Race to WNBA MVP

[Wbbfan1]

WNBA - -Link

 

[MilfordHusky]

My vote--not quite final.

Tina edges Maya.

Then Catch and Cappie.

Candace? Top 8 probably. Top 2? Nope.

 

[EricLA]

My vote--not quite final.

Tina edges Maya.

Then Catch and Cappie.

Candace? Top 8 probably. Top 2? Nope.

My thoughts exactly on Parker. Not sure if WNBA.com gets a kick-back for pimping Parker, but it's a big mystery as to why they keep saying not only is she #2, but poised to overtake Charles as the MVP.

Tina easily #1 in a landslide, then if NYL makes the playoffs, Cappie is 2nd and Maya/Catch are tied for 3rd. However, if NYL misses the playoffs, Maya and Catch are 2nd in my book...

 

[tnvolfan65]

You're kidding right? Parker top 8?

She's 8th in the league in scoring, 3rd in rebounds, 1st in blocks, 2nd in efficiency, 16th in assists (behind all guards and Maya), 16th in steals, 2nd in double doubles, and 3rd in pts/reb/assts on the team with the 3rd best record in the league.

In her head-to-head match ups with your MVP, who plays the same position...

Parker had 33 pts (12-22,3-3,6-9), 16 boards, 7 assists, 3 blocks, and 2 steals in a win.

Charles had 19 pts (8-26, 0-0, 3-4) 13 boards, 0 assists, 0 blocks, and 1 steal in a loss at home, which most of her points were against someone other than Parker.

In game 2...

Parker-23 (8-12,0-1,7-8), 10, 5, 3, and 3 in a W.

Charles- 21 (9-17,0-0,3-3), 13, 2, 1, and 2 in a L and 6 more minutes.

 

[tnvolfan65]

Correction...tied for 1st with 18 double doubles as she has 22-11-5-2-4 over Maya's Lynx right now.

 

[TheTruthBelow]

In her head-to-head match ups with your MVP, who plays the same position...

Parker had 33 pts (12-22,3-3,6-9), 16 boards, 7 assists, 3 blocks, and 2 steals in a win.

Charles had 19 pts (8-26, 0-0, 3-4) 13 boards, 0 assists, 0 blocks, and 1 steal in a loss at home, which most of her points were against someone other than Parker.

In game 2...

Parker-23 (8-12,0-1,7-8), 10, 5, 3, and 3 in a W.

Charles- 21 (9-17,0-0,3-3), 13, 2, 1, and 2 in a L and 6 more minutes.

Expect this to be ignored.

 

[JS]

Expect this to be ignored.

As it should be. Whether a particular player "outshines" another, statistically, in a couple of meetings of their teams says just about nothing about their status as most valuable player to her team. That evaluation is, of course, more comprehensive.

About the most that can be said of such a supposed "head to head" factor is that it's fodder for partisans with an agenda who don't want to bother with the actual analysis. Not that anyone posting here would indulge in such a thing.

Overall stats are a significant factor, and sometimes it can be relevant to consider the stats within a particular part of the season.

But stats (much less game-specific stats) are by no means the whole story. They're only one of several relevant criteria.

The generalized question is, what kind of season would her team (which, as a practical matter, must be a very successful team) have had without her? And among the several sub-questions are:

Who else on her team contributed as much or nearly as much?
How consistent was she? (CP not so much.)
What are the areas of her strongest contribution? (CP's defense usually panned; don't be fooled by the splashy blocks.)
What was her game impact? (Subjective, impression gained by watching lots of games.)
How did her team do offensively and defensively when she was on the floor versus off the floor? (This may be a bit niche-nerdy, but proponents of +/- analysis will tell you CP flunks that test miserably compared to the other leading candidates.)
What were her off-court contributions?

Both Tina and CP are viable MVP candidates under the actual criteria. The "head to head stats" comparison is irrelevant unless, perhaps, one's objective is to taunt rather than analyze.

 

[TheTruthBelow]

Ask Chris Paul how important that final head-to-head match up with Kobe Bryant's Lakers was in 2008. It cost him a MVP award.

If you have two players performing very similarly, on similarly successful teams, with similarly impressive help (Lawson/Toliver, Ogwumike/Jones, LA's starting caliber wings vs. Connecticut's actual bench), then head-to-head games is very likely where voters will turn. And in those games -- the first of which was on national television, in Connecticut -- Parker completely wrecked Charles.

By the way, Parker had one "bad" month (only five games). She was Player of the Month for the West in May, June, and July. That's pretty damn consistent.

