RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Plum and the league agenda
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » WNBA
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
WNBA 09



Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 4077
Location: Dallas , Texas


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 11:19 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Silky Johnson wrote:
calbearman76 wrote:
...Janel McCarville was also a serviceable player but never an All-Star. The only All-Stars were Sancho Lyttle and Kara Braxton, but neither had a better career than McCarville...


What? Sancho Lyttle didn't have a better career than Janel McCarville? Based on what, the fact that McCarville rode Maya Moore's coattails to a ring? McCarville has a higher career field goal percentage, and that's it. I can't think of one other aspect of basketball in which Janel McCarville was better than Sancho Lyttle.



I was about to speak on this part too specifically Laughing . Janel's career was better than Kara's #MAYBE ? but Sancho realllly Rolling Eyes . Heck Janel Burse had a better career than Janel McCarville Laughing



_________________
2-Time WNBA Champion-3-Time National Champion-2-Time Olympic Champion....And Yes DT "We Got Confeti" lol
WNBA 09



Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 4077
Location: Dallas , Texas


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 11:26 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Silky Johnson wrote:
adamj95 wrote:
Being the best post passer in the WNBA.

Better than peak Candace Parker? I'd question that.

Quote:
Being a starting center on two Lynx teams that won 26 and 25 games. Winning a WNBA title.

Congratulations; that makes her the Andrew Bogut of the WNBA. Anybody who tried to make the claim that Andrew Bogut had a better career than Marc Gasol would get summarily laughed at.



I was laughing when i saw the original post about the best post passer in the W & placing conviction into the "she started for 2 titles with Minny" Laughing Just to specify which years did she win titles because i can only remember in 2013. They didnt win in 2014 & 2015 she sat out.... Confused Cameback in 2016 didnt start a game and didnt return in 2017...so wheres the 2nd championship with minny again ?



_________________
2-Time WNBA Champion-3-Time National Champion-2-Time Olympic Champion....And Yes DT "We Got Confeti" lol
josephkramer44



Joined: 23 Aug 2016
Posts: 104



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 11:41 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Could it possibly be that the League is trying to generate more interest in a franchise that doesn't have as much as others? The Stars don't draw anywhere near as good as the more successful teams and of course having a popular player with good charisma can make a big difference (look at the attendance differences for the Sky and Mystics from a year ago). San Antonio has become a very big basketball city over the past fifteen years due to the extended success of the the Spurs and I think there is a good market waiting to be exploited there. It's also not too crowded. San Antonio doesn't have any other big sports teams aside from the Spurs. All speculation on my part.


Randy



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 6590



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 11:50 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I don't really care much for which player is better debates, but I'll pile on too.

Sancho played more games, more MPG, higher PPG, higher RPG, One time All Star, One time "Team WNBA v. Team USA" player, Two WNBA All-Defensive First Team selections (2012, 2014) and a three-time Second Team selection (2009, 2010, 2011);

McCarville leads slightly in passing stats APG 1.9 v 1.7; however McCarville had higher TO PG - 1.7 v. 1.5 for Sancho. McCarville never an All Star.

I think this myth is busted.

Razz


jap



Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 7151



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 12:13 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Randy wrote:
I don't really care much for which player is better debates, but I'll pile on too.

Sancho played more games, more MPG, higher PPG, higher RPG, One time All Star, One time "Team WNBA v. Team USA" player, Two WNBA All-Defensive First Team selections (2012, 2014) and a three-time Second Team selection (2009, 2010, 2011);

McCarville leads slightly in passing stats APG 1.9 v 1.7; however McCarville had higher TO PG - 1.7 v. 1.5 for Sancho. McCarville never an All Star.

I think this myth is busted. Razz



It was busted wide open from the time she was called the best post passer over Ace. Candace passes better than some PG's.



_________________
Regards,
J A P
adamj95



Joined: 09 May 2014
Posts: 1120



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 1:05 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

To clarify my statement, by best passing post player, I meant center. I stand by that statement that Janel is the best passing center. And I stated that she won a WNBA title. Not many players can win a title. Sancho has been to the finals 3 times and is 0-3. Just my thoughts.


adamj95



Joined: 09 May 2014
Posts: 1120



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 1:09 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

WNBA 09 wrote:
Silky Johnson wrote:
adamj95 wrote:
Being the best post passer in the WNBA.

Better than peak Candace Parker? I'd question that.

Quote:
Being a starting center on two Lynx teams that won 26 and 25 games. Winning a WNBA title.

Congratulations; that makes her the Andrew Bogut of the WNBA. Anybody who tried to make the claim that Andrew Bogut had a better career than Marc Gasol would get summarily laughed at.



I was laughing when i saw the original post about the best post passer in the W & placing conviction into the "she started for 2 titles with Minny" Laughing Just to specify which years did she win titles because i can only remember in 2013. They didnt win in 2014 & 2015 she sat out.... Confused Cameback in 2016 didnt start a game and didnt return in 2017...so wheres the 2nd championship with minny again ?


