After the Los Angeles Sparks' 67-66 overtime road win over the Silver Stars last night, San Antonio forward Sophia Young perfectly articulated why this was the one game I was looking forward to seeing all week.
"With LA we expect anything,'' said Young. "It's always going to be a good game. They never blow us out, we never blow them out, and it's always an exciting game for the fans.''
Too bad nobody could see it on WNBA LiveAccess...because there's more than one reason to want to watch the Sparks.
Consistent with Young's statement, this was a tightly contested game, perhaps even an ugly one. Looking at the Four Factors statistics, the only major thing separating the two teams last night was the Sparks' dominance on the offensive boards, which is typical of when these teams play.
Combined with the San Antonio Silver Stars' uncharacteristically low assisted field goal percentage -- meaning they were not moving the ball well -- the Sparks got enough of an edge to pull this one out.
However, what makes the game more significant is that it marks a major turning point for the Sparks season -- the night when they became a legit playoff team. Not just because the Sparks moved into third place in the Western Conference after an abysmal start to their season, but also because of how they did it.
The Sparks beat the defending Western Conference champion Silver Stars in San Antonio in a (seemingly) gritty overtime battle to extend a 3 game winning streak to 4.
That’s the type of game hungry and serious playoff contenders win, not only because they have to fight for playoff position, but just to prove to everyone else that they are a team to beat. It forces us to shift our thinking about the Sparks from wondering about what has transpired thus far this season to wondering what might come to pass in the post-season.
And that’s what makes this most significant to me and the reason why I’ve taken an increasing interest in the Sparks since the All-Star break.
Los Angeles fans shouldn’t be the only celebrating the Sparks transition into a legit playoff team. The Sparks are in the midst of constructing what could become one of the league’s great narratives…and that’s good for anyone who cares about the health of the WNBA.
Having center Lisa Leslie make a deep playoff run in her final season and Parker emerging as a real post-season performer after all the mess of a season this has been for them so far really is a great story that sports fans should be able to step into.
Leslie and Parker are arguably the two most prominent women’s basketball players in the U.S. Dramatizing the transition from one to the other with a successful final run for Leslie is exactly the jolt the league needs.
Given the narrative of this season – maternity leave, injuries, inconsistent rotations – having those two at the center of a successful turnaround also creates a hero narrative for the WNBA that is so rarely applied to women’s team sports. It gives people reasons to continue following.
Part of what attracts people to pro sports are hero narratives – people we can root for and who accomplish things that we can only imagine. People who can overcome adversity when everyone has counted them out and persevere to reach the top of their craft.
We can talk all we want about how basketball is a team game and that's what makes it beautiful, but let's be real: it's individual figures like Los Angeles Lakers legend Magic Johnson that make leagues successful.
I’m not saying I am rooting for the Sparks to win it all. But it’s hard to deny that every step closer they get to the WNBA Finals from this point on will be good for the WNBA.
Continue reading...
The Los Angeles Sparks: "Expect Anything"
Was the NBA Revolution Just Televised?
Saturday night in Orlando, my assumptive basketball world was seriously shaken.
Not because Nike’s million dollar puppet show had convinced me that Kobe and LeBron were supposed to face off in this year’s NBA finals – those puppets were merely a humorous way to reinforce the seeming inevitability of a Kobe-LeBron showdown.
I had already partaken of the LeBron James Kool-Aid long before those commercials were first aired.
Orlando’s presence in the NBA Finals challenges conventional wisdom about how to build a successful basketball team. We are conditioned (perhaps by NBA marketing, perhaps by paying attention to recent history) that star power is the key to success in the NBA. In fact, it is one of the things that bothers many non-NBA fans most – that individuals so often seem to overshadow the team.
And so that’s really what makes the Magic particularly significant at this point in NBA history – this is not a star-powered team in the way we’ve come to think of it. The Magic have put together a very unlikely cast of characters to lead them to the Finals.
FreeDarko’s Bethlehem Shoals presents a particularly interesting characterization of the Magic:
The Magic offer a far more interesting case. They have this big man who is both more and less than the past. There's a chance they stumbled into it, and that the tandem of Lewis and Turkoglu are both essential and came as a surprise. And when healthy, they have an All-Star point guard. This is old worship of height, plus the age of the point guard, plus a kind of post-Euro Sudoku puzzle that only master coach SVG could make sense of in such a non-obvious fashion (and, as Kevin Pelton has pointed out, this team would suck if deployed in obvious fashion). I also pick up a distinctly Pistons-meets-Suns vine int he way Lee, Pietrus, and even Reddick are used, though maybe now I'm just laying it on thick. In short, this team has everything but a Kobe or LeBron, which is a really fortuitous spot to be in. And chances are, any other squad with this roster would screw it up. So we might be looking at an utter singularity here that both bridges and invalidates the entire ferment of conventional basketball wisdom, past and present. In the end, it comes down to the twist you put on it. Traditions and trends, new and old, can tell you some basics, but past that, you're on your own. The question is, what does it take for a team like the Magic to be absorbed, as the Suns were? The Warriors certainly weren't . .The logic behind the Magic, as pointed out by Charles Barkley prior to the series, is that they are a match-up nightmare. But even that doesn’t seem to justify them managing to make it past LeBron.
However, what the Magic do is reinforce my belief that there are some fundamental elements of basketball – Four Factors, perhaps? – that can be used to analyze and understand almost any basketball team. And with the WNBA season starting and rosters taking their final shape, it got me thinking again about what makes great basketball teams tick.
Cramming the Magic into the NBA narrative
I vividly remember Kenny Smith responding to Charles Barkley’s suggestion that the Magic would win by saying something to the effect of, when LeBron James is on the court you can just tear up the matchups on paper.
And I not only agreed but thought Barkley was clearly off his rocker.
Sure the Magic were easily one of the top five teams in the league this year, even after all-star point guard Jameer Nelson went down with an injury mid-season. But they got a lucky break drawing the Celtics in the second round with both Kevin Garnett and Leon Powe injured. They were down in their first two playoff series.
At first I wanted to say that this is just a matter of James overcoming an arch-nemesis, just as the Isaiah Thomas-led Pistons had to overcome the Celtics or the Michael Jordan-led Bulls had to overcome the Pistons. This is nothing like that.
In those past cases significant shifts in power occurred. But the Magic were never an established power to begin with which is what makes them being a roadblock to James’ “inevitable” ascent to immortality so weird.
However, they simultaneously demonstrate the value of adhering to some fundamental elements of basketball and that’s what I find interesting.
Dean Oliver’s Four Factors
Last season, I spent quite a bit of time analyzing teams through the lens of what I called “team synergy” but what is essentially Dean Oliver’s Four Factors. And I think the Magic demonstrate the efficacy to such an approach to understanding basketball. I haven’t gone through and crunched the numbers on this just yet, but just from observation of the Magic’s wins against the Cavs, the Four Factors are what led them to victory.
Everybody seems to focus on Dwight Howard as the force that drives the Magic, and while I do think he’s a force down low, I don’t think he’s the primary reason the Magic win.
To me, the key element of basketball is ball movement and nobody has done that better this year than the Magic. And while it’s hard to truly measure ball movement, I’ve found that adding the a/fg statistic to Oliver’s Four Factors is an extremely effective way to estimate a team’s ability to move the ball.
Bruchu from the X’s and O’s of Basketball blog posted recently about how similar Cleveland and Orlando’s spread offenses are. And when you look at the film, they definitely do run similar offenses.
The big difference though is that the Magic move the ball extremely well, have a number of three point shooters around the perimeter, and do a very good job of getting penetration into the lane which draws defenders.
The “collapse” effect on Howard is important, but even when teams choose not to collapse, it’s the ability to move the ball and get penetration that makes this team work.
The Magic are by no means driven by one player. It’s the way that the individual parts come together as a whole that I find interesting both in the way that it helped them defeat LeBron and as a way to think about building a team.
What I find interesting about this is that the Magic did it without having the pieces you’d traditionally think of putting together – neither of their forwards plays very “big”. Rafer Alston is a solid point guard in spurts, but never mistaken for an all-star. Dwight Howard, despite his greatness, does not have a single consistent post move (watch his game carefully…he doesn’t). Courtney Lee, though vastly underrated, is a solid rookie who just does everything well, but nothing spectacular.
