Chicago Sky/WNBA thread 2024

nomorezorro · Post #321 » by **nomorezorro** » Sat Jul 6, 2024 7:16 pm

reese has elite advanced statistics on both ends of the court. i know those skew in favor of bigs who rebound well, but i think it's borne out by the eye test, too — the mechanics of her game can be super ugly, but it's hard to argue she's not a positive impact player for the sky offensively

it's a disservice to her game to just look at her shaky scoring efficiency numbers and some bricked layups and assume that tells the whole story offensively. her motor and her confidence carry her a looong way

Clocian · Post #322 » by **Clocian** » Sat Jul 6, 2024 7:16 pm

Comical response to say Angel only good for rebounding. Not even worth taking your posts seriously

Clocian · Post #323 » by **Clocian** » Sat Jul 6, 2024 7:19 pm

dice wrote:anyway...if angel was not famous for being an allergen to caitlin clark, nobody would be talking about her

I will highlight this though. Thank you for confirming what kind of time you're on. Good day

dice · Post #324 » by **dice** » Sat Jul 6, 2024 7:21 pm

Clocian wrote:Comical response to say Angel only good for rebounding. Not even worth taking your posts seriously

she has stunk as a scorer, isn't a good passer and doesn't block shots. what am i missing?

and why are you hiding your posts rather than respond to me directly? speaks to the validity of your position

madvillian · Post #325 » by **madvillian** » Sat Jul 6, 2024 7:22 pm

I feel like every conversation on Reese and Clark is like out of NBA discourse from like 2008. Entire thing is just dated. How can you compare a double double defensive big with a gravity creating PG?

You really can't. I don't really care about using PER or WS or anything like that. Just let each develop and see how it goes. Clark obviously has the much higher ceiling as a PG. A defensive big with limited offensive utility just doesn't have that upside. Doesn't mean Reese isn't a good player or having a good season.

Shill · Post #326 » by **Shill** » Sat Jul 6, 2024 7:23 pm

DuckIII wrote:It’s just one quarter of basketball, but is anyone watching the Fever/Liberty game right now? Clark is basically single-handedly kicking their ass.

She came out fired up.

19/13/12/2 against the team with the best record is impressive.

First rookie triple-double in W history.

Certified baller

Shill · Post #327 » by **Shill** » Sat Jul 6, 2024 7:24 pm

madvillian wrote:I feel like every conversation on Reese and Clark is like out of NBA discourse from like 2008. Entire thing is just dated. How can you compare a double double defensive big with a gravity creating PG?

You really can't. I don't really care about using PER or WS or anything like that. Just let each develop and see how it goes. Clark obviously has the much higher ceiling as a PG. A defensive big with limited offensive utility just doesn't have that upside. Doesn't mean Reese isn't a good player or having a good season.

Not hating on Reese, but is she a good defender?

I haven't watched, so I have no opinion either way.

It's kinda weird that she has fewer blocks than Clark. I know blocked shots doesn't necessarily mean good defense, but weird nonetheless.

dice · Post #328 » by **dice** » Sat Jul 6, 2024 7:24 pm

nomorezorro wrote:reese has elite advanced statistics on both ends of the court. i know those skew in favor of bigs who rebound well, but i think it's borne out by the eye test, too — the mechanics of her game can be super ugly, but it's hard to argue she's not a positive impact player for the sky offensively

it's a disservice to her game to just look at her shaky scoring efficiency numbers and some bricked layups and assume that tells the whole story offensively. her motor and her confidence carry her a looong way

1) nobody keeps good advanced stats for the wnba. win shares is straight garbage
2) pat beverley has motor and confidence. how does missing shots magically translate to helping your team offensively?

the sky have a worse winning % than they did last season. their offense is significantly worse. how exactly is she impacting the team in a ROY-caliber manner?

madvillian · Post #329 » by **madvillian** » Sat Jul 6, 2024 7:29 pm

Shill wrote:
madvillian wrote:I feel like every conversation on Reese and Clark is like out of NBA discourse from like 2008. Entire thing is just dated. How can you compare a double double defensive big with a gravity creating PG?

