Aaliyah Edwards finally getting some love from ESPN top 25 players

[Topsail]

Aliyah Boston, Caitlin Clark, Azzi Fudd and the 25 best players in women's college basketball

We've ranked the 25 best players in the country this season, starting with the debate over whether Aliyah Boston, Caitlin Clark or Azzi Fudd should be No. 1.

www.espn.com

 

[Rb335]

I always wonder if this is the best player, or player having the best season. I’ve always said that on the womens side, the media tends to anoint someone NPOY before the season, and it’s hard for others to break through that narrative unless someone plays drastically better.

The argument for Boston this year has spun to her numbers being down due to less minutes. But if you expand her stats per 40 and compare to Edwards stats per 40, they are virtually identical except for a rebounding advantage for Boston. The rest is eerily similar. So I don’t necessarily see any reason to have Boston 1 but Edwards at 14, unless there is a huge intangible aspect. Each plays on a team with exceptional supporting casts, and each team has played a tough SOS.

Not saying Edwards should be NPOY, but questioning the reasoning for 14th? Is Azzi being 3 detrimental due to ESPN wanting to highlight multiple teams?

Either way, both are great players, and that’s a heck of a list of 25 talented young players.

 

[Geew1992]

Aubrey and Lou also got some love

 

[SVCBeercats]

Aubrey and Lou also got some love

and Nika as well

 

[LwrcasefaN]

Aubrey and Lou also got some love

Nika is on there too.

 

[jdubct]

The ranking of Aaliyah Edwards reminds me of the Uconn men's team earlier in the season. They have steadily and dramatically shown they are among the very very best in the country. I'm certain Aaliyah will be similarly regarded by the end of the season.

 

[Bone Dog]

After the first few spots, they revert to a more stats-based line, which isn't surprising. But they largely seem to ignore SoS. They mention defensive win shares, so it's not like they are unaware of subtler statistical measures. I'm surprised AE isn't higher just in terms of win-shares/SoS, but I'm not sure how much higher that should put her just now. However, if we apply the squishy yardstick used to justify Boston's being the best player on the best team, and if we make the Final Four and AE is still playing like this, I'll be pissed if she isn't in the top 3.

I'm also utterly mystified by spots 20-25. What on earth is Deja Kelley even doing on this list? Or Madi Williams? Or Zia Cooke? They just aren't having the seasons to justify any slot on this list. And if Latson makes this list at all, and we're ignoring flopping as a statistical category (as we do in the case of a few others), then she should be in the top 10 easily. Who got overlooked to find room for these inappropriate choices? Nika and Lou, obviously. But also Mikulasikova, who's having a dominant season at OSU, and Jump and Czinano. Not to mention Park-Lane and Citron.

 

[hoopsnloops32]

I always wonder if this is the best player, or player having the best season. I’ve always said that on the womens side, the media tends to anoint someone NPOY before the season, and it’s hard for others to break through that narrative unless someone plays drastically better.

The argument for Boston this year has spun to her numbers being down due to less minutes. But if you expand her stats per 40 and compare to Edwards stats per 40, they are virtually identical except for a rebounding advantage for Boston. The rest is eerily similar. So I don’t necessarily see any reason to have Boston 1 but Edwards at 14, unless there is a huge intangible aspect. Each plays on a team with exceptional supporting casts, and each team has played a tough SOS.

Not saying Edwards should be NPOY, but questioning the reasoning for 14th? Is Azzi being 3 detrimental due to ESPN wanting to highlight multiple teams?

Either way, both are great players, and that’s a heck of a list of 25 talented young players.

South Caroline has not played a tough OOC. They had two tough games and a bunch of cupcakes.

 

[SCNCHuskie]

Actually, most of the Husky team is on there. Of course, Fudd and Edwards are listed in the top 25, but Nika, Aubrey, and Lou are also listed as having received votes

 

[bballnut90]

After the first few spots, they revert to a more stats-based line, which isn't surprising. But they largely seem to ignore SoS. They mention defensive win shares, so it's not like they are unaware of subtler statistical measures. I'm surprised AE isn't higher just in terms of win-shares/SoS, but I'm not sure how much higher that should put her just now. However, if we apply the squishy yardstick used to justify Boston's being the best player on the best team, and if we make the Final Four and AE is still playing like this, I'll be pissed if she isn't in the top 3.