A Sudoku puzzle indeed.
The Magic do some fundamental things so well that they are able to maximize their talent, even when up against a superstar like LeBron. Taking down a deep squad like the Lakers is another matter entirely... but it's becoming harder and harder to count the Magic out.
Even when a team builds around a player or two, having a supporting cast that both complements the stars and can keep the opponents off balance is absolutely essential. I think we can support these observations statistically and look forward to seeing how different WNBA teams attempt to balance those fundamentals of basketball as they put together rosters in preparation for the season.
Continue reading...
Illuminating the Unseen: Statistics Show Point Guards Are Key in Lynx-Mercury Game
I normally don’t follow games that I can’t see, but last night I had the urge to follow the Lynx-Mercury game.
As I’ve written previously, I’m sort of rooting for the Mercury to make the playoffs because it would be a great story for the league if Olympian Diana Taurasi can lead her team to the playoffs. And hey, when they’re on, they’re one of the most exciting teams in the league.
So I decided to casually follow the play-by-play of the game at Yahoo Sports as I watched the Serena-Venus tennis match and later tried to deal with the reality that Sarah Palin is a major threat to the Democratic Party. I put the quarterly team stats into an Excel spreadsheet to calculate the team dynamics ratings for each team and after the game looked at the individual stats to calculate the credit each player deserved, as I did for the Olympics using a method created by David Sparks.
Yes, I know – I’m a basketball junkie, but you already knew that.
Anyway, two things stood out in the numbers – point guards Kelly Miller and Lindsey Harding were the big stories of this game and we see once again that the Mercury are better when they move the ball to complement their individual play.
Points aren’t the only thing to pay attention to in the box score
Normally when we see the headlines about games the top scorer is highlighted as the key figure in the game. Look at the box score and pick out the player for each team who seemed to have the best game. Having not seen the game, you’d probably pick Taurasi and Augustus. They’re both great players who we’d expect to play well and they scored a lot of points.
But as Dave Berri and others have suggested elsewhere, we tend to overvalue points as a means of evaluating productivity – there are other things that are equally if not more important, even in the box score.
So I have used David Sparks’ credit formula in the past to get a better sense of how to assign credit to players for wins. It was helpful to pick out Diana Taurasi’s importance to Team USA in Beijing, but last night it showed that Taurasi should probably have shared the spotlight. Here are the numbers for the Mercury:
Miller: 15.08%
Taurasi: 14.53%
Pondexter: 14.82%
Willingham: 12.35%
Smith: 7.59%
Farris: 2.62%
Mazzante: 2.61%
Pringle: 0.02%
Scott: -0.18%
So how is it that Miller deserves more credit for the win when Taurasi put up such gaudy numbers? Two reasons – this formula values assists more than points and missed field goals and turnovers are the two most harmful statistics. In other words, it (appropriately) devalues volume scorers who have to shoot a lot to score and puts a premium on efficiency.
Miller had 5 assists, only 2 missed shots, and 2 turnovers whereas Taurasi had 3 assists, 7 missed shots, and 8 turnovers. It’s not that Taurasi had a bad game, but in terms of doing the little things that help her team win, Miller did a bit more and put up 20 points as well. It was quite an impressive all-around game.
But the Lynx’s numbers are an even more stark example of how sometimes we overvalue points and the most valuable players aren’t the ones who score the most points. While Augustus and DeForge are probably the players who stand out most in the box score, it’s possible that neither deserves the most credit for the Lynx’s effort.
Harding: 14.17%
Anosike: 13.27%
Augustus: 13.05%
DeForge: 13.00%
Houston: 6.27%
Rasmussen: 3.14%
Wiggins: 2.51%
Ohlde: 1.48%
Quinn: -0.064
Moore: -1.25
Hayden: -3.45
This is really interesting because while Augustus and DeForge scored 27 and 23 points respectively, Lindsey Harding only scored 5. So why does she deserve the most credit for this game? First, she only missed one shot meaning she didn’t expend possessions with missed shots. Second, she had five steals, which are the most valuable statistic in the metric.
It might be hard to accept a system that is so dissimilar from how we normally think about evaluating a game, I also think this formula tells us quite a bit about the importance of efficient play rather than flashy play. It stands to reason that a player who scores a lot while missing a lot of shots can actually hurt a team as much as she helps. And the concept we can derive from this formula is that the most important thing in evaluating a player is how well they manage possessions.
But in this game in particular, I think the formula highlights the role the impact of the point guards on the game in a way that we might not notice just looking at the box score.
Miller Might be the key player for a Mercury playoff run
When looking at the team dynamics ratings for the Mercury, one thing that really stands out is that in the quarters when their synergy score or ball movement was high, they performed much better overall. And part of that can be attributed to the play of Miller.
Miller had a pure point rating (PPR)– a metric that measures a player’s ability to create plays for others – of 3.80. As a comparison, consider that Deanna Nolan’s 3.83 PPR before the Olympic break was third in the league among point guards. Miller’s PPR before the break was 0.16.
In other words, whereas she’s normally a pretty solid point guard who can bring the ball up the court and initiate the offense, last night she functioned as more of a combo point guard, able to score and distribute the ball. And it ended up being the third scorer for the team that Penny Taylor was last year.
In fact, the way Miller plays seems to have an impact on the Mercury’s wins and losses. In wins, Miller has a PPR of 2.65 and in losses she has a PPR of -1.46. That’s essentially the difference between being a creator and a player who’s not doing much to create scoring opportunities for teammates.
But I also looked at assist ratio, the proportion of a player’s possessions that end in an assist. Last night, Miller had an assist ratio of 26.99, which is right around her average for the season. But in wins this season, she has an assist ratio of 30, whereas in losses she has an assist ratio of 23.
To put Miller's assist ratio numbers in perspective using David Sparks’ player styles spectrum, that’s the difference between a scoring guard like Deanna Nolan and a distributor like Ticha Penicheiro. On a team that consists of Taurasi and Pondexter, a distributing point guard that can create scoring opportunities for others is a huge benefit. And I think last night demonstrates how valuable Miller’s play can be to the Mercury.
Transition Points:
It’s important to note that none of these numbers can be used in isolation, but I consider these a starting point for analysis. Clearly, by saying Miller deserves the most credit for last night’s game I’m not saying she deserves the majority of the credit or even that her performance was valuable independent of Taurasi’s or Pondexter’s. Basketball is a team game and lineup combinations as well as defensive match-ups have a huge bearing on player performance. But for a game I couldn’t see, I find this to be more effective than just looking at raw box score data.
"MVDee": The Mercury website has the Taurasi MVP campaign up and running with a few numbers to support their claim. For those of us that enjoy pontificating, what threshold should the Mercury have to break to consider Taurasi the MVP -- .500 or making the Western Conference playoffs?
Relevant Links:
Time running out for title-defense try
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/sports/articles/2008/09/02/20080902merc0903.html
Continue reading...
Liberty's Big Win Still Shows Signs of Trouble
By most accounts around the web, the Liberty’s 90-87 overtime road win against the Comets last night was a great win coming off two tough losses.
WNBA.com labeled it an “instant classic” and a “magical moment”, coach Pay Coyle called it a great team win, and color commentator Mary Murphy called it a great moment for the franchise to “pull it together and end that losing streak.” And on the surface of it, it had all the makings of a great game.
There were outstanding individual performances from Janel McCarville and Lisa Willis – McCarville had a career and franchise-high 33 points as well as a career-high 4 blocks and Willis had a career-high 22 points. Olympian Tina Thompson had 34 points and rookie Matee Ajavon had 16 and four assists off the bench.
But as I watched the game, I had a distinctly different feeling about it. Maybe I just had higher expectations for the Liberty or something. But prior to the game, I could find no reason to believe that the Liberty would lose…unless they continued to play poorly.
So the fact that they blew a fourth quarter lead and needed overtime to beat the Comets who were missing two starters (Roneeka Hodges and Hamchetou Maiga-Ba) and a key reserve (Sancho Lyttle) just doesn’t strike me as impressive. Even on the road and without Shameeka Christon and Tiffany Jackson this was a must-win and really a should win against a banged up Comets team for the Liberty.
