“Welcome to the new frontier”: Why the WNBA Needs More Whalen…and Parker...and LJ...and Cappie

Connecticut Sun point guard Lindsay Whalen is certainly not the most athletically gifted player and she doesn’t necessarily even make spectacular plays, and yet she consistently stands out in almost every game she plays, even to fans who can hardly spell her name.

Sometime during the first half of the Seattle Storm’s 86-74 home victory over the Connecticut Sun last Thursday, Bethlehem Shoals got my attention to show me a tweet from his second WNBA experience (corrected below for your reading enjoyment).

Whalen is such a great PG she doesn’t even need the ball!

While Shoals’ commentary may strike rational individuals as absurd, Whalen consistently stands out in almost every game she plays as in complete control of everything going on around her. She has a presence on the court that is felt even when she is doing things that seem rather pedestrian.

But how exactly do we describe what makes Whalen such a great player?

As I ponder the question, there’s one play from the Sun's 91-81 loss to the Los Angeles Sparks game this past Sunday night that stands out in my mind.

After Tina Thompson missed a baseline jumper with 4:49 left in the 3rd quarter of what looked to be a Sparks blowout, Whalen snuck through a gap in the lane untouched to grab the rebound. Having secured the ball and brushed off Sparks forward Candace Parker’s attempt to swipe the ball from her, Whalen left the 2008 MVP behind and pushed the ball up court at ¾ speed.

As she crossed the three point line, rookie forward Lindsay Wisdom-Hylton was faced with the unfortunate task of trying to stop Whalen. While common sense might tell us that Wisdom-Hylton had no shot to stop Whalen from going to the basket – having already drawn the attention of the defense, Whalen came to a stop just inside of the free throw line and just shuffled a pass to Sun forward Sandrine Gruda for an open jumper on the wing.

That play is certainly not the most spectacular of Whalen plays and in fact, it wasn’t even the most spectacular of her season-high nine assists from Sunday night. However, the play is quintessential Whalen, affecting the game with nothing more than the subtlest of moves to make the simplest of plays…repeatedly.

She makes basketball look as simple as lacing up our shoes.

Furthermore, it seems that Whalen has made a science of capitalizing on simplest principles of basketball, methodically analyzing a situation to make the best play possible.

To extend the point, even when watching Connecticut Sun point guard Lindsay Whalen in losses, it’s easy to see why she’s a perennial MVP candidate. Her presence on the court is felt, regardless of whether she has the ball in her hands. She’s tough enough to dive deep into the paint for rebounds and graceful enough to make the perfect pass to her teammate for a three pointer. It’s that attitude of winning by any means necessary that makes her great.

On his blog FreeDarko.com, Shoals would later make the claim that the WNBA “needs more Whalen”, primarily because of her “attitude” – “She talks non-stop, plays the whole game with a scowl on her face, and stared down the ref at the half.” However, I would like to expand upon why the WNBA needs more Whalen while also making a more narrow claim.

Earlier in his article, Shoals made what I think is the far more interesting claim in his article, something that I didn’t quite appreciate when we were caught up in the chaos of Key Arena on Thursday night.

I was serious when I twitted that she doesn't even need the ball to operate masterfully from the point. Depending on how you look at it, it's either quasi-mystical, or the kind of what people used to say about Deron Williams ("he gets hockey assists and stays within the system") before dude came to life, but true.

She gives it up almost as soon as she crossed half-court, or posts up at the top of the key, Cassell-style, but as a way of attracting attention and feeding someone else. And these aren't passes for assists; mostly, they set into motion a series of obvious events (two, three, four passes) that result in an open shot. Her teammates usually miss, and Whalen herself can hit the lane strong and sink jumpers at will, but whatever. She's bigger than that. Closest NBA comparison: Old Jason Kidd, if old Jason Kidd were young and could shoot.

(Speaking of which, last night I decided that comparing NBA to WNBA players is the logical next step of NBA esoterica. Like when Kevin told me "Darko was supposed to be what Lauren Jackson is." These days, everyone knows everything about every random player. If you value elitism and obscurity in your fandom—and buy my argument that the WNBA is a variation on the NBA, not an inferior product like college—then welcome to the new frontier.)

There are players in the WNBA like Whalen, Jackson, Parker and Cappie Pondexter that defy our natural inclination toward NBA comparison. These players don’t really have a NBA comparison unless you start fantasizing about maximizing the talent of superstars. They truly do represent a different, not inferior, style of basketball performance.

To stick with Whalen, the only way to make a NBA comparison is by either idealizing what we wished NBA players to be or somehow trying to play with time and the natural course of development to bring together the athleticism of youth with the savvy of age.

And perhaps that is the allure of Whalen for NBA fans –not only does she exhibit intensity and toughness that people do not normally associate with women’s sports, but she is an idealized image of what we wish our favorite point guards would become.

So it should be no surprise that longtime NBA fans, such as myself, Shoals, Phoenix Stan, and Stan’s guest Wattdogg10 all immediately notice Whalen as standing out as something special when we comment on the WNBA.

Players like Whalen, Jackson, Parker, and Pondexter are truly intriguing basketball narratives unto themselves that any true fan of the sport should be able to recognize as special and appreciate. Again, if you can't appreciate how these players play the game, it might be time for you to abandon basketball altogether.

So to elaborate on Shoals’ point, it’s not just that the WNBA needs more Whalen to enhance the product, but “more Whalen” might actually attract NBA fans simply because she would give them pause and really provide a new vision of the game they love. Ditto for Jackson, Parker, and Pondexter.

Continue reading...

Toliver Helps Sky to Victory: "Sometimes as a Young Player All You Want is a Chance."

After hitting a free throw with 7:11 left in the fourth quarter to increase her career high scoring to 24, Chicago Sky rookie point guard Kristi Toliver stood at the free throw line with a huge grin.

It was hard to say what exactly she was grinning at because it looked like she was grinning in response to someone off camera.

So let me recklessly read into her grin a little: it had to be a relief to play so well after recording a DNP-CD in Los Angeles against the Sparks.

Toliver finished the game with a career-high 25 points, going 5-8 from the three point line, and played a key role in a huge 21-4 run that propelled the Sky to a 96-77 victory over the New York Liberty.

In a way, I suppose you could say it was a "boring" 25 points. As the commentators discussed entering the fourth quarter, a number of those shots were literally loose balls falling into her hands and her shooting almost indiscriminately over the outstretched arms of defenders.

But even in seeming like one of the most accidental 25 point performances the league has seen, her shot is just so beautiful. Her shot looks almost effortless and has an almost perfect arc before falling softly through the net. Dare I say she has one of the prettiest jump shots in the WNBA?

