Women's Basketball 24.7

"There is no offseason"

2019 All Star Break Team Stats Comparison

by

As the season has gone past the midway point, let’s take a look at home teams are stacking up in various statistical categories.

Net Rating:

The blue bar represents points scored per 100 possessions and the red bar represents points given up per 100 possessions.  The difference is the team’s net rating.  While three teams enter the break tied in the loss column at the top of the standings, there is a clear winner in offense so far this season.  The Washington Mystics are scoring nearly 9 points more per 100 possessions than any other team.  Connecticut is the next best offensive team and also tied with them in the standings while having the second best defense.  Las Vegas, on the other hand, joins these teams in the standings with a different focus, having the toughest defense by more than 3.5 points per 100 possessions.

Overall, the teams currently in playoff places are the ones with positive net ratings.  Indiana may be tied for last place in the loss column, but they have the least negative net rating among teams currently on the outside looking in as their third best offense is offset by their worst defense.  The other teams in their predicament struggle in both categories with the next three worst defenses and the three worst offenses.

Change from 2018:

The blue bar represents the change in offensive rating between the whole season last year and this season to date with a positive number meaning an improvement this season.  The red bar represents the change in defensive rating between the whole season last year and this season to date with a negative number meaning an improvement this season. The green bar represents the change in net rating between the whole season last year and this season to date with a positive number meaning an improvement this season.

Much has been made about the decrease in scoring this season and this chart clearly shows the difference as Indiana made a solid improvement to their offense and Washington is seeing an incremental improvement, but the rest of the league has seen drops of more than 2.5 points per 100 possessions.  Attlanta is the only team with a worse defense, compounding their issues in a season where their offensive output has declined by more than 11 points per 100 possessions, giving them the worst decrease in net rating among all teams.  Star absences may also help to explain some of the other teams that had precipitous drops in offensive output.  Chicago still has a below average defense, but their improvement in that category from the worst in the league last season helps explain their rise in the standings.  Like the Sky, Las Vegas did not have an increase in offense, but their defensive improvement by more than 15 points per 100 possessions to the best in the league gave them the best net rating improvement.  Indiana improved in both categories like Washington, but they are still outside the playoff picture and New York’s overall improvement still leaves them short of their postseason aspirations for now.

Rebounding:

The y-axis represents the percentage of opponent misses that a team grabs and the x-axis represents percentage of a team’s own misses that it grabs.  Teams further to the right are proficient at offensive rebounding and teams higher up are proficient at defensive rebounding.  Using rebounding percentage as a measure of rebounding is more useful because it is independent of the number of missed shots.  Separating offensive and defensive rebounding helps as well because while defensive rebounding is important for all teams, offensive rebounding is often based on strategic choices by a team.

Connecticut takes care of the boards on both ends of the floor, grabbing the highest percentage of their own misses, a category they were league leaders in last year, and having the second best defensive rebounding percentage.  Las Vegas makes it easier on their defense by corralling their opponents’ misses better than any other team.  Dallas may grab the second highest percentage of offensive rebounds, but all the extra opportunities have not helped their offensive efficiency.  Phoenix rebounds the lowest percentage of their own misses by more than three percentage points, two percentage points lower than their league low from last year.  Atlanta is struggling with defensive rebounding despite being above average on the other end of the floor.

Home vs. Road:

Homecourt advantage has been a known effect in basketball for a long time so it should come as no surprise that every team has a better net rating at home than on the road so far this season.  The blue bars represent the difference in points per 100 possessions scored at home.  The red bars represent the difference in points per 100 possessions give up at home with a negative number meaning a better defense at home.  The green bar is the difference in net rating at home and teams are listed in order of how much more efficient they are overall at home.  Atlanta is the only team with worse offense at home, but only by a slim margin while Phoenix is the only team to play worse defense at home.  The disparity is so strong that only Washington and Las Vegas have positive net ratings on the road.  Given the teams different performances depending on venue, there could be insights to be gained in the playoff chase by how many games teams have left at home.

Los Angeles could be poised for a strong rest of the season, having battled through a schedule with more road games than anyone else.  With twice as many home games left as road games, they should be in good shape even though their homecourt advantage is only about average and they will continue to not have their full roster for a number of games.  Chicago has the most road games left of any team and while their offense has been about the same everywhere, their defense is worse on the road by a wider margin than any team.  Unlike the other two top teams so far, Connecticut plays poorly on the road, sitting in the middle of the pack in net rating away from home.  At home, they have the second best offensive and defensive ratings, only behind Washington on offense and Las Vegas on defense, thus giving them the biggest overall homecourt advantage.  While they look to be outside of the playoffs, Dallas will still be on the hunt for their first road win, but their struggles are clear as they have a positive net rating at home, which explains their 5-5 record there, but the play worse on the road by the second biggest margin.

