"Got Recess?": Which Schools are Denying Youth Recess? And Why?

I am as passionate about youth development as I am about sports.

I even think that the two conceptual spaces intersect: participation in sports – even as the awkward lanky kid who gets picked last – has value for youth development.

So if you ever want to get me really fired up and angry, ask me about any of the following four things:

1. The fact that we live in a nation that seems almost indifferent to the education of our youth.

2. The arrogance of pre-service teachers who treat teaching like it’s day care with better benefits.

3. The semi-professionalization of youth sports, perpetuated by the ridiculous parents who curse and fight at their ten-year-old’s sporting events.

4. The ridiculous trend in our country to remove recess and physical education from schools.

Last night, Gretzky got me talking about trigger #4 by telling me about a July 28th article in USA Today about childhood obesity.

The article refers to comments by Kathleen Sebelius – Secretary of Health and Human Services and a former athlete – about the link between school activity and childhood obesity.

And there are too many schools that don't offer physical education or even recess, she said. "That's not only bad for their health, but bad for their minds."

While I acknowledge that PE definitely varies in its overall effectiveness and quality, I want to focus on schools that deny youth recess, which is a much lower bar: one period of outdoor play (weather permitting) for at least 20 minutes each day, as defined by the National Association for Sport and Physical Health.

20 minutes.

But how many schools is “too many”, as described by Sebelius? And why should we care about recess anyway?

As a former teacher, it's hard not to care.

A 2006 report from the National Center for Education Statistics found that somewhere between 83-88 percent of public schools have a daily recess period. However, a study of 11,000 third graders released earlier this year found that 1 in 3 students receives fewer than 15 minutes of daily recess or none at all.

Yet the most troubling piece of this research for me is who loses recess:

Children exposed to none/minimal break (30%) were much more likely to be black, to be from families with lower incomes and lower levels of education, to live in large cities, to be from the Northeast or South, and to attend public school, compared with those with recess.

A graph of recess-lacking U.S. schools by region from the Barros study (via Cognitive Daily).

The educrats who endorse this sort of policy will argue that eliminating recess (20 minutes daily) somehow increases academic performance. They might even say something similar to what Benjamin O. Canada, former superintendent of schools in Atlanta, told the New York Times back in 1998:

"We are intent on improving academic performance. You don't do that by having kids hanging on the monkey bars."

I suppose the logic works, if we start treating children like robots whose performance teachers are tuning.

Part of the reason I take this issue so personally is that I taught in a school that banned recess under the same obtuse logic. And I can absolutely promise you that under no circumstances can you make the argument Canada made if you’ve spent five eight-hour days a week with 5-12 year olds.

An anecdote

I taught in an urban, 100% black, Title I school that was a PreK-7th transitioning to a PreK-8th. I worked in the middle school area. Students had class periods of about 50 minutes each and one PE class a week (varying by semester, assuming our teacher had not yet quit). They went to lunch – arms folded in a single file line – in the cafeteria, which was also inside the building.

So from entering our dark windowless hallways at 7:45 until being freed sometime around 2:20 the students did not go outside at all and were under constant supervision.

And oh yeah, we cut nap time for the Pre-K and Kindergarten students as well.

Think that helped academic performance and allowed us to avoid being a “failing school” (for whatever value this arbitrary label holds for you)? Hardly.

But the reasoning was simple (and simplistic) – that 20 minutes daily that most research suggests is as valuable to student development as the 3 R’s was viewed as 20 minutes less of “time on task” preparing for those all-important achievement tests.

It's simply misguided logic.

Consider this statement from Dr. Romina M. Barros, the assistant professor and pediatrician who conducted the “School Recess and Group Classroom Behavior” study in Pediatrics:

“We need to understand that kids need a break,’’ Dr. Barros said. “Our brains can concentrate and pay attention for 45 to 60 minutes, and in kids it’s even less. For them to be able to acquire all the academic skills we want them to learn, they need a break to go out and release the energy and play and be social.’’

This is not rocket science, or perhaps more accurately, neuroscience. It’s common sense.

In fact, I want you to imagine for a moment what it would be like for a student to not leave a building and be under constant supervision for an entire day.

