Swish Appeal - 2014 WNBA Finals: Phoenix Mercury sweep Chicago SkyBasketball is basketball.https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/community_logos/49391/swish-fave.png2014-09-15T14:00:02-04:00http://www.swishappeal.com/rss/stream/58683762014-09-15T14:00:02-04:002014-09-15T14:00:02-04:00What's next for the Sky?
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/GJHyqvnryrJG6sAXdCbef5BmuOY=/0x40:4000x2707/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/38551664/20140912_jla_sl8_144.jpg.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Jerry Lai-USA TODAY Sports</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>After losing the 2014 WNBA Finals to the Phoenix Mercury, what's next for the Chicago Sky? And what sort of offseason improvements should they be looking to make, aside from getting healthy? </p> <p><a href="http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-81360369/">Philip Hersh of the Chicago Tribune suggested in an article</a> about the Sky's future on Saturday that "...Tennessee center Isabelle Harrison would seem to be a good choice for a team that needs more low post presence."</p>
<p>Whether Harrison is even available at the fifth pick remains to be seen - as of right now, it's really difficult to project four players better than her in the 2015 WNBA Draft - but Hersh's observation speaks to how badly the Sky's frontcourt was out-played in the Finals, despite that ostensibly being their strength given the presence of Elena Delle Donne and Sylvia Fowles.</p>
<p>It's a weird problem that has sort of plagued the Sky throughout 2014.</p>
<h4>The Sky's rebounding decline</h4>
<p>Among the weirdest things about the Chicago Sky's season was how they declined in rebounding across the board, going from the league's best rebounding percentage in 2013 (offensive, defensive, or total) to one of the league's worst.</p>
<p>They finished the season last in defensive rebounding percentage (69.5%), last in the Eastern Conference in both offensive rebounding percentage and total rebounding percentage. Although the first impulse is to attribute the decline to their numerous injuries, that oversimplifies things a bit.</p>
<p>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="http://cdn3.sbnation.com/assets/3608425/mustreads.css">
</p>
<p>Of the seven players on the Sky roster with more than a year of experience entering this season, not one rebounded at or above their career percentage (despite Courtney Vandersloot's career-high offensive rebounding percentage of 2.2%, which probably wasn't a primary part of the scouting report even when she was healthy). That's not simply a matter of health, but players who rebounded at a high rate in the past who just didn't this season. And the other rotation player, Elena Delle Donne, just hasn't been an impact rebounder at this point in her career despite considerable talent and height.</p>
<p>Yet paradoxically, that decline might also have offered an opportunity for the Sky in the 2014 WNBA Finals: the one distant hope for Chicago to beat the Phoenix Mercury was to just absolutely dominate the boards and bolster their offensive efficiency with second chance points. It's the one area that you could even begin to consider a weakness for the Mercury: they were one of the two teams in the league with a lower total rebounding percentage than the Sky during the regular season. The Sky had multiple players who were capable rebounders while the Mercury relied heavily on starters Candice Dupree and Brittney Griner for rebounding, who aren't exactly known for dominant boardwork.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, things didn't work out that way for the Sky: when you look at the series numbers, the Sky did actually win the rebounding battle overall but it simply wasn't enough of an advantage to get a win the series.</p>
<h4><span>
<table width="834" border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0">
<colgroup> <col width="104"> <col width="202"> <col width="157"> <col width="97"> <col width="253"> </colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="104" height="21">
<p> </p>
</td>
<td width="202">
<p align="CENTER"><b>eFg%</b></p>
</td>
<td width="157">
<p align="CENTER"><b>Tov%</b></p>
</td>
<td width="97">
<p align="CENTER"><b>Oreb%</b></p>
</td>
<td width="253">
<p align="CENTER"><b>Fta/Fga</b></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="104" height="18">
<p align="CENTER"><b>Chi</b></p>
</td>
<td width="202" sdval="0.411483253588517" sdnum="1033;0;0.00%">
<p align="CENTER">41.15%</p>
</td>
<td width="157" sdval="0.148566334868519" sdnum="1033;0;0.00%">
<p align="CENTER">14.86%</p>
</td>
<td width="97" sdval="0.274336283185841" sdnum="1033;0;0.00%">
<p align="CENTER">27.43%</p>
</td>
<td width="253" sdval="0.220095693779904" sdnum="1033;0;0.00%">
<p align="CENTER">22.01%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="104" height="18">
<p align="CENTER"><b>PHX</b></p>
</td>
<td width="202" sdval="0.585" sdnum="1033;0;0.00%">
<p align="CENTER">58.50%</p>
</td>
<td width="157" sdval="0.145326001571092" sdnum="1033;0;0.00%">
<p align="CENTER">14.53%</p>
</td>
<td width="97" sdval="0.268292682926829" sdnum="1033;0;0.00%">
<p align="CENTER">26.83%</p>
</td>
<td width="253" sdval="0.2" sdnum="1033;0;0.00%">
<p align="CENTER">20.00%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="104" height="18" sdnum="1033;0;0.00">
<p> </p>
</td>
<td width="202" sdnum="1033;0;0.00">
<p> </p>
</td>
<td width="157" sdnum="1033;0;0.00">
<p> </p>
</td>
<td width="97" sdnum="1033;0;0.00">
<p> </p>
</td>
<td width="253" sdnum="1033;0;0.00">
<p> </p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="104" height="21">
<p align="CENTER"><b>Weighted</b></p>
</td>
<td width="202">
<p align="CENTER"><b>eFg%</b></p>
</td>
<td width="157">
<p align="CENTER"><b>Tov%</b></p>
</td>
<td width="97">
<p align="CENTER"><b>Oreb%</b></p>
</td>
<td width="253">
<p align="CENTER"><b>fta/fga</b></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="104" height="18">
<p align="CENTER"><b>Chi</b></p>
</td>
<td width="202" sdval="-1.73516746411483" sdnum="1033;0;0.00">
<p align="CENTER">-1.74</p>
</td>
<td width="157" sdval="-0.0272187996983857" sdnum="1033;0;0.00">
<p align="CENTER">-0.03</p>
</td>
<td width="97" sdval="0.0253831210878479" sdnum="1033;0;0.00">
<p align="CENTER">0.03</p>
</td>
<td width="253" sdval="0.042200956937799" sdnum="1033;0;0.00">
<p align="CENTER">0.04</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</span></h4>
<p align="CENTER"><i>Composite Four Factors statistics for Games 1-3 in the 2014 WNBA Finals.</i></p>
<p> </p>
<h4 style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 8px; margin-left: 0px; font-size: 1.25em;">The Sky's rebounding in the 2014 WNBA Finals</h4>
<p>Most of the Sky's rebounding advantage in the series comes from their Game 1 performance when they dominated the boards, but shot so poorly while the Mercury were shooting historically well that it didn't really even make a difference.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a target="_blank" href="http://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/assets/5016062/Screen_Shot_2014-09-14_at_9.39.34_PM.png"><img src="http://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/assets/5016062/Screen_Shot_2014-09-14_at_9.39.34_PM_medium.png" class="photo" alt="Screen_shot_2014-09-14_at_9.39.34_pm_medium"></a> <br id="1410756015063"></p>
<p>In the final two games, the Mercury won the offensive rebounding battle despite continued elite shooting. None of the stats really matter in the rout that was Game 2, but rebounding might have mattered in Game 3: the Sky finally shot well enough to keep pace, but just weren't able to out-rebound the Mercury.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a target="_blank" href="http://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/assets/5016070/Screen_Shot_2014-09-14_at_9.41.13_PM.png"><img src="http://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/assets/5016070/Screen_Shot_2014-09-14_at_9.41.13_PM_medium.png" class="photo" alt="Screen_shot_2014-09-14_at_9.41.13_pm_medium"></a> <br id="1410756100510"></p>
<p>However, there's a reason why they weren't getting getting many boards in Game 3: they were clearly conceding rebounds and opting to get back on defense instead on many possessions. In fact, it was obvious that both teams were mostly conceding everything but offensive rebounds that they couldn't avoid in Game 3, which is a strategy teams employ to stop fast breaks - it's <a target="_blank" href="http://www.masslive.com/celtics/index.ssf/2014/03/brad_stevens_explains_boston_c.html">not a novel basketball philosophy</a> and something that has <a target="_blank" href="http://grantland.com/the-triangle/party-crashers-debunking-the-myths-of-offensive-rebounding-and-transition-defense/">generated quite a bit of (inconclusive) discussion in the NBA analytics community </a>in the past. And after the Mercury beat the Sky 14-1 in fast break points in Game 2, perhaps the Sky had reason to be hyper-vigilant about transition defense.</p>
<p>But I'm going to defer to an article from <a target="_blank" href="http://www.newyorker.com/news/sporting-scene/do-offensive-rebounds-matter">a 2012 New Yorker article</a> about the statistical value of rebounding: "Every team is limited in one way or another, and must play to whatever strengths it can, while giving some ground on its weaknesses."</p>
<p>In this particular series (or season), the Sky just weren't going to outshoot the Mercury: Brittney Griner automatically lowers your shooting percentage and even when Griner was out, the Mercury have Diana Taurasi and...you know how that goes (Vandersloot, for what its worth, did about as good a job on Taurasi as one could possibly expect but in the end it came down to size in a game where the goal is to put a ball through a 10-foot ring). It was almost given that the Sky would be outshot. But, especially with Griner out, there was at least a possibility of making up for some of that differential in shooting efficiency by getting second chance scoring opportunities -- if you're not going to outshoot your opponent, you have to find another way to get points.</p>
<p>Of course, it would be silly to say rebounding was the sole reason they lost the series, which included a pair of routs -- they were overmatched, as most of the league was against Phoenix this season, and there's only so much you can dig for answers.</p>
<h4>Where do the Sky go from here?</h4>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px;">Nevertheless, the Sky are headed in a clearly upward trajectory for the first time in their existence despite a poor showing in the Finals. As Hersh reports, Pokey Chatman intends to re-sign their four free agents and, assuming they stand pat otherwise, their oldest player will be Fowles at 28.</p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px;">As <a target="_blank" href="http://www.swishappeal.com/2014/9/6/6112589/wnba-finals-2014-chicago-sky-ten-point-rebuilding-plan-ted-leonsis">Albert has described previously</a>, the Sky are a testament to the Leonsis 10-point plan in a number of ways - it took a while to get to the Finals, but their commitment to putting young players around Sylvia Fowles and stockpiling lottery picks (despite an obvious mistake of trading the #2 pick in the 2012 draft) paid off. The question is whether they actually have to do anything to move forward beyond relying on internal development - they won the regular season title in the East last year and went to the Finals this year.</p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px;">What the Sky really need is a Penny Taylor - a low usage wing with a high assist ratio who can be one more efficient point of entry to Fowles, which was been a problem for most of the franchise's history. Of course, it's not often that you find two-time All-WNBA small forwards who can shoot, pass, and defend -- everyone could use a Penny Taylor. But, in a way, the fourth quarter of Game 3 might suggest a player they might reasonably be able to move in search of another passer: 26-year-old Epiphanny Prince who played less than five minutes in the final period of their season.</p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px;">Prince's production has been on a steadily downward trajectory for three seasons now and, with the emergence of Quigley as a more efficient backcourt scorer and the potential development of Jamierra Faulkner as a ball handler, they could afford to make that change. And although Hersh suggests using that fifth pick on a young player like Harrison, would a team that has a chance of returning to the Finals be better off packaging the pick to look for a veteran?</p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px;">Regardless of what moves the Sky make this season though, they're in a position where it's legitimate to say just getting healthy will be the key to further improvement. And with a team that just made the Finals, there's only so much tinkering you can do before you're messing up a good thing.</p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px;"><i>For more on the championship series, check out <a target="_blank" href="http://www.swishappeal.com/2014/9/3/6104335/mercury-vs-sky-2014-wnba-finals-storystream">our 2014 WNBA Finals storystream</a>.</i></p>
https://www.swishappeal.com/2014/9/15/6151035/wnba-finals-2014-chicago-sky-offensive-reboundingNate P2014-09-15T11:00:01-04:002014-09-15T11:00:01-04:00Are the 2014 Mercury the best ever?
