Swish Appeal - All Posts

Open Thread: The Minnesota Lynx visits the Phoenix Mercury at 7:00 PM Arizona and Pacific Time

2013-06-20T00:00:06Z

With the Mercury now at 3-3, this is a chance for DT and the gang to get past .500 for the first time this season, where they hope to remain for the rest of the season. As for Minnesota, they're still the best team in the WNBA and I'm giving them the edge tonight regardless.

On yesterday's Choke Job by the San Antonio Spurs

I said Spurs in Seven, and I am still saying that the Spurs win tomorrow as the Big Three has their last hurrah, and I think it will be. If any other team in the NBA was 20 seconds away from winning the championship and managed to do what I saw last night, Thursday is a guaranteed beat down by the Miami Heat. But the Spurs are the toughest team mentally in all of professional basketball. Yesterday was a horrendous job I saw in the closing seconds both with missed free throws by Manu Ginobili and Kawhi Leonard, and Tim Duncan on the bench when there could have been crucial rebounding opportunities. That said, Gregg Popovich could do this. I don't know how, and that's why he's the coach.

I have no comment on LeBron's headband-less performance. It's just a headband.

So, even though it looks like it's not happening tomorrow, I'm going with the Spurs and am going down with the ship! Go Spurs Go! Go Spurs Go!

The "Random" SB Nation songs of the day.

Theme today: Best solo singers from boy groups/bands!

First, the King of Pop, Michael Jackson from the Jackson 5!

Second, Justin Timberlake of 'N Sync.

And third, I'll play John Lennon of The Beatles!

So there you have it, and enjoy tonight's game!

The Ackerman White Paper, Part III: The resistance to change

2013-06-19T18:04:39Z

Clearly, changes need to be made in women's basketball, and I agree with one of Ackerman's basic premises - the women's game needs to be differentiated from the men's game. There are arguments that if the women's game doesn't mirror the men's game in every aspect that women are being treated unfairly, with cries of "sexism" abounding. (*) The problem is that the attempting to match men's basketball in every respect has handcuffed the women's game. There should certainly be some rule changes considered that make the game more distinct from its male counterpart.

For example, I wouldn't mind seeing the height of the rim lowered, as Ackerman suggested. However, to even mention lowering the height of the rim brings cries that the game will be ruined. I believe that every change needs to be considered on its own merits. There are hardcore purists who will claim that *any* move away from the men's dimensions is the first step to an inferior product. However, there were hardcore purists that felt that the 3-point shot would ruin the game, or the 24-second clock, or expanding the free throw lane width, or removing the cage, or removing the peach basket would ruin the game.

The game cannot remain static. It cannot remain static and survive. To those who talk about purity, I'm reminded of a saying from an older preacher to a younger one: "You can have a purer church, or you can have a bigger church - but you can't have both." The current court dimensions, hoop height, etc. were designed without women in mind at all. I don't see why women's basketball always has to follow the men's game.

There were two items in Ackerman's list of anonymous comments that I found interesting. The first one was an anecdote that depression is increasing in women's basketball - the players are under great deals of stress and finding it harder to cope. The second one was that one person Ackerman interviewed was worried about the rise of women's volleyball - a sport which didn't have to worry about mirroring the men's counterpart because there were far more NCAA schools offering women's volleyball than men's volleyball.

Read more: Full storystream on the Ackerman paper

I had the same worries. I would read on recruiting sites how basketball recruits would pass up basketball scholarships for volleyball ones. I don't know if women's volleyball is less stressful than women's basketball - but I am seeing women's volleyball a lot more on television.

I was also reminded of what happened with wrestling. Recently, wrestling faced the prospect of being removed from the list of Olympic sports. The Olympic committee warned the wrestling hierarchy that wrestling wasn't bringing in any ratings. Undoubtedly, the wrestling hierarchy had the following thoughts:

"You don't understand the complexity of the sport."
"If you don't like it, then don't watch it."
"You're the one with the problem."
"The sport is just fine the way it is."

All of the answers have the same root. "Our sport is perfect, and it's the world that's the one with the problem. Eliminate these competing influences, and the planet shall see the light."

Wrestling said "you're the guys with the problem." The Olympic Committee dropped wrestling. Facing the ax, wrestling is now making changes to make wrestling more fluid and less confusing. Maybe too late, but at least something is happening.

Unfortunately, whenever the subject of change is breached in women's basketball, we get these arguments:

"You don't understand the complexity of the sport."
"If you don't like it, then don't watch it."
"You're the one with the problem."
"The sport is just fine the way it is."

There is a real resistance to change in women's basketball. Take the idea of dunking, for example. The first comment you'll get is that the game is fine just the way it is and that it doesn't need dunking. There are lots of people who love the move-it-around, mid-range positional game. I certainly do. However, I'm also open to other options, particularly if it increases public interest in the sport. It might have been better for women's basketball if Xavier's Dee Dee Jernigan could have thrown down a dunk in the regional final against Stanford instead of missing lay-ups at point blank range in the final seconds.

The second comment you'll get is any change would be used as ammunition for detractors of women's sports, that the counter-argument could be that "if we make those changes, then women wouldn't be playing real basketball". Unfortunately, by advancing that argument you concede the fact that a sport whose measurements were designed without a single thought to female players is the "real basketball" - in effect, I believe you're giving up ground to the detractors. By saying that the current designed-for-tall-males dimensions of the basketball court constitute "real basketball", you're implying "real basketball is whatever the male players are doing".