WNBA Free Agent List 2019!

by

January 12, 2019

WNBA Free Agency is just around the corner! Teams can officially begin to contact players and their representatives beginning the 15th of January. In the past it’s been difficult to gather a list of who is available but we’ve exclusively obtained this year’s free agency list. There are four different types of free agents. Below is an explanation of the different designations in free agency.

CORE PLAYERS – The Core designation gives that team exclusive negotiating rights with the player. Players can receive a Core designation only four times in their career.

RESERVED PLAYERS – Players with three or fewer years of service are considered to be Reserved Players. The player’s prior team has exclusive negotiating rights.

RESTRICTED FREE AGENTS – Players with four or five years of service are considered to be Restricted Free Agents. Restricted free agency gives the player’s prior team the right to keep the player by matching a contract offer the player signs with another team (Right of First Refusal). If the player signs a contract offer with another team, the player’s prior team has four days from the date it receives the offer to determine whether it wishes to match. If the offer is matched, the player will remain with her team. If the offer is not matched within the four-day period, the player will be under contract with the offering team.

UNRESTRICTED FREE AGENTS – An unrestricted free agent is free to sign with any team provided that she is not designated as a Core Player by her prior team.

See the list of free agents below and head over to our facebook page to discuss who you want your team to sign…

[Read more…]

International Names to Know for the 2019 WNBA Draft

by

Last year’s draft tied the 12 team era mark for most legal international draft picks.  The strength of that draft class internationally was known for a number of years, but the 1999-born group has been steadily gaining momentum as the players have gotten older.  Could last year’s total be in danger after this draft?  Here are some of players who could hear their name called next year and some lesser known players who could be surprise picks (name, potential position, national team, club team with country listed if not the same as national team):

Ezi Magbegor, PF, Australia, Melbourne Boomers

Generally considered the safest international prospect in this draft, Magbegor enters it having decided against heading to the United States for college, instead playing professionally.  Economic realities for almost all Australian players mean that she will be looking to come over as soon as possible and is more likely to be available whenever possible than internationals from other countries.  That means that a team might need to be willing to use a roster spot on her before she can produce as her skill level catches up to her athleticism, but for a team with a set rotation drafting later, her value could be hard to pass.  An injury has limited her club minutes this season, but executives will be hoping that they get more of a chance to see her for the rest of the season before they pull the trigger. There are the auto accident lawyers in Mcallen that also deal with other kinds of injury cases.

Monique Conti, PG, Australia, Melbourne Boomers

Having played national league minutes for several seasons, Conti is no stranger to tough competition and a well known name from youth national team exploits.  A particularly young prospect in this draft class, she most certainly would not back down from a challenge.  Australia is historically a reliable place to find WNBA talent as financial realities mean that coming here is the best option, but that has changed somewhat in recent years.  In the case of Conti, teams will wonder about her long term commitment to basketball as she also plays Australian Rules Football, but she will have been on the radar for longer than most of the players on this list.

Li Yueru, C, China, Guangdong

Having consistently put up numbers since her professional debut, Li has fallen behind some of the other names in attention, but her production has not slowed this season with Guangdong.  While there is no doubting her ability locally, the questions about her long term potential due to athleticism and motor do persist.  Her extensive experience playing with and against WNBA players should make her ready to contribute on the offensive end very quickly even if she needs to expand her skills long term.  Her club’s reliance on her now over more established veterans will mean that there will be plenty to evaluate before the draft.

Han Xu, C, China, Xinjiang

A big game against the United States at the World Cup moved Han from a player that everyone was looking forward to seeing to a player who could have the tools to be considered the top international prospect in the draft.  In that game, the flashes of offensive ability that she showed in other settings came together for an impressive scoring outburst.  While she may not be quick, her height and defensive instincts should make her an imposing figure in the paint in the near future.  Paired with the league’s most lethal scoring threat for most of the season, her club numbers are not spectacular, but show that she continues to play her role as she adjusts to this level of play for the first time and her recent increase in production is noteworthy.

Livia Gereben, SF, Hungary, Szekszard

The commitment to developing young players by Hungary in recent years has been commendable with plenty of domestic league time devoted to giving minutes and experience to new players.  They are still looking to have an elite talent from this generation that can make it on a European if not global scale and Gereben is the hope of their 1999 birth year players.  Playing key minutes for Szekszard for several seasons now, her continued development will be focused on rounding out her skillset to be a more complete small forward.  There will be no shortage of tape for evaluators to watch before they decide on whether to risk a late round pick.