When you tell the students it’s time to go to lunch for 30 minutes in a gloomy colored cafeteria – complete with D grade food and sugar water – after being in class all morning, they’re going to take that opportunity to be social and release their energy. However, since they are forced to stay in their seats during that entire time -- aside from the time they are allowed to get up and get their food and return their trays – all they do is become more restless. Their capacity to focus declines.

The two hours after lunch were like an intellectual vacuum, especially for the older kids who thoroughly crave both their free time and challenging authority to begin with.

Would 20 minutes of recess really improve academic performance in this sort of panoptic environment? Probably not – there were obviously many problems with that particular “learning” environment.

The problem is that treating 5-12 year olds like this is utterly dehumanizing...unless we strive to create carefully prescribed automata who are programmed to withdraw from the world, as educator William Torrey Harris suggested in 1906.

I could throw endless anecdotal, qualitative, and quantitative data at you to further support the point, but it should be clear:

There simply is not a strong argument in favor of eliminating recess from any school.

And when we consider who is losing opportunities for recess, it becomes even more infuriating because it is yet another example of the deep educational disparities in this country that we are only half-heartedly trying to address.

As the Washington Post reported:

"The kids who are already disadvantaged in a number of different ways are getting further disadvantaged," said Ripperger-Suhler.

Almost two-thirds of this disadvantaged group had physical activity only twice a week or less, putting them at greater risk of becoming obese.

This isn't just a matter of academic performance, but the health of our children.

But you know, as some commentators have said, maybe all the commotion over the demise of recess is exaggerated. After all, it’s only our (disadvantaged) children’s future.

Really, no big deal.

Related Links:

Does recess really improve classroom behavior?
http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2009/05/does_recess_really_improve_cla.php

Diana Taurasi visits Phoenix school to promote fitness (and milk)
http://rethinkbball.blogspot.com/2009/05/diana-taurasi-visits-phoenix-school-to.html

Just Say No to PE Cuts
http://coachingbetterbball.blogspot.com/2009/05/just-say-no-to-pe-cuts.html

Transition Points:

The original inspiration for this post was actually a post on The Muslim Women in Sports blog two weeks ago about Saudi prince Khaled al-Faisal considering lifting the ban on physical education for girls in state-run schools:

Physical education classes are banned in state-run girls schools in conservative Saudi Arabia. Saudi female athletes are not allowed to participate in the Olympics.

Women's games and marathons have been cancelled when the powerful clergy get wind of them. And some clerics even argue that running and jumping can damage a woman's hymen and ruin her chances of getting married.

Prince Khaled is certainly to be commended for standing up against an entrenched institution on this issue. However, it's worth noting that we're going to need someone to stand up for the fitness of our urban boys and girls in the U.S.

This did not turn into a rant about the 2001 No Child Left Behind legislation, because in fact the reason for removing recess often includes multiple factors according to the International Play Association, many of which applied at the school I taught at:

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 created a focus on testing and scripted programs and further decreased recess, especially in high-poverty schools. Pressure is also on early childhood education programs to teach academic subjects at younger ages. The Kindergarten curriculum is now more like first grade used to be. Some kindergarten classrooms have no blocks, dramatic play area, or puppets; and some experienced kindergarten teachers have noted decreases in children's imagination and the ability to organize their own play. There has been a decrease in outdoor play due to many factors including the following: an emphasis on organized sports and other structured activities, fear of neighborhood crime in cities, lack of accessible open spaces in suburbia, working parents wishing their children to remain indoors after school, air conditioning that discourages children from playing outdoors in the summer, and the appeal of electronic media (TV, video games, and computers).

Can you even imagine Kindergarten without recess or blocks (or nap time)?

I did in fact bring up this issue during a faculty meeting in my first year one time. It was brought up by another teacher and I suggested we try having recess. The assistant principal looked at me and said, "Well, who's going to supervise that? You?," alluding to my numerous behavior management problems in my first year.

That effectively killed the motion.

Nevertheless, it should not be ignored that things that tend to make people good humans – like art, music, and PE – are being increasingly cut as schools find ways to trim budgets and increase that cherished “time on task”.

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...

“Getting Around Gender”: Would the WNBA Benefit From Getting “Out of the Ghetto of Being a Role Model for Girls?”

I follow women's basketball for one very simple reason:

I love basketball.