For a long time the game has some real problems that aren't discussed in public forums. Any group facing pressure from a dominant class always feels that open discussion of problems is simply giving ammunition to the enemy - such things aren't supposed to be discussed in the open, lest the enemy uses a strategy of "divide and conquer". ("See, even Swish Appeal says girls can't play real basketball!") Unfortunately, a problem can't be solved until it's discussed.

(* * *)

So what kinds of changes should be made? The inspiration for the following section came from a phone-text-conversation that I had with an anonymous D-I coach head coach shortly after the Ackerman white paper was released.

What would be a change that women's basketball could make - right now - that would:

a) not require any new equipment or changes in court dimensions (not that we're ruling those out),
b) could be implemented immediately, or at least in 2013-14,
c) wouldn't change the rules in such a way as to make the game "look too different" and upset the purists, but
d) make the women's game distinct from the men's game?

The solution is easy. Start calling contact fouls. Make the women's game a much lower-contact type of game.

Two anecdotes from Ackerman caught my attention. One was a comment decrying the use of male practice players. The female players want to mirror the men's game and as a result, the game gets a lot more physical. The second was the comment that "the strength coach is the most important position on the coaching staff."

Ackerman pointed to the ever-decreasing shooting accuracy of the game. Even though the causes aren't fully understood, shooting percentages have declined since at least the mid-eighties. Making it harder for defensive players to just beat up on shooters would have a great effect in freeing the game and making it more fluid. It would also negate the advantages of schools that stock up with strong players that want to turn games into scrimmages, which might break up some of the parity in women's basketball.

Of course, I can imagine the arguments. "But the fouls! Then the game will be even worse! Then it will just become a bunch of marches to the free throw line! We can't change!"

I'd say that after the first four minutes under the new foul-calling regime, when the bruisers have two starters on the bench with two fouls, then things will change very quickly indeed. If there is real guidance from above, then it will filter down to the referees. Which will then filter to the players, then the coaches, and then everywhere else. The game will become faster and shots will become easier to make. Shooting percentages will go up. The NFL does this kind of tinkering all the time with rules for quarterbacks and pass protection; why can't the NCAA do the same?

The joke is that basketball is only a non-contact sport in theory, not in practice. You'll never eliminate contact from the game, and I don't think it should be completely eliminated. However, I don't think that it will hurt the women's game to have less contact. That should satisfy any purist, even that guy who invented the rules. What was his name? Naismith?

(* * *)

The last part of this post is a thought exercise. What would things look like if some schools started implementing Ackerman's philosophy right away? We'll travel to the imaginary Grove Hills University in Florida, a Division I school looking to hire a new women's BB coach.

The new athletic director has decided that he's not going to pay what is called a "competitive salary". Women's basketball has been a loss leader for years. Oh, certainly a coach will be compensated fairly, but it will be at the low end of D-I schools. The new AD isn't going to pay the salary escalation game.

There will be coaching incentives - but the most important of these will be for increasing attendance at games. There have been calls for the women's basketball program to play their games at Grove Hills Megastadium instead of the older Grove Hills Gymnasium, but the AD knows that attendance at GH has plateaued at about 500 real persons attending per game. Playing in an empty cavern wouldn't do the players or the program any good. The AD makes a note to make real improvements in the ancient gymnasium so that the players don't feel they've been cast into the shoebox, but moving to a larger venue is out of the question.

There should be no shortage of applicants, even at the lower salary. Being the coach of a D-I institution is hard to pass up. But the AD isn't looking for someone with Xs and Os skill - he needs someone with charisma which is what the old coach didn't have. The new coach has to be able to sell the game. The new coach needs to be an extrovert who is good with people. The program needs someone who will go on point and hit the streets to bring up attendance - and since coaching compensation is more strongly linked with attendance, there will be a lot of incentive.

There has been a real push from quarters at the university to discount the prices of women's basketball tickets. The AD has decided to resist as much as possible. "Once you start giving something away for free," he was told, "it becomes very hard to monetize it." The philosophy should be that women's basketball is worth paying for - not as much as the men's games, maybe, but that it is a valuable product. There will be no mass ticket giveaways.

Eventually, a new coach is hired. The new coach and the AD see eye to eye on a lot of things. One thing is that the players will need some media training. There aren't very many reporters that come to see games, but the last thing that the AD needs to see is a bunch of shy players who mumble. The new head coach always hated talking to recruits on the phone who only mumbled or were shy - it was like pulling teeth. That has to stop. Reporters should look forward to talking to players and coaches, and not dread it. The game needs to be promoted, and that starts with the people playing it.

The new coach and AD talk about the physicality of the game. The new coach isn't giving up the emphasis on strength training - "I'm not going to unilaterally disarm", she says, worried about what would happen to her players under the basket. But she is willing to consider - on a trial basis - not using male practice players. The AD has agreed to evaluate the experiment fairly, and return to using male practice players if the success of the program depends on it.

There are concerns that the players are stressed out. The new schedule will include two fewer non-conference games. Travel will focus on the dozen or so D-I schools in Florida and the American southeast for the most part. Oh, the team will still make their trips to New York that can be used as a reward/recruiting fodder, but they're not going to play the South Dakota States of the world.

