WNBA 2015: 2-week Ratings

It’s been a tough couple of years or so for the WNBA. As Cheryl Reeve’s 2013 Minnesota Lynx were finishing off a season for the ages, the world’s best women’s pro league was facing a variety of off-court issues: poor attendance, inadequate roster size, the absence of a collective bargaining agreement with its players’ association. And then the Los Angeles Sparks’ ownership situation went into limbo, briefly sparking (bad pun; I’m sorry!) concerns in some quarters over the league’s very existence. (This season’s Dolan-Thomas saga pales in significance, if not media hubbub.)

Soon enough, the LA franchise was Magically owned – the financially-strapped league and leverage-less players even took baby-steps toward roster relief. Sandy Brondello’s Phoenix Mercury (with an all “six-footer” line-up-of-the-future) basically lapped the field on their way to a title, and the WNBA bid a fond adieu to legendary Indiana Fever “Sister Superior” Lin Dunn in a season rife with debilitating injury.

A relatively calm off-season was spiced up by some surprising early entrants to the WNBA draft, but the societal scourge of domestic dispute has found its way to Ms. Ritchie’s neighborhood, exacerbating the instances of player “absence” inherent in the global world of women’s pro hoops.

Nonetheless, June 5 marked the opening of Season 19 for what remains the epitome of this brand of ball.

Early judgments are subject to schedule imbalances and small sample size, yet early data analysis can portend trends. The following rankings reflect play through Thursday, June 18.

Power Rankings --The Measurement Instrument

Our team-ranking tool utilizes four elements. Two scales are based solely on team wins and losses; the others are measures of the efficiency of team performance in comparison with the competition. First, we’ll simply use win-loss record irrespective of conference.

The second criterion will be the difference between a team’s road wins and its home losses. Since this cute little metric is said to be a personal favorite of long-time NBA coach George Karl (now at ESPN), let’s call this the Karl Kount (KK).

Criterion No. 3, Conversion Quotient (CQ), involves the rate at which a team converts its possessions into a successful field goals or free throw attempts. Like the KK, the computation is simple subtraction—a team’s rate of offensive efficiency minus that of the opponent.

Lastly, please allow Abacus to introduce the “SPOR-t” score. SPOR-t stands for “Shooting Plus Offensive Rebounds minus turnovers.” Add a team’s FG percentage and its offensive rebounding percentage (o. boards divided by missed FG’s). Then subtract the percentage of a team’s possessions lost to turnovers. For example, a team shoots field goals at a .488 clip, its offensive rebounds account for .199 of its missed field goals, and .143 of its possessions result in a turnover. So its SPOR-t is (488+199-143) or 544. Once again, our measurement will be the difference between the SPOR-t scores of a team and its opposition.

We’ll rank the teams from 1 to 12 in all criteria and simply add up the rankings. Low score wins, naturally.

No. 1 Tulsa Shock (7.5)

[2014 Abacus rating: 11]

4-1, .800; 1^st seed West / 1^st overall (tied)*

KK:  +1; (1 Road Win – 0 Home Losses) / No. 2 overall (tied)**

CQ:  +76; (.492 [2^nd] - .416 [4^th]) / No. 1 overall

SPOR-t:  +215; (603 [1^st] – 388 [2^nd]) / No. 1 overall

Abacus Revelation: The Shock rank No. 1 or 2 in: Off. Rebounding, Turnover %, 3-point offense and 3-point defense.

No. 2 Minnesota Lynx (9.5)

[2014 Abacus rating: 2]

4-1, .800; 1^st seed West / 1^st overall (tied)*                               

KK:  +2; (2 Road Wins – 0 Home Losses) / No. 1 overall

CQ:  +57; (.491 [3^rd] - .434 [5^th]) / No. 2 overall (tied)

SPOR-t:  +91; (537 [3^rd] – 446 [5^th]) / No. 4 overall

Abacus Revelation: The Lynx’s No. 3 standing in preventing offensive rebounds (.181) is offset by a No. 12 ranking in forcing turnovers (.126).

No. 3 Chicago Sky (14.5)

[2014 Abacus rating: 10]

2-2, .500; 4^th seed East / 6^th overall (tied)

KK:  +1; (1 Road Win – 0 Home Losses) / No. 2 overall (tied)**

CQ:  +57; (.523 [1^st] - .466 [9^th]) / No. 2 overall (tied)

SPOR-t:  +104; (591 [2^nd] – 483 [7^th]) / No. 2 overall

Abacus Revelation: The Sky have neither shot (.275) nor defended (.357) the three-ball particularly well, ranking ninth at both ends of the floor.