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/l6ojKq5pEtc8ZB9FJ9zMwPW6__E=/0x238:4000x2905/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/38515726/455341278.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Jonathan Daniel</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>How does the 2014 Mercury compare to the other great teams in WNBA history? Was the 2014 season competitive or non-competitive? We blow some dust off our math books and take a look at the numbers.</p> <p>With Phoenix's dominant run through the 2014 WNBA season and playoffs, fans and journalists are asking where this version of the Phoenix Mercury ranks among the WNBA's all time teams.</p>
<p>Are they greater than, say, the "Worst to First" Detroit Shock? Would they have beaten those championship Los Angeles Sparks teams with Lisa Leslie in the peak of her form? Could they have challenged the four-peat Houston Comets?<br><br>That's a question best left to philosophers, but there is a way one can compare teams across different times and even different eras, since we're almost a full generation away from the 1997 season. One way to do this is through standard deviation. I've written a lot about standard deviation, but the main idea is to look at how far away a given team is from the "average" team, depending on how you define average.</p>
<h4>The best of 2014</h4>
<p>Let's look at the finish of the 2014 WNBA season. Teams are ranked by win-loss record. I'll explain what all of these numbers are, but here is the table.</p>
<table border="0" width="434" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" align="center">
<tbody>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt; width: 47pt;" height="17" width="62"><br></td>
<td style="width: 47pt;" align="right" width="62">2014</td>
<td style="width: 47pt;" width="62"><br></td>
<td style="width: 47pt;" width="62"><br></td>
<td style="width: 47pt;" width="62"><br></td>
<td style="width: 47pt;" width="62"><br></td>
<td style="width: 47pt;" width="62"><br></td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"><br></td>
<td><br></td>
<td><br></td>
<td><br></td>
<td><br></td>
<td><br></td>
<td><br></td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td class="xl67" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">x</td>
<td class="xl67">PHX</td>
<td align="right">29</td>
<td align="right">5</td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">0.853</td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">2.337</td>
<td><br></td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"><br></td>
<td>MIN</td>
<td align="right">25</td>
<td align="right">9</td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">0.735</td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">1.558</td>
<td><br></td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"><br></td>
<td>ATL</td>
<td align="right">19</td>
<td align="right">15</td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">0.559</td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">0.390</td>
<td><br></td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"><br></td>
<td>IND</td>
<td align="right">16</td>
<td align="right">18</td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">0.471</td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">-0.195</td>
<td><br></td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"><br></td>
<td>LAS</td>
<td align="right">16</td>
<td align="right">18</td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">0.471</td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">-0.195</td>
<td><br></td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"><br></td>
<td>SAS</td>
<td align="right">16</td>
<td align="right">18</td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">0.471</td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">-0.195</td>
<td><br></td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"><br></td>
<td>WAS</td>
<td align="right">16</td>
<td align="right">18</td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">0.471</td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">-0.195</td>
<td><br></td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"><br></td>
<td>CHI</td>
<td align="right">15</td>
<td align="right">19</td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">0.441</td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">-0.390</td>
<td><br></td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"><br></td>
<td>NYL</td>
<td align="right">15</td>
<td align="right">19</td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">0.441</td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">-0.390</td>
<td><br></td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"><br></td>
<td>CON</td>
<td align="right">13</td>
<td align="right">21</td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">0.382</td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">-0.779</td>
<td><br></td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"><br></td>
<td>SEA</td>
<td align="right">12</td>
<td align="right">22</td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">0.353</td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">-0.974</td>
<td><br></td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"><br></td>
<td>TUL</td>
<td align="right">12</td>
<td align="right">22</td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">0.353</td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">-0.974</td>
<td><br></td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"><br></td>
<td><br></td>
<td><br></td>
<td><br></td>
<td><br></td>
<td><br></td>
<td><br></td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"><br></td>
<td><br></td>
<td align="right">204</td>
<td align="right">204</td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">0.151</td>
<td><br></td>
<td class="xl66" align="right">1.76</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><br><br>Teams, obviously, are on the left. The "x by Phoenix indicates that they are the title winners. In the WNBA's 18 seasons, the team with the best win-loss record has won the championship 12 times.<br><br>The numbers in the second column are wins, and the numbers in the third column are losses. The numbers in the final row serve as a check. There are 204 total wins and 204 total losses.<br><br>(An important note: we are not looking at any playoff wins or losses. We are only looking at regular season results. The goal is to determine how dominant a team is over its counterparts.)<br><br>The numbers in the fourth columns are win percentage (wins divided by wins plus losses). But if you go to the last row, that 0.151 value is clearly NOT the win percentage of 204 wins and 2014 losses. So what is it?<br><br>0.151 is the standard deviation of winning percentage. It's the square root of the sum of the squares of the differences between each of the values in the fourth column and the average of the values in the fourth column. I can sense you're falling asleep, so I'll just state that 0.151 is the "unit of spread" and be done with it.<br><br>The numbers in the fifth column explain how many units of spread the win percentage in the fourth column are away from a percentage of 0.500. In Phoenix's case, (0.853-0.5)/0.151 = 2.337. This gives us a measure of how far away the 2014 Phoenix Mercury are away from a hypothetical average team in 2014.</p>
<h4>The most dominant teams ever</h4>
<p>If we do this for every team in every season of the WNBA, how does the 2.337 of the Phoenix Mercury compare to other great teams?</p>
<table align="center" border="0" width="408" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td colspan="7" class="xl67" style="height: 12.75pt; mso-ignore: colspan; width: 309pt;" align="center" height="17" width="408"><b>Best Teams by Standard Deviation Method</b></td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td class="xl66"></td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" align="right" height="17">1</td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">2014</td>
<td class="xl65"></td>
<td class="xl65" colspan="2" style="mso-ignore: colspan;">Phoenix Mercury</td>
<td></td>
<td align="right">2.337</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" align="right" height="17">2</td>
<td align="right">2001</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2" style="mso-ignore: colspan;">Los Angeles Sparks</td>
<td></td>
<td class="xl66" align="right">2.185</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" align="right" height="17">3</td>
<td align="right">1999</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2" style="mso-ignore: colspan;">Houston Comets</td>
<td></td>
<td class="xl66" align="right">2.178</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" align="right" height="17">4</td>
<td align="right">2004</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2" style="mso-ignore: colspan;">Los Angeles Sparks</td>
<td></td>
<td class="xl66" align="right">2.177</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" align="right" height="17">5</td>
<td align="right">2000</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2" style="mso-ignore: colspan;">Los Angeles Sparks</td>
<td></td>
<td class="xl66" align="right">2.034</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" align="right" height="17">6</td>
<td align="right">2002</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2" style="mso-ignore: colspan;">Los Angeles Sparks</td>
<td></td>
<td class="xl66" align="right">1.942</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" align="right" height="17">7</td>
<td align="right">2010</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2" style="mso-ignore: colspan;">Seattle Storm</td>
<td></td>
<td class="xl66" align="right">1.907</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" align="right" height="17">8</td>
<td align="right">2000</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2" style="mso-ignore: colspan;">Houston Comets</td>
<td></td>
<td class="xl66" align="right">1.864</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" align="right" height="17">9</td>
<td align="right">2009</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2" style="mso-ignore: colspan;">Phoenix Mercury</td>
<td></td>
<td class="xl66" align="right">1.823</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" align="right" height="17">10</td>
<td align="right">2002</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2" style="mso-ignore: colspan;">Houston Comets</td>
<td></td>
<td class="xl66" align="right">1.727</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" align="right" height="17">11</td>
<td align="right">1998</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2" style="mso-ignore: colspan;">Houston Comets</td>
<td></td>
<td class="xl66" align="right">1.682</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" align="right" height="17">12</td>
<td align="right">2003</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2" style="mso-ignore: colspan;">Detroit Shock</td>
<td></td>
<td class="xl66" align="right">1.660</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" align="right" height="17">13</td>