The cultural significance of supporting a women's professional sports league is icing on the cake for me.

Summer is the NBA off-season and the WNBA is a perfect counter-balance to keep me fully engaged in basketball for the entire calendar year, schedule permitting.

So I realize that marketing the WNBA to someone like me is simple -- the very idea of extra basketball was enough to get me interested in the WNBA in 1997. The combination of Candace Parker and gloomy Expect Great ads was enough to get me re-invested in the WNBA last summer after taking a long hiatus (moving to cities without WNBA teams).

However, I also realize that most people don't feel the same way about basketball as I do (they might actually have lives). In fact, some people seem to harbor resentment not only for women's basketball, but also that whole gender equity agenda thing that some people still believe is reserved for radical man-hating feminists.

So the very idea of a male women's sports fan is laughable to many people. Sadly, some individuals seem to enjoy going out of their way to demean female athletes and dismiss women's sports as irrelevant. And while I strongly believe that everybody is entitled to their own (defensible) opinion, openly disrespecting individuals who are performing at the top of their profession is just unnecessary.

So when I saw a link to an article on the Soccer Science blog entitled, “One Man’s Struggles With WPS Fandom: Does Liking Women’s Soccer Make You Gayer?” I was at once intrigued and wary of yet another insecure sexist rant.

Of course, I clicked.

Not that I’m afraid of becoming “gayer” by liking women’s basketball (because the very notion of that is ridiculous, as I believe the author intended to highlight). But I was very interested to see how the author – Cyrus Philbrick -- would go about developing his argument. He clearly was not dismissing women’s sports -- he was just trying to express why he’s struggling with it. That’s fair.

The premise of the article is as follows:

I love soccer. And I’m pretty sure I love women. So why don’t I love Women’s Professional Soccer? Or do I, secretly? These are questions I fear to answer because any serious soul-searching might uncover the misogynistic pig within. That, or I’ll end up stripping away a vestigial layer of macho-callous that has kept me straight and largely insensitive to the needs of women through the years. Oh well, here goes…

The article is actually a pretty fair description of some of the challenges that some men might have in making the transition from men’s sport to women’s sport.

However, Philbrick does not merely rehash standard critiques. In fact, he makes a critique that I normally take for granted in all my fervor about the cultural significance of women's sports.

His post ultimately arrives at the conclusion that WPS athletes are marketed as role models for girls, something that may alienate male fans. Which begs the question -- what about the WNBA?

“We need to get out of the ghetto of being a role model for girls,” Andy Crossley, the Boston Breakers’ director of business development, said in a recent New York Times article. “You can’t make dads feel like they’re visiting Chuck E. Cheese’s.”

The problem is I’m not sure if anyone knows how the league can change this. WPS works best as an inspiring example for young girl players. And as millions of them exist in this country, this isn’t a bad selling point. But to draw in the rest of us skeptics remains a challenge that will take a lot more than just innovative social media marketing.

I find this to be an interesting argument.

My knee jerk reaction is that perhaps these dads who feel apprehensive about doing things with their daughters because of how they feel need to get over themselves. But... you know... since I’m not a father…I’m going to suspend that judgment.

So beyond personal hang-ups, I suppose I don’t see being a role model for girls as a “ghetto” to begin with.

Isn’t being a role model for girls a good thing? Isn’t promoting fitness and sport for girls a good thing? And, most importantly, isn’t it somewhat inevitable that female athletes will be role models, given that women’s professional sports are a relatively new (and sometimes contentious) phenomenon?

But for a moment, let’s assume that getting out of the ghetto would indeed help the WNBA…then what? Where exactly would a league like the WNBA go from there?

“Marketing Women’s Sports to Men”

These questions led me to another article on a blog about marketing to women entitled, “Marketing Women’s Sports to Men”. The author – Andrea -- says the following, looking specifically at how NASCAR and figure skating have attempted to transcend gender in their marketing strategies:

Now, the sports realm, overall, has come full circle in the ways that previously pegged “women’s” sports must grow to reach more men.

And, how are they going to do that? By identifying what about the particular sport appeals to a men’s market and highlighting that. If the marketing decision-makers are smart, they’ll likely figure out a way to do so without alienating the women who already love said sport. Now, to clarify: It isn’t necessarily men that the more female-fan skewing sports should be worrying about. Instead, those marketing decision-makers should spend time learning to reach all of the human beings who appreciate the (traditionally) more masculine aspects of the sport.