Against tougher competition and into the playoffs, I can’t help but think the Liberty still haven’t broken out of their Olympics-induced haze, with or without Christon. They are a team that has relied upon a methodical offense for most of the season with hard cuts and crisp passes. For some reason, they haven’t been able to establish that rhythm since the Olympic break.
If they expect to challenge for the top seed in the Eastern Conference or get past the first round of the playoffs, they’ll have to get back to the style that helped make them the hottest team in the league before the break. Here are a few of my observations.
Individual performances are no substitute for a strong collective effort
Janel McCarville had an outstanding game last night. Really, it was another one of those games that you’d want to show to someone who believes that women’s players can’t create their own offense. She scored from everywhere – outside, driving layups, and strong post moves. Plus she had at least four potential assists that were lost because her teammates missed the shots.
In other words, the Liberty’s entire offense revolved around one player and that’s a shift from what’s made them successful for the majority of the season. It’s not just about points scored, but how they scored the points. When they face stronger teams and stronger defenses, they’re going to need more than one or two players to have career scoring nights – they’re going to need to get everyone involved.
McCarville and Willis shot a combined 21-30 or 70% from the field last night. The rest of the team shot 14-41 or 34% from the field. In their losses to Chicago and Detroit they shot 39% and 38% respectively. In other words, they didn’t play well enough as a team to win games consistently. Two players carried them…and even then they needed overtime to win. It would be unrealistic to expect two players to shoot that well again, even if McCarville continues to draw contact and score from the free throw line.
Where is the defense?
In the five games before the break in which they went 4-1, I had the Liberty with a 96.87 defensive dynamics rating. In the last three games, their rating has been 124.72. To put those numbers in perspective, the consensus best defensive team in the league – the Indiana Fever – had a rating of 99.57 for the season before the break whereas the worst – the Atlanta Dream – had a rating of 124.16 before the break.
They’ve gone from being a very good defensive team, to a very bad one. Last night, the Comets actually had a better team dynamics rating (132.82) than the Liberty (102.65) despite losing. In fact, the Comets outplayed the Liberty for the last three quarters of the game. And again, this was a Comets team that was missing three key players.
In the third quarter when the Comets started their comeback, the Comets had a team dynamics rating of 250.33. The third quarter against the Shock was similar – a team dynamics rating of 218.03. So what’s going on?
The common thread in both situations was that the Liberty were not stopping their opponents’ synergy, meaning their opponents had a relatively easy time moving the ball and creating opportunities to score. The reason that didn’t show up in the score as much as it did in Detroit is because Houston didn’t play that well defensively either and New York managed to keep their turnover percentage down.
I believe I heard Mary Murphy mention during the broadcast that Tiffany Jackson is a major part of their “55 press” defense and so perhaps her absence is affecting their ability to defend. But in the third quarter, the Houston got whatever they want going to the paint. If the Comets weren’t scoring inside, they were getting fouled and they made the shots – they shot 9-10 from the free throw line in the third.
It would be one thing to defend the Liberty by saying they had one off game, but it’s appearing ing to develop into a trend. Jackson can’t be the only reason for these kind of defensive lapses though so it will be interesting to see if they can improve on this in upcoming games.
Penetration to the basket
Just as penetration helped the Comets mount a comeback in the 3rd quarter, the Liberty definitely play better when they are able to penetrate into the teeth of the defense. Normally they do that with good passing through the defense. Last night, it occurred with McCarville driving to the basket from the wing or the elbow. But their guards are getting very little penetration.
In fact, the Liberty’s guard play might explain why they’ve been struggling so much over the last few games. If the guards were able to drive and kick out to shooters, it might be easier for the team run the offense and find open shooters.
Right now, we’re seeing point guards Loree Moore and Leilani Mitchell play more of the initiator style of point guard – they get the ball across half court and pass it to just initiate the offense. They’re not really doing much to force the defense to shift out of their sets and create scoring opportunities.
An example of how well penetration works for them was at the end of the first quarter when Leilani Mitchell was in the game running point guard. Mitchell brought the ball down the court and passed to McCarville in the high post. McCarville then turned and drove and passed back to Mitchell. And since the defense was then off-balance as the Comets collapsed on McCarville, Mitchell was able to turn the corner and drive to the basket, finding McCarville again for a nice assist and the layup.
Inside, outside, and penetration works best for the Liberty and for whatever reason they haven’t been able to do enough of that since the Olympic break. Point guards are the ones who have to be active to make plays like that happen consistently.
Some people may argue that the problem is Loree Moore and that Mitchell should replace her in the starting lineup or at the very least get more minutes. It’s hard to say whether Mitchell is ready for starter minutes, but there’s a strong argument for her to get more minutes.
Does Mitchell deserve Moore minutes?
Over the last three games, neither has played very well in terms of their pure point rating – Moore has a rating of -1.06 while Mitchell has a rating of -3.22. In plain terms, neither of them is doing much to create opportunities for teammates. But considering that Mitchell had a league best 6.09 pure point rating in my point guard rankings before the break, it might be reasonable to assume that will more minutes, she could be more effective as a distributor.
But the really troubling statistic is their points per zero point possession numbers. I find this metric to be important for point guards because it measures how effectively a player uses possessions – how often they end a possession with a score vs. how often they end it with a turnover. In simple terms, it’s about decision making – is this player overall helping more than they’re hurting.
The top point guard in the league before the break was Diana Taurasi with 2.62 pts/zero pt. poss. and the lowest was Shannon Bobbitt with .86 pts/zero pt. poss. Over the last three games, Loree Moore has had .33 pts/zero pt. poss. whereas Leilani Mitchell has had 1.74 pts/zero pt. poss.
So again in simple terms, Moore is hurting more than she’s helping in terms of putting points on the scoreboard and she’s not really creating many opportunities for others. Mitchell isn’t creating for others either, but she’s at least managing to score more than she ends possessions without a score.
Due to experience and leadership factors, I wouldn’t advocate for Mitchell to start. However, it’s clear that she deserves more than 10 minutes per game, especially when the team seems to be struggling to create offense.
Simple things rather than magical performances are what the Liberty need
The Liberty don’t need massive changes right now, they really just need to find a way to get back to doing the things that they do well and doing them consistently. Playing strong defense and finding their offensive rhythm are two things that they could easily adjust.
But I am still quite surprised that they’ve been playing so poorly since the Olympic break when you would have thought they had plenty of time to work on the little fundamentals that they need to win games.
Continue reading...
The Value of Synergy: Connecticut’s Trust in Their System Makes Them a Contender
I honestly did not think the Connecticut Sun could beat the Storm without Lindsay Whalen.
Coach Mike Thibault has called Whalen the “engine” the runs the Sun. She’s an MVP candidate, the best point guard in the league, and the Sun’s second leading rebounder. It just seemed that Sue Bird would control the game even without Lauren Jackson and pull out a key road victory that would give them sole possession of first place in the Western Conference.
So how did the Sun win without Whalen?
The victory against Seattle demonstrates that while Whalen is a valuable player for the Sun, the Sun are not entirely dependent on Whalen to be successful. And it’s not just because they have Asjha Jones to fall back on. It’s clear from the way the team played in Whalen’s absence that their collective faith in their system is what has them at the top of the Eastern Conference right now.
Commentator Doris Burke compared the Sun to the NBA’s San Antonio Spurs – the entire organization has committed to a basketball philosophy and they only bring in players who they know will buy into that philosophy. So when one player is missing – even an MVP candidate – the system doesn’t fall apart. Someone will be there to fill in.
Jamie Carey’s performance yesterday in Whalen’s absence is a perfect example of how the Sun’s success is due to their system rather than individual talent.
Carey Filled in For Whalen Admirably
Carey does deserve a considerable amount of credit for the win – you normally hope that a back-up will just step in and not blow the game, especially when filling in for a player like Whalen. Carey did more than that – she ran the offense well, played excellent defense, and made great decisions with the ball (with the exception of a tough turnover late in the fourth that led to a fast break lay-up by Bird).