<td align="right">2007</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2" style="mso-ignore: colspan;">Detroit Shock</td>
<td></td>
<td class="xl66" align="right">1.569</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" align="right" height="17">14</td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">2014</td>
<td class="xl65"></td>
<td class="xl65" colspan="2" style="mso-ignore: colspan;">Minnesota Lynx</td>
<td></td>
<td class="xl66" align="right">1.558</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" align="right" height="17">15</td>
<td align="right">2005</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2" style="mso-ignore: colspan;">Connecticut Sun</td>
<td></td>
<td class="xl66" align="right">1.543</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" align="right" height="17">16</td>
<td align="right">2009</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2" style="mso-ignore: colspan;">Indiana Fever</td>
<td></td>
<td class="xl66" align="right">1.519</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><br>Wow.</p>
<p>According to this method, the 2014 Phoenix Mercury are indeed the greatest team of all time. They rank higher than a number of notable teams. Also note that the team at #14 is the 2014 Minnesota Lynx. The last time we had two teams that were at least 1.5 standard deviations above the mean win percentage in the same season was in 2009, when the Phoenix Mercury (1.823) took on the Indiana Fever (1.519) in the WNBA Finals.<br><br>Obviously, it would be the greatest Phoenix Mercury team ever under this ranking system. What you might not recognize is that this year's Minnesota Lynx team would also rank as the greatest Lynx team ever. None of the previous teams broke the 1.5 standard deviations barrier; the closest was the 2011 Lynx at 1.489 would previously ranked at the best Lynx team.</p>
<h4>The worst teams ever</h4>
<p>Of course, we can work the same magic to see what the worst WNBA teams of all time were. Which WNBA teams have been at least 1.5 standard deviations below the mean in winning percentage?</p>
<table border="0" width="408" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" align="center">
<tbody>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td colspan="7" class="xl67" style="height: 12.75pt; mso-ignore: colspan; width: 309pt;" align="center" height="17" width="408"><b>Worst Teams by Standard Deviation Method</b></td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" align="right" height="17">1</td>
<td align="right">2008</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2" style="mso-ignore: colspan;">Atlanta Dream</td>
<td></td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">-2.424</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" align="right" height="17">2</td>
<td align="right">2004</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3" style="mso-ignore: colspan;">San Antonio Silver Stars</td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">-2.177</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" align="right" height="17">3</td>
<td align="right">2011</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2" style="mso-ignore: colspan;">Tulsa Shock</td>
<td></td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">-2.085</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" align="right" height="17">4</td>
<td align="right">1999</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2" style="mso-ignore: colspan;">Cleveland Rockers</td>
<td></td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">-1.960</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" align="right" height="17">5</td>
<td align="right">2006</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2" style="mso-ignore: colspan;">Chicago Sky</td>
<td></td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">-1.939</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" align="right" height="17">6</td>
<td align="right">2010</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2" style="mso-ignore: colspan;">Tulsa Shock</td>
<td></td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">-1.907</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" align="right" height="17">7</td>
<td align="right">1997</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2" style="mso-ignore: colspan;">Utah Starzz</td>
<td></td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">-1.890</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" align="right" height="17">8</td>
<td align="right">2005</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2" style="mso-ignore: colspan;">Charlotte Sting</td>
<td></td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">-1.886</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" align="right" height="17">9</td>
<td align="right">2003</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2" style="mso-ignore: colspan;">Phoenix Mercury</td>
<td></td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">-1.867</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" align="right" height="17">10</td>
<td align="right">2005</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3" style="mso-ignore: colspan;">San Antonio Silver Stars</td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">-1.715</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" align="right" height="17">11</td>
<td align="right">2000</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2" style="mso-ignore: colspan;">Seattle Storm</td>
<td></td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">-1.695</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" align="right" height="17">12</td>
<td align="right">1998</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2" style="mso-ignore: colspan;">Washington Mystics</td>
<td></td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">-1.682</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" align="right" height="17">13</td>
<td align="right">2003</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2" style="mso-ignore: colspan;">Washington Mystics</td>
<td></td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">-1.660</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" align="right" height="17">14</td>
<td align="right">2012</td>
<td></td>
<td class="xl66" colspan="2" style="mso-ignore: colspan;">Washington Mystics</td>
<td></td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">-1.653</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" align="right" height="17">15</td>
<td align="right">2011</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2" style="mso-ignore: colspan;">Washington Mystics</td>
<td></td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">-1.638</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" align="right" height="17">16</td>
<td align="right">2007</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2" style="mso-ignore: colspan;">Minnesota Lynx</td>
<td></td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">-1.569</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" align="right" height="17">17</td>
<td align="right">2007</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2" style="mso-ignore: colspan;">Los Angeles Sparks</td>
<td></td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">-1.569</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" align="right" height="17">18</td>
<td align="right">2009</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="3" style="mso-ignore: colspan;">Sacramento Monarchs</td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">-1.519</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt;" align="right" height="17">19</td>
<td align="right">2002</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2" style="mso-ignore: colspan;">Detroit Shock</td>
<td></td>
<td class="xl65" align="right">-1.511</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><br>Yes, I can still proudly say that the 2008 Atlanta Dream really were the worst team ever. Note that Connecticut, Indiana, and New York might have had bad teams in their history, but have never had a truly terrible team by this method. Washington has had more truly bad teams than any other WNBA team.<br></p>
<div style="text-align: center;">(* * *)</div>
<p> </p>
<p><br>Given all of the above, we now use some of the same math to look at the competitiveness level of the 2014 season. You could make the argument that the 2014 season wasn't competitive at all, given that Phoenix and Minnesota galloped out to commanding leads. On the other hand, you could argue that the Eastern Conference was extremely competitive, with lots of teams in the middle and the final playoff spots not decided until the very end.<br><br>The number at the far right of the first table - that <b>1.76</b> - is the Noll-Scully value of the 2014 season. <a target="_blank" href="http://atlantadreamblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/wnba-seasons-and-noll-scully-measure.html">I wrote about Noll-Scully a long time ago at my old blog</a>. The general rule is that a league whose wins and losses are determined by random chance won't have every team finish with a .500 record for the same reason than when you flip a coin four times you won't always get two heads and two tails. If you determine wins and losses randomly, some teams will have higher win percentages than others due to random chance. <br><br>Noll-Scully compares this imaginary coin-flip league to any given league and determines the difference. If a league's Noll-Scully measure is equal to 1.00, it would be exactly equivalent to wins and losses being determined randomly. The smaller the Noll-Scully measure is to one the harder it is to get a win (the wins might as well be distributed randomly), the bigger the Noll-Scully measure is the less competitive the league.<br><br>Here are some commonly accepted Noll-Scully measures for professional leagues.<br><br><b>National Football League</b>: 1.48<br><b>National Hockey League</b>: 1.70<br><b>National League (baseball):</b> 1.76<br><b>American League (baseball): </b>1.78<br><b>National Basketball Association</b>: 2.8<br><br>The 2014 WNBA season was equivalent to that of say, your average baseball season. In terms of WNBA seasons in competitiveness, it's somewhere in the middle. Noll-Scully measures in WNBA history have ranged from a low of 1.13 (!!) in 2009 to a 2.60 in 1998. <br><br>If you weight the most recent seasons higher than the most distant ones, the average Noll-Scully measure of the WNBA as a whole is 1.87. It's higher than most professional sports but nowhere near as high as that of the NBA. In the WNBA, every team has a chance to win, something which critics say can't be said of the NBA.<br><br>Most likely, none of the above math will change anyone's mind, except in those cases where it confirms some passionately held belief. Even math fans like myself are warned not to use math tricks the way a drunk uses a lamppost, i. e. for support instead of the proper purpose of illumination. I think one thing we can all conclude - math or not - is that the 2014 Phoenix Mercury was a spectacular team and the 2014 Western Conference Finals was a spectacular event, and hopefully next season will allow WNBA events which are just as bright to shine in the sky of a crowded sports world.</p>