Tima Pouye, PG, France, Tarbes

The trend among French prospects has moved towards coming to the United States for college with minutes hard to come by in a very deep professional league, but there has tended to be at least one draft-caliber prospect staying and being eligible for the international route each season.  This birth year’s talent is Pouye, a young point guard who helped Tarbes make a surprise run to the finals last season.  The team has opted to give her a bigger role this season, with somewhat inconsistent results, but the talent is clearly there.  The question will be whether teams feel that it is at a level where the pick needs to be made now or if she will be a possible free agent target in the future.

Zala Friskovec, SG, Slovenia, Celje

Few young players have been putting up numbers like Friskovec at both the club and youth national team levels.  She has been playing for local powerhouse Celje and has now gotten her chance to play on a bigger club stage.  The youth friendly region has had a history of producing draft picks, but her team is filled with young players and it will be difficult to determine whether her production is due to being a bigger talent than her teammates and how much of her game will transfer at higher levels.  If her shooting ability at this age is any indication, she could one day be considered one of Europe’s best in that category.

Melisa Brcaninovic, SF, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Gyor (Hungary)

Having left her homeland at a very young age to pursue better economic opportunities, Brcaninovic has certainly been highlighted as a prospect for this draft for a while.  She spent a year off the radar in Lebanon before Schio astutely snapped her up on a long term deal, loaning her out to the second division in Italy, where she carried on the Bosnian tradition of players that can do a little bit of everything.  The next step was supposed to be this season in Hungary, but it has been radio silence since a productive preseason with only spot minutes of national team play.  She is certainly a player who could work her way back into the draft picture in the upcoming months.

Ilayda Guner, C, Turkey, Istanbul University

Already a productive member of the full national team, Guner will be putting up impressive stats this season in the deepest league outside the WNBA.  She is getting this opportunity because her club has backed away from being one of the top teams in the league, playing their youth instead of signing big name foreign players.  That does mean that her stats are inflated, but it also gives teams the chance to compare her better directly with the top players that she is facing regularly.

Inci Guclu, C, Turkey, Galatasaray

Is there a height at which a player should automatically be considered a prospect? Guclu was last measured standing at 6’9″.  Her lack of youth national team play last summer and few minutes at the club level last season left her as a bit of mystery coming into this season, but she has gotten spot minutes this season.  As might be expected with her youth, she is still raw, but teams will certainly be trying to figure out what she could become given a few more years of development.  With picks at the end of the draft often wasted, could a team find long term value late?

Klara Lundquist, PG, Sweden, Sodertalje

After producing several eye-catching scoring outputs in Sodertalje’s foray into continental play, Lundquist has certainly increased her notoriety in Europe after solid youth national team play and an introduction to the full national team.  Her team will only have the domestic league to worry about now, which makes it harder to compare her accomplishments, but it will also give her the chance to demonstrate some of her playmaking abilities.  While she is an accomplished scorer, the current uptick in her shooting percentages will have to be watched to see if she has made the genuine strides in that area which will make the difference when she hits the next level.

*VIDEO* ADIDAS ‘When Creators Unite, She Breaks Barriers’

by

December 11, 2018

On Monday during the NFL’s weekly Monday Night Football game, Adidas released their latest ad to empower women and girls in sport. It’s core message is that sports brings confidence and with confidence brings tomorrow’s leaders. All women should be given the opportunity to participate and break barriers in sport. WNBA champion Candace Parker who is one of Adidas’ most famous athletes is featured in the ad. To show their commitment, Adidas released an open letter to its employees and to communities around the country. The letter called on everyone to join the effort and together, level the playing field and co-create the future of women’s sport. Follow the brand’s initiative with the hashtag #creatorsunite. She Breaks Barriers film below.

Las Vegas Aces Ji-su Park Named WKBL Round 1 MVP

by

Ji-su Park is currently 10th in scoring and 3rd in rebounding this season.

October 26, 2018

WNBA rookie Ji-su Park is off to a great start in her home country being named MVP of the first round of play in the Korean League. Park led her team to a 5-1 start while averaging a double double of 12 points and 11 rebounds. KB Stars currently sit in second place just behind defending champions Woori Bank. Her time spent in the WNBA looks to be paying off as she has been more physical and a more all around player. She averages almost 5 assists as a center. Her work this season will pay dividends when she returns to the Aces this summer more prepared for play in the W.

Young Players to Watch at World Cup

by

This year’s World Cup has a number of players who find themselves drafted next year or in the future.  While most countries tend to rely on their more experienced players, more young players than usual are going to be expected to contribute in this tournament.  Teams listed with players’ names are for the upcoming season and the year is the earliest in which the player can be eligible to be drafted.

Australia:

Ezi Magbegor, C, Melbourne Boomers (Australia), 2019: The clear favorite to be the top international player in this draft class, Magbegor had a difficult decision about whether or not to delay her WNBA dreams by attending college.  By opting not to do so, she immediately put herself in position to be drafted in the first round next year.  This will be the first big chance to see her on an international stage since then as she will be watched closely over the next few months before teams make a decision on where she stands relative to the older college players that she will be competing with for draft position.