The suggestion in this article is the de-genderfication of sport – finding the elements of a sport that appeal to all fans and highlight them.

However, given differences in the way men and women play basketball (see "Transition Points" below), “highlighting the masculine aspects” of basketball is almost impossible for the WNBA – at this moment, there is no female athletic equivalent of athletes like LeBron James or Dwight Howard. And part of what people like about the NBA is the almost surreal feats of athleticism. Women’s basketball can’t really provide those particular athletic aspects of the game, that have become prominent.

So if the WNBA is somewhat immune to de-genderfication, what else might a marketing expert suggest?

How about an awareness of third wave feminism, as Andrea suggests in another post?

I’m not saying that all is perfect between men and women now. I’m suggesting it might be a good time to accept that there is no easy answer but to study up on how the women in your market fit into this wave (or not). They might consider themselves feminists, but that could be VERY different from your mother’s feminism. And, today, there may well be a lot more men who consider themselves feminist or identify with the movement (whether they say so or not), and by making assumptions, you could potentially lose trust with them as well, Remember, too - parenthood tends to put most guys into a gender transcending role that changes their behavior in other ways. So, feminism can just creep up on you (in a good way)!

An awareness of third wave feminism is not for women’s studies majors only. Instead, it is a movement that may offer up the insights you need on how/why your consumers live and make decisions the way they do.

If we take Andrea’s posts together, then the challenge for a sport like the WNBA is finding a way to minimize the gendered elements of the sport (that may in fact define it) while simultaneously drawing upon insights from third wave feminism to understand what women might want beyond the antiquated narratives of equal opportunity and representation.

But...

While I understand all these points about ghettoizing women’s sports, de-genderfication, and taking an expansive approach to feminism (that includes men rather than assuming it’s a “women’s only” domain), I also find the approach highly problematic.

Girls still need role models…just like boys have had for decades/centuries/The Big Bang or Genesis. And it's worth playing that up.

There are gender differences in athletics that we should probably learn to appreciate instead of disregarding or rejecting them outright. And it's worth helping people do that.

And while feminism is not only for women’s studies majors and should apply to men, it also seems dangerous for it to become a part of a marketing strategy. Not that the feminist principles would necessarily lose their edge if assimilated as part of a marketing strategy…but…things tend to lose their edge when they are assimilated as part of a marketing strategy.

Nevertheless, the sad fact is that these commentaries may be right – indeed, it may simply not be profitable to market women’s sports as “political”, whether it be in a role modeling capacity, the symbolic promotion of equal opportunity/representation, or a direct challenge to sexist attitudes.

So where does this leave us?

The tension here is that if men want to demean or dismiss women’s sports for being too “Chuck-E-Cheese”, “too feminine”, or “too feminist”, I firmly believe that is their problem, not the problem of women’s professional sports.

But realistically, the market for sports is traditionally the 18-35 male crowd, which is stereotypically proud of being against things labeled as “Chuck-E-Cheese”, feminine, or feminist. And there are certain women (that I’m sure we could all think of and name) who hold the same views.

However, what is most troubling to me is the assumption underlying all of these things: sexism exists and if women’s sports are to be marketable, they have to roll with it rather than going against the grain.

Realistically, most people can’t be bothered with political messages about role models, opportunity, or oppression/discrimination/prejudice while they’re being entertained. They merely want to be entertained.

So that leaves us with the question of where are the people who want to be entertained by women’s basketball? And how does the WNBA reach them?

Does the WNBA need to “Get Around Gender”?

Well, take this insight from another Andrea’s posts entitled, “Getting Around Gender”:

An article in the latest issue of Pink mentioned how the Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan got creative in reaching out to women, specifically for their executive MBA programs. Because state law prohibited the school from offering gender-based scholarships, they did the research and realized that a lot of non-profit executives happened to be female. So, Ross focused its scholarship money there. Brilliant. The school figured out a commonality that had nothing to do with gender - and learned how to reach THAT group effectively… My point is that, in a lot of cases, the best marketing to women has gotten around the gender question by serving humans/individuals who may so happen to be women.

