As a WNBA fan who has just completed his first (near) full season watching Storm basketball at Key Arena, last night’s overtime loss against the Mercury will stand out as one of the most memorable because it demonstrated something about their character.
The reason is simple: there was absolutely no reason for anyone to believe that the Seattle Storm would compete in last night’s game. That the Storm made it to overtime almost boggles the mind.
The game itself was meaningless, expectations were low, and they limped into the game with four players injured and two replacement players aboard just to field a full rotation.
Taking a loss and looking ahead to the playoffs would have been a perfectly respectable outcome given the circumstances. A blow out might have been justifiable.
Yet it never seemed to occur to the Storm that they were supposed to lose.
It’s as though there is nothing about playing in Key Arena that even begins to imply that they might lose a game, despite home losses this year that serve as objective disconfirming evidence.
And I love that.
But before you dismiss this as fluff, consider that not every team responds to this type of situation in the way the Storm did. Many teams – not only in the WNBA, but also in professional sports more broadly – would just mail it in. I will let you use your imagination to think of concrete examples of that occurring, but I think you get the point.
Really, gutsy performances like that – competing for the sake of it or having fun – is what I love about sports. It’s part of what I love about watching people compete and competing myself. It’s a trait that I admire in people – the willingness to set a goal and pursue it even if there seem to be insurmountable barriers ahead.
And honestly, I normally detest the notion of a “moral victory” because so often it’s used to connote finding the silver lining of a hurricane rather than actually speaking to the illumination of a team’s character. But the fact that the Storm even pushed that game to overtime last night says a ton about the Storm’s character.
It was enough to make me put off meeting a friend to finish watching the game. Enough for me to spend time writing about a game I promised myself not to write about. Of course that may be more indicative of a basketball obsession turned pathological more than anything else, but that’s neither here nor there.
That game was the epitome of what people might call a “moral victory”.
Not just because it shows that the Storm can play with playoff intensity or that a consistently struggling bench has the capacity to play ball against the league’s best. The game showed that the Storm have heart. That they’re more mentally tough that I had previously given them credit for. And that losing is not an option they care to explore, even when it’s the justifiable path of least resistance.
Win or lose, I can watch a team like that every single day of the week.
Brief Statistical Update:
In contrast to the limping Storm who had to play their guts out to even keep pace, the Mercury played about five minutes of disciplined basketball to pull this out.
The Mercury's best period was arguably the overtime period when they shot 71% from the field, had a game low turnover percentage of 11% committing only one turnover, and controlled the boards. After going 0-6 from the three point line in the fourth quarter and shooting no more than 5 per quarter during the game, guard Diana Taurasi shot the only one in the overtime period. And suddenly, it looked like they were starting to play defense.
Transition Points:
I made the grave mistake of discussing my basketball fantasy of Storm forward Lauren Jackson playing with the Mercury with Storm fans. I was appropriately shamed. Forgive me Storm fans for I know not what I do.
After watching Phoenix forward DeWanna Bonner up close, I'm more firmly on the Bonner for Sixth Woman bandwagon. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, in fact, because it's an award earned relative to a larger pool of players, it should be the *more* prestigious award.
Again, I'm relatively new to the WNBA. But has there ever been a better *regular season* experience in Key Arena? The combination of five overtime games and the amazing parity around the league means that almost every single game at Key Arena this summer was exciting. I am making that claim without any sort of first hand evidence...so please do educate me.
Continue reading...
Seattle Storm: “Absolutely Nothing to Play for Other Than Pride”
Rookie Rankings: A Resolution for the ROY Debate
After the Phoenix Mercury’s 100-82 victory over the Atlanta Dream on Saturday, Phoenix Stan declared Mercury forward DeWanna Bonner Rookie of the Year.
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.
The numbers are as follows:
Bonner
Usage: 22.07
Chaiken Efficiency Ratio: 2.65
Boxscores: 2.79
McCoughtry
Usage: 26.77
Chaiken Efficiency Ratio: 2.07
Boxscores: 2.39
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...
Storm + Mercury + Key Arena = The Perfect Way to Market the WNBA to NBA Fans
When Bethlehem Shoals of FreeDarko.com (a blog about the NBA, but not merely about basketball) asked me to recommend a Seattle Storm game for us to go to, the choice seemed obvious.
“The best game for a NBA fan to see will be the Mercury on Aug 4 or Aug 21,” I wrote back.
The Mercury feature two of the top candidates for WNBA MVP in Phoenix wing players Diana Taurasi and Cappie Pondexter, a high-octane offense that almost any NBA fan would recognize as reminiscent to Phoenix’s NBA counterpart, and as Mechelle Voepel wrote last month, “Storm vs. Mercury just has that panache”.
And last night's game certainly did not disappoint. Nor did the Key Arena atmosphere.
Although the Storm lost to the Phoenix Mercury in overtime 101-90, the game featured heroics from Storm point guard Sue Bird (again) at the end of regulation, a Taurasi-like performance from Taurasi, and Storm guard Tanisha Wright torching the Mercury for 21 in the first half en route to a career-high 25 points.
And oh yeah, Bill Russell was there too…and even more importantly, a Storm Trooper tried to step onto the court after a particularly bad call from the ref in the second half.
However, I spent most of the game talking to Shoals and another male friend, who I shall call Rudy (yes, the basketball version). Neither of them had ever been to a Storm game and both had expressed interest in going at various times this summer.
All three of us fit that 18-35 year old male demographic and I’ve spent quite a bit of time watching both NBA and NCAA men’s basketball with them at various times. I would consider both informed NBA fans that appreciate professional basketball as a sport as much as for its entertainment value. Rudy is a New York Knicks fan who I’ve watched, played, and talked basketball with for about four years now. We have all attended graduate school and are overeducated to different degrees.
These guys aren’t the “average lunkhead male” – they appreciate the game of basketball and have the ability to formulate sentences without grunting and demeaning women.
So long story short – they both enjoyed the game (in different ways perhaps) and said they would like to come back.