Alanna Smith, PF, Stanford, 2019: A mildly surprising inclusion into the Opals roster that qualified for this event last year, she ended up putting up several big scoring outputs.  Smith was asked to play a bigger role in her last college season as she was able to better show off her versatility as a forward.  The team this year has a need for a forward and getting named ahead of more established players is worth noting again.

Canada:

Bridget Carleton, SG, Iowa State, 2019: Canada has relied on a number of veterans over the past few cycles, but with some of them hitting retirement, new faces are being called upon to step up in their place.  A contributor at the youth team level, Carleton has improved in each season in college and there is no reason to suggest that she will not be among the top scorers from power conference teams this year.  While she did not shoot particularly well last year in qualifying for this event, she may find herself coming off the bench with the task of dialing it up from distance again.

Shay Colley, SG, Michigan State, 2019: Colley is not likely to be in this year’s draft as a year sitting out due to transfer gives her two more college seasons, but she was given a prominent role off the bench last summer as they qualified for this tournament.  As a multi-dimensional guard, she fits well with her teammates here and at Michigan State, but she will has some development ahead of her to establish herself as a professional.

China:

Han Xu, C, Xinjiang (China), 2019: It has been clear for several years that there would be a Chinese player in consideration for the 2019 draft.  More recently, the emerging opinion is that there should be two.  Han has been more under the radar than her fellow young post player, playing at the school level last year, but her play this summer, starting with preseason games against WNBA teams, may lift her higher as a prospect.  Of the two, Han has better defensive tools, and while her offensive game is nowhere near as refined, has still shown some ability to knock down jumpers.  The big jump in competition will provide evaluators a better opportunity to see what she might be able to do in the future before the club season, when she will regularly be matched up against WNBA players.

Li Yuan, PG, Shandong (China), 2020: The youngest player in the tournament, Li has earned her spot with a solid summer for the team throughout the training process.  While she has been off the club radar since playing up an age group at the last U19 World Championship, she will have plenty of chances to be evaluated for future potential before anyone has to make a decision.  While she will not be the primary creator on the court with the team’s experienced wings, there could still be a role here for her with the guard mix still up in the air.

Li Yueru, C, Guangdong (China), 2019: Li has been considered a prospect for the upcoming draft since breaking out at the youth national team level and then making an early splash at the professional level.  Accustomed to getting her chances even with more experienced teammates, she will get the chance to show what she can do even with more experienced teammates contributing.  Her post game is fairly polished and she is not the type of player to back down from a challenge, but this will be the start of her needing to answer questions about her long term prospects on a global scale, especially if athleticism is a concern.

Greece:

Eleanna Christinaki, SG/SF, no club, 2019: Known for a turbulent college career at both Florida and Maryland, Christinaki was actually eligible for the last draft if she had decided to leave school sooner.  Teams taking late round chances on talent alone could do far worse.  Her exact professional destination is unknown at this point, making this tournament extra important for her if she wants to start out on a bigger stage, but she will have to pick her moments on a roster filled with veterans.

Mariella Fasoula, C, Vanderbilt, 2019: National team play is the only time that anyone has seen Fasoula in action recently after sitting out the last season to transfer.  While she is eligible for next year’s draft age-wise, it seems more likely that she plays out her college career at this point.  This will be another good chance to see what she can do, but how she plays for a new school will be a bigger factor in how teams see her in the future, especially since she is unlikely to contribute anything other than defense and rebounding with more established scorers on the roster.

Japan:

Monica Okoye, SF, Iris (Japan), 2019: Japan’s rise in basketball has led to a shift in development as young players are now hitting the professional ranks earlier instead of spending their time in the university league.  While that has exposed players to higher level play, most are not ready to contribute immediately and Okoye falls in that category.  Teams are unlikely to see anything soon that would make them pull the trigger next year, but sustained skills development as she shifts down positions and the faith shown in her by naming her to this team could see her be a notable player down the road.

Latvia:

Kitija Laksa, SF, South Florida, 2019: Latvia was finally able to call on a full strength squad again last summer and were rewarded with a place in this tournament.  Laksa’s shooting helped them at critical times as her role with this team is likely to be different than what evaluators see in her college games given the experienced playmakers on this roster.  College play will likely determine her WNBA potential, but this will be her opportunity to be a bigger name on an international level.

Digna Strautmane, SF, Syracuse, 2020: Having just finished her first year in college, it may be a while before anyone thinks about her pro potential, but Strautmane’s impact internationally before and after she arrived in school means that she will always be a player to watch.  A versatile forward, she will not be called on to score as she as she did at the youth national team level, but she could certainly fill in at a variety of roles when she is needed the most.  Three more years of college development could make her a totally different player by the time 2021 rolls around although she can be picked in 2020 based on age.

