WNBA “20”16: 6-Week Progress Report

Rookie WNBA Commissioner Lisa Borders seems to be taking an aggressive approach to providing more wide-spread exposure for her league. Not only were she and her people able to garner a Friday prime-time slot on NBATV for Week 6’s rematch between the unbeaten Lynx and Sparks … the addition to the national broadcast schedule was displayed prominently on the league’s website.

Kudos as well to the folks running the website, where the up-dating of statistical information seems much more prompt and thorough than in past seasons.

Fist-bump, indeed, Boss-lady!!

The following data reflects play through Friday, June 24.

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

(The criteria is explained below.)

Progress Reports for 2-weeks and 4-weeks are also available.

No. 1 Los Angeles Sparks, 12-1 (9)

[4-week Abacus rating: 1

2-week Abacus rating: 1

2015 Abacus rating: 10]

KK:  +6; (7 Road Wins – 1 Home Loss) / No. 2 overall

Flow:  +5.08; (43.54 stops OF opp [No.4] – 38.46 stops BY opp [No.1] / No.2 overall

Striping:  +1.69; (+1.08) conversions [No. 2] – (-0.62) opp conversions [No. 1]) / No. 1 overall

SPOR-t:  +54; (561 [No. 4] – 507 [No. 3]) / No. 4 overall

Abacus Revelation: Coach Agler’s sure-handed pests rank No. 1 in both preventing and forcing TO’s.

No. 1 Minnesota Lynx, 13-1 (9)

[4-week Abacus rating: 2

2-week Abacus rating: 2

2015 Abacus rating: 2]

KK:  +7; (8 Road Wins – 1 Home Loss) / No. 1 overall

Flow:  +5.93; (46.64 stops OF opp [No.1] – 40.71 stops BY opp [No.2] / No.1 overall

Striping:  +0.04; (+0.61) conversions [No. 5] – (+0.57) opp conversions [No. 8] / No. 6 overall

SPOR-t:  +125; (571 [No. 2] – 446 [No. 1]) / No. 1 overall

Abacus Revelation: The Lynx have been the best defensive rebounding team so far.

No. 3 Chicago Sky, 6-8 (19.5)

[4-week Abacus rating: 3

2-week Abacus rating: 6

2015 Abacus rating: 3]

KK:  +1; (3 Road Wins – 2 Home Losses) / No. 4 overall (tied)

Flow:  +1.00; (41.79 stops OF opp [No.5] – 40.79 stops BY opp [No.3] / No.5 overall

Striping:  -0.32; (+0.39) conversions [No. 7] – (+0.71) opp conversions [No. 11] / No. 8 overall

SPOR-t:  +74; (606 [No. 1] – 532 [No. 4]) / No. 2 overall

Abacus Revelation: The Sky are the league’s least willing 3-point shooters, posting a usage rate of .144.

ABACUS INFOMERCIAL

Masters of the Craft (Part 1)

Which teams are performing the rudimentary skills of the game most proficiently at both ends of the floor? Let’s consider six elements of play: FG shooting, three-point shooting, Points per Game, Offensive Rebounding, the matter of turnovers and the SPOR-t score of our ratings. These teams hold a Top Four rank offensively and defensively:

FG%: Chicago, Los Angeles, Minnesota

3FG%: New York, Los Angeles

PPG: Chicago, Los Angeles, Minnesota

OR%: Chicago

TO%: Los Angeles

SPOR-t: Los Angeles, Minnesota

No. 4 New York Liberty, 10-4 (20)

[4-week Abacus rating: 4

2-week Abacus rating: 6

2015 Abacus rating: 1]

KK:  +3; (6 Road Wins – 3 Home Losses) / No. 3 overall

Flow:  +2.71; (45.36 stops OF opp [No.3] – 42.64 stops BY opp [No.7] / No. 3 overall

Striping:  -1.04; (-0.64) conversions [No. 11] – (0.39) opp conversions [No. 7] / No. 11 overall

SPOR-t:  +67; (559 [No. 5] – 492 [No. 2]) / No. 3 overall

Abacus Revelation: The Liberty are holding opponents to less than 40% accuracy from the field..

