance from Renee Montgomery that is not fully captured in the standard game summary.
By now you’ve probably heard that she re-entered the game with 3:14 left in the 4th quarter and proceeded to score 12 consecutive points and 18 of her season-high 21 points over the course of seven minutes between the 4th quarter and overtime.
Her game has been variously described as “electrifying”, a “scoring rampage”, or my personal favorite from the Minneapolis Star Tribune: “Rookie guard Renee Montgomery, who usually provides a spark for the Lynx off the bench, was a flamethrower.”
And it was all capped by some of the best post-game comments I have ever heard – simultaneously honest, humble, and humorous – including a clarification for those who might consider Montgomery “on fire” (or throwing flames) last night: "I didn't really catch fire, I just shot layups. It wasn't like I was on fire from (three-point range)."
However, the ability to get to the rim eight times in seven minutes at the end of a close WNBA game is no small feat. And though it was apparently the same play, she wasn’t exactly scoring in the same way.
The first was a drive to the basket to earn two free throws within seconds of entering the game. After a missed jumper, the next two were drives for contested layups and three point plays. The next started with a nice crossover move from the wing.
In overtime, she continued to focus on getting to the rim. The first came off a steal and fast break, which earned her another three point play opportunity. The other two were drives early in the offense in which she just went right through the defense.
Montgomery is talented no matter how much she attempts to minimize her performance. The Mystics did give her different looks after the first few drives. She just continued to dominate the game. She can handle the ball extremely well, use screens, and she can find holes in the defense.
If Montgomery’s season goes anything like this game – a slow awkward start punctuated by an absolutely dominant game-changing finish – she should be right in the thick of Rookie of the Year conversations.
Why?
Because Montgomery has something intangible that makes you want to believe she’s destined for greatness.
In Jim Peterson’s comments about Renee Montgomery on the Lynx Weekly radio show, he discussed how he had his reservations about her because she’s small and hasn’t been practicing well but that when the game starts she’s “a gamer”. He discussed some of the intangible factors that make her great as well:When you go 39-0 that’s a resume builder…Some of us were thinking about DeWanna Bonner, but you know the specialness of Renee Montgomery, the fact that Geno Auriemma who’s had so many great players at Connecticut was so high on her and elevated her to the top of his list in terms of all-time favorite players [snap]…boy that just spoke to us a lot…
The whole package – the clutch performance, the personality, and the practice ethic – is what will probably make Montgomery great, in addition to being in a system that is coherent and structured enough to bring out the best in her. And a large amount of credit for that should go to Jennifer Gillom.
She’s one of those gals that in huddles in practice – you know when Jen is talking about this that or the other – she’s front and center. And she’s looking up at the coach. And she’s paying attention. You’ve got her full attention. And that sets a tone too. She’s an old soul and I think that speaks well of her and what she’s all about.
Jennifer Gillom is the clear frontrunner for Coach of the Year
Gillom has the Coach of the Year award all locked up as far as I’m concerned. Barring a complete collapse in which they lose the remainder of their games and miss the playoffs, she’s done a masterful job of keeping this team together when it had every reason to fall into utter chaos.
But she did something else last night that I love: she stuck with her talented rookie in the clutch and put her confidence in her. So often this season I’ve seen coaches pull “hot” rookies from a close game in favor of a veteran, likely thinking that the veteran savvy is necessary to win games. There is some logic to that.
However, there is also a stronger pedagogical logic to what Gillom has done with Montgomery – instilling confidence in her talented rookie by not only putting her in the game and giving her the opportunity to succeed, but also taking the time to actually design a play that maximizes her strengths and actually allows her to succeed. If this team is going to win games without Olympian Seimone Augustus, they are going to have to maximize the remainder of their talent. For Gillom, that started from the moment she took over the team, as Nicky Anosike, Charde Houston, and Roneeka Hodges are all improving and contributing their unique strengths to the team.
It’s those little things that separate the great coaches and organizations from the mediocre ones. This season, it’s separating the top teams in the conference from the fringe playoff teams. And it’s why sometimes, even as outsiders, we can make reasoned assessments of coaching.
Coaching is not just about x’s and o’s, it’s also fundamentally about inspiring people and finding ways to help them succeed. I can’t think of a coach who’s done a better job of that this year than Gillom, especially given these extremely trying circumstances.
Getting the best out of a young, talented team
There was a point in the overtime period when Gillom had Montgomery, Candice Wiggins, Charde Houston, and LaToya Pringle in the game for the Lynx. To win a close game with that many young players in down the stretch not only speaks to Gillom’s coaching ability, but also just how talented this team is…especially once Seimone Augustus comes back next season.
