2025 WNBA Awards Discussion Thread

[cdubbz]

Really felt it was Colliers MVP for a majority of the season, but Wilson carried the Aces after a slow start. 4x MVP is impressive!

[Doctor MJ]

Not surprised A'ja won, but pretty surprised that it was by a substantial margin.

It was a nearly impossible choice, and I wouldn't have hated if the voting had landed on a Co-MVP situation.

Rough for Phee.

She's had a career of bad beats all around. Last year's Finals, lost on a couple Final Four buzzer beaters in college, and now back to back MVP caliber seasons, but happens to play in the same league as A'ja.

For me, it’s a bummer.

I think we should be talking about a 2 time MVP and 1 time Finals MVP at this point, but she’s one bad injury away from being remembered as “great but not MVP level”.

It’s these type of divergences between what I believe to be appropriate for the player and what I expect their legacy will be given the accolades that give me a cheering bias.

I’ll also say: I don’t have these issues in the NBA to the same extent I do in the W, which I’d chalk up partially to a greater divergence of process.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Green Chile]

Not surprised A'ja won, but pretty surprised that it was by a substantial margin.

It was a nearly impossible choice, and I wouldn't have hated if the voting had landed on a Co-MVP situation.

Rough for Phee.

She's had a career of bad beats all around. Last year's Finals, lost on a couple Final Four buzzer beaters in college, and now back to back MVP caliber seasons, but happens to play in the same league as A'ja.

For me, it’s a bummer.

I think we should be talking about a 2 time MVP and 1 time Finals MVP at this point, but she’s one bad injury away from being remembered as “great but not MVP level”.

It’s these type of divergences between what I believe to be appropriate for the player and what I expect their legacy will be given the accolades that give me a cheering bias.

I’ll also say: I don’t have these issues in the NBA to the same extent I do in the W, which I’d chalk up partially to a greater divergence of process.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but Phee holding a Finals MVP trophy in a couple of weeks would feel really good.

Although, AT holding one would be pretty fun too.

[cupcakesnake]

Not surprised A'ja won, but pretty surprised that it was by a substantial margin.

It was a nearly impossible choice, and I wouldn't have hated if the voting had landed on a Co-MVP situation.

Rough for Phee.

She's had a career of bad beats all around. Last year's Finals, lost on a couple Final Four buzzer beaters in college, and now back to back MVP caliber seasons, but happens to play in the same league as A'ja.

For me, it’s a bummer.

I think we should be talking about a 2 time MVP and 1 time Finals MVP at this point, but she’s one bad injury away from being remembered as “great but not MVP level”.

It’s these type of divergences between what I believe to be appropriate for the player and what I expect their legacy will be given the accolades that give me a cheering bias.

I’ll also say: I don’t have these issues in the NBA to the same extent I do in the W, which I’d chalk up partially to a greater divergence of process.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A'ja is an amazing amazing player, but it does feel she's lucking into a ton of awards. She has the highest level of media recognition, and now there's some injury timing working out.

I also don't get she's the default pick for DPOY when there's no huge media push for someone else (or when they're not using it as the MVP runner up). It feels a bit early 2000s NBA when voters looked at BPG first as the defining stat. I like A'ja's defense, but compared to AT and Phee, she's way more mistake prone. She's also less versatile in that it's never worked well to play A'ja with another big, defensively, so you have to play fairly small to have success with her. Going all the way back to the ill-fated Liz Cambage pairing, but more prominently with Kiah Stokes or Gustafason, A'ja is much better sitting in the paint than she is covering ground. She can look pretty good in an iso, but move her around a ton and she's mistake prone. Meanwhile, I watch AT and and Phee and think: youth coach's at every level should be teaching defense by showing them these 2 players.

[Doctor MJ]

Not surprised A'ja won, but pretty surprised that it was by a substantial margin.

It was a nearly impossible choice, and I wouldn't have hated if the voting had landed on a Co-MVP situation.

Rough for Phee.