No. 3 Connecticut Sun (14.5)

[2014 Abacus rating: 9]

4-1, .800; 1^st seed East / 1^st overall (tied)*

KK:  +1; (2 Road Wins – 1 Home Loss) / No. 2 overall (tied)**

CQ:  +46; (.454 [5^th] - .408 [2^nd]) / No. 4 overall

SPOR-t:  +54; (484 [4^th] – 430 [4^th]) / No. 5 overall

Abacus Revelation: The Sun’s pesky defense forces a turnover on nearly one in four (.229) opponent possessions.

No. 5 Washington Mystics (19.5)

[2014 Abacus rating: 6]

3-1, .750; 2^nd seed East / 4^th overall

KK:  +1; (2 Road Wins – 1 Home Loss) / No. 2 overall (tied)**

CQ:  +35; (.430 [8^th] - .395 [1^st]) / No. 6 overall

SPOR-t:  +36; (451 [8^th] – 415 [3^rd]) / No. 6 overall

Abacus Revelation: Along with launching the most long balls (20 per game), the Mystics rank first in both Opponent FG% (.348) and Opponent conversion rate (.395).

No. 6 New York Liberty (22.5)

[2014 Abacus rating: 7]

3-2, .600; 3^rd seed East / 5^th overall

KK:  -1; (0 Road Wins – 1 Home Loss) / No. 8 overall (tied)**

CQ:  +40; (.452 [6^th] - .412 [3^rd]) / No. 5 overall

SPOR-t:  +104; (479 [5^th] – 375 [1^st]) / No. 3 overall

Abacus Revelation: The schedule-maker smiled on Bill Laimbeer’s Liberty – five of their first six games are at home.

No. 7 Phoenix Mercury (29)

[2014 Abacus rating: 1]

2-2, .500; 3^rd seed West / 6^th overall (tied)

KK:  0; (0 Road Wins – 0 Home Losses) / No. 6 overall (tied)

CQ:  -11; (.431 [7^th] - .442 [6^th]) / No. 7 overall

SPOR-t:  -78; (414 [9^th] – 492 [9^th]) / No. 9 overall

Abacus Revelation: The Mercury have been the most sure-handed team in the league, with a turnover rate of .132.

No. 8 Atlanta Dream (34)

[2014 Abacus rating: 3]

2-4, .333; 5^th seed East / 9^th overall (tied)

KK:  -1; (1 Road Win – 2 Home Losses) / No. 8 overall (tied)**

CQ:  -40; (.418 [9^th] - .458 [7^th]) / No. 8 overall

SPOR-t:  -1; (464 [7^th] – 465 [6^th]) / No. 7 overall

Abacus Revelation: The good news is the Dream rank second in Offensive Rebounding Percentage (.310); the bad news is they rank last in Turnover Percentage (.235).

No. 9 Seattle Storm (35.5)

[2014 Abacus rating: 12]

2-3, .400; 4^th seed West / 8^th overall

KK:  0; (1 Road Win – 1 Home Loss) / No. 6 overall (tied)

CQ:  -59; (.403 [11^th] - .462 [8^th]) / No. 10 overall

SPOR-t:  -155; (334 [12^th] – 489 [8^th]) / No. 11 overall

Abacus Revelation: The Storm are the poorest Offensive Rebounding team in the league, averaging fewer than five per game – and it’s not for lack of opportunity (183 missed FG’s in five games).

No. 10 Indiana Fever (36)

[2014 Abacus rating: 5]

2-4, .333; 5^th seed East / 9^th overall (tied)

KK:  -1; (1 Road Win – 2 Home Losses) / No. 8 overall (tied)**

CQ:  -45; (.464 [4^th] - .509 [12^th]) / No. 9 overall

SPOR-t:  -74; (479 [5^th] – 553 [11^th]) / No. 8 overall

Abacus Revelation: Only the Fever and Sparks allow opponents to convert more than half their possessions.

No. 11 San Antonio Stars (44.5)

[2014 Abacus rating: 8]

0-4, .000; 6^th seed West / 12^th overall

KK:  -1; (0 Road Wins – 1 Home Loss) / No. 8 overall (tied)**

CQ:  -77; (.417 [10^th] - .494 [10^th]) / No. 11 overall

SPOR-t:  -253; (390 [10^th] – 643 [12^th]) / No. 12 overall

Abacus Revelation: The Stars have surrendered 68 offensive rebounds in but four games.