Of course Carey didn’t make the plays Whalen can – she had a pure point rating of -2.11 for the game, which is not indicative of an outstanding play maker. But even without Whalen’s play making – she had a pure point rating of 5.40 prior to the Olympic break – Connecticut managed to keep the ball moving and create shots within the offense.
An excellent example of this is their synergy score. From what I’ve tracked this season, a synergy score of below 70 is indicative of a team that is more focused on individual scoring, 70-80 is a fairly balanced effort (where most teams in the league fall), and above 80 is indicative of creating offense from outstanding ball movement.
Connecticut has a synergy score of 72.78 for the season, which is fourth in the league. Against Seattle yesterday, they had a synergy score of 85…without their lead ball handler. Part of that is explained by outstanding shooting – they shot 48.3% from the field for the game and a whopping 66.66% in the fourth quarter. But almost a third of those scoring opportunities came from assisted field goals and plays where players found themselves with good shots as a result of good ball movement.
When the entire team is moving the ball, all Carey has to do is initiate the offense and keep the ball moving. You sometimes notice the same thing with Whalen – she gets the ball moving and steps aside. While it sometimes appears that Whalen is simply being passive, I think we can say after watching the team get a win in her absence that she’s just relying on the system to do most of the work for the team.
Seattle’s “equal opportunity” offense
In contrast, Burke described Seattle's offense as an “equal opportunity” offense that depends on screens and individual play-making. And really, it’s a great offense when you have an all-star cast of players that are able to create scoring opportunities for themselves of screens and dribble drives.
Unfortunately, when one of those players is missing or having an off game, their absence is magnified. And there’s another problem that hurt them at the end of the first game against the Sun when they had Jackson – who takes the big shot at the end of the game?
The Sun went on a long 15-1 run in the 3rd quarter and it wasn’t just because they were hot or the Storm were playing terrible defense. The Storm were just getting good, but not great, scoring opportunities – they were taking a number of outside shots and a number of them were contested shots off the dribble, which are difficult.
Bird did as she needed to do taking on a bulk of the scoring load with 24 points and the team shot 45% overall, including 4 for 9 from the three point line. But when Bird went cold as she did for long stretches in the 2nd half, the entire team seemed to have trouble scoring.
Depth is what makes Connecticut’s system work
This is not to say that Connecticut’s system is better than Seattle’s – a large part of what makes the Sun's system work is their depth. Outside of their two major stars – Whalen and Asjha Jones – they have a number of solid, but not great players coming off the bench. And that includes newcomers Erin Phillips and Svetlana Abrosimova who combined for 10 points and 4 assists off the bench as well as Barbara Turner who contributed 4 rebounds.
Seattle doesn’t have quite the depth Connecticut has, so they have to rely on their stars to make things happen. But as the season has worn on and players are sore or out due to injury, it’s becoming a problem.
It’s not that Seattle has poor chemistry or that they’re a bad team, but I think they do demonstrate that just having a crew of all-stars and an offense predicated on individual performance is not necessarily the most reliable way to win basketball games. And that does seem to be the reason why Connecticut has beat them with and without Lauren Jackson. “I thought we played a good game,” Storm coach Brian Agler said. “I thought we competed hard. We came in and had to rebound. We did that. We had to be efficient. We were. But keep in mind we played against an excellent basketball team.”
Connecticut is an excellent basketball team in the truest sense of the term and that ability to play together -- on both ends of the floor -- is what allows them to overcome the loss of one player.
Transition Points:
9/04 Update: I just saw an interesting piece on Eric Musselman's Basketball Notebook about the NBA that makes the comparison to the Spurs even more clear: But while the Spurs are a somewhat different team with (Tim) Duncan on the bench, they have the same team identity and system. They can plug in a reserve and continue on, albeit at a lower level.
Again, you hate to say one style is better than the other because both teams are very successful...but when you get to the point of counting championship rings, it seems team structure might be generally preferable if the right personnel is available.
That's not the case when (Steve) Nash is out of the game for PHX. He gives the Suns their identity.
Continue reading...
Sue Bird Shows Off Her Point Guard Versatility in Lauren Jackson’s Absence
In a sense, Sue Bird and Lindsay Whalen -- easily the top two point guards in the WNBA -- make playing point guard look like more of an art form than an arbitrary positional classification.
On one hand, there are times when they can dominate a game by creating scoring opportunities for themselves, seemingly able to get to any spot on the court they want. But on the other hand, they might not score for long stretches, usually because they’re trying to get others involved or trying to establish the tempo of the game.
Either way, they usually seem to have complete control over the action, choosing their opportunities wisely and making the best decision for their team’s success. They are combo guards in the truest sense of the term – they are versatile enough to adjust their style to play the role of either facilitator or scorer depending on what their team needs.
Although both are versatile point guards, Sue Bird’s versatility will take on increased importance when the Storm face the Sun today. The Storm will be without reigning MVP and Defensive Player of the Year Lauren Jackson for the remainder of the season and if they want to keep their championship hopes alive, they’ll have to collectively make up for her lost production on both ends of the floor.
As the team’s second leading scorer, Bird has taken on the brunt of the scoring burden for the Storm. However, has the need to score changed the way Bird plays? She doesn’t seem to think so.
“I’m just taking what comes my way,” Bird says. “I don’t think I played any different tonight than I have all season. When the shots are there, you gotta take them. I’m just trying to stay aggressive.”However, the statistics tell a different story – the need to score more has actually changed the way she’s playing point guard. The shift in style simultaneously says a lot about Bird’s versatility as a point guard and the importance of having a point guard that fits the combination of players in a team’s lineup.
So has Sue Bird changed her style of play?
The Storm played five games before taking the break for the Olympics without Jackson in addition to the one game against Houston on Thursday night when play resumed. I first wondered about whether Bird had changed because when I looked at their synergy score in the five games before the break.
The Storm’s synergy score had dropped to 64.19 during that five game period from 70.47 over the entire season. Since synergy is a measure of ball movement, a logical explanation for such a change would be the point guard’s play.
In the six total games that Jackson has missed, the biggest statistical change for Bird has been in her assists – she’s averaged about half as many assists (2.8) as she’s averaged for the season (5.4) in those six games. The reason might be that she has needed to take more shots in order for the Storm to win in Jackson’s absence – in their four wins she’s averaged 14.75 shots per game whereas she’s had 8 shots per game in their two losses.
But assists alone are not the best measure of a point guard. For that we have other metrics.
How Bird’s playing style has shifted
I’ve found that the best single measure of point guard quality is John Hollinger’s pure point rating. The formula essentially measures the true value of each assist (2/3) minus turnovers per minute, in other words evaluating how productive a point guard is per minute by looking at their net value to the team as a play-maker.
Although Bird has scored more during this stretch of six games, her pure point rating has dropped considerably indicating that she has been less of a playmaker. For the season as a whole, her pure point rating is 2.61. In the last five games in which Jackson has been out, Bird’s PPR has been -3.96 meaning that she’s not spending as much of her court time distributing the ball and making her team better.
But another statistic created by Hollinger is perhaps more telling. Assist ratio is an opportunity rate measuring how often a player gets an assist when they touch the ball. For the season, Bird’s assist ratio was 25.57, which is above average for point guards. In the last five games during Jackson’s absence, her assist ratio has been 14.09, which is well below average for point guards.
However, a low assist ratio doesn’t mean a player is bad – all-star caliber guards like Jia Perkins (14.87) and Diana Taurasi (13.96) are in about the same ball park and they are clearly not bad players. What it does say is that Bird has transitioned from a combo guard who balances passing and scoring to a scoring guard who is passing much less.
And as it turns out, assist ratio tells us a lot about the type of point guard a player is according to the Sparks Playing Styles spectrum. From that player styles spectrum, we can derive five types of point guards: initiator, distributor, pure facilitator, scorer, and combo guards (for descriptions of each click here).
Players with high assist ratios tend to fall in what I have called the pure distributor end of the spectrum (e.g. Leilani Mitchell and Shannon Johnson) whereas players with low assist ratios tend to be what I call scoring guards.