During the third quarter, as New York Liberty rookie post player Kia Vaughn was on a roll on her way to her own career-high 12 points, Mary Murphy said, "Sometimes as a young player all you want is a chance." And really, the statement seems to apply more directly Toliver than Vaughn, who has not had as many explosive performances during her rookie campaign.

It's hard not to wonder sometimes if Kristi Toliver has truly gotten a chance to have the rookie season people expected of her when she was drafted #3 in the 2009 WNBA draft. Of course there might be reasons for that which are beyond the reach of us outside observers.

But the strange thing is that aside from a turnover problem that's no longer any worse than her rookie point guard counterparts who are receiving a lot more playing time, Toliver has performed well in spurts when she enters the game. In fact, she has arguably outperformed teammates who take her time.

If the Sky had firmly secured a playoff spot in the Eastern Conference or at the very least shown consistent play this season, perhaps this would be a non-issue. However, as things stand now, it's difficult to make sense of the situation in Chicago.

Talent-wise, there's no reason Chicago should not be a playoff team. The fact that they're not should raise questions. If everyone who watches the team is perpetually wondering what the *bleep* are they doing?, then perhaps there's reason to believe things aren't quite right.

I would have remained silent on the Sky because...well...they defy explanation moreso than any team I've watched this season. It's not like the Sacramento Monarchs who are aging and injured or the Liberty who seem to be a poorly constructed and managed team. This team has too much talent to not be in a better position.

And Candace Dupree's comments to the media the other day don't exactly help assuage doubts

"I just feel like people have no motivation, Dupree said. "This is the first time in franchise history we could potentially make the playoffs and I don't feel like everybody plays like that every night. We've got to pick it up."

Doesn't that sound like a red flag that something really is not quite right with this team?

Continue reading...

A Point Guard to Build a Dream On: Penicheiro is Still Creativity Personified

Long time WNBA fans have probably seen Sacramento Monarchs point guard drive baseline and hit a cutting teammate for an easy layup thousands of times.

But I still have to step back and say wow.

With just under 6:30 left in the fourth quarter against the Atlanta Dream last night, Penicheiro brought the ball up the court at about ¾ speed in transition. As Dream defenders had done all night, rookie point guard Shalee Lehning was sagging down to the free throw line as Penicheiro got to the three point line, exploiting Penicheiro’s notoriously inconsistent jump shot.

And yet in typical Penicheiro form, she used a series of changes of pace, hesitations, head fakes, and changes of direction to get to the baseline and rendering Lehning almost helpless to stop her. As the Dream defense collapsed – seemingly leaving Penicheiro with nowhere else to go – two of her teammates suddenly became open: forward Hamchetou Maiga-Ba popped out for a jumper on the wing while Rebekkah Brunson waited and cut to the basket through a now clear lane.

Surrounded by four Dream defenders Penicheiro got Dream center Sancho Lyttle to shift her weight in the wrong direction with a subtle ball fake, took to the air and hit the cutting Brunson who was left unattended in the lane. After the defensive havoc Penicheiro had just caused, all Dream forward Erika Desouza could do was foul, sending Brunson to the line.

With the Monarchs down 21 points at that moment in time, the play is insignificant in the grand scheme of things. The Monarchs ultimately lost and Penicheiro didn’t pick up the assist although it was her effort that undoubtedly created the scoring opportunity which ended in free throws. But the way in which she seems to be in total control even as she’s in the middle of switching gears and throwing a flurry of fakes at her opponents never ceases to amaze me.

It’s not necessarily original to say that Penicheiro is the epitome of basketball as an art form – creatively drawing upon the resources revealed to her in a situation to make beauty out of a chaotic world. And even in the twilight of her career, in a 103-83 blowout that pushed the Monarchs further into the cellar of the Western Conference, appreciating Penicheiro is almost a mandate for anyone who considers themselves a true fan of the sport.

Forgive the basketball snobbery, but if you can’t recognize the beauty in Penicheiro’s game, it’s time to move on from basketball and find a new sport.

Given that, it’s probably not a stretch to say that Penicheiro represents something of the archetypal point guard in the basketball universe. She is a pass-first player, with court vision and seemingly in control of every single moment on the court, keeping her dribble live as a means to create things even when everything seems to break down.

Just the other day, Shoals and I briefly exchanged emails about legendary NBA point guard John Stockton and Shoals suggested that Stockton is “an elite role player” – a player who became a Hall of Famer simply by playing his position to perfection. Although Stockton was by far a better shooter than Penicheiro – it still amazes me that a point guard shot 51.5% over a 1,500 game career – Penicheiro is an “elite role player” in a similarly complimentary sense. She plays the position just as most people would imagine it being played in its most ideal sense and excites us when she does something beyond what we’re able to imagine.

Dream point guards Lehning and Ivory Latta pale in comparison to this point guard dream come true from Sacramento. It almost makes you wonder how a team like the Dream can even pull off a win with mere mortals running the point opposite Penicheiro.

But then you remember that this is ultimately a team game – players like Penicheiro can help facilitate plays for her teammates, but if the team doesn’t work well as a unit to begin with, it’s all rendered moot.

The Dream's one-two combo at point guard offer very different things that can be useful at different times – Latta did do what she does well in scoring points but picked up 2 of her three turnovers in garbage time while Lehning did what she does well running the team and picking up 10 assists but didn’t even get a shot off until missing a contested fast break lay up.

The best we can say is that in this situation -- a team with two all-star post players who they went to early and often -- Lehning is working out well running the offense and helping the team get them the ball.

That’s not a final objective judgment of either player’s talent or future as a WNBA player. But to use the notion of a player being functionally effective within a role, Lehning – while not nearly the image of positional perfection that Penicheiro has been – is filling the function of point guard well enough to keep the Dream in second place.

If the question shifts from an assessment of talent based on an idealized positional standard that nobody aside from Penicheiro (or Stockton) are likely to achieve to a question of who fills the role of point guard well enough for the team to be successful, Lehning is doing just fine.

Of course we all wish to have a Penicheiro or Stockton on our favorite teams, but somehow we have to find a way to appreciate the less-than-elite role players too.

Continue reading...

What Might Briann January’s Future as a “Future Premiere Point Guard” Look Like?

With 2:18 left in the third quarter and her team down 14 points against the Seattle Storm, a light seemed to go on for Fever rookie point guard Briann January.

January brought the ball up court, shifted her weight left just enough to freeze All-Star guard Sue Bird who was defending her, then made a swift crossover dribble and took the ball hard to the basket to draw the foul and hit two free throws.

However, it wasn’t just one play that stood out on Saturday.

January took Bird to the basket repeatedly – she got to the free throw line off a drive again with 6.6 seconds left in the quarter -- and even though she didn’t make every shot, it was her confidence in a game that was still within reach that was impressive.