No. 5 Dallas Wings, 7-7 (24)

[4-week Abacus rating: 6

2-week Abacus rating: 4

2015 Abacus rating: 6]

KK:  -1; (3 Road Wins – 4 Home Losses) / No. 6 overall (tied)

Flow:  -3.21; (40.86 stops OF opp [No.9] – 44.07 stops BY opp [No.11] / No.10 overall

Striping:  +1.39; (+1.00) conversions [No. 3] – (-0.39) conversions [No. 2] / No. 2 overall

SPOR-t:  -13; (563 [No. 3] – 576 [No. 10]) / No. 5 overall (tied)

Abacus Revelation: The Wings rank dead last (.408) in overall FG shooting, but No. 1 (.325) in 3-point usage. Correlation, perhaps?

ABACUS INFOMERCIAL

Scoring Pace (Weeks 5 & 6)

100+ points: 6  [9 overall]

90-99 points: 18  [38 overall]

80-89 points: 15  [44 overall]

70-79 points: 19  [60 overall]

60-69 points: 4  [14 overall]

<60 points: 0  [1 overall]

No. 6 Atlanta Dream, 8-5 (26)

[4-week Abacus rating: 4

2-week Abacus rating: 3

2015 Abacus rating: 8]

KK:  +1; (4 Road Wins – 3 Home Losses) / No. 4 overall) (tied)

Flow:  +2.00; (45.69 stops OF opp [No.2] – 43.69 stops BY opp [No.9] / No.3 overall

Striping:  -1.85; (-2.04) conversions [No. 12] – (-0.19) conversions [No. 3] / No. 12 overall

SPOR-t:  -13; (537 [No. 5] – 550 [No. 5]) / No. 5 overall (tied)

Abacus Revelation: The Dream have attempted 95 more FT’s than their opponents, tops in the “W.”.

No. 7 Washington Mystics, 7-8 (30.5)

[4-week Abacus rating: 8

2-week Abacus rating: 9

2015 Abacus rating: 7]

KK:  -1; (5 Road Wins – 6 Home Losses) / No. 6 overall (tied)

Flow:  -1.47; (41.53 stops OF opp [No.7] – 43.00 stops BY opp [No.8] / No.8 overall

Striping:  -0.07; (+0.50) conversions [No. 6] – (+0.57) opp conversions [No. 8] / No. 7 overall

SPOR-t:  -42; (510 [No. 9] – 552 [No. 8]) / No. 9 overall

Abacus Revelation: During Weeks 5 & 6, the Mystics played “even” by Flow, matching their opponents in stops for the first time this season (44.2 per game).

ABACUS INFOMERCIAL

Scoring Differential (Weeks 5 & 6)

1-5 points: 8  [18 overall]

6-10 points: 12  [35 overall]

11-15 points: 6  [14 overall]

16-20 points: 2  [6 overall]

>20: 3  [10 overall]

No. 8 Seattle Storm, 5-9 (31)

[4-week Abacus rating: 8

2-week Abacus rating: 10

2015 Abacus rating: 11]

KK:  -2; (2 Road Wins – 4 Home Losses) / No. 8 overall (tied)-3

Flow:  -0.86; (40.36 stops OF opp [No.11] – 41.21 stops BY opp [No.4] / No.7 overall

Striping:  +0.64; (+1.32) conversions [No. 1] - (0.68) opp conversions [No. 10] / No. 3 overall

SPOR-t:  -105; (493 [No. 12] – 598 [No. 12]) / No. 12 overall

Abacus Revelation: The Stewie’s Crewie defended the three-ball better than anyone else (.256) during Weeks 5 & 6.

No. 9 Indiana Fever, 5-9 (32)

[4-week Abacus rating: 7

-week Abacus rating: 5

2015 Abacus rating: 4]

KK:  -2; (2 Road Wins – 4 Home Losses) / No. 8 overall (tied)-3

Flow:  -3.64; (40.07 stops OF opp [No.12] – 43.71 stops BY opp [No.10] / No.11 overall

Striping:  +0.46; (+0.39) conversions [No. 7] – (-0.07) conversions [No. 4] / No. 4 overall

SPOR-t:  -40; (507 [No. 10] – 547 [No. 5]) / No. 8 overall

Abacus Revelation: The Fever’s pesky defense is second best (.189) at forcing TO’s.