The new assistant coach in charge of scheduling is concerned, though. Big schools offer sweet money pots for lesser schools like Grove Hills to come visit and get clobbered. "If you play local, then where's that money going to come from?" No real conclusion is arrived at, and the prospect of the team playing thousands of miles away for incentives is unresolved.

The AD, however, has made a decision of his own. If the team finishes less than eighth in conference, the Grove Hills Bears won't be playing in the post-season conference tournament. More travel, and almost no hope of winning the tournament, as a ninth-or-lower seed hasn't ever won the tournament. The players and coach will know this ahead of time. (The athletic conference might not like it, though.)

The issue of tattoos is fraught with perilous landmines. The AD thinks that tattoo art can be beautiful - five percent of it, anyway. The rest is tacky and hardly qualifies as art. The head coach says that kids today use tattoos as methods of self expression. "You're going to lose that battle if you fight it," she says. "You also open up that classism/racism jazz."

Even so, the higher-ups in the school want the tattoos covered. So the kids that have tattoos will wear sleeves - it's come down from on-high. Nothing preventing them from having tattoos, it's just that they have to be covered up on the court.

However, as a compromise for this concession, the students will be allowed to design their own uniforms - the AD's argument is that if you make them cover up their tats, you have to give them some kind of self-expression. (The AD thinks the current unis - designed "old school" like the men's - look terrible, anyway.)

The old guard is aghast! "What kind of uniforms will they design? You really want to give them that power?" The head coach replies, "they have to wear those uniforms, you know". Besides, who knows more about what kind of uniform that a college player would like to wear than a college player? The AD doesn't like the baggy shorts - he thinks that the players get swallowed up in their proposed uniforms - but it's obvious that the proposed uniforms have a modern sensibility. The new uniforms hit the internet and get a lot of buzz going about the program.

Now, thinks the AD, if I can only get the refs to start calling more fouls....
____

(*) From the little bit of feminist history that I know, this argument doesn't hold water. Second-wave feminism - the feminism of the early 1970s - would have argued against creating a structure that simply mirrored all the evils of the existing patriarchy but slotted women into the leadership roles. Then again, second-wave feminism might not have cared much for women's competitive sports.

The Ackerman White Paper: On concerns and changing the game

2013-06-19T17:35:48Z

Former WNBA president Val Ackerman's "White Paper" has been released in collaboration with the NCAA. The paper is both a set of concerns and problems the college women's basketball game is facing, and it includes a set of recommendations for improvement which we've summarized and responded to here.

The Val Ackerman white paper on college basketball was released today. This paper was mentioned in an earlier article at Swish Appeal, but the contents of the paper were not known then.

Ackerman spoke with the heavy hitters of women's basketball - not just coaches, but college presidents, conference commissioners, and others involved at the highest levels of the game. The 52-page final paper is daunting. It's an excellent read for anyone who is interested in the fate of women's college basketball, and this is a must read.

I've only read the first section so far. What follows below are some of the points that I thought were interesting.

(* * *)

* Division I regular season and NCAA tournament games attract more fans and viewers than any other women's intercollegiate sport. In 2013, the Women's Final four was seen by 2.3 million domestic viewers.

* Women's college basketball's overall growth has slowed over the last decade. We're not going backwards or losing viewers, but growth is plateauing.

* The number of programs that have achieved competitive success nationally is small - there's a lack of parity in the women's game. Of the 343 DI schools, only 25 have made at least one Final Four appearance. She writes that "7 schools have 40 combined appearances among them", but I don't know where her data is coming from. Tennessee, Connecticut and Stanford alone have 43 total Final Four appearances. There are actually 37 schools since 1982 that have made at least one Final Four. Even so, I agree there is a real lack of parity in the women's game.

* Demographics of women's college basketball attendance:

Females outnumber males 56 percent to 44 percent.
53 percent are 50 and older. If you look at the over-50s, 30 percent are 60 and over.
71 percent are white.
53 percent have completed college/graduate school.
70 percent earn less than $75K/year

* On both ESPN and ESPN2, the demographic of regular season women's basketball viewers is men age 55 and over.

* In 1985-86, field goal percentage in women's basketball for DI was 44.2 percent, its highest level. After that, it began to progressively drop over the last 20 years. During 2012-13, the average field goal percentage was 38.9 percent.

The same progressions have happened with 3-point shooting and total points scored. However, free throw shooting has increased and turnovers have decreased.

* Of the major movers and shakers that Val Ackerman interviewed, their concerns fell into five major categories:

1. A desire for some sort of clear vision for the game to be set.
2. A desire to overhaul the governance and decision-making structures of the sport.
3. A concern about the game's quality. According to Ackerman, her respondents complained about the "excessive physicality", "low scoring", "wide gaps in parity". They also felt that the overall image of the sport was negative.
4. A desire for increased in-game attendance and revenues.
5. A desire to make sure that the demands of the sport on the players are in-line with educational priorities.

* Money quotes from respondents:

"We have to get away from doing things just because the men do them."

"What's right for the men isn't necessarily what's right for the women."

"No one would stay committed to the sport without Title IX."

"Bring us back to why we fell in love with this sport 30 years ago."

"We've created a subspecies of compliance, governance, and committees that paralyzes us."

Game is "too physical" - "excessive contact is hurting the game".

"Strength training coach is the most important person on the staff."