Players across the spectrum can have all the skills of a traditional play-maker, but the mark of a great player (under a good coach) is the ability to play to her strengths while providing what the team needs. And fundamentally, that's a matter of decision making -- if you’re a good scorer, sometimes the best decision is to shoot.
Right now Sue Bird is playing more like a scoring guard because that is what her team needs. That’s not a bad thing at all and, in fact, it appears to be the best decision for her team -- in games that she's shooting more without Jackson, they're winning. But it's clear that has an effect on their team dynamics -- as a team there appears to be considerably less ball movement and they're turning the ball over more often (21.11% of possessions vs. 18.30%) with Bird operating as more of a scorer.
Where this will be even more interesting to watch in the playoffs. How sustainable is this adjusted style of play against the league's top competition? Can Bird carry the team to realize their championship expectations without Jackson?
What does this mean for the Storm’s chances against the Sun?
For true fans of basketball, it doesn’t get much better than watching Bird and Whalen run their teams (update: unfortunately, it looks like Whalen will be out due to an ankle injury). They both exemplify the new breed of combo guard and have the ability to take over a game just by taking what the other team gives them, scoring or not. As Diana Taurasi has said, that’s what makes Bird so great.
“She's one of the few players in this league that can go the whole game without taking a shot and affect the game more than anyone else. That's why she's the best point guard in the league, hands down.”But in the last game against the Sun that became a problem. Bird deferred to her teammates so much in a tight fourth quarter that she almost disappeared – she didn’t shoot, get an assist, or set the table for someone else to make a play. In fact, it looked like everyone was just waiting for on their stars to step up.
So the more aggressive Bird might be a huge asset to the Storm, even without Jackson. In the last game they needed someone to assert themselves in critical moments. Since the ball will be in Bird’s hands most of the time anyway, it is to the benefit of the team that she make the decision to step up and take control of the game when appropriate.
However, the Sun might have too much for them – they beat the Indiana Fever and Atlanta Dream by 26 points each in back-to-back games on Thursday and Friday. Plus they added Erin Phillips and Svetlana Abrosimova, who played on the Australian and Russian Olympic teams respectively. Both add additional scoring punch and defense.
Seattle has a chance to win if they can play the type of defense that they apparently played Thursday night against the Houston Comets. But let’s be honest – the Sun are playing some of the best basketball in the league right now whereas Houston was missing a key player.
Given that the Sun beat the Storm in Seattle with Lauren Jackson earlier in the season, it seems like the Sun have an edge in this game, as they are playing extremely well and have added firepower.
Edge: Sun (if Whalen plays), Storm (if Whalen is out).
Transition Points:
The Sun are definitely a team to watch: The Sun were one of my five teams to watch after the break, but I never imagined them to play this well. From Tamika Whitmore via WNBA.com, ""We're sending a message to people that it's time to get down to business,'' Whitmore said. "We just have to keep it rolling."
The importance of offensive rebounding: it’s also worth noting that the Storm were missing Yolanda Griffith -- the team’s leading offensive rebounder – in their first game. Might a few extra offensive rebounds help them against the Sun this time around?
Whalen for MVP: Other players attract more media attention, but Lindsay Whalen is a clear candidate for the WNBA's Most Valuable Player award, as described by Matt Stout. If she's able to lead the Sun to the best record in the East, it will be difficult to make an argument against her.
Continue reading...
Los Angeles-San Antonio Scouting Report: Offensive Rebounding is the Key
Based on their record, San Antonio has to be considered a favorite to win the WNBA championship right now.
They’ve arguably been the most consistent team in the league, not losing more than two in a row and they’ve only lost two games at home.
But they have one glaring, consistent weakness – defensive rebounding, reflected in their opponents’ offensive rebounding percentage in losses. And if their last meeting is any indication, the Sparks will look to exploit that weakness when they meet the Silver Stars tonight in Los Angeles.
In their last meeting, the Sparks dominated the paint getting 18 offensive rebounds to the Silver Stars 1. That’s right – one offensive rebound the entire game. The height and length of the Sparks’ frontcourt was just far too much for the Silver Stars, not only dominating the glass, but also shutting down Sophia Young, holding her to 1-5 shooting from the field.
The Sparks would do well to repeat the strategy when they face the Silver Stars tonight, but was that just a fluke? And with a battle-tested strategy going in, do the Silver Stars even have a shot to win? The team dynamics numbers provide some cogent insight
The Sparks rely upon offensive rebounding to win
The Sparks aren’t leading the league in offensive rebounding and that’s because the teams ahead of them – Detroit, Houston, and Sacramento – are much deeper in the frontcourt. But having 2 of the top 10 offensive rebounders in the WNBA (Lisa Leslie and Candace Parker) puts a lot of pressure on opposing defenses.
Parker and Leslie are in the low post grabbing offensive rebounds, they’re also talented enough to score second chance points and those are what really hurt the Silver Stars. It gives the Sparks a bunch of high percentage baskets from their most highly skilled players.
It’s doubtful that the Silver Stars will shut down the Sparks on the offensive glass, so they might just have to bite the bullet and accept that a) the Sparks will get offensive rebounds and b) they will get a number of second chance point. But the key is to try to hold the Sparks to a more reasonable number of rebounds, like somewhere around 10 instead of the 15 or 18 they had in the first two meetings.
And the Sparks can also win with defense
The Silver Stars rely upon offensive synergy, moving the ball well and finding open scorers from good passing and cutting rather than one-on-one play. But in their last game against the Sparks, they were shut down. Why?
Two of San Antonio’s top scorers are in the post and obviously, the Sparks strength is the post defense of Leslie, Parker, and DeLisha Milton-Jones. In the last game against the Silver Stars, the Sparks chose to key in on Sophia Young in particular.
Young is arguably the most valuable player in the league and certainly the most valuable player on the Silver Stars – she’s efficient, versatile, and has one of the top plus/minus and efficiency ratings in the league. Young is typically a player scores by moving from the outside in, using her quickness to score on cuts to the basket or facing up her opponent.
But the key stat in understanding how dependent the Silver Stars are on Young is that in games won, she is shooting 52.6% and in games lost she’s shooting 42.7%. That’s a huge difference and neither Becky Hammon nor Ann Wauters has such a huge effect on wins and losses.
So the Sparks' strategy of shutting down Young is definitely sound. And with bigger players like Leslie, Milton-Jones, and Parker who are able to stay with Young on the ball and help off the ball, Young becomes a non-factor. If they bring the same defensive intensity they showed against the Monarchs on Thursday night, they should be able to win.
But the Sparks also commit turnovers more often than any team in the Western Conference
So far this season the only teams who commit turnovers more often than the Sparks are the Fever and Mystics, not exactly shining examples of ball control. And in addition, the Sparks have the highest turnover differential in the league, committing almost three turnovers a game more than their opponents. And when they lose, you can be almost certain that they turned the ball over a lot, even when they do well on the offensive boards.
When the Sparks are at their best, they’re moving the ball well and allowing Leslie and Parker to play off each other in the high-low post game. But if a team can pressure their guards, force them into turnovers, and force them to revert to one-on-one basketball, the Sparks become a very beatable team.
However, it’s always worth noting that the Sparks' turnovers are not limited to their guards – it’s Leslie, Milton-Jones, and Parker who lead the team in turnovers. Part of that is because they are often forced to become playmakers when the team’s guards falter.
We should also look at the type of turnovers they’re making. On Thursday against the Monarchs, they had a characteristically high turnover game, but also managed to have a high synergy score. They did an extremely good job of looking for Parker in the post with lob passes and a lot of those passes caused turnovers. So it was one of those cases where they were making turnovers in the process of taking measured risks…not just tossing the ball away or making ball-handling errors.
Nevertheless, given that they are a turnover prone team, the way to beat them seems to be by forcing them out of their offense and into turnovers.
Edge: Sparks
I’m giving the edge in this game to the Sparks not only because of the offensive rebounding problem the Silver Stars have, but also because I expect the Sparks to come out with the same renewed sense of purpose and urgency that they showed against the Monarchs. And if they bring the same defensive intensity, the Silver Stars will be in trouble.
If the Silver Stars could turn the game into a shootout and get the Sparks caught up in trying to play a perimeter game, things could turn out differently than the last game. But I see no reason to believe the Sparks won’t try to use the same high-low strategy we saw against the Monarchs last night that worked against the Silver Stars.