 

[UConnCat]

If you have two players performing very similarly, on similarly successful teams, with similarly impressive help (Lawson/Toliver, Ogwumike/Jones, LA's starting caliber wings vs. Connecticut's actual bench), then head-to-head games is very likely where voters will turn. And in those games -- the first of which was on national television, in Connecticut -- Parker completely wrecked Charles.

By the way, Parker had one "bad" month (only five games). She was Player of the Month for the West in May, June, and July. That's pretty damn consistent.

Good points, except Parker and Charles did not have "similarly impressive help" after the Olympic break, particularly in the post. Asjha Jones has played in 1 game since the break (9/19) and only for 5 minutes. Having a "bad" month was not an option for Tina although I'm sure Asjha's absence affected her game.

 

[TheTruthBelow]

After being super productive in limited minutes in the first half of the season, Mistie Mims has averaged 12 points and 7 rebounds as a starter in place of Jones.

 

[UConnCat]

After being super productive in limited minutes in the first half of the season, Mistie Mims has averaged 12 points and 7 rebounds as a starter in place of Jones.

She's not close to the same player as Asjha is when healthy and she isn't going to relieve defensive help off of Charles the way Asjha does. The Sun have gone 8-5 since the Olympic break after going 15-4 before the break. A big part of the diminished level of play has been the absence of Asjha.

 

[UConnChapette]

Wait for it...it is coming soon. "Parker is also the mother of a small child so her stats are all the more impressive". It is only a matter of time.

Face it. UConn fans believe Tina is more deserving. Tennessee fans believe Candace is more deserving. That is how it is, and ever shall be.

 

[UConnCat]

Face it. UConn fans believe Tina is more deserving. Tennessee fans believe Candace is more deserving. That is how it is, and ever shall be.

Actually, with one notable exception (Sue Bird not winning in 2008), I don't really care a whole lot about who wins the WNBA MVP award. I'd rather see Tina win a championship than an MVP award. I'm from the Sue Bird school ("I judge myself based on winning"). I do, however, agree with JS that there's often more to an MVP analysis than head-to-head match-ups or just a recitation of statistics. I thought Sue Bird was the MVP in 2008 for what she did throughout that season (distribute in the 1st half w/ LJ and score in the 2nd half w/out LJ) while carrying that team to the playoffs. Sue defined what it means to be an MVP that year while deflecting attention from herself in typical Sue Bird style.

 

[diggerfoot]

Ask Chris Paul how important that final head-to-head match up with Kobe Bryant's Lakers was in 2008. It cost him a MVP award.

If you have two players performing very similarly, on similarly successful teams, with similarly impressive help (Lawson/Toliver, Ogwumike/Jones, LA's starting caliber wings vs. Connecticut's actual bench), then head-to-head games is very likely where voters will turn. And in those games -- the first of which was on national television, in Connecticut -- Parker completely wrecked Charles.

By the way, Parker had one "bad" month (only five games). She was Player of the Month for the West in May, June, and July. That's pretty damn consistent.

Both may have had "impressive help," but the real issue for MVP is how have they helped others. There are fewer stats to flesh out defense than offense, but one stat implicates both. Parker has a large negative +/- when she is on the court, by far the largest of anyone who might even be given a slight nod for MVP, which on a team with the third best winning record means the team actually performed better without her in the line up. Charles, like other legitimate MVP candidates (including Tolliver) has a large positive +/-. That's pretty revealing right there. That's obviously not due to Parker's offensive stats or performance. Then again, you are on a board for fans with a team that stresses and excels at defense more than any other. I can understand if fans outside the UConn universe want to focus mainly on offensive stats and performance for their judgments.

 

[stwainfan]

I think it's between Parker and Charles. Either one deserves it.

 

[tennfanatic00]

I think CP's midseason slump should/will cost her the MVP. That said, there is no other player in the WNBA I would rather have on my team.

When I think about an MVP candidate, I think first, "Which ONE player would I most want to build a team around?"

For me, that answer is clearly Candace Parker. In my opinion, she's the most dynamic and exciting player in the league.

Let's face it. The MVP award is frivolous. It is usually given to the player that the league pushes the most. The WNBA understands the LA is a huge market and therefore pushes the star player there (much like they did with Lisa Leslie). CP may get the award, but I think Charles has had the better season.

The MVP is the most valuable player to the league in most cases. If you give it to your "star", the marketability increases, and the media is more impressed.

 

[tnvolfan65]

Parker's slump was after the Olympics when she was clearly playing through an injury.

Unlike some "stars" in this league, she didn't take games off to rest. I think that says a lot more about her being the MVP than her dip in production during that time.

 

[diggerfoot]

I think CP's midseason slump should/will cost her the MVP. That said, there is no other player in the WNBA I would rather have on my team.

When I think about an MVP candidate, I think first, "Which ONE player would I most want to build a team around?"