She's had a career of bad beats all around. Last year's Finals, lost on a couple Final Four buzzer beaters in college, and now back to back MVP caliber seasons, but happens to play in the same league as A'ja.

For me, it’s a bummer.

I think we should be talking about a 2 time MVP and 1 time Finals MVP at this point, but she’s one bad injury away from being remembered as “great but not MVP level”.

It’s these type of divergences between what I believe to be appropriate for the player and what I expect their legacy will be given the accolades that give me a cheering bias.

I’ll also say: I don’t have these issues in the NBA to the same extent I do in the W, which I’d chalk up partially to a greater divergence of process.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A'ja is an amazing amazing player, but it does feel she's lucking into a ton of awards. She has the highest level of media recognition, and now there's some injury timing working out.

I also don't get she's the default pick for DPOY when there's no huge media push for someone else (or when they're not using it as the MVP runner up). It feels a bit early 2000s NBA when voters looked at BPG first as the defining stat. I like A'ja's defense, but compared to AT and Phee, she's way more mistake prone. She's also less versatile in that it's never worked well to play A'ja with another big, defensively, so you have to play fairly small to have success with her. Going all the way back to the ill-fated Liz Cambage pairing, but more prominently with Kiah Stokes or Gustafason, A'ja is much better sitting in the paint than she is covering ground. She can look pretty good in an iso, but move her around a ton and she's mistake prone. Meanwhile, I watch AT and and Phee and think: youth coach's at every level should be teaching defense by showing them these 2 players.

Agree on all fronts, and I'll say:

I detect a certain humility/ignorance/laziness in WNBA awards voters relative to their NBA counterparts, that I actually think something just released is telling:

The WNBA just released their All-Rookie team, and it included #2 pick Malonga, despite the fact that Malonga was 10th in her own draft class in MPG with a paltry 14.3 MPG, other rookies also playing more, and Malonga having an On-Off that basically says "Yeah, that's why we mostly keep you on the bench". WTF?

In the NBA, there's certainly a bias toward the more hyped players, but typically the All-Rookie accolade advantage comes from the fact that the Adam Morrison's and Jahlil Okafor's are given big minutes and the greenlight to volume shoot when they play which gives them the bigger superficial box score which tends to win the day.

But I feel like this year with the W, the voters didn't even pay close attention to the less hyped rookies who carved out significant roles on their teams, and largely just chose the players that were talked about before the season started.

By this same token, I'd say the W's media in general is far more happy-clappy than the NBA. It's like those who specifically cover the W see themselves as a propaganda arm for it, and that the goal is to try to grow the game by cheering really loudly. I kinda like it to be honest - the negativity of the NBA media is ugly - but it feels like it also allows the media to get away with not actually leveling-up their understanding the way NBA media has already had to do.

I should be careful about not coming across too cocky here as I certainly can't see the details of the game like the best do, but my sense coming from the NBA media analysis to WNBA analysis is a bit like going back in decades in time, and while the available video & analytics for the W lags behind the NBA to some degree, it doesn't lag behind THAT much.

[Doctor MJ]

So I'll say with the Finals about to start:

I'm not sure if I'm going to try to do a board award voting project for the 2025 season like I did for 2024. I'll do it if there's sufficient interest, but it's perfectly fine if people are more interested in other things.

If people are interested, they should let me know.

Cheers,
Doc

[Green Chile]

For me, it’s a bummer.

I think we should be talking about a 2 time MVP and 1 time Finals MVP at this point, but she’s one bad injury away from being remembered as “great but not MVP level”.

It’s these type of divergences between what I believe to be appropriate for the player and what I expect their legacy will be given the accolades that give me a cheering bias.

I’ll also say: I don’t have these issues in the NBA to the same extent I do in the W, which I’d chalk up partially to a greater divergence of process.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A'ja is an amazing amazing player, but it does feel she's lucking into a ton of awards. She has the highest level of media recognition, and now there's some injury timing working out.

I also don't get she's the default pick for DPOY when there's no huge media push for someone else (or when they're not using it as the MVP runner up). It feels a bit early 2000s NBA when voters looked at BPG first as the defining stat. I like A'ja's defense, but compared to AT and Phee, she's way more mistake prone. She's also less versatile in that it's never worked well to play A'ja with another big, defensively, so you have to play fairly small to have success with her. Going all the way back to the ill-fated Liz Cambage pairing, but more prominently with Kiah Stokes or Gustafason, A'ja is much better sitting in the paint than she is covering ground. She can look pretty good in an iso, but move her around a ton and she's mistake prone. Meanwhile, I watch AT and and Phee and think: youth coach's at every level should be teaching defense by showing them these 2 players.

Agree on all fronts, and I'll say:

I detect a certain humility/ignorance/laziness in WNBA awards voters relative to their NBA counterparts, that I actually think something just released is telling:

The WNBA just released their All-Rookie team, and it included #2 pick Malonga, despite the fact that Malonga was 10th in her own draft class in MPG with a paltry 14.3 MPG, other rookies also playing more, and Malonga having an On-Off that basically says "Yeah, that's why we mostly keep you on the bench". WTF?

In the NBA, there's certainly a bias toward the more hyped players, but typically the All-Rookie accolade advantage comes from the fact that the Adam Morrison's and Jahlil Okafor's are given big minutes and the greenlight to volume shoot when they play which gives them the bigger superficial box score which tends to win the day.

But I feel like this year with the W, the voters didn't even pay close attention to the less hyped rookies who carved out significant roles on their teams, and largely just chose the players that were talked about before the season started.

By this same token, I'd say the W's media in general is far more happy-clappy than the NBA. It's like those who specifically cover the W see themselves as a propaganda arm for it, and that the goal is to try to grow the game by cheering really loudly. I kinda like it to be honest - the negativity of the NBA media is ugly - but it feels like it also allows the media to get away with not actually leveling-up their understanding the way NBA media has already had to do.

I should be careful about not coming across too cocky here as I certainly can't see the details of the game like the best do, but my sense coming from the NBA media analysis to WNBA analysis is a bit like going back in decades in time, and while the available video & analytics for the W lags behind the NBA to some degree, it doesn't lag behind THAT much.

I agree about WNBA media. Certainly about them being happy-clappy. It's an underdog league, so fans/media tend to try to be more positive. I think Candace even recently addressed this (media's reluctance to be critical). But it makes sense why the media would be that way for now.

On the all-rookie team, I can't be too mad at them for putting Malonga on it.

This is a really deep class, and after Paige, Citron, and Kiki, you could make the case for about 8-9 players, imo.

Just looking at win shares:
Paige 4.4
Citron 4.2
Kiki 3.1
Makani 2.2
Paopao 2.0
Malonga 1.9
Rupert 1.9
Salaun 1.8
Westbeld 1.6
Lacan 1.2
KK TImpson 1.0
Saniya 0.7
Morrow 0.6

Outside of Westbeld, TImpson, and Morrow, if I were a voter, I'd be trying to get them all on the team. Honestly, I don't think I could leave Saniya off.

But it's just so close.

In that case, it makes sense that a player with massive upside with draft capital that finished strong would make it.

[cupcakesnake]

For me, it’s a bummer.

I think we should be talking about a 2 time MVP and 1 time Finals MVP at this point, but she’s one bad injury away from being remembered as “great but not MVP level”.

It’s these type of divergences between what I believe to be appropriate for the player and what I expect their legacy will be given the accolades that give me a cheering bias.

I’ll also say: I don’t have these issues in the NBA to the same extent I do in the W, which I’d chalk up partially to a greater divergence of process.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A'ja is an amazing amazing player, but it does feel she's lucking into a ton of awards. She has the highest level of media recognition, and now there's some injury timing working out.

I also don't get she's the default pick for DPOY when there's no huge media push for someone else (or when they're not using it as the MVP runner up). It feels a bit early 2000s NBA when voters looked at BPG first as the defining stat. I like A'ja's defense, but compared to AT and Phee, she's way more mistake prone. She's also less versatile in that it's never worked well to play A'ja with another big, defensively, so you have to play fairly small to have success with her. Going all the way back to the ill-fated Liz Cambage pairing, but more prominently with Kiah Stokes or Gustafason, A'ja is much better sitting in the paint than she is covering ground. She can look pretty good in an iso, but move her around a ton and she's mistake prone. Meanwhile, I watch AT and and Phee and think: youth coach's at every level should be teaching defense by showing them these 2 players.

Agree on all fronts, and I'll say:

I detect a certain humility/ignorance/laziness in WNBA awards voters relative to their NBA counterparts, that I actually think something just released is telling:

The WNBA just released their All-Rookie team, and it included #2 pick Malonga, despite the fact that Malonga was 10th in her own draft class in MPG with a paltry 14.3 MPG, other rookies also playing more, and Malonga having an On-Off that basically says "Yeah, that's why we mostly keep you on the bench". WTF?

In the NBA, there's certainly a bias toward the more hyped players, but typically the All-Rookie accolade advantage comes from the fact that the Adam Morrison's and Jahlil Okafor's are given big minutes and the greenlight to volume shoot when they play which gives them the bigger superficial box score which tends to win the day.

But I feel like this year with the W, the voters didn't even pay close attention to the less hyped rookies who carved out significant roles on their teams, and largely just chose the players that were talked about before the season started.

By this same token, I'd say the W's media in general is far more happy-clappy than the NBA. It's like those who specifically cover the W see themselves as a propaganda arm for it, and that the goal is to try to grow the game by cheering really loudly. I kinda like it to be honest - the negativity of the NBA media is ugly - but it feels like it also allows the media to get away with not actually leveling-up their understanding the way NBA media has already had to do.

I should be careful about not coming across too cocky here as I certainly can't see the details of the game like the best do, but my sense coming from the NBA media analysis to WNBA analysis is a bit like going back in decades in time, and while the available video & analytics for the W lags behind the NBA to some degree, it doesn't lag behind THAT much.

With Malonga, it was more how awful she started the season, and how good she was at the end. Recency bias, which happens in the NBA too sometimes. In August Malonga averaged 13 points, 7 boards, and a block while shooting 59%fg and 42% from 3. Once Seattle gave her minutes, I feel she leap frogged most of the rookie class.

I agree with you overall though. Happy-clappy! It's understandable though. The league has spent most of its existence defending its validity to exist. It was culturally acceptable for a long time to use the WNBA as a punchline for a joke, or talk about how the WNBA was simply virtue signaling from the NBA and how they shouldn't sink a single dime in it. Now that the W is finally, unexpectantly having its rise, most of the media is new to the league, and coming out of a culture where the W was openly mocked. I think a little forced positivy is par for the course for a few more seasons. It's unsustainable, obviously, so we'll all grow out of it together.

In my local pick up basketball community, there are tons of WNBA fans, and many of them are happy normal hater fans by now. There's a particular hate for perceived chuckers (Jewell, Arike, Dewanna Bonner, Rhyne Howard, even CC sometimes).

[Doctor MJ]

A'ja is an amazing amazing player, but it does feel she's lucking into a ton of awards. She has the highest level of media recognition, and now there's some injury timing working out.

I also don't get she's the default pick for DPOY when there's no huge media push for someone else (or when they're not using it as the MVP runner up). It feels a bit early 2000s NBA when voters looked at BPG first as the defining stat. I like A'ja's defense, but compared to AT and Phee, she's way more mistake prone. She's also less versatile in that it's never worked well to play A'ja with another big, defensively, so you have to play fairly small to have success with her. Going all the way back to the ill-fated Liz Cambage pairing, but more prominently with Kiah Stokes or Gustafason, A'ja is much better sitting in the paint than she is covering ground. She can look pretty good in an iso, but move her around a ton and she's mistake prone. Meanwhile, I watch AT and and Phee and think: youth coach's at every level should be teaching defense by showing them these 2 players.

Agree on all fronts, and I'll say:

I detect a certain humility/ignorance/laziness in WNBA awards voters relative to their NBA counterparts, that I actually think something just released is telling:

The WNBA just released their All-Rookie team, and it included #2 pick Malonga, despite the fact that Malonga was 10th in her own draft class in MPG with a paltry 14.3 MPG, other rookies also playing more, and Malonga having an On-Off that basically says "Yeah, that's why we mostly keep you on the bench". WTF?

In the NBA, there's certainly a bias toward the more hyped players, but typically the All-Rookie accolade advantage comes from the fact that the Adam Morrison's and Jahlil Okafor's are given big minutes and the greenlight to volume shoot when they play which gives them the bigger superficial box score which tends to win the day.

But I feel like this year with the W, the voters didn't even pay close attention to the less hyped rookies who carved out significant roles on their teams, and largely just chose the players that were talked about before the season started.

By this same token, I'd say the W's media in general is far more happy-clappy than the NBA. It's like those who specifically cover the W see themselves as a propaganda arm for it, and that the goal is to try to grow the game by cheering really loudly. I kinda like it to be honest - the negativity of the NBA media is ugly - but it feels like it also allows the media to get away with not actually leveling-up their understanding the way NBA media has already had to do.

I should be careful about not coming across too cocky here as I certainly can't see the details of the game like the best do, but my sense coming from the NBA media analysis to WNBA analysis is a bit like going back in decades in time, and while the available video & analytics for the W lags behind the NBA to some degree, it doesn't lag behind THAT much.

I agree about WNBA media. Certainly about them being happy-clappy. It's an underdog league, so fans/media tend to try to be more positive. I think Candace even recently addressed this (media's reluctance to be critical). But it makes sense why the media would be that way for now.

On the all-rookie team, I can't be too mad at them for putting Malonga on it.

This is a really deep class, and after Paige, Citron, and Kiki, you could make the case for about 8-9 players, imo.

Just looking at win shares:
Paige 4.4
Citron 4.2
Kiki 3.1
Makani 2.2
Paopao 2.0
Malonga 1.9
Rupert 1.9
Salaun 1.8
Westbeld 1.6
Lacan 1.2
KK TImpson 1.0
Saniya 0.7
Morrow 0.6

Outside of Westbeld, TImpson, and Morrow, if I were a voter, I'd be trying to get them all on the team. Honestly, I don't think I could leave Saniya off.

But it's just so close.

In that case, it makes sense that a player with massive upside with draft capital that finished strong would make it.

Well, to each their own, and perhaps the voters really like Win Shares, but a) I kinda doubt their making their judgments by looking up any one particular b-r.com stat, and b) as I definitely don't.

Re: massive upside & draft capital finishing strong. So this is a factor generally, but I'm skeptical there's much track record for players who played so little getting the edge over those who played so much more on NBA All-Rookie Teams.

For perspective, if I do a search on rookie who played the most 20 MPG games on b-r this year, this is what I get:

1. Citron 44
2. Iriafen 43
3. Rivers 37
4. Paige 36
5. Salaun 31
6. Akoa Makani 28
7. Morrow 23
8. Lacan 22
9. Westbeld 19
10. Geiselsoder 17
11. Laksa 16
12. PaoPao 16
13. Sames 15
(tie) Nye 15
15. Leite 13
(tie) Quinerly 13
17. Malonga 11

While I don't want to short-change the players who were valuable off the bench playing lesser minutes (like PaoPao), it's pretty weird that a player who mostly sat on the bench in 3/4ths of the seasons games is getting anointed one of the 5 top rookies in the league when we can see that so, so many other players were doing more than that.

I can't do any kind of complete analysis on this, but to just focus on the 2000 NBA draft - known for being exceptionally weak - one might think that HS-to-pro Darius Miles only made 1st team because of his potential, but no, Miles played 24+ minutes 57 times, and the All-Rookie 1st team was identical to the Top 5 2000 Draft guys by 24+ minute games.

Now I should acknowledge that Malonga wasn't on anything like a tanking team, and so that changes things a bit, but it was a disappointing team. This wasn't a case of the Storm having unexpected success and journalists looking to distribute credit to their key players, but rather a team where people asked "What's wrong with them? Why aren't they better?"

And to those questions, the answer was definitely not "They aren't playing Malonga enough."

[cupcakesnake]

Now I should acknowledge that Malonga wasn't on anything like a tanking team, and so that changes things a bit, but it was a disappointing team. This wasn't a case of the Storm having unexpected success and journalists looking to distribute credit to their key players, but rather a team where people asked "What's wrong with them? Why aren't they better?"

And to those questions, the answer was definitely not "They aren't playing Malonga enough."

It was a bit though. I'm not saying the numbers bear this out, but at the end of the season, Malonga's minutes and role were expanded, and she was a part of some key wins. She was HUGE in a big-time comeback against the Lynx, when Seattle's season was on the line.

It's hard to look at her in terms of plus/minus. Seattle's starting lineup was very good. Before the Sykes trade, that starting lineup (Wheeler, Skylar, Nneka, Gabby, Ezi) has a +12.3 net rating. The bench was a problem all season. On one hand, Malonga not being ready to play right away was a part of their bench problem. She wasn't the whole problem though, and it's hard to get a handle on her with such a strong finish to the season after months of nothing, all while mostly playing with lousy bench units. Looking at lineup data, Malonga + 3 starters lineups were super successful. She was +9 in 122 minutes when paired with Gabby/Skylar/Nneka (with Ezi off). The Ezi/Dom minutes were a disaster. In the playoffs, she was the only player in the rotation who graded out as positive, in terms of +/-. She had some awful shooting games, but she was arguably their best player in that series.

I guess I'm just not surprised she made the all-rookie team. She was the #2 pick, and her late-season surge was a story.

[Doctor MJ]

With Malonga, it was more how awful she started the season, and how good she was at the end. Recency bias, which happens in the NBA too sometimes. In August Malonga averaged 13 points, 7 boards, and a block while shooting 59%fg and 42% from 3. Once Seattle gave her minutes, I feel she leap frogged most of the rookie class.

So, I'll respond to your other post on Malonga more here, and appreciate the conversation.

But looking back at WNBA All-Rookie teams over at b-r, I just see choices that I just don't think you'd see in the NBA. (How on Earth does Li Meng get it in 2023?)

Also, for anyone who does click, an analysis of what was going on in 2021 to lead to that rookie class performance is warranted, but there's a obviously some other stuff going on there compared to a normal WNBA season.

I agree with you overall though. Happy-clappy! It's understandable though. The league has spent most of its existence defending its validity to exist. It was culturally acceptable for a long time to use the WNBA as a punchline for a joke, or talk about how the WNBA was simply virtue signaling from the NBA and how they shouldn't sink a single dime in it. Now that the W is finally, unexpectantly having its rise, most of the media is new to the league, and coming out of a culture where the W was openly mocked. I think a little forced positivy is par for the course for a few more seasons. It's unsustainable, obviously, so we'll all grow out of it together.

In my local pick up basketball community, there are tons of WNBA fans, and many of them are happy normal hater fans by now. There's a particular hate for perceived chuckers (Jewell, Arike, Dewanna Bonner, Rhyne Howard, even CC sometimes).

Thanks for sharing cup, and yes, it does make sense. Reasonable to see this as just a normal part of the process, and so this grumpiness on my part is not entirely reasoned.

[cupcakesnake]

But looking back at WNBA All-Rookie teams over at b-r, I just see choices that I just don't think you'd see in the NBA. (How on Earth does Li Meng get it in 2023?)

Relative to the NBA, there are less rookies, and less rookies grabbing minutes. The 2023 Li Meng pick is a good example. There was 1 good rookie in that class (Aliyah Boston), then 4 others who played at least 20mpg (Diamond, Dorka, Jordan Horston, and Ivana Dojkic). When Dojkic got injured... there were no rookies left who really qualified for the honour. Li Meng was basically next up with the 6th most points and minutes. I don't think voters really knew how to sort through the next 8 bench warming rookies to crown an all-rookie.

We got spoiled with the last 2 rookie classes, but it does happen with some regularity that it's tough to find 5 decent rookies to make the award team.

[Doctor MJ]

Now I should acknowledge that Malonga wasn't on anything like a tanking team, and so that changes things a bit, but it was a disappointing team. This wasn't a case of the Storm having unexpected success and journalists looking to distribute credit to their key players, but rather a team where people asked "What's wrong with them? Why aren't they better?"

And to those questions, the answer was definitely not "They aren't playing Malonga enough."

It was a bit though. I'm not saying the numbers bear this out, but at the end of the season, Malonga's minutes and role were expanded, and she was a part of some key wins. She was HUGE in a big-time comeback against the Lynx, when Seattle's season was on the line.

It's hard to look at her in terms of plus/minus. Seattle's starting lineup was very good. Before the Sykes trade, that starting lineup (Wheeler, Skylar, Nneka, Gabby, Ezi) has a +12.3 net rating. The bench was a problem all season. On one hand, Malonga not being ready to play right away was a part of their bench problem. She wasn't the whole problem though, and it's hard to get a handle on her with such a strong finish to the season after months of nothing, all while mostly playing with lousy bench units. Looking at lineup data, Malonga + 3 starters lineups were super successful. She was +9 in 122 minutes when paired with Gabby/Skylar/Nneka (with Ezi off). The Ezi/Dom minutes were a disaster. In the playoffs, she was the only player in the rotation who graded out as positive, in terms of +/-. She had some awful shooting games, but she was arguably their best player in that series.

I guess I'm just not surprised she made the all-rookie team. She was the #2 pick, and her late-season surge was a story.

Good stuff, and I agree with you that she popped to me in the playoffs, and the fact of Malonga playing better of the course of the season had to play a role in her making All-Rookie.

I'd still say Malonga was not "the answer", and the lack of answer found is why the team never lived up to its talent and why the coach got canned.

On the other hand, I would say that the combination of a) the current core not being able to reach contender level with b) what showed later in the year, would make me say that Malonga should now be seen as the franchise priority, and the further roles of Skylar & co. for the franchise should thus be seen in terms of how they are helping Malonga grow more than in terms of what they can achieve in their own right. A player who achieves that can certainly be argued to be All-Rookie or even ROY worth, it's just I don't recall ever seeing something like this in the NBA - which I still haven't time to check, but I'm pretty confident that there's something different in process, consciously or unconsciously, going on with WNBA All-Rookie votes than with NBA All-Rookie.

I'll end by just saying further on Malonga:

Seeing her in moments seem to have the capacity to "A'ja A'ja" (like AD "Bamming Bam", using physical advantages associated with A'ja to A'ja in a direct one-on-one matchup), is incredibly exciting.

Between her, her French compatriots like Leila Lacan & Carla Leite, and the upcoming Awa Fam from Spain (6'6" like Dom), we might be about to see a European invasion a bit like the NBA has had in the wake of Giannis.

It will of course depend on whether these physical talents are joined with the subtle skills that turn athletes into intuitive basketball players in comparison to other pros, but the W seems like it's poised to experience a significant rise in talent internationally at the same time as domestic attention is driving demand.

[Doctor MJ]

But looking back at WNBA All-Rookie teams over at b-r, I just see choices that I just don't think you'd see in the NBA. (How on Earth does Li Meng get it in 2023?)