Never said she won 2 titles. Said she started on two lynx teams that won 26 and 25 games.


WNBA 09



Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 4077
Location: Dallas , Texas


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 1:09 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

adamj95 wrote:
To clarify my statement, by best passing post player, I meant center. I stand by that statement that Janel is the best passing center. And I stated that she won a WNBA title. Not many players can win a title. Sancho has been to the finals 3 times and is 0-3. Just my thoughts.


Thanks for changing it to 1 title and not multiples. Kara braxton has title also along with a triple double to her name. Ijs Cool



_________________
2-Time WNBA Champion-3-Time National Champion-2-Time Olympic Champion....And Yes DT "We Got Confeti" lol


Last edited by WNBA 09 on 06/12/17 1:10 pm; edited 1 time in total
adamj95



Joined: 09 May 2014
Posts: 1120



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 1:09 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

WNBA 09 wrote:
adamj95 wrote:
To clarify my statement, by best passing post player, I meant center. I stand by that statement that Janel is the best passing center. And I stated that she won a WNBA title. Not many players can win a title. Sancho has been to the finals 3 times and is 0-3. Just my thoughts.


Thanks for changing it to 1 title and not multiples. Kara braxton has titles also along with a triple double to her name. Ijs Cool


Re-read my original post. Said she won 1 title and started for 2 lynx teams that won 25+ games.


WNBA 09



Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 4077
Location: Dallas , Texas


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 1:11 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

adamj95 wrote:
WNBA 09 wrote:
adamj95 wrote:
To clarify my statement, by best passing post player, I meant center. I stand by that statement that Janel is the best passing center. And I stated that she won a WNBA title. Not many players can win a title. Sancho has been to the finals 3 times and is 0-3. Just my thoughts.


Thanks for changing it to 1 title and not multiples. Kara braxton has titles also along with a triple double to her name. Ijs Cool


Re-read my original post. Said she won 1 title and started for 2 lynx teams that won 25+ games.


Thats not the original post but its not that big of a deal . The myth has been concluded a bust.



_________________
2-Time WNBA Champion-3-Time National Champion-2-Time Olympic Champion....And Yes DT "We Got Confeti" lol
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 54928
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 1:13 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

adamj95 wrote:
To clarify my statement, by best passing post player, I meant center. I stand by that statement that Janel is the best passing center. And I stated that she won a WNBA title. Not many players can win a title. Sancho has been to the finals 3 times and is 0-3. Just my thoughts.


There has been no point in their careers when the team that had Sancho Lyttle would have traded her straight up for McCarville. The converse is not true. That's really all that need be said for the "debate" over who is the better player.



_________________
Happiness depends, as Nature shows,
Less on exterior things than most suppose
Randy



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 6590



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 1:36 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Sorry Adamj95 - Sancho has not played in 3 finals. #fakenews.


WNBA 09



Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 4077
Location: Dallas , Texas


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 1:37 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Randy wrote:
Sorry Adamj95 - Sancho has not played in 3 finals. #fakenews.


That will get edited too Laughing



_________________
2-Time WNBA Champion-3-Time National Champion-2-Time Olympic Champion....And Yes DT "We Got Confeti" lol
scrappy



Joined: 18 May 2006
Posts: 1703



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 1:39 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

RP wrote:
What did Shoni Schimmel do?


sells jerseys.



_________________
She's blonde, she can block. She is 6 foot five, she can deny. Though she is tall, she definitely can score. ya'al think she is quite nice, but on the court she can put up a fight.
MuneravenMN
Champion Tipster


Joined: 01 Jun 2008
Posts: 3860



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 1:49 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

caune wrote:
Richyyy wrote:
And she was the #1 overall pick and the leading scorer in NCAA history. That player's going to be paid some attention, even if they haven't done anything in the League yet.



Exactly.
I just don't get why everybody seems to dislike her. She's awesome. She may not get to show it in SA but I think she'll pan out sooner then later.


She seems to have a real anti-fan club around here, but when SA played in MN there were several very vocal Plum fans around me! I haven't heard that many loud fans for a non Lynx since Whalen was in Connecticut.

People love to scream "Bust" too early. Point guards sometimes take awhile. Few of them come in like Bird did just ready to run a pro offense.



_________________
Winning takes talent; to repeat takes character.
--John Wooden
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6462
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 1:51 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

WNBA 09 wrote:
Randy wrote:
Sorry Adamj95 - Sancho has not played in 3 finals. #fakenews.


That will get edited too Laughing

Before you laugh at him, you really should go back and reread his original post on the subject. While I disagree with his conclusion that McCarville had a better career than Lyttle, there is no need to ridicule his posts or laugh at him. That's just rude.

And it can make people look silly when it comes from them misreading something that was basically correct.