During the game we had one of those running conversations full of tangents, non-sequiturs, and worm holes, talking about the league, making comparisons to the NBA, and talking about Bill Russell. And there were elements of our conversation during the game that I found interesting in the context of my ongoing interest in how the WNBA could market to male NBA fans.
So to help answer the question, how can the WNBA market the game to male fans?, I ask another question:
What sort of first impression(s) might the WNBA make on (over)educated male NBA fans?
The crossover worm hole
Shoals met Rudy and I on the east side of Key Arena and immediately tossed me into one of his warped worm holes. A tweet sums up the issue nicely:
"Talking with @kpelton about who has the best crossover-as-fake, not just handle, in the league. I vote Wade, he suggests Rose. Et toi?", he tweeted.
Good lord.
If you knew me, you would know that I was not actually annoyed at the question because it’s stupid or somehow insignificant. The question was annoying because I couldn’t stop thinking about it.
Shoals and I had been to the Adonai Hood Classic on Sunday as well and we talked about the issue there while watching Jamal Crawford. But as we started to come up with answers at the Storm game it became clear that the answer changed depending on any number of other variables that influence a player's decision to make a crossover.
Anyway...Pelton had apparently suggested that Cappie Pondexter had among the best crossovers in the WNBA and I agreed. So in addition to mentally running through every different variant of the “crossover” that I could imagine, I began the game paying close attention to Pondexter’s crossover. And of course, with Wright’s phenomenal first half performance, her ability to get to the basket with her crossover also became a part of the conversation.
But even though I’ve watched Pondexter play quite a bit, she never ceases to impress – as I told Shoals and Rudy, she is a triple-double threat almost every night. And her crossover is a major part of that.
She not only has arguably the best crossover in the WNBA, but also uses it extremely effectively in a number of different ways – on the fast break to get by whoever is standing in between her and the basket, in the half court to gain separation for whichever type of jumper she feels like punishing her defender with at the moment, or simply to penetrate to the basket to set up another player for a scoring opportunity.
Pondexter didn’t actually have a stellar game – going 6-19 from the field – but she also grabbed 8 boards and recorded 5 assists, at least backing up claim that she’s a triple-double threat.
Making NBA comparisons
At various points during the game we attempted to make comparisons to NBA players, since their frame of reference is the NBA. I normally hate doing that (because really it does a disservice to all sides), but since Rudy kept coming up with them, I rolled with it and it ends up being a good way to familiarize oneself with the game.
For example, we decided that Storm forward Lauren Jackson was like the Dallas Mavericks’ Dirk Nowitzki with the heart to play inside, Storm forward Swin Cash like the Oklahoma City Thunder’s Jeff Green with a better perimeter game, and DeWanna Bonner like Golden State Warriors forward Brandan Wright (not necessarily in terms of style play, but skinniness). Rudy at one point suggested that Storm guard Tanisha Wright is like the Utah Jazz’s Deron Williams, but I rejected that.
However, what’s interesting is that Pondexter – and Taurasi – seemed to defy comparison. Which is actually an interesting insight because it suggests that the WNBA actually adds something to the basketball universe. Imagine that?
WNBA player versatility
Skills seem to be much more evenly distributed across positions in the WNBA than the NBA, meaning you don’t have post players who have no skill other than being tall and dunking. On the perimeter, multiple players are able to initiate the offense.
And as Shoals mentioned later via email, “a bunch of versatile skilled players is the NBA's wet dream.”
Shoals was alarmed by the fact that 6’5” forward Lauren Jackson was hovering around the three point line and that guards Sue Bird and Tanisha Wright seemed to be splitting the responsibility of initiating the offense. Part of the reason why Rudy made the comparison of Wright to Utah’s point guard Deron Williams is that Wright almost appeared to be the point guard at times because she had the ball in her hands so often.
Taurasi was leading fast breaks, shooting threes, aggressively trying to block shots, and occasionally running the offense. Mercury center Tangela Smith was 4-6 from three point range and Storm center Camille Little hit a three to tie the game at 81 with 44.7 seconds left in regulation. I mentioned that if they watched a team like the Detroit Shock – who really don’t have a traditional distributing point guard – they might have been even more confused.
Shoals is a fan of versatile players and the blurring of positions that seemed to be occurring on both teams actually seemed to be one of the more exciting elements of the game to him. It makes basketball much more fluid and actually makes offenses much more interesting to watch, if you know anything about x’s and o’s.
Yes, males of the lunkhead persuasion will complain about missed layups and lack of dunks, but as Shoals pointed out, overall, few missed shots are actually bad shot attempts. Because there are so many versatile players who can move the ball and find different ways to score, the scoring opportunities created are pretty solid.
This is basketball in which style does not take precedent over substance, but the substantive abilities of the players give the game a style that the NBA aspires to (a “wet dream”)…or once had.
The WNBA as throwback game
It was interesting that Bill Russell was in the crowd because at multiple times throughout the game, Shoals mentioned how the game reminded him of the type of basketball you see in old footage of NBA basketball in the sixties.
“Weird Russell was there, that game reminded me of sixties ball,” he tweeted at one point.
For the uninformed, that is not a slight of the WNBA game – for someone who appreciates the sport of basketball, it’s a complement. In fact, both he and Rudy commented that given the choice between the WNBA and men’s NCAA basketball, they would probably watch a WNBA game. Shoals was quite adamant about this and I’ll leave him to explain that at some other point.
When you have versatile players and offenses predicated on passing and cutting without dunking, you don’t get worse basketball, you get sixties NBA basketball. Shoals noted at one point that even the post players get their points by cutting and being in the right position rather than on the two man isolation game that tends to dominate the NBA. Personally, as someone who appreciates ball movement and fluidity in basketball, that makes the WNBA one of the most appealing syles of play.
Framed in that way, it’s no wonder that someone like Bill Russell “is on record as being a big fan of the WNBA's style of play” as Kevin Pelton noted during the game on his live blog. As Bob Ryan alluded to in his article, “The Game You’re Missing” last year, if you actually know anything about basketball, you almost have to appreciate WNBA basketball.
If you don’t appreciate basketball, just say it… but don’t disrespect a game you know nothing about.
