2024 WNBA Awards Discussion Thread

[hermes]

the chicago posts cleaned up without alanna smith playing today

[Avalon56]

First post here so I hope don`t upset anyone.
Ok first and foremost I am a sports fan, pretty much doesn`t matter what sport. I have been fortunate, because of my age, to have witnessed Cassius Clay, Roger Federer in tennis, Phil Taylor in darts, Dick Fosbury the highjump, Messi and Ronaldo in football, Roland Matthes in swimming, most of you won`t even know him,, the list is endless. So there I am sitting at home in Germany ( I am English by the way ) and I pick up some news about this incredible female basketball player being the number 1 draft, so I just have to find out more. Before this time I knew absolutely nothing about ladies basketball but boy am I hooked now. Caitlin Clark is an absolutely amazing talent, not because she tops the assists, not just because of records she is setting but I love the way she shuts up her critics by playing her game. She has taken so much verbal and physical abuse but she just goes merrily on doing her thing. She is such a great example to all . Now.... Reese, yes she has got the rebounds record... but excuse me if I am wrong, it`s points that win matches not rebounds. I watched one game of Reese, can`t remember which match ( I wasn`t that impressed with her ). She shot, missed, gathered the rebound, shot again, missed again, rebound again, she rebounded 4 times off her own shot ( that was five attempts under the basket in total ) and still didn`t make a point and then she lost the ball. You can rebound all you like but if it doesn`t lead eventually to points what worth are the rebounds. For me, someone who not only scores a good level of points every game and assists her teammates to score points every game, that help to win matches, that has helped raise the standard of her whole team, then she is the ROY, not someone who rebounds a lot, off her own shots too, but those rebounds don`t help as much as they should especially considering the quantity then I would say 7th draft was a little flattering.

[Doctor MJ]

First post here so I hope don`t upset anyone.
Ok first and foremost I am a sports fan, pretty much doesn`t matter what sport. I have been fortunate, because of my age, to have witnessed Cassius Clay, Roger Federer in tennis, Phil Taylor in darts, Dick Fosbury the highjump, Messi and Ronaldo in football, Roland Matthes in swimming, most of you won`t even know him,, the list is endless. So there I am sitting at home in Germany ( I am English by the way ) and I pick up some news about this incredible female basketball player being the number 1 draft, so I just have to find out more. Before this time I knew absolutely nothing about ladies basketball but boy am I hooked now. Caitlin Clark is an absolutely amazing talent, not because she tops the assists, not just because of records she is setting but I love the way she shuts up her critics by playing her game. She has taken so much verbal and physical abuse but she just goes merrily on doing her thing. She is such a great example to all . Now.... Reese, yes she has got the rebounds record... but excuse me if I am wrong, it`s points that win matches not rebounds. I watched one game of Reese, can`t remember which match ( I wasn`t that impressed with her ). She shot, missed, gathered the rebound, shot again, missed again, rebound again, she rebounded 4 times off her own shot ( that was five attempts under the basket in total ) and still didn`t make a point and then she lost the ball. You can rebound all you like but if it doesn`t lead eventually to points what worth are the rebounds. For me, someone who not only scores a good level of points every game and assists her teammates to score points every game, that help to win matches, that has helped raise the standard of her whole team, then she is the ROY, not someone who rebounds a lot, off her own shots too, but those rebounds don`t help as much as they should especially considering the quantity then I would say 7th draft was a little flattering.

Welcome Avalon, I'm glad you're here and appreciate you sharing your sports history.

I can't say I saw first hand as much as you, but I'm with you in looking to appreciate greatness. I'm a huge Olympics fan and there I'm always cheering for the athletes to stick the proverbial landing more than I am cheering for my nation. I want to see the best of what humans can do.

Someone like Clark arising is very exciting!

I hope you do stick around. Feel free to ask questions if you have them.

Cheers,
Doc

[cdubbz]

Does anyone think A'ja will be UNANIMOUS MVP? She deserves the MVP, but I think others will get some votes for 1st. If the Aces were top 2 seed maybe it would be different imo.

[zimpy27]

I find it amusing to think that having such awful touch around the rim has made Reese a great offensive rebounder. The version of Reese that grew up with great rim touch never honed their offensive board skills with miss after miss.

She goes after offensive boards expecting the shots to kids everytime while the rest go after offensive boards expecting the shots to go in

[Ice Man]

She gives me such Rodman vibes. He was another who was always read to pogo-stick after his own shot.

