| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bbsamjj
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 125
Back to top |
 Posted: 07/04/21 8:18 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
I also think some people in this draft class have been hurt by going to teams they didn't quite need their skill set.
McDonald has had some good games, but she went to a team that already had Courtney Williams, Chennedy Carter, Tiffany Hayes, and Odyssey Sims in the backcourt.
Who knows how good Dungee is, but we know she's not better than Arike, Mabrey, Gray, Jefferson, and Harris--all guards who were already on the roster when they picked her at #5.
Onyenwere has proved to be better than expected, but she's also fit right into the system the Liberty were trying to build (and she's also on a team with no true 4s, so there was a gap).
We unfortunately haven't gotten to see either Walker or Davis, though Walker did have 23pts and 9 rebounds in a preseason game--I think she had potential.
In short--I think this board's mock draft did a better job fitting players to teams than the actual GMs.
|
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24359
Location: London
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/04/21 9:03 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| And just generally a crapload of high picks all going to the same team - Dallas - means some of the are likely to be sidelined. You're already developing youth, and there are only so many minutes to go around. They're playing last year's 2, 7 and a bit of 5; this year's 1, 2 and 5 might have to wait. |
|
Rock Hard
Joined: 02 Aug 2010
Posts: 5381
Location: Chocolate Paradise
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/04/21 10:44 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| We all see the elephant in the room. We have talked about it before so I will bring it up again. The league is too small for the amount of talent that is being produced every year. We blame the rookies for not being good enough when the reality is that the league is too small with only twelve teams. Those twelve teams can't all afford to keep a twelve player roster because of financial restrictions.
_________________
You can win, as long as you keep your head to the SKY! Be OPTIMISTIC!
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11155
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/05/21 9:05 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Rock Hard wrote: |
| We all see the elephant in the room. We have talked about it before so I will bring it up again. The league is too small for the amount of talent that is being produced every year. We blame the rookies for not being good enough when the reality is that the league is too small with only twelve teams. Those twelve teams can't all afford to keep a twelve player roster because of financial restrictions. |
Respectfully disagree. Rosters of L.A. and Indiana are my evidence.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
Rock Hard
Joined: 02 Aug 2010
Posts: 5381
Location: Chocolate Paradise
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/05/21 11:30 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
| Rock Hard wrote: |
| We all see the elephant in the room. We have talked about it before so I will bring it up again. The league is too small for the amount of talent that is being produced every year. We blame the rookies for not being good enough when the reality is that the league is too small with only twelve teams. Those twelve teams can't all afford to keep a twelve player roster because of financial restrictions. |
Respectfully disagree. Rosters of L.A. and Indiana are my evidence. |
The Sparks are better than their record. They are missing the Stanford sisters. Indiana has a coaching/management problem. They also should have had a better record than they have now.
_________________
You can win, as long as you keep your head to the SKY! Be OPTIMISTIC!
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16362
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/05/21 11:57 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
| Rock Hard wrote: |
| We all see the elephant in the room. We have talked about it before so I will bring it up again. The league is too small for the amount of talent that is being produced every year. We blame the rookies for not being good enough when the reality is that the league is too small with only twelve teams. Those twelve teams can't all afford to keep a twelve player roster because of financial restrictions. |
Respectfully disagree. Rosters of L.A. and Indiana are my evidence. |
Indiana and LA suggest to me that the problem isn't necessarily the amount of talent, but the distribution of talent. Too much superstar talent pooled on a small number of teams (look at the teams of the Olympic roster, for example).