You really can't. I don't really care about using PER or WS or anything like that. Just let each develop and see how it goes. Clark obviously has the much higher ceiling as a PG. A defensive big with limited offensive utility just doesn't have that upside. Doesn't mean Reese isn't a good player or having a good season.

Not hating on Reese, but is she a good defender?

I haven't watched, so I have no opinion either way.

It's kinda weird that she has fewer blocks than Clark. I know blocked shots doesn't necessarily mean good defense, but weird nonetheless.

Yea I really don't know. The stats are weird on steals and TOs because quite frankly a lot of the women just fumble the ball and do terribly awkward stuff that you don't even see in HS boys ball.

I think Reese is a solid defender in that she can bang with women much older than her and hold her own and dominate the glass. I don't think her steal numbers are indicative of some great theft merchant.

nomorezorro · Post #330 » by **nomorezorro** » Sat Jul 6, 2024 7:30 pm

prove to me that angel reese has a positive impact on the sky. also heads up, none of the stats that says angel reese has a positive impact are any good. ok go

madvillian · Post #331 » by **madvillian** » Sat Jul 6, 2024 7:32 pm

nomorezorro wrote:prove to me that angel reese has a positive impact on the sky. also heads up, none of the stats that says angel reese has a positive impact are any good. ok go

she def has the andre drummond approach to rebound totals. I think she's having a decent season; I think you'd be crazy to say you'd take her long term over clark. Which unfortunately a lot of people are because they have an agenda.

nomorezorro · Post #332 » by **nomorezorro** » Sat Jul 6, 2024 7:36 pm

re: the block numbers - in general, i think reese is a better perimeter defender than she is a rim protector, and while her size lets her do a solid-to-good job one on one against most scoring bigs, she can't translate that into blocked shots and she's not going to come off the weak side to block any shots either.

more specifically, part of what makes reese a unique player is that she is extremely uncoordinated in some aspects of her game and weirdly coordinated in others. to put it bluntly, she just seems to be bad at blocking shots. that's not something her hand-eye coordination is built for. (on the flip side, she does seem to be good at getting steals. strange dichotomy!)

she is also very famously rough at finishing around the rim, although she has certain angles she can be effective from (and over the course of the season, she seems to be more frequently getting to those angles). she's shown flashes of a crudely effective off-the-dribble game, she's really good at drawing fouls, she's turning into a legitimately good free throw shooter...it's a very strange assemblage of skills and weaknesses.

nomorezorro · Post #333 » by **nomorezorro** » Sat Jul 6, 2024 7:38 pm

all that being said, i have no reservations about saying she's been the second-best player on the sky this season and has been a decidedly positive impact player when she's on the court

dice · Post #334 » by **dice** » Sat Jul 6, 2024 7:43 pm

nomorezorro wrote:prove to me that angel reese has a positive impact on the sky. also heads up, none of the stats that says angel reese has a positive impact are any good. ok go

nobody asked you to prove anything. you decided on your own to bring up advanced stats. so show me one reputable source that cites any of the "advanced" stats you are using

PER and the marginally better win shares are both widely acknowledged as crap. WS career ranking per 48:

140 pippen
148 boozer

dice · Post #335 » by **dice** » Sat Jul 6, 2024 7:46 pm

Clocian wrote:
dice wrote:anyway...if angel was not famous for being an allergen to caitlin clark, nobody would be talking about her

I will highlight this though. Thank you for confirming what kind of time you're on. Good day

what time would that be? again...pointing out the truth. i'm sure there have been great rebounding, bad shooting rookies on bad teams in the wnba before. i'm also sure you don't know their names. good life

if/when reese DOES turn into a special player, i'm sure you'll be back to point it out (as if i'm saying she's incapable)

burlydee · Post #336 » by **burlydee** » Sat Jul 6, 2024 7:51 pm

dice wrote:
Clocian wrote:
dice wrote:anyway...if angel was not famous for being an allergen to caitlin clark, nobody would be talking about her

