Hoopsworld.com completed their list of the 55 "most influential leaders in basketball" and both Donna Orender and Candace Parker made the list.
54 - Donna Orender, President, WNBA: While the WNBA is far from a mainstream hit, the league is growing and awareness of the brand and the sport continues to grow. While the women's game is nowhere near as popular as the men's game, the WNBA's influence on the female sports fans is significant and advertisers and sponsors continue to support the league.
52 - Candace Parker, Player, Los Angeles Sparks (WNBA): She isn't quite LeBron James, but Parker is a star and her influence over the women's game is profound. She is extremely marketable, and a very solid basketball player. As the face of the WNBA she will be a key component to growing the WNBA fan base into a more mainstream product.
Obviously, the fact that ESPN is #2 on the list has some bearing on that, if you ask me.
2 - George Bodenheimer, President, ESPN – As the dominant sports brand in media ESPN controls the message. Bodenheimer, in turn, controls ESPN, so you do the math. ESPN is the ultimate kingmaker, their experts are experts by virtue of being with ESPN, and they own the broadcasting rights to so much of the sports landscape they can control and influence what is seen and heard across a variety of mediums. ESPN's influence on who is popular, who is not and what teams and situations are news shapes every aspect of the game. To many if ESPN reports it, it is real. ESPN's flagship program, SportsCenter, is one of the most-watched sports broadcasts anywhere. Between their news-making ability and broadcasting agreements no entity has more influence on the game than Bodenheimer's ESPN.
Though women's basketball coverage has gotten better, certainly the way ESPN covers the WNBA will continue to have an affect on its mainstream interest.
Connecticut Sun point guard Lindsay Whalen is certainly not the most athletically gifted player and she doesn’t necessarily even make spectacular plays, and yet she consistently stands out in almost every game she plays, even to fans who can hardly spell her name.
Sometime during the first half of the Seattle Storm’s 86-74 home victory over the Connecticut Sun last Thursday, Bethlehem Shoals got my attention to show me a tweet from his second WNBA experience (corrected below for your reading enjoyment).
Whalen is such a great PG she doesn’t even need the ball!
While Shoals’ commentary may strike rational individuals as absurd, Whalen consistently stands out in almost every game she plays as in complete control of everything going on around her. She has a presence on the court that is felt even when she is doing things that seem rather pedestrian.
But how exactly do we describe what makes Whalen such a great player?
After Tina Thompson missed a baseline jumper with 4:49 left in the 3rd quarter of what looked to be a Sparks blowout, Whalen snuck through a gap in the lane untouched to grab the rebound. Having secured the ball and brushed off Sparks forward Candace Parker’s attempt to swipe the ball from her, Whalen left the 2008 MVP behind and pushed the ball up court at ¾ speed.
As she crossed the three point line, rookie forward Lindsay Wisdom-Hylton was faced with the unfortunate task of trying to stop Whalen. While common sense might tell us that Wisdom-Hylton had no shot to stop Whalen from going to the basket – having already drawn the attention of the defense, Whalen came to a stop just inside of the free throw line and just shuffled a pass to Sun forward Sandrine Gruda for an open jumper on the wing.
That play is certainly not the most spectacular of Whalen plays and in fact, it wasn’t even the most spectacular of her season-high nine assists from Sunday night. However, the play is quintessential Whalen, affecting the game with nothing more than the subtlest of moves to make the simplest of plays…repeatedly.
She makes basketball look as simple as lacing up our shoes.
Furthermore, it seems that Whalen has made a science of capitalizing on simplest principles of basketball, methodically analyzing a situation to make the best play possible.
To extend the point, even when watching Connecticut Sun point guard Lindsay Whalen in losses, it’s easy to see why she’s a perennial MVP candidate. Her presence on the court is felt, regardless of whether she has the ball in her hands. She’s tough enough to dive deep into the paint for rebounds and graceful enough to make the perfect pass to her teammate for a three pointer. It’s that attitude of winning by any means necessary that makes her great.
On his blog FreeDarko.com, Shoals would later make the claim that the WNBA “needs more Whalen”, primarily because of her “attitude” – “She talks non-stop, plays the whole game with a scowl on her face, and stared down the ref at the half.” However, I would like to expand upon why the WNBA needs more Whalen while also making a more narrow claim.
Earlier in his article, Shoals made what I think is the far more interesting claim in his article, something that I didn’t quite appreciate when we were caught up in the chaos of Key Arena on Thursday night.
I was serious when I twitted that she doesn't even need the ball to operate masterfully from the point. Depending on how you look at it, it's either quasi-mystical, or the kind of what people used to say about Deron Williams ("he gets hockey assists and stays within the system") before dude came to life, but true.
She gives it up almost as soon as she crossed half-court, or posts up at the top of the key, Cassell-style, but as a way of attracting attention and feeding someone else. And these aren't passes for assists; mostly, they set into motion a series of obvious events (two, three, four passes) that result in an open shot. Her teammates usually miss, and Whalen herself can hit the lane strong and sink jumpers at will, but whatever. She's bigger than that. Closest NBA comparison: Old Jason Kidd, if old Jason Kidd were young and could shoot.
(Speaking of which, last night I decided that comparing NBA to WNBA players is the logical next step of NBA esoterica. Like when Kevin told me "Darko was supposed to be what Lauren Jackson is." These days, everyone knows everything about every random player. If you value elitism and obscurity in your fandom—and buy my argument that the WNBA is a variation on the NBA, not an inferior product like college—then welcome to the new frontier.)
There are players in the WNBA like Whalen, Jackson, Parker and Cappie Pondexter that defy our natural inclination toward NBA comparison. These players don’t really have a NBA comparison unless you start fantasizing about maximizing the talent of superstars. They truly do represent a different, not inferior, style of basketball performance.
To stick with Whalen, the only way to make a NBA comparison is by either idealizing what we wished NBA players to be or somehow trying to play with time and the natural course of development to bring together the athleticism of youth with the savvy of age.
And perhaps that is the allure of Whalen for NBA fans –not only does she exhibit intensity and toughness that people do not normally associate with women’s sports, but she is an idealized image of what we wish our favorite point guards would become.
So it should be no surprise that longtime NBA fans, such as myself, Shoals, Phoenix Stan, and Stan’s guest Wattdogg10 all immediately notice Whalen as standing out as something special when we comment on the WNBA.
Players like Whalen, Jackson, Parker, and Pondexter are truly intriguing basketball narratives unto themselves that any true fan of the sport should be able to recognize as special and appreciate. Again, if you can't appreciate how these players play the game, it might be time for you to abandon basketball altogether.
So to elaborate on Shoals’ point, it’s not just that the WNBA needs more Whalen to enhance the product, but “more Whalen” might actually attract NBA fans simply because she would give them pause and really provide a new vision of the game they love. Ditto for Jackson, Parker, and Pondexter.
Continue reading...
Long time WNBA fans have probably seen Sacramento Monarchs point guard drive baseline and hit a cutting teammate for an easy layup thousands of times.
But I still have to step back and say wow.
With just under 6:30 left in the fourth quarter against the Atlanta Dream last night, Penicheiro brought the ball up the court at about ¾ speed in transition. As Dream defenders had done all night, rookie point guard Shalee Lehning was sagging down to the free throw line as Penicheiro got to the three point line, exploiting Penicheiro’s notoriously inconsistent jump shot.
And yet in typical Penicheiro form, she used a series of changes of pace, hesitations, head fakes, and changes of direction to get to the baseline and rendering Lehning almost helpless to stop her. As the Dream defense collapsed – seemingly leaving Penicheiro with nowhere else to go – two of her teammates suddenly became open: forward Hamchetou Maiga-Ba popped out for a jumper on the wing while Rebekkah Brunson waited and cut to the basket through a now clear lane.