I'm also utterly mystified by spots 20-25. What on earth is Deja Kelley even doing on this list? Or Madi Williams? Or Zia Cooke? They just aren't having the seasons to justify any slot on this list. And if Latson makes this list at all, and we're ignoring flopping as a statistical category (as we do in the case of a few others), then she should be in the top 10 easily. Who got overlooked to find room for these inappropriate choices? Nika and Lou, obviously. But also Mikulasikova, who's having a dominant season at OSU, and Jump and Czinano. Not to mention Park-Lane and Citron.

Boston's just a dominant force down low and has proven to be a top player in the country the last several years. SC is the clear cut #1 team, and in big games she's shown up. I don't think there's any doubt she's among the top 2-3 players in the country even if the stats aren't there. She also anchors the best defense and best rebounding team in the country which can't be overlooked. I think it'd be silly to argue that any other post is better than Aliyah based on non-conference numbers when we've seen Boston dominate competition for several years now, and her team is clear cut #1 (and thriving) even if she's not taking on as prominent of a role (yet).

Agree on Kelly/Williams/Cooke not deserving their spots. Kelly likely got the nod for wanting NC representation even though her abysmal FG% brings her down. Cooke's numbers aren't there, and she's really struggled shooting against quality teams this year (5-19, 4-14, and 3-13 vs ranked foes). She likely gets the nod for wanting SC to get multiple players on there even though if you look at her contributions, they are far from top 25 player material.

UCONN's starting 5 have nice stats, but they're also gaudy because they're playing 30-35 minutes a night, where other programs are resting their starters a lot more. For example, no one on SC is playing more than 23 minutes per game and no one is playing over 28.5 for Stanford. Also worth noting, UCONN's offense is potent but their defense is statistically far below the standard for a traditional UCONN team. They're giving up 67 per game which is probably the highest figure in the last 30+ years at UCONN. If a team can score a lot of points but they aren't playing good defense nor proving to be a top 5 team, I don't think they deserve 4-5 spots on a top 25 player list due to gaudy offensive numbers. Just my opinion.

Agree about players like Mikulasikova and Czinano deserving spots on this list. If Fudd makes the list playing 7 games, I also think Jacy Sheldon should be on the list for OSU as she's week to week, and would potentially be in the POY conversation if healthy.

 

[Cuango]

All I can say is; Lou should be on that list as well. I certainly wouldn’t trade her for a number of players on that list!

 

[bballnut90]

South Caroline has not played a tough OOC. They had two tough games and a bunch of cupcakes.

Maryland is worth noting, they're a decent team even though Miller was out their first game. I wouldn't call it a marquee win but it certainly wasn't a cupcake. The rest of the way they only have games vs Tennessee/LSU/UCONN that could be difficult. Aside from that it should be pretty smooth sailing for them until the tournament as the SEC is down this year.

 

[HuskyNan]

Boston's just a dominant force down low and has proven to be a top player in the country the last several years. SC is the clear cut #1 team, and in big games she's shown up. I don't think there's any doubt she's among the top 2-3 players in the country even if the stats aren't there. She also anchors the best defense and best rebounding team in the country which can't be overlooked. I think it'd be silly to argue that any other post is better than Aliyah based on non-conference numbers when we've seen Boston dominate competition for several years now, and her team is clear cut #1 (and thriving) even if she's not taking on as prominent of a role (yet).

Agree on Kelly/Williams/Cooke not deserving their spots. Kelly likely got the nod for wanting NC representation even though her abysmal FG% brings her down. Cooke's numbers aren't there, and she's really struggled shooting against quality teams this year (5-19, 4-14, and 3-13 vs ranked foes). She likely gets the nod for wanting SC to get multiple players on there even though if you look at her contributions, they are far from top 25 player material.