Although the Fever ended up losing Saturday's game 74-60, January demonstrated a beautiful mix of athleticism, determination, and skill that gave the fans that were still paying attention a glimpse into a bright future. Most of all, demonstrating such confidence against Bird – who January idolized as a young player – seems to just add something special to the moment. It’s not that Bird is a standout defender – it’s that January approached Bird with such fearlessness.

Despite struggling with her jump shot for much of the season – she went 1-8 against the Storm – January is having an impressive season as a rookie point guard. She’s an adept ball handler who can not only get herself to the basket, but also knows when to pick and choose her spots.

Although her passes sometimes go errant when she gets over-excited, she has also shown the ability to make pinpoint entry passes to the post or perfectly float passes over the outstretched arms of defenders to a moving teammate, putting them in scoring position on the run.

And of course, the two time Pac-10 Defensive Player of the Year is no slouch on defense. Her quickness and strength allow her to stay with and challenge even the likes of Bird.

The combination of skills that January displayed in Saturday’s game and the previous Saturday in their comeback win against Detroit is what makes it so tempting to look past the present and into January’s seemingly bright future. The point was underscored by Fever coach Lin Dunn’s comments after January’s career-best performance against Detroit.

“You’re starting to see January develop more and more into what I call a premier point guard in this league. Her strength combined with her quickness, her speed and her shooting ability – I just think that she’s got a lot of upside as one of the top guards of the future of this league.”

Dunn’s comment leads me to wonder about what type of point guard January might become in connection with how we might describe point guards: what type of point guard is January likely to become? And how does she compare to the league’s current premiere point guards?

January seems to exude star potential, both because of her skills and the leadership she exhibits when on the court.

It was somewhat ironic to see January – a 31.8% shooter in her young career – standing up on the sidelines with her arms crossed like a coach yelling, “Shoot it! Shoot it!” as veteran Ebony Hoffman passed up a shot opportunity that came within the flow of the offense.

Although the frustrated eye roll at the dead ball is probably not the most effective way to build relationships, she seems to have the quality of a natural leader, even as a backup point guard. On a successful team full of veterans, she’s not afraid to hold her own and bark commands, even when she’s not on the court running their offense.

And in having such an eye for the game and implicitly demanding so much of her teammates and visibly bothered by every single mistake she makes – but not afraid to
solicit feedback from others – it’s hard not to think that she’s destined to improve.

When you combine her approach to the game and disposition toward her teammates with her skill set, it seems like the sky is the limit for January.

But you have to wonder: what might that potential look like?

Something I found interesting as I was doing point guard rankings last week is that if you were to omit scoring efficiency – shooting percentages, the ratio of possessions she scores on vs. possessions that she wastes – January’s statistical profile as a point guard is remarkably similar to Lindsey Harding.

Based on the point guard statistics, the only major difference between Harding and January are scoring efficiency numbers. And given Harding’s emergence this season after struggling her first few years, it’s not hard to imagine January having an impact on the court similar to Harding as she becomes a better scorer.

Harding had the better rookie season, but a large part of that was that she started and got big minutes on a non-playoff team. What Harding might have on January in terms of physical gifts – Harding is undoubtedly among the fastest guards with the ball in the league -- January has on Harding in terms of feel for the game and defense.

And I would argue that January is probably the better passer in terms of mechanics and court vision. That’s high praise and a lofty comparison for January given Harding’s all-star caliber year…but I really think she has that kind of potential.

When you start to see the ability to do things for her team at crucial moments on multiple occasions – even if they lose a game on the road in one of the toughest arenas in the league against the second-best team in the Western Conference --- it’s fair to start projecting her as something more special than what meets the eye.

If she does end up developing into a premiere point guard, she might end up in a class all her own. She just stands out as a special individual.

A superstar in the making.

Tony J. Antonucci, January’s elementary school counselor, wrote recently in the Spokane Spokesman-Review that January is “today’s real true all-American superstar athlete” who has been surrounded by a large support network on her ascent to the WNBA. And a portion of that network she’s spent a lifetime building was present not too far from the Fever bench at Key Arena.

As I was leaving Key Arena, January was coming through the tunnel to meet a group of 20-30 people that waited after the game to greet her. As I was walking toward her, she was surrounded by a bunch of credentialed individuals giving her directives or advice of some sort. I almost got out my voice recorder to go over and ask the player I’ve been following for about a week a few questions that would probably only result in answers similar to those in print elsewhere.

Just as I got close, she turned and flashed that “warm beautiful smile” that Antonucci described, wiping away any trace of having suffered a bad road loss, and walked out of the tunnel, greeted by a loud cheer from the people that eagerly awaited to see her.

And at that moment, she seemed to be more than Briann January the future premiere point guard, but Briann January the recent college graduate who was returning home from her first post-baccalaureate job to visit her family and looking for a good homecooked meal from mom.

Indeed, a special set of attributes for a star athlete in today's world of professional sports.

Continue reading...

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...

Storm – Sun Reflections: Bird the Facilitator vs. Whalen the Combo Guard

How could I possibly watch a Seattle Storm – Connecticut Sun game and not start thinking about point guards?

In a game that features Storm point guard Sue Bird going up against Sun point guard Lindsay Whalen – arguably the two best point guards in the game -- it’s almost impossible not to dig deeper into the comparison: who is the better point guard?

What makes it so difficult to make a decision is that they really are different players. But that hardly prevents people from making the comparison.

Mike DiMauro of The Day suggests that even Sun fans might have split loyalties as they struggle with their love for UConn that predates the Sun in Connecticut.

But in their own state, the Sun's competition, spoken or otherwise, is UConn. And while the college and pro games are markedly different, there's just no convincing the masses.

So that means that you go beat Bird when she's here. You beat Diana. You get people to notice. Then you do what's truly important and win in the playoffs.

”Ever since the finals in '04, we've had intense games with Seattle,” said Whalen, whose 11 points, seven assists and four rebounds were huge. “It's big to beat them. They have Olympians over there.”

And one of them is Bird, who remains about as beloved a player as there has ever been in Connecticut lore and legend. Happily for Whalen, she was given one of the loudest ovations of the night with Bird in the house Thursday when it was announced she became the 12th player in WNBA history to earn 900 career assists.

One of the commenters on DiMauro’s article even pointed out that the public address announcer at Mohegan Sun Arena introduced Bird with a home-town “Suuuuuuuuuuuuuu Bird!” welcome.

Bird gets most of the accolades as is -- All-Star selections, All-WNBA selections, and Olympic gold medals…does she really need to get a hero’s welcome in Whalen’s house?

