Point Guard Rankings (New & Improved!): Harding, Quinn Recovering Nicely from Minnesota Sophomore Slumps

When the Washington Mystics face the Los Angeles Sparks tonight in Los Angeles it will include a match-up of two former Minnesota Lynx point guard teammates who are enjoying career years in their third season on new teams.

Last year, Mystics point guard Lindsey Harding and Sparks point guard Noelle Quinn split point guard duties in Minnesota and both experienced drop-offs in production from their rookie year in 2007. Both were among the worst shooters at the point guard position and both seemed to struggle coming up with consistent performances on the Lynx.

So perhaps sometimes a change of scenery is all that is needed.

Clearly, the similarities between these players only exists at the broadest level of analysis – not only are they very different types of point guards, but by any reasonable standard, Harding is by far the better player. Harding was a strong Rookie of the Year candidate in 2007 and a fringe All-Star this year.

Harding’s numbers are up across the board and combined with the athleticism that was previously limited due to injury – one commentator recently said it looks like she’s on ice skates on the fast break compared to everyone else – she has arguably been the best point guard in the East.

In contrast, Quinn is on the opposite end of the point guard spectrum. She has typically been the most basic of point guards, one that merely gets the ball over half court and initiates the offense.

But this season, Quinn has been much more than that for the point guard-starved Sparks. She has come up huge in fourth quarters (and overtimes) for the Sparks attacking the rim and loosening up defenses to give her four Olympian teammates room to operate.

Quinn is definitely not having an All-Star caliber season, definitely not the leader of her team, and she isn’t starting. But she has a role on the Sparks and she has fit it well.

Not too long after the Los Angeles Sparks traded for point guard Noelle Quinn, I asked the following question:

Which Noelle Quinn will the Sparks get – the one that was a rather efficient distributor in 2007 or the one that was a marginal initiator in 2008?

My thinking was that the Sparks were a great fit for Quinn because she would be able to fill a role that matches her capabilities and wouldn’t be expected to do anything beyond that given the number of talented players around her.

Really, that line of reasoning applies to both Quinn and Harding – Harding is playing a system and under a coach that seem to maximize her capabilities.

Honestly, Harding's whole mindset seems to have changed this year – last year she appeared to be much more focused on her own scoring -- and while it’s hard to account for that, it’s obvious that the 2009 Mystics are a much better fit for her than the 2008 Lynx.

Ultimately, when evaluating point guards it’s helpful to consider the context – what the player has demonstrated they are capable of and what role they fit on a team. If being a point guard is more than just creating assists, but making decisions that make teammates better and helping the team win, then the structure within which those decisions occur is important.

So these latest point guard rankings – my ongoing obsession – are an attempt to do all of that: evaluate decision making within the roles players fill, and how much they’re able to contribute to their teams. Coincidentally, it was Harding and Quinn that gave me the hardest time in the process.

Moving beyond the statistics…but keeping them close to my heart…

In my past rankings, I’ve just taken the critical statistical categories, ranked each point guard (and others who fill the lead guard role) and just added up the points.

However, that seemed to contradict my argument about point guard styles – if each player is different, then how could I possibly argue that I could judge them on one blanket standard?

For example, I fully admit that comparing Phoenix Mercury guard Temeka Johnson’s assist rate – the percentage of plays she makes that end in an assist – to Seattle Storm guard Sue Bird’s assist rate is unfair.

Bird is a point guard that also assumes a large portion of the Storm’s scoring burden and that’s because she is the better shooter and craftier scorer. Therefore, Johnson’s plays end in assists more often simply because she’s not asked to do other things as much.

But that’s hardly a knock on Johnson or a claim that she should do more. It’s just an argument that most knowledgeable sports fans are already familiar with: the numbers describe a fragment of the story, but don’t necessarily explain the entire story.

So what is to be done?

Bob Corwin of Full Court Press suggested I weight numbers. However, that still assumes that some point guard traits are more valuable than others, which I don’t think is always true. As Bird said in response to the suggestion that she is the best point guard in the world, part of being a good point guard is understanding “what’s needed and when”.

However, that does provide some guidance – it is fair to say that some styles of point guard objectively do more than others, not just do things differently.

Last week I revisited the point guard styles I created last year defining five types of point guard – initiator, distributor, facilitator, scorer, and combo guard. And if you look at how I defined those there is a clear hierarchy although each one of those styles can be effective within the right system.

For example, having a player that can create scoring opportunities for others is probably objectively a more skilled player than one whose limit is bringing the ball across half-court and initiating the offense. And I can also say that a player who’s able to balance scoring and creating for others is better than almost any other type of point guard.

So by looking at a) the relative quality of each point guard within their style, b) comparing players across styles, and c) looking at the influence of each player on the game given their style, I think I can find a more reasonable way to rank point guards.

So which players fit which styles? And then what?

I fit players into styles and ranked them based on four criteria:

1) Using the point guard styles framework described last week to categorize the league’s point guards and rank them based on their relative ability within those styles.

2) Using the previous framework for evaluating point guards – which evaluated players on the ability to distribute, score, and impact the game – as it applies to their style. So for example, in looking at distributors, I evaluated them primarily on their distributor statistics whereas I looked more at scoring statistics to rank scorers…and for combo guards I looked at both. I looked at their game impact of each style.

3) Using a standard that I drew from the rookie evaluation framework – a player’s ability to make plays (usage %) for their team efficiently (Chaiken scoring efficiency) while contributing to wins (Boxscores).

4) Defense: it matters. So I took that into account using a combination of observation and some numbers I’ve been playing with.

Yes, this is not exactly an example of statistical parsimony, but the constellation of statistics helps to describe overarching patterns in a player’s game and make arguments about why one player is better than another. In addition, there’s a much more subjective quality this time – I am looking at what the statistics describe and making judgments rather than allowing the numbers to explain themselves.

And another change – although I think players like Jia Perkins, Cappie Pondexter, and Tanisha Wright are very effective lead guards, the reality is that they are not usually the primary ball handlers when they are on the court. So I decided not to include them in the rankings, though all three of them compare very favorably to the players below, which is a testament to their quality as players.

So don’t fear math phobes – I actually did not rely entirely on the statistics to make my arguments. It’s just a way to complement my own observations/biases and describe each point guard’s play in terms that allow for comparisons.

The Rankings:

10. Noelle Quinn, Los Angeles Sparks – Initiator: Trust me this one strikes me as odd too. But the fact is, Quinn is having the best season of any initiator in the league. And when you compare her impact on the game to the lower tier of distributors or even combo guards who just don’t do anything particularly well, it’s easy to make the argument for her in this spot.

Quinn has emerged as a strong fourth quarter scorer for the Sparks recently, but overall she is more of an initiator who brings the ball up and passes it off. While her Sparks teammates are a large part of that, she actually fell in the initator category last year.

What sets her apart from the rest of the players in my mind are two things: scoring efficiency and defense. Quinn has the best two point percentage of the group and among the best efficiency ratios of the entire league.

9. Ticha Penicheiro, Sacramento Monarchs -- Distributor: She’s arguably the best point guard in WNBA history. And it’s hard not to include Penicheiro on the list even though her career is on the decline and I have to admit a major reason she’s here is that I’m biased: she’s the first WNBA player I ever saw play in person and I fell in love with her game.

However, as a distributor she’s still performing well and has one of the highest pure point ratings of any point guard. But what makes Penicheiro especially valuable as a distributor is that she is still one of the best ball handlers in the league and has the ability to penetrate and find open teammates. Her free throw rate is among the top third of the league and is by far the best of any other point guard that fits the distributor category.

8. Kristi Harrower, Los Angeles Sparks – Distributor: I know Sparks fans are not particularly fond of Harrower, but she’s really having a solid year in terms of distributing the ball from the point guard position.

The key to Harrower’s game is that she’s efficient – she doesn’t take a whole lot of risks (she has the second lowest turnover percentage among point guards) and makes solid decisions with the ball (highest pure point rating in the WNBA).

She is not the quickest, the best ball-handler, or the greatest defender. But in terms of a player who is able to bring the ball up the court and find players open for scoring opportunities she’s solid. And a team like the Sparks – which is already overflowing with talent – does not need a whole lot more than that.

If you were picking players based on reputation or overall talent, you might take Penicheiro over Harrower. However if you’re judging Harrower on performance within the Sparks system this season, there are not many point guards having a better season.