Add to that mix Nicky Anosike and Quanitra Hollingsworth and this team has the makings of a dynasty. Yes, they are making their share of mistakes. But they are not only learning how to play professional basketball and play as a coherent unit, but they’re learning how to play successful, winning basketball. That experience will go a long way to helping them become a great team in the future.
Related Links:
Full transcript of that lovely Renee Montgomery post-game interview
http://rethinkbball.blogspot.com/2009/07/renee-montgomerys-hilariously.html
Transition points:
Crystal Langhorne and Charde Houston (in addition to Renee Montgomery) were actually major reasons I wanted to watch this game. Both are top candidates for the Most Improved Player award and both could also make legitimate claims to an all-star spot at their position.
Last season, Langhorne looked like an athletic, but awkward center who would be something of a long-term project. This season, she’s playing as though we were just sleeping on her. More impressive than her league-leading offensive rebounding prowess so far this year, is the array of offensive moves she’s added to her repertoire. She’s scoring off drives, with double post moves, and hitting contested shots in the paint. She almost looks like a different player.
Charde Houston seems to just have put it all together this season and become more consistent. And by consistent, I mean close to dominant. Although Nicky Anosike and Renee Montgomery have gotten the headlines for winning last night’s game, Houston deserves a large portion of the credit as she did a little bit of everything – scoring off drives, scoring from the perimeter, getting offensive rebounds. She is an extremely impressive player and if she continues to improve along with the rest of this Lynx core, they will be a force for years to come.
The WNBA game is improving, even if it is struggling financially. I swear that just between this summer and last the talent level is increasing and as a result the games themselves are getting better and better. If there is any silver lining to contracting a team and shortening rosters it is that each team is probably more talented, player for player, than they’ve been in a long time.
It was my intent to post rookie rankings today, but after Montgomery’s performance last night and tonight’s upcoming match between the Chicago Sky (Kristi Toliver, Chen Nan) and the Phoenix Mercury (DeWanna Bonner), I decided to hold off and get one more look. Over the past few I’ve had a chance to see all the top rookies and have thoughts, but figured one more game of analysis wouldn’t hurt. Unfortunately, last night was the only time I’ve seen Marissa Coleman play, so I’ll have to wait until another time to give her a complete analysis. But I will say this – statistically, she might not be out of the running for Rookie of the Year.
Continue reading...
Renee Montgomery’s Hilariously Refreshing Anti-Cliche Post-Game Comments
Labels: Commentators, Minnesota Lynx, player analysis, Renee Montgomery, Rookies
One of the highlights of the Minnesota Lynx's thrilling 96-94 overtime victory over the Mystics was definitely Renee Montgomery's post game interview.
Two things went right in this interview: first, Montgomery is an engaging personality and second, radio commentator Alan Horton engaged her in a real conversation rather than asking the normally ridiculous post game questions ("What were you thinking when you took that game winning shot?").
I started to take excerpts from it for another post and then just decided to post the whole thing.
Montgomery is now officially a Rethinking Basketball favorite, with her own label in the label cloud and everything. Hopefully this is the first of many fun post-game interviews with Montgomery.
More to come on the actual game and Montgomery later, but for now, enjoy the interview.
Alan Horton, radio commentator: Renee Montgomery puts on the headset, joins us here courtside.
Congratulations, young lady!
Renee Montgomery: Thank you.
AH: Wow, what a game.
RM: Yeah…I’m..I’m still…I can’t believe we…I’m embarrassed right now to stand here.
AH: Why are you embarrassed?
RM: Because…you know you saw that foul…I’m so embarrassed.
AH: Oh the three point-…on the three pointer?
RM: Yeah
AH: Yeah… you guys committed two fouls –
RM: Idiots.
AH: [Laughs]
RM: You can say it…you can’t say it, but I’ll say it: that’s probably the dumbest minute of basketball anybody’s ever seen.
AH: But is that…are those kind of the learning steps you go through as a young team? You guys have not been in a lot of close games -- only the win in Sacramento. Are those the kinds of things you gotta learn along the way?