I know Whalen won’t say it publicly – which is classy – but with Bird in town and all that comes with that, the Sun's 64-53 win must have been just a little bit sweeter.

But let’s put winning aside for the sake of keeping my point guard obsession alive, even if neither Whalen nor Bird care to engage this dialogue.

Forget all the hoopla and ghosts of UConn success past, present, and future...I’m focusing on the performance on the court.

And I know I might be run out of Seattle for saying this… but if I were to make a tentative statement about who’s the better point guard based on last night’s game…

Edge: Whalen.

Now clearly, it isn’t fair to make this sort of claim based on one game of evidence. However, what I found interesting is that there were elements of each player’s performance last night that perfectly represent why I might give the edge to Whalen as the better point guard for the season as a whole.

And really the way I classified each player yesterday gives away why I’m making the claim – Bird as a facilitator and Whalen as a combo guard.

Yes, we can say that they are just two different types of point guards: Bird is probably the better shooter, while Whalen is the more physical player who uses her size and an amazing ability to see the angles of the game to do a little more off the dribble. But you would have a hard time convincing me that one is a significantly better playmaker than the other by any reasonable standard.

So if I consider them approximately equal as playmakers, I start to look at other things and the fact that Whalen can do more on the court because she’s a more physical player makes it easier for me to claim that she indeed is the better point guard.

And I have three rather simple reasons for that: her ability to attack the basket, her scoring efficiency, and her defensive versatility.

Attacking the basket

The way Whalen and Bird started the game last night really says a lot about their styles as players.

As stated previously – and mentioned by Sun coach Tom Thibault at halftime – Bird is probably the better shooter while Whalen is more physical and a little tougher.

True to form, Bird’s first three plays last night were three point shots, all good ones in rhythm. After that, she made two passes in the half-court to shooters that missed.

In contrast, Whalen’s first three plays were a fastbreak lay-up after a steal, a three pointer, then a missed contested layup on a fast break. Her next three were a nice pass to center Sandrine Gruda on a fast break that resulted in free throws, a missed jumper, and an assist to Gruda for a free throw line jumper, set up by a decisive dribble in the flow of the offense and a well placed bounce pass.

The point is that when Bird gets off to a cold shooting start, she sometimes disappears for quarters at a time. When Whalen is not shooting well, she keeps herself involved by staying in attack mode and finding ways to stay involved in the game, whether that be rebounding, making the right pass, or driving to the basket.

But when Whalen does attack the basket good things happen both for herself and others. It keeps the defense off balance, allows teammates to get easy scoring opportunities, and allows her to get high percentage shots. In last night’s game in particular, Whalen set the tone that allowed her team to win the game.

Scoring efficiency

However, the most important part of Whalen’s aggressiveness driving to the basket is that it gets her easy scoring opportunities. Some numbers from Swanny’s Stats illustrate this point.

Bird relies more heavily on her midrange jumper for scoring and unfortunately has not had a very good shooting year from that range. As of July 30th, almost 30% of her field goal attempts were from the 16-20 foot range but she has only made 30.4% of those shots, which is the 8th lowest in the league.

In contrast, just under 20% of Whalen’s field goal attempts come from the 16-20 foot range and she shoots the fourth percentage in the league from that range. And that’s just the beginning of the shot selection story.

Whalen is among the league’s top 50 in both free throw rate and 2 point percentage whereas Bird’s 2 point percentage is just inside the top 100 and her free throw rate – just below 10% -- is one of the lowest in the league. (Storm teammate Katie Geralds is the lowest of any qualified player at just under 4%). Free throw rate can also be considered a proxy for a player’s aggressiveness in driving to the basket in traffic – you don’t get fouled on a shot very often standing around the three point line and swinging the ball.

So what does this set of numbers tell us? Although Bird is generally considered the better shooter – and I won’t dispute that – Whalen does a better job of creating scoring opportunities for herself that she is able to convert – taking less long shots, attacking the basket more often, and finding her way to the free throw line.

In terms of overall performance, Whalen is both a facilitator in terms of setting up baskets for others and a scorer in terms of finding easy baskets for herself. That ability to penetrate the defense and attack the rim is a critical ability that many teams look for in a point guard. It’s not that Bird cannot do that, but this season, Whalen is a bit better at it.

Defensive versatility

This actually isn’t my idea but Thibault’s. And though he’s a bit biased, I think he’s right.

During the halftime interview last night, Thibault discussed the strengths of Bird and Whalen. To paraphrase, he said that although they are about equal defensively, Whalen’s physicality allows her to sometimes guard 2’s and 3’s.

I don’t think that means she’s a defensive stalwart by any means, but it certainly gives a team more options when trying to find winning combinations to put on the floor.

While this is not the most convincing argument for choosing one player over the other – WNBA.com has both of them listed as 5’10” 150 pounds – it’s an interesting point that Thibault made.

But maybe this all come down to a matter of a difference in mentality?

It’s not that Bird cannot drive, cannot be an efficient scorer, or cannot defend.

It’s that Whalen brings a physicality and toughness to the court in a way that Bird does not.

And that attitude almost prevents Whalen from disappearing for long stretches of time in the same way that Bird does – and that’s without even talking about Whalen’s rebounding ability, which is among the best of any point guard.

This is what I mean when I label Whalen a “combo guard” – she is a facilitator and an efficient scorer. It makes her more dangerous and more valuable to her team. Ultimately, it's about decisions the player makes on the court...and I do think we can evaluate the quality of those decisions.

But when Bird turns it on – as she did at the end of last season and in spurts during games this season – she is the best. Hands down. No dispute here.

I would just argue that Whalen is able to make that happen more consistently.

Transition Points:

• One thing I’ve been keeping track of more closely is lost assists. I count lost assists only on plays when the shooter misses a shot that would have given the passer an assist OR the shooter gets fouled in the act of shooting on a play that would have given the shooter an assist. Last night, I counted four lost assists for both Bird and Whalen. In fact, most point guards who are able to drive and find open players end up tallying 3-4 lost assists a game.
  
  So ultimately, while it’s interesting to keep track of just in terms of documenting what a player has done, I’m not sure if it’s worth using over the long haul to compare players. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to know: is there a player that has significantly more lost assists than others? And if so, why? Were they just not setting up the shooters well or are their shooters just missing wide open shots that the player creates? Hard to tell.

• I was emailing Shoals about the merits of going to see the Sun-Storm game in Seattle when the Sun come this way…and trying to think of how to describe Whalen to a NBA fan. I came up with Utah Jazz point guard Deron Williams. Accurate? I’ll have to do more thinking on that.