7. Loree Moore, New York Liberty – Distributor: Moore is not a player that immediately jumps to mind when I think about the league’s best point guards, but she’s having a solid year, on both ends of the ball. I’ll borrow a comment from Liberty forward Shameeka Christon from after their recent victory over the Sparks:

"Loree Moore was the difference in the second half for us,'' Christon said. "She pushed the ball for us in transition which led to easy baskets which we needed. She was also everywhere on defense. She stepped up big for us.''

She is one of the better defensive point guards in the league and that means that she is not only facilitating offense for her teammates, but also disrupting the offense for opponents. She does a little bit of everything, but seems to disappear for long stretches of time. And unfortunately, her high turnover percentage limit her effectiveness as a distributor.

6. Tully Bevilaqua, Indiana Fever – Distributor: Bevilaqua was not even supposed to be the starter for the Fever this season but has ended up having one of the best seasons of any point guard in the league. She is still one of the best defenders at the position, if for no other reason due to the effort she puts into just bothering opposing ball handlers, and she is extremely decisive with the ball and almost always seems to make the right decision at the right time.

In addition to having one of the lowest turnover percentages of any point guard, she also has among the highest scoring efficiency ratio. Which means that even though she does not take a whole lot of shots, when she does she is selecting opportunities that result in points for her team as well as any other point guard.

5. Temeka Johnson, Phoenix Mercury – Distributor: Although Johnson has among the best assist ratios and pure point ratings of any point guard, she is actually not the best of this group. What sets her apart is her game impact – she has among the highest plus/minus ratings of any point guard in addition to the highest Boxscore rating of this group. And that pretty much reflects what you might expect based on observation – Johnson makes excellent decisions and has been an essential part of the Mercury’s success this season.

She dropped a little from the last rankings I made because her numbers have leveled out as the season has worn on, but she is still by far the best point guard of her type in terms of getting the ball in the hands of her teammates within the flow of the offense.

4. Sue Bird, Seattle Storm -- Facilitator: So if saying that Sun point guard Lindsay Whalen is better than Bird doesn’t get me run out of Seattle, putting her fourth among all WNBA point guards might.

Again, the issue is Bird’s talent, but her performance this season. She disappears for long stretches of time and as I described previously, she shoots a large number of jumpers at a very low percentage. As a result, her impact on the game can be limited, despite single-handedly winning games at times. Although Storm fans would probably not agree, all three of the point guards listed ahead of Bird on this list are having demonstrably better seasons than Bird.

3. Lindsey Harding, Washington Mystics – Combo guard: So here’s the justification of Harding over Bird: Harding has been both an efficient scorer and distributor as well as being arguably the better defender. And the thing that really sets Harding apart from Bird this season is that Harding goes aggressively to the basket – she has among the highest 2 point percentages of any point guard and a much higher free throw rate than Bird. In other words, Harding does a very good job of creating easy scoring opportunities for herself both from the field and from the free throw line, hence allowing her to do more for her team.

So the argument for Harding this season is simply that she brings more to the court overall as a point guard…and perhaps is able to do so more consistently.

2. Lindsay Whalen, Connecticut Sun – Combo guard: I made my argument in favor of Whalen the other day and stand by it. But what separates her from Harding? On the offensive side of the ball, there really is not much that Harding does that Whalen does not do better, with the exception of a small advantage for Harding in terms of 2 point percentage. The argument in favor of Harding is that she has one of the best plus/minus ratings in the WNBA and she is probably the better on ball defender. But its hard to find much beyond that.

Based on observation, it’s harder to think of a point guard who sees angles and is able to creatively use those angles better than Whalen right now (a few years ago, the answer would have been Penicheiro). And she uses that ability to draw fouls and get herself to the free throw line if she doesn’t finish with an array of creative shots. And while she is not a great defender, she has the instincts to play the passing lanes and play pretty good help defense.

It’s hard not to argue that Whalen is the best “traditional” point guard in the game right now.

1. Becky Hammon, San Antonio Silver Stars – Scoring point guard: So last week I wondered aloud if Hammon was the best point guard in the league this season and after watching all the other top point guards, I came to the conclusion that she definitely is.

Here’s why – she’s a weapon on the court from the point guard position that is almost impossible to stop right now. She is by far the best overall player playing the position by a long shot – she is the only point guard who is among the league’s best in terms of the ability to make plays (usage %) for her team efficiently (Chaiken scoring efficiency) while making a large individual contribution to the team’s wins (Boxscores).

It goes right back to the quote from Bird – no point guard in the league is better at understanding what’s needed and win and getting it done.

If she’s not scoring, she’s setting up others. If her team needs her to score, she can do that from anywhere on the court at a high percentage. And moreso than any other player in the league right now, Hammon is able to create plays for herself and others seemingly out of nothing.

People can try to dismiss her as “just a scorer” but ultimately, her abilities as a distributor are comparable to most of the players on this list and her decision making with the ball in her hands is arguably the best in the league.

Transition Points:

• Obviously, I use some statistics to support and complement observational evidence...but I'm hardly a statistician. In fact, I hated math for most of my life. And even as a self-proclaimed, lifelong math-phobe, Kathy Goodman's LA Times blog last week entitled, "Basketball is Not Math" (but somehow it *is* chemistry, physics, and maybe psychology) was hardly moving.
  
  Rather than dissect it, I thought I would redirect to a more nuanced and less myopic approach to the same subject by Shoals at the Baseline. Shoals clearly has a bone to pick with Berri, but he makes a solid argument. To summarize his argument: statistics are fine as long as they are placed in context and based upon common sense assumption. Out of context and devoid of common sense, statistics are completely pointless. Taking an anti-statistics position is silly unless you want to also claim that your observations are honed to perfection...and if that's so, more power to you. All the numbers do is allow us to see trends and make comparisons that are very difficult to make otherwise...and if you care about make substantive arguments with some nuance, yes stats help.
  
  I am not as anti-Berri as Shoals is because honestly, I think the premise of many of Berri's arguments is solid -- our observations are often based on completely arbitrary assumptions about the game that really don't reflect the things that every coach knows lead to victory. But ultimately, both the "Basketball is not math" and the "Basketball is econometrics" arguments are misguided and incomplete.

• Speaking of finding middle grounds, you may notice that despite my defense of Shalee Lehning last week, she was not in my top 10 here. There are a few reasons why she didn't make it, but I want to reiterate my point: it's not that Lehning is great, it's that she's not nearly as bad as people assume at what she does well...which is of course running the offense and getting the ball to scorers.
  For the record, she classified as a "distributor", which means she does more than just bring the ball upcourt -- she finds ways to get it to players in scoring position. Never an all-star, but she has a career in his league likely as a strong back-up.
  

• After pilight compared Becky Hammon to Allen Iverson last week, I got an email from a Lynx fan I consider rather knowledgeable who suggested that Renee Montgomery is more like Iverson -- right now, she is a score first player, who has a great handle, gets to the line but is the worst distributor of any WNBA point guard right now. As a side note, the Iverson we most remember was not actually a point guard at all but an off-guard; Eric Snow ran point. And it's no coincidence that it's when Iverson was at his most effective.

• If I were to add players like Pondexter, Perkins, or Wright to these rankings, Pondexter could be labeled the best "lead guard" in the league. And I'd probably have Perkins in my top five. And really, the number of non-point guard lead guards in the WNBA is one of the league's biggest selling points in my mind. It makes for an even more fluid and dynamic game of basketball.

• Speaking of which -- will Kristin Haynie really be a better option at point guard for the Sacramento Monarchs than Kara Lawson has been? I'm not sure I see how...but then again, she hasn't really played enough this season to make an assessment. And trading forward Crystal Kelly to Detroit for Haynie strikes me as a very bad move. Whatever happened to player development?

Continue reading...

Rookie Rankings: Can Anyone Dream of Catching DeWanna Bonner?

I started to write a rookie rankings post and ended up writing a long post about my thoughts on Atlanta Dream point guard Shalee Lehning.

To summarize the previous post, I found it curious that she was not listed in the latest rookie rankings on WNBA.com at all given that she’s a starter on a playoff caliber team that recently won four games in a row.

Tough crowd, I guess.

However, I have a hard time not putting her among the top ten rookies.

Washington forward Marissa Coleman has not played particularly well since returning from injury.

Chicago Sky guard Kristi Toliver is glued to the bench.

And it’s hard to establish that a player like Connecticut Sun center Chante Black is actually having a bigger impact on her team than Lehning (Black was once a starter for the Sun, but no longer with the return of center Sandrine Gruda).

