The exciting news is that as of today, I will be writing for Swish Appeal, a new women's basketball site at SBNation.com, one of the largest and fastest growing fan-centric sports communities full of innovative social media goodies that I'm still figuring out.
Perhaps most interesting, is that Swish Appeal will be the first dedicated women's sports blog on the site.
As someone interested in the expansion of women's sports coverage, I find this to be a pretty exciting development and look forward to continuing to develop as a writer and WNBA observer. For more insight into what we are planning for Swish Appeal, please see our welcome message.
Of course, that means the less exciting news (for me, at least) is that Rethinking Basketball - a relatively small corner of the WNBA blogosphere - is coming to an end. Content from the site will remain in this domain for a week, but then be moved to Swish Appeal.
If you have subscribed to Rethinking Basketball or followed it closely, I recommend subscribing to Swish Appeal today and continuing to follow me there. Blogger has been fun (and I spent way too much time with code on this site), but SBNation.com is an even cooler place to be.
This is a good time to say that I appreciate all of the critique, encouragement, and support (linkage) from people to this point -- that of course is what makes blogging exciting and fulfilling, in addition to the fact that I love writing about basketball.
I hope we can extend the interaction into the SBN community.
I ended yesterday’s post about “good journalism” as follows and figure it would be a good way to start today’s post:
“Last Thursday, SBNation’s launch of its redesigned website, which includes an innovative “StoryStream” feature, struck me as an interesting lens through which to explore all of these questions.
What strikes me as most significant about SBNation’s approach to sports journalism is that it represents a convergence of the best principles of “traditional” journalism and “fan journalism”. Although SBNation has not previously covered women's sports, their model of journalism has potential to enhance the way women's sports is covered.”
1. Will this technological paradigm shift challenge or reproduce the ways in which female athletes are traditionally portrayed in mainstream sport media?
2. Will the unprecedented popularity of social media—and the alternative “ways of knowing” it provides to traditional media—fundamentally alter how we view women’s sports?
Since SBNation has not previously covered women’s sports, it probably seems odd to use that site as a lens to think about social media and women’s sports. However, consider this comment from a post on the One Sport Voice blog:
The ultimate strategy (for women's sports) then it to is push for more integration of women’s sports into mainstream media, while continuing to carve out a space in social media. That way we ensure women’s sports are not ghettoized in the “opt-in” exclusive space (not everyone has access to the WWW) of social media.
I would suggest that the combination of SBNation’s redesign in addition to its size, readership, and partnerships with major outlets like Google, Yahoo, and CBSSports, is the perfect platform with which to begin the integration of women’s sports into mainstream media.
The infrastructure exists in a site like SBN to accomplish the task of elevating women's sports coverage.
Embedded in SBNation’s redesign is the use of social media to enhance, rather than diverge from, the “excavation” process (as phrased by Stephen King and described in yesterday’s post) that characterizes the activity of good “traditional” journalism. In addition to shifting what is covered as “news”, it also has the potential to shift how news about women’s sports is consumed.
However, the structure of its SportsStream which is a consolidated stream of “the latest news feeds, Tweets, videos, comments that move a major sports story along,” according to CEO Jim Bankoff also represents a shift even from traditional online journalism.
Rather than an emphasis on reporting the story of the day, the focus is on multiple perspectives on a given situation that the readership cares about, commentary on those perspectives, and comments on the commentary.
By hypothetically consolidating the voice of the athlete with the voice of the media with the voice of the fan, readers should be able to get a far richer perspective on any given sporting event than they would have by reading any one of those sources in isolation. It is at the cutting edge of how any news is covered, even beyond the sports world. So could it help women's sports?
Can the technological advances of SBN “fundamentally alter how we see women’s sports”?
On one hand, comparing a sports fan-site to a left-leaning political site might seem like a stretch. On the other hand, maybe it’s appropriate for a sports site to be seen in the same light.
Reading Helen Wheelock’s article about Pulitzer Prize winning photojournalist Michelle V. Agins, I was reminded of an excerpt from Raquel Cepeda’s introduction to her book, “And It Don’t Stop”, a collection of seminal hip-hop journalism:
Hip-hop journalism built on the tradition of hip-hop as a societal reflector. The hip-hop journalists not only understood, but were themselves participants also aching to be understood…Today would be hip-hop journalists are faced with a challenge to explore the substance beneath the surface. While the writings about hip-hop in the alternative press legitimized the music because it helped identify it to the masses of eighties, and helped our generation define itself within its social and political paradigms in the nineties, we are now being faced with the task of covering more interesting aspects than what the mainstream predicates. And while we’re ushering in the new millennium, writing about hip-hop still has the potential to be used as a conduit for change.
I would argue that women's sports does function as a social reflector with plenty of rich substance beneath the surface of the game.
However, the question is what it means for women's sports writers to see themselves as "responsible for history", like Akins or early hip-hop writers did. I am not suggesting they do not...but seeing oneself as a journalist responsible for excavating a historical story is much different than a journalist seeing oneself as merely relaying facts.
Furthermore, if you believe Hoopsworld writer Steve Kyler that ESPN influences who is popular and who is not in sports and Huffington Post contributer Casey Gane-McCalla that, “Sports stereotypes have a real effect in the real world,” then the way major traditional sports news institutions cover women’s sports has a real effect on women.
If you’re like me, this is a sobering commentary on the state of affairs in the U.S. – the free flow of ideas that seems central to a democracy is not necessarily supported by our media outlets in any domain.
Hence the exuberance about social media, mine included.
However, as Nicole Lavoi wrote in her post about social media back in May, there is no empirical evidence to support the claim that social media will single-handedly change the way women’s sports are covered. However, the technological infrastructure of sites like SBN have the capacity to shift the way the women’s sports are covered. The question is how to best take advantage of that.
After all, there is at least one thing that we do have empirical evidence to support: the mainstream “traditional” media is probably not going to shift the way they cover women’s sports any time soon.
Continue reading...
Before you dismiss Stan as a biased Mercury writer, the argument he lays out in favor of Bonner over Dream forward Angel McCoughtry is quite strong, especially the part about consistency. After all – and forgive me for being so semantic – but the award is for the Rookie of the Year, not Rookie of the Post-All-Star Break or Rookie of the Future. The year, as in this year.
For most of the season, I have argued something similar – that although McCoughtry strikes me as the more player with more star potential, Bonner is clearly the most productive rookie in the league, if for no other reason than her style of play fits perfectly with the Mercury’s style.
However, over the last month or so, that claim has been proven wrong – these are both very productive, very talented players, with bright futures, that are best compared as “different” rather than judging one as superior. And of course, the award is irrelevant to the young players themselves, as reported by Stan – all they care about is winning (which I suppose is a shame because if one of them didn’t care about winning it would be quite easy to choose between the two of them).
But even if they don’t care, I do. We (fans) do.
As such, I first want to modify the consistency argument that some people have made – statistically, McCoughtry has been right behind Bonner for most of the season. Bonner has maintained a pretty firm grasp of the #1 spot, but McCoughtry has been the clear #2 by any reasonable basketball standard for the majority of the season.
So given that, it probably should come as no surprise that the numbers reveal something different after McCoughtry’s consecutive Rookie of the Month awards: Bonner and McCoughtry are almost even now based on the framework of analysis I have used for rookies this season.