In other words, if somebody stepped in and told the WNBA they could not market exclusively to women, what might they do? How might they describe their consumers aside from gender (or sexuality) identifiers?

Does the target audience like particular elements of the in-game experience? Do they like certain player personalities? Is it a particular style of play that a change in rules could really accentuate?

The notion of gender-blindness is problematic, if not downright harmful to me. But that is essentially what this blog is suggesting: gender-blind marketing. And yet, if gender is toxic to sports profit as all these people are suggesting, then maybe that is the strategy… but would a gender blind marketing approach even work for a league that is absolutely gendered?

Hmmmm…

I must fully acknowledge that Andrea is not talking about the WNBA -- she made a reference to NASCAR and figure skating and I'm trying to make a link to the WNBA....

Ultimately, I don't think such an approach would actually draw the fans who have blatantly sexist and dehumanizing reasons for not watching women's sports to begin with. So hiding from such an obvious aspect of the league -- that the women are role models -- just seems counterproductive.

It is important that women's sports leagues exist, if for no other reason "to get females to play" as Mechelle Voepel wrote about on Sunday. But while that is great advocacy for a women's non-profit organization, is it viable for a professional sports league striving to make profit?

But is it so difficult to imagine a world in which people stop judging women by men’s standards and are actually genuinely entertained by female athletes? Is there no way to appreciate women for their athletic feats just as we appreciate men? Why can’t we strive for a higher human standard rather than striving for the lowest consumer denominator?

Naïve, idealistic questions…that I find worth wondering about…

Relevant Links:

When it’s ‘her’ turn to just dive right in (Mechelle Voepel)
http://voepel.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/when-its-her-turn-to-just-dive-right-in/

Marketing Women's Sports to Men
http://learnedonwomen.com/2009/04/marketing-womens-sports-to-men/

Getting Around Gender in Marketing
http://learnedonwomen.com/2009/07/getting-around-gender/


Transition Points:

The argument that first stuck out to me in Philbrick's piece was the one about the speed of women’s soccer – that “It’s inarguably, frustratingly, heart-murmeringly slow.” Ouch. However, one could certainly make the same argument about the WNBA in comparison to men’s basketball…and that of course led me down a much longer path…

This past weekend I probably spent way too much time watching basketball. On Saturday I went to see the Seattle Storm defeat the San Antonio Silver Stars in overtime. Then on Sunday I went to see NBA players with Seattle ties play in the Adonai Hood Tournament, a four-team tournament of local high school alumni. And as I probably need not tell you, the differences between the women’s and men’s game were quite stark.

The men’s game is just faster, more physical, and yes, field goal percentages are typically higher. And for a game that is predicated on putting a ball into a ten foot high hole, the fact that men are taller on average is significant.

The fact is that the women’s game simply does not have athletes like the 5’9” Nate Robinson (NBA player from Seattle’s Rainier Beach High School and University of Washington) – an ultra-quick former NCAA Division I football defensive back who has won two NBA Dunk Contests, including this year’s in which he jumped over the 6’11” Dwight Howard for a dunk (in 2006 he jumped over another diminutive dunk champion, former NBA player Spud Webb).


Taking Robinson as one example of the type of athleticism in the NBA, these games are just different. And as I’ve said before, if you are going to support women’s sports, you first have to accept that they are different from men’s sports (duh…right?) and just appreciate each on their own terms, loving the sport as a sport as well as another form of entertainment.

Tonight: Storm game with a NBA fan who has never been. Should be fun...

(Note: I’m still not entirely sure how watching women’s sports – or anything for that matter -- might make one “gayer”, though many men seem to feel their sexuality is at stake when watching women’s sports. If I was hypothetically operating on such lunkhead male “logic”, it would seem that the opposite would be true – that spending hours watching sweaty men post each other up and pat each other on their firm behinds would make me “gayer”)

Continue reading...

The Sixth Adonai Hood Classic: Seattle Welcomes Home NBA Stars

There is nothing quite like watching NBA players represent their high school teams in a humid high school gym.

In fact, Shoals estimated about 500% humidity…and we must have sat there for five hours taking in a high school alumni game complete with music and a hype man, which at times made the basketball on the court teeter on the edge of irrelevance.