"Embarrassing how few teams legitimately compete on a high level."

Male practice players make women's players "try to play like guys, so they practice physical basketball" which is hurting the game.

"Baggy shorts and tattoos turn fans off."

Uniforms need to be "fashionable, hip, cool".

Volleyball is seen as a "growing threat" for young players and athletic department dollars - may be prospering "because not laboring under comparisons with men".

Coaching contracts "are not supported by the revenues".

Coaches need to be "cheerleaders, not introverts". With Pat Summitt gone there is a "vacuum", new coaches need to "capture the imagination of fans". The backbone for enthusiasm in the local market is the coach, since players come and go.

Need to "educate students about the big picture" so they understand their role in the sales effort.

NCAA website is "awful".

Not enough collaboration between college programs and WNBA teams in the same cities.

There are "high levels of depression" among players because of the stress.

The best players need more media and speaking training.

* Weaknesses of the game (the strengths are also mentioned elsewhere)

The game has to compete with men's college basketball, college, pro football and the NBA.

Scheduling the men's and women's tournaments at the same time is obscuring the visibility of the women's game.

The lack of parity hurts the game's overall appeal. Contributing factors to this lack of parity:

a) More scholarships given out than a team actually needs to be competitive - players which would be good players at other schools decide to be bench-warmers at the small number of top programs.

b) The lack of quality coaching depth.

c) Too much physicality in the sport, which favors the programs with the biggest and strongest players.

d) The lack of skill level in incoming freshmen and JUCOs, due to a lack of development.

Revenue is based mainly on ticket sales, an unsustainable financial base.

The concerns about complying with gender equity has led to an escalation of costs to match the men's programs.

One D1 representative said that at his/her school, the women's basketball coach's salary was 60 percent of the sport's total revenue, that assistant women's basketball coaches at that school make more than head coaches in other sports, and that women's basketball loses the most money at that school.

The fan base is too gray - too dependent on fixed incomes, which limits increasing ticket prices, which limits revenue streams.

The women's basketball fans that watch on TV are majority male, the women's basketball fans attending games are majority female - they need different marketing strategies.

The Tennessee/Connecticut rivalry - an instrumental one - is damaged. The schools don't look like they'll be playing each other soon, and Pat Summitt has retired. Who will replace both her and Auriemma, when he retires? Who will fill the role that they fill?

The NCAA needs a stand-alone sponsor for women's basketball.

The Play 4Kay breast cancer awareness program/pink days are universally lauded. There needs to be an additional "cause marketing" campaign with a more upbeat theme and younger demographic.

(* * *)

That's a lot to take in in twenty-five pages or so. A part two will follow. But don't wait for me to tell you what's in the rest of the paper. Like I wrote, it's a must read.

2013 WNBA MVP watch: Ivory Latta, Maya Moore, Diana Taurasi off to efficient starts as perimeter scorers

2013-06-19T15:00:04Z

In 2009, Minnesota Lynx wing Seimone Augustus had as good a start to a WNBA season as you could want from a wing.

The Lynx were off to a 4-1 start, led by Augustus' 23.4 points per game. While that might not sound that extraordinary - either in the context of considering league scoring champions or her own career - the efficiency with which she did it was truly remarkable. The Lynx guard was shooting 57% from the field and an even more impressive 64.3% from the 3-point line in addition to a career-high 90.5% from the free throw line.

There are players who have been more efficient scorers over the course of a season during the course of WNBA history, but the four players who have done better over the course of the season were either post players (who were getting a large number of shots closer to the basket) or a low usage point guard (Jennifer Azzi). That Augustus was that good as a volume scorer - even for a short period of time - is still astounding.

Year	Tm	G	PER	TS%	ORB%	DRB%	TRB%	STL%	USG%
2009	MIN	6	30.9	.661	2.6	15.0	8.6	3.4	26.9
Career		193	22.3	.552	2.4	11.5	6.9	1.5	26.5

Provided by Basketball-Reference.com: View Original Table. Generated 6/17/2013.

Of course, the reason that season isn't talked about much and won't be listed among the best scoring seasons of all-time is that it didn't continue past the beginning: Augustus suffered an ACL injury in the sixth game of the season in Phoenix. The Lynx would go 10-19 from the moment of her injury and miss the playoffs once again that year before bringing about some of the changes that have brought them to where they are now.

But that brief moment in time always stands out in my mind as a snapshot of just how brilliant a talent Augustus can be, both in terms of her ability to carry a team and her ability as a pure scorer. And when I make the case that Augustus has a case for being the best - or "most creative" - "pure scorer" the league has seen, that snapshot is both left out for obvious reasons and The Example of a killer instinct that eludes some more highly touted players.

That, for me, is the idealized, if unrealistic, vision of what a pure scorer is: a scorer so deadly that shooting the ball is always the best option for her team, even when the other team knows it's coming. It's a lofty standard and one that is almost foolish to hold anyone to.

I bring all that up now because there's a player this season that has put up numbers awfully close to Augustus' 2009 season. And if someone is approaching that standard, you have to wonder how close they are to being considered the MVP. The question is whether that standard as a pure scorer even makes someone a lock for the top spot in the MVP race. And that comes down to how you define "value", which could be especially tricky this season.

How do you define "value"?

I've described a definition for value in previous years and I'm not going to change it this year. Click here to see that, but before reading on do note that I've left out plus/minus for now because it's probably the least useful statistic at this point in the season.