Transition Points:
The Sparks started Shannon Bobbitt and Keisha Brown last night in the backcourt which I thought was an interesting choice. But it makes sense – if you can’t depend on one ball-handler, why not divide the ball-handling responsibilities between two players and allow different points of attack?
Continue reading...
Top Five Teams to Watch After the Break: What Does It Take to Turn a Team Around?
Although having a month-long break might be tough for us fans, it’s a great opportunity for players to rest and teams to fix some things before continuing a tight playoff race.
So what makes “Welcome Back Week” particularly exciting to me is getting to see how teams come out and play after having some time to practice. With trades, injuries, and players arriving late to the pre-season, it seemed like every team had something to work on heading into the break.
One team that I’ll be paying closer attention to after the break is the Washington Mystics. After a disappointing first half of the season, the break gave them a chance for a fresh start. And Team President Sheila Johnson called for a “new era of accountability” after they traded Taj McWilliams-Franklin in an effort to begin rebuilding. The question is whether that new era will begin with a playoff berth or another trip to the draft lottery.
Either way, someone sent me an email that triggered a bigger question: what does it take to turn a struggling team like the Mystics around? And how does a struggling star on a struggling team (e.g. Alana Beard) fit into that revamped “big picture”? Is a player like Beard better off being traded in order to return to top form?
As it turns out, I found a tentative answer just by revisiting my “team dynamics” ratings…and it appears that the problem might have less to do with Beard than with the composition of the team around her.
The issue of team composition and “chemistry” is something I’ve been interested in all season and the Olympic break gave me some time to play with those team dynamics numbers and tweak a few things. Ultimately, I think I found a few ways to make the numbers more useful for future analysis and I’ve shared that in another post.
Anyway, as I looked at the numbers for the Mystics, I found a few other teams that will be interesting to watch as the season resumes. So here’s a look at those new numbers and the top five teams to keep an eye on as the season resumes.
The Numbers:
As I said previously, the in-depth explanation for these numbers is in another post, but here are team dynamics numbers for each team as of the last game before the break.
The offensive and defensive dynamics are simply the synergy, offensive rebounding rate, turnover rate, and free throw rate numbers added up for the team (offense) and their opponent (defense). The differential is pretty much the same thing I do in my game analyses – the difference between their numbers and their opponents’ numbers.
The team with the highest differential between their offensive and defensive numbers is first with the lowest differential last. Team Dynamics Team Offensive Defensive Differential Seattle 109.47 100.65 +8.82 Connecticut 110.26 101.97 +8.29 San Antonio 108.71 100.45 +8.26 Los Angeles 109.23 101.48 +7.76 Detroit 110.52 105.53 +4.99 Chicago 110.46 106.58 +3.88 New York 106.71 103.51 +3.15 Sacramento 108.12 105.85 +2.27 Houston 108.02 106.81 +1.21 Minnesota 112.56 111.42 +1.14 Indiana 95.81 99.57 -3.75 Washington 98.10 105.40 -7.30 Phoenix 110.04 120.91 -10.87 Atlanta 98.11 124.16 -26.06
The numbers are not an exact reflection of the standings, but actually come pretty close with the exception of one or two teams. Where they are really helpful is describing a team’s level of cohesion and identifying areas that are hurting them.
So with that, on to the top 5 teams to watch…
5. Will the Mystics be able to turn things around?
So back to the question posed to me via email, the question with the Mystics is whether these trades and extra time for Kenlaw will help them win games. And without doing another player comparison, it’s safe to say that this will not improve them much in the short-term – if they want to make the playoffs, they’ll probably have to depend on Indiana losing a few games.
But what about Alana Beard? Can she step her game up in the last few games? Unfortunately, when you compare her 2006 success to this season, there’s a major difference – synergy.
I like to use synergy as a proxy for ball movement and whereas the Mystics had a high synergy score of 76.64 in 2006 (which, by the way, is better than San Antonio’s this season), so far in 2008 their synergy score is only 69.42, just below league average.
The way that may have affected Beard is that she is taking as many shots, but at a lower percentage. In addition, her assists are up which means she is probably just stretched too thin this year trying to play the roles of playmaker and scorer on a team with a stagnant offense. So it looks like that instead of moving the ball to find good shots within a system, Beard is forcing bad shots because her team isn’t move the ball as well.And part of that is the loss of Nikki Teasley.
In 2006, Nikki Teasley led the WNBA in assists per game with 5.4 and in addition had a Pure Point Rating (PPR) of 4.61, which is high for a WNBA point guard. And off the bench, Nikki Blue didn’t get quite as many minutes per game, but had a PPR of 3.31. They both had assist ratios – the percentage of baskets they assisted while on the floor – of 30%.
In contrast, from what I’ve seen this year, Blue is now the starting point guard and Beard has also assumed some playmaking responsibilities. And this season Blue has a PPR of 1.6…and nobody else on the roster even has a positive PPR.
So part of Beard’s – and the team’s -- success could probably be attributed to having two point guards around who could distribute the ball well. Shay Murphy and Tasha Humphrey are simply unlikely to help with that.
So with all that, why am I excited to see what they do after the break? Well, the game after Kenlaw took over – a blowout against the Storm – they turned into a very up-tempo team, which favors the players they have. If they cannot be efficient moving the ball in the half court, then perhaps they can try to get baskets off of fast breaks or early offense.
From watching Humphrey in Detroit, she has the skills to excel in an uptempo game because she’s such a versatile player, even able to lead the break at times. Beard might have to continue being a playmaker rather than a scorer, but in terms of the team’s success it will be interesting to see if they can improve.
4. Will the Sun’s changes help them stay in first place?
The Sun have been one of the hardest teams to figure out this season. They’ve had a five game win streak and then eventually fell into a five game losing streak before starting a three game winning streak before the break.
As a result of having a number of inexperienced players, coach Mike Thibault has made a number of changes to the lineup in search of the right combination. And now after the break, we should see even more changes to their rotation.
First, as a team with four rookies in the rotation, you have to figure the extra practice time will help them work out anything they needed to improve. Second, Erin Phillips returns to the team after being out for almost two seasons due to injury and preparing for the Olympics. Mike Thibault commented on how they plan to use Phillips during the league’s Welcome Back conference call:“As far as Erin Phillips, she got here today on about three hours of sleep, but I think by playoff time she can be a big part of what we do. She can play both the 1 and 2. We can play her with Lindsay. She’s an above average defender and her offense has improved greatly since she was here before. It remains to be seen. I like the players we have here but she has a little more experience and she is a strong, physical player and hopefully that can help us.”
Third, the Sun have signed Svetlana Abrosimova and waived Jolene Anderson. This is an interesting move to make right before resuming play because it will likely be difficult to integrate Abrosimova into the rotation so quickly. But also, Anderson was a contributor, even starting 7 games over a period when the team won 7 of 8 games in late May/early June.
So how do we make sense of all of this? Well, part of the reason why Anderson lost her spot in the starting lineup was poor shooting and inexperience. Abrosimova and Phillips bring a little bit of both, particularly from the three point line. Phillips was a decent shooter in her rookie year shooting 34% and Abrosimova was an outstanding shooter last year shooting 44.6%, which was fifth in the WNBA.
The Sun were at the bottom of the league in three point shooting before the break and the way that caused problems for them is that it made it hard for them to spread the court. If you watched the Sun while Barbara Turner was playing well at the beginning of the season, her shooting allowed the team to spread the floor, which made it easier for Lindsay Whalen to drive and create opportunities for others. Now they have two players to spread the floor, which will make it easier for Whalen to drive.
In addition, with more opportunities to drive to the basket the Sun should get more free throw opportunities, which are important to winning games. They were near the bottom of the league in FTM/FGA before the break, which is really indicative of two things for the Sun: they are about average in free throw attempts per game and near the bottom in the league in free throw percentage.
Even with Detroit adding Taj McWilliams-Franklin, if Abrosimova and Phillips can contribute right away, the Sun could stay in first because those two give them things that they need – the ability to spread the court and take some of the scoring load off of Whalen. If they can extend the winning streak they started before the break, the argument for Whalen to win the MVP should be even stronger.