<p><i>For more on the 2014 WNBA Finals, check out <a href="http://www.swishappeal.com/2014/9/3/6104335/mercury-vs-sky-2014-wnba-finals-storystream" target="_blank">our Mercury vs. Sky storystream</a>.</i></p>
https://www.swishappeal.com/2014/9/15/6147307/wnba-finals-2014-phoenix-mercury-best-everJames Bowman2014-09-15T02:36:15-04:002014-09-15T02:36:15-04:00Taurasi's speech isn't disrespecting the Mystics
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/yRTKxR8I7SlBPEydeRgUBo-SLOY=/67x0:3933x2577/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/38552846/455086794.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Christian Petersen</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Mercury franchise star just stated a fact that things could have been different.</p> <p>On Sunday, the Phoenix Mercury held their 2014 WNBA championship rally at U.S. Airways Center. During that time, the Mercury X-Factor, or the team's season ticket holders got to see the players and coaches enter the arena in a white Hummer limousine (video from Mercury fan <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgrp2ibKLPBWfxUcRMKUFuQ">Madison Power's YouTube channel</a>):</p>
<p><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/wwFiio4iYkw" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><em>Power's channel also has videos of Penny Taylor's speech (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4oA32KsCHk" target="_blank">Part 1</a> & <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcVTx3AKFTA" target="_blank">Part 2</a>), as well as the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amkMXDQvsek" target="_blank">"Mighty Mercury" song</a>.</em></p>
<p>During these championship events, players give a quick speech to their fans. And franchise player Diana Taurasi was no different. During her speech, this quote came out:</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" align="center" lang="en"> <p>"The day I got drafted to Phx was the best day of my life......I could've been a Mystic." Diana Taurasi <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MercuryRally?src=hash">#MercuryRally</a></p>— Madi Power (@MadiPower) <a href="https://twitter.com/MadiPower/status/511284309357887489">September 14, 2014</a> </blockquote>
<p><script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></p>
<p>One of our <a href="http://www.swishappeal.com/2014/9/14/6150487/diana-taurasi-disrespects-the-mystics">resident Mystics fans took exception</a> to it. And perhaps some other Mystics fans will view this as an "F you" at them.</p>
<p>After all, in 2004 the Mystics had the second highest odds in the Draft Lottery. If Washington won the #1 pick that season, they would have drafted Taurasi, and she would have at least started her career in the nation's capital. Then, there's 2013, when Phoenix won the Draft Lottery, while the Mystics struck out.</p>
<p>But this is just a money quote. I wanted to see everything in context first. Sure enough, the whole speech was on video. It is embedded above, also from Powers' YouTube Channel.</p>
<p>So what did Taurasi say? Here it is transcribed below (from the 2:55 to 3:30 marks in the video):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>When kids say 2004, that's been a long time. That's been 10 years here in the City of Phoenix.</p>
<p>I came in not knowing much about Phoenix, not knowing much about the community, about the city, about the Mercury. And that was the luckiest day of my life, to be drafted to the City of Phoenix and the Mercury organization.</p>
<p>I could have been a Mystic.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>At the time Taurasi gave the zinger, the audience laughed. She smiled, and laughed a little with them. I don't think there was any malicious intent on her part to belittle the Mystics, Monumental Sports, or their fans. Taurasi gave a valid point, which was humorous.</p>
<p>After this controversial moment, Taurasi went on to the meat of her speech, where she talked about how hard it was for the Mercury and herself personally to win this third title. She mentioned that the Minnesota Lynx were the team's biggest roadblock, and defeating them in the 2014 Western Conference Finals was the "best moment of [her] life so far."</p>
<p>From there, Taurasi personally thanked <em>each and every one </em>of her teammates, coaches, front office members, and the fans for helping make the 2014 season the way it was. That's really the main takeaway of the speech. Sure, Taurasi is the Mercury's franchise player. But their 2014 WNBA championship was a team effort, not just an individual one.</p>
<p>TL;dr version: Taurasi gave <em>a very good, heartfelt thank you speech</em> to Mercury fans, specifically the season ticket holders.</p>
<p>Even though some Mystics fans may consider Taurasi's remark a swipe at them, she just stated a fact that things could have been different, not necessarily worse. And for the Mystics, let's just hope that they will be in position to draft a franchise player of their own in the near future. If that player has a good sense of humor, she may very well say, "I could have been on [another team]" during a future championship rally speech, right when you least expect it.</p>
https://www.swishappeal.com/2014/9/15/6151157/diana-taurasi-phoenix-mercury-championship-rally-speech-washington-mystics-wnba-2014Albert Lee2014-09-14T23:13:43-04:002014-09-14T23:13:43-04:00Diana Taurasi disrespects the Mystics!<h3 class="link-title"><a rel="nofollow" href="/rss/stream/5868376">Diana Taurasi disrespects the&nbsp;Mystics!</a></h3>
<div class="description"><p><p>Well, it may not seem disrespectful to some people, but it is to me. </p>
<p>Now, it's unclear if she meant she would rather play for the Mercury than any other team, but it's sounds like she just... is so happy the Mystics didn't choose her because she doesn't respect the team.</p></p></div>
https://www.swishappeal.com/2014/9/14/6150487/diana-taurasi-disrespects-the-mysticsMysticsFan12014-09-14T16:00:02-04:002014-09-14T16:00:02-04:00A frustrating WNBA Finals for Sylvia Fowles
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/RVqJrixAhdhP5ia0pW_uhaSojdg=/0x525:1356x1429/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/38529358/455399868.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Photo by Getty Images.</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>After a dominant first half performance in Game 3, Sylvia Fowles struggled to find a rhythm in the second half as the Phoenix Mercury beat the Chicago Sky to sweep the 2014 WNBA Finals. So why did Fowles struggle even with Brittney Griner out of the game? </p> <p>In her preview of Game 3 of the 2014 WNBA Finals, <a href="http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20140911/sports/140919513/">Patricia Babcock-McGraw of the Chicago Daily Herald</a> reported that 6-foot-6 Chicago Sky center Sylvia Fowles was frustrated with her performance in Game 2, during which the long arms of Griner kept her "in check".</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"They're both really strong. The difference is, Griner has more length -- a lot more.</p>
<p>"Syl rushed things early in Game 2 and I think she got frustrated. She was anxious to do well. We just want her to relax (in Game 3) and be one of the best post players in the world, like we know she is."</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But Game 3 ended up being an even more frustrating reminder of something that has been a constant problem for Fowles throughout her career with the Sky: <a target="_blank" href="http://www.swishappeal.com/2014/9/12/6142675/sky-vs-mercury-game-3-halftime-stat-sylvia-fowles-brittney-griner-absence/in/5868376">after dominating the paint for 14 points </a>on 7-for-8 shooting and grabbing 4 rebounds in the first half, Fowles had just 6 points on 2-for-5 shooting along with 4 boards in the second half during which she played the full 20 minutes. During the fourth quarter of Game 3 - the only decisive on of the series - Fowles went 0-for-1 with an over the back foul against a fundamentally sound box out from 6-foot-1 Penny Taylor.</p>
<p>Of course, you could argue that's a minor quibble because the Sky shot 50% from the field in the second half anyway - a 5% improvement over their first half performance and 9% better than the Mercury (41.2%) in the second half. But if you're going to beat the winningest team in WNBA history, you have to be near-perfect, especially when Taurasi is going off on you.</p>
<p><span>With Brittney Griner out due to an eye injury suffered in Game 2, Fowles was being guarded by 6-foot-4 Ewelina Kobryn and 6-foot-3 Mistie Mims. That she only managed five shots over 20 minutes is a problem; that she didn't make either of her two second half field goals on a post-up with Griner out is somewhat troubling. And although it might not explain the Sky's Game 3 loss, Fowles not getting shots is such a consistent issue that it becomes hard to ignore.</span></p>
<h4 style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 8px; margin-left: 0px; font-size: 1.25em;">Fowles' inefficient second half performance</h4>
<p>Her first three touches of the second half were disastrous. On her first shot she was blocked by Kobryn at the basket after a well-timed cut into the paint. On her second shot, she took a short jump hook over Kobryn within five feet that clanked off the front rim. On her third touch, she mishandled a tough pass from Vandersloot off the drive and ultimately ended up on the floor struggling for the ball before turning it over (she wasn't credited with the turnover probably because she never truly got a handle on the ball).</p>
<p>After a possession in the first three minutes of the second half when Fowles stood in place around the elbow out of a pick-and-roll, ESPN commentator Rebecca Lobo suggested that fatigue might be a problem - that would certainly help to explain the outcome of those first three touches. But her standing around wasn't just fatigue: there were a number of plays were Fowles was entirely uninvolved as the Sky looked to Delle Donne or used Fowles as a glorified screener.</p>
<p>This might be second-guessing at a micro level, but - to Lobo's point - if they wanted to run 2-3 consecutive possessions to Delle Donne or had an out-of-bounds set that wasn't going to someone else anyway, why not give Fowles an opportunity to rest? That is a bit of an oversimplified premise - even if she wasn't getting the ball, she was drawing so much attention that she made it easier on others to get shots - but with the number of sets they ran deliberately for Delle Donne after one or two passes, it seems they could have found opportunities to rest Fowles.</p>
<h4>Three reasons why Fowles wasn't more productive</h4>
<p>Fatigue notwithstanding there were at least 10 possessions on which Fowles did not get a field goal attempt despite being open in the second half of Game 3 alone. But it's not quite as simple as saying that her teammates just weren't looking to get her the ball - there were actually three primary reasons that Fowles didn't get more shots in the second half of Game 3.</p>
