Chicago Sky/WNBA thread 2024

[Betta Bulleavit]

Although there were some character concerns (early in her senior year at LSU, Reese was suspended for 2 games by her coach for unspecified "locker room issues"), the main reason was concern about her finishing skills. That concern was definitely warranted!

This tells me her potential is limitless. If Angel figures out the bolded part, then watch out. I think Angel could be the Hakeem to Clark's MJ of their draft.

I honestly don't think she wants it bad enough. Just my opinion of course. She doesn't look like she's in great shape to me. A lot of her problems finishing are just that she's so tired she can't really even jump in a coordinated matter towards the rim. Maybe the light goes on for her, it does for a lot of young players, but right now she's just a very inefficient rebounder. She's not even a good defender.

I’m not sure that I understand this take at all. Reese has easily been the most consistent rookie all year long (not necessarily the best). Additionally, she (like Clark) is on a bit of a grinder at this point because both came from programs that made deep tournament runs and then had to turn right back around and get to it at the pro level just weeks later. So she hasn’t had much down time to work on certain parts of her game that will need to be better at this level. I don’t think it’s a matter of want to as much as it is a matter of just being worn down at this point. A full off season should do her some good.

[madvillian]

This tells me her potential is limitless. If Angel figures out the bolded part, then watch out. I think Angel could be the Hakeem to Clark's MJ of their draft.

I honestly don't think she wants it bad enough. Just my opinion of course. She doesn't look like she's in great shape to me. A lot of her problems finishing are just that she's so tired she can't really even jump in a coordinated matter towards the rim. Maybe the light goes on for her, it does for a lot of young players, but right now she's just a very inefficient rebounder. She's not even a good defender.

I think you're underselling something here. Her on/off rating is an absolutely insane +21 while playing 32 minutes a game. Effectively they are a slightly a above average team when she plays and the worst team in the league when she doesn't.

How is that possible her box +- is often the worst on the team and has been trending downwards. At best she's neutral or slightly positive.

https://stats.wnba.com/player/1642291/boxscores-traditional/?sort=PLUS_MINUS&dir=1

[dougthonus]

I honestly don't think she wants it bad enough. Just my opinion of course. She doesn't look like she's in great shape to me. A lot of her problems finishing are just that she's so tired she can't really even jump in a coordinated matter towards the rim. Maybe the light goes on for her, it does for a lot of young players, but right now she's just a very inefficient rebounder. She's not even a good defender.

I think you're underselling something here. Her on/off rating is an absolutely insane +21 while playing 32 minutes a game. Effectively they are a slightly a above average team when she plays and the worst team in the league when she doesn't.

How is that possible her box +- is often the worst on the team and has been trending downwards. At best she's neutral or slightly positive.

https://stats.wnba.com/player/1642291/boxscores-traditional/?sort=PLUS_MINUS&dir=1

Her raw +/- is 3rd on the team:

https://stats.wnba.com/team/1611661329/players-traditional/?sort=PLUS_MINUS&dir=1

Of the two players above her, one only plays 50% of the minutes and the other only played in 1/3rd of the games. Angel plays 80% of the minutes and when she plays they're +.5 or about +.7 projected over a game. When she sits they're -4.3 (or about -20 over a game).

[Ice Man]

I'm not sure what to make of WNBA raw +/- scores. A quick look shows Caitlin Clark as being the 4th best starter on the Fever by that measure, and A'ja Wilson tied for 3rd place on the Aces, well behind Kelsey Plum. Breanna Steward is 3rd among Liberty starters.

So, I don't know what to do with that statistic.

[madvillian]

No comment after that first half except lol.

[Ice Man]

The Sky do a lot of things right, but 3-point shooting isn't one of them. Good luck winning regularly while taking 9 3s in a modern professional basketball game, as they did last night.

Oh, and Chennedy Carter is the WNBA"s version of Grayson Allen. I mean, in demeanor, not in terms of her game. Her game is way better.

[madvillian]

The Sky do a lot of things right, but 3-point shooting isn't one of them. Good luck winning regularly while taking 9 3s in a modern professional basketball game, as they did last night.

Oh, and Chennedy Carter is the WNBA"s version of Grayson Allen. I mean, in demeanor, not in terms of her game. Her game is way better.

Carter is talented, it's too bad she's such a hot head malcontent. I don't know why the Sky insist on starting Reese and Cardoso together. Granted I'm not a huge expert on their roster but as you said they need shooting. Is the stretch 4 a thing in the WNBA? Ostensibly they start Reese at the 4 and Cardoso at the 5 and I don't believe it's a winning combo. Both players tire quickly and the Sky get easily beaten in an up and down game with open threes for the opposition off semi transitions.