Surrounded by four Dream defenders Penicheiro got Dream center Sancho Lyttle to shift her weight in the wrong direction with a subtle ball fake, took to the air and hit the cutting Brunson who was left unattended in the lane. After the defensive havoc Penicheiro had just caused, all Dream forward Erika Desouza could do was foul, sending Brunson to the line.
With the Monarchs down 21 points at that moment in time, the play is insignificant in the grand scheme of things. The Monarchs ultimately lost and Penicheiro didn’t pick up the assist although it was her effort that undoubtedly created the scoring opportunity which ended in free throws. But the way in which she seems to be in total control even as she’s in the middle of switching gears and throwing a flurry of fakes at her opponents never ceases to amaze me.
It’s not necessarily original to say that Penicheiro is the epitome of basketball as an art form – creatively drawing upon the resources revealed to her in a situation to make beauty out of a chaotic world. And even in the twilight of her career, in a 103-83 blowout that pushed the Monarchs further into the cellar of the Western Conference, appreciating Penicheiro is almost a mandate for anyone who considers themselves a true fan of the sport.
Forgive the basketball snobbery, but if you can’t recognize the beauty in Penicheiro’s game, it’s time to move on from basketball and find a new sport.
Given that, it’s probably not a stretch to say that Penicheiro represents something of the archetypal point guard in the basketball universe. She is a pass-first player, with court vision and seemingly in control of every single moment on the court, keeping her dribble live as a means to create things even when everything seems to break down.
Just the other day, Shoals and I briefly exchanged emails about legendary NBA point guard John Stockton and Shoals suggested that Stockton is “an elite role player” – a player who became a Hall of Famer simply by playing his position to perfection. Although Stockton was by far a better shooter than Penicheiro – it still amazes me that a point guard shot 51.5% over a 1,500 game career – Penicheiro is an “elite role player” in a similarly complimentary sense. She plays the position just as most people would imagine it being played in its most ideal sense and excites us when she does something beyond what we’re able to imagine.
Dream point guards Lehning and Ivory Latta pale in comparison to this point guard dream come true from Sacramento. It almost makes you wonder how a team like the Dream can even pull off a win with mere mortals running the point opposite Penicheiro.
But then you remember that this is ultimately a team game – players like Penicheiro can help facilitate plays for her teammates, but if the team doesn’t work well as a unit to begin with, it’s all rendered moot.
The Dream's one-two combo at point guard offer very different things that can be useful at different times – Latta did do what she does well in scoring points but picked up 2 of her three turnovers in garbage time while Lehning did what she does well running the team and picking up 10 assists but didn’t even get a shot off until missing a contested fast break lay up.
The best we can say is that in this situation -- a team with two all-star post players who they went to early and often -- Lehning is working out well running the offense and helping the team get them the ball.
That’s not a final objective judgment of either player’s talent or future as a WNBA player. But to use the notion of a player being functionally effective within a role, Lehning – while not nearly the image of positional perfection that Penicheiro has been – is filling the function of point guard well enough to keep the Dream in second place.
If the question shifts from an assessment of talent based on an idealized positional standard that nobody aside from Penicheiro (or Stockton) are likely to achieve to a question of who fills the role of point guard well enough for the team to be successful, Lehning is doing just fine.
Of course we all wish to have a Penicheiro or Stockton on our favorite teams, but somehow we have to find a way to appreciate the less-than-elite role players too.
Continue reading...
A good friend of mine is a LA Lakers fan and for years I – a Golden State Warriors fan – have had to listen to him whine and complain about how inconsistent and discombobulated the Lakers are…as they end up in the NBA Finals or infinitely closer to anything resembling success than my beloved Warriors.
So thankfully, he’s not a (huge) LA Sparks fan…because then he’d actually have something legitimate to whine about.
The Sparks’ 72-68 victory over the Washington Mystics last night was a perfect example of a situation where I would actually have to feel sympathy for the suffering of a LA fan.
And that's hard.
But that game was just brutal on so many levels.
Both teams entered the game on the outside of the playoffs looking in and there were times when I wondered if either team really even wanted to play in the post-season at all.
Just when one side seemed to make a play that would catalyze a shift in momentum, something goofy happened – dumb foul, turnover, a flurry of contested jump shots – that killed the momentum. And no, it did not shift the momentum to another side…it was like a momentum vacuum.
And it’s a special kind of bizarre to watch the Sparks struggle like that.
The Sparks have four Olympians on the team – center Lisa Leslie and forwards DeLisha Milton-Jones, Candace Parker, and Tina Thompson – all of whom have a post game or at the very least are capable of posting up players who defend them. When they make the effort to slow the game down and make entry passes into the post – as they did for a stretch of about 2 minutes 30 seconds in the third quarter when they briefly help a lead of 11 points until Leslie left the game – they do well.
But then they just stop.
And then I am literally sitting at my laptop, arms folded and rolling my eyes wondering why I’m watching a team full of post players take jump shots…over and over again. They shot 38% in the final quarter, which seems paradoxical for a team with a strong post game.
But that wasn’t even the worst part: the worst part didn’t come until the fourth quarter when I had to watch a team with four Olympic front-court players essentially play a two person game with guards Noelle Quinn and Marie Ferdinand-Harris in a tie game with less than two minutes left.
What saved them was making 10 of 12 free throw attempts in the fourth, which were partially a result of attacking the paint.
It’s inexplicable…right?
We could waste our time pointing fingers at various players, coaching, or the refs for making last night’s game so excruciating to watch. But ultimately, it does seem to come down to the one thing that everybody associated with the Sparks keeps saying ad nauseam – this team needs time to gel…and unfortunately, they have not done that to this point. Of course, to some fans that type of answer is unsatisfactory because after all, they have four Olympians! They were destined to win this year! It’s the point guards, the point guards!
WE ARE LA – WE WIN CHAMPIONSHIPS!!!
But how reasonable is it that this team would be playing good basketball right now?
Parker is still getting her legs back and trying to find her stride since starting her season late on July 5th. Leslie returned from an extended injury on August 4th. Once Leslie returned, guard Betty Lennox got injured.
All of that means that in addition to not having a pre-season together, they also have not even had a consistent healthy roster until August 11th.
That means the Sparks have only played 4 games with their full complement of players and have had no extended practice time together yet.
Therefore, they have not only had adjust to shifting lineups and new players adjusting to the system, but also the 2008 WNBA MVP slowly playing her way back into shape.
In those four games, they have gone 2-2, not losing by more than 6 points.
Are they meeting expectations? No. Most people had them winning a championship.
But is it really any one player’s fault? No.
Anybody who has played or coached a game of basketball knows that it is a game in which team chemistry/cohesion/togetherness/kumbayaness matters. The track record for these teams of all-stars across sports, and particularly basketball, is not so good.
Putting a group of players used to being the number one option -- or at least a primary option -- on one team and expecting them to magically work out roles is ridiculous, especially without practice. It’s not a fantasy league or all-star showcase…like, real defense is played and stuff.
Yes this team has a ton of talent, but does anybody really believe this is a well-constructed or balanced team?
And from what I watched last night, that lack of cohesion was the root of their problems – they are terribly inconsistent partially because they can’t seem to get themselves into a rhythm with one another. Even when they find a strategy that works, there doesn’t yet seem to be any confidence in that strategy…and thus they just move on to the next haphazard option.
With two minutes left in a tight game they all stood there looking at each other. There was no movement. No attempt to support the point guard – yes, it is the weak spot on this team of Olympians – and really no effort to make a play. So with the shot clock ticking, of course Ferdinand-Harris or Quinn had to take jumpers.
But how on earth can a team win like that?
They can’t. And they won’t win consistently until they establish what works well for them and what roles they each have in that strategy.