<p><b>1. Credit the Mercury's defense. </b></p>
<p>There were a number of plays when the fact of having DeWanna Bonner guarding Vandersloot made getting the ball into Fowles nearly impossible. No play was a more glaring example of that than this one with 5:57 left in the third quarter.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a target="_blank" href="http://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/assets/5012100/Screen_Shot_2014-09-13_at_8.29.40_PM.jpg"><img src="http://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/assets/5012100/Screen_Shot_2014-09-13_at_8.29.40_PM_medium.jpg" class="photo" alt="Screen_shot_2014-09-13_at_8.29.40_pm_medium"></a><br><i>Figure 1: Epiphanny Prince handling the ball with Sylvia Fowles posting up.</i></p>
<p>The 5-foot-9 Prince was staring right at Fowles and trying to figure out how to get the ball into her but didn't really even try to figure out how to get the ball around the wiry 6-foot-4 Bonner. Instead, the Sky ended up getting a shot clock violation as they kept trying to find a shot after this moment - Prince dribbling time off the clock while apparently looking for Fowles was a major contributor to that. (Possibly noteworthy: Prince left the game less than 30 seconds after that play and didn't return until 14 seconds left in the fourth quarter.)</p>
<p>Second, there were also plays when Kobryn did an excellent job either fronting or just fighting with Fowles to make her work to establish position. Fowles won that battle more often than not, but even when Kobyrn could simply push her out of the paint and front or deny it made making a pass far more difficult, as shown in Figure 2 below.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/assets/5011660/Screen_Shot_2014-09-13_at_8.58.14_PM.png" target="_blank"><img alt="Screen_shot_2014-09-13_at_8.58.14_pm_medium" class="photo" src="http://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/assets/5011660/Screen_Shot_2014-09-13_at_8.58.14_PM_medium.png"></a> <br><i>Figure 2: Elena Delle Donne preparing to shoot as Sylvia Fowles fights for post position.</i></p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px;"><b>2. Little ball movement. </b>What can still be most frustrating is when Fowles' teammates appear to ignore her altogether, either because they've committed to running another play or someone else shoots the ball.</p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px; text-align: center;"><img style="background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: #ffffff; margin-top: 5px; margin-right: auto; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-left: auto; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; padding: 3px; border: 1px solid #cccccc;" alt="Screen_shot_2014-09-13_at_9.40.16_pm_medium" class="photo" src="http://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/assets/5011684/Screen_Shot_2014-09-13_at_9.40.16_PM_medium.png"><br><i>Figure 3: Elena Delle Donne dribbling while Sylvia Fowles posts up.</i></p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px;">In Figure 3 above, Delle Donne is dribbling from left to right around the arc while Fowles is fighting for position with Kobryn. What's stunning about this is that the entire set was designed to get Fowles open and Delle Donne took one look at her before deciding to look to the second option. The play worked out fine -- Vandersloot hit a big jumper off a Fowles screen -- but this was one of those cases where the Sky had a two-pass possession (back and forth between Delle Donne and Vandersloot) and shot without getting Fowles a touch when she was open.</p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px;">Part of that is absolutely good defense, even in Figure 1: the play began with Vandersloot setting a back screen on Kobryn at the right elbow, which the Mercury read perfectly and didn't switch while fronting Fowles on her cut from elbow to opposite block. By the 2:21 mark above, Delle Donne simply decided she wasn't going to be able to get the ball there. Had Delle Donne waited even a second, maybe she could have been able to get the ball in there. Yet even then, Dupree crowding Delle Donne and Bonner ready to help made that a tough play.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, the Mercury's defense -- which was very good even without Griner just in terms of communication footwork, rotations, and figuring out when to double -- doesn't negate the responsibility of Sky teammates to make a concerted effort to get the ball into Fowles. And what's especially interesting about the Sky is that they took so many contested jumpers early in the shot clock instead of getting it into Fowles.</p>
<p>It's the lack of ball movement that stands out about Figure 3. You see the same thing in Figure 2 - there are 14 seconds left on the shot clock and Delle Donne took a contested long two, which she happened to make. And you see the same thing in Figure 4 below: Fowles working to get position and Delle Donne shooting a well-contested three with 20 seconds left on the shot clock, which she misses.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/assets/5012084/Screen_Shot_2014-09-13_at_8.24.11_PM.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Screen_shot_2014-09-13_at_8.24.11_pm_medium" class="photo" src="http://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/assets/5012084/Screen_Shot_2014-09-13_at_8.24.11_PM_medium.jpg"></a><br><i>Figure 4: Elena Delle Donne shooting while Sylvia Fowles fights for post position.</i></p>
<p>As it turns out, Delle Donne is good enough to have earned the right to shoot when she thinks she has an opportunity - she's able to make things happen on her own and she took advantage. But what stood out on a few of Delle Donne's 12 second half field goal attempts was that they were one- or two-pass possessions - there was no attempt to work the ball around to get it to Fowles. That stands in very stark contrast to a team like the Mercury that will whip the ball around quickly for a few passes (when Taurasi isn't in beast mode) to get the shot they want. The Sky tended to go one-on-one a lot throughout the playoffs (which hurts when Delle Donne isn't in beast mode).</p>
<p><b>3. Poor play by Fowles. </b>Last, some responsibility for Fowles' poor second half falls on Fowles herself -- she flat out dropped three balls that hit her hand(s). It isn't quite football where you can say that anything that hits her hand should be a catch, but that contributes to the missed opportunities. And, contrary to the feeling that the team didn't do enough to get her the ball, there was a stretch of about two minutes in the fourth quarter where the Sky looked to Fowles almost every time she was open.</p>
<p>With 6:32 left in the game, Fowles dropped a ball off an inbounds pass near the end of the shot clock that resulted in a shot clock violation. She missed a layup off a pass from Vandersloot on the Sky's next possession with 6:04 left. And less than a minute later Fowles mishandled a pass with Bonner on her back for which Allie Quigley got charged with a turnover, which is the play shown in Figure 4 below.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a target="_blank" href="http://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/assets/5011676/Screen_Shot_2014-09-13_at_9.27.22_PM.png"><img src="http://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/assets/5011676/Screen_Shot_2014-09-13_at_9.27.22_PM_medium.png" class="photo" alt="Screen_shot_2014-09-13_at_9.27.22_pm_medium"></a><br><i>Figure 5: Allie Quigley preparing to pass the ball to Sylvia Fowles in transition.</i></p>
<p>Again, credit Bonner for that - despite being at a huge height and strength disadvantage, she "pulled the chair" on Fowles and jumped around to contest the pass, which clearly caused Fowles to lose her balance just enough to make the catch difficult. But it's a case where the ball was there inside the restricted area with plenty of room to work and Fowles failed to make the play.</p>
<p></p>
<div class="read-more">
<strong>Related</strong>: <a href="http://www.swishappeal.com/2014/9/3/6104335/mercury-vs-sky-2014-wnba-finals-storystream" target="new">More notes, photos from Fowles' Game 3 performance</a><a href="http://www.swishappeal.com/2014/9/7/6118521/mercury-vs-sky-game-1-final-score-wnba-finals-2014/in/5868376" target="new">Fowles a bright spot in Game 1</a>
</div>
<h4>Sky MVP: Elena Delle Donne</h4>
<p>In light of everything above, it might not seem very surprising that Delle Donne ended up as the team's MVP for the finals statistically. But it's striking that Delle Donne ended up contributing more to the Sky than anyone in the series while really only playing two games.</p>
<p>Certainly there would be those who would argue that Fowles was the MVP on the basis of her Game 3 numbers alone: looking at the final box score, she was the team's best player statistically in the team's only remotely competitive performance. But that becomes a far more difficult case to make when combining that second half performance in Game 3 with a "frustrating" Game 2 performance.</p>
<p> </p>
<div class="sidebar">
<a href="http://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/assets/5013764/Screen_Shot_2014-09-14_at_12.29.28_PM.png">
<h2>Sky PVC chart for the 2014 WNBA Finals</h2>
<img src="http://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/assets/5013764/Screen_Shot_2014-09-14_at_12.29.28_PM.png"> </a> <span>Elena Delle Donne and Sylvia Fowles were by far the top two performers for the Sky during the 2014 WNBA Finals, but unfortunately they were never at their best at the same time.</span>
</div>
<p>Playing just 10 minutes in Game 1, Delle Donne was essentially a non-factor; playing 23 minutes in Game 2, Fowles was a <i>negative </i>factor as she went 2-for-11 with just five rebounds. With there being no question that those two were otherwise the team's top players - Fowles being the clear MVP of Game 1 and Delle Donne being the MVP of Game 2 with the two effectively being even in Game 3 - Delle Donne being a non-factor in Game 1 outweighed Fowles hurting the team in Game 2. I would show you a chart for Game 2, but that's sort of difficult when four players (Fowles, Jamierra Faulkner, Sasha Goodlett and Courtney Clements) combined for about -18% of the team's production; it's best we just leave Game 2 alone and just agree that it was an ugly situation.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>On the bright side, Delle Donne accounting for nearly a quarter of the team's production in the Finals shows just how good she was in those two games she played: although she couldn't help her team avoid a historic blowout in Game 2, she was by far the team's best player as she accounted for 48% of their production. The problem was that it was a one-woman show and that's just not nearly enough against a team like the Mercury that consistently divides the work between 2-3 players (with the specific combination varying from game to game).</p>
<h4>The Mercury were just better</h4>
