Kiah is 2nd in Voting for WNBA 6th Women of the Year

[Wbbfan1]

 

[bschwartz]

and DPoY

 

[DobbsRover2]

Oh dear, at this rate Kiah may slide down to maybe like 5th in the RoY. Quigley did have a nice enough year at an entirely different guard position from Kiah, but again, the overall impact of her stats are way below Kiah's. However, like Loyd she edged into double digits in points per game, and for many voters that's the only stat they'll ever look at.

 

[DaddyChoc]

Stokes is the Boneyard's 2015 ROY, DPOY DROY!

 

[Orangutan]

Devil's advocate - Quigley had a higher PER than Stokes. PER doesn't take into account Stokes's non-box score defensive contributions but on the other hand it usually skews towards post players a little.

So pick your favorite all-in-one metric. I think either would have been a worthy winner.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Devil's advocate - Quigley had a higher PER than Stokes. PER doesn't take into account Stokes's non-box score defensive contributions but on the other hand it usually skews towards post players a little.

So pick your favorite all-in-one metric. I think either would have been a worthy winner.

Well sure, let's use your favorite metric, and we'll make Elizabeth Williams the top 6th man since she was a couple of points above Quigley and Stokes. So was Brittany Boyd, and Jennifer Lacy, and Cayla Francis. I know that Carla Cortio only played two games, but maybe she should also be in the running because she had an awesome Player Efficiency Rating. Lots to choose from there with such a wonderfully informative stat.

And no, PER does not really skew toward post players (Michael Jordan is #1 in the NBA all time). It skews toward players who make baskets (favors Quigley) and very much against great defensive players (badly hurts Stokes). So I can see why the Devil's advocate is choosing it. And the lead for Quigley over Stokes in PER despite everything being in her favor is small at 15.7 to 15.3, while Stokes' lead in Win Shares is huge at 3.6 to Quigley's small 1.4, and I can't understand why such a supposedly effective 6th man has such a small WS on a top team like the Sky. At least someone like Loyd has only half the WS to fight for.

But they do tend to give the 6th man award to the same player over and over, and since Quigley won it last year it was easy and lazy to just push the same button again. She definitely had the Hungarian bloc of voters on her side.

Of course using the PER, someone who should not be in the running for RoY is Jewell Loyd since her PER was well lower than Stokes. But I guess it's easy to jump on the "ignore Kiah" bandwagon since in the NY Times piece on Epiphany Prince by William Rhoden this morning, Charles and Swords get a big shout out for giving the Liberty a"tough inside presence" while Kiah gets nary a mention. Shouldn't these guys who cover all the other sports be asked to watch just one WNBA game (hopefully in this case one involving the Liberty) before writing about it? Just clueless.

Finally, if you do want to run to a complete metric, how about the Offense and Defensive ratings? Stokes had a terrific 90 rating on defense while Quigley had a horrible 106 (lower the better). Stokes also had a 108 offensive rating to Quigley's meh 101 (higher the better). I think you should be able to work out who has the better overall margin there.

 

[huskyd]

Kudos to Laimbeer for figuring out that Stokes was a great talent. Wish Faris had fallen into similar hands.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Kudos to Laimbeer for figuring out that Stokes was a great talent. Wish Faris had fallen into similar hands.

Who knows, that could happen. The Liberty seem to be starting to stockpile Husky alumni like the CT Sun did before AD took over and decided that her two goals in life are to piss off UConn fans and have her team finish last. Maybe we can start a campaign to free the token Husky and then pretend that Mohegan Sun is in RI and the team is the Westerly Black Holes.

 

[Orangutan]

PER is a per-minute stat. So yes, it throws up weird results for players who put up big stats in very limited minutes, e.g. Williams. Also, I'm guessing that a lot of Williams's minutes came in garbage time against other backups, which further skews things. Quigley and Stokes both played 20+ MPG and played with against top players, so I think it's a fair comparison there.

Hassan Whiteside ranked #6 in PER (immediately ahead of Chris Paul and Lebron). That's what I mean by it being biased towards posts, but yes, it is an attempt to synthesize box score statistics into a single metric, so Kiah not producing much offensively does count against her. Whether that is a feature or a bug depends on your philosophy of basketball, I guess.

I agree with Stokes over Loyd for ROY, so you're preaching to the choir there.

I agree that the defensive ratings speak towards Stokes being a great defender and Allie being a subpar one, which should be obvious to anyone who has seen either play at length. However, comparing the offensive ratings doesn't really work. To wit (emphasis mine):

In a later chapter of Basketball on Paper, Oliver emphasized that Offensive Ratings shouldn't be viewed in a vacuum. Introducing a concept he called "Skill Curves", he acknowledged that a player's ORtg needed to be judged in conjunction with his Usage Rate, a measure of how big a role the player fills in his team's offense. The bigger the role, the more difficult it is to maintain a high ORtg; the smaller the role, the easier it is to be highly efficient. Because of this, Oliver stressed that a player's ORtg should primarily be compared to those of other players in a similar role.