Engrossed to the point of standing during timeouts
In between all of our meta-analysis of basketball as a phenomenon, we did actually pay attention to the game.
Key Arena – and other arenas around the league – have a ritual of standing until the home team makes its first basket.
Rudy liked this – it seemed to add to the collective atmosphere when everyone sat down at the same time after the first shot. Shoals, who nobody could describe as a “joiner”, was initially less enthusiastic, grumbling when I implored him to stand up at the beginning of the game.
However, in overtime, as Shoals and I were standing and chatting about something or other, he stopped mid-sentence and said, “Wait – do we have to stand during timeouts too?”
Why we were standing during a timeout like dunces is beyond me… but that’s beside the point.
The point here is that the game was engaging in a way that just sort of grabs you and forces you to get caught up. Part of that is a direct result of being in Key Arena – it’s just an amazing basketball venue and when the crowd gets going, it’s difficult not to find yourself caught up in a wave of Storm fanaticism.
But a major part of it is that this is just good basketball and true fans of the sport would find a hard time not getting swept up in it.
The other side of the 18-35 year old demographic
Petrel of the Pleasant Dreams blog emailed me yesterday in response to my post about WNBA marketing and reminded me that there really is no monolithic 18-35 year old male demographic. Within that demographic there are people who are non-sports fans or sports fans who are not moved by the idiocy of shock jock sports radio. But more importantly, there might also be a cross-section of that demographic who is able to appreciate the WNBA game simply because it’s good basketball.
The unfortunate reality is that precision ball movement, cutting, and versatility – the strengths of the WNBA game – are simply not conducive to the short attention span clips of Sportscenter that people have become so accustomed to. To appreciate the WNBA, you can’t expect to be wowed by a highlight reel dunk; to appreciate the WNBA, you have to learn to appreciate the nuance of basketball.
And the best way to do that is probably to show up to a game.
Transition Points:
Thanks to Patrick from the Chasing the Title blog for providing us with these tickets.
Part of Shoals’ infatuation with Bill Russell stems from his interest in having Russel write the intro to his next FreeDarko book, which he is currently doing research for. He’s spent quite a bit reading about the man. Rudy actually went over to Russell and shook his hand, but apparently got no real response from the legend. Just one of millions of hands shaken.
In an attempt to stop over-analyzing basketball, I missed most of the halftime show to go grab a beer. However, Shoals’ girlfriend who was with us, thought the dogs during the halftime show were among the best part of the Key Arena experience.
It’s hard not to admire Tanisha Wright’s game and Patrick Sheehy has a great article on SPMSportsPage profiling Wright. Definitely worth a read. Although I’ve often focused on her offensive abilities, Sheehy does a good job articulating her impact on the defensive end.
I also watched the Los Angeles Sparks’ loss to the San Antonio Silver Stars earlier in the day, a matchup between the Storm’s two previous opponents. Would those games – a triple-overtime win against the Sparks and an overtime win against the Silver Stars – be as effective in swaying NBA fans? I’m not sure… the Mercury’s high-octane style of play is really perfect to entice new fans…we’ll see what Shoals thinks of future games. By the way, down two with four Olympic caliber post players on the floor, why do you settle for a jumper from point guard Kristi Harrower and a three from a frigid cold Tina Thompson…I don’t get it.
Storm Troopers need to remain a prominent part of the Key Arena atmosphere. Here's why: Shoals commented at one point that the refereeing in the WNBA seems to be less invasive than that of the NBA game, making the point that there aren’t quite as many stoppages of play…but I think that was more a function of the Mercury’s style of play. For the most part, their calls were inexplicable. While I don’t complain about the refs often because they make consistently inexplicable calls against both teams, I thought it would have been plenty appropriate for a squad of Storm Troopers to rush the court, capture the refs, and detain them until further notice.
Continue reading...
Communication, Trust, and Listening
Contrary to what the title of this post might imply, Rethinking Basketball is not going to become a relationship advice blog.
Trust me, you don’t want any of that stuff from me anyway...and I could probably find an ex-girlfriend or two to confirm that.
Anyway, as I was reading an article in the Oregonian by Jason Quick this morning (via TrueHoop), I was reminded that the building blocks of a strong relationship are also essential to building a strong team, starting with communication. The NBA’s Portland Trail Blazers were introducing recently signed point guard Andre Miller to the media and Miller repeatedly emphasized the importance of communication to his job as a point guard.
You may be aware of my obsession with point guard play and figuring out how to describe the intangibles that separate the good point guards from the great ones. Miller was easily one of my favorite college point guards ever (and strangely, one of the few college point guards I liked who has made a solid pro career). He was not only the floor leader of the University of Utah team that made it to the NCAA National Championship game, but he was a triple double threat every time he stepped on the floor.
So given that I admire Miller's game, I find it interesting that Miller emphasized to both the media and coach Nate McMillan’s summer basketball camp that communication is part of what makes him a good point guard.
“And my thing is when I talk to little kids I tell ‘em communication and helping each other get better is my number one goal in the NBA. I’ve been playing ten years now and every team that I go to my job is to help guys get better and to communicate. So my role won’t be too much different comin’ here.”
Andre Miller talks to coach Nate McMillan's hoops campers
Miller reiterated the point to the media while also describing how poor communication (and egos) can inhibit the performance of even the most talented teams.
“…I got traded to the Clippers, that was a talented team but it was too many egos I felt and it was tough to win in that situation. And like I said earlier, about observing this team and the way they play well together, they compete and there’s no big egos. I think when you add a little communication to that as a point guard, it makes the job a little bit easier. And I can tell you, just from being on those different teams, every meeting was talking about ‘We need to communicate more’ and that helps a lot. That helps a team get over the hump. Communication, understanding each other, and that’s a big part of basketball.”Blazers introduce Andre Miller
Cappie Pondexter made similar comments to ESPN columnist Mechelle Voepel the other day and really complements Miller’s thoughts well by articulating how she communicates with her teammates as a team leader and de facto lead guard. An excerpt from Voepel’s article: "One thing I've learned is to continue to push my teammates," Pondexter said. "Especially as one of the leaders of the team. I don't think I did a good job of keeping everybody together last year, and that's something I've focused on since training camp this season."