The post he made that originated this "debate" was:

"Being the best post passer in the WNBA. Being a starting center on two Lynx teams that won 26 and 25 games. Winning a WNBA title."

The only thing that was arguably incorrect here was "the best post passer" premise. And he did what any intelligent person should do in a debate: when confronted by a resonable counter, listen to it and adjust your argument accordingly. Here he was presented with someone who could be considered a better post passer, so he conceeded that point and amended his position to "best center". This is a much stronger position, and is the way debate/discussion should work.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 54928
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 1:54 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

MuneravenMN wrote:
People love to scream "Bust" too early. Point guards sometimes take awhile. Few of them come in like Bird did just ready to run a pro offense.


Bird was pretty good, but people forget she led the league in turnovers her first two seasons.



_________________
Happiness depends, as Nature shows,
Less on exterior things than most suppose
WNBA 09



Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 4077
Location: Dallas , Texas


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 2:04 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
MuneravenMN wrote:
People love to scream "Bust" too early. Point guards sometimes take awhile. Few of them come in like Bird did just ready to run a pro offense.


Bird was pretty good, but people forget she led the league in turnovers her first two seasons.



X______________



_________________
2-Time WNBA Champion-3-Time National Champion-2-Time Olympic Champion....And Yes DT "We Got Confeti" lol
adamj95



Joined: 09 May 2014
Posts: 1120



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 2:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

WNBA 09 wrote:
Randy wrote:
Sorry Adamj95 - Sancho has not played in 3 finals. #fakenews.


That will get edited too Laughing


Never edited anything. Forgot she didn't play in the 13 finals.


Randy



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 6590



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 3:14 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

scrappy wrote:
RP wrote:
What did Shoni Schimmel do?


sells jerseys.


And get votes. That alone can get you elected to public office (not to mention All Star teams.)


Silky Johnson



Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 416



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 3:36 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
The only thing that was arguably incorrect here was "the best post passer" premise. And he did what any intelligent person should do in a debate: when confronted by a resonable counter, listen to it and adjust your argument accordingly. Here he was presented with someone who could be considered a better post passer, so he conceeded that point and amended his position to "best center". This is a much stronger position, and is the way debate/discussion should work.


LOL. Tomato, potato... You say "conceeded [sic] that point and amended his position", I say "moved the goalposts."

It seemed to me that @calbearman76's original argument was based on the premise that Janel McCarville had a better career than Sancho Lyttle, because McCarville got a ring, which makes about as much sense to me as saying that Le'Coe Willingham had a better career than Sophia Young. Why @adamj95 decided to 1) defend what I'd consider to be an indefensible position, and 2) thought that he'd actually laid down the Big Joker with "best post passer in the WNBA" is completely mystifying to me.



_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
WNBA 09



Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 4077
Location: Dallas , Texas


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 3:44 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

scrappy wrote:
RP wrote:
What did Shoni Schimmel do?


sells jerseys.


For a second i thought u meant she was selling jersey's while taking this season off Laughing



_________________
2-Time WNBA Champion-3-Time National Champion-2-Time Olympic Champion....And Yes DT "We Got Confeti" lol
Richyyy



Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 19552
Location: London


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 4:30 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

WNBA 09 wrote:
Richyyy wrote:
Does anyone remember how awful Diggins was as a rookie? Sometimes it takes a while. One of the main things Plum needs to work on is her core strength, just to live with the athletes at this level. Diggins had the same issue, and it's going to take some time.

Which isn't to say that she won't be a bust. Just that declaring her a bust already is kinda crazy and unfair.


Yeah skylar had a rough rookie season but her team was horrible in Tulsa...

As opposed to the glorified WNBA D-League team Plum is playing with in San Antonio?



_________________
Independent WNBA coverage: http://www.wnbalien.com/
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6462
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 4:32 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Silky Johnson wrote:
justintyme wrote:
The only thing that was arguably incorrect here was "the best post passer" premise. And he did what any intelligent person should do in a debate: when confronted by a resonable counter, listen to it and adjust your argument accordingly. Here he was presented with someone who could be considered a better post passer, so he conceeded that point and amended his position to "best center". This is a much stronger position, and is the way debate/discussion should work.


LOL. Tomato, potato... You say "conceeded [sic] that point and amended his position", I say "moved the goalposts."


I teach all my students to always be revising their positions as counter arguments are presented. It is a sign of a flexible and intelligent mind.

Moving the goalposts involves ignoring a valid counter-argument by changing the debate as a whole (as in what was being argued about, or by changing the standards by which the debate was to be judged). In this case he accepted the counter-argument and adjusted his premise to a more accurate position, agreeing that his original premise was flawed. He kept the same conclusion.

While I agree that the conclusion was flawed, I would not call it "indefensible" nor should it be a source of ridicule.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 1428
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 5:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Silky Johnson wrote:

LOL. Tomato, potato... You say "conceeded [sic] that point and amended his position", I say "moved the goalposts."