The Candidates

The following are a list of the players with the top 15 MVP ratings in the WNBA as of 6/16/13 (ordered by MVP).

Player	Team	MVP	PVC	Usage%	Pts/empty poss
Candace Parker	L.A. Sparks	13.7	22.08	26.11	2.35
Angel McCoughtry	Atlanta Dream	12.67	20.14	34.27	1.5
Ivory Latta	Washington Mystics	12.65	25.48	23.83	2.56
Diana Taurasi	Phoenix Mercury	12.58	24.7	28.41	2.64
Tina Charles	Connecticut Sun	12.03	24.47	30.9	1.78
Maya Moore	Minnesota Lynx	11.91	20.00%	26.68%	2.85
Elena Delle Donne	Chicago Sky	11.78	20.82	23.87	2.74
Sylvia Fowles	Chicago Sky	10.9	19.27	20.18	2.17
Tamika Catchings	Indiana Fever	10.33	22.94	30.79	1.62
Glory Johnson	Tulsa Shock	10.21	22.72	26.7	2.07
Seimone Augustus	Minnesota Lynx	10.09	17.02	22.90%	3.01
Rebekkah Brunson	Minnesota Lynx	9.96	16.8	17.99	2.8
Lindsay Whalen	Minnesota Lynx	9.85	16.6	21.51	2.16
Nneka Ogwumike	L.A. Sparks	9.76	15.7	19.46	3.34
Shavonte Zellous	Indiana Fever	9.65	21.43	22.23	2.91

Notes

Since All-Star voting has just started this week, the color coding indicates the top five players per conference, orange for the Western Conference and blue for the Eastern Conference.
It's worth noting that I probably wouldn't use the MVP formula to choose All-Stars: the difference is MVPs have to demonstrate that they've done more to help their team win more than any other player in the league whereas All-Stars could just be the most productive players independent of what that means to their team.
It's way too early for plus/minus numbers to mean much of anything, so I'm leaving that out for now. But, as an example of when it becomes important, Parker's plus/minus is always something to pay attention to in the MVP discussion: it was negative last year because of her team's performance on the defensive end with her on the floor.
Last, it's worth noting that I use these numbers as a guide to looking at the landscape of MVP candidates instead of looking for deterministic final answers. Not only is it really early in the season to be looking at MVP statistics, but in a number of cases the entirety of a player's statistical profile undermines their case for MVP. So the fact that the list above is ordered by MVP rating does not reflect how I'd actually rank the players.

All-Star decisions

First, the WNBA's All-Star voting format now asks fans to select two guards and three frontcourt players, which is better - and honestly, less complicated - than voting by "traditional" positions (G-G-F-F-C). However, I usually select All-Star or All-WNBA teams by squeezing players into a format that more closely matches the way most teams actually play basketball: PG - Perimeter - Perimeter - Frontcourt - Frontcourt. Feel free to debate this in the comments, but point guards serve a function on the floor distinct from every other player and require a specific skillset (and some would argue, personality) to do well - it's somewhat unreasonable not to individually recognize the best point guards when selecting All-Star or All-WNBA teams.
So given the point guard point above and that voting is starting now, Ivory Latta has to be voted in as a starter in the Eastern Conference. She has been by far the best point guard in the Eastern Conference, arguably the best scorer in the Eastern Conference when you compare her efficiency to Elena Delle Donne's, and - just for kicks - she's always had an All-Star personality. There's just no reasonable argument against her being a starter.
Things are a bit more complicated in the Western Conference if you were to argue for voting in a point guard. Lindsay Whalen is still arguably the best point guard in the league when you take her efficiency running the offense as a distributor and scorer into account. And interestingly, based on the MVP numbers above, she'd be competing with teammates Augustus and Brunson for the last spot as an All-Star starter in the West. My argument for Whalen over her two teammates: point guards do a number of intangible things that aren't reflected well in the standard statistics. And again, if you evaluate point guards as a separate set of players, the very fact that she's the best at what she does at the very least in her conference if not in the league has to mean something.
Glory Johnson has to make the All-Star game: despite the numbers above for Parker, you could argue Johnson is the best two-way post in the Western Conference right now (and coincidentally, she's by far the best defender of fellow Lady Vols alum Parker). And in light of her most recent performance, it's really difficult not to vote for her. (Click here for more on Glory Johnson's recent performance).
Catchings would be on the outside looking in based on the numbers above, but with all she's being asked to do for the defending champion Fever - a few percentage points more than what Fowles contributes to Chicago - the argument could be made that Catchings deserves your vote. The sticking point is a below average true shooting percentage of 43.65%, the lowest of any of the names on the list above.
Now go vote. And if you don't vote for Latta, please state your position in the comments because I'd love to hear it.

MVP observations

Diana Taurasi is that player putting up numbers comparable to what Augustus put up in her lone six games in 2009, but she's doing so quite differently. As we've grown accustomed to, Augustus thrived off hitting mid-range shots. In contrast, Taurasi thrives off her ability to knock down threes - she has made twice as many as Augustus did in 2009 - which boosts her true shooting percentage close to that of where Augustus was at a slightly higher usage rate.