|
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24359
Location: London
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/05/21 12:27 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| PUmatty wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
| Rock Hard wrote: |
| We all see the elephant in the room. We have talked about it before so I will bring it up again. The league is too small for the amount of talent that is being produced every year. We blame the rookies for not being good enough when the reality is that the league is too small with only twelve teams. Those twelve teams can't all afford to keep a twelve player roster because of financial restrictions. |
Respectfully disagree. Rosters of L.A. and Indiana are my evidence. |
Indiana and LA suggest to me that the problem isn't necessarily the amount of talent, but the distribution of talent. Too much superstar talent pooled on a small number of teams (look at the teams of the Olympic roster, for example). |
I also feel like some of these teams need to try harder. This is why I was saying in another thread that Bria Holmes is an argument against expansion. She's been in the league for five years (six if you count the gap for pregnancy) on three teams, and been consistently barely mediocre everywhere. Meanwhile, players like Sami Whitcomb and Crystal Bradford develop and/or excel overseas, and produce once given a chance. More teams need to dig a bit harder, rather than recycle mediocrity. |
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32336
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/05/21 1:21 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| PUmatty wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
| Rock Hard wrote: |
| We all see the elephant in the room. We have talked about it before so I will bring it up again. The league is too small for the amount of talent that is being produced every year. We blame the rookies for not being good enough when the reality is that the league is too small with only twelve teams. Those twelve teams can't all afford to keep a twelve player roster because of financial restrictions. |
Respectfully disagree. Rosters of L.A. and Indiana are my evidence. |
Indiana and LA suggest to me that the problem isn't necessarily the amount of talent, but the distribution of talent. Too much superstar talent pooled on a small number of teams (look at the teams of the Olympic roster, for example). |
I agree with that. IF! every team had two superstars plus a supporting cast, there would be plenty to go around. Teams who can get the extra talent obviously choose to do so and therein lies the imbalance. That's just the way of sports. It would be that way if we had 20 teams too. There's almost always going to be an Indiana and a Las Vegas. I think there are kids playing in Europe like Bradford who could play in the league if given a chance and there would be more chances if there were more teams. I think what most of us want is competitive play at a fairly high level. Maybe we get spoiled with watching teams that have stars or close to stars at every position, but I don't think it would be any less fun to watch competitive games at a slightly lower level. But then I like watching good college teams so maybe that's not how others see it.
|
|
root_thing
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 7365
Location: Underground
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/05/21 2:43 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| The NHL had six teams during the 1966-67 season. Four finished over .500, Detroit was at .414, and Boston was truly bad at .314. So, even with only six teams, two franchises were weak. The following season, the NHL doubled in size to 12 teams. All franchises added were in the Western Conference. None of these teams finished over .500, but five were competitive with winning percentages ranging from .453 to .493. Only Oakland was truly bad at .318. In the East, five teams were over .500 while Detroit was at .446. So, doubling the size of the league did not result in a collection of terrible teams. Only one fit that description. As we've noted in previous versions of this discussion, everything is relative. If the offense gets diluted, so does the defense. Eventually, everything reaches an equilibrium. There will always be good and bad teams because good and bad are relative conditions.
_________________
You can always do something else.
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11155
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/05/21 3:23 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| root_thing wrote: |
| The NHL had six teams during the 1966-67 season. Four finished over .500, Detroit was at .414, and Boston was truly bad at .314. So, even with only six teams, two franchises were weak. The following season, the NHL doubled in size to 12 teams. All franchises added were in the Western Conference. None of these teams finished over .500, but five were competitive with winning percentages ranging from .453 to .493. Only Oakland was truly bad at .318. In the East, five teams were over .500 while Detroit was at .446. So, doubling the size of the league did not result in a collection of terrible teams. Only one fit that description. As we've noted in previous versions of this discussion, everything is relative. If the offense gets diluted, so does the defense. Eventually, everything reaches an equilibrium. There will always be good and bad teams because good and bad are relative conditions. |
Interesting. Did the Western teams play more games against the West?
One aspect of that particular expansion, though, was that European players seldom played in the NHL at the time, so there was a pool of elite talent available. I don't think that's the case now, as most Euros who are interested in the WNBA are already here.
The quality of the product, of course, is the issue. Will diluting available talent affect attendance and ratings? I tend to think it will; others don't. There's not much available evidence as even what happened in the past might not apply now (due to shifts in participation, rises in other sports, drops in other sports, etc.).
Though a team like L.A. has been battered by injuries, injuries happen every year, and that's not a team I really want to watch. And Indiana may be underutilizing its talent, but I tend to think they just have a lot of bad players. Maybe one or two could improve from bad to below average with better coaching, but that's still not much.