3. Can the Sky make the playoffs with the return of Sylvia Fowles?
Early in the season, I declared the Sky as my favorite team in the league. Then just like a fair-weather punk, I abandoned them once they lost Sylvia Fowles to injury. Well, after watching Jia Perkins and KB Sharp step up at the point guard position in Canty’s absence, I’m ready to move back toward the Sky.
This is no disrespect to the Liberty, who I've also proclaimed as a favorite, but the Sky have such a promising future…if they can figure out how to put all the young pieces together.
Although some Sky fans might want to see them tank instead of making a run for the playoffs, wouldn’t it be a great story for the league if Sylvia Fowles returned from an outstanding Olympic performance to lead her team to an improbably playoff run? I think so. Wouldn’t it be great if we could start a semi-legitimate argument about who will be the more valuable player in five years between Parker and Fowles? And who wouldn’t want to see more Armintie Price videos? And I haven’t even mentioned Candice Dupree…
This team is extremely talented and well-rounded, especially with Perkins and Sharp playing well at the point guard. They don’t necessarily even need another lottery pick – they need experience playing together and a nine game run for the playoffs will get them some experience playing meaningful games as a unit.
But what I find fascinating in looking at their team dynamics is that they might be better than their 8-17 record suggests. Although they’re below average defensively, they are third in terms of their offensive cohesion. And in fact, they’re above average in every single category that I’m using to measure team dynamics. So what’s they’re problem?
The Sky are second to last in field goal attempts per game – they’re not squandering possessions, they protect the ball well, they shoot it well, but they just don’t get shots. And if you neither take that many shots nor stop the opponents from taking and making shots, then you’re in trouble.
In other words, the Sky play very safe basketball normally – not turning the ball over, not taking many shots, and not aggressively forcing turnovers on defense. We know that Fowles’s mere presence will have an impact on defense. But now that we know for sure what Fowles can do on offense, will the Sky finally try to generate more offense by giving the ball to her more often for high percentage shots in the post? Will Perkins continue her stellar play at point guard? And with Perkins on the ball and Fowles taking more shots, will Candice Dupree become a more productive player?
All of those questions depend on team strategy. And honestly, they cannot afford to continue the same strategy that involves not shooting the ball.
2. Will the Mercury ever wake up?
Honestly, this is just a personal issue that I need to work out – I just don’t want to believe the Mercury are the worst team in the Western Conference. And I don’t think that’s an entirely arbitrary opinion either.
For the Mercury, it all comes down to their Rover defense. When they keep their defensive intensity high – which means pressuring ball handlers before they get to the three point line -- they’ve proven they can play with anyone in the league. And we know that they can score more than anyone else.
But the reason why I think they’re a team to watch is because their success or failure depends almost entirely on one player on both ends of the floor – Diana Taurasi.
Taurasi is responsible for putting the pressure on opposing ball handlers. And Taurasi is definitely the leader of that team’s offense. And I don’t believe that Diana Taurasi will come back from the Olympics unmotivated.
It might be unrealistic for the Mercury to make the playoffs, especially with both Penny Taylor and Tangela Smith missing. But you can be almost certain that it will be exciting to watch Taurasi fight to get there.
The key for the Mercury is keeping their synergy high and that doesn’t necessarily mean good ball movement for them – part of their style is to take quick shots on the break which limits their number of assists. But when they take high percentage shots and move the ball at moments that they can’t find a good shot on the break, they are a dangerous team.
And there is reason for hope for them to make the playoffs – they are only three games behind Sacramento but the teams ahead of them also have injuries to key players. Sacramento is without Rebekkah Brunson and Houston is without Hamchétou Maïga-Ba. And I haven’t heard much about Candice Wiggins on Minnesota, but she was injured before the break.
The Mercury play the Minnesota twice as well as Houston and Sacramento once each, so they’ll have a chance to improve their own position. But to me, everything is riding on Taurasi and that Rover defense.
1. Can the Los Angeles Sparks finally bring it all together?
Usually after watching a team a few times, it’s possible to get at least a surface level understanding of what a team does well and what they can improve upon.
I haven’t found any reliable way to figure out the Sparks or their game strategy thus far this season. And their complete unpredictability is what makes them so exciting to watch.
Coming back from the Olympics with Candace Parker and Lisa Leslie looking to cap off milestone seasons, I would expect them to play better than before. With their big three having time at the Olympics to work closely with one another and Parker getting a chance to learn from other league veterans, I expect them to come back fired up.
But as people have noted all season, their success during the final stretch of the season will depend almost entirely on their point guards’ ability to get the team into the offense and keep the ball moving. They don’t have point guards who can singlehandedly breakdown a defense, but there’s no reason why they shouldn’t be able to bring the ball down the court quickly and get the ball to Parker or Leslie to initiate a high-low offense.
The addition of Margo Dydek is also interesting and I wonder if they plan to use her in the high-low scheme as well to keep the pressure on for the entire game. It would make them difficult, if not impossible, to defend and take some pressure off their point guards to create scoring opportunities, which is not their strong point.
The key for them is not so much point guard play as it is keeping turnovers down. And if you watch closely, their turnovers are a team-wide problem, perhaps indicative of not having outstanding point guards. Their top three players in turnovers – Parker, Leslie, and DeLisha Milton-Jones…the same three players who are expected to make plays for them most often.
Their turnover differential is the worst in the league and they will have to improve that if they want to earn home court advantage in the playoffs. They also have an opportunity to move up in the standings because they are only three games behind Seattle, which is missing Lauren Jackson…and they play them once on the last day of the season in what could be a game with huge playoff implications.
OK… enough talk… I’m just waiting for the games to begin now…
Continue reading...
Finding the formula for team chemistry…or dynamics…or cohesion…or something…
Labels: Chicago Sky, New York Liberty, Phoenix Mercury, San Antonio Silver Stars, Statistics, Team dynamics
A few weeks ago, PT from the Pleasant Dreams blog commented that “chemistry” didn’t seem like quite the right word to describe what I’m looking at since that implies that players don’t get along with each other. But I recently got some clarification on that.
Eric Musselman, a former NBA coach who blogs about basketball and observations on sports coaching had a post last Friday entitled, “Finding the formula for team chemistry”. He cites an article from Pat Bloom, the head baseball coach at the University of Wisconsin- Stevens Point, that separates chemistry into two types – task cohesion and social cohesion. Uh oh… more terms…but the explanation is insightful:
Task cohesion "refers to a team’s ability to function as a collective unit and perform effectively on the field. If your team has a high level of task cohesion, meaning that they play well together and remain united in the pursuit of the team’s goals, then they are more likely to enjoy success."It would be interesting to find a way to read more about the theory that teams that are high in social cohesion play worse as a team, but that’s besides the point for my current task. The point here is that finding ways to measure task cohesion is of huge importance to basketball analysis.
Liking each other, simply being friends and enjoying hanging out together, i.e., a team with high social cohesion, "means very little in the way of predicting your team's performance." In other words, just because your team gets along doesn't mean they'll win any games.
In fact, according to Coach Bloom, "it has even been found that teams who are high in social cohesion play worse as a team."
But a team with high task cohesion isn't guaranteed to succeed. However, there's good news for basketball coaches, according to Coach Bloom.
"For team sports like basketball and ice hockey, where players’ movements and verbalizations must be highly interactive and coordinated to achieve success, it has been found that greater levels of task cohesion relate to greater team success."
So during the break, I spent some time looking more deeply at the “team dynamics” ratings I have used in the past to make them more useful for analysis. Here’s what I came up with.
Deriving a formula
Originally I started my analysis with the concept of synergy, which was a metric created to say something about a team’s offensive cohesion by adding their assisted field goal percentage to their true shooting percentage. I then looked at a team’s opponent’s synergy to get a sense of their ability to disrupt the opponent’s synergy. Thus, I used synergy differential to measure defensive and offensive task cohesion.
However, synergy differential didn’t seem to do much to explain why a team won and lost, so I added other statistics based on things that seemed to explain why certain teams succeeded despite having low synergy – offensive rebounding rate and turnover rate.