It seemed to me that @calbearman76's original argument was based on the premise that Janel McCarville had a better career than Sancho Lyttle, because McCarville got a ring, which makes about as much sense to me as saying that Le'Coe Willingham had a better career than Sophia Young. Why @adamj95 decided to 1) defend what I'd consider to be an indefensible position, and 2) thought that he'd actually laid down the Big Joker with "best post passer in the WNBA" is completely mystifying to me.


Okay. I tried to stay out of this tangent that I started. I didn't realize I was opening up such a hornet's nest, but since my name was invoked I will respond. What I said was:

"Janel McCarville was also a serviceable player but never an All-Star. The only All-Stars were Sancho Lyttle and Kara Braxton, but neither had a better career than McCarville."

Note that I didn't say that McCarville was better than Lyttle. I believe they had comparable careers, and I said that within the broader context of arguing that none of these sub par #1 picks were terrible choices based on other players that were available. My comment was not intended as a slight towards Sancho Lyttle or a ringing endorsement of Janel McCarville. Both players were starters and role players on teams that had some success. Lyttle has better stats overall, but was never the leading scorer on her team, generally more of a third option. What stands out most is that she had more longevity, so on that basis I may give her a small nod. I also noticed that Sancho Lyttle was the number one choice in the dispersal draft of 2009 (ahead of Matee Ajuvon and Mistie Williams), whereas McCarville was only the #3 choice in the 2007 dispersal draft (behind Monique Currie and Tangela Smith). On the other hand in McCarville's six years as a starter her teams won at a .593 clip, while Lyttle's teams won only .497 in her 8 years as a starter.

So if people want to continue this who is better argument so be it; that was never my point. My point is that, just as in 2005, 2017 did not have any great options as the overall number 1. If Kelsey Plum winds up having a career that is comparable to either McCarville or Lyttle that may be enough to be the best of a bad crop from 2017.


UK1996



Joined: 03 Sep 2015
Posts: 261



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 6:26 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Double post



_________________
Kentucky Wildcats, Sky, & Spurs
Silky Johnson



Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 416



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 6:51 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

calbearman76 wrote:
Silky Johnson wrote:

LOL. Tomato, potato... You say "conceeded [sic] that point and amended his position", I say "moved the goalposts."

It seemed to me that @calbearman76's original argument was based on the premise that Janel McCarville had a better career than Sancho Lyttle, because McCarville got a ring, which makes about as much sense to me as saying that Le'Coe Willingham had a better career than Sophia Young. Why @adamj95 decided to 1) defend what I'd consider to be an indefensible position, and 2) thought that he'd actually laid down the Big Joker with "best post passer in the WNBA" is completely mystifying to me.


Okay. I tried to stay out of this tangent that I started. I didn't realize I was opening up such a hornet's nest, but since my name was invoked I will respond. What I said was:

"Janel McCarville was also a serviceable player but never an All-Star. The only All-Stars were Sancho Lyttle and Kara Braxton, but neither had a better career than McCarville."

Note that I didn't say that McCarville was better than Lyttle. I believe they had comparable careers, and I said that within the broader context of arguing that none of these sub par #1 picks were terrible choices based on other players that were available. My comment was not intended as a slight towards Sancho Lyttle or a ringing endorsement of Janel McCarville. Both players were starters and role players on teams that had some success. Lyttle has better stats overall, but was never the leading scorer on her team, generally more of a third option. What stands out most is that she had more longevity, so on that basis I may give her a small nod. I also noticed that Sancho Lyttle was the number one choice in the dispersal draft of 2009 (ahead of Matee Ajuvon and Mistie Williams), whereas McCarville was only the #3 choice in the 2007 dispersal draft (behind Monique Currie and Tangela Smith). On the other hand in McCarville's six years as a starter her teams won at a .593 clip, while Lyttle's teams won only .497 in her 8 years as a starter.

So if people want to continue this who is better argument so be it; that was never my point. My point is that, just as in 2005, 2017 did not have any great options as the overall number 1. If Kelsey Plum winds up having a career that is comparable to either McCarville or Lyttle that may be enough to be the best of a bad crop from 2017.


But she hasn't had a better career than Lyttle. Lyttle is the more accomplished player, both in the WNBA and internationally. If you think that McCarville has had the better career, you're essentially saying that the one ring that McCarville got as a coattail-rider trumps everything else that Lyttle achieved in her career, which strikes me as ridiculous. I am also intrigued by the notion of you pointing out that Lyttle was "generally" the third option on her team, seemingly as a way of dismissing her numbers, while disregarding the fact that McCarville spent most of her career as a fifth option, or worse.