UCONN's starting 5 have nice stats, but they're also gaudy because they're playing 30-35 minutes a night, where other programs are resting their starters a lot more. For example, no one on SC is playing more than 23 minutes per game and no one is playing over 28.5 for Stanford. Also worth noting, UCONN's offense is potent but their defense is statistically far below the standard for a traditional UCONN team. They're giving up 67 per game which is probably the highest figure in the last 30+ years at UCONN. If a team can score a lot of points but they aren't playing good defense nor proving to be a top 5 team, I don't think they deserve 4-5 spots on a top 25 player list due to gaudy offensive numbers. Just my opinion.

Agree about players like Mikulasikova and Czinano deserving spots on this list. If Fudd makes the list playing 7 games, I also think Jacy Sheldon should be on the list for OSU as she's week to week, and would potentially be in the POY conversation if healthy.

Gaudy? Geno isn trying to pump up anyone’s stats, he’s just had an extremely short bench due to injuries. The Huskies have also played the toughest schedule, requiring more minutes from the starters.

The defense is a function of 1. Playing really good teams 2. Constantly changing lineups and 3. Playing three new players (including Lou and 2 freshmen), a player just back from back surgery and a player back from hip surgery.

 

[bballnut90]

Gaudy? Geno isn trying to pump up anyone’s stats, he’s just had an extremely short bench due to injuries. The Huskies have also played the toughest schedule, requiring more minutes from the starters.

The defense is a function of 1. Playing really good teams 2. Constantly changing lineups and 3. Playing three new players (including Lou and 2 freshmen), a player just back from back surgery and a player back from hip surgery.

View attachment 82248

Agreed. I didn’t imply Geno/UCONN was aiming for gaudy stats, it’s the result of having to play starters for long minutes (primarily due to injuries). That said, I don’t think having better stats necessarily makes someone a top 25 player over someone whose stats aren’t as strong.

 

[Bone Dog]

Boston's just a dominant force down low and has proven to be a top player in the country the last several years. SC is the clear cut #1 team, and in big games she's shown up. I don't think there's any doubt she's among the top 2-3 players in the country even if the stats aren't there. She also anchors the best defense and best rebounding team in the country which can't be overlooked. I think it'd be silly to argue that any other post is better than Aliyah based on non-conference numbers when we've seen Boston dominate competition for several years now, and her team is clear cut #1 (and thriving) even if she's not taking on as prominent of a role (yet).

I don't disagree about Boston. Of course, she belongs at or near the top. Brink, too. But there also ought to be a "what have you done lately" element to this sort of calculation, especially since it will inevitably influence PoY decisions. What Boston's done in previous years can't be the primary factor at the end of the year.

UCONN's starting 5 have nice stats, but they're also gaudy because they're playing 30-35 minutes a night, where other programs are resting their starters a lot more. For example, no one on SC is playing more than 23 minutes per game and no one is playing over 28.5 for Stanford.

But this part of your argument seems contradictory. Yes, Huskies play more minutes, but they do it against tougher competition. SCar and Stanford players don't get to have it both ways, racking up numbers against cupcakes and then getting extra credit for not having to play serious minutes because of it. If Tara and Dawn want to give their players the sorts of challenges on which post-season awards are based, they can schedule differently.

That's a bit unfair of me, I realize, since it isn't always easy for the powerhouses to get other schools to play against them. But that doesn't mean Huskies should be punished for this. The only fact on the ground is that Aaliyah (and Nika and Lou) have played well against ranked competition, and we have precious little evidence of this for Boston, Brink, Jones, Cooke, etc.

I totally get it, though: early season surveys like this are inevitably going to be distorted by speculation and nostalgia.

 

[oldhusky]

I don't disagree about Boston. Of course, she belongs at or near the top. Brink, too. But there also ought to be a "what have you done lately" element to this sort of calculation, especially since it will inevitably influence PoY decisions. What Boston's done in previous years can't be the primary factor at the end of the year.