• Another interesting, though perhaps useless, thing to analyze about point guards is their crossover. During the Storm-Phoenix Mercury game I went to with Shoals a while back, we got lost in this crossover wormhole…but he recently came out of it and did so in style with a post diagramming different types of crossovers and entitled, “Out of the Wormhole”. Very nice work by him and Tom Ziller.

• For my money, the best WNBA crossover is between Cappie Pondexter and Tanisha Wright. Renee Montgomery might get there one day. Between Bird and Whalen – edge Whalen.

• One thing I find really interesting about the WNBA is that it is still in competition with women’s college basketball in a way that most other professional sports aren’t. Even in the way people around the WNBA – players, coaches, commentators – refer to teams as “programs”. For a moment I thought this was unique to the WNBA, but then as I thought further about it, I could imagine that NFL football is overshadowed by college football in certain places around the nation.
  
  For example, I attended the University of Michigan for two years and there is no way the Detroit Lions are bigger than UM football in Michigan. I imagine similar scenarios for NFL teams in relation to Florida’s trio of University of Florida, University of Miami, and Florida State University. And are the Tennessee Titans really bigger than University of Tennessee football? And haven’t there been entire movies made about how big high school football is in Texas, even if the Dallas Cowboys did just build a fancy new stadium?
  
  A totally irrelevant thought that I found interesting because of the way UConn seems to overshadow the Sun.
  

Continue reading...

Describing Point Guard Styles

Given that I’ve made posts this week about San Antonio point guard Becky Hammon, Atlanta point guard Shalee Lehning, and a game that featured Washington point guard Lindsey Harding, you probably could have guessed that another point guard evaluation post was coming up.

Which does bring me back to a question that Bob Corwin of Full Court Press asked me recently: why am I so interested in evaluating point guards?

One need look no further than tonight’s matchup of the Seattle Storm vs. Connnecticut Sun, a game featuring two of the league’s top point guards in Storm guard Sue Bird and Sun guard Lindsay Whalen.

And really, isn’t it sort of fun to try to make an affirmative statement rather than being all polite and saying they’re both very good?

The subject does not interest Lindsay Whalen. She just shrugs and says quietly that she isn't inclined to wonder if her status as the WNBA's transcendent point guard — or potential Olympic star — has been impacted by the immense popularity and talent of Sue Bird.

"I don't know," Whalen said. "I don't think about that stuff. I am focused on my team. She is focused on her team. There's nothing I can do about what the perspective of the fans or the media might be. You can't think about it. You can't control how people may think."

So Whalen doesn’t care and Bird probably doesn’t either.

John Altavilla of The Hartford Courant suggests Bird and Whalen are point guards 1 and 1A in the U.S.…which is a little bit more conclusive, but still hedging toward a non-answer.

But isn’t part of being a fan caring about these questions? Why do else do we watch sports if not to see who’s best?

So seriously, who’s the better point guard? And what about other guards having really solid seasons like Hammon, Harding, or Phoenix guard Temeka Johnson?

Well…I did take another stab at answering this question and hit a road block that I brought up the other day: aside from bringing the ball up the court and making the first pass to start the offense, there really isn’t a set of critical attributes that make one point guard inherently better than another. Being a point guard is more a matter of team expectations – what does a team demand of their point guard? And what are their teammates’ strengths?

That seems to make it almost impossible to make simple rankings of one point guard against another. For example, consider Sun forward Asjha Jones’ comment comparing Bird and Whalen, from Altavilla’s article:

"[Whalen]'s been an All-Star and people who play against her understand she's one of the best point guards in the league. She and Sue are totally different sides of a coin, different approaches. Lindsay is more physical, Sue depends on her finesse, skating and sliding around on the floor.”

So given that each player brings unique strengths to the position, we cannot judge them on a universal standard but on the basis of what function they serve for the team. And that’s partially why the point guard rankings I’ve done in the past feel so unfulfilling – even after laying out the evidence for why one guard is better than others, it has to come with a whole set of qualifiers.

And I haven’t even mentioned defense yet…

But perhaps we could ask a different question: how well does a player perform the function they serve for their team?

From there, perhaps we can establish a means by which to compare point guards: the best point guards are a) those that have demonstrated the ability to perform more functions than others or b) perform a given function better than others.

The question is actually more interesting for evaluating the quality of second tier point guards – backups or fringe starters – who aren’t quite as obviously dominant as the consensus 1 and 1a.

So instead of returning back to the rankings, I decided to focus on the function each player serves…and comparing them in terms of how well they perform what they do well. It may leave the question unresolved today, but perhaps lead to a better analysis in the future.

The player styles spectrum & assist ratio

Last summer I took a stab at this by laying out a set of five point guard styles based upon a combination of the work done by David Sparks and some of my own observations about point guard play.

Basically, what I noticed was that various styles of point guard play could be pretty well defined by metric: assist ratio, which is the percentage of a player’s plays that end in an assist.

It’s helpful to start with Sparks’ player styles spectrum, which is divided in two halves: the top half is populated with perimeter players – where the point guards are -- and the bottom half with interior players. It is the poles at each end of the horizontal axis that will be the subject of this inquiry. The spectrum from near the end of last season is below (better because it is a full season of statistics):



The left pole indicates non-scorers whereas the right pole indicates scorers. You may also notice that each pole has a unique color. So the color gradations of the players indicate the degree to which a player is more one thing (perimeter, interior, scorer, utility player) than another. The size of each player’s name indicates the relative quality of that player – how productive they are at their given style

This is where the point guard styles framework comes in.

Obviously, a point guard that falls on the right side is likely a scorer whereas a player who falls on the left side is more of a non-scorer that does other things. Well, as it turns out, for point guards, their assist rate is a strong indicator of where they fall on the spectrum – point guards with higher assist rates tend to fall on the right, whereas players with lower assist rates end up on the right.

This means that just looking at assist ratios I can move across the spectrum and start to figure out what style of play each point guard occupies. But obviously, there’s more to being a point guard than scorer and non-scorer. And as it turns out, the statistics can provide some insight into that as well.

The point guard styles framework

Based on a combination of watching players play and looking at this spectrum I came up with five pretty distinct point guard styles last summer. Ultimately, what we can determine is the different types of decisions that each player is expected to make based upon their performance and how well they do that. Here’s what I came up with:

Initiator: the basic function of any point guard – comes down the court and gets the team into the offense. They are likely players who just get the job done without taking risks. This type of point guard probably has a below average usage rate and average assist ratio. Examples: Noelle Quinn, Vickie Johnson, Kelly Miller.

Distributor: These are the players who have the court vision and ability to find players in scoring position and get them the ball to pick up the assist. They might take a few more risks than an initiator, but also limit egregious mistakes. This type of point guard is characterized by a below average usage rate, an above average assist ratio, and an above average pure point rating. Examples: Temeka Johnson, Tully Bevilaqua, Ticha Penicheiro.