That’s common sense. The players keep saying it. Coach Michael Cooper keeps saying it. I buy the line. Mainly, because it’s common sense.
Once they get a chance to play more than four games with one another, perhaps I’ll change my tune.
Maybe it is coaching. Maybe it’s the point guard situation. Maybe Parker, Leslie, Milton-Jones, and Thompson are just a terrible combination. Right now we really cannot say. The WNBA season is simply not long enough for the Sparks to manage these circumstances.
All we can say is that it takes time for teams – even the uber-talented – to come together and play well as a unit. The Sparks are no exception.
And wasn’t it my friend from LA wailing about something similar in the summer of 2004 when the Hall of Fame saturated Lakers lost the NBA Finals to a gritty Detroit Pistons team that everybody thought was far inferior?
But I do hope this whole coming together thing happens before the next time I choose to watch the Sparks play.
Today, Shoals (finally) posted his first-hand account of the WNBA on the Sporting News and did a great job of transforming my description of our conversation into a more coherent argument in support of the WNBA, in addition to challenging the dominant assumptions that NBA fans might hold. An excerpt:
As far as I can tell, WNBA players can't jump, run or throw their weight around like their male counterparts. And they do play a more technically adept game. But they are also seriously skilled, in ways that college (amateur) athletes are not, for simple reasons of arithmetic. Both guards handle the ball and run the offense; big men—er, women—post up all over the place, regularly pass off the ball, and reliably hit jumpers like it's expected of them; everyone cuts like crazy, keeping up a level of activity that at some point is bound to outstrip or shed the coach's instructions.
It's less a diminished version of the NBA than a mutant strain of it, not unlike various incarnations of Nellieball or D'Antoni Land. It might be even a more sophisticated form of basketball than either the NBA status quo or men's college ball, which it pretty much makes a mockery of when it comes to both style and content. I don't know enough about European ball to draw that analogy with confidence, but there might be a family resemblance there.
It also reminded me quite a bit of the NBA of the 1960s, at least in the non-differentiated guard and forward positions, emphasis on movement and cutting, and varied offensive sets. Maybe it wasn't by accident that Bill Russell was at the game that night. Yes, he's a friend of Mercury GM Ann Meyers, but he's also on record as being a fan of the WNBA's style of play. And when Russell first entered the league, it had just discovered the shot-clock and was finally developing an identity apart from college ball that was to its benefit. A decade-plus down the road, the WNBA players not only have gotten better, they also have a better idea of what makes their league unique.
It's not making nebulous pleas to just "expect great" -- it actually makes a case for why WNBA basketball is worth watching, opening up the black box that the WNBA's marketing scheme created...and assuming that those insistent on making sexist assumptions about the WNBA won't be convinced anyway.
So after reading his piece, I wonder (again), what could the WNBA hypothetically take from perspectives such as Shoals' to think about how to market the league?
Continue reading...
I have to commend Viacom, the Gates Foundation, LeBron James, and Kelly Clarkson for taking an interest in the deep educational disparities that exist in the U.S.
Viacom has apparently decided to do some image management by producing an upcoming 30-minute special entitled featuring LeBron James and Kelly Clarkson entitled, “Get Schooled: You Have the Right”.
An excerpt from the press release posted on Slam Online:
“Today, in America, far too many young people enter adulthood unprepared for college, career and life,” said Allan Golston, President of the U.S. Program at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. “Changing this reality requires the full engagement of the corporate and nonprofit communities, working harder to support students, families and schools to create an expectation in every community that a college education is possible for all young people. Through the creativity of Viacom’s team and the strong connections its networks cultivate with their audiences, we have a unique ability to reach young people and their families on this critical issue.”
I sent this out over a listserv that I’m on and a friend sent back the following response:
This made me read James' bio (one of the first sports bios I've read). James experienced an extraordinary amount of support from outside his family. My question to the producers of this show would be, how could we structure social affordances for "all kids" who have this "right to access to college," so that those (millions of kids) who come from "less-than-adequate" households can be taken in by an elementary school sports team coach to live in a "stable" home?
Or am I missing the point?
Nope. He’s not missing the point…but he might have missed the most glaring irony of the whole thing. Last I checked, LeBron James decided to go to the NBA instead of college…and according to Wikipedia, Kelly Clarkson skipped college for American idol…
So…
What exactly is the message of this program if neither of the stars they have chosen even went to college?
James in particular is an exceptional individual who has led an exceptional life – anybody remember his high school games being broadcast on ESPN? – in a professional sports universe full of exceptional people. What exactly are we supposed to learn about education from these examples?
Hmmm…maybe I’m missing something.
Just to be clear – I have no problem with an athlete like James deciding not to go to college when he was quite clearly the best 18 year old basketball player in this solar system. It just seems like he’s…well…off message for this particular effort.
But where could we find a relatively popular athlete who did go to college and has risen to the top of their game?
Los Angeles Sparks forward Candace Parker maybe? WNBA star, Olympian, and former NCAA Academic All-American?
Doesn’t she better represent the spirit of the program?
I understand she is not nearly as popular as LeBron James -- it would be ridiculous to even think of saying something that absurd -- and I’m not suggesting they made a mistake.
But Parker is a young rising star who succeeded in college and in sports…and it’s worth celebrating that. It would have been an interesting way to spotlight a female role model.
Transition Points:
In other news, recently signed Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Michael Vick is also contributing to the development of our youth by speaking about dogfighting...
"He's a big influential person and what he says matters," said one of the youth.
If you were to select a WNBA All-Rookie First and Second team, would Atlanta Dream point guard Shalee Lehning be on it?
And if not, why not?
What makes the question interesting to me is that for some reason, people tend to focus on every single one of Lehning’s deficiencies – athleticism, scoring ability, defense, not a fast break player – rather than the one thing she has clearly established the ability to do well: running a team.
She was dismissed as nothing more than a “ra-ra” player after becoming an important part of the Dream’s rotation.
And now she’s still dismissed after transitioning into a more substantive full-time starter on a potential playoff team. She is not even included among WNBA.com’s top 10 rookies despite starting 8 games for her team, tied for the most of any rookie.
During the Dream’s four game winning streak from July 22- August 1st, Lehning had 17 assists and 2 turnovers.
It’s not that she was playing All-Star caliber basketball, but she does what her team needs – she brings the ball up the court and initiates an offense that includes two All-Star post players in center Sancho Lyttle and forward Erika de Souza and two volume shooters in forward Chamique Holdsclaw and guard Iziane Castro-Marquez. So if she’s playing with four players who are better scorers than her by almost any reasonable standard, it’s actually a good decision to just get the ball up the court and set them up for scoring opportunities.
Lehning has exhibited the ability to perform the duties of a good point guard. And if she is able to exhibit that ability as a rookie, she deserves a bit more credit than she’s getting. Yet you can still find people who will dismiss her in one of two ways:
1) All she does is bring the ball up the court and pass it (which I find to be a baffling critique); or 2) If the Dream had better point guards, then she wouldn’t even be on a WNBA roster.
Somehow, an assessment of what she does well is disregarded in favor of a general assessment of her ability that is based upon a counter-factual argument.
But why is that occurring?
In my opinion, the point guard position in basketball is second only to the quarterback position in football as the toughest position for a rookie to learn in sports…and Lehning has done an admirable job not only managing that learning curve, but doing it well enough to earn a starting spot over veteran competition on a playoff team.
To be clear, I’m not nominating Lehning for Rookie of the Year. I’m not even suggesting that she’s the ideal point guard for the Atlanta Dream. Nor am I suggesting that she should be considered the best rookie point guard (I maintain that the best rookie point guard this season is Minnesota Lynx point guard Renee Montgomery).