In terms of the thread's original premise, whether or not McCarville was a "terrible" pick depends on your definition of "terrible." In terms of the team they had at the time, Charlotte probably would have been better off with Lyttle, Braxton, Tan White or Tanisha Wright, but none of them had any business being the #1 overall pick, either. With the benefit of hindsight, the Sting should have traded down; frankly, that should be the go-to move of any team that has the #1 overall pick in a year where there isn't a consensus "can't miss" Number One-type player in the draft. Since I don't watch college sports, I don't know whether or not anyone considered Kelsey Plum to be a "can't miss" type prospect, but it'll probably be 3-4 more years before anybody knows whether she was a "terrible" pick.

P.S. - FWIW, McCarville and Lyttle both had two seasons in their respective careers in which they were one of the Top 2 scoring options on their team (at least in terms of FGA/gm). The combined records for those respective seasons: McCarville 32-36, Lyttle 38-30.



_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
Randy



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 6590



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 7:04 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
Silky Johnson wrote:
justintyme wrote:
The only thing that was arguably incorrect here was "the best post passer" premise. And he did what any intelligent person should do in a debate: when confronted by a resonable counter, listen to it and adjust your argument accordingly. Here he was presented with someone who could be considered a better post passer, so he conceeded that point and amended his position to "best center". This is a much stronger position, and is the way debate/discussion should work.


LOL. Tomato, potato... You say "conceeded [sic] that point and amended his position", I say "moved the goalposts."


I teach all my students to always be revising their positions as counter arguments are presented. It is a sign of a flexible and intelligent mind.

Moving the goalposts involves ignoring a valid counter-argument by changing the debate as a whole (as in what was being argued about, or by changing the standards by which the debate was to be judged). In this case he accepted the counter-argument and adjusted his premise to a more accurate position, agreeing that his original premise was flawed. He kept the same conclusion.

While I agree that the conclusion was flawed, I would not call it "indefensible" nor should it be a source of ridicule.


There was no response that I noticed to my pointing out Sancho's superior stats, All Star and 5 time All WNBA defensive team recognition either.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6462
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 7:20 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Randy wrote:

There was no response that I noticed to my pointing out Sancho's superior stats, All Star and 5 time All WNBA defensive team recognition either.

And that is why I agree with you that the conclusion he drew was flawed. IMO he cherry picked stats to support his conclusion while ignoring that Lyttle was a much, much better defender (I tend to not put much weight on the whole All-Star thing for obvious reasons, but the All-Defense selections is something that cannot be ignored.)

But there is a difference between a conclusion I disagree with and one that can be called "indefensible" or is laugh-worthy. And the main point was that he neither "edited" his post nor "moved the goalpost", which is what I was actually objecting to--that he was being treated unfairly, and somewhat rudely, in this discussion.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
Silky Johnson



Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 416



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 8:03 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

If the argument is not indefensible, then what is the defense? I mean, seriously, contrary to popular opinion, not all opinions are equally valid. Sometimes a person is objectively wrong. And he's wrong about this.



_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6462
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 8:13 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Silky Johnson wrote:
If the argument is not indefensible, then what is the defense?

That McCarville's offensive abilities as a passer, screener (she was considered one of the best in the league at setting screens), and shooter, along with her ability to stretch the floor outweighs Lyttle's defense and post-up ability.

It is a significant stretch to make that claim, and pilight highlighted the easy test for how that all balances, but a legitimate prima facie case could, in fact, be made.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 1428
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 8:42 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Silky Johnson wrote:
calbearman76 wrote:
Silky Johnson wrote:

LOL. Tomato, potato... You say "conceeded [sic] that point and amended his position", I say "moved the goalposts."

It seemed to me that @calbearman76's original argument was based on the premise that Janel McCarville had a better career than Sancho Lyttle, because McCarville got a ring, which makes about as much sense to me as saying that Le'Coe Willingham had a better career than Sophia Young. Why @adamj95 decided to 1) defend what I'd consider to be an indefensible position, and 2) thought that he'd actually laid down the Big Joker with "best post passer in the WNBA" is completely mystifying to me.


Okay. I tried to stay out of this tangent that I started. I didn't realize I was opening up such a hornet's nest, but since my name was invoked I will respond. What I said was:

"Janel McCarville was also a serviceable player but never an All-Star. The only All-Stars were Sancho Lyttle and Kara Braxton, but neither had a better career than McCarville."

Note that I didn't say that McCarville was better than Lyttle. I believe they had comparable careers, and I said that within the broader context of arguing that none of these sub par #1 picks were terrible choices based on other players that were available. My comment was not intended as a slight towards Sancho Lyttle or a ringing endorsement of Janel McCarville. Both players were starters and role players on teams that had some success. Lyttle has better stats overall, but was never the leading scorer on her team, generally more of a third option. What stands out most is that she had more longevity, so on that basis I may give her a small nod. I also noticed that Sancho Lyttle was the number one choice in the dispersal draft of 2009 (ahead of Matee Ajuvon and Mistie Williams), whereas McCarville was only the #3 choice in the 2007 dispersal draft (behind Monique Currie and Tangela Smith). On the other hand in McCarville's six years as a starter her teams won at a .593 clip, while Lyttle's teams won only .497 in her 8 years as a starter.