That's from Basketball Reference referring to Dean Oliver, who developed offensive rating. Stokes's usage is 11.1%. Quigley's is 24.3%

The fun thing is that Quigley gave a perfect demonstration of why she won the award in last night's playoff game - 22 pts (9-15 FG), 5 assists, 4 rebs. On a night where EDD was off and Cappie was way, way off, Quigley was vital in keeping Chicago's offense afloat.

 

[DobbsRover2]

I'm not saying that Quigley was a really bad choice for 6th man, and once you get down to the top three candidates, you're really saying they all can be an acceptable choice. I am guessing that the usual idea for the 6th man in most voters' minds is someone like Quigly who comes into the game and provides some quick offense to give the team a boost of energy. She fits the bill by that type of criteria even though she was by far the worst defender on the Sky, which opponents could take advantage of when she came in, and her 3pt shooting pct. isn't great at 34% but it's at least acceptable, and when she hits one it will get on those ESPN highlight films and she's then a game savior, which is all anyone cares about even though on defense she's waving hi as her player goes in for a lay-up.

I guess I just see the 6th man really more being someone who can come in and affect all parts of the game to help her team win. All during the UConn season I would marvel as Geno would put Stokes and Chong in with the team in a tight struggle, and they would come out 7 minutes later and the game is over with the Huskies running away. They didn't generally do much scoring, but suddenly the defense and offense ramped up, Kiah would get the blocks she became principally known for, and everything would flow against a suddenly demoralized opponent whom the Huskies would pick apart the rest of the game. But 6th man voters just want to know, "How many points did she score? How many bombs did she sink?"

The voters don't care that Quigley's Offensive Rating - Defensive Rating is a -5, and yes that does mean that in real terms she's a liability to her team, at least in regards to an average WNBA player. And they certainly don't care that Kiah was a +18 in OR-DR, because scoring isn't her main duty on the court. So yeah, picking the guard who can hit a bomb about once every three chucks is definitely the way to go over the 6th man who comes in to help lead her team to the top spot in the WNBA. So what if Quigley's defensive rating is so bad she wouldn't have a sniff at getting on the Liberty, at least not without learning something about guarding players.

All clear. All accepted.

 

[Orangutan]

The voters don't care that Quigley's Offensive Rating - Defensive Rating is a -5, and yes that does mean that in real terms she's a liability to her team, at least in regards to an average WNBA player.

 

[DobbsRover2]

I do realize that the 6th man voting doesn't work that well. Preaching to a sad converted one there.

As to the offensive and defensive ratings, they do work pretty well to show a player's real worth without pushing the stats that dwell on points and offensive numbers. But flat out, the offensive and defensive ratings for Quigley indicate that the Sky would be at a deficit of -5 points for a full game with her on the court. With her teammate EDD, the team is 28 points better. As noted with Stokes, the Liberty are up by 18 points.

So if you're saying that voting for a 6th man player whose stats indicate she is a 5 point liability for her team does not work for you, I can certainly agree with that. But like I said, voters often feel their large gassy gut is a better indicator of a player's worth than any numbers they might be asked to look at before making a choice.

 

[Orangutan]

As to the offensive and defensive ratings, they do work pretty well to show a player's real worth without pushing the stats that dwell on points and offensive numbers. But flat out, the offensive and defensive ratings for Quigley indicate that the Sky would be at a deficit of -5 points for a full game with her on the court. With her teammate EDD, the team is 28 points better. As noted with Stokes, the Liberty are up by 18 points.

Again. That's. Not. How. It. Works. http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ratings.html

Look, I already quoted you the part where the guy that invented the stat acknowledges that it is harder for high usage players to maintain a high offensive rating than it is for low usage players so only players with similar roles should be compared.

But you refuse to acknowledge that. Do you profess to know more about what the stat portrays and does not portray than the guy who invented the statistic.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Again that is basically how it works.

"Individual offensive rating is the number of points produced by a player per hundred total individual possessions. In other words, 'How many points is a player likely to generate when he tries?'"
"Defensive Rating estimates how many points the player allowed per 100 possessions he individually faced while on the court."

So Quigley produces 101 points per 100 possessions while giving up 106 points per 100 possessions. By my calculation that comes to -5, and for Kiah it is +18. You can spin it anyway you want, but the fact remains that Quigley's numbers are negative while Stokes are hugely positive.

And yes I know that Loyd was at a 95 OR and 105 DR for a -10 differential, but like you said, she had a bad shooting year in 2015 and will almost certainly be better in 2016. And if the voters pick her to be RoY with that -10 margin, they are truly lunkheads. But Kiah will be laughing all the way to the playoffs.