I will highlight this though. Thank you for confirming what kind of time you're on. Good day

what time would that be? again...pointing out the truth. i'm sure there have been great rebounding, bad shooting rookies on bad teams in the wnba before. i'm also sure you don't know their names. good life

if/when reese DOES turn into a special player, i'm sure you'll be back to point it out

She was the best player on a team that won an NCAa championship. As CC herself proves, it has always been college accolades that have propelled the sport. I know Diana Taurasi, Griner, Holdsclaw, Lobo, Clark, Reece, Stewart largely based on what they did in college. I haven't watched the WBNA since Lisa Leslie and Swoopes played.

jc23 · Post #337 » by **jc23** » Sat Jul 6, 2024 7:59 pm

I get alot of push back from the long time wnba fans with this, but the league needs some adjustments. You cant call the game the same way you do the men. Physicality and size has a bigger impact on women imo. In the wnba when players get physical it tends to muddy the waters and often results in a broken or sloppy play. Not very engaging to watch as a fan.

Im not advocating for zero physicality; that would be silly. just a league that rewards skill over muscle and size. The goal is to weed out the Aaron Gray types and force players to become more multi faceted. To be clear; i do find what Reese does as a skill and valuable. Not trying to get caught in the middle of the CC AR civil war.

The league should lean heavy into shooting, passing and team play. You dont need a dunk at the end of a fast break for it to be exciting. Passing, cutting and moving the ball is plenty exciting.

Because lets be honest here; the ratings over the last 20 years pretty much demand some change.

madvillian · Post #338 » by **madvillian** » Sat Jul 6, 2024 8:28 pm

jc23 wrote:I get alot of push back from the long time wnba fans with this, but the league needs some adjustments. You cant call the game the same way you do the men. Physicality and size has a bigger impact on women imo. In the wnba when players get physical it tends to muddy the waters and often results in a broken or sloppy play. Not very engaging to watch as a fan.

Im not advocating for zero physicality; that would be silly. just a league that rewards skill over muscle and size. The goal is to weed out the Aaron Gray types and force players to become more multi faceted. To be clear; i do find what Reese does as a skill and valuable. Not trying to get caught in the middle of the CC AR civil war.

The league should lean heavy into shooting, passing and team play. You dont need a dunk at the end of a fast break for it to be exciting. Passing, cutting and moving the ball is plenty exciting.

Because lets be honest here; the ratings over the last 20 years pretty much demand some change.

Maybe that's why I liked watching the NCAA FF more. I agree when the women starting colliding with each other it really becomes a huge slop fest. They just aren't athletically coordinated enough to make it work. Maybe the next generation.

TheSuzerain · Post #339 » by **TheSuzerain** » Sat Jul 6, 2024 8:37 pm

Reese gets the headlines for the Sky. But the Chennedy Carter thing is wild. Like a top 5 guard in the league that they basically signed on a training camp contract? What?

Post #340 » by **chitownsports4ever** » Sat Jul 6, 2024 8:46 pm

Shill wrote:
madvillian wrote:I feel like every conversation on Reese and Clark is like out of NBA discourse from like 2008. Entire thing is just dated. How can you compare a double double defensive big with a gravity creating PG?

You really can't. I don't really care about using PER or WS or anything like that. Just let each develop and see how it goes. Clark obviously has the much higher ceiling as a PG. A defensive big with limited offensive utility just doesn't have that upside. Doesn't mean Reese isn't a good player or having a good season.

Not hating on Reese, but is she a good defender?

I haven't watched, so I have no opinion either way.

It's kinda weird that she has fewer blocks than Clark. I know blocked shots doesn't necessarily mean good defense, but weird nonetheless.

Actually Reese a good defender one of the better defensive forwards in the league so far and all the advanced stats lean HARD her way

Win Shares both offensive and defensive
PER
Ortg
Drtg

Angel Reese is a impact player and people try and dismiss it because its not as pretty as chucking up halfcourt threes but nonetheless she is a impact player.

Shes tough right now but if she cleans up her layup package my goodness and I dont see how anyone can compare her to Drummond with a straight face . Drummond has lways bene considered around the league to be low IQ player and Reese is anything but .

ROTY of the year will go down to the wire and it will end up being co-ROTY with CC.