ABACUS INFOMERCIAL

Masters of the Craft (Part 2)

Are not the exceptionally inept worthy of some recognition? Here are the teams that hold a Bottom Four offensive and defensive ranking in our key elements of play: FG shooting, three-point shooting, PPG, Offensive Rebounding, Turnovers and SPOR-t..

FG%: Dallas, Indiana

3FG%: Connecticut, Indiana, San Antonio

PPG: Connecticut

OR%: Los Angeles, Phoenix, Seattle

TO%: Seattle

SPOR-t: San Antonio, Seattle

No. 10 Phoenix Mercury, 5-9 (35)

[4-week Abacus rating: 11

2-week Abacus rating: 12

2015 Abacus rating: 4]

KK:  -2; (1 Road Win – 3 Home Losses) / No. 8 overall (tied)-3

Flow:  0.00; (41.57 stops OF opp [No.6] – 41.57 stops BY opp [No.5] / No.7 overall

Striping:  -0.36; (+1.00) conversions [No. 3] – (+1.36) opp conversions [No. 12] / No. 9 overall

SPOR-t:  -49; (527 [No. 8] – 576 [No. 10]) / No. 10 overall

Abacus Revelation: For the first time all season, the Merc moved into the top half of the league in rebounding during the past two weeks – at both ends of the floor.

No. 11 San Antonio Stars, 2-11 (36.5)

[4-week Abacus rating: 10

2-week Abacus rating: 10

2015 Abacus rating: 12]

KK:  -5; (0 Road Wins – 5 Home Losses) / No. 11 overall (tied)

Flow:  -2.15; (40.46 stops OF opp [No.10] – 42.62 stops BY opp [No.6] / No.9 overall

Striping:  +0.04; (+0.15) conversions [No. 9] – (-0.12) opp conversions [No. 5] / No. 5 overall

SPOR-t:  -66; (506 [No. 11] – 572 [No. 9]) / No. 11 overall

Abacus Revelation: During Weeks 5 & 6, San Antonio was outplayed by but four total possessions – yet lost five of six games.

No. 12 Connecticut Sun, 3-11 (40.5)

[4-week Abacus rating: 12

2-week Abacus rating: 8

2015 Abacus rating: 9]

KK:  -5; (1 Road Win – 6 Home Losses) / No. 11 overall (tied)

Flow:  -4.86; (41.00 stops OF opp [No.8] – 45.86 stops BY opp [No.12] / No.12 overall

Striping:  -0.64; (-0.32) conversions [No. 10] – (+0.32) conversions [No. 6] / No. 10 overall

SPOR-t:  -20; (529 [No. 7] – 549 [No. 6]) / No. 7 overall

Abacus Revelation: Opponents converted over half their FG attempts (.508, a whopping .415 on three-balls) during Weeks 5 & 6..

The Grading Scale

“Flow”: this calculation puts a number to a team’s unsuccessful possessions (i.e. the other guys’ “stops”). Just take their missed field goals (attempts minus makes), subtract the offensive rebounds, and then add the turnovers. The “scores” represent per-game performance.

“Striping”: this calculation measures the impact of missed free throws and made treys. By subtracting the former from the latter [3’s minus missed FT’s], we identify a team’s gain or loss in points through “specialty shooting.” Again the “scores” are per-game. (A further division by two converts “points” to “conversions” – thus they can be combined with the “Flow” score.)

KK: Karl Kount – named for George Karl – is a way to measure a team’s grit and savvy through its ability to defend its home court and win on the road, a simple calculation for generally reliable info.

“SPOR-t”: 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 the sum of those o. boards and the opposition's d. boards). Then subtract the percentage of a team’s possessions lost to turnovers. For example, a team shoots field goals at a .488 clip, offensive rebounds at a rate of .199, and commits a turnover on .143 of its possessions. 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.