Pondexter not only articulates more precisely how she communicates with her team, but also describes two different types of communication – basketball related and just plain ol’ collegial how-ya-doin-today? communication. As a leader, the combination is what education scholars might call the disposition of a “warm demander” – building a relationship with students that lets them know that you are challenging them because you care about them and their growth as human beings.
When she and Mercury teammate Diana Taurasi would see each other during their playing stints in Russia, they would discuss what had to be different for 2009 when they got back to Phoenix.
"I'd say, 'We need to challenge everybody each day, as well as demonstrating it ourselves,'" Pondexter said. "Sometimes I am a very quiet person and can be to myself. And I've learned to be more giving to my teammates.
"You never know if someone's having a down day, so if you extend your hand and listen to that person, that can affect things on the court. There are a lot of things that happen off the court that affect what goes on on the court."
Whoa…this is getting sort of touchy feely…and yet I continue…
Fundamentally, what a warm demander is doing is building trust between themselves and the student. But something else that Pondexter mentions that seems essential to being a good leader of any type – on the floor or off -- is listening.
One way to read Miller’s comments with Pondexter’s comments is that no matter how much you talk about the importance of communication, it won’t matter if people’s egos prevent them from actually listening to one another.
Sadly, listening is not something people in an individualistic society do very well. When I talk to pre-service elementary school teachers about the oft-ignored need to teach young children listening skills explicitly, I remind that although it’s fundamental to human interaction, it’s not something that just happens naturally – we all know adults in our lives who completely lack the capacity to listen.
Obviously, communication, trust building and listening aren’t the only things a point guard (or leader) has to do – it would seem to really help to be able to dribble, pass, and run as well, if not shoot the ball. Furthermore, possessing these traits does not automatically make one a good leader – the ability to apply these skills in a particular context and know how to actually accomplish goals takes more, whether in basketball or a “real” workplace. (I particularly like Prof. Robert J. Sternberg’s WICS model of leadership – a synthesis of wisdom, creativity, and intelligence – although some academics have critiqued it. That's what academics do.)
However, underlying both of these player’s description of what it takes to be a great floor leader or team leader off the floor is a notion of humility – you know, that thing that sort of happens when you put aside your personal hang ups, realize there’s something bigger at work than your narrow perspective of the world, and start having a little concern for the needs and growth of others.
And hey, the world could certainly stand a little more humility, on and off the basketball court.
Transition Points:
Nate McMillan was a pretty solid point guard in his own right for the Seattle Supersonics back in the 90’s. I sort of imagined myself as more of a Kendall Gill-type player growing up, but McMillan was just one of those guys that I think every player should aspire to be – he knew his role, worked hard on both ends of the floor, and just struck me as someone who was a real student of the game. So it’s quite interesting to hear about what he values in a point guard for this young uber-talented Trail Blazers team.
I just received an email today about an article Bill Maher wrote in the Huffington Post a few days ago about healthcare and he brought up another one of those nagging issues about living in a world with other human beings:
How about this for a New Rule: Not everything in America has to make a profit. It used to be that there were some services and institutions so vital to our nation that they were exempt from market pressures. Some things we just didn't do for money. The United States always defined capitalism, but it didn't used to define us.
Novel.
Yes, I know all this Pacific Northwest hippie thinking is leading right to a silly and dangerous statement like all we need in the world is more love…or something like that. Thankfully, the Beatles have already lyrically covered that topic in depth…and Love Actually was one of those movies that brought it all to life.
Continue reading...
Sky-Storm Preview: What Can We Learn From Chicago’s Consecutive Blowout Losses…About the Fever and Mercury?
With just under six minutes left in the first quarter of the Indiana Fever’s rout of the Chicago Sky on Friday, Katie Douglas calmly dribbled around a Tammy Sutton-Brown screen and hit a smooth transition three-pointer over Dominique Canty’s outstretched arm to put the Fever up 20-6.
After watching the ball fall right through the net, Canty just stood there at the three point line frozen for a moment, swinging her arms into a clap before briefly dropping her head.
Immediately, the word demoralization comes to mind – the Fever went on to absolutely dominate the Sky and it was like Canty appeared to feel the weight of it as she was a fraction of a second late rotating on the switch. However, it might be more accurate to say that it looked like she was exasperated or mentally drained and just had a lack of answers for a looming onslaught.
I guess being blown out twice in a row just does that to the human mind.
There really was no reason to believe that the Sky would end their own three game losing streak by ending the Fever’s eight game winning streak, especially without Olympian center Sylvia Fowles. Sky coach Steven Key was quoted as saying part of the problem was that they’ve been trying to “reorganize without Sylvia”…which implies prior organization and that Fowles is somehow worth about 30 points to the Sky.
Neither rings true to me – being embarrassed like that begs probing into deeper problems.
Problems that I have no way to know about…
And so I thought it was more interesting to compare the performances of the Fever and Mercury, the first place teams in their respective conferences, and to look forward to thinking about how the Sky might rebound tonight against yet another tough opponent: the Seattle Storm.
Anatomy of a blowout: Can the Mercury maintain their pace?
During one the Mercury-Sparks broadcast last Sunday, one of the commentators wondered if the Mercury could keep up the pace they play at over the course of an entire season, partially to (correctly) imply it might be a different story once the Sparks get their full complement of players back.
Looking at the Mercury’s last three games, this might be a legitimate concern. Their victory over the Sparks was really a little more than five minutes of dominant play. In their blowout of Chicago, they shot a blistering 70.6% in the first quarter, then didn’t even shoot 40% in any other quarter, not to mention that their assisted field goal ratio fell from 75% in the first quarter to 25% for the game.
And although this might sound paradoxical because they needed a last second shot to beat Sacramento last night, they actually put together an entire half of really good basketball. They shot 21-40 from the field in the second half, were 7-16 from the three point line, and had an assisted field goal ratio of about 80% in both quarters. In the third quarter, they also had a 44% offensive rebounding percentage. They were really playing extremely well– the Monarchs just really stepped up their game to match them.