But this part of your argument seems contradictory. Yes, Huskies play more minutes, but they do it against tougher competition. SCar and Stanford players don't get to have it both ways, racking up numbers against cupcakes and then getting extra credit for not having to play serious minutes because of it. If Tara and Dawn want to give their players the sorts of challenges on which post-season awards are based, they can schedule differently.

That's a bit unfair of me, I realize, since it isn't always easy for the powerhouses to get other schools to play against them. But that doesn't mean Huskies should be punished for this. The only fact on the ground is that Aaliyah (and Nika and Lou) have played well against ranked competition, and we have precious little evidence of this for Boston, Brink, Jones, Cooke, etc.

I totally get it, though: early season surveys like this are inevitably going to be distorted by speculation and nostalgia.

Good points, over time much of the competition differences start to even out. Uconn's schedule is largely front loaded, with a very tough out of conference start followed by a significantly easier Big East schedule. The powerhouse schools in the Power 5 conferences are just the opposite. They face a generally easier out of conference schedule and then go into a far more difficult conference schedule.

The effect on individual player's stats is two-fold. When playing against tough competition you generally play more minutes which is good for per game stats, but less effectively or efficiently which can hurt per minute or PER stats. I generally look more at the later categories to adjust for the minutes played.

Most of the Uconn players will see their PER (player efficiency rating) rise a little as they play more Big East opponents, and are winning by bigger margins. The South Carolina players on the other hand will see their PER ratings largely decline as they enter conference competition.

Some sites like Her Hoops Stats show numbers for the season overall and then just for conference games. For Uconn players the PER stats in conference are frequently a little better than the overall numbers. Not all the time of course, but the differences in scheduling between Uconn and most Power 5 contenders in terms of when they play the difficult part of their schedule are just the opposite.

Uconn's much tougher early season schedule will start to even out over time as we play Big East opponents and other contenders shift from cupcakes to Power 5 opponents.

 

[hoopsnloops32]

Good points, over time much of the competition differences start to even out. Uconn's schedule is largely front loaded, with a very tough out of conference start followed by a significantly easier Big East schedule. The powerhouse schools in the Power 5 conferences are just the opposite. They face a generally easier out of conference schedule and then go into a far more difficult conference schedule.

The effect on individual player's stats is two-fold. When playing against tough competition you generally play more minutes which is good for per game stats, but less effectively or efficiently which can hurt per minute or PER stats. I generally look more at the later categories to adjust for the minutes played.

Most of the Uconn players will see their PER (player efficiency rating) rise a little as they play more Big East opponents, and are winning by bigger margins. The South Carolina players on the other hand will see their PER ratings largely decline as they enter conference competition.

Some sites like Her Hoops Stats show numbers for the season overall and then just for conference games. For Uconn players the PER stats in conference are frequently a little better than the overall numbers. Not all the time of course, but the differences in scheduling between Uconn and most Power 5 contenders in terms of when they play the difficult part of their schedule are just the opposite.

Uconn's much tougher early season schedule will start to even out over time as we play Big East opponents and other contenders shift from cupcakes to Power 5 opponents.

We still have more games against ranked teams that Stanford and South Carolina have coming up. The Big East isn’t as weak as the AAC was and the other conferences are down this year.

 

[Bone Dog]

Good points, over time much of the competition differences start to even out. Uconn's schedule is largely front loaded, with a very tough out of conference start followed by a significantly easier Big East schedule. The powerhouse schools in the Power 5 conferences are just the opposite. They face a generally easier out of conference schedule and then go into a far more difficult conference schedule.

That sounds about right. Where do you find your PER stats. Is it just HerHoopStats, or do you have another source?

This year may introduce a little variation in the pattern you describe, since the Power 5 may not be as powerful as usual, especially the SEC, and the Big East conference is perhaps a little more powerful than usual.

 

[EricLA]

Couldn't disagree more with people who have Boston at #1. She MAY be one of the most dominant players in the country in the past few years, but her numbers are not there this season so far.