So then you have the following formula, which I have called "Team Dynamics":
(Team synergy – opp. Synergy) + off reb rate – turnover rate = team dynamics rating
Essentially, those numbers described the core principles of basketball: the ability to move the ball to create high percentage scoring opportunities, the ability to disrupt the other team’s offense, and the ability to manage possessions effectively. In terms described by Bloom above, team dynamics are used to measure the degree of cohesion for a given team.
However, that still didn’t fully describe why teams win or lose – unfortunately there were six games in which the team with the higher team dynamics rating lost. And so I tweaked the formula again.
Adding the fifth factor of team dynamics
You may notice that the formula bears a striking resemblance to Dean Oliver’s Four Factors. However, there was one factor I left out as I “derived” the formula from common basketball sense – free throw rate.
Free throw rate is a ratio of free throws made to field goals attempted. In plain language, it describes the percentage of their offensive production that comes from the free throw line. An opponent’s free throw rate says something about how many free throws a team is allowing, which is also a proxy to how much they are fouling.
When I added that to the existing formula it described the winners and losers in every game except one -- Los Angeles vs. New York on Friday, July 25th (Los Angeles had a huge fourth quarter and a massive offensive rebounding advantage in that game). But that also required an additional change – instead of using true shooting percentage (which includes free throw and three point shooting), I switched to effective field goal percentage (which just weights three point shots more heavily).
In addition, I realized that looking at synergy differential over the course of a season was not that useful – synergy will vary from opponent to opponent depending on match-ups, so it’s more useful to just know a team’s average differential and compare it to the opponent they’re facing. So here’s the new formula:
Team synergy + off reb rate + free throw rate – turnover rate
But now there’s an additional problem – it only measures offensive cohesion. But there’s a very simple solution to that based on what I’ve done with game analysis – it’s simple one team’s offensive cohesion vs. the other’s. So the opponent’s offensive cohesion really tells us quite a bit about a team’s defense. So over the course of a season, if we look at a team’s offensive cohesion and their defensive cohesion based upon their opponents’ statistics, we get an offensive and defensive cohesion rating.
Why is this useful?
The reason I find this useful is that it’s not just a simple way of comparing teams to see how they’re playing, but it also allows us to say something about why a team is playing well or poorly on both sides of the ball.
When we want to know what happened in a game or even in a given quarter, these numbers give us the opportunity to actually tell a story of what happened beyond the final score and why a team won or lost. For a basketball geek like me, it’s extremely helpful just to get an idea of what makes each team tick.
So here are the team dynamics numbers for each team (their overall offensive and defensive numbers are on today’s other post):
| Team Dynamics | |||||
| Team | Synergy | OReb Rate | FT Rate | Tov Rate | Differential |
| Seattle Storm | 70.47 | 30.98% | 26.32% | 18.30% | +8.82 |
| Connecticut Sun | 72.78 | 31.19% | 23.90% | 17.62% | +8.29 |
| San Antonio | 75.27 | 25.29% | 27.53% | 19.39% | +8.26 |
| Los Angeles | 72.91 | 32.72% | 24.53% | 20.93% | +7.76 |
| Detroit Shock | 71.66 | 34.21% | 22.31% | 17.66% | +4.99 |
| Chicago Sky | 71.19 | 31.29% | 26.88% | 18.91% | +3.88 |
| New York Liberty | 73.45 | 28.22% | 24.57% | 19.52% | +3.15 |
| Sacramento | 66.22 | 33.15% | 28.72% | 19.98% | +2.27 |
| Houston | 70.57 | 33.68% | 24.68% | 20.91% | +1.21 |
| Minnesota | 70.47 | 30.98% | 26.32% | 18.30% | +1.14 |
| Indiana | 67.09 | 28.62% | 21.13% | 21.02% | -3.75 |
| Washington | 69.42 | 32.45% | 19.24% | 23.02% | -7.30 |
| Phoenix | 70.36 | 30.83% | 25.24% | 16.39% | -10.87 |
| Atlanta | 65.68 | 28.20% | 24.64% | 20.42% | -26.06 |
The San Antonio Silver Stars are an excellent example of how these statistics are helpful. They currently have the best record in the league while having a below average offense statistically and above average defense. The easy explanation is that they are just a very good defensive team. However, that doesn’t tell the full story.
You can’t really say they’re just winning with defense when they have two of the league’s top ten scorers (Sophia Young and Becky Hammon) and a third (Ann Wauters at #21). But when we look at their team dynamics, we see that they have consistently had the best synergy rating of any team in the league. In other words, they not only have a versatile set of scorers, but they also move the ball extremely well, which makes them difficult to defend.
When we can look at teams in terms of strengths and weaknesses it only enhances our ability as fans to talk about and understand what makes our team great…and vulnerable. It helps us analyze player transactions and perhaps even matchups.
A preview of tonight’s match-ups
So I’m going to stick my neck out a little and try to make some predictions about two games tonight that I plan on watching: Chicago vs. New York and San Antonio vs. Phoenix.
Chicago vs. New York
The playoffs will start early for me this season – the playoffs to decide my favorite team, that is.
The Liberty and Sky will play three times before the end of the regular season and by the end, I should have a good idea of which team is my favorite. As I’ve implied previously, I’d say I’m leaning toward the Sky, but there’s just something I love about the Liberty’s style of play…
Anyway…
I’ve already noted that the key players for Chicago in this game will be Sylvia Fowles and Jia Perkins – a post presence and a perimeter scorer, two positions that are actually a strength for New York. Fowles vs. Janel McCarville and Perkins vs. Loree Moore/Leilani Mitchell will be exciting to watch.
But based on these team dynamics Chicago is the more efficient offensive team whereas New York is the stronger defensive team. In fact, these are two of the teams whose numbers don’t at all reflect their records – New York is over-performing its numbers and Chicago is under-performing its numbers. But there’s a story even there.
The key appears to be turnover percentage – Liberty opponents have committed the third most turnovers in the league whereas the Sky’s limited success is predicated on playing a safe brand of basketball. In addition, the Liberty are a poor offensive rebounding team, but the Sky allow the third highest offensive rebounding rate in the league.
In other words, the Liberty have won games despite poor offensive rebounding but the Sky allow a high percentage of offensive rebounds. And the Liberty win by creating turnovers while the Sky thrive on playing it safe and waiting for shots. Then there’s the x-factor of Fowles who should influence the game on both ends of the floor.
So my pick? Right now, I really like the Sky’s lineup and think Fowles will help them keep the Liberty’s offensive rebounds down. But offensively, I’d imagine that McCarville and Catherine Kraaveld could force turnovers from Fowles and Dupree that will minimize their effectiveness and force the Sky’s perimeter players to win the game.
Even as well as Jia Perkins is playing, I don’t think she’s the type of player who can singlehandedly win a game. Also, it’s worth keeping in mind that the Sky have lost seven consecutive road games while the Liberty have won six straight games in Madison Square Garden.
There is hope for the Sky -- IF the Sky use Fowles as a key component of their offense to take pressure off of Candice Dupree and Jia Perkins AND Fowles can respond well to the inevitable Liberty double teams then MAYBE the Sky could pull off the upset. But I see it as extremely unlikely tonight.
Edge: New York
San Antonio vs. Phoenix
I'm excited to see how Diana Taurasi plays in her first game back, so I'm watching this one as well instead of the Sparks-Monarchs game which should also be pretty good.
Phoenix needs to set the tone for the rest of the season and this game would give them a huge energy boost. But really, San Antonio is the worst possible match-up for the Mercury – they play ball control offense and solid team defense.
Los Angeles exposed San Antonio’s one key weakness – their opponent’s offensive rebounding. But without Tangela Smith, it’s unlikely that the Mercury will be able exploit that weakness, even though they are an average offensive rebounding team.
Even if Taurasi and Pondexter go off for huge games, it’s unlikely that the Mercury will find a way to stop both Wauters and Young from dominating on the boards and extending possessions.
The way the Mercury could win? If Taurasi scores 30+ points and they find a way to contain Young with the Rover defense, the Mercury have a chance. But with the season Young was having prior to the break, it’s unlikely that will occur.
Edge: San Antonio
Continue reading...