Pure facilitator: These are the players who will make the highlight film passes that make you think they have “eyes in the back of their heads”. They take considerably more risks and might have more turnovers, but also have the ability to break down a defense and create scoring opportunities by forcing the defense to shift. This type of point guard is characterized by an above average usage rate, an above average assist ratio, and above average pure point rating. Example: Sue Bird.

Scorer: These are point guards who can break down a defense and score for themselves more effectively than the pure facilitator. They have a scorer’s mindset, but also have the skill to initiate or distribute. These types are characterized by above average usage rates, below average assist ratios, and at or below average pure point ratings. The statistic that really sets them apart as well is their high points per zero point possession rating. Examples: Becky Hammon, Renee Montgomery.

Combo guards: So by defining all the other types, it’s easier to find a good definition for the nebulous “combo guard” label. I would define these guards as different than shooting guards in point guard bodies. To me, a combo guard is a player that can create scoring opportunities for themselves and facilitate for others. It’s a fine line but I think numbers help to define it. These players would have above average usage rates, assist ratios, and pure point ratings, but also have a high point per zero point possession, but may also simply have a balance of all of the above. In comparison to the other types, there’s a wide range of quality for this one. Examples: Lindsay Whalen, Lindsey Harding, Dominique Canty.

Where do we go from here?

From here, we could look at the quality of each guard in each category to determine the top guards of each type. However, it is likely that we will be able to make substantive claims about overall quality after establishing that -- yes, Bird, Hammon, and Whalen are different types of players, but with that established, can we establish that one of them does what they do better than another guard?

More on that later...


Continue reading...

Revisiting Rookie Point Guards: How Does Atlanta’s Shalee Lehning Compare to Her First Round Counterparts?

If you were to select a WNBA All-Rookie First and Second team, would Atlanta Dream point guard Shalee Lehning be on it?

And if not, why not?

What makes the question interesting to me is that for some reason, people tend to focus on every single one of Lehning’s deficiencies – athleticism, scoring ability, defense, not a fast break player – rather than the one thing she has clearly established the ability to do well: running a team.

She had her detractors when she came out of college.

She was dismissed as irrelevant after the WNBA draft given the 11 player rosters this year.

She was dismissed after making the Atlanta Dream over incumbent point guard Ivory Latta.

I ignored her when I wrote about the WNBA's talented group of rookie point guards earlier this year.

She was dismissed as nothing more than a “ra-ra” player after becoming an important part of the Dream’s rotation.

And now she’s still dismissed after transitioning into a more substantive full-time starter on a potential playoff team. She is not even included among WNBA.com’s top 10 rookies despite starting 8 games for her team, tied for the most of any rookie.

During the Dream’s four game winning streak from July 22- August 1st, Lehning had 17 assists and 2 turnovers.

It’s not that she was playing All-Star caliber basketball, but she does what her team needs – she brings the ball up the court and initiates an offense that includes two All-Star post players in center Sancho Lyttle and forward Erika de Souza and two volume shooters in forward Chamique Holdsclaw and guard Iziane Castro-Marquez. So if she’s playing with four players who are better scorers than her by almost any reasonable standard, it’s actually a good decision to just get the ball up the court and set them up for scoring opportunities.

Lehning has exhibited the ability to perform the duties of a good point guard. And if she is able to exhibit that ability as a rookie, she deserves a bit more credit than she’s getting.

Yet you can still find people who will dismiss her in one of two ways:

1) All she does is bring the ball up the court and pass it (which I find to be a baffling critique); or
2) If the Dream had better point guards, then she wouldn’t even be on a WNBA roster.

Somehow, an assessment of what she does well is disregarded in favor of a general assessment of her ability that is based upon a counter-factual argument.

But why is that occurring?

In my opinion, the point guard position in basketball is second only to the quarterback position in football as the toughest position for a rookie to learn in sports…and Lehning has done an admirable job not only managing that learning curve, but doing it well enough to earn a starting spot over veteran competition on a playoff team.

To be clear, I’m not nominating Lehning for Rookie of the Year. I’m not even suggesting that she’s the ideal point guard for the Atlanta Dream. Nor am I suggesting that she should be considered the best rookie point guard (I maintain that the best rookie point guard this season is Minnesota Lynx point guard Renee Montgomery).

What I’m suggesting is that if you judge Lehning on what she’s done for the Dream overall rather than harping on what she has not done, she has actually demonstrated that she is a solid point guard.

So how would I rank her relative to the rest of the rookie point guards…or the rookie class more generally?

What does Lehning do so well?

Put simply, Lehning makes outstanding decisions with the ball given her limitations and rarely makes bad mistakes.

It’s not a terrible starting point for a rookie.

And I'm not just going to make a simplistic assist to turnover ratio argument. I'm talking more about how well Lehning plays the position.

As of yesterday, she leads the league in assist ratio – the percentage of plays she makes that end in an assist -- at 49.06%. To put that in perspective, the player in second is Sacramento Monarchs’ point guard Ticha Penicheiro. That also reveals a quirk with this particular number – if you don’t shoot much and pass a lot, then of course your assist ratio would be high. Nevertheless, the fact that half the plays she makes end in an assist is impressive as a rookie.

Here’s a brief comparison to the other three rookie point guards: Montgomery, Indiana Fever point guard Briann January, and Chicago Sky point guard Kristi Toliver.

Lehning: 49.06%
Toliver: 25.97%
January: 24.5%
Montgomery: 18.22%

Lehning also leads rookies in John Hollinger’s pure point rating, a metric that assesses a point guards’ ability to create scoring opportunities for others per minute on the floor. As a reference point, Los Angeles Sparks point guard Kristi Harrower has maintained the top pure point rating for most of the season and currently has a rating of 5.78. Here are the rookies:

Lehning: 1.84
January: .18
Toliver: -2.02
Montgomery: -3.125

Whether looking at these numbers or watching them play, it is fair to say that Shalee Lehning is the more effective distributor of any of the rookie point guards who have played a full season.

She’s not as flashy as January or Montgomery as a ball handler and creator, but she is mechanically sound and does the simple things extremely well, such as making entry passes to All-Stars or getting the ball to the open shooter at the right moment.

At this point it would be perfectly reasonable to comment that these numbers seem to be the opposite about common sense assessments of who the best point guards are – I have just provided two metrics in which Shalee Lehning and Kristi Harrower are the leaders!

What am I thinking?!?

What both of these metrics do is establish a point guard’s ability to make decisions about distributing the ball to teammates and running the offense. Relative to the rest of the WNBA, Lehning is making very good decisions with the ball and is very effective at setting up her teammates for scoring opportunities.