Two Shades of “Equal” Opportunity, through the Lens of Sport

In a typical Major League Baseball game during the sport’s first, oh … century or so, the winning team would score more runs in one inning than the losing team did for the entire game. This little peculiarity occurred with uncanny frequency, like four games out of five.

Think about that … the conversion of a single scoring opportunity (the other eight can be abject failures) has been sufficient to secure victory in far more games than not throughout the long and storied history of our (is it still?) national pastime.

Even Steph Curry’s preposterous shooting wizardry couldn’t make that feasible on a basketball court. There’d been a fair bit of fan-friendly ebb and flow before The Truth pulled off the shot (or at least the line) of the year in the second round of last year’s playoffs.

That ebb and flow of alternating (though not necessarily equivalent) possessions has been the very nature of the sport ever since they eliminated the center-court jump ball after each score during way back when. The “haters” would ridicule the game’s high-scoring pace, claiming little defense was played as the teams merely “traded baskets” until the final five minutes or so.

Nowadays the locution “trading baskets” is reserved as gentle criticism from local announcers of a less-than-promising comeback attempt by the homeboys.

Like baseball, the sport of basketball is very much a game of “runs” – stretches of sustained scoring superiority. And also like baseball, one such stretch of play frequently accounts for the differential in the final score.

When a political election results in a 51% - 49% margin of victory, the candidate on the short end is bound to call for a recount.

Would it surprise you to learn that, in each of the last two regular seasons, NINETEEN NBA teams produced a statistical twin of such an election return? Nearly two-thirds of the league converts its scoring opportunities at a rate that is within two percent of the rate at which opponents convert their possessions – that’s within two or three stops per game.

That’s a good bit of “basket trading,” huh?

WNBA “20”16: 4-Week Progress Report

The toughest gig in professional sports just might be WNBA rookie. We’re not referring to some nominally first-year player with oodles of international experience, but the top-notch collegiate players.

NBA rookies tend to hit the proverbial wall as the new year settles itself in. The women get drafted, indoctrinated and put to work within about six-week span … all on the heels of a full slate of collegiate play.

Over and above the physical toll of such an uninterrupted schedule, a WNBA rookie is playing with and against some 75% of the most accomplished female players on the planet. Hasn’t Breanna Stewart lost more games over the course of four weeks in the Pacific Northwest than she did in four years at the University of Geno?

Methinks the wily Auriemma will ensure that his latest prodigy’s Olympic experience is not overly taxing this go ‘round.

The following data reflects play through Friday, June 10.

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

(The criteria is explained below...2-week data available here.)

No. 1 Los Angeles Sparks, 8-0 (7)

[2-week Abacus rating: 1

2015 Abacus rating: 10]

KK:  +5; (5 Road Wins – 0 Home Loss) / No. 1 overall (tied)

Flow:  +6.13; (44.63 stops OF opp [No.4] – 38.50 stops BY opp [No.1] / No.1 overall

Striping:  +1.63; (+0.75) conversions [No. 3] – (-0.88) opp conversions [No. 1]) / No. 1 overall (tied)

SPOR-t:  +67; (557 [No. 3] – 490 [No. 3]) / No. 3 overall

Abacus Revelation: The Sparks top the “W” in both shooting (.414) and defending (.218) the three-ball.

No. 2 Minnesota Lynx, 9-0 (10.5)

[2-week Abacus rating: 2

2015 Abacus rating: 2]

KK:  +5; (5 Road Wins – 0 Home Losses) / No. 1 overall (tied)

Flow:  +5.60; (47.0 stops OF opp [No.1] – 41.4 stops BY opp [No.5] / No.2 overall

Striping:  +0.50; (+0.67) conversions [No. 5] – (+0.17) opp conversions [No. 8] / No. 5 overall

SPOR-t:  +112; (564 [No. 2] – 452 [No. 1]) / No. 2 overall

Abacus Revelation: Does former Lynx player (an ex-Link?) Devereaux Peters feel any satisfaction in her former squad’s league-worst Offensive Rebounding during Weeks 3 & 4?