Year Tm G MP
TS% ORB% DRB% TRB% STL% USG%

2013 Phoenix 6 33.17 64.77 3.22 9.63 6.7 1.76 28.41

Career Phoenix
269 31.9 58.2 2.3 13.0 7.8 1.9 28.3

Taurasi's numbers through six games in 2013. Career numbers via Basketball-Reference.

To put up a 64.77 TS% at that usage rate is extremely impressive. Yet what might be surprising is how high her PVC is: for as talented as the Mercury are, you wouldn't think they'd rely so heavily on one player. But this only goes back to something that folks around here have commented on multiple times: this is still Taurasi's team, no matter who else is on the roster.

So why then is Taurasi not at the top of that list?
Candace Parker is going to be at or near the top of this list any year that she's healthy and this season is no different. And with the way she's cleaning the defensive boards - a 36.24% defensive rebounding percentage - an argument could easily be made that she's the MVP this season. However, her offensive rebounding percentage is below average and, although we're not looking at plus/minus just yet, it remains to be seen how that will play out for her defensively. And otherwise, the same critiques of her game that could be made prior to the season based on Synergy numbers could be applied to this season.
Reigning MVP Tina Charles is a bit more difficult case to explain, however. How is it that she's so high on the list despite being considerably less efficient than others? The answer lies in that PVC number above, second only to Latta, as well as a very high usage rate for a center at 30.9%, second only to McCoughtry. Charles has put up nearly 70 more shots than the second highest player on her team, which is more of an indicator that the team is feeding her the ball at a level above which she can be efficient and doing the bulk of the work for a struggling Sun team. When you add that to her rebounding numbers - she's averaging a double-double and has an offensive rebounding percentage of 11.64% - it's easy to see why she's near the top of this list. However, the same argument that was levied against her being MVP last season applies to this season and perhaps to a greater extent: does an inefficient, volume. jump shooting center merit a MVP award?
With Sancho Lyttle scheduled to miss a few games, Angel McCoughtry has already stepped her game up and has continued to show why she is considered one of the most dominant players in the game. The major development in her game this season has been her willingness to create scoring opportunities for others and that shows up in her assist ratio (18.14%) which is close to the rate of some of the league's starting point guards. To do that while also being relied upon so heavily for scoring is actually quite remarkable (or dangerous, if you're an opponent). Yet the reason she doesn't have an even stronger MVP rating is that efficiency number in the last column above: her low scoring efficiency and above average turnover ratio hurt her overall efficiency.
So speaking of Latta again, she has a very strong argument for the early season MVP once you get past the name recognition - it's difficult to argue that anybody is doing more for their team right now. As the team's starting point guard, you might be able to knock her for being an inefficient distributor (pure point rating of -0.18) but as efficiently as she's scoring (62.31% TS%) she's doing what the team needs as a scorer. What will be interesting to see is whether she can maintain anything close to this efficiency (which would be a career-high by a wide margin). But if the Mystics make the playoffs and Latta remains such an efficient scorer, it will be very, very difficult not to say she's the MVP.
And yet quietly - and possibly in spite of the numbers above - the argument could easily be made that Maya Moore is in fact this season's MVP. First, it's worth considering what kind of numbers someone would have to put up to float to the top six of this list on a team with three other All-Star candidates - with that many talented teammates, her PVC is obviously going to be a bit lower because she's sharing so much of the credit with others. However there's a really strong argument that Moore is the best all-around player in the league right now. Her 58% TS% isn't quite at the Latta or Taurasi (or 2009 Augustus) level of efficiency, but it's still very good for a volume scorer. In addition, Moore has been a solid solid rebounder for a wing scorer (5.4% offensive rebounding percentage) and has been an extremely efficient ball handler (3.96 pure point rating) because she simply doesn't turn the ball over often (4.75 turnover ratio). She is relying heavily on her 3-point shooting to boost her efficiency (her 2-point% of 38% is mediocre for a wing) but the bottom line is that she's still more efficient than a number of people on this list.

Even if you don't think that Moore is the MVP right now - and there's good reason not to believe she is - you also have to ask yourself a question without any easy answers: who's most likely to maintain the pace they're on given their style of play? Latta and Taurasi would have among the most efficient scoring seasons in league history if they maintained their current pace, which suggests they're likely to take a dip as they play more games and defenses adjust to their teams (both of which look very different from last year). Moore is far more likely to cruise along doing exactly what she's doing now and, based on her career, likely to actually improve as the season goes on and her 2-point percentage creeps over 40%.

Year	Tm	G	MP	TS%	ORB%	DRB%	TRB%	STL%	USG%
2013	Phoenix	6	33.17	64.77	3.22	9.63	6.7	1.76	28.41
Career	Phoenix	269	31.9	58.2	2.3	13.0	7.8	1.9	28.3

Obviously, these numbers will change over the course of the season. But rather than expanding or shifting, this tends to be a list of players that just shrinks to the point where only 3-5 players are left standing as legitimate contenders (2011 was an exception where I really do think 8 players had a legitimate case for being labeled a "contender"). In any event, it is a helpful guide for choosing All-Stars since the voting has already begun.

Poll

Which player do you think has the best case for being a starter in the 2013 WNBA All-Star game?

Wednesday Links: Thompson sets record and the WNBA reacts to the NBA Finals

2013-06-19T12:00:03Z

First, to catch up on the Mysitcs' early success and three-game win streak (which was snapped last night by Seattle) here is a Mechelle Voepel article from last Friday on espnW that focuses mainly on Michelle Snow and Tayler Hill and is about the chemistry the Mystics have between rookies and veteran players. Also a sign that the Mystics are getting some ink thanks to their hot start.