So if people want to continue this who is better argument so be it; that was never my point. My point is that, just as in 2005, 2017 did not have any great options as the overall number 1. If Kelsey Plum winds up having a career that is comparable to either McCarville or Lyttle that may be enough to be the best of a bad crop from 2017.


But she hasn't had a better career than Lyttle. Lyttle is the more accomplished player, both in the WNBA and internationally. If you think that McCarville has had the better career, you're essentially saying that the one ring that McCarville got as a coattail-rider trumps everything else that Lyttle achieved in her career, which strikes me as ridiculous. I am also intrigued by the notion of you pointing out that Lyttle was "generally" the third option on her team, seemingly as a way of dismissing her numbers, while disregarding the fact that McCarville spent most of her career as a fifth option, or worse.

In terms of the thread's original premise, whether or not McCarville was a "terrible" pick depends on your definition of "terrible." In terms of the team they had at the time, Charlotte probably would have been better off with Lyttle, Braxton, Tan White or Tanisha Wright, but none of them had any business being the #1 overall pick, either. With the benefit of hindsight, the Sting should have traded down; frankly, that should be the go-to move of any team that has the #1 overall pick in a year where there isn't a consensus "can't miss" Number One-type player in the draft. Since I don't watch college sports, I don't know whether or not anyone considered Kelsey Plum to be a "can't miss" type prospect, but it'll probably be 3-4 more years before anybody knows whether she was a "terrible" pick.

P.S. - FWIW, McCarville and Lyttle both had two seasons in their respective careers in which they were one of the Top 2 scoring options on their team (at least in terms of FGA/gm). The combined records for those respective seasons: McCarville 32-36, Lyttle 38-30.


I never said that McCarville had the better career. Indeed I acknowledged that on the basis of longevity I would give the nod to Lyttle. But to consider her time with Minnesota as just being a "coattail-rider" is false. She was an important piece of the offense and the defense, at least according to the advanced net ratings (from WNBA.com). Indeed her +23.4 from 2013 was the highest on the team. This suggests that she was far more than a "coattail-rider", and instead was an important part of the championship.

As for your contention that Charlotte should have traded the pick, do you honestly believe that there was a willing trading partner that would have given any significant compensation for that choice. Indeed it seems as if that was the gamble that San Antonio tried this year, believing they could make a deal with Chicago to switch positions and get some extra benefit. Presumably they didn't want to directly draft Alaina Coates at #1 because a team with so many needs didn't want to draft someone that would likely not play this year. They gambled and lost.


As an aside I didn't remember who the Rookie of the Year was in 2005 so I looked it up. It was Tameka Johnson, another serviceable player who had a decent but not outstanding career. Was she better than either McCarville or Lyttle? I won't even opine. But she was picked sixth, right behind Lyttle.


Randy



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 6590



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 9:00 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
Silky Johnson wrote:
If the argument is not indefensible, then what is the defense?

That McCarville's offensive abilities as a passer, screener (she was considered one of the best in the league at setting screens), and shooter, along with her ability to stretch the floor outweighs Lyttle's defense and post-up ability.

It is a significant stretch to make that claim, and pilight highlighted the easy test for how that all balances, but a legitimate prima facie case could, in fact, be made.


Prima facie case is a pretty low bar.

Her passing ability is over stated because she averaged almost as many TO's as assists (1.9 v 1.7) and scarcely beat Lyttle at 1.6A to 1.5TO. There are no stats or objective measures as to who sets good screens or not so that is just a matter of unsubstantiated opinion. There is, after all, no "All Screen Setting" team, but this is an all defensive team. McCarville had a better shooting percentage, but failed to score as many points, grab as many rebounds, or make as many steals.

Further, its worth point out that Lyttle has played every WNBA season since 2005. McCarville played when she felt like it, or liked the team who held her rights, and did not play in 2011, 2012 and 2015. Lyttle showed up in with a proper playing weight and condition while in later years, at least, McCarville was overweight.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 54928
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 9:10 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

calbearman76 wrote:
As an aside I didn't remember who the Rookie of the Year was in 2005 so I looked it up. It was Tameka Johnson, another serviceable player who had a decent but not outstanding career. Was she better than either McCarville or Lyttle? I won't even opine. But she was picked sixth, right behind Lyttle.


Mighty Mouse certainly had a better rookie season than Lyttle or McCarville. McCarville couldn't get playing time on a terrible Sting team while Lyttle looked like she'd never seen a basketball before in Houston.

I was going to try similarity scores to show the difference between the two, but it isn't helpful. McCarville has decent comps with a handful of reasonably close matches....