However, as I have explained in past point guard rankings previously and in yesterday’s post about San Antonio Silver Stars guard Becky Hammon, there are many ways to perform the duties of point guard – ability to distribute the ball is only one means by which to do so.

Scoring ability counts and that’s obviously what people hold against Lehning.

Lehning is not a scorer. And yes, that does make her an incomplete player despite the fact that she’s a very effective distributor.

And it should be extremely clear that by now that Montgomery is the best scorer of the rookie point guard crew.

Montgomery’s athleticism, outstanding ball handling ability, and ability to finish at the rim make her a very difficult player to stop. She first showed off her ability to score in traffic off the drive in an overtime win against the Washington Mystics on July 7th and pretty much did the same thing in a home loss against the Silver Stars on Sunday night.

While Kristi Toliver is clearly the better shooter (when she plays), Montgomery right now is the best overall scorer of any rookie point guard. She is also second among rookies in true shooting % and scoring efficiency ratio (the ratio of scoring plays to non-scoring plays as defined by missed shots and turnovers).

However, one way to assess overall scoring ability is to look at 2 point percentage, which can be something of a proxy for how well a player is able to get themselves easy shots and has been described as a very important WNBA statistic:

Montgomery: 52.43%
Lehning: 48.57%
Toliver: 44.23%
January: 38.88%

In fact, Montgomery is one of four guards in the top 15 in the league in 2 point percentage, right behind Becky Hammon (52.6%). The fact that Montgomery’s assist ratio is so low (also close to Hammon’s 19.2%) is offset by her scoring efficiency and ability to create easy shots for her team.

Will Montgomery need to get better as a distributor in order to be effective as a team leader? Of course.

But the split among this year’s crop of point guards – Lehning and January as distributors, Montgomery and Toliver as scorers – serves only to illustrate just how difficult it is to play point guard as a rookie. And that's not to mention the fundamental communication and leadership skills that it takes to run a team.

Given all those factors, Lehning probably deserves credit as the best distributor of the bunch right now.

Establishing reasonable expectations for a rookie point guard

A post on the Hoopinion blog yesterday further reinforces the point about the difficulty of making the transition from college to the professional ranks as a point guard.

It boils down to a very simple claim, backed by a look at rookie combo/point guard drafted outside the NBA draft lottery from 2003-2008 since the changing of enforcement of hand-check rules:

Given the difficulty of learning the point guard position, first year performance of rookie point guards drafted beyond the lottery will not clearly establish the path of his career.

How might we apply the same thinking to Shalee Lehning?

By focusing on what she does well in terms of what we know about the WNBA game – she creates assists, she minimizes turnovers, and she shoots a relatively high 2 point percentage by WNBA standards.

Not only are these indicators that Lehning is an effective point guard right now, but also that she probably is on her way to a solid career, if only as a backup.

With work in the off-season and a year of experience under her belt, she very well could become a better scorer.

But as for her standing as a rookie right now and judging her on her performance rather than arbitrary standards for imaginary point guards, we can say that she is an effective starter on a playoff team.

If that does not merit consideration among the top rookies, I’m not sure what does.

Transition Points:

Click here to see my latest rookie rankings....just in case you want to figure out where I plugged Lehning in after my extended analysis of her...


The obvious comparison to Lehning as a rookie point guard is New York point guard Leilani Mitchell...and clearly Mitchell is not having a particularly strong sophomore campaign. But somewhat similar to Lehning, she is most effective as a distributor when her team is effective as a unit. And thus far this season, it’s safe to say that the entire Liberty team has underachieved, if not played worse than they did last year. Otherwise, Pat Coyle would likely still have a job.


In response to my last point guard rankings, Bob Corwin of Full Court Press got in touch with me and we have had an ongoing conversation about point guards and how people around the league think about some of the players I ranked.

At some point during this conversation, he asked me why I was so interested in evaluating point guards. And I suppose I didn’t have a good answer.

It started last season by noticing people’s comments about the effectiveness of Seattle Storm point guard Sue Bird’s during an early season shooting slump. But maybe what precipitated that was that I was something of a defensive combo guard in high school and Isaiah Thomas was one of the first players that ever caught my eye in the NBA.

However, Lehning’s rookie year performance probably best embodies why I am interested in creating a framework for evaluating what it is point guards bring to a team. People make very arbitrary assessments of point guards based upon normative assumptions about what constitutes a "good point guard" that actually reflect people's thoughts about what makes a "superstar point guard".

For example, in the NBA, the San Antonio Spurs have won championships with both Avery Johnson and Tony Parker, two very different point guards. Last year's NBA finals featured a matchup between Derek Fisher and Tony Farmar vs. Jameer Nelson (all-star) and Rafer Alston (former And 1 player). The previous finals winner was led by second-year point guard Rajon Rondo, who still has no jump shot to speak of.

All of those players were vital to their team's success, but very differently.

There are many ways to play the position and it depends more on the situation than any rigid set of qualities.

However, Corwin also made the point that while there have been a few great point guards in the WNBA, the point guard position has never had a great player...and part of my struggle is to detach myself from NBA point guard standards and think more deeply about the WNBA, which does not have many dominant point guards in its short history...interesting point I'm still chewing on...and the reason why further point guard rankings are on hold.

Sacramento Monarchs' guard Ticha Penicheiro relayed a story about an interaction with coach John Whisenant that I found interesting regarding point guard play:

On the amount of trust Head Coach John Whisenant puts in her: “He’s always saying he wants me to be Steve Nash or Chris Paul and just go in the paint and make something happen so we don’t call many plays sometimes. He just pretty much wants me to go out there and get in the paint and either shoot or give the ball to one of our post players or our shooters. He is always encouraging me to do that. He says ‘Be Steve Nash out there, be Steve Nash!’”

Obviously, Lehning is no Steve Nash...which is yet another point of critique...but uh...how many point guards have won two NBA MVPs anyway?

Continue reading...

Hammon's Playmaking Ability Beats Lynx: Is Hammon the Best Point Guard in 2009?

With 12 seconds left and the game tied at 87, San Antonio Silver Stars’ All-Star guard Becky Hammon stood near the mid-court line and faced up one-on-one against Minnesota rookie forward Rashanda McCants.

As she dribbled the clock down to about 7 seconds before really making a move to initiate a play, it seemed logical that the Silver Stars had put the ball in Hammon’s hands to take the final shot.

And why not?

Hammon is one of the craftiest offensive weapons in the WNBA and a rookie didn't seem to stand a chance against her.