Puerto Rico:

Isalys Quinones, PF, Dartmouth, 2019: She is likely to be drafted higher than anyone else in this article in 2019, but that will probably come in the Puerto Rican League Draft.  A California native, Quinones has improved each season in college.  With the national team needing depth in the post to supplement their guard-oriented play, she helped them to reach this stage and make history.  While she may not be a WNBA prospect, she can certainly have a long career professionally if she chooses to pursue it as the Puerto Rican League will be waiting.

Senegal:

Yacine Diop, SF, Louisville, 2019: A key part of Pitt’s brief resurgence, Diop has opted to spend her last college season at Louisville, where evaluators will be able to see her alongside other prospects on a regular basis ahead of the draft.  It will be a good opportunity for her to show that she can continue to demonstrate her scoring prowess with improved efficiency.  While there are a number of established players on this team, there is a role for her here, which will help her become better known around the world after relative obscurity, something that should help her throughout her professional career.

South Korea:

Park Ji-Hyun, SF, no club, 2020: After a player was drafted from South Korea in the latest draft and played immediately, could there be another one soon?  Like the last young phenom in the country, Park has been fast-tracked to the senior national team, earning her spot with a productive summer.  There will be plenty of time to evaluate where she stands compared to other prospects, especially as she makes the jump from the scholastic level to the professional level at home.  The commitment to expanding her skillset beyond creating for herself bodes well for her future as one of the best Korean players and the opportunity to expand that globally.

Turkey:

Ilayda Guner, C, Istanbul University (Turkey), 2019: Coming off an excellent summer at the youth national team level, Guner earned a spot on this roster as she has been slowly integrated into the senior setup recently.  She may not get much time to show what she can do here, but the more youthful approach taken by Istanbul University recently should afford her the chance to play big minutes in the coming year.

2018 WNBA Team Stats Update

by

Now that the regular season is complete, let’s take a look at how teams fared in a variety of statistical categories and how those compare to their performances last year.

Net Rating:

This chart shows offensive rating in blue and defensive rating in red for each team and is sorted by points per 100 offensive possessions.  The difference between the two is the net rating as all four non-playoff teams had negative net ratings and all eight playoff teams had positive net ratings.  Defense was a common thread among the worst teams in the league as the five with losing records had the five worst in the league.  The two teams that were worst on offense ended up struggling the most as their porous defenses also did not help them pick up wins.  The two teams that ended up with the best records had different approaches.  Seattle’s dominance was built at both ends of the court, ranking second at both types of efficiency.  Atlanta had the league’s best defense, getting just enough on offense to win a number of close games.

Change from 2017:

Teams are ranked by their offensive improvement as the blue bar represents the change in offensive rating and the red bar represents the change in the defensive rating.  Team win totals changes are listed next to the team name.  A negative change in defensive rating is good because it means fewer points were given up per 100 possessions.  Even though Bill Laimbeer has a reputation as a defensive coach, it was the offensive change that was in the right direction for the Aces as they had a greater improvement in that category than any team.  Seattle’s improvement was on both ends of the court, especially defensively and Atlanta’s similar improvements showed why both increased their win totals the most.  Washington and Dallas also improved in both categories even though Dallas did not improve their record.  The three teams that had the best net ratings a season ago all saw them drop drastically, contributing to the three worst drops in wins.  The Liberty had the third best defense a year ago, but ended up with the third worst this season and their offensive efficiency also decreased.  Minnesota was the leader in both categories last year and saw large drops while Los Angeles still maintained the second best defense even with a decrease while watching their offense suffer as well.

Rebounding:

Defensive rebounding is shown on the y-axis while offensive rebounding is shown on the x-axis and both are expressed in percentages of opportunities available.  Separating the two is especially important in evaluating defensive rebounding as different teams show different levels of interest in offensive rebounds compared to getting back on defense.  Minnesota featured two of the top rebounders of all time and as a result were the best in the league at limiting their opponents’ opportunities.  Chicago was the only team to fail to even grab 70% of their opponents’ misses, which may have contributed to their league-worst defensive efficiency.  Connecticut and Dallas were among the league leaders in both categories, but were especially dangerous on the offensive end.  The Sparks were average on the defensive end, but were the only team to grab less than 22% of their own misses, which may reflect a strategic decision.  Phoenix was second worst in both categories.

Change from 2017:

The x-axis represents change in offensive rebound percentage and the y-axis represents change in defensive rebound percentage.  Both are measured in absolute terms and not as a percentage change.  Three teams improved in both categories with Seattle’s new look frontcourt clearly helping them on the glass with the biggest gains in both categories.  Four teams decreased in both categories, but none as severely as the Liberty as their general downfall was shown quite clearly as they were the league leader in both categories last season, but fell back into the pack this year.  The Sun had a big jump to become the league’s best offensive rebounding team while Minnesota shored up their defensive rebounding even though they had a similar decrease on the offensive end.