If you judge rookies on…

a) what they do well,
b) their ability to make things happen when they are on the court, and
c) their ability to contribute to their team’s success in their first season.

…then how can a player starting at point guard be left out?

So as you may have guessed, Lehning is among my top ten rookies, using the same evaluation framework I used for my past rookie rankings. Of course, it's a guide to identify players, not a rigid determinant of who's best.

And you are also safe in assuming that DeWanna Bonner still leads my rookie rankings.

So where does everyone else fall?

1. DeWanna Bonner: Duh. Shouldn’t take much explanation.

It's basically more of the same – there are currently 14 players in the league who are ranked among the top 50 in Boxscores (a player’s individual contribution to team success), usage rate (how well a player is able to create scoring opportunities while on the floor), and scoring efficiency ratio (the ratio of a player’s scoring plays to all non-scoring plays as defined by turnovers and missed shots).

The only other people in that company are MVP candidates and All-Stars…and…

2. Angel McCoughtry: the Rookie of the Month for July is still the most talented rookie of this class, although Bonner’s situation has allowed her to outperform McCoughtry.

Like Bonner, McCoughtry has demonstrated the ability to make things happen with the ball in her hands…and on the defensive end as well. She might become one of the best all-around players in the WNBA as her game matures. You can’t help but see the ability when you watch her game – she can get shots off the dribble, drive to the basket, and draw contact. She can pass the ball and is going to become a very good on ball defender.

Her one glaring weakness is rebounding and it will be interesting to see if she improves on that over the course of her career.

3. Renee Montgomery: As mentioned in the previous post in comparison to Shalee Lehning, Montgomery is not quite the distributor many people want to see from a point guard, but she is a very efficient scorer.

In what could have been a tumultuous season with the coach resigning and forward Seimone Augustus going down to injury early, Montgomery has managed to contribute to the team’s success in key moments. She is about average in terms of the metrics used above to judge Bonner and McCoughtry, but is among the top guards in the league in terms of 2 point percentage.

And her ball handling ability, court sense, and ability to get to the basket for easy scoring opportunities make her easily one of the most impressive rookies of this season. In addition, she is a very solid defender, using her athleticism well to guard players on the ball.

4. Shavonte Zellous: It’s a tough call between Montgomery and Zellous, but I went with Montgomery because she is starting on a team that has been in the thick of the playoff hunt this season at one of the toughest positions in sports. But by the same standard as Bonner and McCoughtry above, Zellous is the next most impressive rookie.

While her team has not performed quite as well, making it difficult to argue she’s contributing as much to team success, she is still among the best in the league at getting herself to the free throw line, creating scoring opportunities for herself, and doing it with high efficiency relative to the league.

As an undersized guard, it would help her to distribute the ball a little more effectively (her assist rate is in the bottom 50 of the league) and shoot a better 2 point percentage (currently 38.84%), but she has otherwise been a very impressive performer this year.

But most importantly, Zellous is the best perimeter defender of anyone of the rookie group. She uses her quickness to create problems for opponents and does a pretty good job of help defense.

5. Courtney Paris: With more playing time, Paris has demonstrated that she can contribute quite a bit to a WNBA roster. She is the second most efficient scorer in the league behind Storm forward Lauren Jackson and has consistently had among the league’s best rebounding rates.

As she continues to adjust to the WNBA game – particularly developing her post moves against WNBA defenders – I would expect her to be even more effective.

6. Anete Jekabsone-Zogota: I have not seen her play a whole lot and she only started playing well recently, but lately, she is easily among the best rookies of this bunch. In her case, it’s not that she does one particular thing well but that she does a little bit of everything. She is already becoming an outstanding all-around player for the Connecticut Sun.

The “lately” qualifier makes it somewhat difficult for me to rank her…but if she can keep this up for the remainder of the season, she’ll end up vaulting ahead at least three of the rookies ahead of her who have been rather inconsistent themselves.

7. Briann January: I happen to like her game, think she has great court vision, and she looks extremely comfortable on the court. The only thing holding January back is that she is not a very efficient scorer right now. However, as a point guard, she’s contributing quite a bit to the Indiana Fever backing up Tully Bevilaqua and that should count for something. It’s also worth noting that she is a solid perimeter defender on a team that relies heavily on defense. The fact that her defense is notable makes her an even stronger player.

8. Megan Frazee: Frazee, very similar to Sacramento Monarchs forward Crystal Kelly last year, is just very often in the right position at the right time to make plays, both on offense and defense. It makes her a valuable asset to a very good San Antonio Silver Stars team.

She’s decisive when she gets the ball and shoots with range. Storm coach Brian Agler once noted that she’s more of a perimeter player right now than an interior player, but when the Storm attempted to put forward Katie Geralds on her on August 1st in Key Arena, she went right to the post and worked Geralds inside. She’s emerging as a solid rotation forward for a team with an embarrassment of riches at the position.

9. Shalee Lehning: Extended thoughts on Lehning are posted here.

And as I stated in that previous post about Lehning, I’m not saying she’s the top rookie or even the best at her position, but you’d have a really hard time naming a rookie that has actually consistently performed better than her this season...because there are not that many rookies even starting for their teams.

10. Quanitra Hollingsworth: If I continue to base my evaluations on the rookie evaluation framework I’ve used above, Hollingsworth is the next best rookie. And it’s close between her, Chante Black, and Marissa Coleman. So what is the deciding factor?

Hollingsworth is among the best offensive rebounders in the league in terms of the percentage of rebounds she gets while she’s on the floor. Offensive rebounding is an extremely valuable asset and the demonstrated ability to do that means she is able to extend possessions for the links and put herself in position for easy baskets.

That ability as well as an average 2 point percentage (44.59%) make Hollingsworth my choice for #10 over some other very worthy players. By the way, another player who flew under the radar last year as a limited offensive rebounder but ended up emerging in her second season: Crystal Langhorne.

Transition Points:

For more about how I went about doing these rankings, please see the Rookie Ranking Framework here.

Kristi Toliver is in the unfortunate situation where she has had neither consistent playing time nor a consistent role on the team.

In terms of performance, she has not had a very good rookie campaign. Yet although I've been quite lukewarm on her for most of the season, she has demonstrated the talent to be an effective player. Hopefully she'll eventually get that opportunity that she's waiting to seize.

Continue reading...

WNBA Midseason Awards & Review: Liberty Struggling…and Anosike for MVP?

Late in the fourth quarter of the New York Liberty’s loss to the Phoenix Mercury on Sunday, I heard a little song on the web cast that I assume was also played in the arena.

The line that grabbed my attention was one that seemed to perfectly capture why I liked the Liberty so much last year.

Our team is built to win. Everybody pitches in. The Liberty – United We Play.

If you read this blog last year, you may remember that the Liberty were an early favorite of mine. Leilani Mitchell’s amazingly efficient point guard play caught my eye, I vaguely recalled Janel McCarville from her NCAA tournament run with Lindsay Whalen at the University of Minnesota, and they appeared to be a well-rounded team. But most of all, I liked the fact that they seemed to play so well as a unit. An excerpt from something I wrote last year:

It’s the intangibles, the little things that won’t show up in the box score and are difficult to describe. They’re tough and they play with heart. Their seemingly endless rotation allows them to play with great energy (usually). Of all the teams in the WNBA, they seem to have the strongest collective personality.

But what I like most about them is that they seem to have a nothing-to-lose swagger. Not much was expected of them at the beginning of the season – while they were expected to make the playoffs, nobody really expected them to make much noise in the playoffs. So in a way, they are the WNBA’s consummate underdog.

Watching them on Sunday, I couldn’t believe that I was even watching essentially the same team.

It’s not that they played terribly on Sunday…they just didn’t play particularly well. And to stick with the theme, it didn’t really look like they’re playing very united this year.

So what’s wrong?

I compared their Four Factors numbers for this year and last year. Contrary to what I might have thought, their assisted field goal percentage is not that much different than what they ended with and they have about the same relative position (7th) as they did last year.

However, the one number that really stood out was their offensive rebounding percentage. It is way down from last year. But I’ll spare you the esoteric numbers and just go with what’s listed at WNBA.com – the Liberty are currently last in the WNBA in rebounding differential with a differential of -5.81 per game. At the end of last year, they were at -2.1, which is not much better, but wasn’t exactly league worst.

The other number that stood out was free throw rate, which is the rate at which they get to the free throw line. This number is partially an estimate of a team’s aggressiveness as the theory goes that getting to the foul line often probably means that you’re putting enough pressure on the defense to draw fouls.