For me, that answer is clearly Candace Parker. In my opinion, she's the most dynamic and exciting player in the league.

Let's face it. The MVP award is frivolous. It is usually given to the player that the league pushes the most. The WNBA understands the LA is a huge market and therefore pushes the star player there (much like they did with Lisa Leslie). CP may get the award, but I think Charles has had the better season.

The MVP is the most valuable player to the league in most cases. If you give it to your "star", the marketability increases, and the media is more impressed.

If you would pick Parker as the player to build a team around, you probably also should pick the right coach that will enhance her abilities on defense and to make her teammates better, so that the +/- for the team would actually be better with her ON the court than off it, unlike the case right now. Maybe a coach noted for enhancing the defense and teamwork of players, say, someone like Auriemma.

 

[UConnCat]

Parker's slump was after the Olympics when she was clearly playing through an injury.

Unlike some "stars" in this league, she didn't take games off to rest. I think that says a lot more about her being the MVP than her dip in production during that time.

If you visitors have something to say, why not just say it. What's with the continual passive-agressive, snarky comments? Do you think we don't know you're talking about Taurasi? Why not just say her name? The majority of this board may rarely agree with you but direct statements of opinions are at least respected.

BTW, I'm probably in the minority on this board, but I have no problem with Diana taking a rest. For 8 consecutive seasons Diana has averaged about 32-33 games per season in the WNBA. If she felt her well-being required some rest, than I respect that. She needs to take care of herself. This is Parker's 4th season in the league and the 2nd one she'll play more than 30 games. Good for her. And maybe Charles deserves extra consideration because she couldn't afford to have a slump with Asjha out with an achilles injury.

 

[sarals24]

I agree with you, UConnCat! I had no problem with DT taking a rest. And I think that because this board is for the most part very welcoming to visitors, they sometimes forget that it is a UConn board first and foremost and not a general WBB board. We are allowed to be slightly to very biased toward our own, and don't really have to explain it or justify it

 

[alexrgct]

Parker's slump was after the Olympics when she was clearly playing through an injury.

Unlike some "stars" in this league, she didn't take games off to rest. I think that says a lot more about her being the MVP than her dip in production during that time.

 

[tnvolfan65]

If you visitors have something to say, why not just say it. What's with the continual passive-agressive, snarky comments? Do you think we don't know you're talking about Taurasi? Why not just say her name? The majority of this board may rarely agree with you but direct statements of opinions are at least respected.

BTW, I'm probably in the minority on this board, but I have no problem with Diana taking a rest. For 8 consecutive seasons Diana has averaged about 32-33 games per season in the WNBA. If she felt her well-being required some rest, than I respect that. She needs to take care of herself. This is Parker's 4th season in the league and the 2nd one she'll play more than 30 games. Good for her. And maybe Charles deserves extra consideration because she couldn't afford to have a slump with Asjha out with an achilles injury.

My point wasn't about Taurasi, it was about Parker. And I wasn't just referring to DT. Charles and a number of other players have missed games now in order to rest.

I'm also not saying I think it's necessarily a bad thing (with regards to Charles, not Taurasi). The schedule is brutal and like most normal Americans, sometimes you just need a day off from work. What I am saying is Parker shouldn't be penalized because she chose to play through her injury and her play during that span wasn't up to the standard of the rest of her season.

 

[UConnCat]

My point wasn't about Taurasi, it was about Parker. And I wasn't just referring to DT. Charles and a number of other players have missed games now in order to rest.

I'm also not saying I think it's necessarily a bad thing (with regards to Charles, not Taurasi). The schedule is brutal and like most normal Americans, sometimes you just need a day off from work. What I am saying is Parker shouldn't be penalized because she chose to play through her injury and her play during that span wasn't up to the standard of the rest of her season.

Just to be clear on Tina Charles, she sat out one game. One game. She'll end up playing in 33 rather than 34 games this season. And you have no idea whether Tina has been playing through injuries as well. BTW, what was Parker's injury? I read where some assumed she had an injury but I never read any confirmation.

 

[UConn990411]

Ask Chris Paul how important that final head-to-head match up with Kobe Bryant's Lakers was in 2008. It cost him a MVP award.

If anything, that's more proof that we should consider head-to-head matchups even less. One game out of 34 (or 82, or whatever number) should not have much bearing on something like an MVP award.

Parker is my favorite player to watch right now, and I'm extremely happy she's finally healthy again, but IMO she was too inconsistent this year to earn the award over Tina.

 

[alexrgct]

Did someone seriously suggest that Chris Paul didn't win the 2008 MVP because of a head-to-head matchup with Kobe? Kobe had never won the award before, an the consensus was that it was generally his time. He won the award going away.