What I’m suggesting is that if you judge Lehning on what she’s done for the Dream overall rather than harping on what she has not done, she has actually demonstrated that she is a solid point guard.
So how would I rank her relative to the rest of the rookie point guards…or the rookie class more generally?
What does Lehning do so well?
Put simply, Lehning makes outstanding decisions with the ball given her limitations and rarely makes bad mistakes.
It’s not a terrible starting point for a rookie.
And I'm not just going to make a simplistic assist to turnover ratio argument. I'm talking more about how well Lehning plays the position.
As of yesterday, she leads the league in assist ratio – the percentage of plays she makes that end in an assist -- at 49.06%. To put that in perspective, the player in second is Sacramento Monarchs’ point guard Ticha Penicheiro. That also reveals a quirk with this particular number – if you don’t shoot much and pass a lot, then of course your assist ratio would be high. Nevertheless, the fact that half the plays she makes end in an assist is impressive as a rookie.
Here’s a brief comparison to the other three rookie point guards: Montgomery, Indiana Fever point guard Briann January, and Chicago Sky point guard Kristi Toliver.
Lehning also leads rookies in John Hollinger’s pure point rating, a metric that assesses a point guards’ ability to create scoring opportunities for others per minute on the floor. As a reference point, Los Angeles Sparks point guard Kristi Harrower has maintained the top pure point rating for most of the season and currently has a rating of 5.78. Here are the rookies:
Whether looking at these numbers or watching them play, it is fair to say that Shalee Lehning is the more effective distributor of any of the rookie point guards who have played a full season.
She’s not as flashy as January or Montgomery as a ball handler and creator, but she is mechanically sound and does the simple things extremely well, such as making entry passes to All-Stars or getting the ball to the open shooter at the right moment.
At this point it would be perfectly reasonable to comment that these numbers seem to be the opposite about common sense assessments of who the best point guards are – I have just provided two metrics in which Shalee Lehning and Kristi Harrower are the leaders!
What am I thinking?!?
What both of these metrics do is establish a point guard’s ability to make decisions about distributing the ball to teammates and running the offense. Relative to the rest of the WNBA, Lehning is making very good decisions with the ball and is very effective at setting up her teammates for scoring opportunities.
Scoring ability counts and that’s obviously what people hold against Lehning.
Lehning is not a scorer. And yes, that does make her an incomplete player despite the fact that she’s a very effective distributor.
And it should be extremely clear that by now that Montgomery is the best scorer of the rookie point guard crew.
Montgomery’s athleticism, outstanding ball handling ability, and ability to finish at the rim make her a very difficult player to stop. She first showed off her ability to score in traffic off the drive in an overtime win against the Washington Mystics on July 7th and pretty much did the same thing in a home loss against the Silver Stars on Sunday night.
While Kristi Toliver is clearly the better shooter (when she plays), Montgomery right now is the best overall scorer of any rookie point guard. She is also second among rookies in true shooting % and scoring efficiency ratio (the ratio of scoring plays to non-scoring plays as defined by missed shots and turnovers).
However, one way to assess overall scoring ability is to look at 2 point percentage, which can be something of a proxy for how well a player is able to get themselves easy shots and has been described as a very important WNBA statistic:
In fact, Montgomery is one of four guards in the top 15 in the league in 2 point percentage, right behind Becky Hammon (52.6%). The fact that Montgomery’s assist ratio is so low (also close to Hammon’s 19.2%) is offset by her scoring efficiency and ability to create easy shots for her team.
Will Montgomery need to get better as a distributor in order to be effective as a team leader? Of course.
But the split among this year’s crop of point guards – Lehning and January as distributors, Montgomery and Toliver as scorers – serves only to illustrate just how difficult it is to play point guard as a rookie. And that's not to mention the fundamental communication and leadership skills that it takes to run a team.
Given all those factors, Lehning probably deserves credit as the best distributor of the bunch right now.
Establishing reasonable expectations for a rookie point guard
A post on the Hoopinion blog yesterday further reinforces the point about the difficulty of making the transition from college to the professional ranks as a point guard.
It boils down to a very simple claim, backed by a look at rookie combo/point guard drafted outside the NBA draft lottery from 2003-2008 since the changing of enforcement of hand-check rules:
Given the difficulty of learning the point guard position, first year performance of rookie point guards drafted beyond the lottery will not clearly establish the path of his career.
How might we apply the same thinking to Shalee Lehning?
By focusing on what she does well in terms of what we know about the WNBA game – she creates assists, she minimizes turnovers, and she shoots a relatively high 2 point percentage by WNBA standards.
Not only are these indicators that Lehning is an effective point guard right now, but also that she probably is on her way to a solid career, if only as a backup.
With work in the off-season and a year of experience under her belt, she very well could become a better scorer.
But as for her standing as a rookie right now and judging her on her performance rather than arbitrary standards for imaginary point guards, we can say that she is an effective starter on a playoff team.
If that does not merit consideration among the top rookies, I’m not sure what does.
Transition Points:
Click here to see my latest rookie rankings....just in case you want to figure out where I plugged Lehning in after my extended analysis of her...
The obvious comparison to Lehning as a rookie point guard is New York point guard Leilani Mitchell...and clearly Mitchell is not having a particularly strong sophomore campaign. But somewhat similar to Lehning, she is most effective as a distributor when her team is effective as a unit. And thus far this season, it’s safe to say that the entire Liberty team has underachieved, if not played worse than they did last year. Otherwise, Pat Coyle would likely still have a job.
In response to my last point guard rankings, Bob Corwin of Full Court Press got in touch with me and we have had an ongoing conversation about point guards and how people around the league think about some of the players I ranked.
At some point during this conversation, he asked me why I was so interested in evaluating point guards. And I suppose I didn’t have a good answer.
It started last season by noticing people’s comments about the effectiveness of Seattle Storm point guard Sue Bird’s during an early season shooting slump. But maybe what precipitated that was that I was something of a defensive combo guard in high school and Isaiah Thomas was one of the first players that ever caught my eye in the NBA.
However, Lehning’s rookie year performance probably best embodies why I am interested in creating a framework for evaluating what it is point guards bring to a team. People make very arbitrary assessments of point guards based upon normative assumptions about what constitutes a "good point guard" that actually reflect people's thoughts about what makes a "superstar point guard".
For example, in the NBA, the San Antonio Spurs have won championships with both Avery Johnson and Tony Parker, two very different point guards. Last year's NBA finals featured a matchup between Derek Fisher and Tony Farmar vs. Jameer Nelson (all-star) and Rafer Alston (former And 1 player). The previous finals winner was led by second-year point guard Rajon Rondo, who still has no jump shot to speak of.
All of those players were vital to their team's success, but very differently.
There are many ways to play the position and it depends more on the situation than any rigid set of qualities.
However, Corwin also made the point that while there have been a few great point guards in the WNBA, the point guard position has never had a great player...and part of my struggle is to detach myself from NBA point guard standards and think more deeply about the WNBA, which does not have many dominant point guards in its short history...interesting point I'm still chewing on...and the reason why further point guard rankings are on hold.
On the amount of trust Head Coach John Whisenant puts in her: “He’s always saying he wants me to be Steve Nash or Chris Paul and just go in the paint and make something happen so we don’t call many plays sometimes. He just pretty much wants me to go out there and get in the paint and either shoot or give the ball to one of our post players or our shooters. He is always encouraging me to do that. He says ‘Be Steve Nash out there, be Steve Nash!’”
Obviously, Lehning is no Steve Nash...which is yet another point of critique...but uh...how many point guards have won two NBA MVPs anyway?
When Bethlehem Shoals of FreeDarko.com (a blog about the NBA, but not merely about basketball) asked me to recommend a Seattle Storm game for us to go to, the choice seemed obvious.