924 Kara Braxton
914 DeMya Walker
913 Tari Phillips
911 Murriel Page
902 Tamera Young
900 Ann Wauters
893 Armintie Price
892 Ebony Hoffman
891 Nakia Sanford
887 Latasha Byears
884 Nicole Ohlde

Lyttle, OTOH has no matches as close as any of McCarville's top 10...

872 Janel McCarville
867 Tamika Whitmore
864 Camille Little
862 Asjha Jones
859 Murriel Page
856 Erika Desouza
850 DeMya Walker
849 Rebekkah Brunson
843 Crystal Langhorne
842 Sophia Young
837 Wendy Palmer

Lyttle's list is better, but they don't match nearly as closely as McCarville's.



_________________
Happiness depends, as Nature shows,
Less on exterior things than most suppose
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6462
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 9:18 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Randy wrote:

Prima facie case is a pretty low bar.

I agree completely. But "indefensible" was the claim that I was objecting to, and that is an exacting standard. It's like calling something "inconceivable"....


As for passing, that is one of those "stop looking at the stats and watch the game" things. McCarville would actually initiate and run the offense in many different sets. You show film of the two side by side and it would be clear as day that McCarville was in another league altogether with her vision and passing as compared to Lyttle. Especially if you factor in degree of difficulty of the sorts of passes she made.

And the shooting percentage is more impressive when you consider that she was a stretch center, and her average shot was from a greater distance than Lyttle.

Again, not enough that I would suggest that she was better than Lyttle overall, but enough that a case could be made without ridicule.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 3932
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 9:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Best passing post player vs. best passing center? I love positional nomenclature.

What's the difference between a post player and a center, theoretically or practically? Which one is McCarville? Why one and not the other?

To return to the topic, Plum, I don't think there's any connection between how the league advertises and how VJ coaches. The league should feature whatever players it thinks will draw the most interest to the league. Advertising is not a Player of the Week award. Has Plum in fact received more league promotion than other highly decorated college stars? To answer this, it must be kept in mind that the being the NCAA's leading scorer in history is a rather unique decoration.

As to what coach VJ is doing, it's nothing more than a search to develop the best team she can. That's a subjective process with no objectively right answers. Perhaps she's doing that well or perhaps not. I suspect she may be starting Plum over Jefferson in order to give Plum both experience and mental confidence, and because she doesn't think bringing Jefferson off the bench will diminish Jefferson's confidence.

It's MUCH too early to judge Plum.
sportsfan48



Joined: 17 Nov 2004
Posts: 1088



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 10:08 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

So...getting back on topic, I just went to the WNBA website and the only photo of Plum on the front/home page is a very little one in the bottom left corner.

Does this mean the league has pre-judged her and given up on her too?


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 5438



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 11:19 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

sportsfan48 wrote:
So...getting back on topic, I just went to the WNBA website and the only photo of Plum on the front/home page is a very little one in the bottom left corner.

Does this mean the league has pre-judged her and given up on her too?


Did you check the Stars page? This is the photo they are running along with their mention of an upcoming open practice:



Silky Johnson



Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 416



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 11:45 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

calbearman76 wrote:
As for your contention that Charlotte should have traded the pick, do you honestly believe that there was a willing trading partner that would have given any significant compensation for that choice. Indeed it seems as if that was the gamble that San Antonio tried this year, believing they could make a deal with Chicago to switch positions and get some extra benefit. Presumably they didn't want to directly draft Alaina Coates at #1 because a team with so many needs didn't want to draft someone that would likely not play this year. They gambled and lost.


Hell, if I were Chicago, I wouldn't have, either. You don't give up assets to move up one spot in a weak draft. If San Antonio was serious, they shouldn't have been trying to trade with the team that had the second pick, they should have been trying to trade with the team that had, like, the 6th or 7th picks. Or maybe see if they could con Fred Williams out of two of his three first-round picks.


LATE EDIT - Also, since I forgot to include this the first time:

calbearman76 wrote:
I never said that McCarville had the better career...

What difference does it make that you never said that McCarville had a better career than Lyttle, if you did say that Lyttle didn't have a better career than McCarville, and that is objectively false?



_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard


Last edited by Silky Johnson on 06/12/17 11:53 pm; edited 1 time in total
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 3932
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 11:48 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
Did you check the Stars page? This is the photo they are running along with their mention of an upcoming open practice:



Looks like she's mirror posing in the bathroom of an interstate rest stop. Plus, her shoes don't work.
Silky Johnson



Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 416



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 11:49 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
Randy wrote:

Prima facie case is a pretty low bar.

I agree completely. But "indefensible" was the claim that I was objecting to, and that is an exacting standard. It's like calling something "inconceivable"....


Quote:
in·de·fen·si·ble
[ˌindəˈfensəb(ə)l]
ADJECTIVE

not justifiable by argument:


I stand behind my statement.