That pretty much negates the consistency argument – even if McCoughtry was not great during the first half of the season, the fact that she has drawn even with (or arguably surpassed) Bonner statistically means one of the following:
a) Bonner’s rate of production has declined, as McCoughtry’s minutes increased
b) McCoughtry has made up statistical ground so rapidly that she must be the superior player, or
c) Both.
With the consistency piece negated, it becomes much more difficult to determine who should win Rookie of the Year. WNBA.com makes an unconvincing argument for McCoughtry by citing one game, which is insufficient because the award is for performance for the duration of the season.
Most of the performance metrics – Efficiency, Tendex, and Model Estimated Value (I don’t have PER or WARP) – are too close to make a clear assessment. So it will probably come down to each individual voter selecting the person they just like better.
Nevertheless, I want to find an argument that goes beyond merely arbitrary. In doing so, I think there might be another variable that points to a resolution – since both of these players have been reserves for most of the season, they are also eligible for the Sixth Woman award.
As such, is it possible that one should win the Sixth Woman of the Year award and the other the Rookie of the Year award? I say yes.
The rookie ranking standard
In evaluating rookies this season, I’ve used the following standard for analysis based upon observation and the statistical work of others:
The best rookies can create their own scoring opportunities – and do so efficiently – while contributing to a team’s success.
As such, I’ve used a combination of three statistics – usage rate (the rate at which a player creates plays for themselves), Chaiken efficiency ratio (the ratio of scoring plays a player is individually responsible for vs. turnovers and missed shots), and Boxscores (a player’s individual to team wins).
As it has been for months now, Bonner and McCoughtry have been the only two rookies to rank in the top tier of the league in all three statistical categories. Just to establish the significance of that accomplishment, there are only 15 players – All-Stars and MVP candidates -- in the entire league who share that distinction. It makes it an impressive standard by which to judge rookies.
While Bonner is slightly more efficient and contributed slightly more to her team’s success, McCoughtry is more effective at creating plays for herself.
And the latter point about McCoughtry is what swings my opinion in favor of McCoughtry: she’s a playmaker, while Bonner is still primarily a player who is dependent on the players around her to set her up.
Although Bonner has a much higher offensive rebounding rate (20% to McCoughtry’s 7%) and free throw rate (44.9% to McCoughtry’s 30%), McCoughtry has a much higher assist rate (13.4% to Bonner’s 3%) and slightly higher 2 point percentage. McCoughtry is often heralded as the better all-around defender, but Bonner is an improving help defender and that’s extremely valuable in the Mercury’s defensive scheme.
Yes, Bonner’s playmaking ability has improved, but McCoughtry is clearly the better playmaker. Or to put it in Jeopardy terms, McCoughtry is probably the answer to the question, “Which rookie would you want to have the ball in her hands at the end of a game?” McCoughtry is that type of player that can create plays for herself and others when her team needs it.
McCoughtry has demonstrated the ability to take over games in addition to putting up statistics almost equivalent to those of Bonner.
Although the Dream have only gone 3-4 with McCoughtry replacing forward Chamique Holdsclaw in the lineup over the last 7 games, it’s worth nothing that 5 of those games were road games and the losses were to Los Angeles, Phoenix, Detroit, and Seattle – teams that were all hot when the Dream encountered them.
So when we consider which rookie is better, yes, it’s worth considering which rookie has demonstrated the ability to clearly dominate a game and carry her team to victory. It’s an intangible that we cannot measure statistically, but I think we have to agree that McCoughtry has more of “it” however you want to define that “It Factor”.
Conclusion: McCoughtry as ROY, Bonner as SWOY
But with these two players being the best two reserves by my rookie standard -- which is really just a playmaking ability standard – I think it’s fair to say that one of them is probably the Sixth Woman of the Year as well.
That is Bonner.
The reason is simple and less arbitrary than merely finding a way to reward Bonner for what she’s done. If we consider that the bulk of McCoughtry’s production this season has been as a starter, then it’s easy to claim that Bonner has been the better reserve. She has consistently brought more off the bench than any player in the league, while McCoughtry has emerged as clearly the most dominant rookie starter.
So yeah, ultimately that does look like a compromise, but I think it’s the reasonable way to go.
Here’s my ranking of the rest of the rookies, with statistical backing:
3. Shavonte Zellous
I really like Zellous’ game and over the course of the season her shot selection has improved and she looks like she’s playing much more under control as the Shock have settled into life after Bill. Statistically, she’s also the third best defender behind Bonner and McCoughtry. As has been the case all season, she still gets to the free throw line at a higher rate than anyone else in the league. If she can work on her playmaking ability in the offseason, she’ll be a dynamic second year player.
4. Anete Jekabsone-Zogota
The consistency argument in comparison to Zellous (and defensive ability) is what has Jekabsone in the 4th spot as opposed to #3. But in terms of offensive ability, she is probably one of the most well rounded and polished rookies of any. She doesn’t have the same type of game-changing ability that McCoughtry does, but on the other hand there isn’t much she cannot do.
5. Renee Montgomery
Montgomery is not the best rookie point guard in terms of making plays for others, but she is by far the most dynamic rookie point guard with her ball handling ability and ability to take opponents off the dribble, as evidenced by her top tier 2 point percentage.
Second Team/Honorable mention:
6. Briann January
(I’m partial to point guards, but she has demonstrated ability to lead her team as well as any other rookie)
7. Courtney Paris
(needs more post moves, but still one of the best rebounders in the league)
8. Quanitra Hollingsworth
(among the best rebounders in the league and working on scoring ability)
9. Shalee Lehning
(the only way you could argue against her being among the top rookies is if you are drinking a large glass of haterade. Even by the rather weak standard of EFF, available at WNBA.com, she’s #9. I could say more, but I think I’ve made the point by now).
10. Kristi Toliver
(if she played more…I would put her higher. But this is not a judgment of talent, but production)
Continue reading...
"We'd keep talking about the economy and trying to figure out how, from a budget standpoint, to move forward. It was just something the union and the WNBA agreed on. That's not to say it is what it is, but we want to stay around awhile. We don't want to . . . stay at 13 and then down the road look [back] and say we wished we would have went down [to 11]. So now we have that opportunity and it's going to make the league stronger." - Tamika Catchings, during a pre-season conference call (via Washington Post)
Bob Corwin of Full Court Press – the self-proclaimed “doom and gloom” writer of the WNBA – recently wrote a rather thorough and less gloomy article reflecting on the state of the WNBA.
Yet there was one thing that he left out: the effect of the league’s decreased roster sizes.
Downsizing WNBA rosters from 13 to 11 players was probably an economically sound decision to keep the league fiscally viable for the near future.
In fact, the WNBA should be applauded for recognizing the warning signs and, like, doing something about it.
As described by Paul Krugman in a New York Times article last week, it was widespread “blindness to the possibility of catastrophic failures in a market economy” that precipitated the country's current economic situation. Further blindness by WNBA executives in the form of doing nothing would have only compounded already difficult circumstances for the league.
However, we should have learned something else from our current economic situation, regardless of whether you call it a “crisis”, “downturn”, “natural ebb and flow of the free market”, or “recession” – sometimes sound economic decision making comes from people who “mistook beauty, clad in impressive-looking mathematics, for truth,” as described by Krugman.
None of us have the capacity to foresee the future, whether it be the long-term viability of the league or determining which teams will make the upcoming playoffs. Nevertheless, with a season’s worth of data in hand, it’s hard not to wonder about the non-economic impacts of shrinking rosters on a still-evolving league like the WNBA.