[wojoaderge]

I find it amusing to think that having such awful touch around the rim has made Reese a great offensive rebounder. The version of Reese that grew up with great rim touch never honed their offensive board skills with miss after miss.

She goes after offensive boards expecting the shots to kids everytime while the rest go after offensive boards expecting the shots to go in

She shot .498 from the field in college

[Doctor MJ]

I find it amusing to think that having such awful touch around the rim has made Reese a great offensive rebounder. The version of Reese that grew up with great rim touch never honed their offensive board skills with miss after miss.

She goes after offensive boards expecting the shots to kids everytime while the rest go after offensive boards expecting the shots to go in

She shot .498 from the field in college

One thing to note is that Angel Reese is getting blocked by WNBA players like crazy.

Here's the entire list of players who are getting blocked at least half as often per game as Reese:

1. Reese 2.3
2. Hamby 1.9
3. Wilson 1.3
4. Copper 1.2

For further perspective:

No one else in WNBA history (per WNBA leaderboards) has ever been blocked 2 or more times per game for a season, and in many years no one gets blocked even 1.5 times per game.

So while I'm among the people who has criticized Angel's touch, a big part of the issue here is just that Angel's too short to rebound-land-then-shoot. She can sky for the board, but if she can't do a tip in, she probably need to just pass the ball back out to the perimeter.

And yeah, I'd imagine this was much less of an issue against college competition.

[Ghetto Gospel]

I find it amusing to think that having such awful touch around the rim has made Reese a great offensive rebounder. The version of Reese that grew up with great rim touch never honed their offensive board skills with miss after miss.

She goes after offensive boards expecting the shots to kids everytime while the rest go after offensive boards expecting the shots to go in

She shot .498 from the field in college

One thing to note is that Angel Reese is getting blocked by WNBA players like crazy.

Here's the entire list of players who are getting blocked at least half as often per game as Reese:

1. Reese 2.3
2. Hamby 1.9
3. Wilson 1.3
4. Copper 1.2

For further perspective:

No one else in WNBA history (per WNBA leaderboards) has ever been blocked 2 or more times per game for a season, and in many years no one gets blocked even 1.5 times per game.

So while I'm among the people who has criticized Angel's touch, a big part of the issue here is just that Angel's too short to rebound-land-then-shoot. She can sky for the board, but if she can't do a tip in, she probably need to just pass the ball back out to the perimeter.

And yeah, I'd imagine this was much less of an issue against college competition.

on this topic, do we have any idea, at what point it would be more beneficial more angel to be out at the 3-pt line vs hovering around the paint looking for offensive rebounds?

i know kevin love was the original paint hoverer that got a ton of boards that moved out into the perimeter to shoot 3s, which of course inevitably sacrificed his o-rebounding. i'd think that when kevin love became a good shooter it was better to have him out there but how low would the % have to be where it would be better to just have him back in the paint?

[MrDollarBills]

Does anyone think A'ja will be UNANIMOUS MVP? She deserves the MVP, but I think others will get some votes for 1st. If the Aces were top 2 seed maybe it would be different imo.

I would say yes, but not unanimous

[MrDollarBills]

She shot .498 from the field in college

One thing to note is that Angel Reese is getting blocked by WNBA players like crazy.

Here's the entire list of players who are getting blocked at least half as often per game as Reese:

1. Reese 2.3
2. Hamby 1.9
3. Wilson 1.3
4. Copper 1.2

For further perspective:

No one else in WNBA history (per WNBA leaderboards) has ever been blocked 2 or more times per game for a season, and in many years no one gets blocked even 1.5 times per game.

So while I'm among the people who has criticized Angel's touch, a big part of the issue here is just that Angel's too short to rebound-land-then-shoot. She can sky for the board, but if she can't do a tip in, she probably need to just pass the ball back out to the perimeter.

And yeah, I'd imagine this was much less of an issue against college competition.

on this topic, do we have any idea, at what point it would be more beneficial more angel to be out at the 3-pt line vs hovering around the paint looking for offensive rebounds?

i know kevin love was the original paint hoverer that got a ton of boards that moved out into the perimeter to shoot 3s, which of course inevitably sacrificed his o-rebounding. i'd think that when kevin love became a good shooter it was better to have him out there but how low would the % have to be where it would be better to just have him back in the paint?

She has a lot of work to do to become a more modern 4, and she has the touch and form to develop both a 3 point and mid range shot, I just wish ppl would give her the time and grace as a 22 year old to develop like other players have been given.

[MrDollarBills]

Stewie should be getting DPOY votes. She is an absolute monster

[Doctor MJ]

She shot .498 from the field in college

One thing to note is that Angel Reese is getting blocked by WNBA players like crazy.