So the obvious knock is that they are having some difficulty maintaining their pace although they end up looking dominant in the final score. Of course the final score is all that matters and if all they need is one quick spurt to put a team away, then who am I to complain? But it also stands in stark contrast to how Indiana blew out the Sky.
Anatomy of another blowout: How good are the Fever?
To be fair, it seems that part of the issue is that Chicago gets off to really bad starts, digs themselves a big hole and then just cannot get out of it.
The 33-9 hole they dug themselves in the first quarter just felt completely insurmountable, even if you knew intuitively there was still time to come back. Part of that was because the Fever never really let up.
Really it’s hard to take much away from what the Fever did to the Sky because it was 66-36 at the end of three quarters, meaning most of this game was garbage time, whether the coaches publicly acknowledged it by emptying the bench or not. Neither team played particularly well in the second half.
But one thing you can say about the Fever is that they never let up.
Whereas the Mercury seemed to get out in front in coast, the Fever maintained a very high level of play. After shooting 72.2% in the first quarter, they shot over 50% in every quarter except the third (31.3%). Their assisted field goal ratios went up after the first quarter, hitting 100% in both the 2nd and 3rd meaning they were keeping the ball moving to get scoring opportunities. And as is characteristic of Fever basketball, they also kept the Sky to an abysmal 29% field goal percentage for the game.
Whereas the Mercury are having dominant moments, the Fever seem to playing consistently good basketball.
Of course, the difference might be star power
The Fever play extremely well, but their stars – as good as they are – are just not in the same stratosphere as Diana Taurasi and Cappie Pondexter. Really, nobody is this year. So the Mercury have the capacity to just overwhelm opponents with star power and athleticism.
The Fever don’t necessarily have that luxury and I would argue they need to rely on strong teamwork to maximize their talent and win games. Lin Dunn has done an excellent job of getting the most out of them this season.
But something I found interesting when looking at the post game statistics is that the Fever also do a really good job of getting a contribution from multiple players – looking at minutes in a blowout with that much garbage time is not very useful, but looking at Credit ratings is. No player on the Fever was more that 9.29% (Eshaya Murphy) responsible for their victory of the Sky. In contrast, the Mercury’s Credit ratings range from 0-18.61% (Taurasi and Pondexter was responsible for another 11.86%)
The Mercury to this point have been a very star dependent team getting rather inconsistent contributions from their supporting players. Will that stop them from winning a championship? Perhaps not, especially if Penny Taylor returns. But it’s an interesting thing to note.
What’s in store for the Sky at Key Arena?
So obviously, I am headed to Key Arena today assuming that another loss is in store for the Sky, even if Fowles returns. The Key is just too insane for a struggling team like the Sky to suddenly put it together there.
Kevin Pelton already posted a nice preview of the game at StormTracker. Fowles is rumored to come back tonight and if she does, maybe the Sky will fare better tonight than they have in their last two games. Either way, what will be interesting to watch is how well the Storm balance being a star dependent team versus a chemistry dependent team.
Most of all, I’m still eternally waiting for the Sky to find some sort of rhythm or system that will maximize this amazing young talent they have. They have all the pieces to be an extremely successful basketball team and really have no business being embarrassed the way they have been.
Continue reading...
Mercury Beat Monarchs in a Thriller: Who Says WNBA Basketball Isn't Exciting?
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...
Continue reading...
How The Mercury Beat the Sparks in LA: From 0 to 22 in About 5 minutes 30 seconds
The Phoenix Mercury’s impressive 104-89 road victory over the Los Angeles Sparks last night was one of those games that simply cannot be appreciated by reading the box score or even the play by play alone.
It’s not just that the Mercury posted a season-high 36-point third quarter, that they managed to out-rebound the Sparks 40-31, or that they ran off 11 straight points to start the fourth quarter. It’s how they did it that is noteworthy.
Although the game ended up a blow out, it was going back and forth until about three minutes left in the 3rd quarter when DeLisha Milton-Jones was whistled for a touch foul on DeWanna Bonner that forced Jones to the bench with her fourth foul.
After Bonner made the two free throws, the Mercury were up five. Then the shifting tide of momentum that the Sparks had seemingly held off for the previous three and a half minutes, swung completely in the Mercury’s favor.
What the Mercury did to the Sparks during the ensuing five and a half minute stretch spanning the 3rd and 4th quarters really cannot be measured, quantified, or even fully articulated without watching it.
To describe it as the Sparks “falling apart” would be to completely ignore that the Mercury got into a zone in which they seemed to be optimally coordinated as a team while almost effortlessly taking control of the game.
Commentator Tracy Warren may have described the sequence of events best at the end of the third quarter after Cappie Pondexter set up Bonner for a three to put the Mercury up 10.
You could see with that three a little bit of deflation from the Sparks. They’re feeling like wow. We’re can’t stop Taurasi, we’re having trouble with Pondexter, and now you’re us the rookie Bonner is gonna hit from outside. Tough matchup problems for the Sparks right now in the third.That was before Cappie Pondexter took an outlet pass without about 6.5 seconds left, beat Shannon Bobbitt down the length of the court, and hit a seemingly ridiculous floating jumper from the wing with 1.2 seconds left to put the Mercury up 11.
That’s demoralizing. And sometimes that just means more on the court than anyone off the court can understand rationally.
What the Mercury did to the Sparks during that stretch was not just Mercury basketball at its best, but it was an almost perfect realization of what a fast paced offense should be. All the elements of what it takes to run successfully were on display: defense (to prevent the other team from making shots), rebounding (to initiate the fast break), and high percentage shots (to keep the pressure on the opposing defense).
When a team with three all-stars (yes, Temeka Johnson is having an all-star season) gets in that kind of zone, it’s difficult to imagine anybody stopping them…even if they are on the road.
From an analytical standpoint, the Mercury’s play during that condensed period of time is perfect for a case study of what the Mercury do at their best. However, it also reinforces the argument that the Sparks are simply not a running team but a team designed to thrive off of their Olympic frontcourt. And once they get all their pieces back in game shape, a team like the Mercury might not even get the opportunity to run them like that.