“The best game for a NBA fan to see will be the Mercury on Aug 4 or Aug 21,” I wrote back.
The Mercury feature two of the top candidates for WNBA MVP in Phoenix wing players Diana Taurasi and Cappie Pondexter, a high-octane offense that almost any NBA fan would recognize as reminiscent to Phoenix’s NBA counterpart, and as Mechelle Voepel wrote last month, “Storm vs. Mercury just has that panache”.
And last night's game certainly did not disappoint. Nor did the Key Arena atmosphere.
Although the Storm lost to the Phoenix Mercury in overtime 101-90, the game featured heroics from Storm point guard Sue Bird (again) at the end of regulation, a Taurasi-like performance from Taurasi, and Storm guard Tanisha Wright torching the Mercury for 21 in the first half en route to a career-high 25 points.
And oh yeah, Bill Russell was there too…and even more importantly, a Storm Trooper tried to step onto the court after a particularly bad call from the ref in the second half.
However, I spent most of the game talking to Shoals and another male friend, who I shall call Rudy (yes, the basketball version). Neither of them had ever been to a Storm game and both had expressed interest in going at various times this summer.
All three of us fit that 18-35 year old male demographic and I’ve spent quite a bit of time watching both NBA and NCAA men’s basketball with them at various times. I would consider both informed NBA fans that appreciate professional basketball as a sport as much as for its entertainment value. Rudy is a New York Knicks fan who I’ve watched, played, and talked basketball with for about four years now. We have all attended graduate school and are overeducated to different degrees.
These guys aren’t the “average lunkhead male” – they appreciate the game of basketball and have the ability to formulate sentences without grunting and demeaning women.
So long story short – they both enjoyed the game (in different ways perhaps) and said they would like to come back.
During the game we had one of those running conversations full of tangents, non-sequiturs, and worm holes, talking about the league, making comparisons to the NBA, and talking about Bill Russell. And there were elements of our conversation during the game that I found interesting in the context of my ongoing interest in how the WNBA could market to male NBA fans.
So to help answer the question, how can the WNBA market the game to male fans?, I ask another question:
What sort of first impression(s) might the WNBA make on (over)educated male NBA fans? The crossover worm hole
Shoals met Rudy and I on the east side of Key Arena and immediately tossed me into one of his warped worm holes. A tweet sums up the issue nicely:
"Talking with @kpelton about who has the best crossover-as-fake, not just handle, in the league. I vote Wade, he suggests Rose. Et toi?", he tweeted.
Good lord.
If you knew me, you would know that I was not actually annoyed at the question because it’s stupid or somehow insignificant. The question was annoying because I couldn’t stop thinking about it.
Shoals and I had been to the Adonai Hood Classic on Sunday as well and we talked about the issue there while watching Jamal Crawford. But as we started to come up with answers at the Storm game it became clear that the answer changed depending on any number of other variables that influence a player's decision to make a crossover.
Anyway...Pelton had apparently suggested that Cappie Pondexter had among the best crossovers in the WNBA and I agreed. So in addition to mentally running through every different variant of the “crossover” that I could imagine, I began the game paying close attention to Pondexter’s crossover. And of course, with Wright’s phenomenal first half performance, her ability to get to the basket with her crossover also became a part of the conversation.
But even though I’ve watched Pondexter play quite a bit, she never ceases to impress – as I told Shoals and Rudy, she is a triple-double threat almost every night. And her crossover is a major part of that.
She not only has arguably the best crossover in the WNBA, but also uses it extremely effectively in a number of different ways – on the fast break to get by whoever is standing in between her and the basket, in the half court to gain separation for whichever type of jumper she feels like punishing her defender with at the moment, or simply to penetrate to the basket to set up another player for a scoring opportunity.
Pondexter didn’t actually have a stellar game – going 6-19 from the field – but she also grabbed 8 boards and recorded 5 assists, at least backing up claim that she’s a triple-double threat.
Making NBA comparisons
At various points during the game we attempted to make comparisons to NBA players, since their frame of reference is the NBA. I normally hate doing that (because really it does a disservice to all sides), but since Rudy kept coming up with them, I rolled with it and it ends up being a good way to familiarize oneself with the game.
For example, we decided that Storm forward Lauren Jackson was like the Dallas Mavericks’ Dirk Nowitzki with the heart to play inside, Storm forward Swin Cash like the Oklahoma City Thunder’s Jeff Green with a better perimeter game, and DeWanna Bonner like Golden State Warriors forward Brandan Wright (not necessarily in terms of style play, but skinniness). Rudy at one point suggested that Storm guard Tanisha Wright is like the Utah Jazz’s Deron Williams, but I rejected that.
However, what’s interesting is that Pondexter – and Taurasi – seemed to defy comparison. Which is actually an interesting insight because it suggests that the WNBA actually adds something to the basketball universe. Imagine that?
WNBA player versatility
Skills seem to be much more evenly distributed across positions in the WNBA than the NBA, meaning you don’t have post players who have no skill other than being tall and dunking. On the perimeter, multiple players are able to initiate the offense.
And as Shoals mentioned later via email, “a bunch of versatile skilled players is the NBA's wet dream.”
Shoals was alarmed by the fact that 6’5” forward Lauren Jackson was hovering around the three point line and that guards Sue Bird and Tanisha Wright seemed to be splitting the responsibility of initiating the offense. Part of the reason why Rudy made the comparison of Wright to Utah’s point guard Deron Williams is that Wright almost appeared to be the point guard at times because she had the ball in her hands so often.
Taurasi was leading fast breaks, shooting threes, aggressively trying to block shots, and occasionally running the offense. Mercury center Tangela Smith was 4-6 from three point range and Storm center Camille Little hit a three to tie the game at 81 with 44.7 seconds left in regulation. I mentioned that if they watched a team like the Detroit Shock – who really don’t have a traditional distributing point guard – they might have been even more confused.
Shoals is a fan of versatile players and the blurring of positions that seemed to be occurring on both teams actually seemed to be one of the more exciting elements of the game to him. It makes basketball much more fluid and actually makes offenses much more interesting to watch, if you know anything about x’s and o’s.
Yes, males of the lunkhead persuasion will complain about missed layups and lack of dunks, but as Shoals pointed out, overall, few missed shots are actually bad shot attempts. Because there are so many versatile players who can move the ball and find different ways to score, the scoring opportunities created are pretty solid.
This is basketball in which style does not take precedent over substance, but the substantive abilities of the players give the game a style that the NBA aspires to (a “wet dream”)…or once had.
The WNBA as throwback game
It was interesting that Bill Russell was in the crowd because at multiple times throughout the game, Shoals mentioned how the game reminded him of the type of basketball you see in old footage of NBA basketball in the sixties.
“Weird Russell was there, that game reminded me of sixties ball,” he tweeted at one point.
For the uninformed, that is not a slight of the WNBA game – for someone who appreciates the sport of basketball, it’s a complement. In fact, both he and Rudy commented that given the choice between the WNBA and men’s NCAA basketball, they would probably watch a WNBA game. Shoals was quite adamant about this and I’ll leave him to explain that at some other point.
When you have versatile players and offenses predicated on passing and cutting without dunking, you don’t get worse basketball, you get sixties NBA basketball. Shoals noted at one point that even the post players get their points by cutting and being in the right position rather than on the two man isolation game that tends to dominate the NBA. Personally, as someone who appreciates ball movement and fluidity in basketball, that makes the WNBA one of the most appealing syles of play.
Framed in that way, it’s no wonder that someone like Bill Russell “is on record as being a big fan of the WNBA's style of play” as Kevin Pelton noted during the game on his live blog. As Bob Ryan alluded to in his article, “The Game You’re Missing” last year, if you actually know anything about basketball, you almost have to appreciate WNBA basketball.