_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
J-Spoon



Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 4040



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/12/17 11:54 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Yes for me it is the choice of the coach to start Plum ahead of Jefferson is what I find confusing. I could be wrong but IMO Jefferson was clearly the future (and current) starting PG for the Stars. When SA traded Robinson it seemed clear that Jefferson was the future of that position in SA to the point where they would trade their veteran PG and hand the reigns over. I believe it was after that point that some future early declarees who were slated top picks decided to stay in school that Plum became the main option for the #1 pick. And even then for us basement dwellers it seemed clear that the conversation was can you play Plum and Jefferson together a la Hammon and Robinson? (with the secondary question being is McBride big enough for the 3?), or will Plum have to come off the bench? (More like Perkins.) I don't think it crossed any of our minds that Plum might start instead of Jefferson. And while Plum has a nice resume, Jefferson was a #2 pick (behind a generational talent) and was the PG of a 4 time NCAA championship team running a pro style offense, that isn't a player you send to the bench IMO. So who know what is going on in SA?


root_thing



Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 3893
Location: Underground


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/13/17 12:09 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

In Plum's first start, the announcers said that Jefferson wasn't fully healthy. I don't know if anything else has been said since then. The other possibility is that SAS is still trying to unload Plum, and the only way they can get her trade value up is if she plays and performs well. However, if they don't know how to use her and Kelsey performs badly...

Maybe the moral of the story is that you should only draft players you really want. Or if you already have a trade lined up. Chicago is seemingly in the same boat with Coates.



_________________
We live in a political world
Love don't have any place
We're living in times
Where men commit crimes
And crime don't have any face
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6462
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/13/17 1:20 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Silky Johnson wrote:
justintyme wrote:
Randy wrote:

Prima facie case is a pretty low bar.

I agree completely. But "indefensible" was the claim that I was objecting to, and that is an exacting standard. It's like calling something "inconceivable"....


Quote:
in·de·fen·si·ble
[ˌindəˈfensəb(ə)l]
ADJECTIVE

not justifiable by argument:


I stand behind my statement.

Since a valid argument can be made for it, even if it is a very weak one, it cannot be called "indefensible"

You are taking a subjective issue like who was "better" and treating it as if it were an objective question. As the multiple answers showing up in the "who is the best player in the WNBA" thread should demonstrate this question is always subjective, unless some specific metric by which to objectively judge is agreed upon by all parties. It isn't like there is some line where suddenly the difference in the talent level between two players makes a "better than" debate objective. That just simply isn't how the concept works, even if at some point the agreement on the subjective question becomes unanimous.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
Silky Johnson



Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 416



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/13/17 12:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:

Since a valid argument can be made for it, even if it is a very weak one, it cannot be called "indefensible"


Quote:
val·id
[ˈvaləd]
ADJECTIVE
(of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent:


You and I do not appear to be working from the same definition of "valid."



_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6462
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/13/17 1:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Silky Johnson wrote:
justintyme wrote:

Since a valid argument can be made for it, even if it is a very weak one, it cannot be called "indefensible"


Quote:
val·id
[ˈvaləd]
ADJECTIVE
(of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent:


You and I do not appear to be working from the same definition of "valid."

I provided a valid argument above. As did Adam. They are just not, IMO, nearly as strong as the valid arguments supporting Lyttle. However, because this is a subjective debate that ultimately comes down to how an individual wants to weigh numerous competing factors, it is not limited to one "correct" answer, no matter how many people agree with one position or another. To make one of these "invalid" we would have to objectively define "better" by some standard everyone agrees with. As it is, there's just way too much room to meet the technical requirements for validity. The topic is just too loose, and too subjective. Which again, the other thread should demonstrate clearly, or the LeBron vs. Jordan debates occuring all the time.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
willtalk



Joined: 13 Apr 2012
Posts: 210
Location: NorCal


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/13/17 2:00 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I do not really know much about the two players this argument revolves around, however anyone with the name Sancho was obviously born to play second fiddle.


stever



Joined: 16 Nov 2004
Posts: 6221
Location: Ann Arbor


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/13/17 2:07 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

willtalk wrote:
I do not really know much about the two players this argument revolves around, however anyone with the name Sancho was obviously born to play second fiddle.


You're just tilting at windmills now.



_________________
Women's Basketball Daily
Celebrating the Women's Game Since 2005
WBBDaily Mobile Edition
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 3932
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/13/17 4:37 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I like this discussion of logic, validity, etymology and literature.

Syllogisms, by definition, provide logically true conclusions. What's wrong with this syllogism:

Major premiss: No center can pass as well as Janel McCarville.

Minor premiss: Sue Bird is no center.

Conclusion: Sue Bird cannot pass as well as Janel McCarville.
Randy



Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 6590



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/13/17 4:51 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The conclusion should be Sue Bird can pass as well as McCarville.



No center can pass as well as McCarville. (Major Premise)

Sue Bird = No Center (Minor Premis)

So substitute Sue Bird for No Center and you have

Sue Bird can pass as well as McCarville.


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » WNBA All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin