| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
WNBA 09
Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 12527
Location: Dallas , Texas
Back to top |
 Posted: 10/05/20 4:08 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| myrtle wrote: |
Arike improved her shot selection this year...but she still hoisted a lot. She played for a pretty bad, non-playoff team. It's hard for me to see how she deserves first team just because of total points, but it's not totally outrageous. I probably would have switched her and DT.
It is kind of outrageous that AT wasn't on the second team. Again, the only thing Bonner did 'better' than her was PPG. Otherwise AT was better across the board. Both of them were of course key to CT's success this year.
Anyway the voters were at least in the ballpark. |
Did she play pretty bad >?
PPG 22.8
APG 3.5
FG% 41.3
3FG% 33.6
FT% 85.6
_________________
3-Time WNBA Champion-3-Time National Champion-4-Time Olympic Champion....And Yes DT "We Got Confeti" lol
|
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32335
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/05/20 4:29 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| I said she played ok herself, but usually they also consider how good the team as a whole did. I think she still hoisted a lot more threes than were great for her or her team. I don't think she was terrible, but I also don't think she was one of the best five players in the league this year. Obviously enough people voting thought otherwise. [shrug] jmo.
_________________
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman
|
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24344
Location: London
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/05/20 4:43 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| myrtle wrote: |
| I don't think she was terrible, but I also don't think she was one of the best five players in the league this year. |
Part of the problem is that 'best two (or four) guards' is rather different than 'best five (or ten) players'. They're still doing these things vaguely by position, even if they mess with them a bit to shove players in sometimes. Finding guards for these teams is invariably harder than finding frontcourt players.
Despite which, I still don't think Diggins-Smith should've been on either of these teams... |
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32335
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/05/20 5:00 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Richyyy wrote: |
| myrtle wrote: |
| I don't think she was terrible, but I also don't think she was one of the best five players in the league this year. |
Part of the problem is that 'best two (or four) guards' is rather different than 'best five (or ten) players'. They're still doing these things vaguely by position, even if they mess with them a bit to shove players in sometimes. Finding guards for these teams is invariably harder than finding frontcourt players.
Despite which, I still don't think Diggins-Smith should've been on either of these teams... |
agree. I was pretty shocked at that at first. But then looked at her numbers...and they are better than I had imagined. My first thought was to just call AT a guard since she brings the ball down the court a lot. If you're going to screw around with positions anyway, why not?
_________________
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman
|
|
mavcarter
#NATC
Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Posts: 5935
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66885
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24344
Location: London
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/05/20 6:43 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I completely agree that on-court/off-court stats are very noisy and prone to weirdness - and absolutely have to be taken in context. But when you've got a large enough sample size and they at least resemble the eye-test, I think there's value to them. New York were, statistically, very significantly better with Odom on the floor than off it. Megan Walker is even more extreme at the opposite end of that list, which fits.
Phoenix were startlingly, staggeringly worse with Diggins-Smith on the floor this season - https://stats.wnba.com/team/1611661317/onoffcourt-summary/?Season=2020&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&sort=DIFF_NET_RATING&dir=-1 . I still give her credit for her basic production - someone still has to score - and 210 minutes of off-court time isn't a huge sample, but it still leaps out at you. Most of the difference comes at the defensive end, where every other 'Mercury lineups without X' had defensive ratings anywhere from 96.9 to 104.5 but 'Mercury lineups without Diggins-Smith' had a defensive rating of 84.8. That matches with the eye-test, because she was pretty visibly awful on the defensive end all season.
The numbers also suggest they were better offensively without her on the floor, by the way, just not by anywhere near as much. |
|
mavcarter
#NATC
Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Posts: 5935
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/05/20 6:57 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| Sure, but that road leads to Leaonna Odom being Rookie of the Year (her net +/- is eight points better than any other rookie who played significant minutes) |
LMAO, cut it out.
| pilight wrote: |
| There are so many extraneous factors in +/- that it's not even worth looking at. |
Don’t think it holds a lot of weight but I don’t think it’s absolutely useless either._________________
| wrote: |
| Or maybe said poster should quit being a nuisance when people don’t agree? |
|
|
Iluvacc
Joined: 11 Jun 2005
Posts: 4167
Back to top |
|
SpaceJunkie
Joined: 10 Sep 2012
Posts: 4241
Location: Minnesota
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/05/20 9:03 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| I plead guilty to doubting Arike, though I'd still have Taurasi 1st team over her and Arike 2nd team. I'm not sure how big of a crime it is that I thought Diggins-Smith should be 2nd team All-WNBA without paying any attention to her +/-.
|
|
RavenDog
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 6878
Location: Home
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/06/20 11:56 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Who were the voters?
|
|
|
|