Although the Liberty are shooting very well from the free throw line at 81%, their free throw rate is second to last in the league (the LA Sparks are the worst). That’s down from last year when they were just below average.

Even more interesting is that most of their opponents’ numbers are about the same or slightly worse, meaning that the problem seems to be that their performance has dropped off rather than the opponents’ play improving. And the numbers that have fallen – offensive rebounding and free throw rate – seem indicative of a lack of energy and aggressiveness rather than some sort of slump.

So the question for the Liberty in the second half is simple: can they find that energy that made them successful last season?

If they can, there is still time for them to leap frog erratic Atlanta Dream and Chicago Sky teams as the Liberty are only 1 game out. But moreso than any other team, it seems like the Liberty will require a shift in mindset rather than a performance upgrade to make a playoff run.

What’s funny is that during last season’s playoffs I was hoping for a Liberty-LA Sparks finals, especially given the amazing game those two teams had on July 25, 2008 in Madison Square Garden. Almost exactly a year later, both teams are fighting for playoff spots. And the sad part is that – as I described yesterday -- with Sparks forward Candace Parker getting better by the game and center Lisa Leslie returning from injury, the Sparks might in fact have more reason to hope for a turnaround that the Liberty…

Anyway, more to come about teams as I watch games over the next week…for now, I turn to players and hand out some mid-season awards: Defensive Player of the Year, Most Outstanding Player, Rookie of the Year, Sixth Woman of the Year and MVP, what I consider the easiest to hardest right now. Most Improved Player just has way too many candidates to choose one.

Defensive Player of the Year candidates: Nicky Anosike…Tamika Catchings, Alana Beard, Jia Perkins, Sancho Lyttle.

I would like someone to present me with an argument for someone other than Nicky Anosike to win the DPOY for their performance thus far this season. Any defensive statistics you look at make the argument clear that it’s not worth looking at. But I heard something during the All-Star game broadcast that sort of summarizes what makes her the clear favorite for DPOY: “She’s a center and she’s leading the league in steals.”

That’s unheard of in basketball.

She is one of the most dominant defensive players I’ve ever watched. And what makes her so dominant is that she can do the dirty work in the paint but then step out to the perimeter, guard guards, and take the ball from them too. It’s quite remarkable. She’s a defensive weapon almost unparalleled in the basketball world.

If you think I’m exaggerating, watch her and try to prove otherwise…but she’s having an amazing defensive season.

Winner: Anosike

Most Outstanding Player candidates: Nicky Anosike, Becky Hammon, Cappie Pondexter, Diana Taurasi

Notice that I’m dividing MOP and MVP…because I think MVP is a lot less clear. But so far, the most outstanding player, no matter how you want to slice it, is Cappie Pondexter. This one is not nearly as clear cut as Anosike for DPOY…and in fact both Anosike and Diana Taurasi both have legitimate claims on this (fictitious) honor. But I’ve said it a number of times – Pondexter’s transformation from a pure scorer into an all-around player who can both score and make teammates better has been fascinating to watch.

She’s a triple-double threat every night at this point and plays solid defense on a team not normally noted for its defense. She’s made herself almost impossible to defend because even on an off night, she’s demonstrated the ability to take over the game with her playmaking ability. It’s hard to imagine Phoenix having the type of success they’ve experienced without Pondexter’s contribution.

Anosike’s defensive ability makes her a clear candidate for this honor and Diana Taurasi’s typically outstanding play makes her a strong candidate as well. Becky Hammon is also a candidate here as she has put up very impressive numbers after missing some games early in the season to play with the Russian National Team.

Winner: Pondexter

Rookie of the Year candidates: DeWanna Bonnner, Angel McCoughtry, Renee Montgomery, Kristi Toliver, Shavonte Zellous
For rookie of the year, I went through the same statistical process I went through when I last posted rookie rankings two weeks ago on July 14th. The process was essentially designed to answer the question of what we can expect a player to contribute to the team with the ball in their hands, adding some nuance to the standard points per game standard of assessment.

And there’s really no difference in the outcome since that point: DeWanna Bonner is clearly the top rookie thus far, still ranking among the top players in the league in usage rate (how often they attempt to make plays), Chaiken Efficiency Ratio (the ratio of scoring plays they make to non-scoring plays), and Boxscores (how much they contribute to team winning). Meanwhile, she is almost indisputably the most productive player of any rookie thus far.

But Angel McCoughtry is still right on her heels and if she can turn it around she might give Bonner a challenge. I still believe she is probably the most talented player in this rookie class, she just needs time to develop and refine her skills. However, at this point in the season, McCoughtry is the only other rookie to rank in the top tier of the league in the three aforementioned statistical categories and also brings passing ability. What will make her a tough sell, even if she does improve her performance, is that she is still a below average rebounder for a forward. But who knows – if Bonner hits a rookie wall and McCoughtry improves, McCoughtry could win this contest.

The only major change is that Shavonte Zellous has probably moved firmly into third place for ROY. She is still being carried by her amazing free throw rate, but her defensive ability doesn’t exactly hurt – she might be the best defensive rookie guard. Renee Montgomery remains interesting to watch having earned a starting spot and Kristi Toliver is slowly becoming a more efficient player. And statistically, Courtney Paris is making herself relevant, but not yet in the mix for ROY.

Winner: Bonner

Sixth Woman of the Year candidates: DeWanna Bonner, Roneeka Hodges, Angel McCoughtry, Noelle Quinn, Tan White

Whereas Candace Parker took home both ROY and MVP last year, DeWanna Bonner could very well win ROY and Sixth Woman of the Year this year. In fact, Bonner is probably more clearly sixth woman of the year than ROY.

Put simply, Bonner is outplaying most starters this season – as I previously described, she’s one of the few players to rank in the top tier in Boxcores, usage rate, and efficiency ratio. That means you know when she comes off the bench, she’s going to contribute.

The runners-up really are not close, but have all contributed directly to their team’s success off the bench in some way – Tan White and Roneeka Hodges with scoring, Noelle Quinn by scoring and occasionally running the Sparks’ offense, and Angel McCoughtry has a very good all-around game that has made her an important piece to the Atlanta Dream’s bench. But like I said…making an argument for anyone besides Bonner is a real stretch.

Winner: Bonner

Most Valuable Player candidates: Anosike, Catchings, Shameeka Christon, Hammon, Lauren Jackson, Jia Perkins, Pondexter, Taurasi

MVP is going to be a tough one this year and will likely depend upon whether someone is able to carry their team to the playoffs in the second half of the season.

Fundamentally, I think the MVP is not only the player who contributes the most to her team, but also the player who contributes the most with the least help, thus making them most valuable. In other words, the player whose team can least afford to go without them. When you take the MVP away from their team, the team’s likelihood to win games should decrease considerably.

This is of course my belief about how the award should be given rather than the way I think it’s actually voted upon…but here are the five criteria I use to assess a player’s MVP worthiness.

1. As an individual award, I don’t believe that the relative quality of one’s team should decide the MVP award – logically, the best player on the best team might not be the most valuable…it might have just been a very good team. So I’m judging based on the player’s individual contribution to their team.

2. It’s also quite possible that the best player in the league is not the most valuable in the league. Theoretically, a player who is not even considered All-WNBA caliber could be the most valuable to her team if she is single-handedly carrying the team to whatever wins they get. This is why I selected my Most Outstanding Player above – two different awards.

3. The Superstar Teammate principle: I will still find it difficult to argue that a player who is playing next to a superstar teammate could possibly be the most valuable in the league. If the best two players in the league are playing together how can one of them possibly be the most valuable to their team in the league? Chances are if the team was missing one of them – for say a two-game suspension – the other star would step up and help the team win. It’s unfair to the players because one of them might be more valuable in ways that we fans cannot perceive…but if you do make the argument, what would you use to defend it aside from the criteria for MOP?

4. The player should be someone who you want with the ball in their hands at the end of a game or who can at least be expected to be used as a convincing decoy. The player doesn’t necessarily have to be able to score, but when they have the ball, you should expect a MVP to make plays. The same argument could be used to justify voting a strong defensive player MVP, it’s just not as convenient to measure as the points per game that people normally use.

5. When the player is on the court, they should make their team better somehow, not worse. This is obviously leading to an argument for the use of plus/minus in MVP analysis and I acknowledge it’s an imperfect statistic. But if you look at the players who have a negative plus/minus rating, I think it’s reasonable to say a MVP should be on the plus side of the equation.