RM: Yeah-um…that stuff you learn in elementary, I think junior high. Maybe by the time you get to college, but we should know better. Um, I’m just happy we got the win. We really dug deep. So…
AH: Talk about your fourth quarter -- you kinda took over this game. You had 12 of your, uh, your 15 points at the end of regulation, 12 of those in the fourth quarter. What did you guys see in that fourth quarter that you were able to take advantage of?And more (via the American Chronicle, I assume from the post-game press conference):
RM: Um, the coaches actually put in a couple plays yesterday in preparation for this game. And she called it! And it just happened to work. So we was like, “Ok, we’re gonna keep on running it until they stop it.” And it worked. Like a lot of times Candice would set amazing screens. Um…and I was just getting an open lane to the basket.
AH: You went down a couple of hard times. How are you feeling?
RM: Yeah I’m gonna have to get in a cold tub and call Tina – you know, the massage lady. And ask her to help me out a little bit. But it will feel good in the morning when I know we won.
AH: A career-high 21 points, that has to feel nice. But that also has to feel nice that it comes in a victory…If you guys had lost this one off of the loss to Sacramento, that really would have been two tough back to back games.
RM: That would hurt. And it would have been our own fault because we would have shot ourselves in the foot. But hey, we won. So that’s all that matters.
AH: You know you guys couldn’t find a way to win that one in Sacramento. But you kinda found a way to do it here tonight. You kinda feel that way?
RM: We did. You know we did learn from the Sacramento game – you learn that the game isn’t over till that buzzer rings and you saw that…it really wasn’t today. You know we had .4 seconds and she really almost-…she coulda hit that shot that she just shot. So…I mean…it’s a 40 minute game – but in our case, you know, 45 minutes – but you know, you gotta play till that buzzer.
AH: Ok, thoughts on facing San Antonio, a tough Western Conference power, coming up on Friday night and rounding out this home stand.
RM: Um… I’m excited…um…you know, it’s exciting for me, personally, to play a team for the first time because this is my first year in the league and I don’t know what teams are like. And it’s just exciting, I’m playing against a great point guard – Becky Hammon – so it’s just exciting and I’m just looking forward to it.
Said Montgomery: "I didn't really catch fire, I just shot layups. It wasn't like I was on fire from (three-point range)."OK, so maybe she dropped a few cliche's in there near the latter half...but it was still great. And how great is it to hear someone just be so excited to play the next game? Will be keeping an eye on her development this season.
Continue reading...
Point Guard Rankings & Rookies: What a Difference a Weekend Makes...
On Friday, I wrote a post singing the praises of Briann January with the intent to later post statistical rankings of her rookie point guard counterparts relative to the rest of the league.
I then set out to crunch the numbers and reflect on the best means with which to evaluate point guards. And those numbers were supposed to support my point...
As of Friday afternoon, Renee Montgomery and Briann January were neck and neck statistically, with Kristi Toliver ranking 24th in the league among my chosen point guards.
And then more games were played.
Hours after my Friday post, Indiana Fever coach Linn Dunn nailed January with a DNP-CD. Renee Montgomery struggled and slipped significantly statistically. And Kristi Toliver put together two consecutive solid games, despite the Sky losing.
In other words, everything I was going to write was rendered worthless within hours.
This of course is the fun of following sports and trying to apply statistical analysis before teams have even played five games.
I put all of that out there to make an obvious point about these statistical rankings: I fully acknowledge that they’re not only imperfect but also subject to change, either because of a coach’s change in strategy, a significant injury, or natural player development. All of that is exacerbated when looking at rookies who are constantly growing as players, figuring out their role on the team, and responding to the team’s demands of them.
It’s messy. And that makes it fun.
These numbers are not meant to be the final word on the hierarchy of WNBA point guards; instead, I would hope that they serve as a conversation piece. I personally love them exactly because of how my initial thoughts were ruined this season: they allow me to track trends in players across the league and hopefully help me see things I might have missed through standard observation.
To be clear, it would be silly to claim that statistics tell the full story of basketball. However, I find it equally silly for people to pretend that their own observations are perfect. The numbers complement what we see and what we see can complement the numbers. Whichever way you approach a sport, the more information we have, the better we are able to understand what we are looking at…and hopefully form grounded, substantive opinions.
With that in mind, the main purpose of this post is to present an analysis of the first three point guards drafted in the first round – Kristi Toliver, Renee Montgomery, and Briann January. At the end, I’ll look at their performance relative to the rest of the league’s point guards.
Ultimately, I think I can say this about these three right now: judging who’s best among these three point guards is more a matter of taste than any sort of objective standard. And in the end, the goodness of fit with their team might matter more than the isolated skills they bring to the court.