There were few other interesting team stats changes this year in other categories.  Minnesota was the only team to not improve their assist to turnover ratio this season.  The biggest improvement was shown by Las Vegas, which saw the amount of possessions ending in a turnover drop by five and a half percentage points, which had to be a factor in their improved offensive efficiency.  Free throw rates dropped for most teams, leading to a decreased reliance on the stripe as a source for points while most teams got a higher percentage of their points from the behind the arc with the Aces as a notable exception due to finally having a post presence.  New frontcourt players also changed the rates at which teams block shots as Seattle and Dallas had the biggest jumps.

Points by Type and Opponent Stats:

The chart on the left shows how teams got their points while the chart on the right shows how they gave them up on the defensive end.   The bottom of each bar is two pointers, the middle is three pointers, and the top is free throws.  Las Vegas was the team that was least reliant on generating offense behind the arc, 7 percentage points below the next closest team and the only team to not score at least 20% of their points from distance.  Unsurprisingly they were first in percentage on points from inside the arc and second in percentage on points from the line.  Phoenix was the only team to score less than half their points from inside the arc while Seattle was the only team to get more than 30% of their points from long range.  There was much less variation on the defensive end, but the Liberty gave up the highest percentage of opposition points on three pointers and free throws.

Looking at the stats put up by opponents can also be useful in other categories.  The Sparks forced a greater percentage of turnovers than any other team, helping their opponents have a worse collective assist to turnover ratio than any individual team.  The Sky were in the middle of the pack when it came to forcing turnovers so the high assist to turnover ratio of their opponents should be attributed to a large number of assisted field goals.  Los Angeles was the best team at avoiding having their shots blocked while Chicago had the worst percentage.  The Liberty gave their opponents the most free throws compared to field goal attempts while the Lynx and Storm gave up the lowest free throw rates.

Home vs. Road:

The blue bars represent the difference in offensive rating on their home court and on opposing courts and the red bar represents the difference in defensive rating on their home court and on opposing courts.  A negative number for defensive rating means that the team has a more efficient defense at home and teams were sorted in order of the biggest difference in offensive rating.  Each team the difference between home wins and road wins next to their name.  Four teams were more than three wins better on their home courts and they were better on defense on their home courts.  Dallas and Connecticut were five wins better at home as they had the two biggest offensive advantages while Washington was the only other team to be more efficient on both ends of the court.  Los Angeles and Atlanta, on the other hand, had the two biggest defensive improvements at home, but both had less efficient offenses.  Indiana and Phoenix were the only teams to win more games on the road than at home and it appears that worse defense should be blamed as both teams were better offensively at home.  All teams were better on at least one end of the court at home.

The y-axis shows the difference in defensive rebound percentage at home compared to the road while the x-axis shows the difference in offensive rebound percentage at home compared to the road.  Scale is based on absolute percentage points and not the ratio between the two.  Five teams grab a higher percentage of misses at both ends of the court at home while Indiana is significantly worse at home on both ends and Minnesota less so.  The Sun are the best team overall at offensive rebounding, but that advantage seems to come primarily on the road where their percentage is more than five and a half points higher than their closest competition.  The Sky and Mercury are the two worst defensive rebounding teams in the league, but that should be blamed more on their inability to secure rebounds on the road than at home.

Seattle and Los Angeles turned the ball over more at home than on the road, leaving them as the only two teams with a worse assist to turnover ratio at home while Chicago managed to avoid a similar fate despite difficulties hanging on to the basketball at home.  There was no overall trend for block percentage, but the league’s best shotblocking team Atlanta made sure to give their home fans a little extra to cheer about defensively while Connecticut was more likely to be silencing the opposing fans.  Free throw attempts as a ratio of field goal attempts was a little higher at home, but not dramatically so.

2018 WNBA Individual Stats Update

by

With more and more types of statistics available, let’s take a look at the league leaders in a variety of non-traditional measures.  Players who were on the court for 700 possessions are included with the last team listed for players who appeared for multiple teams this year.

Usage:

24 players were responsible for terminating at least 23% of their team’s possessions while they were on the court.  While there are plenty of recognizable players on the list, there are also a number of new faces as four rookies and three players who were out last season are in this group.  The impact of the return of Liz Cambage to the Wings was obvious as she had a higher usage than anyone else while A’ja Wilson was certainly called on to carry the load for Las Vegas early.  Tina Charles continues to be the main force for the Liberty as the higher number of possessions that she played meant that she terminated more possessions than any other player.  Using usage instead of counting statistics is a good way of better understanding the impact of bench players and starters who may play fewer minutes.  Amanda Zahui B played fewer possessions than the other players on this list, but when she was in, she was often the endpoint of the possession.  A couple midseason moves also had clear impacts as Cappie Pondexter changed the dynamics around the Indiana Fever, which had been giving plenty of opportunities to Kelsey Mitchell in their rebuilding process.  The trade of Alex Bentley also led to a high usage player switching teams, which could turn out to be critical after Atlanta lost Angel McCoughtry.