So these five criteria will be applied to the players who made the 2009 All-Star team – you have to figure that a player who did not make the All-Star team is probably not their team’s MVP.

The candidates above represent two things: the players with the top five Boxscores in the WNBA (in order: Taurasi, Pondexter, Anosike, Catchings, and Jackson) in addition to three other players who are carrying a significant amount of the load for their team’s this season (Christon, Hammon, and Perkins).

To start, the eight players chosen are also the players who have contributed the most value to their teams this season based on David Sparks’ val pct metric:

Anosike: 26.3%
Christon: 25.6%
Perkins: 23.7%
Hammon: 23.1%
Jackson: 22.8%
Catchings: 21.8%
Taurasi: 21.1%
Pondexter: 20.4%

So what makes Taurasi and Pondexter absolutely remarkable as players is that they are among the most productive players in the league and have managed to divide the burden to help the Mercury almost equally between them (note: they might not actually even be the top duo in the league this season – Hammon and Sophia Young have combined for 43.1% of their team’s statistical production).

All Boxscores does is take that percentage of the team’s statistical production and applies it directly to the number of wins the team has for the season. So essentially, Boxscores is a metric that measures the player’s statistical contribution in terms of wins. Here are those numbers:

1. Taurasi: 2.74
2. Pondexter: 2.65
3. Anosike: 2.63
4. Catchings: 2.61
5. Jackson: 2.51
6. (Tanisha Wright: 2.01)
7. (Katie Douglas: 1.93)
8. Perkins: 1.89
9. (Charde Houston: 1.87)
10. (Tammy Sutton-Brown: 1.87)
19. Hammon: 1.61
24. Christon: 1.53

So what we have now is the player who is responsible the largest percentage of their team’s statistical production (Anosike) and the player whose production has contributed the most wins (Taurasi). But to further reinforce the point about the player whose team can least afford to lose them, let’s go one step further and look at who has done the most with the least help from a teammate (the teammate’s Boxscore is in parentheses).

Anosike: +.76 (Houston: 1.87)
Catchings: +.68 (Douglas: 1.93)
Christon: +.52 (Janel McCarville 1.01)
Jackson: +.50 (Wright: 2.01)
Perkins: +.31 (Candice Dupree: 1.58)
Hammon: +.20 (Young: 1.41)
Taurasi: +.09 (Pondexter: 2.65)
Pondexter: -.09 (Taurasi: 2.74)

So obviously the players are only separated by fractions of a win – there’s no way a decision could be made based on these numbers alone. Nevertheless, it becomes an interesting way to look at the players relative to each other. Anosike has probably done the most in the league relative to her teammates -- even though Charde Houston is also an All-Star, Anosike’s performance has been a clear step above hers.

Christon is also an interesting case – although nobody would put her in the conversation for MOP, she is clearly contributing a lot to her team’s ability to win. Meanwhile Taurasi and Pondexter are almost playing each other even, making it extremely difficult to make a clear argument for one being more valuable than the other to the Mercury, much less in comparison to other team leaders.

So perhaps more is needed…

If we look at usage rates – the number of offensive plays the player is individually responsible for – Anosike is the only player in this eight who doesn’t rank in the top 50 of the league. However, in terms of defensive plays, there is no player who makes more of those in the league, so it doesn’t necessarily exclude Anosike from the discussion. But here are those numbers:

Hammon: 28.17
Taurasi: 26.329
Pondexter: 26.325
Jackson: 25.40
Perkins: 25.16
Catchings: 23.82
Christon: 21.94
Anosike: 20.28

And I have yet to find an overall productivity metric that doesn’t have Taurasi #1 and Anosike #2 (MEV, EFF, Tendex). Kevin Pelton’s WARP rating has Anosike #1 and Taurasi #2. So perhaps plus minus number can provide some insight…? Here they are:

Anosike: +20.5
Jackson: +14.4
Perkins: +12.7
Christon: +12.4
Catchings: +11.9
Pondexter: +9.4
Hammon: +8.7
Taurasi: +5.1

This is interesting when compared to the previous usage numbers – Anosike has the 4th best plus/minus rating in the league but doesn’t have the ball in her hands to make plays as often as Taurasi. Taurasi has the ball in her hands and is relied upon to make plays as a ball handler and thus has a much lower plus/minus.

But for me it looks like it’s between Taurasi and Anosike for the MVP. And yes, I acknowledge that Pondexter should still remain in the conversation as a third option who is really almost even with Taurasi. But really it comes down to a potent offensive player vs. a potent defensive player.

So how do you choose?

Looking at any further statistics (rebounding, passing, shooting efficiency) would be so position specific that it would be difficult to gain any clarity.

If it truly came down to Anosike, Pondexter, and Taurasi, I think it’s fair to say Taurasi would win a vote on star power alone, despite the DUI controversy. By the end of the season that will be forgotten if she continues producing wins.

However, here’s the way I’m going to think about it – the one knock against Anosike is her usage rate and that she’s not a player who can create a lot offensively. So you might think that her offensive weaknesses would hurt her overall production as a player, especially since there really is no good metric for defense. And yet despite the obvious “weakness”, she’s right behind Taurasi in any metric you look at as the second most productive player in the league.

So if you consider that with the fact that Anosike is indisputably the best defensive player in the league, it’s hard not to select her as MVP. And just in case you feel adamant about her offensive ineptitude, perhaps you should watch her – I don’t know whether it’s Jennifer Gillom or just a natural progression as a young player, but she is a vastly improved offensive player from last year, displaying an array of moves from both the post and the perimeter. In other words, if Anosike won the award, it would not be solely as a defensive player. It would be as arguably the best post player in the WNBA right now.

Of course, it’s only mid-season – all of this could change by the end and Taurasi or Pondexter could emerge as the clear candidates for MVP. But at mid-season let’s put it to the test – can you imagine the Minnesota Lynx winning even 10 games without Anosike?

Personally, I can’t.

Continue reading...

Rookie Rankings: Bonner the Frontrunner for ROY, But For How Long?

DeWanna Bonner is experiencing something of a dream rookie season, if not quite the historic season Candace Parker put together in the 2008 season.

Most rookies selected #5 in a professional sports draft are forced to withstand more losing in one season than they’ve ever experienced in their basketball lives (or perhaps decades of losing if you’re drafted by the NBA’s Golden State Warriors). Conversely, rookies that are drafted by winning times often have a difficult time cracking the rotation or end up with minor roles.

Bonner is one of the lucky few who gets the best of both worlds.

Not only did she get the honor of being selected fifth by the Phoenix Mercury in the 2009 WNBA draft, but she has also earned a spot in the rotation and arguably become one of the team’s key players. And did you happen to see how the Mercury demolished the LA Sparks and Chicago Sky and then pulled out a tough win on the road against the Monarchs? Yes, they’re a contender – and the way they’re able to blow teams out in 5-10 minutes is actually sort of scary.

Bonner just happened to land in a perfect situation that maximizes her strengths and hides her weaknesses. And really it’s a mutual fit – a running team like the Mercury needs players like Bonner. The Mercury help Bonner flourish and Bonner helps the Mercury flourish.

Unfortunately, Bonner’s rookie peers haven’t been so lucky – Marissa Coleman has been injured, and Briann January, Angel McCoughtry, Renee Montgomery, Kristi Toliver, and Shavonte Zellous have all gotten inconsistent playing time despite each having a breakout game. And yet, when those players have gotten opportunities, they’ve not only seized the moment, but they have also demonstrated the ability to literally carry their teams in one way or another for extended stretches. From those brief moments of excellence, one could certainly argue one of these other rookies could easily assume the mantle of front runner.

I don’t mean to suggest that we should make claims about the best rookie based on potential -- the Rookie of the Year award generally goes to the rookie who makes the biggest impact, not necessarily the “most talented/promising” or “most valuable” rookie. And as noted on the WNBA website, “Since 2001 every Rookie of the Year winner has started 100% of their games and only twice in the history of the award have the honorees come off the bench.”

However, without that informal criterion this season, it is likely that people will focus on points per game as their criterion for choosing the Rookie of the Year. Normally, I would challenge that narrow approach to the Rookie of the Year and propose a broader framework for rookie analysis. But the inertia of habit is not easily broken. So I give in...but that doesn't mean I'll confine myself to points per game either.