 

[Orangutan]

Again that is basically how it works.

"Individual offensive rating is the number of points produced by a player per hundred total individual possessions. In other words, 'How many points is a player likely to generate when he tries?'"
"Defensive Rating estimates how many points the player allowed per 100 possessions he individually faced while on the court."

So Quigley produces 101 points per 100 possessions while giving up 106 points per 100 possessions. By my calculation that comes to -5, and for Kiah it is +18. You can spin it anyway you want, but the fact remains that Quigley's numbers are negative while Stokes are hugely positive.

And yes I know that Loyd was at a 95 OR and 105 DR for a -10 differential, but like you said, she had a bad shooting year in 2015 and will almost certainly be better in 2016. And if the voters pick her to be RoY with that -10 margin, they are truly lunkheads. But Kiah will be laughing all the way to the playoffs.

No, it really isn't how it works. The key word is individual. As in, only the possessions the player uses. See also - "Oliver's Offensive Rating represents points produced by the player per 100 possessions consumed" That's why usage matters and why it overrates Kiah offensively because it extrapolates from the few possessions that Kiah uses while ignoring that usage inversely correlates with efficiency.

You might also read the part about perimeter defenders ratings being highly dependent on the team's overall defense i.e. a great perimeter defender on a bad overall defensive team would have a bad defensive rating.

You're thinking of some kind of plus/minus. This is not that.

And I don't know how many times I can stress this "a player's ORtg should primarily be compared to those of other players in a similar role" Your statistic you've invented just now is based on a comparison that the inventor of its component stats says should not be made.

 

[Orangutan]

Let's take it a little further. Using your method, Stokes is +18. Swords is +12. Charles is +5. I'm meant to believe that Stokes is 13 points per 100 possessions more valuable than Tina Charles?

I'm meant to believe that Carolyn Swords (!!!) is 7 points per 100 possessions more valuable than Tina Charles?

Good grief.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Okay, let me explain basketball. Players like Swords are involved on both the offense and defense helping a player like Charles put the ball in the basket, and also helping her do a lot of work keeping the opponents from putting the ball in the basket. There are things like offensive rebounds, picks, and assist on offense, and blocks, and intimidation, and more blocks, and more intimidation on defense. You are getting all fixated on who scores the points, but that's just going all Sammy Prahalis. Yes, Swords and Stokes are doing great jobs and getting articles written about them.

Tina actually had some troubles especially two years ago when she shot 43.9% for the Sun, and this year she also got off to a slow start as she adjusted to the power forward position she now loves. So if you were following the WNBA season at all, you would realize that it was indeed possible for some of Tina's stats to not be so stellar since she shot under 50% and had an Efficiency FG% of a pretty low 45.9%. Understand how that all works? High ppg because of shot volume and a lot of rebounds in her extended minutes, but she has too many TO's and has a not a great FG% for a post player. Just because you have a great name like Tina Charles, it doesn't shield you from the gritty stats.

EDD is at +28 for the margin, Maya at +17, Prince at +17, Fowles at +18, Griner is at +20. Good grief, can I believe their numbers? Well, of course, because that's how the numbers are supposed to work when you have a good system. But if you are a poor shooting Loyd who also isn't that strong on defense, you can get stuck with a -10.

 

[Huskies Rule]

 

[DobbsRover2]

Hey, let's get foam pie plastered. I'll see your PER rating that explains not much of anything and hit you with a ORat-DRat that says it all, unless you're just trying to protect your family Jewells with no leg (1st-2nd-3rd-whatever) to stand on. Kiah all the way, no matter what stat you bring out, it's whack-a-mole and block-the-stupid-stuff for Kiah time.

 

[UcMiami]

I have to say that while I find both regular statistics and advanced metrics interesting, I also find that they often do not pass the simple eye test. Standard stats have always been limited in team games and so statisticians began looking at other possible measures. This started seriously in baseball which while being a team game, is a team game comprised of almost completely individual plays - one offensive player (batter) against a team of defensive players. The traditional stats did not take into account things like range of a defensive player, pitchers whose defensive teammates were poor, batters who produced little in clutch situations, etc. The use of advanced metrics, and their calculations were fundamentally pretty easy because every play was fundamentally pretty easy to evaluate.

Advanced metrics have now moved into team games where you have in football 11 defenders all interacting against 11 offensive players on each play or in basketball 5 defenders all interacting against five offensive players, and in both games you have a constant rotation of players on both teams with very different skills and talent levels as well as fundamentally different offensive and defensive strategies from one 'play' to the next. It makes the individual player evaluations much more complex and open to very different interpretations by different evaluators. What is supposed to be 'analytical' and 'objective' is in fact very 'subjective'.