Relative to the NBA, there are less rookies, and less rookies grabbing minutes. The 2023 Li Meng pick is a good example. There was 1 good rookie in that class (Aliyah Boston), then 4 others who played at least 20mpg (Diamond, Dorka, Jordan Horston, and Ivana Dojkic). When Dojkic got injured... there were no rookies left who really qualified for the honour. Li Meng was basically next up with the 6th most points and minutes. I don't think voters really knew how to sort through the next 8 bench warming rookies to crown an all-rookie.

We got spoiled with the last 2 rookie classes, but it does happen with some regularity that it's tough to find 5 decent rookies to make the award team.

Okay but just for perspective here, here's the leaderboard of rookies by 20 minute games that season, along with the age of each player:

1. Boston 40 (21)
2. Dorka 29 (23)
3. Diamond 26 (22)
4. Horston 23 (22)
5. Haley Jones 12 (22)
6. Grace Berger 11 (24)
(tie) Ivana Dojkic 11 (25)
8. Zia Cooke 9 (22)
9. Li Meng 8 (28)

Li would then have her minutes chopped in half down to 7 MPG in the playoffs, and she hasn't played in the W since.

I'm not rejecting you pointing to her being Top 6 in both points and minutes - and I'll note she was actually 5th in points - as a critical touchstone in understanding their thought... but I am becoming skeptical that there's a consistent method of thinking All-Rookie voting.

In 2025 they seem to be going based late-season scoring and potential.
In 2023 they seem to be going by cumulative season scoring with absolutely no thought to potential.

Now, obviously there's a throughline toward scoring over other parts of the game, which we can at least recognize as a common thing in basketball.

But other than that, it feels like there's a haphazardness to the voting approach, which as you say, might be best seen as a story. These voters are in a place where story might have an oversized role compared to, well, my preferences I suppose.

[hermes]

five years in a row the all rookie team has had two players from the same team

[DOT]

Real ball knowers have Leila Lacan on their All Rookie team.

[Doctor MJ]

So yeah folks, if you want to have a vote with awards that I tally, we can, but I kinda feel like I'm forcing the issue.

I'm just going to talk through my own thoughts right now, and I welcome your feedback.

For both POY & OPOY (which I also do), pretty clean flip with A'ja moving above Phee. AT on my ballot, really also thinking about the other two in the Aces' Big 3 (Chelsea & Jackie) while also thinking about Mitchell & Boston over in Indy.

I'm not sure what to say about DPOY and would like to hear others thoughts. AT looked like my pretty clear choice after Minny, but LV hit different. I've mentioned the Fever's performance against A'ja's Aces and their players Boston, Howard & Hull, but each have arguments against. Gabby over in Seattle feels like they came across solid on defense through to the end. I don't think I'll be championing any Lynx defenders - ftr, I still see Phee as their best defender when she's playing a game.

ROY (Paige) & MIP (VB) unchanged for me.

For 6WOY, this is interesting now. I think Naz Hillmon remains an outstanding candidate, but what Jewell Loyd did in going to the bench is legendary now.

For COY, I think I might go with the Fever's Stephanie White over the Val's Nakase. The fact that the team won the Cup and then gave the champs their toughest fight in a year where they were missing CC is pretty amazing.

For EOY, I think I'll stick with the Val's here and Ohemaa, but I've been thinking a lot about U'Ren of the Mercury. The scale of turnover for the Merc is crazy for a non-expansion team, and what was done was a great example of re-building on the fly to compete immediately. I'm very impressed, but I'd have less mixed feelings about it if their biggest player acquisition weren't 33. I like what they did, but I do wonder how this evolves going forward.

For the Vals, I just see this as basically a perfect start for a WNBA expansion team. Great focus on culture building with modern strategy, outstanding mining of talent left available by their competitors. It just feels un-nitpick-able.

The one thing I will say is that the Vals are going to be tempted/expected to make some big swings now, those swings could go awry, and if they do, we might all see the 2025 campaign as just fluky good luck.

But I'd absolutely advise the other expansion teams coming up to follow the trail blazed by the ride of the Valkeries.