Let's look at it differently. Diana Taurasi - greatest player all time, and it's not really close. BUT she didn't make the all star team this year and was left off the Olympic team. Why? Her numbers were down. Why? She's lost a step and is getting older.

Now, Boston is not "getting older" or slowing down, but her numbers simply are not there. To reward her as a potential NPOY candidate is simply not right (IMHO). She's not even 2nd team AA this season, unless you want to reward her for either hype, publicity, or past performance.

Would I want her on my team in a NC game? OF course. But her numbers are simply not strong this season and to say "but she's still the best even tho her numbers are down" is a disservice to every other great player out there who is putting up gaudy numbers, often against really good competition.

"OH but her team is so good she's not getting the opportunity to put up big numbers". OK then let's look at non-scoring numbers. Rebounds per game. 9.6. currently 37th in the country.

She is averaging 24 minutes per game, highest on the team. I get that SC is deep and her numbers would be better if she played 30+ MPG, but you can't have it both ways.

Now granted that list was clever and listed the "best players" in WCBB, not the NPOY candidates so you can make the stats morph however you want to justify her as the best player. And she will go 1st in the WNBA draft I would think, so that boosts the opinion as well.

Bottom line i just think it's unfair. Maybe as SC's schedule gets into SEC play she will play more minutes and her numbers will go up. But right now, she may be the "best" according to popular opinion, but she shouldn't be on any AA lists at this point.

And BTW, fans could blame the HC for SC for not playing Boston enough. Side note - the "experts" are talking about LSU as a possible 1 seed. Really? LSU may be undefeated, but their SOS is 261. So it's nice that they are undefeated and ranked in the top 10, but they have done zero to show anything deserving, other than having a HOF head coach and a bunch of hyped players. Play the schedule UCONN or NC State or even Tennessee or Texas and see where LSU would be with the losses.

My point is the experts need to look at more than hype, past performance, cupcake schedules, etc. and be better experts. Just my $.02.

 

[Bigboote]

I find it odd that Czinano was included in the preseason top-25, but has dropped out in favor of those cited by @Bone Dog despite performing about as expected. I thought it was odd that she was included in the preseason top-25 but Mackenzie Holmes, who's a comparable offensive player and better defender, was left off. She's now top-25 with offensive numbers that have improved slightly but not hugely.

These lists are better conversation-starters than indicators.

 

[The deacon]

Couldn't disagree more with people who have Boston at #1. She MAY be one of the most dominant players in the country in the past few years, but her numbers are not there this season so far.

Let's look at it differently. Diana Taurasi - greatest player all time, and it's not really close. BUT she didn't make the all star team this year and was left off the Olympic team. Why? Her numbers were down. Why? She's lost a step and is getting older.

Now, Boston is not "getting older" or slowing down, but her numbers simply are not there. To reward her as a potential NPOY candidate is simply not right (IMHO). She's not even 2nd team AA this season, unless you want to reward her for either hype, publicity, or past performance.

Would I want her on my team in a NC game? OF course. But her numbers are simply not strong this season and to say "but she's still the best even tho her numbers are down" is a disservice to every other great player out there who is putting up gaudy numbers, often against really good competition.

"OH but her team is so good she's not getting the opportunity to put up big numbers". OK then let's look at non-scoring numbers. Rebounds per game. 9.6. currently 37th in the country.

She is averaging 24 minutes per game, highest on the team. I get that SC is deep and her numbers would be better if she played 30+ MPG, but you can't have it both ways.

Now granted that list was clever and listed the "best players" in WCBB, not the NPOY candidates so you can make the stats morph however you want to justify her as the best player. And she will go 1st in the WNBA draft I would think, so that boosts the opinion as well.

Bottom line i just think it's unfair. Maybe as SC's schedule gets into SEC play she will play more minutes and her numbers will go up. But right now, she may be the "best" according to popular opinion, but she shouldn't be on any AA lists at this point.