Examples - Moriah played a brilliant second half of defense against Jewel in the NC game last year - she was shut down for the second half after scoring 14 points in the first half. But, Moriah probably was actually guarding Jewel for only 50% of the time that ND was on offense because of defensive switches, and Jewel missed a number of shots of similar difficulty to the ones she made in the first half, so ... was it Moriah, the Uconn team defense, poor spacing and offensive play by Jewel's team mates, Jewel getting tired, or dumb luck? I have no idea and even breaking down the game play by play, I doubt any analysis would get a 'true' answer.

Win shares, ORat, DRat, Per, , +/-, and shooting %, blocks, steals, rebounds, etc. are all interesting tools, but like all statistics can prove things that just don't pass any eye test.

Love the fact that in last nights MN win Maya's +/- was -1 where as the superstar of that game was clearly Anna Cruz with a +/- of +18!!!

Kiah had a great year and made Bill look very smart for moving up to snatch her. I would also say that Bill made Kiah look very good by coaching to her strengths and giving her positive reinforcement. She was also playing on a very good team and that allowed her to accumulate more statistical pluses than similar players on very bad teams. Evaluating her performance against other ROY candidates and other sixth man candidates is a subjective process, and I have no problem with her ending up in second place to other worthy candidates in either ranking. She was a very important player for her team as were the other candidates - she landed in a great place, and should have a really good pro career as long as she continues with a good coach on a good team, similar to her college career.

 

[alexrgct]

So, if Kiah is #2 for sixth woman of the year, does that make her "Seventh Woman"?

 

[Gus Mahler]

So, if Kiah is #2 for sixth woman of the year, does that make her "Seventh Woman"?

If so, I think she is a Magnificent Seven.

 

[Orangutan]

I do not feel compelled to listen to an explanation of basketball from someone who thinks Swords is a better player than Charles.

You can have your precious shooting percentages and Swords. I'll take Charles every time.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Um. orang, don't be a tool. For a freakin' ND fan to come over here and throw tripe like stating I said Swords is a better player than Charles is just juvenile and is something I would expect of a B&G fan who's gotten a little desperate after 14 years of squat diddley. Quite simply there are indeed stats for lesser players that can be better than even a superstar. EDD is a great player and had a stupendous year but her 3pt FG% was 31.3 % while Briann January was at 43.1%. Does that make January a better player? No, of course not, She had a better stat.

Tina had some issues with some of her stats in her extended minutes this year, with a 45.8% on FGs which is not good for a top post player and she had a lot of turnovers and frankly she did not have the kind of dominating year she had in 2010-12, or even as good as last year. Yes you want to dump on Swords, but the reason she gets articles written about her is that she does many nice things, has a 50+% FG% and is one one the game's top defenders in her limited minutes. Obviously that does not mean she's "better" than Charles over the long haul, but yes she can put up some better stats in her more limited minutes, even if you prefer to sneer at her.

Now like the Irish in April I know you are floundering as your stats all turn to a zero and as the ship goes down and you feel you need to stoop to a really infantile "You said Swords is better than Charles" ploy that even a Vol fan would find low. On the BY, we recognize that current Huskies and the alumni group are not perfect, but we love them for going out and giving their best. What you've been reduced to is now far from your best, and I would go back to going heavy on the proposition that Jewell Loyd will have a better year in 2016, which I do think is very likely.

 

[Orangutan]

The Swords-Charles thing goes directly to the point that using O-Rating minus D-rating to evaluate players is inherently flawed. Charles is asked to do way more offensively than Swords is just as Quigley is asked to do much more than Stokes.

Yes, I took a rhetorical liberty by conflating the implications of your system with your opinion. I felt that you had twisted my words a few times so I twisted yours to make a point kmowing that you likely held Charles in high regard. It was, I felt, all in good fun.

The point is that it is unfair to compare the efficiency stats of high-usage players with those of low-usage players. Low-usage players naturally are more efficient shooters and turn the ball over less because they are only asked to shoot when open and are rarely double-teamed. Charles draws frequent double-teams and that leads to some turnovers and some difficult shots. However, it sometimes leads to easy buckets for Swords or Stokes, who have been left open as attention is focused on Charles.

Quigley often played with bench heavy units where she was the primary scorer. She had to create for herself and take tough shots in late shot clock situations. Passing wasn't always an option because it simply would have meant a worse shooter like Faulkner, Young, or Laney taking a similar quality shot. Her percentages may have been unspectacular but anyone who closely watches the Sky knows that she is a significant asset. She is far from a liability.

Me being an ND fan has nothing to do with my posts in this thread, by the way (and I remain confused as to what any of this has to do with Loyd). Me being a Sky fan and sticking up for Quigley has way more to do with it.

I'm not trying to take anything away from Kiah. I just think you can make a good case for either party. Kiah may even have the better case. I'm not sure how I would feel if I were a fan of neither's team.