No. 3 Chicago Sky, 5-4 (18)

[2-week Abacus rating: 6

2015 Abacus rating: 3]

KK:  +1; (3 Road Wins – 2 Home Losses) / No. 4 overall

Flow:  +2.56; (43.22 stops OF opp [No.5] – 40.67 stops BY opp [No.2] / No.4 overall

Striping:  -0.50; (+0.39) conversions [No. 7] – (+0.89) opp conversions [No. 10] / No. 9 overall

SPOR-t:  +119; (620 [No. 1] – 501 [No. 4]) / No. 1 overall

Abacus Revelation: The Sky shot a blistering .522 during a perfect, 4-0 Fortnight #2, .432 from behind the three-point stripe.

ABACUS INFOMERCIAL

Masters of the Craft (Part 1)

Which teams are performing the rudimentary skills of the game most proficiently at both ends of the floor? Let’s consider six elements of play: FG shooting, three-point shooting, Points per Game, Offensive Rebounding, the matter of turnovers and the SPOR-t score of our ratings. These teams hold a Top Four rank offensively and defensively:

FG%: Chicago, Los Angeles

3FG%: Chicago, New York, Los Angeles

PPG: Los Angeles, Minnesota

OR%: Chicago

TO%: Los Angeles, Minnesota

SPOR-t: Chicago, Los Angeles, Minnesota

No. 4 Atlanta Dream, 6-3 (23)

[2-week Abacus rating: 3

2015 Abacus rating: 8]

KK:  +2; (4 Road Wins – 2 Home Losses) / No. 3 overall

Flow:  +3.89; (47.0 stops OF opp [No.1] – 43.11 stops BY opp [No.8] / No.3 overall

Striping:  -2.28; [-2.17) conversions [No. 12] – (+0.11) conversions [No. 7] / No. 12 overall

SPOR-t:  +8; (536 [No. 5] – 528 [No. 5]) / No. 5 overall

Abacus Revelation: Through four weeks and nine games, both the Dream and their opponents have shot an identical .410 from the field.

No. 4 New York Liberty, 4-4 (23)

[2-week Abacus rating: 6

2015 Abacus rating: 1]

KK:  -1; (2 Road Wins – 3 Home Losses) / No. 6 overall (tied)-3

Flow:  +1.38; (45.88 stops OF opp [No.3] – 44.50 stops BY opp [No.11] / No.5 overall

Striping:  -0.38; (-0.38) conversions [No. 10] – (0.00) opp conversions [No. 6] / No. 7 overall

SPOR-t:  +12; (499 [No. 11] – 487 [No. 2]) / No. 4 overall

Abacus Revelation: New York is the second-most accurate (.361) three-point shooting team, though its usage rate (.177) is second from the bottom.

ABACUS INFOMERCIAL

Scoring Pace (Weeks 3 & 4)

100+ points: 2  [3 overall]

90-99 points: 9  [20 overall]

80-89 points: 14  [29 overall]

70-79 points: 18  [41 overall]

60-69 points: 6  [10 overall]

<60 points: 1  [1 overall]

No. 6 Dallas Wings, 3-5 (25.5)

[2-week Abacus rating: 4

2015 Abacus rating: 6]

KK:  -1; (2 Road Wins – 3 Home Losses) / No. 6 overall (tied)-3

Flow:  -5.00; (39.0 stops OF opp [No.12] – 44.0 stops BY opp [No.10] / No.11 overall

Striping:  +1.63; (+0.75) conversions [No. 3] – (-0.88) conversions [No. 1] / No. 1 overall (tied)

SPOR-t:  -33; (544 [No. 4] – 577 [No. 12]) / No. 6 overall

Abacus Revelation: The Wings were badly outplayed (by over 11 possessions per game) during their four-game losing streak.

No. 7 Indiana Fever, 4-5 (26)

[2-week Abacus rating: 5

2015 Abacus rating: 4]

KK:  -1; (1 Road Win – 2 Home Losses) / No. 6 overall (tied)-3

Flow:  -3.11; (40.33 stops OF opp [No.9] – 43.44 stops BY opp [No.9] / No.9 overall

Striping:  +0.67; (+0.33) conversions [No. 8] – (-0.33) conversions [No. 3] / No. 3 overall

SPOR-t:  -44; (510 [No. 8] – 554 [No. 7]) / No. 7 overall

Abacus Revelation: The Fever attempted only 15 free throws per game in Weeks 3 & 4, down from 28 during the season’s first segment.