Effective Field Goal Percentage:

Using the effective field goal percentage instead of the traditional field goal percentage helps take into account the value of the three pointer, allowing those who rely on shooting from the outside to be included among post players who take higher percentage opportunities.  20 players were over 55% once the added point from three pointers is taken into account.  This method favors post players who can also shoot from outside so it was Jonquel Jones who led this category by a wide margin.  Even in this measure, Sylvia Fowles finished second, showing the reliability of her offensive contributions even though she does not venture beyond the arc.  While plenty of traditional posts are on this list, some of the league’s renowned sharpshooters got a solid boost with this method.

Free Throw Rate:

Free throw rate measures the ratio of free throw attempts to field goal attempts.  15 players attempted at least 40% as many free throws as field goals.  Alaina Coates did not play much in her rookie season, but a significant portion of her offensive attempts came at the stripe as she attempted less than twice as many field goals as free throws, the only one on the list to hit that level.  Liz Cambage leads the higher usage players on this list and that helped Dallas have the highest rate as a team.  The group is a mixture of post players, who often find themselves getting fouled as they try to generate offense, and slashers whose style lead to trips to line on their drives.

Rebound Percentage:

Using percentage instead of simply relying on rebounding totals helps us identify some of the players who play fewer minutes who are still proficient at grabbing boards.  Separating offensive and defensive rebounding is also important because different teams have different strategic approaches to rebounding, especially on the offensive end.  19 players grabbed at least 8% of the available offensive rebounds while they were on the court and 19 players grabbed at least 20% of the defensive rebounds available when they were on the court.

It does not matter which end of the court that we are talking about when it comes to Sylvia Fowles crashing the boards.  She was the league leader in both categories and the amount of time she spent on the court compared to her closest competitors make those margins even more impressive.  Courtney Paris did not play as many minutes, but when she did, she rebounded prolifically as her addition to Seattle frontcourt was part of the reason that they had league high improvement in both categories this year.  9 players appeared on both lists.  Brittany Boyd stands out as the lone guard on these lists as the Liberty’s decrease in rebounding prowess this year cannot be blamed on her.

2018 WNBA Career Stats Update

by

With the regular season complete, let’s take a look at the players who moved up the career charts this year.  Players who were active this season are highlighted.

Points:

This was a landmark season for a number of players on the scoring charts as Diana Taurasi pushed past the 8,000 point barrier while Sue Bird and Candice Dupree reached 6,000 points, and Angel McCoughtry, Tina Charles, and Candace Parker all crossed the 5,000 point mark.  There will still be plenty of milestones for next season as Taurasi is poised to also hit the 9,000 mark and Cappie Pondexter will be trying to make one more push before the end of her career.  Maya Moore should reach 5,000 points shortly with Sylvia Fowles not far behind.  The newest member of this list is Monique Currie as 13 of the players were active this season.

Rebounds:

The story of the season in this category was Rebekkah Brunson’s chase for the career mark, which she surpassed late in the season.  Tamika Catchings will have her career total chased again next season when Sylvia Fowles can pass it easily with a comparable season to this year after hitting the 3,000 mark.  Tina Charles figures to be the next member of the 3,000 rebound club while it would take an impressive effort from Candice Dupree to be able to do it next year.  DeWanna Bonner is the newest member of this list, while Lindsay Whalen was unable to move into the top 25 before retiring, making it easier for those just below this group to catch her in the future.  For now, this remains a tough group to crack with only 9 active players.

Assists:

While four of the top six all time played this season, the attention went to Courtney Vandersloot, who assisted at an even more impressive clip this year than last year, propelling her into the top ten and probably within two seasons of the top five.  Tanisha Wright returned from a year’s absence to move up one spot in the list.  Four players reached 1,000 assists as Kristi Toliver and Renee Montgomery surpassed Alana Beard while doing so as Briann January entered this list for the first time alongside Danielle Robinson, who is still just short of quadrupile digits.  Having 12 active players on this list has led to plenty of movement over the course of the year.  DeLisha Milton-Jones was bumped out of this group, leaving Tamika Catchings as the only player present on all five lists, although Diana Taurasi (Rebounds) and Candace Parker (Steals) should be in position to join that elite club.

Blocks:

Margo Dydek’s record is still well out of reach, but Brittney Griner continues to beat her pace towards the top as she tied Sylvia Fowles this season in their mutual chase up the ranks.  Candace Parker recorded her 500th block this year and Tina Charles reached 300.  Elizabeth Williams joined the list for the first time, making it 11 active players.