After putting some thought into the issue and watching some of the top candidates over the past week or so, it’s clear that after one third of the season, Bonner is indeed the clear front runner for ROY. However, when you actually observe the other talented first rounders -- like McCoughtry, Montgomery, Coleman, and Zellous – you see a demonstrated ability to make things happen and actually take over games. So I have to wonder how long it will be before another rookie grows into a role with their team and not only puts up numbers but also demonstrates an ability to dominate games. But the question is, how close is the competition to Bonner?

Rethinking Rookie Performance…again…

Last week I posted a slightly refined version of a rather long and winding stream-of-consciousness free write that was intended to frame my examination of this year’s rookies. In case you don’t feel like untangling my thoughts, it boils down to three core points:

1. Rookies are difficult to evaluate fairly because they are going to perform inconsistently as they try to transition from the NCAA to the WNBA, find a role on their teams, and of course continue developing their skills…so a linear production metric alone is somewhat inadequate.

2. However, when considering candidates for Rookie of the Year – an award given to a player based on an inherently erratic rookie performance – we should judge a player based on what they actually do, not what they might do later or cannot do.

3. To succeed as a player that contributes to a team’s success, a rookie needs to do something very well, especially when WNBA rosters have been trimmed down.

Realistically though, most people will probably stick with the points per game. So rather than try to persuade people of the value of using broader criteria, I’m going to suggest a more nuanced look at scoring ability based upon three questions:

1. How does she get their points? (descriptive)

2. How well does she create scoring opportunities for themselves? (evaluative)

3. Is there some demonstrated skill that sets her apart from other rookies and might help her succeed long term? (prospective)

Those questions might help shift the way we think about the best rookie from the end result of points per game to the means by which they put up those points and the actual skills they demonstrate in the process. Someone putting up points in big minutes on a bad team is not nearly as impressive as coming off the bench and showing the ball handling ability, post moves, or instincts to get open against WNBA competition in the process of scoring points.

Thankfully, I think there are statistics that might help us think through that…and a full description of how I conceptualized this analysis is here.

But in summary, here’s the sequential framework I’ve used for analysis of rookies:

First, I compared the rookies based upon their usage percentage, Chaiken scoring efficiency, and Boxscores.

Second, I looked at 2 point percentage, assist rate, and free throw rate to further differentiate those who fell behind on Doolittle’s framework.

Third, I took a look at offensive rebounding rate as another valuable skill for rookies to contribute, if not quite as important as the ones above based on the work of previous people.

(Again, all of those statistics are described here)

And instead of ranking players, I’m taking a different approach this time -- I looked at the rookie in relation to the rest of the league in order to see which rookies are doing things particularly well by WNBA standards rather than just rookie standards.

To do that, I broke each statistic into 3 tiers (about 50 players each unless there was a clear breaking point) giving me a sense of what it means to be above average, average, and below average in a given statistical category. As one might guess, the most productive players in the league also end up ranking as above average or average in multiple statistical skills.

What this helps us do is look not only at who is producing what, but also look at what specifically each rookie is able to do well.

The frontrunners: DeWanna Bonner and Angel McCoughtry

Bonner has been a statistical monster this season. Yes, she is coming off the bench. But what she’s doing in limited minutes is remarkable.

There are 17 players in the entire WNBA who rank in the top tiers in Boxscores, usage %, and pts/zero point possession. Bonner and McCoughtry are among that group.

One of those players (Janell Burse) is playing extremely well in limited minutes, but take a look at the rest of the elite company our two top rookies are among:

1. Diana Taurasi
2. Lauren Jackson
3. Cappie Pondexter
4. Katie Douglas
5. Jia Perkins
6. Charde Houston
7. Sancho Lyttle
8. Swin Cash
9. Candice Dupree
10. Alana Beard
11. Seimone Augustus
12. Shameka Christon
13. Betty Lennox
14. Hamchetou Maiga-Ba

Both Bonner and McCoughtry are statistically playing at an all-star level. So how do we differentiate?

Bonner is by far the better rebounder, ranking in the top tier of offensive rebounding in the league with an impressive rate of 21%. McCoughtry’s offensive rebounding rate is only a third of that at 7.5%. However, in total rebounding percentage – not one of my key skills but significant in comparing these two as forwards – McCoughtry (7.48%) is in the bottom tier while Bonner (16.79%) is in the top tier. Ultimately, one could argue that a forward who cannot rebound is not quite as valuable as one that can.

However, in one of the chosen skills – 2 point percentage – McCoughtry (49.38%) is in the top tier while Bonner (43.92%) is in the middle tier. So really, one could argue that choosing between McCoughtry and Bonner is a matter of taste and fit moreso than absolute quality – McCoughtry is by far the better ball handler and passer, as evidenced by her 15.49% assist ratio (middle tier) compared to Bonner’s 4.05% assist ratio.

But I am actually going to choose – and right now, I have to go with Bonner.

Bonner did just happen to be a perfect fit for the Phoenix Mercury, who drafted her #5 this year. And the Mercury’s system is conducive to big numbers for a player like Bonner – she gets a large number of her points off of fast break lay-ups and gets a number of free throw attempts as defenders try to keep up with her as she flashes across the key.

But a major asset that she adds to the Mercury’s system is that she has amazing instincts for a rookie. As the team runs up and down the floor shooting quick shots, Bonner is quick and athletic enough to get in position for an offensive rebound before anyone can catch up to her to box her out. Add to that her outstanding rebounding instincts and she is a player that is clearly a huge asset to a running team like the Mercury.

Bonner has proven that she can contribute to a WNBA team and do so rather efficiently. Similar to what I’ve said about Crystal Kelly on numerous occasions, she has amazing instincts and just seems to have a superior awareness of where to be on the floor to make plays for her team. And even if she doesn’t make the first shot, she's an excellent offensive rebounders, and draws fouls for an above average free throw rate. What she has that Kelly doesn’t is amazing athleticism and quickness, which allows her to get a number of offensive rebounds and second chance shots, despite her slight frame.

But here’s the kicker for Bonner -- is she someone who you would want to have the ball in her hands at the end of a close game to make something happen? Not necessarily based upon what I’ve seen.

If Bonner is forced to make a move to the basket requiring more than one dribble and beating a defender, she really struggles. She looks extremely awkward putting the ball on the floor and often misses shots when she gets the least bit of pressure before getting to the rim.

An interesting statistical point along those lines is that despite getting the majority of her scoring opportunities on fast break layups or layups cutting to the basket, she only shoots 45% on 2 point field goals. One can imagine that she will improve upon her two point scoring once she adds strength to her frame.

And that’s what makes this Rookie of the Year race interesting – a player like Angel McCoughtry can just do more with the ball than hit wide open jumpers or score off cuts on a fast break. McCoughtry has demonstrated the ability to put the ball on the floor and get by her defender, hit pull-up jumpers off the dribble, and she is even a decent passer.

The issue for McCoughtry is decision making and finding a consistent role in the Dream’s “system”. With the exception of her very low rebounding numbers, McCoughtry might end up being the better all-around talent a few years down the line. But again, this is an award that rewards current performance, not future potential…and right now Bonner has her beat, though I think the race is closer than most people are trying to make it. If McCoughtry finds a consistent role on the Dream in the next two-thirds of the season, McCoughtry could easily take the ROY award.

And there are at least three other players behind Bonner and McCoughtry that have real game changing ability rather than just being efficient contributors to a system perfectly suited for them.

The Contenders: Renee Montgomery, Shavonte Zellous, and Marissa Coleman

As the only two rookies that are top tier players in Boxscores, usage percentage, and scoring efficiency, Bonner and McCoughtry are clearly in front of the pack. But there are a few players right on their heels.

Renee Montgomery, who you may already know is a Rethinking Basketball favorite, is clearly the #3 rookie in the league based on this framework, ahead of Zellous for a simple reason – Montgomery is the more efficient scorer and has contributed more to her team’s success this season. Furthermore, as they are both point guards, the fact that Montgomery is a better play maker becomes relevant – neither has a pure point rating that one might expect from a starting point guard, but Montgomery has an assist ratio of 17.11% while Zellous has an assist ratio of 5.71%.

Just a few days ago before Montgomery really got comfortable with the Minnsota Lynx, Zellous would have clearly been #3 behind Bonner and McCoughtry. But Montgomery is getting increasingly more patient in choosing scoring opportunities in addition to finding a role within the Lynx’s offense, in no small part because of the outstanding coaching job of Minnesota coach (and my early pick for Coach of the Year) Jennifer Gillom.