But we suffered through the difficult conditions simply for the star power.

Although the Sonics have left the city, there is still a surprisingly strong NBA presence in Seattle as evidenced by the impressive list of alumni that have come from a handful of schools from a relatively small radius.

The Adonai Hood Classic is a two-day tournament established in 2000 to bring together two rival neighborhoods in Seattle – the Central District and South Seattle – in a peaceful venue to help ease long-standing tensions. The tournament has now expanded to feature NBA alumni from four schools - Franklin, Garfield, O’Dea, and Rainier Beach.

This year’s tournament was played at the recently renovated Garfield High School gym. In addition to the high schools squaring off, the event features a three point and dunk contest.

On Sunday, current NBA players Aaron Brooks (left; Houston Rockets/Franklin), Jamal Crawford (right; Atlanta Hawks/Rainier Beach), and Nate Robinson (free agent/Rainier Beach) played for their respective teams.

Brandon Roy (Portland Trail Blazers/Garfield) made an appearance but did not play.



Robinson also participated in and won the three point contest, which was of course not the contest we were hoping Robinson would participate in...


Franklin pretty much dominated O’Dea, with or without Brooks, and Roy looked on from the bench as Crawford and Robinson led Rainier Beach to a victory in the championship game.

Watching these NBA players going up against players with a range of professional basketball experience -- from college to NBA summer league to Europe – it was striking to see just what separates the NBA-caliber talent from the rest. The NBA guys were just a bit more decisive in their actions, a tad quicker on their first step, their passes just a bit more precise, and their jump shots a bit sweeter.


But perhaps the best part of watching an event like this is players like Robinson who just seem as happy to play basketball in a humid gym as he does on the grand stage of Madison Square Garden. It’s hard not to appreciate someone who plays the game with such passion, has a thirst for victory even in an alumni game with people making millions less than him, and yet doesn’t really take himself too seriously, despite craving the spotlight.

Events like this with personalities like Robinson are a nice reminder that basketball is after all just a game made a bit sweeter when attached to good cause. Definitely worth the ten dollar admission fee and sweat therapy.

Transition Points:

Former University of Washington point guard - Justin Dentmon - was present as well and won the dunk contest.




Continue reading...

The Storm’s All-Decade Team Ceremony: Are Storm Fans Really the Best in the WNBA?

At the end of the Seattle Storm’s 10th anniversary All-Decade Team ceremony at halftime of their 85-82 overtime victory last night, an oversized #6 Storm jersey was raised to the rafters of Key Arena in honor of the Storm’s dedicated fans, complete with a triumphant score that seemed to accentuate the significance of the moment.

As the jersey was halfway to its permanent place above the court, the woman next to me – tears streaming down her face – looked over and said in a pleasantly derisive tone, “Well, the music is a bit much.”

However, it’s hard to do too much for a group of fans who seem to put 110% of their energy into the Storm every night they show up. And that dedication, exuberance, and passion for their team has led people in Key Arena to claim repeatedly that Seattle’s fans are the best in the WNBA.

“Raising the banner there for the fans, I mean, that’s very worthy,” said Storm coach Brian Agler after the game. “You know, because we have probably the best fans in the league. I’ve been to all of the arenas, I’ve coached in four or five different places and there’s no comparison. No comparison.”

“No comparison”? Whoa – dem’s fightin’ words!

And therein lies a challenge to the WNBA fans in the other 12 cities across the U.S.:

Where you at?

I mean, seriously…are you gonna take that?

If you believe what people in Key Arena say, the fans in the rest of the league are straight-up slackin’.

But the thing is, I don’t think this is just a matter of a coach, owner, players, past-players, and announcers laying platitudes on the fans who pay the bills. I haven’t been to every arena in the league as Agler has, but I have to say that Storm games are by far one of the best sporting events I’ve ever been to in the U.S. (see Transition Points for my top 5). And the fans are a big part of it.

I’ve said repeatedly that I’m not a “Storm fan” per se in that I'm not particularly emotionally invested in whether they win or lose... but it’s hard to be in that building and not get caught up in the exciting narrative they’re putting together this year. And it doesn’t hurt to have someone next to you to bring you into the rich historical narrative that’s being celebrated this season.