With the rash of injuries affecting the league’s all-stars at near epidemic proportions this year, people have naturally wondered whether the roster reductions are contributing to player injuries. And yes, the injuries are getting so bad that some games are almost unwatchable.
The Minnesota Lynx didn’t really win on Saturday, the Seattle Storm just lost. With three players out due to injury, the Storm shot a combined 6-32 in the 1st and 4th quarters, casting a dark cloud over the 2nd and 3rd quarters in which they shot over 70%.
And yesterday’s Chicago Sky-Detroit Shock game was not a whole lot better – despite a third quarter in which the Sky did not commit even one turnover, the Sky looked typically out of sorts with Sylvia Fowles limping around and Brooke Wyckoff out due to injury. And Detroit – with their own set of injury problems – was forced to play Deanna Nolan for the full 40.
In any event, I’m not sure shortened rosters explain the injury epidemic – we’d have to dig deep to figure out whether there is an increase in fatigue injuries relative to freak accidents compared to past years…and even then, figure out how roster sizes contributed. I’m not a sports doctor, so I’m going to leave that argument alone.
However, I did do a cursory survey of some people’s concerns about the roster reductions prior to the season and as the regular season comes to an end, I found it interesting to return to people’s pre-season speculation. Two points stood out to me: running effective practices and developing young talent.
Although it is difficult to make the argument that roster reductions have had a strong influence on game play this season, I think an argument could be made that it might harm the quality of play in the future, especially as the league looks to expand.
So how might this season’s roster reductions affect the league in the future?
“We talkin’ about practice – what are we talkin’ about? Practice?!?”
Basketball is a 5 on 5 game. Therefore, it is nice to have 10 players in practice to work on both offensive and defensive sets.
So even if 8 or 9 players is enough to play a game with a pretty normal rotation of players for most teams (in the WNBA, pretty much all except Connecticut), it’s difficult to use practice time effectively, as CJ from TIB wrote in April:
Well…until you want a full practice when you are on the road. Let’s say that you have and 11-player roster, one person is injured and one is tweaked enough that you’d want to save her for the game. Now the best you can do is practice 4-on-5. Hardly ideal.
Of course, there are things teams can do with 8 or 9 players that are just as important as working on execution of plays with “live” defense. But if you’ve ever played or coached basketball, you know that those 5 on 5 simulations – even in stop-action drill situations – are valuable.
In theory, that practice time becomes even more valuable in a league with a relatively short regular season and a pre-season with fatigued players flying in from around the world. As such, in theory, teams would be much less crisp in games and the quality of play throughout the league would decline.
This is only the second full WNBA season I’ve watched so I have a limited frame of reference, but I would say the game play overall this season has actually been better than last. And I’ve seen and heard multiple people say this is among the strongest seasons ever.
But still I wonder, what might be the effect of limited practice time on teams?
Player development…or lack thereof…
A bit of wisdom drawn from other sports I’ve watched over the years is that for young players, that practice time against the vets in “game-like” situations is as valuable, if not more, for certain players.
To be more specific, I’m thinking about rookie NFL quarterbacks who sit out a season and observe games while participating in practice and countless NBA early entry rookies over the years who have publicly stated that practicing with/against the best on a daily basis was as much a contributor to their development as anything else.
The WNBA has now done two things that potentially harm player development: first, with shortened rosters, keeping a player on the roster merely for the sake of having them “learn” is a risk, especially for a playoff team that could use depth in their rotation. Second, even if you do choose to keep these “learners” on the roster, they won’t get the type of simulated situations that they might otherwise get with larger roster sizes.
Unfortunately, for a league to prosper long-term, it has to consistently bring in and develop young talent. While the level of competition has gotten more intense with the least talented players in the league now unemployed, what about the future?
With 19 rookies making rosters this year, who steps up as our current stars age and decline?
If a second year player has not shown enough development at the beginning of next year will they be cut instead of being given a second chance?
Theoretically, the league has put a constraint on its product that will limit its future prospects. Or maybe not.
Could a change in roster management philosophy be upon us?
It seems like rather than lamenting the limits the roster reductions have put on the league, we should focus instead of how teams can make this work because it is a legitimate economic decision.
What will be interesting is how general managers adjust player personnel strategies to work with the new limits put upon them.
Mechelle Voepel suggested in May that tweeners – a slightly more negative connotation than a versatile star -- and “pure point guards” would be the most likely victims of the roster reductions because they the least to offer. Prior to the draft, former Detroit Shock coach Bill Laimbeer said something slightly different – he went into the draft looking for versatility and landed Shavonte Zellous who has been among the top rookies, despite being something of a “tweener”.
However, when I look at what actually transpired this season, I see something slightly different. In needing to maximize roster space, teams cut players that did not have immediate use to them, but the best of the chopping block ended up catching on somewhere else. And in many cases – Tan White, Kiesha Brown, and Ketia Swanier come to mind (all coincidentally connected to the Connecticut Sun) – the waiver wire activity has benefited both teams and players.
So the roster cuts may have enabled the amazing parity we’ve seen this season simply because teams had to be more prudent with their roster slots. What we’ve seen is a redistribution of talent. And that has almost indisputably contributed to the immense parity of this season.
We could do a deep statistical analysis of the percentage of various player types that ended up making rosters, but I’m not sure how valuable that would be – the defining characteristic of the players cut is that they were previously unproductive for one reason or another rather than of a particular style of play.
Final answer: Inconclusive
Ultimately, I would say that the roster reductions have simultaneously contributed to this season’s parity and limited player development. However, the key will be to understand how exactly teams will approach player development going forward.
Do those 2nd and 3rd rounds of the draft become less important because teams figure they can’t use those players? Or do those picks become more valuable as teams are more likely to take risks on potential diamonds in the rough that may not play with them for a few years?
However, a bigger question for me right now is given the increasing parity and the economic crunch, why exactly is the league choosing to expand now? If we accept common wisdom that expansion dilutes a league, then won’t that negate the one potentially positive outcome of these roster reductions?
Does the league really need a struggling team full of leftovers? Or will we just see players who were cut this year getting another chance to prove themselves next year and stepping up?
Whoa – that’s six straight questions, which probably says something about what I think about these roster reductions – it’s too soon to determine any sort of effect.
Continue reading...
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...
With 2:18 left in the third quarter and her team down 14 points against the Seattle Storm, a light seemed to go on for Fever rookie point guard Briann January.
January brought the ball up court, shifted her weight left just enough to freeze All-Star guard Sue Bird who was defending her, then made a swift crossover dribble and took the ball hard to the basket to draw the foul and hit two free throws.
However, it wasn’t just one play that stood out on Saturday.
January took Bird to the basket repeatedly – she got to the free throw line off a drive again with 6.6 seconds left in the quarter -- and even though she didn’t make every shot, it was her confidence in a game that was still within reach that was impressive.
Although the Fever ended up losing Saturday's game 74-60, January demonstrated a beautiful mix of athleticism, determination, and skill that gave the fans that were still paying attention a glimpse into a bright future. Most of all, demonstrating such confidence against Bird – who January idolized as a young player – seems to just add something special to the moment. It’s not that Bird is a standout defender – it’s that January approached Bird with such fearlessness.
Despite struggling with her jump shot for much of the season – she went 1-8 against the Storm – January is having an impressive season as a rookie point guard. She’s an adept ball handler who can not only get herself to the basket, but also knows when to pick and choose her spots.
Although her passes sometimes go errant when she gets over-excited, she has also shown the ability to make pinpoint entry passes to the post or perfectly float passes over the outstretched arms of defenders to a moving teammate, putting them in scoring position on the run.
And of course, the two time Pac-10 Defensive Player of the Year is no slouch on defense. Her quickness and strength allow her to stay with and challenge even the likes of Bird.
The combination of skills that January displayed in Saturday’s game and the previous Saturday in their comeback win against Detroit is what makes it so tempting to look past the present and into January’s seemingly bright future. The point was underscored by Fever coach Lin Dunn’s comments after January’s career-best performance against Detroit.
“You’re starting to see January develop more and more into what I call a premier point guard in this league. Her strength combined with her quickness, her speed and her shooting ability – I just think that she’s got a lot of upside as one of the top guards of the future of this league.”
Dunn’s comment leads me to wonder about what type of point guard January might become in connection with how we might describe point guards: what type of point guard is January likely to become? And how does she compare to the league’s current premiere point guards? January seems to exude star potential, both because of her skills and the leadership she exhibits when on the court.
It was somewhat ironic to see January – a 31.8% shooter in her young career – standing up on the sidelines with her arms crossed like a coach yelling, “Shoot it! Shoot it!” as veteran Ebony Hoffman passed up a shot opportunity that came within the flow of the offense.
Although the frustrated eye roll at the dead ball is probably not the most effective way to build relationships, she seems to have the quality of a natural leader, even as a backup point guard. On a successful team full of veterans, she’s not afraid to hold her own and bark commands, even when she’s not on the court running their offense.
And in having such an eye for the game and implicitly demanding so much of her teammates and visibly bothered by every single mistake she makes – but not afraid to solicit feedback from others – it’s hard not to think that she’s destined to improve.
When you combine her approach to the game and disposition toward her teammates with her skill set, it seems like the sky is the limit for January.
But you have to wonder: what might that potential look like?
Something I found interesting as I was doing point guard rankings last week is that if you were to omit scoring efficiency – shooting percentages, the ratio of possessions she scores on vs. possessions that she wastes – January’s statistical profile as a point guard is remarkably similar to Lindsey Harding.
Based on the point guard statistics, the only major difference between Harding and January are scoring efficiency numbers. And given Harding’s emergence this season after struggling her first few years, it’s not hard to imagine January having an impact on the court similar to Harding as she becomes a better scorer.
Harding had the better rookie season, but a large part of that was that she started and got big minutes on a non-playoff team. What Harding might have on January in terms of physical gifts – Harding is undoubtedly among the fastest guards with the ball in the league -- January has on Harding in terms of feel for the game and defense.
And I would argue that January is probably the better passer in terms of mechanics and court vision. That’s high praise and a lofty comparison for January given Harding’s all-star caliber year…but I really think she has that kind of potential.
When you start to see the ability to do things for her team at crucial moments on multiple occasions – even if they lose a game on the road in one of the toughest arenas in the league against the second-best team in the Western Conference --- it’s fair to start projecting her as something more special than what meets the eye.
If she does end up developing into a premiere point guard, she might end up in a class all her own. She just stands out as a special individual.
A superstar in the making.
Tony J. Antonucci, January’s elementary school counselor, wrote recently in the Spokane Spokesman-Review that January is “today’s real true all-American superstar athlete” who has been surrounded by a large support network on her ascent to the WNBA. And a portion of that network she’s spent a lifetime building was present not too far from the Fever bench at Key Arena.
As I was leaving Key Arena, January was coming through the tunnel to meet a group of 20-30 people that waited after the game to greet her. As I was walking toward her, she was surrounded by a bunch of credentialed individuals giving her directives or advice of some sort. I almost got out my voice recorder to go over and ask the player I’ve been following for about a week a few questions that would probably only result in answers similar to those in print elsewhere.
Just as I got close, she turned and flashed that “warm beautiful smile” that Antonucci described, wiping away any trace of having suffered a bad road loss, and walked out of the tunnel, greeted by a loud cheer from the people that eagerly awaited to see her.
And at that moment, she seemed to be more than Briann January the future premiere point guard, but Briann January the recent college graduate who was returning home from her first post-baccalaureate job to visit her family and looking for a good homecooked meal from mom.
Indeed, a special set of attributes for a star athlete in today's world of professional sports.
Well, hopefully they’ll be able to make a game of it.
On the court warming up was a young, sputtering Sky team that had lost four in a row. In their last two games, they traveled to Phoenix for the privilege to get trampled by a Mercury stampede and then got discomfited at home by the Indiana Fever.
There was no way a Sky team that looked so lost and confused would compete with Lauren Jackson and Sue Bird with those crazy Key Arena fans shouting at them.
So it’s a good thing that Sky team that got routed at home by the Fever chose to stay in Chicago. We may never know what they did to that old Sky team, but it’s doubtful that anybody will miss that disorganized and demoralized team.
There are a number of interesting themes and story lines that one could take from last night’s game in addition to Fowles’ return.
Sue Bird was missing in action, going 1-10 from the field. The Sky shot a scorching 63.2% from the three-point line. And a large part of that hot three point shooting was Kristi Toliver, who had a breakout game, keeping pace with fellow rookies Renee Montgomery and Courtney Paris who also formally introduced themselves to the WNBA this past week.
However, the overarching theme that struck me as I watched the game was that the Sky actually looked like a coherent basketball team, like they had actually played together before or practiced a few plays.
For the first time this season, I was not asking that same tired question: What exactly are they doing? That goes beyond Fowles’ return or Toliver’s hot shooting. It was like a shift in mindset or philosophy occurred after the loss to the Fever.
If the Sky played like they did last night all the time, they would be atop the Eastern Conference.
If the Sky continue to play that well, they will be a threat to make some noise in this year’s playoffs.
And if the Sky’s young players continue to develop individually as they become a stronger unit, they will be a perennial contender for a long time. So what on earth happened?
Really, both teams played well overall last night, the Sky just played better. I say that acknowledging that the Storm did seem a little flat and confused on offense and had erratic defensive rotations. However, the fact is that they played well enough to stay within one or two shots of a team that shot 60.8% from the field. Which probably makes this a particularly tough loss for the Storm – as Sue Bird said, this was one they could have had and let slip away.
Part of the story for the Storm is that although Bird had an off game, Tanisha Wright played extremely well. She played by far the best game for the Storm and at times, the best player on the floor for either team. The most impressive element of her game on display last night was her ability to set up her teammates.
While Wright is not necessarily an exceptional ball handler, she is a very decisive ball handler and she attacks holes in the defense extremely well when she sees them open up. That allows her to get to the rim extremely well, but also set up open teammates when she draws help defenders.
Last night, she not only scored 18 points on 6-9 shooting, but also had an assist ratio of 32.34% and a pure point rating of 5.20, numbers that resemble those of the league’s top point guards. She was not only looking to distribute the ball to others, but she was doing it extremely well. While there is not really an adequate substitute for what Bird brings to the game as a point guard when she’s on, Wright did an admirable job of keeping the Storm in the game.
Given how well Wright played and that Jackson turned in a decent performance, if the Storm had gotten a better scoring performance from Bird, they could have won this game. Aside from Jackson, they went 1-10 from the floor as a team. From that point on, they didn’t shoot below 50%, shooting 73% in the second quarter. Their assisted field goal percentage was also relatively high, staying well above 70% after the first quarter.
The Sky were just far more consistent and kept the pressure on the entire game.
There’s a reason why I’ve said the Sky are my favorite team: they not only have all of the pieces in place to be a successful basketball team, but those pieces are extremely talented.
Two post players whose skills complement each other perfectly to put an enormous amount of pressure on the defense. A MVP candidate and one of the best all-around players in the league. And a number of perimeter players who can shoot the three, especially with Toliver playing well. All they needed to do was pick a system – and a rotation -- and run it consistently to maximize their talent.
In statistical terms however, what makes the Sky potentially great is that they have all the elements of the Four Factors covered as well as the Synergy rating metric that I added as part of my “Team Dynamics ratings” last year. While the key factors statistically for the Sky last night were shooting and synergy, the most important thing was the way they played the game.
First, they were looking inside to both Dupree and Fowles. In fact, it almost caught me off good when they went to Fowles right away, getting her the ball on four of their first six possessions. Yes, oddly that’s not the norm for this team – getting the ball their 6’6” center.
But last night, they chose to establish the post game early and work outward from that. In doing so, they put pressure on the Storm to constantly rotate and open scorers all over the court. And to Fowles’ credit, she was great at passing the ball back out of the post if she couldn’t make anything happen herself. Even though she didn’t score and didn’t record a lot of assists, she was responsible for setting the tone for the game and getting the offense going in the beginning.
But second, in order for an offense to work through the post, the guards have to throw it into the post. Post entry passes sometimes seem like a lost art, but the Sky did an extremely good job last night. In fact, one of the things that really made their offense look different last night is that they were actually looking to get it into the post.
They often run a dribble-weave type play where the three perimeter players weave around the three-point line passing the ball to each other. Normally it seems as though they get so caught up in just running the play – weaving in and out and handing the ball off – that they don’t look to actually create scoring opportunities. The main thing they did well last night was to actually recognize scoring opportunities when they arose and actually use the weave to keep the defense off balance and find passing lanes rather than just randomly running a weave.
By using their passing to break the defense rather than just looking for one-on-one opportunities, the defense was forced to rotate. Another quick pass forces a second rotation and by then the defense is scrambling. Keep moving the ball and eventually a scoring opportunity opens up. Having a player like Toliver who has a beautiful quick release only enhances the offense because she made the defense pay for poor rotations.
However, even though it should be clear by now that I am partial to maximizing ball movement, sometimes at the end of close games it just comes down to having someone who can take over the game. For the Sky last night, it was Jia Perkins. By my Credit numbers, she was the third most important player behind Dupree and Toliver. And while Dupree and Toliver definitely played better over the first three quarters, having Perkins on the court down the stretch was essential for the Sky.
Down two points with 4:48 left, Perkins just decided to take over. She scored 10 consecutive points on a mix of three point shots, drives, and jumpers. Then she drove and got an assist setting up a three for Dupree. When you have a player who you can trust with the ball in their hands for 13 consecutive points, it makes end of game strategy really simple – get the ball to Jia and run the offense. Perkins might not be the top candidate for MVP this season, but I cannot think of five better candidates than her for the award at this point in the season.
A strong post game complemented by strong perimeter shooting and a MVP candidate who can single-handedly drag the team across the finish line – if the Sky continue to follow the blueprint they followed last night, they will give the Fever a strong challenge for the Eastern Conference title.
There will be more on Toliver tomorrow…and watch out – Chen Nan too. (Click here to see those rookie rankings)
Fowles left the game late in the fourth quarter after a collision and did not return. I cannot find an official report anywhere, but I overheard coach Key talking in the tunnel after the game and he was saying that it was a dislocated shoulder that they popped back in and should be ok. Hopefully it does not become a long-term problem.
Tanisha Wright is quietly putting together a very good season and has been an outstanding complement to Sue Bird. I was looking at some league stats the other day and in addition to being in the top ten in assists this season, she has been among the most productive players overall. She probably will not get an all-star bid, but she deserves serious consideration.
Lauren Jackson played well in the first half, but was less effective in the second half. Part of that is that she got at least three scoring opportunities in the first half off offensive rebounds and three point play opportunities (although she missed the free throws). For some reason, she just got less scoring opportunities in the second half, getting off only four shots.
Janell Burse is also having a remarkably productive season. It’s hard to point to one thing she does well, but she just really does not make a whole lot of mistakes. She is one of those players who seems to have a sense of what she can do well and just puts herself in position to do that. Someone recently suggested that I build my point guard rankings around watching Sue Bird closely and figuring out how to evaluate point guards based on her performance. Actually, Sue Bird's shooting slump at the beginning of last year was what inspired the point guard rankings last year. And what stood out last year also stood out last night – Bird is at her best when she is in attack mode. When she gets in a zone carving up defenses and creating for others, she is almost unstoppable and it makes the Storm almost impossible to beat, even if she isn’t shooting well.
That is where my basic claim about point guards comes from: playing point guard, moreso than any other position, is all about decision making rather than purely measuring points, assists, and field goal percentage. To the extent that we can find ways to measure the effectiveness of their decision making on the floor, I really think we can come up with valid ways to quantify what a point guard does well. The fact is, when Bird is in attack mode, Bird is hands down one of the best decision makers in the game (I believe Penicheiro in her prime was probably the best ever).
Watching Bird’s defense was also useful to reinforce a point I (and others) have made repeatedly – it’s almost impossible to quantify defensive performance. Bird was guarding Toliver and “responsible” for a few of those threes Toliver made, but it was unclear what exactly was going on for the Storm defensively on many of those shots, especially in the second quarter. It looked like there was just confusion about who was supposed to rotate where and on at least two occasions, Bird looked like she was dropping off Toliver and nobody rotated to pick her up. Without knowing what they were trying to do, it was difficult to know whether Bird was to blame or someone else.
Because every point guard is part of a particular defensive scheme, it’s really hard to come up with a way to compare them that makes any kind of sense. I forgot to check my camera’s batteries before the game. Or let me rephrase – I checked them, but didn’t bother to walk the two blocks to the store to buy batteries before entering the arena. So no pictures. Idiot. Key Arena offers Thai food now and I decided to splurge on one of those dishes rather than go for the overpriced hot dog. This was a big ordeal for me – hot dogs and beer just seem to be necessary for any live ball game. However, the Thai food and Coke did me well and was much more filling (and healthy?) than a hot dog and beer. They showed Part 2 of the Storm history series last night and I really enjoyed that too. The best part was when they showed a clip of Lin Dunn responding to a reporter who asked if the Storm would be trading Sue Bird after she was drafted. Her concise, confident, precise, and simple response drew a loud response from the crowd -- "No."
A quick note on Jenny Boucek's firing from Sacramento: Baffling. As in I can't even wrap my head around how inexplicable it is. Fortunately, Mechelle Voepel is in a good position to make the argument that the decision goes beyond "baffling" to "senseless". I'll co-sign. Check out her blog post if you get a chance.
Whoa -- what an amazing game between the Mercury and Monarchs! One of the best played overall of a very well played week in the WNBA.
You have to feel for the Monarchs -- they really outplayed the Mercury for the majority of the game and completely neutralized the type of Mercury blitz that the Sparks and Sky had to endure...
But the Mercury really showed something special tonight -- winning a close game (107-105) on the road after really playing a lackluster first half. I'm not anointing them the champions...but they are just doing things that champions do lately.
Even more exciting was the play of DeWanna Bonner and more importantly Courtney Paris -- trading baskets with less than 10 seconds in a tie game before Temeka Johnson lifted the Mercury to victory on a buzzer beating jump shot off the dribble.
More on the rookies later -- their development just gets more and more exciting by the day.
But I will say this about this past week in WNBA basketball: we've seen at least three rookies really turn a quarter and have breakout games within the last week or so between Paris, Renee Montgomery, and Shavonte Zellous.
I know people are saying DeWanna Bonner has the ROY contest all wrapped up, but it's only a third of the way through the season. If these other rookies continue to improve, things could change rapidly...
Those who watched the Minnesota Lynx’s 96-94 victory over the Washington Mystics witnessed a special performance from Renee Montgomery that is not fully captured in the standard game summary.
By now you’ve probably heard that she re-entered the game with 3:14 left in the 4th quarter and proceeded to score 12 consecutive points and 18 of her season-high 21 points over the course of seven minutes between the 4th quarter and overtime.
Her game has been variously described as “electrifying”, a “scoring rampage”, or my personal favorite from the Minneapolis Star Tribune: “Rookie guard Renee Montgomery, who usually provides a spark for the Lynx off the bench, was a flamethrower.”
And it was all capped by some of the best post-game comments I have ever heard – simultaneously honest, humble, and humorous – including a clarification for those who might consider Montgomery “on fire” (or throwing flames) last night: "I didn't really catch fire, I just shot layups. It wasn't like I was on fire from (three-point range)."
However, the ability to get to the rim eight times in seven minutes at the end of a close WNBA game is no small feat. And though it was apparently the same play, she wasn’t exactly scoring in the same way.
The first was a drive to the basket to earn two free throws within seconds of entering the game. After a missed jumper, the next two were drives for contested layups and three point plays. The next started with a nice crossover move from the wing.
In overtime, she continued to focus on getting to the rim. The first came off a steal and fast break, which earned her another three point play opportunity. The other two were drives early in the offense in which she just went right through the defense.
Montgomery is talented no matter how much she attempts to minimize her performance. The Mystics did give her different looks after the first few drives. She just continued to dominate the game. She can handle the ball extremely well, use screens, and she can find holes in the defense.
If Montgomery’s season goes anything like this game – a slow awkward start punctuated by an absolutely dominant game-changing finish – she should be right in the thick of Rookie of the Year conversations.
Why?
Because Montgomery has something intangible that makes you want to believe she’s destined for greatness. In Jim Peterson’s comments about Renee Montgomery on the Lynx Weekly radio show, he discussed how he had his reservations about her because she’s small and hasn’t been practicing well but that when the game starts she’s “a gamer”. He discussed some of the intangible factors that make her great as well:
When you go 39-0 that’s a resume builder…Some of us were thinking about DeWanna Bonner, but you know the specialness of Renee Montgomery, the fact that Geno Auriemma who’s had so many great players at Connecticut was so high on her and elevated her to the top of his list in terms of all-time favorite players [snap]…boy that just spoke to us a lot…
She’s one of those gals that in huddles in practice – you know when Jen is talking about this that or the other – she’s front and center. And she’s looking up at the coach. And she’s paying attention. You’ve got her full attention. And that sets a tone too. She’s an old soul and I think that speaks well of her and what she’s all about.
The whole package – the clutch performance, the personality, and the practice ethic – is what will probably make Montgomery great, in addition to being in a system that is coherent and structured enough to bring out the best in her. And a large amount of credit for that should go to Jennifer Gillom.
Jennifer Gillom is the clear frontrunner for Coach of the Year
Gillom has the Coach of the Year award all locked up as far as I’m concerned. Barring a complete collapse in which they lose the remainder of their games and miss the playoffs, she’s done a masterful job of keeping this team together when it had every reason to fall into utter chaos.
But she did something else last night that I love: she stuck with her talented rookie in the clutch and put her confidence in her. So often this season I’ve seen coaches pull “hot” rookies from a close game in favor of a veteran, likely thinking that the veteran savvy is necessary to win games. There is some logic to that.
However, there is also a stronger pedagogical logic to what Gillom has done with Montgomery – instilling confidence in her talented rookie by not only putting her in the game and giving her the opportunity to succeed, but also taking the time to actually design a play that maximizes her strengths and actually allows her to succeed. If this team is going to win games without Olympian Seimone Augustus, they are going to have to maximize the remainder of their talent. For Gillom, that started from the moment she took over the team, as Nicky Anosike, Charde Houston, and Roneeka Hodges are all improving and contributing their unique strengths to the team.
It’s those little things that separate the great coaches and organizations from the mediocre ones. This season, it’s separating the top teams in the conference from the fringe playoff teams. And it’s why sometimes, even as outsiders, we can make reasoned assessments of coaching.
Coaching is not just about x’s and o’s, it’s also fundamentally about inspiring people and finding ways to help them succeed. I can’t think of a coach who’s done a better job of that this year than Gillom, especially given these extremely trying circumstances.
Getting the best out of a young, talented team
There was a point in the overtime period when Gillom had Montgomery, Candice Wiggins, Charde Houston, and LaToya Pringle in the game for the Lynx. To win a close game with that many young players in down the stretch not only speaks to Gillom’s coaching ability, but also just how talented this team is…especially once Seimone Augustus comes back next season.
Add to that mix Nicky Anosike and Quanitra Hollingsworth and this team has the makings of a dynasty. Yes, they are making their share of mistakes. But they are not only learning how to play professional basketball and play as a coherent unit, but they’re learning how to play successful, winning basketball. That experience will go a long way to helping them become a great team in the future.
Crystal Langhorne and Charde Houston (in addition to Renee Montgomery) were actually major reasons I wanted to watch this game. Both are top candidates for the Most Improved Player award and both could also make legitimate claims to an all-star spot at their position.
Last season, Langhorne looked like an athletic, but awkward center who would be something of a long-term project. This season, she’s playing as though we were just sleeping on her. More impressive than her league-leading offensive rebounding prowess so far this year, is the array of offensive moves she’s added to her repertoire. She’s scoring off drives, with double post moves, and hitting contested shots in the paint. She almost looks like a different player.
Charde Houston seems to just have put it all together this season and become more consistent. And by consistent, I mean close to dominant. Although Nicky Anosike and Renee Montgomery have gotten the headlines for winning last night’s game, Houston deserves a large portion of the credit as she did a little bit of everything – scoring off drives, scoring from the perimeter, getting offensive rebounds. She is an extremely impressive player and if she continues to improve along with the rest of this Lynx core, they will be a force for years to come. The WNBA game is improving, even if it is struggling financially. I swear that just between this summer and last the talent level is increasing and as a result the games themselves are getting better and better. If there is any silver lining to contracting a team and shortening rosters it is that each team is probably more talented, player for player, than they’ve been in a long time.
It was my intent to post rookie rankings today, but after Montgomery’s performance last night and tonight’s upcoming match between the Chicago Sky (Kristi Toliver, Chen Nan) and the Phoenix Mercury (DeWanna Bonner), I decided to hold off and get one more look. Over the past few I’ve had a chance to see all the top rookies and have thoughts, but figured one more game of analysis wouldn’t hurt. Unfortunately, last night was the only time I’ve seen Marissa Coleman play, so I’ll have to wait until another time to give her a complete analysis. But I will say this – statistically, she might not be out of the running for Rookie of the Year.
Something mysterious happened this weekend that I am struggling to figure out:
I had no interest in Game 5 of the NBA Finals.
Perhaps it’s because I was just busy with other things this past weekend. Perhaps it’s just because the whole thing started to feel anti-climactic, but not necessarily inevitable. Perhaps it’s because I don’t particularly like watching arrogant people succeed (really, do we need more of that in the U.S. right now?).