Steals:

Nobody looks set to approach Tamika Catchings anytime soon, but the return of Angel McCoughtry did give us a new member of the top ten.  Lindsay Whalen will finish at an even 500 for her career.  Maya Moore is the newest player on this list, among 10 active players present as she and Cappie Pondexter were the latest to hit the 400 steal mark.  A similar season next year could see Moore jump past a number of players well into the top 15.

2018 All Star Break Team Stats Comparison

by

With the stretch run approaching, let’s take a look at how teams have been performing statistically with the playoffs standings being so close at this point.

Net Rating:

The teams are ranked in order of offensive rating with the blue bars representing their offensive rating and the red bars representing their defensive rating as each number refers to points scored or given up per 100 possessions.  The difference between the two is their net rating as all eight teams currently in playoff places have had a positive net rating this season.  It is no surprise that Seattle is on top of the standings right now as they boast the league’s most efficient offense as well as an excellent defense.  Atlanta has the next best record with a very different formula, having the eighth best net rating right now, but being the most efficient defense in the league.  At the other end of the standings, the teams that look set to miss the playoffs have one thing in common, occupying the bottom three spots when it comes to defensive efficiency.

Change from 2017:

Teams are ranked in order of change in net rating.  The blue bar represents the change in offensive rating and a positive number is good.  The red bar represents the change in defensive rating and a negative number is good.  The green bar combines the two for the change in net rating and a positive number is good.

Seattle’s improvement is clear this season as their net rating has improved the most of any team, combining improvement on both ends of the floor.  Dallas has also improved in both categories while Phoenix has had smaller increases compared to last season.  The spotlight in Atlanta may be on the players added with offensive pedigree, but their big improvement so far has been on defense.  While Las Vegas is still chasing a playoff place, the improvement from their last year in San Antonio is clear as their offensive efficiency has improved more than any other team in the league.  One factor that could be contributing is taking better care of the basketball as they turned it over on 21% of their possessions in 2017, the worst mark in the league by nearly two full percentage points, but have only turned it over on 16.1% of their possessions this season, within a tenth of a percentage point of the best in the league.  Interestingly, Chicago’s offense remains efficient despite taking over the lead in turnover percentage after being second last season.

The league has been marked by the dominance of Minnesota and Los Angeles in recent seasons and their fall back into the middle of the pack in the standings is mirrored by a drop in efficiency on both ends of the court.  The Lynx had the top offense and defense last season, but have fallen to eighth on offense while still being third on defense.  The Sparks were second in both categories, but now have the sixth most efficient offense and the fourth most efficient defense.  While both teams had the biggest drop on offense, the biggest drop on defense belongs to New York.  Their vaunted defense was the third best a year ago, but has become the second worst to follow their move down the standings exactly.  A possible culprit for their drop has been a decrease in rebounding prowess at both ends of the court as they had the highest offensive and defensive rebounding percentage last season, but have seen both drop more than five percentage points this season to put them in the bottom half of both categories.

Home vs. Away:

The expectation in basketball is that the home team will have an advantage, but how has that played out in the 2018 season so far?  Home teams are 81-72 so far this season, but have some teams performed better than others at home?  Teams are placed in order of how much their net rating is higher at home than on the road.  The blue bar represents offensive rating and a positive number means that the team is more efficient at home than on the road.  The red bar represents the defensive rating and a negative number means that the team has a more efficient defense at home than on the road.  The green bar combines the two and a positive number means that the team performs better overall at home.  The values represent points per 100 possessions either scored or given up.

Interestingly, exactly half the teams have a higher offensive efficiency at home and exactly half of the teams have a better defensive efficiency at home.  When you combine them and take into account magnitude, ten teams play better overall at home than on the road.  The two teams that do not are worse in both categories at home.  In the case of Seattle, their record no matter where they play has been excellent so having the worst disparity is clearly not affecting them.  Phoenix is a different story as they are the only playoff contender with a losing home record.  Their road record is excellent and right behind the Storm, but with six home games and only two road games remaining, they may want to figure out how to improve their play at home.

Three teams play better at both ends of the court at home, but none have as big of a difference as the Wings, who have the worst road record among playoff contenders.  Interestingly, the two teams that have the biggest offensive improvements at home are the ones playing in new venues as the Aces and Liberty are each more than 8 points per 100 possessions better at home than on the road.  Indiana also has a stronger offense at home and those are three teams  who play significantly worse defense at home than on the road.  The Sparks may have the worst disparity in offensive efficiency at home compared to the road, but their defense has the best margin of difference between venues, making them more efficient at home overall.  Similarly, Chicago’s offensive is less potent at home, but their league worst defense is less bad as well.