[TheSuzerain]

The Sky do a lot of things right, but 3-point shooting isn't one of them. Good luck winning regularly while taking 9 3s in a modern professional basketball game, as they did last night.

Oh, and Chennedy Carter is the WNBA"s version of Grayson Allen. I mean, in demeanor, not in terms of her game. Her game is way better.

Carter is talented, it's too bad she's such a hot head malcontent. I don't know why the Sky insist on starting Reese and Cardoso together. Granted I'm not a huge expert on their roster but as you said they need shooting. Is the stretch 4 a thing in the WNBA? Ostensibly they start Reese at the 4 and Cardoso at the 5 and I don't believe it's a winning combo. Both players tire quickly and the Sky get easily beaten in an up and down game with open threes for the opposition off semi transitions.

Stretch 4 isn't really a thing it seems to me.

Carter
XXX
XXX
Reese
Cardoso

Is a decent framework. They do need some wings who can actually shoot though but yeah I think their route will more so be elite defense than a top offense.

[Ice Man]

Agree with the above. Stretch #4 isn't much of a thing in the WNBA (yet), because the women's game is where the men's game was in the Nineties. The bigs are mostly there to rebound and play bully ball, not dribble or make jump shots.

So whereas Cardoso/Reese might be an ill-matched duo in the modern NBA, I think the combo is just fine for today's WNBA. A team can contend with a core of Carter/Reese/Cardoso + a 3&D wing + a better PG. It wouldn't lead the league in offensive efficiency, but if its offense was merely above average its defense and rebounding could get the job done.

Whether the personalities can co-exist ... well now. That's another story. Carter and Reese each have combative reputations, their teammate Mabrey (who admittedly has had her own issues) requested out of the team last month, and after last night's game the players apparently tore apart the locker room in frustration. The yelling could be heard during the post-game presser.

But peace and love don't necessarily win titles.

[Shill]

Agree with the above. Stretch #4 isn't much of a thing in the WNBA (yet), because the women's game is where the men's game was in the Nineties. The bigs are mostly there to rebound and play bully ball, not dribble or make jump shots.

So whereas Cardoso/Reese might be an ill-matched duo in the modern NBA, I think the combo is just fine for today's WNBA. A team can contend with a core of Carter/Reese/Cardoso + a 3&D wing + a better PG. It wouldn't lead the league in offensive efficiency, but if its offense was merely above average its defense and rebounding could get the job done.

Whether the personalities can co-exist ... well now. That's another story. Carter and Reese each have combative reputations, their teammate Mabrey (who admittedly has had her own issues) requested out of the team last month, and after last night's game the players apparently tore apart the locker room in frustration. The yelling could be heard during the post-game presser.

But peace and love don't necessarily win titles.

Could be wrong, but I think the “tearing up the locker room” thing was bogus.

I’ve seen NFL press conference after a team win where there’s just noise in the locker room when the door to the press room is left open.

[Ice Man]

Could be wrong, but I think the “tearing up the locker room” thing was bogus.

You might be right. With the Sky, it's hard to separate the Internet rumors from fact.

[dougthonus]

I'm not sure what to make of WNBA raw +/- scores. A quick look shows Caitlin Clark as being the 4th best starter on the Fever by that measure, and A'ja Wilson tied for 3rd place on the Aces, well behind Kelsey Plum. Breanna Steward is 3rd among Liberty starters.

So, I don't know what to do with that statistic.

I don't know that I'd do much with it, but the implication that she can't defend and she's horribly inefficient on offense and isn't impacting the game just doesn't seem right and she's a pure stat padder doesn't seem to be supported by the results when she is on the floor vs off. I would guess that her rebounding does impact the game and that she's probably a quite good defender.

Her rebounding numbers are probably inflated by all her tip put back misses, but her offensive efficiency is massively deflated for the same reason. If you assume half her offensive rebound numbers are tips and then factor them out, you'd effectively have her FG% up to 50% and her TS% up to 57% and she'd be averaging 11.5 rebounds a game instead of 14.4.

Then if you said she as a 15.5/11.5 player with good efficiency, you'd think she was great. That's probably pretty close to the actual impact, because on a possession, no one cares if you shoot, miss, tip the ball 3 times, and make it on the last shot. If you just call that one shot and a make and no rebounds, that accurate shows the game impact of the play, and that stat line I posted is probably some approximation of that.

I don't know if 50% of her offensive boards are tips, its just a guess, and she clearly doesn't make all the tips either, but if you factor all tips away from FG Misses and Off board totals, then you'd probably have an easier to paint picture of who she is.

[Ice Man]

I would guess that her rebounding does impact the game and that she's probably a quite good defender.