I hope this does not make you think less of me as a basketball fan.
But in between procrastinating on work with fuzzy or distant deadlines, I spent some time reading the responses to Phil Jackson’s tenth championship and Kobe Bryant’s first without Shaquille O’Neal…as though we really needed to hear more of that storyline.
And yet, I somehow found something interesting to think about in WNBA terms.
The system will be useful on the offensive side. On Thursday, the goal of the trial run was to measure the velocity of passes and the precise distance of field goals. But the effect may be more prominent on the defensive end, where players are measured in a limited method that hardly stretches beyond blocks and steals.
The cameras attempt to break down how effective Mickael Pietrus is while guarding Kobe Bryant, and compare Derek Fisher’s defense with that of his backups, Jordan Farmar and Shannon Brown.
For those of us interested in analyzing defense statistically, this could be a huge advancement. So much more to reflect on and argue about. Fun all around.
But then I wondered why this isn’t being piloted in the WNBA. Which brings up a question that some of us come back to repeatedly – should the NBA see the WNBA as an opportunity to pilot new ideas that might improve the professional basketball experience?
I say yes.
If the NBA is serious about moving in this direction, why not invest in setting the system up in the WNBA’s NBA cities and working out the kinks? It would seem to do two things – a) see if the system works and b) give basketball enthusiasts another reason – albeit perhaps superficial – to pay attention to the WNBA.
Jayda Evans opened her blog today by writing that the WNBA is moving at "a ho-hum pace" in a time in which ho-hum is simply not enough to generate buzz for a relatively new league. But what if the WNBA was at the cutting edge of how we watch and think about basketball in addition to providing women the opportunity to play ball professionally in the U.S.?
Might not work, but I wonder if that was ever discussed as a potential idea.
Transition Points:
Note on the Finals: I still think the notion that either Shaq or Kobe has won a title “alone” is somewhat absurd – Shaq won “alone” with Dwyane Wade and a host of other talented though aging veteran players and Kobe won “alone” with Pau Gasol and one of the most talented rosters top to bottom that we’ve seen in a while. Both Wade and Gasol are locks for the Hall of Fame as far as I’m concerned…so hopefully the mainstream media will soon dispense of this story. Win “alone” with Maurice Williams and then maybe the conversation will have some merit… Continue reading...
After building anticipation for something major over the weekend, the WNBA announced yesterday that the Phoenix Mercury will be allowing Lifelock to use their jerseys as human billboards.
The Fanster Phoenix Mercury community blog invited a few of us WNBA bloggers to chime in on a roundtable discussion about the issue along with Kevin Pelton (Seattle Storm/Basketball Prospectus), Greg Esposito (Fanster.com), Alex Chambers (13 Teams, 1 Journey), and Fat Louie (Women's Sports Blog). I enjoyed reading their opinions and recommend taking a look.
The rough consensus: it's a business.
Or maybe that's just what I thought...
I think Pelton makes the best point when he wrote, "In time, however, this is sure to blow over."
I totally agree -- there's a long history of corporate intervention in sport and this is really no different. I'd prefer to have the WNBA around for the long haul than disappear because of fear of taking corporate money. After a while, it would be a waste of time to complain about this.
Sad, I know... but let's get real: cash rules everything around pro sports. Period. Continue reading...
Paying to see a WNBA pre-season game seems like a completely irrational choice compared to the alternative of sitting at home (or a bar) to watch Game 2 of the NBA’s Western Conference Finals.
Yet, I suppose the fact that I went to the Seattle Storm’s pre-season opener against the Sacramento Monarchs demonstrates how eager I am for the WNBA season to get started.
I have been to WNBA games in Key Arena before and the energy has always been high. So I was really curious to see what it would be like in this pre-season opener after a long, dark, rainy Seattle off-season (it had been gray and rainy earlier this week…and it’s May). But even though the crowd was relatively small at just under 5,000 people -- many of them kids – they more than made up for it with their energy. At times I couldn’t believe it was just a pre-season game. It was a great place to be overall…but more on that later.
Given the atmosphere, any hope of maintaining an analytical lens for this meaningless game was quickly tossed out the window.
I hadn’t really caught up on any media day information anyway so I went to the game not really knowing the state of either team. I figured I would just go and see what caught my attention. After all, it’s a pre-season game – teams are shaking off the rust, coaches are still evaluating players, and players are still learning how to play with each other in the team concept. Despite those factors, there are a few notes worth pointing out.
The first thing that struck me was the play of Ticha Penicheiro, but that’s to be expected from one of the all-time greats. Even though she is nearing the end of her career, her presence is felt every time she’s on the court. She appears to have total command of the game at every moment she’s on the court. She is one of the most decisive basketball players I’ve ever watched – male or female. And it’s an especially noticeable difference when her play is compared to that of the other point guards in the game who are unmistakably no more than back-up players, if not destined to be cut. I could go on...
But what really stood out for me was the play of the young post players in the game – Ashley Walker, Courtney Paris, Crystal Kelly. Kelly was someone who caught my attention during her rookie campaign last season as an extremely efficient post player. Paris is obviously a much more highly touted rookie who I actually saw play in person a few years back when Oklahoma played the University of San Francisco. I had never seen Ashley Walker play but heard good things about her career at the University of California – Berkeley.
But why is this so significant to me? When I first tried to watch the WNBA back in the 1990’s one of the biggest critiques my dorm-mates and I had about the league was the lack of quality post play – compared to the NBA, it was rare to see players bang and fight for rebounds or establish position and pull off a drop step in the post to score on their opponent.
Watching now over a decade later, the improved post play is one of the most striking elements of the game. It’s possible that I’m just off base on this point, but it just seems like the post game is definitely evolving and part of that is likely the increasing visibility of the professional game over the last decade.
I find that analyzing post players is always easier to witness live than through the narrow lens of the television or computer screen, so it was great to get a chance to see these players up close.
Of course, this was only a pre-season game so it’s hard to make any broad claims about these young players. So I’m really going to rely on my subjective observations rather than the less subjective statistics. And overall, I think both teams have reason to be hopeful about their post players.
Crystal Kelly: Building on a solid rookie campaign
What impressed me most about Crystal Kelly last year was her instincts. Despite limited minutes and a shifting role on the team, she could just jump into the game and figure out how to rebound, get to the free throw line or score easy baskets. It’s not really something you see very often from rookies. With a year of experience under her belt and a full pre-season to work with her teammates, I would definitely expect her to become an even more efficient player throughout this season.
Really, last night was more of the same from Kelly. She sees the game extremely well. She does an excellent job of finding spaces in the defense and getting there as quickly as possible. When she gets the ball, there are few young players as decisive as she is in either attempting to score or passing the ball and finding herself another opportunity. She does not waste motion at all in moving around the court – in a way she embodies the old mantra be quick, not in a hurry.
However, as usual Kelly does these little things so quietly from play to play that it’s easy for her to go unnoticed, especially in a pre-season game when the point guard play and overall team ball movement are still suspect. It will be interesting to see how she does this season as she gets a better grasp of the team’s offense and her teammates get used to her.
Courtney Paris: Shall we believe the hype?
Sure, you may look at Paris’ line of two points, five rebounds, and one block and think, uh-oh, she’s not ready.
I would instead urge patience.
Let's put this in perspective: it was only her first game so I think the strengths that she demonstrated are actually more impressive than her weakness are disheartening.