ABACUS INFOMERCIAL

Scoring Differential (Weeks 3 & 4)

1-5 points: 2  [10 overall]

6-10 points: 12  [23 overall]

11-15 points: 5  [8 overall]

16-20 points: 2  [4 overall]

>20: 4  [7 overall]

No. 8 Seattle Storm, 3-6 (33.5)

[2-week Abacus rating: 10

2015 Abacus rating: 11]

KK:  -2; (1 Road Win – 3 Home Losses) / No. 9 overall (tied)

Flow:  -0.11; (41.11 stops OF opp [No.6] – 41.22 stops BY opp [No.4] / No.7 overall

Striping:  +0.33; (+1.39) conversions [No. 1] - (+1.06) opp conversions [No. 11] / No. 6 overall

SPOR-t:  -56; (505 [No. 10] – 561 [No. 9]) / No. 11 overall

Abacus Revelation: The Storm offense produced 7.5 fewer empty possessions  and 8.4 more points per game during Weeks 3 & 4.

No. 8 Washington Mystics, 4-6 (33.5)

[2-week Abacus rating: 9

2015 Abacus rating: 7]

KK:  0; (4 Road Wins – 4 Home Losses) / No. 5 overall

Flow:  -2.20; (40.2 stops OF opp [No.10] – 42.4 stops BY opp [No.6] / No.8 overall

Striping:  -0.75; (+0.10) conversions [No. 9] – (+0.85) opp conversions [No. 9] / No. 11 overall

SPOR-t:  -51; (519 [No. 6] – 570 [No. 10]) / No. 9 overall (tied)

Abacus Revelation: Only the Mystics (and Stars) lose the nightly turnover battle by three or more.

ABACUS INFOMERCIAL

Masters of the Craft (Part 2)

Are not the exceptionally inept worthy of some recognition? Here are the teams that hold a Bottom Four offensive and defensive ranking in our key elements of play: FG shooting, three-point shooting, PPG, Offensive Rebounding, Turnovers and SPOT-t.

FG%: Connecticut, Dallas

3FG%: Indiana, San Antonio

PPG: Connecticut, Washington

OR%: Los Angeles, Phoenix

TO%: Seattle, Washington

SPOR-t: Seattle

No. 10 San Antonio Stars, 1-6 (35)

[2-week Abacus rating: 10

2015 Abacus rating: 12]

KK:  -3; (0 Road Wins – 3 Home Losses) / No. 11 overall (tied)

Flow:  -3.43; (39.14 stops OF opp [No.11] – 42.57 stops BY opp [No.7] / No.10 overall

Striping:  +0.64; (+0.43) conversions [No. 6] – (-0.21) opp conversions [No. 4] / No. 4 overall

SPOR-t:  -51; (509 [No. 9] – 560 [No. 8]) / No. 9 overall (tied)

Abacus Revelation: San Antonio’s opposition converted in excess of 50% of its three-point attempts (22 of 43) during Weeks 3 & 4 – over 40% (.407) on the season.

No. 11 Phoenix Mercury, 3-6 (35.5)

[2-week Abacus rating: 12

2015 Abacus rating: 4]

KK:  -2; (0 Road Wins – 2 Home Losses) / No. 9 overall (tied)

Flow:  0.22; (41.0 stops OF opp [No.7] – 40.78 stops BY opp [No.3] / No.6 overall

Striping:  -0.39; (+1.33) conversions [No. 2] – (+1.72) opp conversions [No. 12] / No. 8 overall

SPOR-t:  -59; (516 [No. 7] – 575 [No. 11]) / No. 12 overall

Abacus Revelation: The enigmatic Merc improved their “Flow” by over six possessions a game during the season’s second fortnight. 