Also, yesterday Mark Giannotto wrote an article in The Washington Post revealing that Mystic rookie Emma Meesseman "was born with 50 percent hearing." Since the Mystics just played the Fever, the article includes quotes from Tamika Catchings about how she has dealt with hearing loss as well and been a role model to young kids who go through the same thing.

A blog post written by Catchings about the Fever's trip to the White House also came out yesterday on espnW. Cool to hear what the trip was like from her perspective and what President Obama was like behind the scenes.

But of course, we have to get to last night's game which saw the Storm top the Mystics, 96-86, in overtime. Ivory Latta cooled off and had just nine points, while Washington's bench contributed 32 (17 from Matee Ajavon and 12 from Michelle Snow). Meanwhile Seattle's Tina Thompson stole the show with a game-high 30 points. According to Elias, she became the oldest player (at 38 years and 128 days) in WNBA history to score 30 or more points in a game.

Taj McWilliams previously held that record after scoring 31 at 37 and 247 days. In addition, Cynthia Cooper dropped at least 30 four times while at the the age of 36, including a 42 point outing.

Here's an article on the Storm's win by Steve Hunter of The Associated Press, and another write up of the game on the Storm's website.

Thompson has announced that she will retire at the end of this season. She is the only remaining player who played in the WNBA's inaugural season of 1997.

Lastly, the Storm and Mystics weren't the only professional basketball teams who needed extra time last night. And since the Spurs v. Heat game had everyone talking, here is a storify of WNBA players reacting to last night's incredible NBA Finals game on Twitter:

Ruth Riley signed by Atlanta Dream

2013-06-18T20:20:39Z

The Atlanta Dream have recently added Ruth Riley to the roster. Riley is a forward/center and a 12-year veteran of the WNBA,

Riley was a graduate of Notre Dame in 2001 and was the #5 pick of the 2001 WNBA Draft, chosen by the Miami Sol. This is Riley's fifth WNBA team - she was most recently with the Chicago Sky in the 2012 season, playing 33 games for Chicago, starting 14 and finishing last year with 6.7 ppg and 6.0 rebounds per game.

Riley was signed in order to fill the spot temporarily vacated by Sancho Lyttle, according to the Atlanta Dream press release on Riley's hire. Lyttle could be out to as many as four more games playing with the Spanish team in Eurobasket.2013.

I recently had the chance to attend the Atlanta/Seattle game last Friday. Riley was present at that game, talking to Dream executives. It was unknown if Riley's visit was merely social - just because you see an ex-WNBA player at a game doesn't mean that she'll be signed. But it looks like Riley will be joining Atlanta, at least temporarily.

Using the idea of similarity scores, the player most similar - in terms of career stats - to Ruth Riley would be Michelle Snow, a former Atlanta player. (See below table)

Riley has WNBA championship rings from 2003 and 2006, both with the Shock. She was the Finals MVP in 2003.

	G	GS	MP	FG	FGA	FG%	3P	3PA	3P%	FT	FTA	FT%	ORB	DRB	TRB	AST	STL	BLK	TOV	PF	PTS	Height

Ruth Riley	371	262	8465	969	2186	0.443	39	133	0.293	439	557	0.79	412	1179	1591	446	228	501	629	1190	2416	77
Michelle Snow	366	288	8895	1245	2451	0.508	2	11	0.182	692	987	0.70	658	1658	2316	418	247	378	687	1030	3184	77

The Ackerman White Paper, Part II: Changing the game

2013-06-18T18:00:02Z

The NCAA White Paper authored by former WNBA president Val Ackerman is causing a lot of conversation in the ranks of women's college basketball. Yesterday, I read the first part of the paper and highlighted the parts that popped out as being of interest to followers of the game. Today, I'd like to get into Part II, which is the plan of action that Ackerman proposes to the NCAA to strengthen the game.

In general, Ackerman's first direction is to emphasize what's good about the sport already - its emphasis on fundamentals and fan friendliness. The second - and probably, the most controversial - is to find some way to differentiate the game further from the men's version.

Ackerman also calls from some of the various committees in the NCAA to be consolidated. There would be a separate advisory panel to provide ideas for growth and a services unit would be created to collect data for best practices.

In addition, Ackerman also proposes modifications to the women's basketball game. Some of these are to bring the game more in line with the WNBA/FIBA model. This involves among other things the use of a 24-second clock and a division of the game into ten-minute quarters rather than halves.

Most controversial would be the use of a rules laboratory. This would permit testing of alternative rules -- for example a lower rim height, different scoring, or new defensive guidelines. These new rules could be play-tested during summer play or taken up by conferences on an ad hoc basis.

Other measures suggested:

1. Reducing the number of scholarships from 15 to 13.
2. Resizing the uniforms/designing more flashy uniforms.
3. A "no tattoos"/"no visible tattoos" policy.
4. A shortening of the women's basketball season by at least two games.
5. Either an elimination of conference tournaments (which generally run small crowds) or - if the conferences insist on maintaining them - a reduction of the number of tournament spots available to the top four or eight finishers.
6. Shift the bulk of the season to some other months - either mostly in the Spring, or to October through February.