With about five seconds left, Hammon dribbled around a Sophia Young screen, in a play that seemed to be a pick and roll. With Young quickly covered by Lynx defensive stalwart Nicky Anosike in the paint, Hammon kept the ball, temporarily mishandling it after taking one of those “not me” bumps from Lynx forward Tasha Humphrey on the wing.

Then Hammon worked some All-Star magic and showed why she's among the league's best players.

Hammon kept the ball for herself turning the corner and splitting McCants and Lynx guard Renee Montgomery. With two seconds left and Anosike in between her and the basket, Hammon took to the air trying to hit a running jumper. Seeing that she had no shot with Anosike in front of her and two other players around her, Hammon spotted center Ann Wauters wide open just inside the free throw line after Humphrey got lost on the rotation after bumping Hammon on the wing.

Wauters hit an uncontested jumper at the buzzer, sending the Lynx home with an 89-87 loss after a hard-fought fourth quarter comeback.

Add the Lynx to the list of teams who have been victimized by Hammon’s playmaking ability.

She set up a similar buzzer beating play to All-Star forward Sophia Young for a Silver Stars victory over the Storm on July 28th. But she’s also been dominant in losses to Sacramento, Seattle (August 1st), and Atlanta.

Nevertheless, when I talk to people about the league’s best point guards this year, they’ll normally list Sue Bird, Lindsay Whalen, Lindsey Harding, and then Temeka Johnson.

When they come to Hammon, they give a response like, “Well, she’s a great player, but not really a point guard.”

To be honest, since I’ve started watching the WNBA consistently last year, that’s how I’ve felt about Hammon. Despite the fact that WNBA GM’s voted Hammon as the third best point guard in the league in the pre-season survey (tied with Ticha Penicheiro and Katie Smith), it has always struck me as difficult to cast her as what people might traditionally consider a point guard.

Hammon definitely handles the ball well enough to be considered a point guard, but shoots the ball enough to seem more like a shooting guard. It has thus been tempting to cast her as a small scoring guard instead of a point guard.

However, after watching her in person at Key Arena on August 1st and against the Lynx last night, I think it’s probably time that we stop qualifying statements about Hammon and just consider her a point guard.

And if we consider her a point guard, has any point guard in the league been better this season?

Probably not.

What is a Point Guard?

Coincidentally, an article from a San Antonio NBA blog entitled "What is a Point Guard?" holds some insight into how we might expand our traditional notions of who “counts” as a point guard.

The blog essentially characterizes a point guard in much simpler terms than I have in the past with my analysis of point guard styles:

Once it is established that a player can effectively bring the ball up the court and initiate the offense – which is no easy task against pro-level athleticism and defense – defining a point guard is more a matter team-specific expectations than a rigid set of attributes.

He uses Tony Parker as an example of how a point guard fits within a specific system:

However, it's not just individual man-to-man pressure that a point guard has to handle. They also have to handle traps both full court and half court. At times last year, George Hill struggled with all three. Full court man-to-man. Full court traps. Half court traps. When he struggled, we ended up with Bruce bringing the ball up court or a turnover. Neither of which is conducive to the Spurs scoring.

Why don't teams do this against Tony? Well, a couple reasons. One, Tony is a very good dribbler. He is very difficult to trap because of both his dribble and quickness. Because of this, he can frequently beat the trap alone which puts the Spurs in a 5 on 3 situation. If the other team puts full court man-to-man pressure on Tony, Tony is usually fast enough to blow by his man which leads to a 5 on 4 situation. In short. Tony is dangerous offensively. The Spurs run a lot of very high screens to be able to have him shake his man and attack a big at the free throw line. Why would the other team GIVE them this situation by employing a full court press? The answer is, they don't.

Of course, Parker’s particular style of play and athletic attributes are not necessary to play the point guard position – we can all think of a range of much slower and non-scoring point guards who have played the position well over time (Mark Jackson comes to mind).

The same type of analysis could be applied to any basketball team in order to establish what they might expect from a point guard: what are they trying to accomplish? And does this particular player allow them to do it?

Hammon-as-Point-Guard

The reason people may tend to disregard Hammon as a point guard is that she might appear to be spending more time scoring than initiating a team’s offense.

Her assist ratio – the percentage of plays on which she creates an assist -- is18.53%, just outside the top 50, well below that of most point guards in the league. Her pure point rating – a metric that measures how well a player creates scoring opportunities for others when on the floor – is also just outside the top 50 and well below that of the league’s top point guards.

In addition, although she is a rather efficient scorer, she is also a volume shooter. So when you add it all up, it just seems that Hammon would not be the type of player whom we would label a point guard.

However, what Hammon does extremely well is use the threat to score as a means by which to create opportunities for others. She’s not a point guard who is racking up assists just by swinging the ball to an open shooter – Hammon is often driving and forcing the defense to shift in ways that create open shooters.

And right now, Hammon is doing the job of creating scoring opportunities for others better than anyone else in the WNBA.

If being a point guard comes down to a matter of decision making – more specifically, making the decisions that help their team score points – then understanding Hammon as a point guard should come down to an evaluation of her decision making. If she is the best scorer on the floor in almost any game she plays, then creating scoring opportunities for herself is actually a good decision.

Her team needs a player who can penetrate and create offense for themselves and they need someone who can get the ball to All-Star forward Sophia Young and center Ann Wauters. Hammon’s ability to make efficient scoring decisions in addition to finding ways to set up others should put her in conversations as one of the best – if not the best -- point guards in the league.

But maybe the discussion of how we classify Hammon really doesn’t matter. Maybe it’s sufficient to just say she’s a great player, as Sue Bird commented after the Silver Stars' August 1st loss in Seattle.

“She’s such a tough player,” said Bird, who guarded Hammon at times throughout the game. “She’s really, really creative. Really, really deceptive. She’s able to separate herself, even at her height, against players that are 6-5 and get her shot off. And I think the one thing I would use to describe her – the one quality – is that she’s just a winner. And she makes plays down the stretch that not many people in this league can make.”

If Hammon can win enough games to get the Silver Stars to the playoffs, she will be a strong candidate for MVP of the WNBA.

Transition Points:

Renee Montgomery was very impressive down the stretch of this game, ending a 12-0 run by the Silver Stars in the 3rd quarter and catalyzing a 10-2 Lynx run in the 4th that got started the Lynx’s comeback. And really for Montgomery it was more of the same – her outstanding ball handling ability allows her to get by defenders and get herself open for layups off the drive. Her athletic ability makes her an extremely effective finisher.

But the most impressive thing about Montgomery to me is her defensive intensity. She’s tough and willing to take on just about any defensive challenge. With her athleticism, she’s able to stay in front of most players in the league and pick up steals. If she develops her range and continues to grow as a defender, Montgomery may be among the top point guards in the WNBA in the near future.



Continue reading...