Correct on both accounts, as well as in your assessment of her tips/scoring efficiency. (I don't think the effect is as large as you portray it, but you are directionally right.)

No question that she is a good player, in the sense that her team is better when she's on the floor. The question is how good? I struggle to take those On/Off stats at face value because they would seem to describe a hypothetical Angel Reese who is also an All Star level scorer -- a female Tim Duncan, say -- rather than a super-elite role player. But maybe. Vdery early days yet ... by NBA standards, it's New Years Day in Angel's rookie season.

[dougthonus]

I would guess that her rebounding does impact the game and that she's probably a quite good defender.

Correct on both accounts, as well as in your assessment of her tips/scoring efficiency. (I don't think the effect is as large as you portray it, but you are directionally right.)

No question that she is a good player, in the sense that her team is better when she's on the floor. The question is how good? I struggle to take those On/Off stats at face value because they would seem to describe a hypothetical Angel Reese who is also an All Star level scorer -- a female Tim Duncan, say -- rather than a super-elite role player. But maybe. Vdery early days yet ... by NBA standards, it's New Years Day in Angel's rookie season.

From a practical perspective, if you view each trip down the floor as a possession and so an offensive rebound does not start a new possession but is a continuation of an old possession, then every offensive rebound she has effectively negates a missed field goal attempt of herself or one of her teammates.

That means her offensive impact to the team as a whole is about that of a 63.4% TS% (with oreb consideration).

If I calculate the same stat for the WNBA (normally TS% of 53%), the league TS% with oreb consideration) is 59.7%.

It shows that her overall offensive impact is above league average despite what appears to be really poor offensive efficiency numbers for herself, she's playing at above league average efficiency. The Sky's overall TS% with oreb consideration is 56.4%, so relative to her teammates, she's adding an even larger amount of efficiency compared to what she's doing vs the league.

So I think there is this concept that Reese is this very poor offensive player due to a lot of these base efficiency stats, but they don't capture the true impact of what she's doing on offense.

[Ice Man]

So I think there is this concept that Reese is this very poor offensive player due to a lot of these base efficiency stats, but they don't capture the true impact of what she's doing on offense.

That's a thoughtful way to evaluate her offense.

It should be noted that the league's better bigs score extremely well by this measure, because 1) their TS% are high to begin with, and 2) they get offensive rebounds, although not as many as Angel.

Thus -

Boston 68.5%
Cardoso 70.5%
Alyssa Thomas 68.7%
Magbegor 71.5%
Collier 64.0%
A'ja 64.7%
Griner 69.2%

However, in Angel's favor, she does that on higher total volume (counting adjusted FGAs plus offensive rebounds) than than anybody on that list except for A'ja and Collier, which puts her in very elite company.

[dougthonus]

So I think there is this concept that Reese is this very poor offensive player due to a lot of these base efficiency stats, but they don't capture the true impact of what she's doing on offense.

That's a thoughtful way to evaluate her offense.

It should be noted that the league's better bigs score extremely well by this measure, because 1) their TS% are high to begin with, and 2) they get offensive rebounds, although not as many as Angel.

Thus -

Boston 68.5%
Cardoso 70.5%
Alyssa Thomas 68.7%
Magbegor 71.5%
Collier 64.0%
A'ja 64.7%
Griner 69.2%

However, in Angel's favor, she does that on higher total volume (counting adjusted FGAs plus offensive rebounds) than than anybody on that list except for A'ja and Collier, which puts her in very elite company.

I think that makes sense.

FWIW, I'm also not arguing that she's elite, just that there is a prevalent thought that she's awful, and that thought isn't really accurate. Her total package has an above average, below elite level at this point in time. She's also a rookie so has plenty of room to grow.

[Ice Man]

FWIW, I'm also not arguing that she's elite

Kinda. I realized that my analysis overstates her volume, but I can't think of quick fix for that.

Her total package has an above average, below elite level at this point in time. She's also a rookie so has plenty of room to grow.

That's a fair summary. She's will obviously be a perennial All Star (realizing that being named to an All Star game is more common in the WNBA than in the NBA, as on average 2 players from each WNBA team are All Stars).

[Charlesareed]

Looks like the schedule the fever had in the beginning of the season is hurting tge sky and now they might not make the playoffs

[Ice Man]

Whether intentionally or not, the Sky tanked this year when it traded Mabrey.

[madvillian]

It's criminal to be running so many plays for Reese when in reality Cardoso is the more talented offensive player by a mile. Reese is a black hole whereas Cardoso sees doubles early and can even sometimes make a skip pass.

I found it telling that with the game over the Sky ran a play to try and get a Reese a desperation three to try and keep her double double streak alive.

Are they trying to win and make the playoffs or are they trying to pad Reese's stats? You can't do both. It's one or the other.