The report suggests possible changes to the NCAA Tournament:

1. Switching the days that Final Four games take place - starting on Friday, rather than Sunday.
2. Get rid of the "pod" system and give the top 16 seeds the right to play at home in the early rounds. Better the unfairness of lower seeds having to play at the big (and well-attended) program home courts than for teams playing at neutral sites that are virtually empty.
3. Allow the bottom 32 teams to play only against each other in the first round. Then, reseed the tournament and play against the top 16 seeds. This would allow the earlier games to be more competitive, as the schools would be better matched.
4. Establish a multi-year site for the Final Four.
5. Possibly allow a women's Final Four to take place in an overseas market like China or Qatar to promote the game.

We next look at the business side of the ledger. Among the changes suggested:

1. More sharing of data between Division I schools, particularly annual revenues and expenses.
2. Bring more sports management students into women's basketball as marketing and sales staff.
3. Sell tickets at full market value.
4. Share season ticket lists with WNBA teams as well as share strategies.
5. Make part of coaching compensation contingent on attendance.
6. Make the NCAA website more user-friendly.
7. Assist high-profile coaches and players with media strategies - the top ten players would be identified by the NCAA each year and given comprehensive media training.
8. Stage at least 3-5 games every year in unusual or iconic locations.
9. Create a "sorority" - a member association of ex-Division I women's basketball players to form a base of support.

The report concludes with a list of base metrics - these are goals in attendance, sponsorship, television ratings and revenues that each school will be challenged to meet.

(* * *)

The good thing about this report is that people are talking about the recommendations, either actively agreeing or disagreeing with many of them. In Part III, I'll give my thoughts about the report and provide what I hope is an interesting thought exercise.

Open Thread: The San Antonio Spurs look to close out the Miami Heat in Game 6 of the NBA Finals; The WNBA teams in Washington, DC and Washington State also play - all starting at 9:00 PM ET

2013-06-18T15:41:00Z

San Antonio Spurs at Miami Heat in Game 6 of the NBA Finals, 9:00 PM ET

Spurs lead the series 3 to 2.

A lot of folks at the San Antonio Riverwalk are yelling "SPURS IN SIX! SPURS IN SIX!" right now until their vocal chords are almost busted, and only because their team is 48 minutes away from winning a fifth NBA championship under the Gregg Popovich and Tim Duncan regime. Just imagine what will happen if they do win!

In short, Spurs guard Manu Ginobili started the game and found his way out of a slump and had 24 points and 10 assists for the night. Tony Parker led the team in scoring with 26 points, and center Tim Duncan had a double double with 17 points and 12 rebounds. Both LeBron James and Dwyane Wade had 25 points each for the Heat, but it just wasn't enough when the Spurs broke the game wide open in the 2nd half.

I still am standing by my belief that the Spurs will win the Finals in seven games because I think Miami will tonight in an elimination game. But I don't think that Coach Popovich and the Spurs Big Three will lose in two close out games in a row given that they want to further solidify their legacies. But if they close it out tonight with Danny Green going like crazy?

Speaking about Danny Green, he made an NBA all-time record 25 three point shots and is playing like a MADMAN this entire series! If the Spurs win the NBA Finals, I think this man deserves the Bill Russell Finals MVP Award. And to tie this with the next game on this list, one, Danny Green went to North Carolina, like two players in the WNBA game tonight in Mystics guard Ivory Latta and Storm forward Camille Little. And two, Danny Green's game could be a way for Tayler Hill to make an impact tonight!

Washington Mystics (4-1) at Seattle Storm (2-3), 10:00 PM ET

In Seattle it's on TV through the Live Well Network. Otherwise, watch LiveAccess.

The Washington Mystics put their three game winning streak on the line as they enter a three game road swing out West. Of all the games, this one is the only game where it is clear that they will have the upper hand in this game, considering how well their season started. Two positions where the Storm historically would have a clear advantage is at guard and at the low post positions are now disadvantages where the Mystics have the best guard on the floor with Ivory Latta and the best low post player in Crystal Langhorne.

This is another game for the Mystics to display their rookies at their best, hopefully with Tayler Hill, Tierra Ruffin-Pratt, Nadirah McKenith, and Emma Meesseman giving better than average contributions. Conversely, while I wish that the Storm would play their younger players more, only Shekinna Stricklen is playing significant minutes. This is unacceptable considering that Seattle's top two players who are nursing injury can't just come back next season and not see that there's any semblance of a young foundation.

Lastly, though this something I expected to happen at some point during the season, the Mystics will have a chance to make WNBA history tonight and also Friday against the Phoenix Mercury. Mike Thibault now has a 210-135 record as a WNBA head coach. Only Van Chancellor of the defunct Houston Comets has more wins with a 211-111 record. Should the Mystics win tonight, Thibault will tie Chancellor for most career wins by a WNBA head coach. This also matches last year's win total of five wins from the 2012 campaign. Should the Mystics win tonight and on Friday against the Mercury, Mike Thibault will be the winningest coach in WNBA history for the regular season at least, and the Mystics will surpass last year's win total, both of which would be great accomplishments.

The "Random" SB Nation song of the day

Today I'll post a crazy dance tune. And it's random. Enjoy the dance of the '90's that Los Del Rio, a Spanish pop duo made:

So that's all. Enjoy the NBA Finals, as well as the battle of the Washington teams tonight!