Sparks lose again

[CocoHusky]

Candice played HS basketball a couple hours North of my ranch, so I had heard much about her before she ever announced for UT. She was a very top prep recruit. I saw her play college hoops a bit on TV, and she was capable of making big plays at big moments. All her attention was deserved. My favorable opinion of her first changed in 2007, when at the Espy Awards, she behaved derisively when she didn't win. I looked for the unedited video, but it wasn't found online. From that moment on, I watched her with different filters. I still think she is a good person, but as an athlete, she is "present" when it suites her, and otherwise checked out. I realize that others may have a differing lens.

In 2007 Candace was probably 20 or 21 years old. Today "differing lens" for viewing her are not only appropriate, they might be mandatory-please try some new lens.

 

[BigBird]

In 2007 Candace was probably 20 or 21 years old. Today "differing lens" for viewing her are not only appropriate, they might be mandatory-please try some new lens.

I think you missed at least part of my point. From 2007 forward, I have been more watchful of her on-court behavior. That attention to her remains, renewed. It isn't now about her youthful Espy's moment. It's about the moments since. I know you have previously been a bit defensive about her, but the proof is on the floor in a very public undertaking. I see what I see. I can respect that you might see something different.

 

[CocoHusky]

I think you missed at least part of my point. From 2007 forward, I have been more watchful of her on-court behavior. That attention to her remains, renewed. It isn't now about her youthful Espy's moment. It's about the moments since. I know you have previously been a bit defensive about her, but the proof is on the floor in a very public undertaking. I see what I see. I can respect that you might see something different.

There is no "proof" there are a bunch of "perceptions" (like yours) recently unearthed and greatly embellished to justify what should have been a basketball ONLY decision.

 

[baggerbob]

There is no "proof" there are a bunch of "perceptions" (like yours) recently unearthed and greatly embellished to justify what should have been a basketball ONLY decision.

They chose the best team-mates as shown by the ability for everyone to find the open player throughout the Olympics. Nothing more needs to be said.

 

[UcMiami]

Most of us have not watched that much of the WNBA beyond selected highlights and maybe some playoff games. For me personally, this is the first year of subscribing to league pass (great value!) so the first chance to watch a lot of games from start to finish. Stats and highlights are not a great evaluation tool, so this is the first real chance outside of Olympic and WC competition to really see pro players for extended 'real time' minutes. It has been very interesting. Some players do live up to their stats and highlights, some who don't make the highlights and don't jump out on the stats pages are pretty impressive, and some do not live up to the hype.

I think most of the college fans and those who were outraged, are likely similar to me, with very little to go on beyond the stats and highlights.

[NB - I know we have a few aficionados of advanced stats on this board, but I find most of them to be really meaningless - they depend so much on team performance that when applied to player performance the skew too wildly. Players on the best teams tend to dominate in because their teams win, while those on bad teams get heavily penalized.]

 

[baggerbob]

Most of us have not watched that much of the WNBA beyond selected highlights and maybe some playoff games. For me personally, this is the first year of subscribing to league pass (great value!) so the first chance to watch a lot of games from start to finish. Stats and highlights are not a great evaluation tool, so this is the first real chance outside of Olympic and WC competition to really see pro players for extended 'real time' minutes. It has been very interesting. Some players do live up to their stats and highlights, some who don't make the highlights and don't jump out on the stats pages are pretty impressive, and some do not live up to the hype.

I think most of the college fans and those who were outraged, are likely similar to me, with very little to go on beyond the stats and highlights.

[NB - I know we have a few aficionados of advanced stats on this board, but I find most of them to be really meaningless - they depend so much on team performance that when applied to player performance the skew too wildly. Players on the best teams tend to dominate in because their teams win, while those on bad teams get heavily penalized.]

You bring out a good point, Sue suddenly looks to be a better player, but part of that is Jewell in her 2nd year, and now she has Stewie to run the pick , and roll. The last 2 years Sue didn't have anyone to compliment her skills. Sue still was a good player, but on a bad team.

 

[CocoHusky]

They chose the best team-mates as shown by the ability for everyone to find the open player throughout the Olympics. Nothing more needs to be said.

Apparently not.

 

[MJL243]

There is no "proof" there are a bunch of "perceptions" (like yours) recently unearthed and greatly embellished to justify what should have been a basketball ONLY decision.

There is no "proof" that it was not a basketball ONLY decision, just your "perceptions".

 

[CocoHusky]

Most of us have not watched that much of the WNBA beyond selected highlights and maybe some playoff games. For me personally, this is the first year of subscribing to league pass (great value!) so the first chance to watch a lot of games from start to finish. Stats and highlights are not a great evaluation tool, so this is the first real chance outside of Olympic and WC competition to really see pro players for extended 'real time' minutes. It has been very interesting. Some players do live up to their stats and highlights, some who don't make the highlights and don't jump out on the stats pages are pretty impressive, and some do not live up to the hype.

I think most of the college fans and those who were outraged, are likely similar to me, with very little to go on beyond the stats and highlights.

[NB - I know we have a few aficionados of advanced stats on this board, but I find most of them to be really meaningless - they depend so much on team performance that when applied to player performance the skew too wildly. Players on the best teams tend to dominate in because their teams win, while those on bad teams get heavily penalized.]

You bring out a good point, Sue suddenly looks to be a better player, but part of that is Jewell in her 2nd year, and now she has Stewie to run the pick , and roll. The last 2 years Sue didn't have anyone to compliment her skills. Sue still was a good player, but on a bad team.

You both make some very compelling arguments for not correlating today's WNBA performances or statistics to Olympic team selection or past Olympic performances. Now if we could just make a similar leap of faith to much more nebulous things like a player being in the "present", body language & attitude and presenting those things here as proof.

 

[CocoHusky]

There is no "proof" that it was not a basketball ONLY decision, just your "perceptions".

I didn't say there was proof. I said it "should" have been a basketball ONLY decision. I am content that it was. You?

 

[Kibitzer]

Continuous beating this dead horse just draws more flies.

 

[wallman]

Watched her the whole time at LA and I am not a fan. Love Ogwumike and Lavender, good teammates and work really hard.

 

[UcMiami]

You bring out a good point, Sue suddenly looks to be a better player, but part of that is Jewell in her 2nd year, and now she has Stewie to run the pick , and roll. The last 2 years Sue didn't have anyone to compliment her skills. Sue still was a good player, but on a bad team.

I think health has had a huge impact as well for Sue - last year she was held out of a number of games and was very limited in practice. The winter off from international competition has paid huge dividends even with the full Olympic schedule.

 

[EricSD]

I think health has had a huge impact as well for Sue - last year she was held out of a number of games and was very limited in practice. The winter off from international competition has paid huge dividends even with the full Olympic schedule.

She sure looks like she could go another 4 years. Hey Sue - how about Tokyo 2020??!!