But I’ve gushed enough about Montgomery.

Watching Zellous, it’s obvious that she is able to get her shot whenever she wants. Not only that, but she is extremely adept at getting herself to the free throw line with the second highest free throws made/field goal attempted in the league. Not bad for a rookie.

The problem is that she can get really trigger happy and singularly focused on taking very difficult contested jump shots. In one telecast, Atlanta Dream commentator LaChina Robinson compared Zellous’ game to that of Deanna Nolan. And aside from obvious differences in physical attributes and athleticism (I think Nolan is probably among the best pure athletes in the league) the comparison works in terms of style of play -- her ability to create space and get her jumper off is phenomenal. Making said jumper is another story – Zellous has a 2-point percentage of 35.29%, which I probably not need tell is in the bottom tier of the league.

If Zellous becomes more patient as a player and gets better at choosing her spots and distributing to others, she could be a force. But right now, when you beyond points per game and the ability to get to the free throw line, it’s hard to make an argument that she should rank ahead of the other three.

Unfortunately, I have not yet seen Coleman in one of her better pre-injury games. Nevertheless, she has an above average usage rate and Chaiken efficiency ratio implying that she can score efficiently (the only reason her Boxscore number is only average is because she missed games). The only troubling thing about Coleman is her 2 point percentage which was at 35.74% through Friday and she’s only an average rebounder. Again down the line, Coleman might be the better overall player, but for now, Bonner is probably the forward of choice.

Rotation players: Kristi Toliver, Briann January, Quanitra Hollingsworth

I honestly have not paid much attention to Hollingsworth while watching the Lynx. But briefly, Hollingsworth is about average in all of the aforementioned statistics and an above average rebounder in addition to having an above average free throw rate.

However, I have paid quite a bit of attention to January and Toliver. And while I think January might be stagnating as she continues to struggle with her shooting, Toliver might be on the rise after her impressive performance against the Storm.

For the season, the problem for Toliver is that similar to Zellous, she has no problem getting that picture perfect jumper off with an above average usage percentage, she just has not been shooting it very efficiently – she is in the bottom tier in Chaiken efficiency ratio. But what’s interesting is that she is also right behind January in the top tier in assist ratio and well ahead of Montgomery in that category. Considering her reputation as a shooter and a serious turnover problem, that’s what continues to impress me most about Toliver.

In the game against the Storm, she recorded 7 assists and 3 turnovers for a pure point ratio of 6.17 and an assist ratio of 33.33%, which are the type of numbers an elite point guard would put up for the season. Beyond the numbers, I was shocked by how good of a passer she is – she effortlessly makes pinpoint passes that put the receiver in perfect position to score.

You will not see Toliver make spectacular drives and the fancy highlight reel passes that bring the crowd to their feet, but that’s not always needed. And that’s what Toliver seems to understand – she typically makes the right play, even if that play is looking for her own shot.

However, one major flaw with Toliver as a point guard is that she is a suspect ball handler, which often results in mishandling the ball or turning it over. Furthermore, unlike the best point guards, she really struggles keeping a live dribble when any type of pressure is applied. That -- as much as foot speed and a quick first step -- is really what’s holding Toliver back right now.

Perhaps her ball handling skills will develop over time allowing her to get herself open for even better scoring opportunities. But for now, if she is given minutes and a clear role (in a clearly structured system) her basketball IQ will take her a long way and perhaps catapult her into that “contender” range.

January is pretty much the polar opposite of Toliver – she is the only rookie point guard with a positive pure point rating and high assist ratio. She is an excellent ball handler and has great court vision. Her problem is shooting. Part of that may be mechanics as her shot often comes off flat. But all of her scoring efficiency numbers are below average. I still like her quite a bit as a point guard who is able to get the ball up the court and make the right pass. But she has been pulled from games on more than one occasion for trying to make “showtime” passes after driving through the defense.

The underdog: Shalee Lehning

Here’s my bold statement of the day: by the end of this season, Lehning could record the most starts of any rookie. She is by far the most effective point guard on the Dream’s roster. And that would make a great playoff feature story, should the Dream make it that far – Lehning was certainly not expected to even stick with a roster this season.

However, Lehning is not spectacular, which leads many people to underestimate her. But what’s perplexing to me is the way in which people attempt to dismiss Lehning. This phrase has never made much basketball sense to me: all she does is bring the ball up the floor and pass it to scorers. To which I respond, isn’t that part of a point guard’s job -- that she does that better than most of the other five on the court?

Queenie from Game Notes of Doom best characterized the value of Lehning’s game as follows:

Lehning didn't impress me, except that by being unremarkable, she proved that she belonged as a rookie, and that's no bad thing. It usually takes players a lot longer to look that comfortable on the court.

If being a point guard is all about decision making, then Lehning’s ability to comfortably make good decisions should be commended, not condemned. And if she cannot shoot well, then deciding not to shoot is a good decision, not a problem. Would it make her better if she could work on her shooting? Sure. But the same could be said for January and -- in a different way -- Zellous.

So the fact that Lehning has a 55% true shooting percentage and a 60% 2 point percentage despite being a poor shooter actually speaks to how good a decision maker she is with the ball, despite having a below average usage rate and Chaiken efficiency rating. And a derivative of that good decision rate is Lehning’s assist rate, which is a league high 54.51%... a good ten percent ahead of the second place guard – ironically, Nikki Teasley (44.64%).

Now to keep things in perspective, last season Leilani Mitchell posted a league-high 38.7 assist rate in addition to an extremely high pure point rating and struggled this year as a starter for the Liberty. So all the assist rate tells us is that Lehning is really just doing little else aside from passing because she shoots so infrequently.

That Lehning is also not able to post the astronomical pure point rating that Mitchell posted last season also does not bode well for her career. But this much can be said about Lehning – coach Marynell Meadors seems to like her, she appears to be a hard worker, and we can expect her to continue to get better as she has already this season.

Untapped potential: Courtney Paris, Chen Nan

I’m not sure which is the trendier thing to do this season: dismiss Lehning or Paris.

Conventional wisdom goes that the transition from college post player to professional post player is the most difficult because there is simultaneously an adjustment in power and strength as well as skill. Players like Paris who were used to just overwhelming college opponents with their size and strength suddenly realize that professional players are not pushed around so easily. Conditioning aside, Paris has what it takes to make it as a post player.

Paris has great hands, absolutely beautiful footwork in the post, and a quick release. She illustrated that she was extremely decisive from the first time I saw her, but the big difference in her last few games is that she’s far more patient with her moves. That is why she ranks in the top tier in the league in Chaiken efficiency ratio – she gets the ball and makes a quick decision to either get to the basket or kick it back out.

And of course she’s a great rebounder – even prior to the big game she had against the rather thin Mercury frontcourt, she had the highest offensive rebounding percentage (the percentage of available rebounds she gets while on the court). She is a big body and she knows how to use it.

While many people are dismissing her more recent performances as one-off occasions, her skills were evident from the beginning. And she is adjusting rapidly. She still has limited range on her shot, but I think that could be said about many post players when they first enter the league. As Paris develops and adds more muscle to her frame, she will only get more effective at the things she does well in the post. It will be interesting to see if the coaching change in Sacramento will bring more minutes for Paris or perhaps a role that better maximizes her strengths.

Chen Nan falls just outside my top ten, but I think deserves a mention, if for no other reason because mobile tall people are not particularly abundant in the world. Nan ranks pretty much average in all the aforementioned statistics, except Chaiken efficiency ratio and assist ratio, and has an above average 2 point percentage.

However, in watching her what impresses me most is that like Paris – though to a lesser extent -- she does have a variety moves in the paint and in the Storm game on Sunday, she even showed that she has a nice outside touch as well. She was far better playing next to Fowles than playing next to Dupree in that game, but she fits into Chicago’s post rotation very well. She is not nearly as far along as some of the other rookies here, but she definitely has tools that can be molded into becoming an effective reserve for a team like the Sky.

Final Rankings

1. DeWanna Bonner
2. Angel McCoughtry

3. Renee Montgomery
4. Shavonte Zellous
5. Marissa Coleman

6. Kristi Toliver
7. Briann January
8. Quanitra Hollingsworth

9. Shalee Lehning

10. Courtney Paris

Of course, we are only about a third of the way through the season…so these rankings could change drastically. But the bigger point is that while Bonner appears to be in a class all by herself right now, any of those players in the top 5 have demonstrated skills that will make them a serious threat to Bonner in the next two thirds of this season.