A tale of two halves
Obscured by the final outcome of the game is that the Sparks played a very strong first half despite Candace Parker returning to play her first game after pregnancy and Lisa Leslie still sidelined by injury. Forget whatever you thought about the Mercury prior to the season – the Sparks were playing neck and neck with the best team in the West without a full roster. That’s impressive.
In the second quarter, when the Sparks built a six-point lead, the Sparks completely neutralized the Mercury – the Mercury only shot 26.7%, made four unforced turnovers, and gave up five offensive rebounds. The Mercury were forced into a number of contested shots or bad decisions just from the aggressive defense of the Sparks. With 3:22 left in the second quarter, I wrote the following note to myself: “pho falling apart”.
Granted, the Sparks needed a miracle shot at the halftime buzzer to take a 5 point lead, but they played well and kept the Mercury at bay.
But of course a five point lead is not what one would normally consider “safe”.
With 8:56 left in the 3rd, the Sparks were up 8 after a layup by Kristi Harrower. What allowed the Mercury to cut the lead was the Sparks settling for perimeter shots or getting contested shots inside. Meanwhile, the Mercury were starting to heat up, getting open looks from the three point line within the flow of their early offense and getting to the free throw line 12 times. They were getting easy points.
And that was before the Mercury started demoralizing the Sparks.
How the Mercury can demoralize an opponent
Last season I noted that the Mercury were best when they started moving the ball. While Taurasi can certainly single-handedly take over games, when she can get help it makes the Mercury extremely difficult to defend, as described in the aforementioned Warren quote. However, both ball movement and rebounding are what made the Mercury’s run possible.
The Mercury’s six third quarter assists matched their assist total from the first half. That’s not including at least four other “lost assists” – missed open shots or plays on which a player got fouled on a shot after receiving a pass -- that I counted. When the Mercury get into their uptempo zone, it’s not just one player leading the way, it’s a team effort.
There are at least three key reasons for the Mercury being so effective in the open court this season. First, the addition of Temeka Johnson has been perfect for the Mercury’s system. She not only has the speed and ball skills to get out on the break and find players in rhythm, but she can also spread the defense by hitting perimeter shots.
Second, the addition of Bonner was perfect for this team. Bonner is able to beat everyone down the court for easy baskets, which only enhances the Mercury attack. However, another key asset Bonner brings is offensive rebounding. Bonner had five offensive rebounds in the game, three of which came in the third quarter.
The Mercury as a team are not known for their rebounding, but they out-rebounded the Sparks 25-10 in the second half. In the third quarter, they grabbed 57% of all the available offensive rebounds, which is dominant. That means they were not only getting easy baskets and wide-open shots, but also extending their possessions and giving themselves second chances to score. Bonner’s tenacity in the paint despite her slight build was a large part of that.
Third, the other major “addition” to the Mercury is Cappie Pondexter’s improvement as a facilitator. It is well known that Johnson and Taurasi are playmakers with great court vision, but Pondexter has been an outstanding playmaker in her own right this season. Whereas last season she spent a lot more time looking for her own shot, often literally bulldozing her way to the basket with her head down, this season, she's looking to set up her teammates. Last night, she recorded a pure point rating of 5.74 to lead the team.
That means that not only do opponents have to keep up with the pace of the Mercury, but they also have to find a way to defend a team with three perimeter players that can facilitate plays for all the other moving parts like Bonner, Le’Coe Willingham, and Tangela Smith.
It’s not easy.
However, most important is the Mercury’s defense. As coach Corey Gaines said in the pre-season, they are employing the Rover defense differently this season, choosing to alternate between that and a man-to-man defense. With about 4:30 left in the third, they briefly started alternating between the two defenses which worked to slow the Sparks down just as the Mercury were starting to heat up.
The Sparks looked as though they were having trouble recognizing exactly what defense the Mercury were in. When they play the Rover effectively and use it as a tactic to sway the tempo rather than their base offense, they further keep their opponents on their toes.
In the last 2:58 of the third quarter, all those pieces came together at once, along with Taurasi being Taurasi. That is near unstoppable.
Of course, with Leslie and Parker healthy, one would imagine that the Mercury could not possibly have been so dominant on the boards and that would definitely have changed the face of this game. Not to mention the fact that Milton-Jones was out for much of this third quarter stretch after picking up her fourth foul.
But at the end of the third quarter, this is the Mercury you saw: working extremely well together, scoring from all over the floor, and limiting the Sparks’ scoring opportunities on the defensive end. That team is going to be competitive any night of the week.
Anatomy of a fourth quarter run: The Sparks’ search for someone to step up
However, things just worsened for the Sparks at the beginning of the fourth. And what became obvious at that point is that the Sparks are still trying to figure out their roles on the team.
Warren mentioned that Tina Thompson has said that she would defer to Leslie and Parker as the leaders on this talented team. Lennox is a good scorer, but usually inefficient. Milton-Jones was clearly the third wheel on last season’s Sparks team.
In other words, when the Sparks still had a chance to get back in this game despite the demoralization process, they didn’t know where to look to get out of the rut. There is a leadership void without Leslie and Parker at full strength.
Meanwhile, Taurasi and, to a lesser extent, Johnson had a field day.
However, as I was watching I took note of who was taking the shots for each team. Here’s an excerpt from my notes in the 4th quarter until the 6:30 mark when the Sparks found themselves down 22:
LA to HaydenWhile the Sparks are looking for Vanessa Hayden, Noelle Quinn, or Betty Lennox, the Mercury have the ball in the hands of Johnson and Taurasi and getting layups or free throws. I’ll take Johnson and Taurasi in that contest any day. Warren made the following comment late in the fourth quarter that sums up what happened to the Sparks.
Pho to Taurasi 83-70
LA to Quinn for 3
85-70: TJ for 2, open free throw line J
Lennox missed j
TJ to Bonner, fast break lay 87-70
Mercury switching zones
DMJ bad throw in, Swanier fast break lay + ft 1-1, 90-70
DMJ to, Taurasi fast break lay, 92-70
LA timeout
This is a team that has shown they’ve got multiple offensive weapons and unless someone can stop them all, they’re going to have their hands full.There is no way the Sparks could have matched up with the Mercury last night, given their personnel. But again, it’s important to reiterate that if the Sparks had one of their designated leaders on the floor during that stretch, the play by play would look a lot different.