Here's the entire list of players who are getting blocked at least half as often per game as Reese:

1. Reese 2.3
2. Hamby 1.9
3. Wilson 1.3
4. Copper 1.2

For further perspective:

No one else in WNBA history (per WNBA leaderboards) has ever been blocked 2 or more times per game for a season, and in many years no one gets blocked even 1.5 times per game.

So while I'm among the people who has criticized Angel's touch, a big part of the issue here is just that Angel's too short to rebound-land-then-shoot. She can sky for the board, but if she can't do a tip in, she probably need to just pass the ball back out to the perimeter.

And yeah, I'd imagine this was much less of an issue against college competition.

on this topic, do we have any idea, at what point it would be more beneficial more angel to be out at the 3-pt line vs hovering around the paint looking for offensive rebounds?

i know kevin love was the original paint hoverer that got a ton of boards that moved out into the perimeter to shoot 3s, which of course inevitably sacrificed his o-rebounding. i'd think that when kevin love became a good shooter it was better to have him out there but how low would the % have to be where it would be better to just have him back in the paint?

Many variables in play.

1. Because Angel can't finish in the interior, her rebounding value on the interior is less valuable than Love's, so if it made sense for Love to move to the perimeter in theory it should make even more sense.

2. But it's also not entirely clear whether Love's later role is what was best for him in a context where he was the biggest talent on his team. Angel ain't playing with LeBron.

3. It also of course depends on how well Angel can learn to shoot like Love. Just because a player has pro level talent in one area doesn't mean they can develop other pro level skills.

[Wingy]

Does anyone think A'ja will be UNANIMOUS MVP? She deserves the MVP, but I think others will get some votes for 1st. If the Aces were top 2 seed maybe it would be different imo.

I would say yes, but not unanimous

A’ja will win, but I’d be really surprised if Stewie and Phee don’t get some first place votes.

[MrDollarBills]

Does anyone think A'ja will be UNANIMOUS MVP? She deserves the MVP, but I think others will get some votes for 1st. If the Aces were top 2 seed maybe it would be different imo.

I would say yes, but not unanimous

A’ja will win, but I’d be really surprised if Stewie and Phee don’t get some first place votes.

Yeah for sure. I would give Phee a first place vote if i had a ballot, she's just a flat out beast

[Doctor MJ]

So ESPN (Voepel) just made a list of the best rookies in history which can be found here.

Here's the list:

1. Candace Parker (2008)
2. Tamika Catchings (2002)
3. Caitlin Clark (2024)
4. Maya Moore (2011)
5. A'ja Wilson (2018)
6. Breanna Stewart (2016)
7. Elena Delle Donne (2013)
8. Diana Taurasi (2004)
9. Tina Charles (2010)
10. Angel Reese (2024)

"Also considered: Seimone Augustus, Cheryl Ford, Sue Bird"

My thoughts:

- The names being discussed are in general the ones I'd expect despite the quibbles I have below.

- It bugs me that they're doing this list when there are still games to go in this season, but I get why they do it. I'll talk about Clark & Reese at the end.

- It makes sense that Parker is listed at #1 since she won the MVP as a rookie...though of course, I don't think she was ever an MVP level performer in her WNBA career and while I'd expect to have her Top 5 on my list here (as well as Top 5 MVP as a rookie), she wouldn't be much of a candidate for the top spot.

- Catchings is the #1 rookie based on Win Shares, and not someone to be dismissed lightly. I do think it took her longer to find her impact in the WNBA than it did to find her production. I still presently have her as a Top 5 MVP candidate as a rookie and Top 5 for me on this list.

- Moore. If you know me you know what I'm going to say: Despite the fact she did not make All-WNBA and got no real consideration for MVP...she was the actual most valuable player in the league as a rookie and impacting the game at a level beyond players like Parker & Catchings. She's the clear cut #1 for me and the fact that I diverge so clearly from most WNBA analysts on this will likely continue to be a major point of conversation so long as I'm talking about this stuff.

- Delle Donne is getting underrated. She's another player who I think was a Top 5 player as a rookie, and would be Top 5 on this list.

- Where's Nneka Ogwumike? Was really shocked that she didn't even get mentioned on the list, and worth noting that she and her sister both won ROY which you'd think would make them at least warrant a (last) name drop. Any way, Nneka would be in my top 5 along with the 4 I've already mentioned.