But fundamentally something else that may play a role in this year’s ROY race is that something intangible that separate the great basketball players from the good ones. Some people call it the “It Factor”. It goes beyond merely possessing the mechanical skills to play the game or the physical tools – athleticism or height – to overwhelm opponents. And it certainly cannot be measured statistically.

It’s most readily visible in the form of a controlled aggression. It’s the awareness to make the right play at the right time more often than not. And it’s sometimes embodied within a unique swagger that exudes a confidence that lets you know that she knows that she can take over at any moment.

But it’s also the ability to outlast an opponent in a battle of wills. It’s an ability to put a team on your back and carry them to victory. It’s the ability to create the big shot in the clutch when everyone else on the court is looking to someone else to step up. It’s an appreciation for the magnitude of the moment without concern for the possibility of failure.

When considering front-runners for Rookie of the Year, this intangible “It factor” perhaps takes on greater significance than it does for the MVP for one simple reason: rookies are inevitably inconsistent. Rookies are constantly adjusting, developing, and learning and it’s perfectly reasonable to suggest that the best rookies might not have the best overall statistics or be a significant contributor to wins…which is all the more reason to keep watching…

Transition Points:

From the statistical league leaders, you might also gather that I would say Lauren Jackson is the clear frontrunner for MVP as well – she is carrying more weight individually to help her team win than any other player in the league and doing so very efficiently.

Last year’s Rethinking Basketball rookie favorite, Leilani Mitchell, ranks in the bottom tier of every single category I looked at except assist ratio. I’m still rooting for her, but such a dramatic change is somewhat shocking.

I hesitated to include winning in the framework, but I think it’s an important element to consider if we’re going to think about usage and efficiency – I really don’t care how creative or efficient you are if you don’t contribute to my team’s success somehow. You play to win the game…

This year, Montgomery is my favorite, but for some reason, I can't help but root for Toliver and Paris as well. I want Toliver to do well for the Sky's sake...and Paris played high school ball in the neighborhood I briefly lived in growing up. For now though, only Toliver gets her name in the tag cloud.

In another Basketball Prospectus article, Doolittle mentioned that somehow athleticism should somehow be taken into account as well. He is working on a metric for that, but one thing I've noticed from NBA summer league games is that steals tend to be a decent proxy for athleticism, at least for guards.

There are of course other ways to look at rookies. Petrel from the Atlanta Dreams Blog and Kevin Pelton from the StormTracker blog have also provided us with their analyses.

By the way, these statistically based rankings seem like the perfect time for a reminder about truth, reason, and subjectivity -- I cannot say that these rankings will lead us only to the truth, but I do believe that they might illustrate truth-like properties.


Continue reading...

Point Guard Rankings Update & Surprises: Cappie Pondexter and Jia Perkins...Top 10? (Late Edit)

Yesterday, I posted the first point guard rankings of the season including an analysis of the three rookie point guards drafted in the first six picks of the draft.

However, I did not initially post the full stats of all the point guards due to time constraints, so I figured I would do that today since there were no games yesterday.

As I got ready to post the tables of stats for all 25 point guards, I noticed that a few players had impressive games on Sunday that might be worth accounting for (e.g. Sue Bird: 9 assists, 0 turnovers against the Mercury on Sunday).

Then I just got curious about a few things.

Comments on last week's post about Briann January regarding whether the Chicago Sky should start Kristi Toliver over Dominique Canty made me wonder how well Jia Perkins is doing as a potential point guard option this season. And then I started thinking about another off guard who often plays the facilitator role: Cappie Pondexter of the Phoenix Mercury.

Both players have not only posted impressive point guard numbers this season, but have also managed to crack my top 10.

Update: Stats were updated @ 3pm PST due to a small Excel error and the addition of a new stat, Tendex. Some minor typos were corrected as well.

The skeptics will say there must be a flaw with this process if so many non-point guards – Perkins, Pondexter, Taurasi – can rank in my top ten. However, I would respond that the statistics are only describing very impressive play on the part of these players as lead guards thus far this season. And maybe, as these rankings initially set out to do, there are things beyond being the shortest player on the court that make someone an effective lead guard.

Pondexter’s point guard numbers, for example, really shocked me. I have watched her bring the ball up and initiate the offense, but never really thought much of her as a playmaker or facilitator for her team. The numbers tell a different story – Pondexter is among the most efficient lead guards in the league, making plays for others while limiting turnovers and still managing to score efficiently. You can only imagine what this team would have done with Lauren Jackson surrounded by such talented perimeter players.

Sorry for the oversight Cappie.

The Rankings (as of 6/21/09)

Below are the numbers for the top 10 point guards in each category: facilitator ability, scoring ability, and game impact. (Click here for the full explanation of why I’m using these statistics)

Ticha Penicheiro (injury) and Shannon Johnson (recovering) have been removed from the list to accommodate Perkins and Pondexter.

There is a lot to chew on here, so I will look forward to feedback from others.

Does Cappie Pondexter's performance thus far this season seem to match these impressive stats? What might the stats be missing/exaggerating?

Facilitator Ability  PLAYER Ast. Ratio Tov% PPR Tot. Rank 1. Harrower, K. 32.05% 4.57% 7.24 70 2. Johnson, T 33.83% 10.72% 6.34 67 2. Bird, S. 36.29% 11.16% 8.67 67 4. Whalen, L. 25.44% 7.27% 5.92 62 4. Harding, L. 32.36% 11.16% 5.36 62 6. Teasley, N. 36.43% 14.17% 3.24 57 7. Pondexter, C. 22.17% 7.58% 4.91 55 8. Lawson, K. 23.62% 11.81% 2.17 47 9. Mitchell, L. 31.99% 15.99% 2.51 44 9. Moore, L. 26.05% 14.65% 1.57 44

Scoring Ability  PLAYER TS% 2 pt% Pts/Z pt pos Tot. Rank 1. Brown, K. 68.31% 56.25% 3.08 75 2. Taurasi, T. 68.05% 55.81% 53.85 72 3. Bevilaqua, T. 61.57% 55.55% 2.14 66 4. Pondexter, C. 56.08% 53.40% 2.63 64 5. Johnson, T. 55.09% 52.38% 2.04 58 5. Perkins, J. 58.68% 45.61% 2.37 58 7. Teasley, N. 65.57% 33.33% 2.10 51 8. Bird, S. 53.79% 45.65% 1.85 50 9. Whalen, L. 47.94% 46.51% 1.91 47 9. Hammon, B. 50.84% 50.00% 1.58 47 9. Montgomery, R. 51.36% 50.00% 1.55 47

Game Impact  PLAYER Plus/Minus Tendex Tot. Rank 1. Perkins, J. +35.2 17.25 46 2. Bird, S. +36.8 15.42 45 3. Johnson, T. +23.7 14.21 42 4. Harding, L. +50.5 8.75 41 5. Pondexter, C. +7.8 21.17 40 6. Wiggins, C. +23.3 7.75 31 7. Taurasi, D. -12.1 22.03 30 7. Brown, K. +7.1 8.58 30 9. Lawson, K. +3.8 9.41 28 10. Harrower, K. +8 7.37 27 10. Hammon, B. +8.1 6.68 27

Overall  PLAYER Facilitator Scoring Impact Tot. Rank 1. Johnson, T. 67 58 42 167 2. Bird, S. 67 50 45 162 3. Pondexter, C. 55 64 40 159 4. Brown, K. 41 75 30 146 5. Perkins, J. 34 58 46 138 6. Harrower, K. 70 37 27 134 7. Whalen, L. 62 47 24 133 8. Teasley, N. 57 51 22 130 9. Taurasi, D. 26 72 30 128 9. Bevilaqua, T. 34 66 22 122

(Late) Transition Points:

The Tendex metric is described at Dougsstats.com. H/t to Scott for letting me know about it -- it makes more sense to me than Win Score. And if you look at the numbers from last season, the ordering of point guards looks much more reasonable.

Coincidentally, the two players who benefitted from the switch from Win Score to Tendex most were Perkins and Pondexter. Among the players hurt most were Kiesha Brown and Vickie Johnson.

Tendex hurt the rookie point guards: For the record, with the shift to Tendex, there was a shift in position for Briann January, Renee Montgomery, and Kristi Toliver who I looked at previously:

January, 77, #19
Montgomery, 73, #20
Toliver, 69, #23

In other words, they each have weaknesses that they will need to work on...

Continue reading...