As an “outsider”, I can appreciate good basketball. I can appreciate that Storm forward Lauren Jackson and Storm guard Sue Bird are among the best in the world at their respective positions. And yes, I can appreciate the statistics during the game.

However, during both the ceremony and the presentation of the 4th installment of the Storm history documentary, the woman next to me (we’ll call her “D”) tried to help me appreciate Storm basketball on a level of depth that goes beyond individual performance, statistics, and an exuberant crowd. And having someone there to contextualize where the Storm are now within a longer historical trajectory helped me gain a deeper appreciation for the entire 10th anniversary celebration.

During the presentation of the documentary on Storm Vision at the end of the first quarter, she described what it was like to be at the games in Key Arena as every game came down to the wire. “Every single game almost made my heart stop,” she commented. “So in the end, when we won, it was just a huge relief.”

During the halftime ceremony, as tears started rolling down her face, she talked a little about Simone Edwards’ shimmy shake and how much she loved Kamila Vodichkova.

I guess even as I’m writing this I’m realizing that my words aren’t really capturing the magic of the moment and the excitement in her voice that seemed just oozed with passion for her Seattle Storm. This was a woman that I’ve only met 2-3 times previously and there she was in tears as she relived her experience as a Storm fan over the last ten years. On a human level, there was something special happening for her at that moment and it was quite moving, even for someone who really hadn’t had the same set of experiences to draw upon.

There are plenty of devout fans in sports across the U.S. but there’s something different about the way Seattle fans engage their Storm. In Key Arena, the passion for their team rarely manifests itself in the form of hostility for the opposing team. Rarely do I hear people deriding their own players. Perhaps it’s just that people direct so much hostility toward the referees that there just isn’t any leftover to direct at players.

But the atmosphere in Key Arena seems to be more of a “love-will-never-do-without-you” relationship than “what-have-you-done-for-me-lately”. Perhaps not unconditional love, but definitely a supportive and inspired relationship in which the fans are willing to take the risk of putting their all into the team, even at the risk of disappointment in the end. Storm fans just care about their team in a different way than any other pro sports environment I’ve been around.



What’s ironic about the whole thing is that Seattle is known among "outsiders" for the Seattle Freeze phenomenon – a social atmosphere in which people are warm on the surface, but ultimately never get beyond surface level politeness, which can create a sense of isolation among outsiders. But maybe that isn’t really that ironic – nobody really gets “close” to the professional athletes they root for; they know them from a distance and don’t necessarily have to engage the human flaws that might emerge during the course of a real relationship. Maybe the fervor for the Storm is yet another manifestation of this broader phenomenon rather than a diversion from it.

Either way, basketball in Key Arena is something special. And if you live anywhere near Seattle and haven’t yet been, it’s worth it… just because it is among the most unique sporting experiences in the country.

Perhaps my reaction to the whole thing is “a bit much.”

But it’s hard to believe that when you see the stranger next to you tearing up and expressing something she’s passionate about.

Relevant Links:

Storm’s Fans Invaluable the Last 10 Years
http://www.wnba.com/storm/news/fans090803.html

Storm marks 10th anniversary
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlesports/archives/175241.asp

Transition Points:

Here are my top 5 favorite U.S. sporting events/venues (no event can match even the lowest levels of “soccer”/football elsewhere in the world):

1. University of Michigan men’s ice hockey @ Yost Arena
2. Seattle Sounders FC soccer at Quest Field
3. University of Michigan football @ “The Big House”
4. Seattle Storm basketball @ Key Arena
5. American University women’s basketball @ Bender Arena (ok, this is a sentimental pick, but I saw Ticha Penicheiro play there in 1997-98 and that was great)

Other candidates: Detroit Pistons basketball, DC United soccer, Oakland A's baseball, San Francisco Giants baseball (at "Pac Bell", not necessarily Candlestick).

Continue reading...

Storm-Stars Preview: A Battle of Supporting Casts

In the Seattle Storm’s 74-71 loss to the San Antonio Silver Stars on Tuesday night, the Silver Stars came back from down 10 points at the beginning of the fourth to win the game on a last second three pointer.

All-Star guard Becky Hammon had an all-star caliber game with 24 points and all-star forward Sophia Young made an all-star caliber three point shot to win the game at the buzzer.