A refresher on the Rethinking Basketball point guard statistics…
(Feel free to skip down to the section titled "Who’s the WNBA’s best point guard after two weeks?" if you hated high school math as much as I did and have a PTSD reaction anytime you see numbers in sequence beyond your bank account or a digital clock. Near the end of the post is a narrative summary of the rookie point guards and the top 10 WNBA point guards overall)
Last season, I used the following statistics to evaluate point guards:
Pure point rating
Net plus/minus rating
Points per zero point possession
Hollinger assist ratio
Usage rate
Boxscores
True shooting percentage
I generally like the results – by the last rankings I posted last season (click here to see those), Lindsay Whalen and Sue Bird were on top…and you’d have a really difficult time convincing me there is something wrong with that outcome.
Nevertheless, I am going to continue to tweak things, with the intention of making the outcome even stronger.
As it happens, the NBA draft is point guard heavy this year so there have been a few stories floating around the web recently about point guard analysis. Draftexpress, ESPN’s TrueHoop (observation, not statistical), HoopsAnalyst, and the Wages of Wins have all had in depth analyses of NBA point guards that I took a look at before launching into my own analysis of WNBA point guards.
First, the Arbitrarian blog no longer posts its “Boxscores” so I am not going to use that (sorry, just extra numbers for me to crunch right now). So for now, I will go back to Dave Berri’s Win Score, simply because it’s easy to calculate (petrel’s description from last year is pretty solid). I will think further on this for future iterations of these point guard rankings.
Update: I settled on Tendex ratings for now. More on that here:
http://rethinkbball.blogspot.com/2009/06/point-guard-rankings-update-surprises.html
Second, after reading through all the other articles, I realized that my framework did not really have any way of accounting for a point guard’s ability to break down the defense and get to the basket, whether to score or set up a play for someone else. The importance of this was especially evident in TrueHoops account of Minnesota’s recent point guard prospect workout – the ability to beat a defender and score either on pull-up jumpers or getting to the rim. It says something about quickness, ball handling, and a player’s instincts.
And when you think about it, if a point guard is going to have the ball in their hands at the end of a game, it would be a huge asset to be able to beat a defender and set up easy shots for their team. That was exactly the problem I described when I watched Sacramento playing Minnesota the other day.
So I spent some time thinking about how best to capture that.
Draftexpress suggests that free throw attempts per possession are a pretty good way to assess a player’s aggressiveness driving the lane. And while that’s true, it doesn’t seem to practically capture what one might want. At the end of a game, for example, a player might simply pick up free throw attempts in the bonus as a team fouls to stop the clock. A player could get fouled on a three. And really, if a player goes to the basket for a layup and gets fouled, getting one free throw for being able to complete the play is much better than getting two for not completing the play.
But HoopsAnalyst has used a different metric for years that I have ignored until now: 2 point field goal percentage. Again, when you think about how point guards might score, a more effective way to assess their ability to get to the basket might be their ability to complete two point plays. Point guards are unlikely to be scoring two point field goals on post ups or set shots because, for the most part, they have the ball in their hands making plays.
TrueHoop nicely characterized some of the ways a point guard might score two point field goals:Anyway, Tyreke was dominant.
Given how an elite point guard is likely to get two point field goals – pull-ups, runners, fade-aways, driving lay ups, changing pace in space – knowing that they are able to complete those plays tells me a lot more about their ability to attack the basket and complete plays than free throw attempts. And if they are able to beat a defender in the variety of ways described on TrueHoop, they will draw a defense in ways that enable them to distribute more effectively as well. So ultimately, I went with 2 point percentage.
Refusing to simply muscle his way to the hoop (which he did handily a few times), he scored in a half a dozen different ways. Pull-ups on the wing, runners, balanced fade-aways, and a particularly spectacular jab-step and crossover that sent Flynn (without question the best defender of the group) reeling. His jumper needs work but I wouldn't call it a weakness, and he'll definitely hit enough to force defenders to respect it.
Lawson and Flynn played about how I expected them to. Controlled the ball well, took high percentage shots and occasionally switched gears to get to the rim.
Third, after thinking conceptually about what I wanted to see from a point guard, I also decided to drop usage percentage and add turnover percentage. The decision to add turnover percentage was simple – turnovers are bad. A point guard who makes a lot of them is not likely to be elite (yes, even though great point guards make a lot of turnovers, their turnover percentage should be low).