I feel like Nneka's having some of the same "lost in the shuffle" issues as Delle Donne, but I will say that I can see an argument for Nneka being "less good" as a rookie despite being "more valuable" - she has a more limited skillset than the others I've listed after all. Of course that didn't stop her from getting named MVP in her heyday.

- Okay, on Clark. So I think part of the reason why I chafe at this list being released before the end of the regular season is that Clark's placement here seems hard to justify based on literally any kind of advanced stat. The author only used traditional stats (PPG, RPG, etc.) so that might not matter at all - obviously Clark is putting up big production numbers, but that was true even at the start of the year when she frankly wasn't being that effective in her mega-primacy role.

To be clear, the way Clark is playing right this moment is truly exceptional and her being ranked around #3 based on this-moment's play actually sounds quite reasonable. She's absolutely living up to the hype and she's helping the W leap forward in the mainstream all the more for it.

But by year-long stats that factor in efficiency-related details, Clark doesn't belong on this list, and the same I think is pretty clear on the +/- side of the equation. Doesn't mean this author would care about these type of stats of course, but giving them the benefit of the doubt that they do have an acumen to do statistical analysis beyond the very basics would lead me to be a bit surprised that Clark would be as high as she is.

- What about Reese at 10? I saw the Reese vs Boston ROY campaigns thread and thought it was an apt question to be asking, but there's something about it from that advanced production framework I allude to above:

If you go by advanced production stats, we don't have ANY ROY candidates up there with Boston from last year.

It's just about the craziest thing given that this year's rookie class - Clark on her own of course, but Reese has added to it, and I think there's reason to be quite excited about Brink - has generated so much excitement in the WNBA and yet there are statistical measures that don't seem to see it.

However with Reese the impact has been there from the beginning. Quite literally for a major chunk of the season I think Reese was the Most Valuable Rookie in my assessment (though to be clear that's not quite the same thing as ROY for me). So what's going on there?

That horrible shooting efficiency. It's really holding her back in production stats, but it's not stopping her from being valuable for her team. Without question she'd be even more valuable if she made a reasonable number of her shots, but Reese is clearly having much impact outside of the box score and this bodes well for her future.

Unfortunately, things aren't quite as simple as "yeah she has weaknesses, but clearly here strengths WAY overwhelm them". There's good reason to be considered about the scalability of any player with such a glaring weakness to elite contending teams. Against the very best competition, there's scant margin for error even when you have no glaring weakness that might get strategized against.

But that's not saying I know Reese can't be a critical part of a contender, only that there's a specific concern that's not minor.

The fascinating part about her to me is just - this IS the Dennis Rodman of this era we're watching, and now I feel like we're going to get to see the closest thing to an actual experiment we could ever wish for play out. However good she ends up being, we're going to learn something watching her.

Boston I think there's good reason to argue she had the better rookie campaign compared with Reese...and yet while Reese's inclusion seems debatable to me, I don't think I'd have thought about Boston if not for the aforementioned thread. I'd say she's got a Top 10 all-time ROY case, but she probably wouldn't make mine. I say probably because honestly I don't have a list 10-deep at present, but it's some stiff competition.

[zimpy27]

So ESPN (Voepel) just made a list of the best rookies in history which can be found here.

Here's the list:

1. Candace Parker (2008)
2. Tamika Catchings (2002)
3. Caitlin Clark (2024)
4. Maya Moore (2011)
5. A'ja Wilson (2018)
6. Breanna Stewart (2016)
7. Elena Delle Donne (2013)
8. Diana Taurasi (2004)
9. Tina Charles (2010)
10. Angel Reese (2024)

"Also considered: Seimone Augustus, Cheryl Ford, Sue Bird"

My thoughts:

- The names being discussed are in general the ones I'd expect despite the quibbles I have below.

- It bugs me that they're doing this list when there are still games to go in this season, but I get why they do it. I'll talk about Clark & Reese at the end.

- It makes sense that Parker is listed at #1 since she won the MVP as a rookie...though of course, I don't think she was ever an MVP level performer in her WNBA career and while I'd expect to have her Top 5 on my list here (as well as Top 5 MVP as a rookie), she wouldn't be much of a candidate for the top spot.

- Catchings is the #1 rookie based on Win Shares, and not someone to be dismissed lightly. I do think it took her longer to find her impact in the WNBA than it did to find her production. I still presently have her as a Top 5 MVP candidate as a rookie and Top 5 for me on this list.

- Moore. If you know me you know what I'm going to say: Despite the fact she did not make All-WNBA and got no real consideration for MVP...she was the actual most valuable player in the league as a rookie and impacting the game at a level beyond players like Parker & Catchings. She's the clear cut #1 for me and the fact that I diverge so clearly from most WNBA analysts on this will likely continue to be a major point of conversation so long as I'm talking about this stuff.