<p>None of this criticism of Fowles is to blame her alone for the loss in Game 3 - it was a team failure to establish a post game with Griner out. Fowles could've done more herself, but her teammates could have made a more concerted effort to get her the ball and the Mercury played solid defense. And part of that lost opportunity is a matter of foul trouble: Kobryn picked up her fourth in the third quarter and had to sit. Although Mistie Bass played admirably, she wasn't nearly the defensive presence that Kobryn was and was a -11 for the game, only needing to play four minutes in the second half.</p>
<p>Would doing better on any of those fronts change the outcome? It's never easy to prove a counter-factual like that, especially not against a historically good team. But what remains unfortunate is that the Sky weren't really able to take advantage of Griner's absence to the extent that they could have. It was a golden opportunity to extend the series and get one more home game.</p>
<p><i>For more on Game 3 and the series, check out <a target="_blank" href="http://www.swishappeal.com/2014/9/3/6104335/mercury-vs-sky-2014-wnba-finals-storystream">our Mercury vs. Sky storystream</a>. </i></p>
https://www.swishappeal.com/2014/9/14/6146783/2014-wnba-finals-Chicago-sky-Sylvia-Fowles-Elena-Delle-DonneNate P2014-09-14T03:00:02-04:002014-09-14T03:00:02-04:00Photos: The Sky's missed post-up opportunities
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/1GUullgUJ4BOXQvP65UcfqEkpgk=/0x1291:2127x2709/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/38505358/455338360.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Jonathan Daniel</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A look at possessions on which the Chicago Sky did not get center Sylvia Fowles a field goal attempt.</p> <p>Due to some technical difficulties, I missed large chunks of Game 3 of the second half of the 2014 WNBA Finals. Since I was already watching a replay, I went through and took notes about the game in response to a question: why did Sylvia Fowles have just 6 points on 2-for-5 shooting in the second half with Ewelina Kobryn and Mistis Mims (and shout out to DeWanna Bonner's transition defense) guarding her?</p>
<p>I started out by just taking quick notes on every second half possession that Fowles didn't get the ball to figure out what she was doing while searching for possessions where she <em>got open</em> but didn't receive the ball. I took screen shots of plays when she managed to establish position but a) didn't get the ball or b) got the ball and didn't have a field goal attempt (that includes free throws or turnovers; as ESPN analyst Rebecca Lobo has noted, she never attempted to pass the ball out).</p>
<p>Below are those notes in my shorthand, which I'll elaborate on later (<a href="http://www.swishappeal.com/2014/9/3/6104335/mercury-vs-sky-2014-wnba-finals-storystream">stay tuned to our storystream</a>) -- regretfully, I didn't take time stamps because I was initially focused on looking for screenshots (which do have time and score) but they should be in chronological order if you <a href="http://www.wnba.com/games/20140912/PHOCHI/gameinfo.html#Q3">follow the play-by-play</a>.. and I figured I'd share for reference. The plays that I took screenshots on are numbered according to their order above. Please note that not every possession that Fowles failed to get the ball was a bad possession and getting the ball to Fowles didn't automatically make it a good </p>
<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" border="0" width="100%"> <colgroup> <col width="89*"> <col width="104*"> <col width="63*"> </colgroup> <tbody> <tr> <td height="21" width="35%"><p align="LEFT"><font face="Verdana"><strong>Play</strong></font></p></td> <td width="41%"><p align="LEFT"><font face="Verdana"><strong>SylAction</strong></font></p></td> <td width="25%"><p align="LEFT"><font face="Verdana"><strong>Note</strong></font></p></td> </tr> <tr> <td height="18" width="35%"><p align="LEFT">EDDfga</p></td> <td width="41%"><p align="LEFT">screener</p></td> <td width="25%"><p> </p></td> </tr> <tr> <td height="19" width="35%"><p align="LEFT">Princefga</p></td> <td width="41%"><p align="LEFT">P&R screener</p></td> <td width="25%"><p> </p></td> </tr> <tr> <td height="18" width="35%"><p align="LEFT">EDD3pa</p></td> <td width="41%"><p align="LEFT">PostingUp (1)</p></td> <td width="25%"><p> </p></td> </tr> <tr> <td height="18" width="35%"><p align="LEFT">YoungFGM</p></td> <td width="41%"><p align="LEFT">Elbow</p></td> <td width="25%"><p> </p></td> </tr> <tr> <td height="19" width="35%"><p align="LEFT">SlootTov</p></td> <td width="41%"><p align="LEFT">Missed screen on P&R</p></td> <td width="25%"><p> </p></td> </tr> <tr> <td height="24" width="35%"><p align="LEFT">SlootBadPass</p></td> <td width="41%"><p align="LEFT">PostingUP (2)</p></td> <td width="25%"><p align="LEFT">Bonner clogging</p></td> </tr> <tr> <td height="18" width="35%"><p align="LEFT">EDD3pa</p></td> <td width="41%"><p align="LEFT">Screener</p></td> <td width="25%"><p> </p></td> </tr> <tr> <td height="18" width="35%"><p align="LEFT">QuigleyFGA</p></td> <td width="41%"><p align="LEFT">RightBlock</p></td> <td width="25%"><p> </p></td> </tr> <tr> <td height="18" width="35%"><p align="LEFT">SlootEntry</p></td> <td width="41%"><p align="LEFT">KobrynPF</p></td> <td width="25%"><p> </p></td> </tr> <tr> <td height="18" width="35%"><p align="LEFT">EDDFGA</p></td> <td width="41%"><p align="LEFT">LeftBlock</p></td> <td width="25%"><p> </p></td> </tr> <tr> <td height="18" width="35%"><p align="LEFT">QuigleyEntry</p></td> <td width="41%"><p align="LEFT">MimsPF</p></td> <td width="25%"><p> </p></td> </tr> <tr> <td height="18" width="35%"><p align="LEFT">EDDLay</p></td> <td width="41%"><p align="LEFT">Screener</p></td> <td width="25%"><p> </p></td> </tr> <tr> <td height="24" width="35%"><p align="LEFT"><font face="Verdana">BrelandBadPass</font></p></td> <td width="41%"><p align="LEFT"><font face="Verdana">PostingUpCut (3)</font></p></td> <td width="25%"><p align="LEFT">(Phillips sagging off Sloot to defend the cut)</p></td> </tr> <tr> <td height="22" width="35%"><p align="LEFT"><font face="Verdana">Quigley3pm</font></p></td> <td width="41%"><p align="LEFT"><font face="Verdana">PostUp (4)</font></p></td> <td width="25%"><p align="LEFT">(Wide open vs Mims)</p></td> </tr> <tr> <td height="19" width="35%"><p align="LEFT">QuigleyAst</p></td> <td width="41%"><p align="LEFT">Layup off OOB</p></td> <td width="25%"><p> </p></td> </tr> <tr> <td height="18" width="35%"><p align="LEFT">EDDFTM2</p></td> <td width="41%"><p align="LEFT">RightBlock</p></td> <td width="25%"><p> </p></td> </tr> <tr> <td height="18" width="35%"><p align="LEFT">QuigleyFGlay</p></td> <td width="41%"><p align="LEFT">ScreenAST</p></td> <td width="25%"><p> </p></td> </tr> <tr> <td height="18" width="35%"><p align="LEFT">Quigley3pa</p></td> <td width="41%"><p align="LEFT">BUZZER</p></td> <td width="25%"><p> </p></td> </tr> <tr> <td height="18" width="35%"><p> </p></td> <td width="41%"><p> </p></td> <td width="25%"><p> </p></td> </tr> <tr> <td height="18" width="35%"><p align="LEFT">Fourth</p></td> <td width="41%"><p> </p></td> <td width="25%"><p> </p></td> </tr> <tr> <td height="18" width="35%"><p align="LEFT">EDDFGM</p></td> <td width="41%"><p align="LEFT">PostingUp (5)</p></td> <td width="25%"><p> </p></td> </tr> <tr> <td height="18" width="35%"><p align="LEFT">BrelandFGA</p></td> <td width="41%"><p align="LEFT">LeftBlock</p></td> <td width="25%"><p> </p></td> </tr> <tr> <td height="18" width="35%"><p align="LEFT">BrelandTOV</p></td> <td width="41%"><p align="LEFT">RightElbow</p></td> <td width="25%"><p> </p></td> </tr> <tr> <td height="22" width="35%"><p align="LEFT">BrelandShotClock</p></td> <td width="41%"><p align="LEFT">PostingUp (6)</p></td> <td width="25%"><p align="LEFT">(Bonner pressuring Sloot, Kobryn fronting Fowles)</p></td> </tr> <tr> <td height="19" width="35%"><p align="LEFT">EDDFGA</p></td> <td width="41%"><p align="LEFT">LeftBlock/OFoul</p></td> <td width="25%"><p align="LEFT">(One pass possession)</p></td> </tr> <tr> <td height="18" width="35%"><p align="LEFT">QuigleyFGAblkd</p></td> <td width="41%"><p align="LEFT">LeftBlock</p></td> <td width="25%"><p> </p></td> </tr> <tr> <td height="18" width="35%"><p align="LEFT">OOBLob</p></td> <td width="41%"><p align="LEFT">ClockTOV at rim</p></td> <td width="25%"><p align="LEFT">(Fowles lost OOB/buzzer sounded)</p></td> </tr> <tr> <td height="18" width="35%"><p align="LEFT">SlootLost</p></td> <td width="41%"><p align="LEFT">FGAlay</p></td> <td width="25%"><p> </p></td> </tr> <tr> <td height="18" width="35%"><p align="LEFT">QuigleyFTAs</p></td> <td width="41%"><p align="LEFT">PostingUp (same play as 6)</p></td> <td width="25%"><p> </p></td> </tr> <tr> <td height="19" width="35%"><p align="LEFT">QuigleyTOV</p></td> <td width="41%"><p align="LEFT">PostingUp (7)</p></td> <td width="25%"><p align="LEFT">Dropped or deflect?</p></td> </tr> <tr> <td height="18" width="35%"><p align="LEFT">EDDAnd1</p></td> <td width="41%"><p align="LEFT">RightElbow</p></td> <td width="25%"><p> </p></td> </tr> <tr> <td height="18" width="35%"><p align="LEFT">EDD3pa</p></td> <td width="41%"><p align="LEFT">Screen</p></td> <td width="25%"><p> </p></td> </tr> <tr> <td height="19" width="35%"><p align="LEFT">SlootFGM</p></td> <td width="41%"><p align="LEFT">PostingUP</p></td> <td width="25%"><p align="LEFT">Sagged off Sloot to guard Fowles</p></td> </tr> <tr> <td height="18" width="35%"><p align="LEFT">YoungFGM</p></td> <td width="41%"><p align="LEFT">RightBlock</p></td> <td width="25%"><p> </p></td> </tr> <tr> <td height="19" width="35%"><p align="LEFT">SlootFGM</p></td> <td width="41%"><p align="LEFT">PostingUP (8)</p></td> <td width="25%"><p align="LEFT">WIDEOPEN</p></td> </tr> <tr> <td height="18" width="35%"><p align="LEFT">EDDFGM</p></td> <td width="41%"><p align="LEFT">RightBlock</p></td> <td width="25%"><p> </p></td> </tr> <tr> <td height="19" width="35%"><p align="LEFT">EDD3pa</p></td> <td width="41%"><p align="LEFT">PostingUp (9)</p></td> <td width="25%"><p align="LEFT">Taurasi on EDD – wide open sight line to make a pass</p></td> </tr> <tr> <td height="18" width="35%"><p align="LEFT">QuigleyFGM</p></td> <td width="41%"><p align="LEFT">Transition</p></td> <td width="25%"><p> </p></td> </tr> <tr> <td height="18" width="35%"><p align="LEFT">EDD3pa</p></td> <td width="41%"><p align="LEFT">RightElbow</p></td> <td width="25%"><p> </p></td> </tr> </tbody> </table>
https://www.swishappeal.com/2014/9/14/6146649/wnba-finals-2014-chicago-sky-sylvia-fowlesNate P2014-09-13T18:00:02-04:002014-09-13T18:00:02-04:00Taylor's quietly valuable contributions to Phoenix
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/UDVhbUFLnpyMpKleIFLq6HIWZas=/0x250:3109x2323/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/38479334/455338222.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Jonathan Daniel</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Although Diana Taurasi's heroics at the end of Game 3 of the WNBA Finals solidified her place as Finals MVP <a href="http://www.swishappeal.com/2014/9/12/6142765/sky-vs-mercury-game-3-final-score-diana-taurasi-wnba-finals-2014" target="new">after the Phoenix Mercury swept the Chicago Sky</a>, the contributions of Candice Dupree and Penny Taylor can't be overlooked.</p> <p>Search the web for recaps of the 2014 WNBA Finals -- the entire series -- and Penny Taylor's significance barely gets a mention.</p>