Usage percentage is just more of a descriptive statistic than one used to evaluate anything. Knowing that a player is individually responsible for a team’s plays does not help me assess their quality. For example, some teams might be so loaded with scorers at other positions that a point guard using up a whole bunch of plays would be counter productive. Conversely, some teams have Olympians or all-world point guards who might best benefit their team by using a lot of plays. Furthermore, a point guard who can’t shoot or turns the ball over a whole lot is best served by giving it to someone else. A good shooter who is not shooting a lot might hurt their team.
In other words, there’s no way to say whether a player’s usage percentage is good or bad without taking account of a whole lot of other variables. It’s not really something I can individually rank a player on.
Since this may all seem a little unwieldy, I’ve broken down these statistics into three categories: facilitation ability, scoring ability, and game impact. And came up with some interesting results.
Which rookie point guard is best so far?
(Note: Most stats are through 6/20/09, plus/minus stats though 6/21/09)
Facilitation ability
So fundamentally, a point guard needs to be able to bring the ball up the court and distribute it to others. Ideally, that player would be able to facilitate scoring opportunities for others. A first obvious question might be one that can be answered by looking at a player’s assist ratio:
How often does a player create an assist? (Hollinger Assist Ratio)
Here are the numbers:
Hollinger Assist Ratio
January, 29.26%, #7
Toliver, 21.95%, #14
Montgomery, 18.65, #20
Just for some perspective, if we drop two outliers at the top and bottom of the assist ratio rankings, a high assist ratio is 36.72 (Temeka Johnson) and a low assist ratio is 13.24 (Deanna Nolan).
The order of assist ratios among the rookie point guards is identical to the order of their assist averages, with January ranking just above average (23.34%) in assist ratio among the point guards on this list.
Neither Montgomery nor Toliver could be considered effective distributors based upon these numbers. And, if we ask a second question about a player's ability as a facilitator, that point becomes even more clear.
How efficiently does a player create scoring opportunities per others?
To answer that, let’s take a look at these players’ pure point rating:
Pure point rating:
January, 1.43, #11
Montgomery, -2.18, #19
Toliver, -7.29, #23
Again, for some perspective, the high pure point rating is 6.95 (Temeka Johnson) and the low is -7.98 (Shannon Johnson).
So what does this say about Toliver?
Although Toliver’s assist ratio tells us that she is creating an assist on almost one of every four plays that she makes, she has not been particularly efficient at creating those opportunities.
More specifically, if we consider the fact that turnovers are statistically more harmful than assists are helpful, the fact that Toliver has more turnovers than assists on the season means that she is not making very good decisions in trying to distribute the ball.
More generally, whereas we can use assist ratio to describe what a player does with the ball, we can use pure point rating to evaluate how well a player is distributing the ball.
Unfortunately, none of these three point guards does very well when it comes to turnover percentage all ranking in the bottom five of this list of point guards.
Turnover percentage:
January, 16.72%, #20
Montgomery, 16.96%, #21
Toliver, 21.95%, #24
Combined with the pure point rating and assist ratio, what this tells us is that January is clearly doing a better job than Montgomery at picking up assists despite committing turnovers at about the same rate. That Toliver is committing a turnover so often is what accounts for her low pure point rating.
To say that Toliver has been ineffective as a distributor is therefore an understatement. And this supports a point I’ve made previously – players with low pure point ratings in college, typically do not make a big jump in the pros.
Scoring Ability
However, Toliver’s strength in college was her scoring ability and one might hope that she has been a more efficient scorer than distributor in the pros.
And judging from Montgomery’s distributing stats, one would hope that she’s making up for it with point production.
Having examined how efficiently these point guards distribute the ball, we might now want to know how efficiently a point guard is as a scorer. Theoretically, a poor distributing point guard could make up for that by being an efficient scorer.
A first question I might ask is as follows: how well does a player shoot the ball when adjusting for free throws and the increased difficulty of three pointers into account?
For that, I use true shooting percentage and to this point, Toliver has not done well in that regard:
True Shooting %:
Toliver, 57.32%, #5
Montgomery, 51.36%, #8
January, 44.50%, #20
While Montgomery has been an average distributor, she’s been a rather solid shooter based on her true shooting percentage. The opposite is true for January – she’s been an effective distributor, but not so effective as a shooter. And that’s expected – she was not known for her shooting ability entering the league.
Although Toliver is still a rather inconsistent shooter, she’s demonstrated against the Sun on Friday and Mystics on Saturday that she can shoot the ball.
However, in addition to knowing that she can shoot the ball well, we might also want to know how efficient she is in scoring for her team compared to wasting possessions.