However, what really made the difference in that game was the supporting cast for the Silver Stars and in particular, the play of Megan Frazee.

Although Young made headlines for her buzzer beating three point shot, she had a difficult game going 5-17 from the field and 2-11 inside the three-point line. The Storm’s taller defenders in Lauren Jackson and Camille Little made it extremely difficult for Young to score inside, at times not even drawing rim on shots around the basket.

For a team whose success last season was predicated on strong post play in addition to Hammon’s perimeter play, supported in particular by center Ann Wauters who has yet to return this season, Young’s struggles necessitated someone to step up and bring a post presence.

San Antonio coach Dan Hughes called upon Frazee and she did not disappoint.

Frazee was extremely efficient from the field, going 7-10, including a three pointer in the second quarter. She fought for a number of difficult rebounds with Storm post players finishing with 7 overall, including two offensive rebounds. She didn’t even miss a shot until late in the fourth quarter.

On both offense and defense, Frazee was often in the right position, even if she didn’t make the spectacular play. And it seemed like just when the Storm started to get momentum, Frazee was there to make a play that swung the momentum in the opposite direction.

For a rookie – who wasn’t even mentioned in my last rookie rankings, but will have my attention in the future – Frazee was impressive.

The Storm’s dynamic All-Star duo of Sue Bird and Lauren Jackson had solid games but got considerably less production from their bench.

So heading into tonight’s game, what are some of the key things to watch for?

Frazee is obvious after her previous performance, but their previous match up also illuminated some other things to watch for.

San Antonio: Sophia Young’s jump shot

Young was 2-11 from two point range in the previous game and although a lot of those shots were contested, she also missed a few jumpers that she could easily have made.

In the past, Young has been most successful when she’s been able to put pressure on her defender by scoring off drives and from the perimeter. If she had gotten that game going against the Storm, the game might have had a much different outcome.

San Antonio: Ball movement

When San Antonio keeps the ball moving they are extremely successful. And a lot of that is due to the passing of their post players.

And it just so happens that those defensive rotations are something Seattle has struggled with throughout the season.

What makes the Silver Stars so difficult to defend is that if you go zone to stop stymie their post play, they pass the ball so well to their shooters that they’re able to punish you from the perimeter. If you go woman-to-woman defense, they move the ball and force the defense to rotate until something opens up.

The answer is to have great on ball defenders and unfortunately the Storm struggled to guard the Silver Stars’ shooters and gave up 14 offensive rebounds, which led to 13 second chance points.

Seattle: Tanisha Wright driving

A major reason for the Storm’s 10 point lead at the beginning of the 4th quarter was Tanisha Wright’s ability to put pressure on the defense by driving to the basket and either scoring or passing was essential.

Wright did not end with a bad game – she just didn’t have a very consistent game. Outside of the third quarter, she was not a big factor.

The Silver Stars came out in the 4th quarter in a zone which stopped the penetration and led to the Storm looking a lot more stagnant. Meanwhile, the Silver Stars got hot on offense and erased the big lead, with the support of their crowd of course.

Unfortunately for the Storm, Wright was essentially a non-factor for much of the game and that really hurts the Storm because Wright’s aggressive penetration has been a key factor in the Storm’s victories this season. Whether it means drawing up more plays for Wright to make things happen consistently to put the pressure on or moving her around to get more favorable matchups is hard to say. But when she is on consistently, the Storm are a very difficult team to beat.

Seattle: Bench play

While the Silver Stars’ bench, led by Frazee, had a very productive game contributing 22 points, the Storm only got 5 points from their bench.

When Young struggled for the Stars, someone from their bench stepped up. When Sue Bird, Tanisha Wright, Camille Little, or Swin Cash were absent for stretches, the Storm simply didn’t get support from their bench.

While it’s great that the Storm got double digits from each of their starters, they also need production from their bench in order to keep their opponent on their heels.

Who will step up tonight?


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."

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."

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.

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...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what’s wrong?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s unheard of in basketball.

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

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

Winner: Anosike

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

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

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

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

Winner: Pondexter

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

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

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

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

Winner: Bonner

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

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

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

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

Winner: Bonner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So perhaps more is needed…

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

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

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

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

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

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

So how do you choose?

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

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

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

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

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

Personally, I can’t.

Continue reading...