And finally, expansion would not change the distribution of stars, as no team will give them up (well, Chennedy Carter might be available). Ideally teams would protect four, but realistically they'll protect six, which means players not in the league now would have to be rotation players or starters for the new team (s). It just doesn't seem like the expansion teams would be worth watching for a couple years ... except for diehards like us.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32336
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/05/21 3:35 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
And finally, expansion would not change the distribution of stars, as no team will give them up (well, Chennedy Carter might be available). Ideally teams would protect four, but realistically they'll protect six, which means players not in the league now would have to be rotation players or starters for the new team (s). It just doesn't seem like the expansion teams would be worth watching for a couple years ... except for diehards like us. |
while true, there might also be FAs that choose to play at 'home' even with a new team, and the new teams should get the first couple of draft picks to get them started. Expansion teams always take a few years to get going and become competitive.
_________________
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
|
|
Rock Hard
Joined: 02 Aug 2010
Posts: 5381
Location: Chocolate Paradise
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/05/21 3:36 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| If none of today's talented athletic young girls have any interest in playing basketball then an extinction level event should take place ten years from now.💀
_________________
You can win, as long as you keep your head to the SKY! Be OPTIMISTIC!
|
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24359
Location: London
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/05/21 3:46 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| myrtle wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
And finally, expansion would not change the distribution of stars, as no team will give them up (well, Chennedy Carter might be available). Ideally teams would protect four, but realistically they'll protect six, which means players not in the league now would have to be rotation players or starters for the new team (s). It just doesn't seem like the expansion teams would be worth watching for a couple years ... except for diehards like us. |
while true, there might also be FAs that choose to play at 'home' even with a new team, and the new teams should get the first couple of draft picks to get them started. Expansion teams always take a few years to get going and become competitive. |
Historically, both in the NBA and WNBA, expansion teams don't get the top picks. They tend to get the first ones immediately after the lottery. The problem with these things is that you have to get the existing Board of Governors - i.e. the teams already in place - to sign off on the rules for the new ones. Hence the rules don't tend to be great for the new teams. |
|
bbsamjj
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 125
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/05/21 8:54 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I co-sign what others have said that their is plenty of talent to go around, it just often times gets mashed together on one team. In fact, arguably the two best teams in the league--Seattle and Las Vegas--are also the luckiest. Seattle happened to get the #1 pick the years S. Bird, J. Loyd, and B. Stewart were all available. Vegas got the #1 pick the year A. Wilson was available, and while I won't argue fellow #1 picks J. Young or K. Plum are at her level, they are both very good players (not to mention #2 pick Cambage).
The Liberty are also evidence that if you have a well run team with good management, you can attract good players and turn a team around. They didn't stay stagnant from the 2-20 team, they got Howard, Whitcomb, Laney in free agency; then drafted well and got Onyenwere.
I also think the fact that LA started Coffey, Zahui B, Karlie Samuelson, Wheeler, and Sykes against a Storm team (yes, without Loyd, but still), and were leading after 3 quarters is argument that there is enough talent in the league for a another 1-2 competitive teams.
On another board I did the thought exercise where the WNBA adds one team and everyone gets to protect 7 players. Here is who could be immediately available (I am not committed to any of these picks for any team...but for the hypothetical...):
NYL: Jazmine Jones
Atlanta: E. Williams
Chicago: R. Hebard
Dallas: M. Jefferson
CT: Kaila Charles
IND: L. Allen
Vegas: R. Williams
LA: Chiney Ogwumike
MN: N. Anchonwa
Phx: S. Cunningham
Seattle: S. Talbot
Was: T. Plaisance
Potential depth chart of:
E. Williams/R. Hebard
T. Plaisance/N. Acnhonwa
Chiney/Talbot/Charles
R. Williams/Jaz Jones/Cunningham
M. Jefferson/L. Allen
I'm not arguing that team is making the playoffs, but it could be competitive (especially if/when they could add a Bueckers or Clark). And who knows who they could pick up in free agency? If they put a team in Philly, do Copper and Mabrey want to play close to home on close to max contracts? TBD...
|
|
|
|