- Delle Donne is getting underrated. She's another player who I think was a Top 5 player as a rookie, and would be Top 5 on this list.

- Where's Nneka Ogwumike? Was really shocked that she didn't even get mentioned on the list, and worth noting that she and her sister both won ROY which you'd think would make them at least warrant a (last) name drop. Any way, Nneka would be in my top 5 along with the 4 I've already mentioned.

I feel like Nneka's having some of the same "lost in the shuffle" issues as Delle Donne, but I will say that I can see an argument for Nneka being "less good" as a rookie despite being "more valuable" - she has a more limited skillset than the others I've listed after all. Of course that didn't stop her from getting named MVP in her heyday.

- Okay, on Clark. So I think part of the reason why I chafe at this list being released before the end of the regular season is that Clark's placement here seems hard to justify based on literally any kind of advanced stat. The author only used traditional stats (PPG, RPG, etc.) so that might not matter at all - obviously Clark is putting up big production numbers, but that was true even at the start of the year when she frankly wasn't being that effective in her mega-primacy role.

To be clear, the way Clark is playing right this moment is truly exceptional and her being ranked around #3 based on this-moment's play actually sounds quite reasonable. She's absolutely living up to the hype and she's helping the W leap forward in the mainstream all the more for it.

But by year-long stats that factor in efficiency-related details, Clark doesn't belong on this list, and the same I think is pretty clear on the +/- side of the equation. Doesn't mean this author would care about these type of stats of course, but giving them the benefit of the doubt that they do have an acumen to do statistical analysis beyond the very basics would lead me to be a bit surprised that Clark would be as high as she is.

- What about Reese at 10? I saw the Reese vs Boston ROY campaigns thread and thought it was an apt question to be asking, but there's something about it from that advanced production framework I allude to above:

If you go by advanced production stats, we don't have ANY ROY candidates up there with Boston from last year.

It's just about the craziest thing given that this year's rookie class - Clark on her own of course, but Reese has added to it, and I think there's reason to be quite excited about Brink - has generated so much excitement in the WNBA and yet there are statistical measures that don't seem to see it.

However with Reese the impact has been there from the beginning. Quite literally for a major chunk of the season I think Reese was the Most Valuable Rookie in my assessment (though to be clear that's not quite the same thing as ROY for me). So what's going on there?

That horrible shooting efficiency. It's really holding her back in production stats, but it's not stopping her from being valuable for her team. Without question she'd be even more valuable if she made a reasonable number of her shots, but Reese is clearly having much impact outside of the box score and this bodes well for her future.

Unfortunately, things aren't quite as simple as "yeah she has weaknesses, but clearly here strengths WAY overwhelm them". There's good reason to be considered about the scalability of any player with such a glaring weakness to elite contending teams. Against the very best competition, there's scant margin for error even when you have no glaring weakness that might get strategized against.

But that's not saying I know Reese can't be a critical part of a contender, only that there's a specific concern that's not minor.

The fascinating part about her to me is just - this IS the Dennis Rodman of this era we're watching, and now I feel like we're going to get to see the closest thing to an actual experiment we could ever wish for play out. However good she ends up being, we're going to learn something watching her.

Boston I think there's good reason to argue she had the better rookie campaign compared with Reese...and yet while Reese's inclusion seems debatable to me, I don't think I'd have thought about Boston if not for the aforementioned thread. I'd say she's got a Top 10 all-time ROY case, but she probably wouldn't make mine. I say probably because honestly I don't have a list 10-deep at present, but it's some stiff competition.

Problem with the advanced stats on Clark is her TO's are killing her numbers there and in reality the Fever are not making more TO's with or without Clark, she's taking on the TO load of the team and not adding TOs that would already be there.

[JustBuzzin]

Nobody is talking about Aja Wilson and it's honestly pissing me off!

[Wingy]

Nobody is talking about Aja Wilson and it's honestly pissing me off!

Hey, ESPN shockingly showed some self restraint and managed to keep Clark out of the headline tonight with A’ja breaking the scoring record. Sigh.

[jc23]

Just based off new found interest in the league id bet Aja has gotten more attention this year then she got last year. If your only comparing her to Caitlin and Reese then your going to continue to be mad.

ESPN is a tv network after all; its why they will lead off with lakers and lebron when the team is sitting outside the playoffs and will just touch bases with a team like OKC or the Pacers.