No. 12 Connecticut Sun, 2-7 (41.5)

[2-week Abacus rating: 8

2015 Abacus rating: 9]

KK:  -3; (1 Road Win – 4 Home Losses) / No. 11 overall (tied)

Flow:  -6.00; (40.90 stops OF opp [No.8] – 46.90 stops BY opp [No.12] / No.12 overall

Striping:  -0.55; (-0.61) conversions [No. 11] – (-0.06) conversions [No. 5] / No. 10 overall

SPOR-t:  -49; (496 [No. 12] – 545 [No. 6]) / No. 8 overall

Abacus Revelation: The Sun’s cloudy outlook owes much to its league worst opponent scoring (87.8 ppg) during Weeks 3 & 4.

The Grading Scale

“Flow”: this calculation puts a number to a team’s unsuccessful possessions (i.e. the other guys’ “stops”). Just take their missed field goals (attempts minus makes), subtract the offensive rebounds, and then add the turnovers. The “scores” represent per-game performance.

“Striping”: this calculation measures the impact of missed free throws and made treys. By subtracting the former from the latter [3’s minus missed FT’s], we identify a team’s gain or loss in points through “specialty shooting.” Again the “scores” are per-game. (A further division by two converts “points” to “conversions” – thus they can be combined with the “Flow” score.)

KK: Karl Kount – named for George Karl – is a way to measure a team’s grit and savvy through its ability to defend its home court and win on the road, a simple calculation for generally reliable info.

 “SPOR-t”: 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 the sum of those o. boards and the opposition's d. boards). Then subtract the percentage of a team’s possessions lost to turnovers. For example, a team shoots field goals at a .488 clip, offensive rebounds at a rate of .199, and commits a turnover on .143 of its possessions. 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.

L. O. S. T.: “Dominate” Syntax Rules!!

The Language of Sports Talk

ESPN vets Linda Cohn and Shelley Smith seemed to be doing a quick Mike and Mike imitation one Sunday morning a few weeks back. Smith’s reference to the crowd at a Justin Bieber concert – which had apparently been the prior evening’s curtain-jerker for Kobe Bryant’s Houston swansong – sparked an amusing “Two Moms Talkin’” digression akin to the morning boys’ shtick. When the Backstreet Boys got involved, it was time to get back to business.

This little interlude seemed spontaneous and genuine … I enjoyed it.

I had quite a different reaction to a bit (or it it a byte?) of verbiage the previous week that also emanated from right here in Houston and was likewise broadcast live, this time on the Mother Ship’s signature program, the 6PM SportsCenter.

The spunky young anchor’s faux-pas is one that pops up in print far too often these days, yet I can’t recall ever having heard it spoken aloud prior to this night which Villanova was soon to make historic in that very venue.

You see, there are certain words in our language whose appropriate pronunciation is dependent upon context. For example: When we approximate, we get an approximate result. [Or how about: When we intimate rather than elaborate, we should expect an intimate response only from an intimate.] Notice that when “approximate” or “intimate” is used to represent an action (i.e. as a verb), the final syllable gets spoken like the number “eight.” But when used to describe an outcome (i.e. as an adjective) or to identify someone/something (i.e. as a noun), the closing sound more resembles the pronoun “it.” [The Phonics Pholks may also want to note that verb usage also puts a “stress” on that final syllable.]

Certainly, recognizing patterns (in language usage and other areas, as well) and making inferences (i.e. generalizations) therefrom is a valuable learning device. Used indiscriminately, though, this tool can result in some cringe-worthy malapropos.

Somehow, one of these verbal nerve-graters has been elevated to the level of “Since you see it so often, it must be right!” status in the eyes (and inner ears) of far too many internet sports scribes, who write of “dominate” players or teams.

MY inner ear  always hears that misusage with the softer “it” ending. This error (perhaps too generously) can be written off as merely a mis-hearing or mispronunciation of the proper adjective form of this particular verb – “dominant,” whose final syllable incorporates a similarly soft, unstressed vowel-sound.

Alas, no such plausible explanation springs to mind when a prime-time  SportsCenter anchor speaks of the domin-EIGHT team in a given match-up.

ESPN, I got one word for ya’ – mentorship!