No. 12 Los Angeles Sparks (45)

[2014 Abacus rating: 4]

0-3, .000; 5^th seed West / 11^th overall

KK:  -2; (0 Road Wins – 2 Home Losses) / No. 12 overall  

CQ:  -114; (.388 [12^th] - .502 [11^th]) / No. 12 overall

SPOR-t:  -119; (389 [11^th] – 508 [10^th]) / No. 10 overall

Abacus Revelation: The Sparks rank dead last in both shooting (.207) and defending (.360) the three-point shot.

Let’s Take Offense

Sports lore preaches that defense wins championships.

In basketball, the first step to good defense is making the other team retrieve the ball from the net before initiating its offense.

The Grading Scale

To rank the teams, we’ll consider Points per game, Points per shot (i.e. field goal attempt), Points per possession and S(H)UM. (That last category is simply the sum of a team’s FG%, 3FG% and FT%.)

Again, we’ll rank the teams from 1 to 12 in all criteria and simply add up the rankings.

No. 1 Chicago Sky [5]

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  Sum

87.8 [1^st] – 1.254 [1^st] –1.054 [1^st] – 1610 [2^nd]

No. 2 Minnesota Lynx [9]

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  Sum

77.6 [3^rd] – 1.209 [2^nd] –1.008 [3^rd] – 1613 [1^st]

No. 3 Tulsa Shock [14]

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  Sum

81.0 [2^nd] – 1.104 [6^th] –1.023 [2^nd] – 1569 [4^th]

No. 4 Connecticut Sun [17]

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  Sum

74.2 [5^th] – 1.114 [5^th] –0.951 [4^th] – 1572 [3^rd]

No. 5 Indiana Fever [21]

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  Sum

76.5 [4^th] – 1.156 [3^rd] –0.925 [5^th] – 1445 [9^th]

No. 6 Phoenix Mercury [25]

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  Sum

72.0 [6^th] – 1.075 [7^th] –0.906 [7^th] – 1521 [5^th]

No. 7 New York Liberty [29]

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  Sum

71.4 [7^th] – 1.116 [4^th] –0.897 [8^th] – 1434 [10^th]

No. 8 Washington Mystics [30]

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  Sum

68.8 [9^th] – 1.046 [9^th] –0.911 [6^th] – 1471 [6^th]

No. 9 Atlanta Dream [34]

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  Sum

70.3 [8^th] – 1.039 [10^th] –0.856 [9^th] – 1466 [7^th]

No. 10 Seattle Storm [37]

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  Sum

63.8 [11^th] – 1.074 [8^th] –0.839 [10^th] – 1456 [8^th]

No. 11 San Antonio Stars [43]

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  Sum

65.8 [10^th] – 1.035 [11^th] –0.838 [11^th] – 1383 [11^th]

No. 12 Los Angeles Sparks [48]

PPG  /  PPS  /  PPP  /  Sum

55.7 [12^th] – 0.903 [12^th] –0.799 [12^th] – 1234 [12^th]

Three-ficiency

As basketball is evolving here in the 21^st Century, “judicious accuracy” and “consistent challenge” seem to capture the offensive and defensive (respectively) philosophies for the more successful teams when it comes to three-point shooting.

Check out the who’s sitting atop the standings or playing deep into the playoffs and invariably these squads invariably hold high ratings in both utilizing and defending the “stripe.”

Let’s try ranking the teams by the difference between their own three-point shooting and that of the opposition. (Attempts and makes are presented “per-game” for ease of comparison.)

No. 1 Connecticut Sun   [+177]

.383 [2^nd] – 6.2 [3^rd] out of 16.2 [7^th]

.206 [1^st] – 2.8 [2^nd] out of 13.6 [5^th]

No. 2 Tulsa Shock   [+154]

.395 [1^st] – 6.4 [1^st] out of 16.2 [7^th]

.241 [2^nd] – 3.8 [5^th] out of 15.8 [6^th]

No. 3 Phoenix Mercury   [+71]

.315 [4^th] – 5.75 [5^th] out of 18.25 [4^th]

.244 [3^rd] – 2.75 [1^st] out of 11.25 [2^nd]

No. 4 Washington Mystics   [+54]

.313 [5^th] – 6.25 [2^nd] out of 20.0 [1^st]

.259 [4^th] – 3.5 [3^rd] out of 13.5 [4^th]

No. 5 Minnesota Lynx   [+4]

.302 [7^th] – 3.8 [10^th] out of 12.6 [10^th]

.298 [5^th] – 5.6 [7^th] out of 18.8 [11^th]

No. 6 Seattle Storm   [-11]

.304 [6^th] – 5.6 [6^th] out of 18.4 [3^rd]

.315 [6^th] – 5.8 [8^th] out of 18.4 [9^th]

No. 7 Indiana Fever   [-13]

.346 [3^rd] – 6.0 [4^th] out of 17.33 [5^th]