If you don’t appreciate basketball, just say it… but don’t disrespect a game you know nothing about.
Engrossed to the point of standing during timeouts
In between all of our meta-analysis of basketball as a phenomenon, we did actually pay attention to the game.
Key Arena – and other arenas around the league – have a ritual of standing until the home team makes its first basket.
Rudy liked this – it seemed to add to the collective atmosphere when everyone sat down at the same time after the first shot. Shoals, who nobody could describe as a “joiner”, was initially less enthusiastic, grumbling when I implored him to stand up at the beginning of the game.
However, in overtime, as Shoals and I were standing and chatting about something or other, he stopped mid-sentence and said, “Wait – do we have to stand during timeouts too?”
Why we were standing during a timeout like dunces is beyond me… but that’s beside the point.
The point here is that the game was engaging in a way that just sort of grabs you and forces you to get caught up. Part of that is a direct result of being in Key Arena – it’s just an amazing basketball venue and when the crowd gets going, it’s difficult not to find yourself caught up in a wave of Storm fanaticism.
But a major part of it is that this is just good basketball and true fans of the sport would find a hard time not getting swept up in it.
The other side of the 18-35 year old demographic
Petrel of the Pleasant Dreams blog emailed me yesterday in response to my post about WNBA marketing and reminded me that there really is no monolithic 18-35 year old male demographic. Within that demographic there are people who are non-sports fans or sports fans who are not moved by the idiocy of shock jock sports radio. But more importantly, there might also be a cross-section of that demographic who is able to appreciate the WNBA game simply because it’s good basketball.
The unfortunate reality is that precision ball movement, cutting, and versatility – the strengths of the WNBA game – are simply not conducive to the short attention span clips of Sportscenter that people have become so accustomed to. To appreciate the WNBA, you can’t expect to be wowed by a highlight reel dunk; to appreciate the WNBA, you have to learn to appreciate the nuance of basketball.
And the best way to do that is probably to show up to a game.
Part of Shoals’ infatuation with Bill Russell stems from his interest in having Russel write the intro to his next FreeDarko book, which he is currently doing research for. He’s spent quite a bit reading about the man. Rudy actually went over to Russell and shook his hand, but apparently got no real response from the legend. Just one of millions of hands shaken.
In an attempt to stop over-analyzing basketball, I missed most of the halftime show to go grab a beer. However, Shoals’ girlfriend who was with us, thought the dogs during the halftime show were among the best part of the Key Arena experience.
It’s hard not to admire Tanisha Wright’s game and Patrick Sheehy has a great article on SPMSportsPage profiling Wright. Definitely worth a read. Although I’ve often focused on her offensive abilities, Sheehy does a good job articulating her impact on the defensive end.
I also watched the Los Angeles Sparks’ loss to the San Antonio Silver Stars earlier in the day, a matchup between the Storm’s two previous opponents. Would those games – a triple-overtime win against the Sparks and an overtime win against the Silver Stars – be as effective in swaying NBA fans? I’m not sure… the Mercury’s high-octane style of play is really perfect to entice new fans…we’ll see what Shoals thinks of future games. By the way, down two with four Olympic caliber post players on the floor, why do you settle for a jumper from point guard Kristi Harrower and a three from a frigid cold Tina Thompson…I don’t get it.
Storm Troopers need to remain a prominent part of the Key Arena atmosphere. Here's why: Shoals commented at one point that the refereeing in the WNBA seems to be less invasive than that of the NBA game, making the point that there aren’t quite as many stoppages of play…but I think that was more a function of the Mercury’s style of play. For the most part, their calls were inexplicable. While I don’t complain about the refs often because they make consistently inexplicable calls against both teams, I thought it would have been plenty appropriate for a squad of Storm Troopers to rush the court, capture the refs, and detain them until further notice.
I follow women's basketball for one very simple reason:
I love basketball.
The cultural significance of supporting a women's professional sports league is icing on the cake for me.
Summer is the NBA off-season and the WNBA is a perfect counter-balance to keep me fully engaged in basketball for the entire calendar year, schedule permitting.
So I realize that marketing the WNBA to someone like me is simple -- the very idea of extra basketball was enough to get me interested in the WNBA in 1997. The combination of Candace Parker and gloomy Expect Great ads was enough to get me re-invested in the WNBA last summer after taking a long hiatus (moving to cities without WNBA teams).
However, I also realize that most people don't feel the same way about basketball as I do (they might actually have lives). In fact, some people seem to harbor resentment not only for women's basketball, but also that whole gender equity agenda thing that some people still believe is reserved for radical man-hating feminists.
So the very idea of a male women's sports fan is laughable to many people. Sadly, some individuals seem to enjoy going out of their way to demean female athletes and dismiss women's sports as irrelevant. And while I strongly believe that everybody is entitled to their own (defensible) opinion, openly disrespecting individuals who are performing at the top of their profession is just unnecessary.
Not that I’m afraid of becoming “gayer” by liking women’s basketball (because the very notion of that is ridiculous, as I believe the author intended to highlight). But I was very interested to see how the author – Cyrus Philbrick -- would go about developing his argument. He clearly was not dismissing women’s sports -- he was just trying to express why he’s struggling with it. That’s fair.
I love soccer. And I’m pretty sure I love women. So why don’t I love Women’s Professional Soccer? Or do I, secretly? These are questions I fear to answer because any serious soul-searching might uncover the misogynistic pig within. That, or I’ll end up stripping away a vestigial layer of macho-callous that has kept me straight and largely insensitive to the needs of women through the years. Oh well, here goes…
The article is actually a pretty fair description of some of the challenges that some men might have in making the transition from men’s sport to women’s sport.
However, Philbrick does not merely rehash standard critiques. In fact, he makes a critique that I normally take for granted in all my fervor about the cultural significance of women's sports.
His post ultimately arrives at the conclusion that WPS athletes are marketed as role models for girls, something that may alienate male fans. Which begs the question -- what about the WNBA?
“We need to get out of the ghetto of being a role model for girls,” Andy Crossley, the Boston Breakers’ director of business development, said in a recent New York Times article. “You can’t make dads feel like they’re visiting Chuck E. Cheese’s.”
The problem is I’m not sure if anyone knows how the league can change this. WPS works best as an inspiring example for young girl players. And as millions of them exist in this country, this isn’t a bad selling point. But to draw in the rest of us skeptics remains a challenge that will take a lot more than just innovative social media marketing.
I find this to be an interesting argument.
My knee jerk reaction is that perhaps these dads who feel apprehensive about doing things with their daughters because of how they feel need to get over themselves. But... you know... since I’m not a father…I’m going to suspend that judgment.
So beyond personal hang-ups, I suppose I don’t see being a role model for girls as a “ghetto” to begin with.
But for a moment, let’s assume that getting out of the ghetto would indeed help the WNBA…then what? Where exactly would a league like the WNBA go from there?
“Marketing Women’s Sports to Men”
These questions led me to another article on a blog about marketing to women entitled, “Marketing Women’s Sports to Men”. The author – Andrea -- says the following, looking specifically at how NASCAR and figure skating have attempted to transcend gender in their marketing strategies:
Now, the sports realm, overall, has come full circle in the ways that previously pegged “women’s” sports must grow to reach more men.
And, how are they going to do that? By identifying what about the particular sport appeals to a men’s market and highlighting that. If the marketing decision-makers are smart, they’ll likely figure out a way to do so without alienating the women who already love said sport. Now, to clarify: It isn’t necessarily men that the more female-fan skewing sports should be worrying about. Instead, those marketing decision-makers should spend time learning to reach all of the human beings who appreciate the (traditionally) more masculine aspects of the sport.
The suggestion in this article is the de-genderfication of sport – finding the elements of a sport that appeal to all fans and highlight them.
However, given differences in the way men and women play basketball (see "Transition Points" below), “highlighting the masculine aspects” of basketball is almost impossible for the WNBA – at this moment, there is no female athletic equivalent of athletes like LeBron James or Dwight Howard. And part of what people like about the NBA is the almost surreal feats of athleticism. Women’s basketball can’t really provide those particular athletic aspects of the game, that have become prominent.
So if the WNBA is somewhat immune to de-genderfication, what else might a marketing expert suggest?
How about an awareness of third wave feminism, as Andrea suggests in another post?
I’m not saying that all is perfect between men and women now. I’m suggesting it might be a good time to accept that there is no easy answer but to study up on how the women in your market fit into this wave (or not). They might consider themselves feminists, but that could be VERY different from your mother’s feminism. And, today, there may well be a lot more men who consider themselves feminist or identify with the movement (whether they say so or not), and by making assumptions, you could potentially lose trust with them as well, Remember, too - parenthood tends to put most guys into a gender transcending role that changes their behavior in other ways. So, feminism can just creep up on you (in a good way)!
An awareness of third wave feminism is not for women’s studies majors only. Instead, it is a movement that may offer up the insights you need on how/why your consumers live and make decisions the way they do.
If we take Andrea’s posts together, then the challenge for a sport like the WNBA is finding a way to minimize the gendered elements of the sport (that may in fact define it) while simultaneously drawing upon insights from third wave feminism to understand what women might want beyond the antiquated narratives of equal opportunity and representation.
But...
While I understand all these points about ghettoizing women’s sports, de-genderfication, and taking an expansive approach to feminism (that includes men rather than assuming it’s a “women’s only” domain), I also find the approach highly problematic.
Girls still need role models…just like boys have had for decades/centuries/The Big Bang or Genesis. And it's worth playing that up.
There are gender differences in athletics that we should probably learn to appreciate instead of disregarding or rejecting them outright. And it's worth helping people do that.
And while feminism is not only for women’s studies majors and should apply to men, it also seems dangerous for it to become a part of a marketing strategy. Not that the feminist principles would necessarily lose their edge if assimilated as part of a marketing strategy…but…things tend to lose their edge when they are assimilated as part of a marketing strategy.
Nevertheless, the sad fact is that these commentaries may be right – indeed, it may simply not be profitable to market women’s sports as “political”, whether it be in a role modeling capacity, the symbolic promotion of equal opportunity/representation, or a direct challenge to sexist attitudes.
So where does this leave us?
The tension here is that if men want to demean or dismiss women’s sports for being too “Chuck-E-Cheese”, “too feminine”, or “too feminist”, I firmly believe that is their problem, not the problem of women’s professional sports.
But realistically, the market for sports is traditionally the 18-35 male crowd, which is stereotypically proud of being against things labeled as “Chuck-E-Cheese”, feminine, or feminist. And there are certain women (that I’m sure we could all think of and name) who hold the same views.
However, what is most troubling to me is the assumption underlying all of these things: sexism exists and if women’s sports are to be marketable, they have to roll with it rather than going against the grain.
Realistically, most people can’t be bothered with political messages about role models, opportunity, or oppression/discrimination/prejudice while they’re being entertained. They merely want to be entertained.
So that leaves us with the question of where are the people who want to be entertained by women’s basketball? And how does the WNBA reach them?
Does the WNBA need to “Get Around Gender”?
Well, take this insight from another Andrea’s posts entitled, “Getting Around Gender”:
An article in the latest issue of Pink mentioned how the Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan got creative in reaching out to women, specifically for their executive MBA programs. Because state law prohibited the school from offering gender-based scholarships, they did the research and realized that a lot of non-profit executives happened to be female. So, Ross focused its scholarship money there. Brilliant. The school figured out a commonality that had nothing to do with gender - and learned how to reach THAT group effectively… My point is that, in a lot of cases, the best marketing to women has gotten around the gender question by serving humans/individuals who may so happen to be women.
In other words, if somebody stepped in and told the WNBA they could not market exclusively to women, what might they do? How might they describe their consumers aside from gender (or sexuality) identifiers?
Does the target audience like particular elements of the in-game experience? Do they like certain player personalities? Is it a particular style of play that a change in rules could really accentuate?
The notion of gender-blindness is problematic, if not downright harmful to me. But that is essentially what this blog is suggesting: gender-blind marketing. And yet, if gender is toxic to sports profit as all these people are suggesting, then maybe that is the strategy… but would a gender blind marketing approach even work for a league that is absolutely gendered?
Hmmmm…
I must fully acknowledge that Andrea is not talking about the WNBA -- she made a reference to NASCAR and figure skating and I'm trying to make a link to the WNBA....
Ultimately, I don't think such an approach would actually draw the fans who have blatantly sexist and dehumanizing reasons for not watching women's sports to begin with. So hiding from such an obvious aspect of the league -- that the women are role models -- just seems counterproductive.
It is important that women's sports leagues exist, if for no other reason "to get females to play" as Mechelle Voepel wrote about on Sunday. But while that is great advocacy for a women's non-profit organization, is it viable for a professional sports league striving to make profit?
But is it so difficult to imagine a world in which people stop judging women by men’s standards and are actually genuinely entertained by female athletes? Is there no way to appreciate women for their athletic feats just as we appreciate men? Why can’t we strive for a higher human standard rather than striving for the lowest consumer denominator?
Naïve, idealistic questions…that I find worth wondering about…
Transition Points: The argument that first stuck out to me in Philbrick's piece was the one about the speed of women’s soccer – that “It’s inarguably, frustratingly, heart-murmeringly slow.” Ouch. However, one could certainly make the same argument about the WNBA in comparison to men’s basketball…and that of course led me down a much longer path…
This past weekend I probably spent way too much time watching basketball. On Saturday I went to see the Seattle Storm defeat the San Antonio Silver Stars in overtime. Then on Sunday I went to see NBA players with Seattle ties play in the Adonai Hood Tournament, a four-team tournament of local high school alumni. And as I probably need not tell you, the differences between the women’s and men’s game were quite stark.
The men’s game is just faster, more physical, and yes, field goal percentages are typically higher. And for a game that is predicated on putting a ball into a ten foot high hole, the fact that men are taller on average is significant.
The fact is that the women’s game simply does not have athletes like the 5’9” Nate Robinson (NBA player from Seattle’s Rainier Beach High School and University of Washington) – an ultra-quick former NCAA Division I football defensive back who has won two NBA Dunk Contests, including this year’s in which he jumped over the 6’11” Dwight Howard for a dunk (in 2006 he jumped over another diminutive dunk champion, former NBA player Spud Webb).
Taking Robinson as one example of the type of athleticism in the NBA, these games are just different. And as I’ve said before, if you are going to support women’s sports, you first have to accept that they are different from men’s sports (duh…right?) and just appreciate each on their own terms, loving the sport as a sport as well as another form of entertainment.
Tonight: Storm game with a NBA fan who has never been. Should be fun...
(Note: I’m still not entirely sure how watching women’s sports – or anything for that matter -- might make one “gayer”, though many men seem to feel their sexuality is at stake when watching women’s sports. If I was hypothetically operating on such lunkhead male “logic”, it would seem that the opposite would be true – that spending hours watching sweaty men post each other up and pat each other on their firm behinds would make me “gayer”)
There is nothing quite like watching NBA players represent their high school teams in a humid high school gym.
In fact, Shoals estimated about 500% humidity…and we must have sat there for five hours taking in a high school alumni game complete with music and a hype man, which at times made the basketball on the court teeter on the edge of irrelevance.
But we suffered through the difficult conditions simply for the star power.
Although the Sonics have left the city, there is still a surprisingly strong NBA presence in Seattle as evidenced by the impressive list of alumni that have come from a handful of schools from a relatively small radius.
The Adonai Hood Classic is a two-day tournament established in 2000 to bring together two rival neighborhoods in Seattle – the Central District and South Seattle – in a peaceful venue to help ease long-standing tensions. The tournament has now expanded to feature NBA alumni from four schools - Franklin, Garfield, O’Dea, and Rainier Beach.
This year’s tournament was played at the recently renovated Garfield High School gym. In addition to the high schools squaring off, the event features a three point and dunk contest.
On Sunday, current NBA players Aaron Brooks (left; Houston Rockets/Franklin), Jamal Crawford (right; Atlanta Hawks/Rainier Beach), and Nate Robinson (free agent/Rainier Beach) played for their respective teams.
Brandon Roy (Portland Trail Blazers/Garfield) made an appearance but did not play.
Robinson also participated in and won the three point contest, which was of course not the contest we were hoping Robinson would participate in...
Franklin pretty much dominated O’Dea, with or without Brooks, and Roy looked on from the bench as Crawford and Robinson led Rainier Beach to a victory in the championship game.
Watching these NBA players going up against players with a range of professional basketball experience -- from college to NBA summer league to Europe – it was striking to see just what separates the NBA-caliber talent from the rest. The NBA guys were just a bit more decisive in their actions, a tad quicker on their first step, their passes just a bit more precise, and their jump shots a bit sweeter.
But perhaps the best part of watching an event like this is players like Robinson who just seem as happy to play basketball in a humid gym as he does on the grand stage of Madison Square Garden. It’s hard not to appreciate someone who plays the game with such passion, has a thirst for victory even in an alumni game with people making millions less than him, and yet doesn’t really take himself too seriously, despite craving the spotlight.
Events like this with personalities like Robinson are a nice reminder that basketball is after all just a game made a bit sweeter when attached to good cause. Definitely worth the ten dollar admission fee and sweat therapy.
Transition Points:
Former University of Washington point guard - Justin Dentmon - was present as well and won the dunk contest.
Contrary to what the title of this post might imply, Rethinking Basketball is not going to become a relationship advice blog.
Trust me, you don’t want any of that stuff from me anyway...and I could probably find an ex-girlfriend or two to confirm that.
Anyway, as I was reading an article in the Oregonian by Jason Quick this morning (via TrueHoop), I was reminded that the building blocks of a strong relationship are also essential to building a strong team, starting with communication. The NBA’s Portland Trail Blazers were introducing recently signed point guard Andre Miller to the media and Miller repeatedly emphasized the importance of communication to his job as a point guard.
You may be aware of my obsession with point guard play and figuring out how to describe the intangibles that separate the good point guards from the great ones. Miller was easily one of my favorite college point guards ever (and strangely, one of the few college point guards I liked who has made a solid pro career). He was not only the floor leader of the University of Utah team that made it to the NCAA National Championship game, but he was a triple double threat every time he stepped on the floor.
So given that I admire Miller's game, I find it interesting that Miller emphasized to both the media and coach Nate McMillan’s summer basketball camp that communication is part of what makes him a good point guard.
“And my thing is when I talk to little kids I tell ‘em communication and helping each other get better is my number one goal in the NBA. I’ve been playing ten years now and every team that I go to my job is to help guys get better and to communicate. So my role won’t be too much different comin’ here.”
Andre Miller talks to coach Nate McMillan's hoops campers
Miller reiterated the point to the media while also describing how poor communication (and egos) can inhibit the performance of even the most talented teams.
“…I got traded to the Clippers, that was a talented team but it was too many egos I felt and it was tough to win in that situation. And like I said earlier, about observing this team and the way they play well together, they compete and there’s no big egos. I think when you add a little communication to that as a point guard, it makes the job a little bit easier. And I can tell you, just from being on those different teams, every meeting was talking about ‘We need to communicate more’ and that helps a lot. That helps a team get over the hump. Communication, understanding each other, and that’s a big part of basketball.”
Blazers introduce Andre Miller
Cappie Pondexter made similar comments to ESPN columnist Mechelle Voepel the other day and really complements Miller’s thoughts well by articulating how she communicates with her teammates as a team leader and de facto lead guard. An excerpt from Voepel’s article:
"One thing I've learned is to continue to push my teammates," Pondexter said. "Especially as one of the leaders of the team. I don't think I did a good job of keeping everybody together last year, and that's something I've focused on since training camp this season."
When she and Mercury teammate Diana Taurasi would see each other during their playing stints in Russia, they would discuss what had to be different for 2009 when they got back to Phoenix.
"I'd say, 'We need to challenge everybody each day, as well as demonstrating it ourselves,'" Pondexter said. "Sometimes I am a very quiet person and can be to myself. And I've learned to be more giving to my teammates.
"You never know if someone's having a down day, so if you extend your hand and listen to that person, that can affect things on the court. There are a lot of things that happen off the court that affect what goes on on the court."
Pondexter not only articulates more precisely how she communicates with her team, but also describes two different types of communication – basketball related and just plain ol’ collegial how-ya-doin-today? communication. As a leader, the combination is what education scholars might call the disposition of a “warm demander” – building a relationship with students that lets them know that you are challenging them because you care about them and their growth as human beings.
Whoa…this is getting sort of touchy feely…and yet I continue…
Fundamentally, what a warm demander is doing is building trust between themselves and the student. But something else that Pondexter mentions that seems essential to being a good leader of any type – on the floor or off -- is listening.
One way to read Miller’s comments with Pondexter’s comments is that no matter how much you talk about the importance of communication, it won’t matter if people’s egos prevent them from actually listening to one another.
Sadly, listening is not something people in an individualistic society do very well. When I talk to pre-service elementary school teachers about the oft-ignored need to teach young children listening skills explicitly, I remind that although it’s fundamental to human interaction, it’s not something that just happens naturally – we all know adults in our lives who completely lack the capacity to listen.
Obviously, communication, trust building and listening aren’t the only things a point guard (or leader) has to do – it would seem to really help to be able to dribble, pass, and run as well, if not shoot the ball. Furthermore, possessing these traits does not automatically make one a good leader – the ability to apply these skills in a particular context and know how to actually accomplish goals takes more, whether in basketball or a “real” workplace. (I particularly like Prof. Robert J. Sternberg’s WICS model of leadership – a synthesis of wisdom, creativity, and intelligence – although some academics have critiqued it. That's what academics do.)
However, underlying both of these player’s description of what it takes to be a great floor leader or team leader off the floor is a notion of humility – you know, that thing that sort of happens when you put aside your personal hang ups, realize there’s something bigger at work than your narrow perspective of the world, and start having a little concern for the needs and growth of others.
And hey, the world could certainly stand a little more humility, on and off the basketball court.
Transition Points:
Nate McMillan was a pretty solid point guard in his own right for the Seattle Supersonics back in the 90’s. I sort of imagined myself as more of a Kendall Gill-type player growing up, but McMillan was just one of those guys that I think every player should aspire to be – he knew his role, worked hard on both ends of the floor, and just struck me as someone who was a real student of the game. So it’s quite interesting to hear about what he values in a point guard for this young uber-talented Trail Blazers team.
I just received an email today about an article Bill Maher wrote in the Huffington Post a few days ago about healthcare and he brought up another one of those nagging issues about living in a world with other human beings:
How about this for a New Rule: Not everything in America has to make a profit. It used to be that there were some services and institutions so vital to our nation that they were exempt from market pressures. Some things we just didn't do for money. The United States always defined capitalism, but it didn't used to define us.
Yes, I know all this Pacific Northwest hippie thinking is leading right to a silly and dangerous statement like all we need in the world is more love…or something like that. Thankfully, the Beatles have already lyrically covered that topic in depth…and Love Actually was one of those movies that brought it all to life.