And BTW, fans could blame the HC for SC for not playing Boston enough. Side note - the "experts" are talking about LSU as a possible 1 seed. Really? LSU may be undefeated, but their SOS is 261. So it's nice that they are undefeated and ranked in the top 10, but they have done zero to show anything deserving, other than having a HOF head coach and a bunch of hyped players. Play the schedule UCONN or NC State or even Tennessee or Texas and see where LSU would be with the losses.

My point is the experts need to look at more than hype, past performance, cupcake schedules, etc. and be better experts. Just my $.02.

I'm with you. EricLA, virtually word for word with your argument about Aliyah Boston's standing in ESPN's listing (including that she'll be the number one draft pick and acknowledging that she truly is an outstanding player).

One nitpick from me, albeit one for which I'll likely get riddled by DT's legion of fans: to say Diana is the GOAT, and 'it's not even close' is your opinion, and many others, but not mine. She's in the conversation, which also should include Maya and Breanna, as well as others who didn't play for Geno.

But that's an argument for another day, and one we've had many times over.

 

[TeamFirst!]

I wouldn't trade Lou, Aubrey or Nika for lots of people on that list but I'd include Latson and probably in the top 20. Her numbers warrant it and she's carrying that team.

It's going to be Boston or maybe Brink IMO. Both great players.

 

[oldhusky]

That sounds about right. Where do you find your PER stats. Is it just HerHoopStats, or do you have another source?

This year may introduce a little variation in the pattern you describe, since the Power 5 may not be as powerful as usual, especially the SEC, and the Big East conference is perhaps a little more powerful than usual.

I use HerHoopStats for college women's basketball, but basketball-reference.com is a good site for NBA, college Men and WNBA, but not college women. The first is a paid site the second is free.

 

[DrummerDee]

Diana Taurasi - greatest player all time, and it's not really close. BUT she didn't make the all star team this year and was left off the Olympic team.

Diana was never left off the Olympic team.

 

[bballnut90]

I don't disagree about Boston. Of course, she belongs at or near the top. Brink, too. But there also ought to be a "what have you done lately" element to this sort of calculation, especially since it will inevitably influence PoY decisions. What Boston's done in previous years can't be the primary factor at the end of the year.


But this part of your argument seems contradictory. Yes, Huskies play more minutes, but they do it against tougher competition. SCar and Stanford players don't get to have it both ways, racking up numbers against cupcakes and then getting extra credit for not having to play serious minutes because of it. If Tara and Dawn want to give their players the sorts of challenges on which post-season awards are based, they can schedule differently.

That's a bit unfair of me, I realize, since it isn't always easy for the powerhouses to get other schools to play against them. But that doesn't mean Huskies should be punished for this. The only fact on the ground is that Aaliyah (and Nika and Lou) have played well against ranked competition, and we have precious little evidence of this for Boston, Brink, Jones, Cooke, etc.

I totally get it, though: early season surveys like this are inevitably going to be distorted by speculation and nostalgia.

Agree about the bolded part of Boston. If the season ended today I don't think anyone would pick her as POY based on her coasting through all but 2-3 games. Knowing what we know about her, and how she's played quite well in big games so far, I think it'd be short sighted to not have her at least top 3-4 since we know conference play is coming and she's likely logging bigger minutes in those showings compared to the cupcake games.

Your second bolded point is valid. UCONN has definitely played a tougher schedule and the players deserve credit for it. That said, I think Edwards playing 50% more minutes outweighs Brink/Boston playing a lighter schedule thus far. The last bolded point I disagree with though. Boston has had her best games of the season against quality competition (Stanford, UCLA and Maryland). Brink too has played her best in big games (South Carolina, Gonzaga, Creighton, Tennessee). Both have put up pedestrian numbers against overmatched opponents when the games were never in question. Jones is more of a mixed bag in terms of performance in big games. I'd put her in the 10-15 range, I don't think she deserves #6. Cooke has not performed well in big games and has padded her stats against cupcake teams. I wouldn't include her in the top 25.

Agree with your last statement, early season surveys are hard to gauge considering there isn't a full body of work to go off of. Fun to analyze and discuss though.