That leads to a second question, answered by the statistic points per zero point possession:
How often is a player individually responsible for scoring possessions compared to non-scoring possessions?
This can be used as a proxy for scorer decision making – how well are they balancing scoring possessions with non-scoring possessions? – but also as a way to think about how well your point guard is managing possessions.
So for example, if a player does create a lot of turnovers or end possessions without scores, this stat will help us see if they are making up for that with points, rather than assists.
Pts/Zero Pt. Pos:
Montgomery, 1.55, #12
Toliver, 1.51, #14
January, 1.21, #19
So first of all, it’s worth noting that all three of these players is below average (1.64) in this stat among the 25 point guards I selected for these rankings. But although none of them are particularly efficient scoring point guards, both Toliver and Montgomery are close to average and shooting a high enough percentage that they could probably establish themselves as efficient scorers in the league.
However, a third question we might ask about scoring ability is: how well does the player score inside the three point line?
Where Montgomery really separates herself from Toliver and January in terms of scoring efficiency is 2 point field goal percentage.
2 Point%:
Montgomery, 50%, #6
Toliver, 38%, #13
January, 36%, #17
While Montgomery may not be very efficient as a distributor, she is finding ways to get herself high percentage shots, and that bodes well for her future as a point guard.
This would suggest that Toliver is doing the majority of her scoring from low percentage outside shots, which might end up being ok given her true shooting percentage. But the low 2 point percentage seems to suggest that she is not as good at creating high percentage shots inside the three point line, which is pretty much consistent with what I’ve seen of her.
Toliver spends a lot of time with the ball at the top of the key looking for her own shot without really being able to beat her defender. That not only hurts her scoring ability, but also her ability to make plays for others.
Chicago Sky coach Steven Key addressed on possible cause for this problem in a recent Washington Post article:One of the of knocks on her before we drafted her was that she's not physically as strong as a lot of other people. She's not as big as everybody else. But she also has a larger skill set than most people do. We've been working with her on that, trying to make that adjustment, until she can get a little stronger, until she can gauge how deep she can go into lane before she can still get her shot off, how much body contact can she take and not be off-balance. Until she figures that out, we're helping her get around it the best she can.
Perhaps this explains her low 2 point% -- a tentativeness about scoring in the lane.
So we now see that Montgomery is the better scorer, January the better distributor, and Toliver struggling at both so far. So the next thing to examine is how good a playmaker the player is.
The difference between these two statistics and the facilitator metrics above is that I am now looking at quantifying “intangibles” by using these metrics as proxies – ball dominance, a team’s reliance on a player, and aggressiveness in driving to the basket.
To put a player’s performance in perspective, it is sometimes helpful to look at their usage percentage -- the percentage of a team’s plays that a player is individually responsible for while on the court. And the outcome for Toliver is somewhat alarming given what we found out above.
Usage %
Toliver, 35.83%, #1
Montgomery, 17.57%, #13
January, 16.93%, #14
Toliver is using up more plays than any starting point guard in the league....and yet, she’s a below average shooter and distributor. Which means Toliver has essentially been a ball stopper to this point in her career – she is getting the ball and individually responsible for burning plays.
Just to put it in perspective, the three players closest to Toliver’s usage rate are Nolan (30.51), Becky Hammon (30.66), and Diana Taurasi (27.38)…but these are all-stars whose teams are dependent upon them to make plays. It’s quite perplexing that Toliver is using a larger percentage of plays on the court than any of those three, especially when considering that the Sky should be looking inside to Sylvia Fowles and Candice Dupree.
(Note: Since this is a statistic that does not stand very well on its own without some indicator of a player’s efficiency with the ball, I am no longer including it in the rankings. But it’s still interesting to look at when judging the quality of a point guard)
Game impact
Lastly, given that a point guard likely has the ball in their hands a lot, you would hope that they have a positive impact on the game. For that, I use Win Score and plus/minus.
Here are those numbers:
Win Score:
January, -.39, 15
Montgomery, -.65
Toliver, -.83
Plus/Minus:
January, +5.5, #10
Montgomery, -2.4, #15
Toliver, -8.5, #18
The plus/minus numbers are more clear – January has had a relatively positive impact on her team when on the floor whereas Montgomery and Toliver are not contributing as much as one might like.
Win Score does not look favorably upon any of these players.
Thus far, this confirms what one might essentially infer from the previous statistics: Toliver is struggling to contribute positively out of the gate.
Who’s the WNBA’s best point guard after two weeks?
When compared to other point guards in the league, Montgomery and January have been about average, while Toliver has been struggling to make a case as a potential starter one day.
Every starting point guard was included in these rankings in addition to a few players who often assume point guard roles on their teams (Hammon, Nolan, Taurasi, Candice Wiggins).
(Note: for the complete rankings and numbers of the top point guards so far this season, click here.)
Briefly, the following players from last year’s rankings were left out because they either have not played significant minutes or are no longer with a team:
Nikki Blue
K.B. Sharp
Tan White
Ivory Latta
Jia Perkins (I don’t think she’ll be running point much this season with Toliver around)
Katie Smith (does not do well in these rankings)
Shannon Bobbitt (limited minutes this year, but I like her!)
In their place are the following:
Our three rookie protagonists
Shavonte Zellous
Kara Lawson
Nikki Teasley
Kristi Harrower
I just did a ranking of 1-25 in each of 8 categories from above (excluding usage rate, which is more of a descriptive stat than evaluative).
One quick caveat: looking at last year’s statistics, using Boxscores along with these stats gives a much more reasonable result than using Win Score. At the moment however, I don’t have the time to come up with Boxscores without the help of the Arbitrarian…I put in an email to him…hopefully he gets back to me. So take these with a grain of salt knowing that the results will be different once I get that additional stat.
Here are the top 10 WNBA point guards overall as of 6/21/08 (total points in parentheses):
1. Temeka Johnson (174)
2. Kiesha Brown (169)
3. Kristi Harrower (153)
4. Sue Bird (148)
5. Lindsay Whalen (143)
5. Diana Taurasi (143)
7. Nikki Teasley (138)
8. Tully Bevilaqua (136)
9. Kara Lawson (127)
10. Noelle Quinn (117)
14. Renee Montgomery (93)
15. Briann January (91)
19. Kristi Toliver (80)
For rankings as of 6/22/09, click here.
What we see is that all three of these rookie point guards are knocking on the door of “average”. None of them is really among the top tier guards right now.
I keep saying “right now” because these statistics are based on a very small sample – you have to imagine that by the end of the season, players like Bird and Whalen will move up while Kristi Harrower and Kiesha Brown will fall back down to earth after solid statistical starts. And Boxscores – a metric that takes account of the player’s contribution to a team’s wins – will help that as well.
But what’s interesting is looking at the point guard styles of our three rookies of interest:
January is looking like she will end up being more of a “distributor” point guard, with a below average usage percentage, an above average assist ratio, and an above average pure point rating. That is great for a team that has scorers to pass to. She might be the closest thing to a “pure facilitator” among these three point guards, but will have to cut down on the turnovers.
Montgomery is looking like she could either turn into a scoring point guard, but I think it’s also obvious that she has all the tools to become an elite combo guard with the ability to penetrate the lane and score or distribute.
Toliver is hard to peg, but right now her only real strength as a pro is three point shooting. She really has not demonstrated the ability to distribute the ball efficiently at this point, which is why I would not put her in the “combo guard” category.
Of course, you could say she’s not that much worse than Montgomery, but from watching the two play, Montgomery is able to get by her defender and make plays. That simply is not Toliver’s game at the professional level. Right now she is a turnover prone three point shooter who seems to be looking for her own shot more than that of others. That doesn’t bode well for her future, but hopefully she’ll get better over time.
So in the end, the "best" of these three will depend on what a team wants...at least partially.
Here are a few other notes about the rankings:
So I’m sure seeing Kiesha Brown as the #2 point guard raises red flags about this process. However, despite the caveat that this is a small sample size, Brown is actually playing extremely efficient basketball right now.
Brown is not exactly a big playmaker but she is doing a great job of protecting possessions – her turnover percentage (the percentage of plays in which she commits a turnover) is 6.23, the second lowest of any point guard in this group (Vickie Johnson has yet to commit a turnover this year). Brown is playing better basketball this season and the statistics show that.
During last week’s game against the sky, Mike Thibault said the following about Brown during a halftime interview:“Well I think part of her problem was that people were always trying to get her to be a starter where she was…in LA they started her a lot of games. And what happens with a lot of teams is they go get a cheaper backup…and what you get is a situation where we don’t need her to be a starter now. We’re not looking for her to be a starter. She could be if we had an emergency. But we’re looking for a player that can play a couple of roles for us – at both guard spots. And so I think it makes a difference in how you fit in a team when you know what the expectations are. LA needed her to be the starting point guard..and we don’t need her to be that, we need her to be a complement to Lindsay Whalen. And this may be why she can settle in a little bit better.”
The funny thing is that the same could be said about Temeka Johnson’s shift from LA to Phoenix – her role and expectations got clearer and she performed better. Obviously, Thibault was not taking a cheap shot at LA’s system…but…
Speaking of which, Temeka Johnson has been phenomenal this season. She is near the top in almost every category. The only one she is below average in is usage rate…which actually makes her season thus far more impressive – she is distributing the ball efficiently, and taking good shots while also not dominating the ball on a team with Taurasi and Cappie Pondexter. To this point, she has been the perfect fit for the Mercury...
Kristi Harrower #3? Really?
Let me just give you her numbers to this point:
PPR: 6.85 (#3)
Plus/Minus: +12.1 (#7)
True shooting %: 47.79 (#14)
Points per zero point possession: 1.98 (#6)
Turnover%: 5.40 (#1)
Assist ratio: 32.42% (#3)
2 point%: 47.3% (#7)
Usage%: 11.52 (#22)
Harrower is not a superstar point guard. But as of right now, she’s just not making many mistakes and getting the ball into the hands of her superstar teammates. She is not dominating the ball at all as evidenced by her low usage rate and that’s probably a good thing.
Would it be nice for the Sparks to have a more dynamic point guard? Sure. But Harrower is playing some of the most efficient basketball in the league right now, which is something that could not be said for any one of the Sparks’ point guards last year...
Sue Bird has not been scoring very well to start the season (until yesterday), which is really hurting her ranking right now. It is likely that once she starts shooting more effectively she’ll rise in these rankings. But she's been on fire distributing the ball in the last three games after publicly lamenting a 7 turnover performance against the Lynx: 22 assists, 0 turnovers is not too bad...
Lindsey Harding is currently ranked #12 which might be surprising given her relatively hot start. But while she is doing a lot right, her shooting has been abysmal thus far, with a true shooting percentage of 34.58% and a 2 point% of 23.68%...
In watching Whalen in the game against the Sky, she is still doing all she can to make plays for the Sun. The problem is the Sun have not been making shots (until about Friday); in that game against the Sky, I counted at least five assists that Whalen lost simply because her teammates did not make shots after Whalen set them up nicely...
Wondering about my personal favorite from last year, Leilani Mitchell (#18)? Some folks…ahem…some haters... suggested last year that if given starter minutes, Mitchell’s production would go down. Thus far, that’s exactly what’s happened this season. I have not watched the Liberty enough yet this year to say exactly what’s going on, but I can say her shooting numbers are among the lowest in this group and her assist numbers are down considerably as well. Hopefully she can turn it around...
Transition Points:
I was tempted to follow Draftexpress’ lead and add steals per 40 minutes to the mix. While it’s not a perfect proxy for defense, it does demonstrate a measure of athleticism. Something to think about for the next iteration.
I have to wonder if Renee Montgomery will assume a bigger role on the Lynx with Augustus out for the season. The reason is that they will have to replace her scoring somehow or seriously change their offense. Montgomery has demonstrated the ability to score in spurts and they might need more of that now.
I got a look at Shalee Lehning for the first time yesterday. She is not necessarily a player who will “wow” you, but she makes good decisions with the ball and keeps the offense moving. She looks really comfortable within Atlanta’s offense. It was especially interesting comparing her to Leilani Mitchell because they both are very decisive young point guards. The big difference – and an important one – is that Mitchell is ultra-quick. It will be interesting to see how Lehning does as the season wears on.
Nikki Teasley also looked like a pretty good point guard in yesterday’s game against New York. She is extremely patient with the ball and just looks in complete control bringing the ball up the court. She’s decisive, but unlike Lehning or Mitchell she does not commit to a specific decision unless she’s sure it’s right. While Lehning and Mitchell spend a lot of time dribbling back and forth across the court surveying opportunities, Teasley just calmly surveys the situation and lets the game come to her. It’s impressive…and it’s showing up in the stats this year.
If only the Dream had played defense yesterday.
Two WNBA point guards have been signed to endorsement contracts with a new company that makes athletic shoes designed specifically for female athletes, Atlanta-based Nfinity. Will be interesting to watch for any of those promotions.
The Chicago Sky did not look very good against the Sun on Friday…and then dropped Saturday’s game against the Mystics who were also coming off a back to back. I am still a little confused about what they are attempting to do on offense. Hopefully they work that out as the season goes on.
Continue reading...