Last night’s game should not Spark panic in L.A.
However, the easiest thing to focus on in the Sparks’ loss is the fourth quarter when they looked completely discombobulated and without leadership. One could imagine that the 11-0 fourth quarter run is what motivated Milton-Jones’ post game comments (quoted in the LA Times), that seemed to have a sense of urgency about solving the Sparks’ problems.
As a team that has already played nine games and had their coach question their effort, the Sparks know their own rebuilding effort can't take too much time.While Milton-Jones is probably correct that there are leaks that need to be fixed in the Sparks’ foundation, one could conceivably modify the metaphor – it’s as though the Sparks’ foundation of Leslie and Parker was removed altogether and the water is just creating a mudslide in the dirt below.
"We cant keep patching up the leaks," said Sparks forward DeLisha Milton-Jones, who tied her season high with 15 points but was scoreless in the second half.
"We need to re-pipe the system with copper piping to make sure there is no more damage later on. Right now we're suffering a lot of water damage and our foundation is slowly cracking. But we have to find ways to get wins, bottom line."
This season’s team was put together with the assumption that they would have Leslie and Parker playing together in the post. Without that, they will have an extremely difficult time finding wins. Until that point, it’s difficult to critique the Sparks, coach Michael Cooper, or the personnel.
They have to remain patient and looking forward to establishing their system so that they are ready to win once Leslie and Parker return.
Warren’s comment with 50.3 seconds left speaks directly to that point:
Now I think It’s a different game if you get a healthy Lisa Leslie and a healthy Candace Parker and you see what happens in August and September.The Sparks will still have to fight their way into the playoffs and likely need help…but if they do get in with a healthy roster, they will absolutely be dangerous.
Transition Points:
BobsScoutingReport made a post on Rebkell saying that Nikki Teasley will be working out with the Sparks today for a possible signing. One would assume that means the Sparks will be dropping a point guard. That brings up two obvious questions: 1) would Teasley add anything to their existing group? and 2) if so, which point guard should go?
First let me say that I think Teasley's performance in Atlanta was inconsistent, but not nearly as horrific as some Dream fans make it out to be. But anyway...
My vague general opinion: it depends on how the Sparks want to play.
A more specific analysis:
If they're looking for a distributor who can protect the ball, Kristi Harrower is by far the best of the bunch -- she has an outstanding pure point rating of 9.55 and an assist ratio of 37.05...while only turning the ball over on 3% of the possessions she uses. Quinn is by far the odd person out if they want a distributor.
If they're looking for a point guard who can distribute and score, Teasley is the best shooter of this bunch with a 56% true shooting percentage, but again Harrower is more efficient -- she has a 2 point shooting percentage of 45% and scores 2 points for almost every possession she ends with a missed shot or turnover. Quinn is not nearly the playmaker of the other three, but is by far the best shooter, with a 52% true shooting percentage and a 54% 2 point shooting percentage.
Quinn's scoring ability makes her the best player overall according to any overall metric I use and has the highest plus/minus rating. In addition, coach Michael Cooper has said that he likes her versatility. So she's probably not going anywhere.
That leaves Shannon Bobbitt without any obvious statistical value to the team over any of the other players. However, while she is probably the least effective scorer of the bunch, she's by far the quickest player, as she's able to get the ball up the court quickly, distribute the ball efficiently (pure point rating of 7.16) and apply pressure defensively. And hmmm...isn't she friends with Candace Parker?
The only thing that Teasley offers is a higher true shooting percentage than any of the current Sparks point guards at 56.68%, which is among the best of any point guard in the league.
So if it comes down to the Sparks choosing between Bobbitt, Harrower, or Teasley to fit their style of play, I would probably opt with maintaining team chemistry and just not signing Teasley -- I'm just not sure what she adds to what they already have. But if they're looking for (very little) additional scoring and size, while not losing much on the distributor end, waiving Bobbitt and signing Teasley does make sense. Either way, I'm not sure it's a move that would substantially improve or hurt this team.
Fast break points: Phoenix 23, Los Angeles 4
Warren commented on Phoenix’s style of play with about 2:20 left in the 4th quarter: “And you wonder how long Phoenix can keep this pace up? They really go about 7, maybe 8, deep – but typically about 7 players deep. So in August, can they still keep up this high-powered offense? They’ve done it the past three years.” So an interesting tidbit from last night's game: Phoenix used nine players for significant minutes. Those four bench players put up 37 points to the 22 points of the Sparks' significant bench players (Wisdom-Hylton didn't come in until late in the game).
Continue reading...
Can We Quantify How Important a Player is to Her Team?
Wednesday night's Mercury-Storm game was one of the better played games I've watched this season, refereeing notwithstanding.
As ESPN's Mechelle Voepel wrote today, part of what makes the Mercury-Storm games so great is that this matchup has "star power":
And by “star” we mean “star,” not just terrific player. Phoenix’s Diana Taurasi and Cappie Pondexter, Seattle’s Lauren Jackson, Sue Bird and Swin Cash. And yes, we’re heavy on the UConn/Big East connection here, but that’s part of it. These players have been in the spotlight for a long time.Sometimes when I watch games with that much star power, I find it hard to figure out which player or players contribute the most to the victory or which player is carrying the team or -- even more intriguing -- which non-stars stepped up and really contributed to the team's victory.
Of course, one could respond, "Who cares??? A team wins a game, not individual players." True...and I imagine those folks aren't reading this blog anyway. But ultimately, when it comes down to analyzing a team's strengths and weaknesses, we also want to know what each part of the whole is contributing.
While there are many different ways to think about that, among the most intriguing I've come across is David Sparks' "Credit" statistic that he created last summer. I first used this approach last summer during the Olympics (click here), but have also applied it to a few regular season WNBA games whenever the feeling strikes me (as I did yesterday with the Sky-Monarchs game).