<p>In fact, it's fitting that the one reason why Taylor earned a mention in recaps of Game 3 of the 2014 WNBA Finals was for hitting a pair of free throws with 9 seconds left to seal the Phoenix Mercury's long-expected title and securing a place in WNBA playoff history for Diana Taurasi's spectacular three-point play on the previous possession.</p>
<p>While Taurasi humble brags that <a target="_blank" href="http://www.redeyechicago.com/sports/ct-sky-mercury-wnba-game-spt-0913-20140913,0,5533663.column">the big shots in big moments just seem to find her a lot </a>and she just takes advantage, Taylor has the enormously undervalued skill of being stunningly efficient and productive despite those moments not finding her much at all as she defers to her All-WNBA teammates.</p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px;"><a href="http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-81336647/" target="_blank" style="color: #c8181d !important; text-decoration: none !important; background-color: transparent;">Philip Hersh of the Chicago Tribune wrote a great article</a> in advance of Game 3 about how Candice Dupree's quiet consistency doesn't usually draw much attention -- and that was <a target="_blank" href="http://www.swishappeal.com/wnba/2014/9/11/6137123/all-wnba-team-2014-maya-moore-minnesota-lynx" style="color: #c8181d !important; text-decoration: none !important; background-color: transparent;">before she was left off the 2014 All-WNBA team</a> -- and something similar could be said about Taylor: she fits blends in with the flow of the game so well that its easy to ignore her or take her granted.</p>
<p>And yet what has always been most impressive about Taylor is that she manages to make an impact statistically despite rarely seeming to capture the attention that others (deservedly) get.</p>
<h4>X-Factor: Penny Taylor</h4>
<p><span>Every championship team has a glue player, not just the blue collar enforcer or bench player who can give you a scoring jolt but the type of player who's versatile enough to give a team whatever they need in a given situation to free everyone else up to do what they do best. </span></p>
<p>For the Mercury, that has always been Penny Taylor. The 2014 WNBA Finals just another testament to how efficient she can be in that role of complementing and enhancing the games of others.</p>
<p> </p>
<div class="sidebar">
<a href="http://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/assets/5010232/Screen_Shot_2014-09-13_at_2.38.13_PM.png">
<h2>Mercury PVC chart for the Finals</h2>
<img src="http://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/assets/5010232/Screen_Shot_2014-09-13_at_2.38.13_PM.png"> </a> <span>While Diana Taurasi stole the show in the end to solidify her case as MVP, Penny Taylor and Candice Dupree were right there with her as the top contributors for the Mercury</span>
</div>
<p>What really stood out in this series was Taylor's efficiency as a distributor: although Taurasi led the team with 19 assists, Taylor had 18 assists and just 4 turnovers. For a player that touches the ball as often as she does, that's remarkable efficiency -- her outstanding pure point rating of 9.19 is a testament to that. Nobody will consider Taylor a point guard, but next to a player like Taurasi who alternates as a distributor and scorer from play to play, Taylor's ability to make decisions with the ball efficiently from the wing is a major asset to the team. The fact that she's a legit scoring threat as well (true shooting percentage of 58.7%) makes her a threat who has to be accounted for on a team full of threats.</p>
<p>None of that is surprising - Taylor was <a target="_blank" href="http://www.swishappeal.com/2014/9/6/6114947/wnba-finals-2014-preview-x-factor-penny-taylor-courtney-vandersloot/in/5868376">the predictable x-factor before the series</a> because, well, that's what she does - but it does bring us to the discussion of MVP.</p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px;">Entering Game 3, the debate about Finals MVP kicked up with Griner being out. Nobody will quibble with Taurasi given what she did in the fourth quarter of Game 3, but I mentioned during the game that Taylor was getting lost in that discussion: <a target="_blank" href="http://www.swishappeal.com/2014/9/12/6142363/wnba-finals-game-3-open-thread#256947470">through the first two games</a>, Taylor was right behind Griner and Taurasi as the third biggest contributor on the team. Similarly, she finished the playoffs with<a target="_blank" href="http://www.wnba.com/media/lynx/2014PlayoffPlusMinusbyTeam.pdf"> the third-highest plus/minus rating on the team</a> just ahead of Dupree. Although Taylor was sort of blending into the background as she often does, she was making a tangible impact - not enough to make an argument for MVP, but certainly worthy of more attention than she gets.</p>
<p>But Dupree did in fact deserve the attention she got as a Finals MVP candidate.</p>
<h4>MVP: Candice Dupree</h4>
<p>Going by Percent Valuable Contributions (20%), there's an awfully strong argument for Dupree as Finals MVP. The reason comes down to something quite simple: she was stunningly efficient after a season of efficiency.</p>
<p>Dupree shot 29-for-39 from the field during the Finals, which is incredible for a power forward who shot as many jumpers as she did. She was such a huge threat with Griner out of the game that the Sky's defense struggled to guard both her and Taurasi on the perimeter (and never did a good enough job).</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en" align="center">
<p>Why do you run at Candace Dupree to take away a 20 foot 2-point jump shot and leave Diana Tarausi open for a top of the key 3-pointer?</p>
— Brian McCormick (@brianmccormick) <a href="https://twitter.com/brianmccormick/status/510601433083682817">September 13, 2014</a>
</blockquote>
<p>With her ability to knock in shots from all over the court, she and Taurasi were lethal in the pick-and-roll -- there's just not much way for a defense to stop that. As Griner gets more comfortable with her mid-range game, that offense is going to be (even more) utterly impossible to defend not only because all of those players are efficient threats but also because they offer such excellent court spacing.</p>
<p>She set a record for consecutive made field goals to open a game in Game 1. While Taurasi's fourth quarter scoring outburst captured our attention in Game 3, Dupree tied her with a game-high 24 points. For a team that essentially won this game on the strength of their shooting efficiency, Dupree's team-high 75.22% true shooting percentage during the Finals was a huge part of that.</p>
<p>Dupree was an efficient pure scorer to complement Taurasi's dynamic play, which has its pros and cons.</p>
<p></p>
<div class="read-more">
<strong>More</strong>: <a target="new" href="http://www.swishappeal.com/2014/9/13/6142937/wnba-finals-2014-phoenix-mercury-diana-taurasi/in/5868376">Taurasi's greatness</a><a target="new" href="http://www.swishappeal.com/2014/9/12/6142899/2014-wnba-finals-diana-taurasi-wins-finals-mvp/in/5868376">Taurasi named 2014 WNBA Finals MVP</a><a target="new" href="http://www.swishappeal.com/2014/9/10/6132587/2014-wnba-finals-diana-taurasi-scoring-record-deanna-nolan/in/5868376">Taurasi becomes all-time leading Finals scorer</a>
</div>
<p>Underlying that high scoring efficiency is another side of Dupree's game: her true shooting percentage is not significantly different than her 74.35% field goal percentage because she only got to the free throw line twice. She wasn't much of a presence on the boards at all with DeWanna Bonner and Eweline Kobryn picking up that slack during Griner's Game 3 absence. But those are small quibbles that you can only complain about abstractly: that is Dupree's game and she was her best self against her former team. She, like so many others, gave her team exactly what she needed and her value to the effort can't be easily dismissed.</p>
<p>But the very fact that there's room for a Finals MVP debate is pretty impressive on its own given how well Taurasi played: Taurasi was unreal statistically finishing the series with a true shooting percentage of 65.84% at a usage rate of 30.20% while also maintain an assist ratio of 24.57% over three games. And yet there's a legitimate argument for Dupree's statistical value topping the team, Taylor wasn't that far behind, and the only reason Griner fell out of the discussion is because she missed a game. That's <i>incredible </i>balance and Game 3 simply made the talent of that team that much clearer: yes, they needed Taurasi to impose her will and reaffirm her case for being the best in the world in the end, but it was the overwhelming talent of the entire team to that point that really made this team great.</p>
<p><i>For more on this series, check out <a target="_blank" href="http://www.swishappeal.com/2014/9/3/6104335/mercury-vs-sky-2014-wnba-finals-storystream">our Mercury vs. Sky storystream</a>.</i></p>
https://www.swishappeal.com/2014/9/13/6144583/wnba-finals-2014-phoenix-mercury-penny-taylor-candice-dupreeNate P2014-09-13T13:00:02-04:002014-09-13T13:00:02-04:00Daily Swish: DT's greatness & the league's future
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/p9PaVgev2y8YcNmJab0b-lxcbjw=/0x210:2930x2163/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/38474908/455340892.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Jonathan Daniel</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Phoenix Mercury have done what everyone expected and won the 2014 WNBA title. So how good was this championship series? And is it something the league can build on to raise its profile? Vote in the poll for the latter and read check out the links below for the former (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUGEoLDX2oo" target="new">video above via WNBA</a>). </p> <p>The other day I wrote <a target="_blank" href="http://www.swishappeal.com/2014/9/9/6124707/wnba-finals-2014-elena-delle-donne-back-ray-rice">a response to Jeff Pearlman's article in the Medium</a> about the state of the WNBA, which I felt was a perfectly reasonable critique of the league.</p>
<p>It got longer than I initially intended, but there were really three points there:</p>
<p>1. The league is making progress, has done what it could to promote its young stars, and the evolution of the game on the court demands patience as basketball fans familiarize themselves with the league.</p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px;">2. The league still has yet to persuasively answer why it's worth sports fans' time, especially in a crowded sports market that runs right up against the NFL season.</p>
<p>3. As I alluded to and <a target="_blank" href="http://www.swishappeal.com/2014/9/9/6124707/wnba-finals-2014-elena-delle-donne-back-ray-rice#256285338">James stated explicitly in the comments</a>, the league theoretically has appeal to multiple demographics and arguably greater social value than other sports leagues but seriously risks turning off one demographic if it pushes too hard to attract another. Yet it has struggled over time to decide whether it will target one demographic or try to embrace its broad appeal.</p>
<p><span>Although those points aren't at all mutually exclusive, there's a certain tension between points 1 & 2 that sort of leaves us at something of a crossroads in light of the 2014 WNBA Finals. A</span>s it turns out, the 2014 WNBA Finals ended up being a microcosm of both points as the culmination of a season that probably embodied where the league stands right now: there was a ton of star power that drew great ratings, but the series itself was decidedly uncompetitive after beginning as entirely predictable and requiring the absence of an injured star to even be interesting in Chicago. Yes, the rise of the Sky and Diana Taurasi's greatness are compelling storyline; no, back-to-back routs are not especially compelling television.</p>
<p>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="http://cdn3.sbnation.com/assets/3608425/mustreads.css">
</p>
<p>The 2014 WNBA Finals series was somewhat awkwardly one of the worst -- meaning most lopsided -- in memory while simultaneously being one of the most-watched, progress among the national audience somehow wrapped in a package that seems to leave some observers wanting more (e.g. some variation of "true seeding" for the playoffs).That leads right to the third point above, perhaps as an extension of Pearlman's question: who or what type of fan will determine that the league is worth their time?</p>
<p>Before jumping into other reactions to the Finals from around the web -- and a whole bunch of people (justifiably) fawning over Taurasi's greatness -- there were two articles from yesterday that spoke quite directly to that question, which are worthy reads.</p>
<h4>WNBA</h4>
<ul>
<li><span><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/alanaglass/2014/09/12/historic-firsts-shines-spotlight-on-wnba-women-in-sports/" target="_blank">Forbes' Alana Glass checks in about "The Summer of Firsts"</a> in women's sports and suggests the opportunity to watch women make history in sports as a reason to watch the Finals. "What have you told your son or daughter about gender diversity, women in sports, and "The Summer of Firsts?...Consider watching the finals with your son or daughter – tell them about what’s possible when the sports landscape is open and available for strong, powerful women to participate." <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/alanaglass/2014/09/12/historic-firsts-shines-spotlight-on-wnba-women-in-sports/" target="_blank">Read more >>></a></span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span><a href="http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2014/09/11/wnba-still-looking-for-identity/Ue4PZH9nUaX4yIyqDrRBkI/story.html" target="_blank">Gary Washburn of The Boston Globe</a> explored the difficulty the league has had in forging an identity without limiting itself to one demographic, highlighting the impact of jersey sponsors on branding and the league being "unsure" about how it should approach the relationship of players like Brittney Griner and Glory Johnson. Other leagues around the world have taken advantage of jersey sponsors -- it's neither novel nor unique to the WNBA -- but to the latter point he offers the following summary of the challenge the league faces right now: "The league needs to figure out a way to take those unattractive ads off the front of the jerseys without losing sponsorship money, add a team in markets such as the Bay Area and the Knoxville area, which has always supported women's basketball, and find a way to attract those who haven't yet embraced the league." <a target="_blank" href="http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2014/09/11/wnba-still-looking-for-identity/Ue4PZH9nUaX4yIyqDrRBkI/story.html">Read more >>></a></span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li> <span><a href="http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2014/09/wnba-finals-tv-ratings-phoenix-chicago-espn-abc/" target="_blank">Paulsen of Sports Media Watch</a></span><span> took stock of the ratings for the first two games, tempering the good news with an unfortunate reality of this season: "It should be pointed out that neither Game 1 nor Game 2 could match Game 2 of the Mercury/Lynx Western Conference Finals on August 31 (0.6, 828K)." #TeamTrueSeeding </span><span><a href="http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2014/09/wnba-finals-tv-ratings-phoenix-chicago-espn-abc/" target="_blank">Read more >>></a></span> </li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span><a href="http://espn.go.com/espnw/news-commentary/article/11515859/no-1-playoff-moment-wnba-history" target="_blank">ESPN announced its number one playoff moment</a> in WNBA history and it was predictable because the very idea of hitting a game-winner in the Finals from half court is every ballplayer's dream. You just can't beat that and the better debate is where it stands in U.S. basketball history. <a href="http://espn.go.com/espnw/news-commentary/article/11515859/no-1-playoff-moment-wnba-history" target="_blank">Read more >>></a></span></li>
</ul>
<h4>WNBA Finals Game 3</h4>
<ul>
<li><span><a href="http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-81343746/" target="_blank">Philip Hersh of the Chicago Tribune wrote</a> that Diana Taurasi's heroics proved why she's regarded as the world's best player. "Without their 6-foot-8 monster in the middle, the Mercury needed Taurasi to show why she is considered the best women's basketball player in history..."Everyone saw the world's best doing exactly what she does best: putting her team on her shoulders," Sky forward Elena Delle Donne said. "They needed their big player to make a play; we needed myself to make one. She did; I didn't." <a href="http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-81343746/" target="_blank">Read more >>></a></span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span><a href="http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/09/diana-taurasi-reminded-everyone-why-shes-one-of-the-greatest-scorers-in-wnba-history" target="_blank">Nina Mandell of USA Today wrote</a> specifically about how Taurasi's Game 3 performance reflects her greatness as a scorer. "As with many great scorers, Taurasi took over the court by making shots that looked miraculous every time they went in, sometimes even seeming to shock her. There was a jumper she banked in under pressure that she didn’t really mean to put off the backboard. And with the game tied with only 14 seconds left, Taurasi drove against [Courtney Vandersloot] before somehow squaring up to throw up yet another runner that seemed like it shouldn’t have gone in." <a href="http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/09/diana-taurasi-reminded-everyone-why-shes-one-of-the-greatest-scorers-in-wnba-history" target="_blank">Read more >>></a></span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span><a href="http://www.wnba.com/mercury/dt_greatest__phoenix_history_2014_09_10.html" target="_blank">Greg Esposito of Phoenix Mercury.com</a> took on a more local question a couple of days before Game 3, which is worthy of revisiting in light of the conclusion to the 2014 WNBA Finals: is Taurasi the best athlete in Phoenix sports history, men's or women's? "There is one athlete that checks all the boxes, longevity, awards, championships and an intense passion for Phoenix. That’s right, Taurasi and her signature bun have been a mainstay in Phoenix for a decade. She’s won championships, awards and led the league in numerous categories including points last year and assists this season. A feat that is next to impossible to accomplish on the men’s or women’s side. She’s remained relatively healthy through it all and has been the heart and soul of the franchise the entire time." <a href="http://www.wnba.com/mercury/dt_greatest__phoenix_history_2014_09_10.html" target="_blank">Read more >>></a></span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li> <span><a href="http://espn.go.com/wnba/story/_/id/11516210/diana-taurasi-else-leads-phoenix-mercury-wnba-championship" target="_blank">Mechelle Voepel of espnW put some context</a> around Taurasi's performance but also highlighted the performance of Ewelina Kobryn, a player whose performance flew under the radar a bit. She was in foul trouble, as might be expected going against Fowles, but was another player who stepped up in Game 3. "Brondello is UMMC's assistant, and when she took over at Phoenix, she thought Kobryn would be a good fit as a backup center for Griner. So Kobryn came to Arizona this season. Kobryn couldn't have expected to see much court time in the WNBA Finals with the way Griner was playing. But Griner was poked in the eye in Game 2 on Tuesday...Kobryn got the start -- and produced eight points, eight rebounds and three blocked shots. It was a performance her close friend and former WNBA player, the late Margo Dydek, would have been thrilled to see. Dydek passed away in 2011 after suffering a heart attack."</span><span><a href="http://espn.go.com/wnba/story/_/id/11516210/diana-taurasi-else-leads-phoenix-mercury-wnba-championship" target="_blank"> Read more >>></a></span> </li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span><font size="2"><span><a href="http://www.smh.com.au/sport/basketball/wnba-title-winners-penny-taylor-erin-phillips-turn-attention-to-opals-campaign-20140913-10ghp8.html" target="_blank">Roy Ward of the Sydney Daily Herald reports</a></span> that Mercury players Erin Phillips and Penny Taylor are scheduled to report to the Australian Opals' camp by the end of the week in preparation for the FIBA World Championships. Coach Brendan Joyce discussed the difficulty of adding new players so late and wasn't sure whether they'd start right away. "They should be both starting for us but whether they do, I don't know right now," he said. </font><a href="http://www.smh.com.au/sport/basketball/wnba-title-winners-penny-taylor-erin-phillips-turn-attention-to-opals-campaign-20140913-10ghp8.html" target="_blank">Read more >>></a></span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Understandably overshadowed by Phoenix's victory, the <a href="http://www.wnba.com/sky/news/skys_final_run_comes_up_short_14.html" target="_blank">Chicago Sky included in their notes about the game</a> that Sky point guard Courtney Vandersloot broke the record for most assists in a half in a Finals game (that Taurasi had just ties in Game 1 and finished with a WNBA Finals record tying 11 assists, joining Diana Taurasi (how good can one player be, seriously?), Nikki Teasley (3 times) and Tamika Catchings (2009). <a href="http://www.wnba.com/sky/news/skys_final_run_comes_up_short_14.html" target="_blank">Read more >>></a> </li>
</ul>
<p><i> Got other links that you think are worth reading? Drop them in the comments below or create a fanshot.</i></p>
https://www.swishappeal.com/2014/9/13/6142937/wnba-finals-2014-phoenix-mercury-diana-taurasiNate P