Paris will clearly be a good rebounder for the Monarchs from the start. She’s got a big body, she’s not afraid to bang, and she is probably tough enough to fight with almost anyone in the league for rebounds.
That toughness she displays when fighting for rebounds is exactly what will help her offensively as well.
There was one play in particular in the first half where she literally came down the middle of the court, threw her forearms into the chest of her defender in stride, made a quick pivot, and established pretty good position on the block. She’s not afraid of contact and that’s a great sign for a young player. The problem comes after she touches the ball.
First of all, while she is tough and big, it seems that she’s not used to the strength of professional players. She’s going to have to adjust to the fact that she will feel more resistance from WNBA players than she did at Oklahoma. There were times in the second half where Kasha Terry – about 55 pounds lighter than Paris – was able to hold her position pretty well against Paris.
Second, once she got the ball in the post, she was rushing her moves. When her initial move was stopped, she wasn’t really able to recover and transition into a second move. Part of the trouble was that the Storm were doubling occasionally after Paris put the ball on the floor the first time. Since she went into her move so quickly, she wasn’t able to anticipate that double, got stuck, and had to make a frantic pass out of the post or take a poor shot. With a little more patience in the post, I imagine her footwork and hard-nosed play will allow her to become a much more effective post scorer.
Lastly, I think it’s important to note that these two things – strength and patience – are things that young post players always have to work out when they make the leap to the next level. After she adjusts to the opponents, adjusts to the offense, and figures out her role on the team I think she’ll be fine.
I think it will be interesting to see how Kelly and Paris fit into the Monarchs rotation. Both seem to have immense potential on an aging team. If they can continue to develop, they should have a very nice frontcourt duo for the future.
Ashley Walker: "A nose for the ball"
I had never seen Walker play before last night…but wow -- it's hard to miss her once she steps on the court.
She’s all over the court, wherever the ball is. Really, I could not even tell what position she was playing at times as she would be in the post fighting for rebounds on one play and then out guarding Hamchétou Maïga-Ba on the next play. Regardless, she just seemed to be making plays.
Yeah you see those types of players, those very good rebounders. Those are natural things you don’t teach a lot of that…that’s just a natural nose for the ball. You’ve heard that term a lot. You know those people just for whatever reason have it. They anticipate well, they sort of see what’s going to happen before it happens and just have the ability to make plays.
Really, she has very similar instincts to what I would ascribe to Crystal Kelly. The big difference is Walker really fights for boards in the post. She got three offensive rebounds simply as a result of out working her opponent and being in the right place at the right time.
She is probably a more versatile scorer than Paris or Kelly in that she seems to be able to do more with the ball in her hands, but like Paris, it seemed like she is still adjusting to the changing competition. I don’t recall her pulling off a strong post move, but she more than makes up for that by being able to hit short jumpers and create second chance opportunities.
Walker has a chance to be a real force in the WNBA. She’s tough, strong, and clearly has great instincts. She had some defensive lapses, but that was because she was guarding players clearly faster than her out on the perimeter, which is clearly not her strength at this time in her career. It will be interesting to see how she’s integrated into the offense long-term with the return of Lauren Jackson and the solid play of Ashley Robinson and Camille Little.
I think Walker is on her way to distinguishing herself on a solid Storm team.
An amazing atmosphere
Despite solid play from these three post players, the most striking thing about this game was the atmosphere, which I alluded to at the beginning of this post.
I was talking to a jazz musician the other day about the power of hearing live music – how it adds another layer to the music when you can watch the coordination of the artists, their emotions expressed through body language, and the energy that is put into making each note. It’s a value added to the listening experience that cannot be reconstructed with a studio recording.
Attending a live professional basketball game is similar to me (though not directly analogous) and part of that is because of the crowd – that energy cannot be recreated sitting at home.
For example, during one sequence in the third quarter, Ashley Robinson grabbed an offensive rebound and quickly put the ball back in with a short running bank shot. Then on the ensuing defensive possession, Robinson blocked a shot and the crowd just went nuts – you would have thought it was a mid-season game of some consequence.
To be sure, I imagine this is not too dissimilar to the pre-season in any sport – you have to be a special kind of rabid to shell out hard earned dollars to watch teams work out their bench players’ kinks. However, what’s unique about the WNBA environment is that it feels more like a community in the building.
When Robinson made those plays, people weren’t just yelling drunken cheers or turning to their neighbor and saying, “Wow, that Robinson sure can play.” The whole game they were not only calling players by their first name, but they were just shouting out words of encouragement as though they knew these people. I suppose it’s hard to describe in comparison to a NBA game or a college basketball game, but it definitely has its own unique feel; a friendlier, more positive atmosphere.
But what really got me was a moment near the end of the game.
I was writing down some final thoughts with about a minute to go when everyone started standing up. The game was pretty much over, not to mention the fact that it was meaningless to begin with. I had already checked out mentally and sort of got lost in my own thoughts about the game.
Then a boy in front of me – no older than six – with the most adorable big brown eyes and wavy brown hair stands up and looks over to his mom who had been quite motionless and disengaged for most of the game. He looks back at me as I’m jotting down a few more notes and I catch his gaze but quickly look back down and keep writing.
For some reason I looked back at the kid a few moments later and see him grinning. I sort of grin back and he starts smiling at me expectantly while widening his eyes, sort of begging me to stand up. I laugh, put my pad down and stand up with just about every other able-bodied person in the building.
At that point, he taps his mom on the shoulder and motions back to me as if to say, hey, if that dork taking notes all game is standing, so should you! She sighs and stands and he looks back at me with the most contented smile.
Now perhaps I’m just a sucker for a story like that because I used to be an elementary school teacher and I just think the innocence of childhood is among the best things humanity has to offer. But it was just amazing to me that this kid almost didn’t even care about the time and score, which is what we’re all coached to focus on during a close game. This kid was just completely lost in the moment and expected everyone else to join in with him. When the buzzer sounded the crowd gave the team a standing ovation and the kid looked back at me on his way out, still with that big smile.
Those moments don’t seem to come along very often and when they do, I absolutely treasure them. And there is something about the WNBA atmosphere that just cultivates this amazing spirit when you’re in the arena. I have no idea what it is – normally at sports games I’ve identified about three dudes I would fight (if I was a little bit taller…and bigger) by the fourth quarter. Something else was going on there in that pre-season WNBA game in the last minute. Something special. (Edited for grammar and flow: 5/25/09)
It’s a shame players are going to have to get cut. When Kimberly Beck went down in the third quarter, my first thought was my lord, I hope she doesn’t get cut due to injury. When she did re-enter the game, it was great to hear the crowd applaud her.
There’s often an assumption that male WNBA fans attend games either with female partners or daughters, but it was great to see the large number of fathers with sons out at the game tonight as well. These players aren’t just role models for girls -- honestly if I wanted a son to learn the game of basketball, I’d be more likely to take him to a WNBA game than NBA game. That’s a personal choice and really a false dichotomy anyway since they’re played at different times…but you get the point… My logic for skipping the NBA playoffs last night was that I’d have at least two more chances to watch two teams I despise compete for a trip to the NBA Finals. I honestly don’t care who wins and every clutch shot Derek Fisher makes just makes me cringe (I’m an authentic Bay Area Laker Hater ever since they traded Eddie Jones back in 1999). Now that the Lakers lost, I have three more chances to catch that series. Double sweet.
Full disclosure: yesterday's post about how SBNation.com could influence women's sports coverage (and probably the post before that) was foreshadowing some exciting news.