I've applied a lot of Sparks' work to the WNBA, partially because I like the fact that he has come up with a set of statistics to look at player performance, player styles, and team performance. Although he created and weighted his metric for the NBA, they also seem to work pretty well for the WNBA (click here for an explanation of the Credit formula).
Most important to me is that the Credit statistic seems to not only quantify my subjective observations of a game, but also illuminate things that I might have missed during the course of a game or help me figure out who deserves credit other than the players who always get the spotlight.
For example, when I look at the headlines for Wednesday night's Mercury-Storm game, I see a lot of focus on Pondexter and Taurasi. After all, they were the top scorers and the top scorers. However, when I take a look at the credit statistics it looks like another player deserves mention for the Mercury's victory: Tangela Smith.
So how should we understand this metric? And how might it help us analyze a player's contribution to a game?
Here are the Mercury's credit statistics for Wednesday night:
Pondexter 16.16%
Smith 11.44%
Taurasi 11.33%
Willingham 6.23%
Bonner 4.17%
Ohlde 2.99%
Swanier 2.32%
Quigley 0.00%
Mazzante -0.21%
Johnson -0.98%
*Note: as described by Sparks on his old site, this does not add up to 100% but is a percentage of the total production of both teams. Therefore, the top players on a team that wins in a blow out would get more credit whereas the top players on a team that wins a tight game would get slightly less.
This is not to say that Tangela Smith is a better player than Diana Taurasi. Neither is it to say that Taurasi is more important -- an argument could be made that since Taurasi demands the attention of the opposing defense, players like Smith are able to take advantage of the relative lack of attention they receive. Nor does this say that Smith is significantly more important than Smith to the team overall -- take Taurasi off of this team and surely they would win a lot less games (that's what Sparks' Boxscores were for).
What credit does tell us is a player's statistical contribution to a game and frames it in terms that we can easily talk about and compare from game to game. For example, we see that in this game, Pondexter, Smith, and Taurasi were by far the most important players in the game, with Pondexter being the most important. If you watched the game, that just about makes sense -- Pondexter was doing everything and her ability to break down her defender, get into the lane, and set up other players was hugely important throughout the game.
Smith's greatest contribution was her rebounding and blocked shots, but she was also extremely efficient shooting, including two threes. In addition, her ability -- along with Le'Coe Willingham -- to provide scoring inside is a huge asset to the Mercury and something that they will likely need to make a serious run in the Western Conference playoffs.
So even though Smith's contributions were valuable to this game, it's not like we should consider her a star on the level of Taurasi. A star's impact on the ebb and flow of a game goes well beyond the final score. And clearly, there's more that goes into a basketball game than scoring.
So how might we contextualize a player's contribution to the final score with some understanding of how they contributed to the ebb and flow of a game?
It seems like pairing plus/minus and credit might be one interesting approach.
I was talking to someone about plus/minus the other day and he mentioned how it doesn't seem to mean very much for basketball game to game. And he's completely right. It can be an extremely misleading statistic on the game to game level because it depends so heavily on matchups, teammates, and in some cases game strategy. He thought it was a better statistic for hockey than basketball because of the way in which hockey flows. Plus/minus works much better to look at over the course of an entire season than from game to game.
However, if we pair plus/minus with credit for one game, I think we get a pretty full picture of what a player has done in a given game.
Take Wednesday night's plus/minus numbers for the Mercury (from Swanny's stats):
Swanier +20 (41-21)
Pondexter +19 (83-64)
Willingham +14 (50-36)
Taurasi +12 (82-70)
T.Smith +5 (71-66)
Bonner +5 (34-29)
Ohlde 0 (31-31)
Mazzante -7 (21-28)
Johnson -8 (52-60)
So suddenly Swanier jumps to the top. How do we understand that? She only played 13 minutes 11 seconds -- should she be playing more? Not necessarily.
Plus/minus tells us how well the team functions when a player is on the floor, not necessarily how much an individual contributes to the team's success.
Swanier did come in and run the offense for the Mercury extremely well. Despite a few small miscues in which she mishandled the ball, she had a pure point rating of 10.25 and an assist ratio of 29.06% and no turnovers. So she gave the team a huge boost off of the bench by helping run the offense...and for the majority of the first half Wednesday night, she did so much better than Temeka Johnson.
But while this tells us a little something about how the game flowed while she was in, it does not necessarily tell us how much she individually contributed to the victory -- it would be silly to claim that a player who only played 13 minutes played a large part in the team's success.
That's what makes the combined plus/minus and Credit numbers of players like Pondexter and Taurasi so impressive -- they had a positive impact on the team when they were on the floor and were also responsible for a majority of the team's production.
So just for the sake of comparison, let's take a look at the Storm.
Wright 10.46%, -12 (67-79)
Cash 10.18%, -13 (68-81)
Jackson 8.69%, -17 (68-85)
Bird 5.84%, 0 (76-76)
Little 5.22%, -11 (59-70)
Johnson 3.49%, -4 (45-49)
Burse 1.94%, 0 (19-19)
Geralds 0.41%, +1 (3-2)
Walker 0.31%, -2 (0-2)
Again here, credit does a little more to illuminate a player's impact on the game despite being on the losing team. While Bird had a neutral (yet best) impact on the team in terms of plus/minus, we also see that she was not exactly individually contributing a whole lot to the team's success while on the floor. And since Credit takes into account the final scoring differential, we also see that performance of the players on the losing team is weighted in terms of their contribution relative to the total production in the game.
So can Credit and plus/minus help us quantify star power?
This seems to move closer to the definition of a star -- being able to individually contribute to the win but also helping the team perform better while on the floor. It's a player that is able to balance between individual and mutual responsibility (in more political terms)...and do so while playing significant minutes.
To me it provides a much more nuanced understanding of a player's contribution to the game than any statistic can accomplish individually...but also doing so in a much simpler fashion than using 7 or 8 statistics like I've used in the past (though something to measure defensive impact would be nice).
Without looking at the numbers right now, I would make an educated guess that the best players in the WNBA (or NBA) are able to make a positive contribution to the team in big minutes while also taking assuming a large portion of the burden to contribute to the team's success. But that is clearly a much larger project...
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...