.359 [11^th] – 4.67 [6^th] out of 13.0 [3^rd]

No. 8 San Antonio Stars   [-60]

.258 [10^th] – 4.25 [8^th] out of 16.5 [6^th]

.318 [7^th] – 3.5 [3^rd] out of 11.0 [1^st]

No. 9 Atlanta Dream   [-70]

.287 [8^th] – 4.5 [7^th] out of 15.67 [9^th]

.357 [9^th] – 6.67 [11^th] out of 18.67 [10^th]

No. 10 Chicago Sky   [-82]

.275 [9^th] – 2.75 [11^th] out of 10.0 [12^th]

.357 [9^th] – 6.25 [10^th] out of 17.5 [8^th]

No. 11 New York Liberty   [-102]

.228 [11^th] – 2.6 [12^th] out of 11.4 [11^th]

.330 [8^th] – 6.8 [12^th] out of 20.6 [12^th]

No. 12 Los Angeles Sparks   [-153]

.207 [12^th] – 4.0 [9^th] out of 19.33 [2^nd]

.360 [12^th] – 6.0 [9^th] out of 16.33 [7^th]

?Coaching Queries?

Was Bill Laimbeer’s momentary relief from his duties a sign of organizational indecision, or a clever cost-cutting tactic?

 Will either new LA leader Brian Agler or long-time San Antonio maestro Dan Hughes claim a victory prior to their teams’ SoCal showdown on the season’s 28^th day?

Number Sense – or, Is It Nonsense?

An over-arching sense of Order pervades Numbers and the arithmetic manipulation thereof. Whether just adding or subtracting, determining probability and statistics, or graphing quadratic equations in three-dimensional space – however simple or complex the task, however trivial or crucial the context – that which sits to the left of the “equal sign” must necessarily possess the same numerical value as that which sits to the right.

Approximation Not Allowed.

Please understand that this strict sense of balance was not conjured up by some old-fart Greek or Egyptian thousands of years ago. Numbers themselves probably began to evolve when some Troglodyte happened to notice that some things are, ya know, more plentiful than others. Critters large and small, who instinctively – or do they count? – recognize when they are out-numbered and flee, must have experienced a similar epiphany.

No, this orderliness does not exist by mandate – rather, it simply exists … is a component of the natural world, just like the survival instinct of the beast or the complex architectural physics that “just happened” in the formation of our many natural wonders. You don’t have to take somebody’s word for it – just open your eyes.

Numbers present the illusion of random chaos, while in actuality providing a system of pattern, progression and proportion. Packaged therein you’ll find prime numbers, perfect squares, powers of two, sooner or later even a dude named Pythagoras.

Prime numbers (whole numbers whose only factors are “1” and the number itself), all but one of which are odd, seem totally random. In actuality, though, the primes are the remnants of a very meticulous process by which “composite” numbers (i.e. those that are not prime but rather the “product” of two other whole numbers) reveal themselves. Start with a prime number like “2” – every second number that follows (i.e. all the rest of the even numbers) is automatically composite since “2” times a number other than “1” will yield that result. Starting from “3”, every third number becomes composite; every other landing spot (6, 12, 18, 24, etc.), being an even number, would already have been removed from “prime” consideration. Repeating the process for “5” and “7” will expose all the primes less than 121. (Can you figure out the significance of “121” here?)

With perfect squares (the result obtained when multiplying a whole number by itself), the pattern is more direct and apparent. The square of every number turns out to be the sum of the first “that many” odd numbers. 1 + 3 + 5 = 3² = 9. Just add seven to get the square of “4”. Works every time, though I’m really not sure why.

And the powers of two are on display any time the sports world, from the babies to the pros, utilizes a single-elimination bracket.

From “cancelling” common factors in a fraction to “Casting Out Nines” to the FOIL method, the patterns and associations inherent in our number system appear to be countless.

That might seem ironic, but the myriad combinations and permutations of numbers provide fodder aplenty for a mischievous ex-schoolteacher.

Say, for instance, the young store cashier rings … I mean, scans up my purchase at $30.42. I’m already aware that, with sales tax, the financial damage will be a little north of $30. (If the line’s long enough and distractions few enough, my mental calculation will be within a few cents.)

Other than a couple of single dollars and a little small change, only “twenties” remained in my pocket from the last bank run. Now, I’m determined to (a) get back a “ten” or two “fives” and (b) avoid further cluttering my pocket with more coins.

So, I hand over two “twenties,” a single, a dime, a nickel and two pennies. In return (along with a confused glance that might need reassurance), I get $10.75 …

… and sometimes a convert to the NBA – Number Believers Anonymous.