WNBA “20”16: 2-Week Progress Report

The WNBA’s historic twentieth season has kicked off (sooner than normal in deference to the lengthy quadrennial mid-season hiatus) with new leadership (President Lisa Borders), a re-vamped playoff format and more balanced schedule, a couple of farewell tours (Tamika Catchings, Dan Hughes) and a miffed superstar with a moderately fashionable shoulder-chip (Olympic snubee Candace Parker).

The Grading Scale

“Flow”: this calculation puts a number to a team’s unsuccessful possessions (i.e. the other guys’ “stops”). Just take their missed field goals (attempts minus makes), subtract the offensive rebounds, and then add the turnovers. The “scores” represent per-game performance.

“Striping”: this calculation measures the impact of missed free throws and made treys. By subtracting the former from the latter [3’s minus missed FT’s], we identify a team’s gain or loss in points through “specialty shooting.” Again the “scores” are per-game. (A further division by two converts “points” to “conversions” – thus they can be combined with the “Flow” score.)

KK: Karl Kount – named for George Karl – is a way to measure a team’s grit and savvy through its ability to defend its home court and win on the road, a simple calculation for generally reliable info.

“SPOR-t”: 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 the sum of those o. boards and the opposition's d. boards). Then subtract the percentage of a team’s possessions lost to turnovers. For example, a team shoots field goals at a .488 clip, offensive rebounds at a rate of .199, and commits a turnover on .143 of its possessions. 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.

These ratings and data reflect play during the first 14 days of this season, through Friday May 27.

                                                                                                                                                                   

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

No. 1 Los Angeles Sparks, 5-0 (8)

[2015 Abacus rating: 10]

KK:  +4; (4 Road Wins – 0 Home Loss) / No. 1 overall

Flow:  +5.60; (47.2 stops OF opp [No.4] – 41.6 stops BY opp [No.1] / No.2 overall

Striping:  +1.90; (+0.40) conversions [No. 5] – (-1.50) opp conversions [No. 3]) / No. 2 overall

SPOR-t:  +67; (517 [No. 6] – 450 [No. 3]) / No. 3 overall

Abacus Revelation: The Sparks are forcing a turnover on a whopping 20.9% of opponent possessions.

No. 2 Minnesota Lynx, 5-0 (10.5)

[2015 Abacus rating: 2]

KK:  +3; (3 Road Wins – 0 Home Losses) / No. 2 overall (tied)

Flow:  +5.80; (47.4 stops OF opp [No.3] – 41.6 stops BY opp [No.1] / No.1 overall

Striping:  -0.20; (+0.60) conversions [No. 4] – (+0.80) opp conversions [No. 10] / No. 6 overall

SPOR-t:  +133; (576 [No. 2] – 443 [No. 1]) / No. 1 overall

Abacus Revelation: The defending champs eschew the trey (.189 usage rate) more than all but two teams.

No. 3 Atlanta Dream, 4-1 (20.5)

[2015 Abacus rating: 8]

KK:  +3; (3 Road Wins – 0 Home Losses) / No. 2 overall (tied)

Flow:  +5.40; (48.4 stops OF opp [No.2] – 43.0 stops BY opp [No.5] / No.3 overall

Striping:  -1.40; [-2.60) conversions [No. 12] – (-1.20) conversions [No. 5] / No. 11 overall

SPOR-t:  +35; (557 [No. 4] – 522 [No. 6]) / No. 4 overall

Abacus Revelation: The enigmatic Dream have been the WNBA’s worst “boxing-out” team so far.

ABACUS INFOMERCIAL

Masters of the Craft (Part 1)

Which teams are performing the rudimentary skills of the game most proficiently at both ends of the floor? Let’s consider six elements of play: FG shooting, three-point shooting, Points per Game, Offensive Rebounding, the matter of turnovers and the SPOR-t score of our ratings. These teams hold a Top Four rank offensively and defensively:

FG%: Chicago, Los Angeles

3FG%: Los Angeles, Washington

PPG: Los Angeles, Minnesota

OR%: Chicago, Minnesota

TO%: Los Angeles

SPOR-t: Chicago, Minnesota

No. 4 Dallas Wings, 3-2 (21)

[2015 Abacus rating: 6]

KK:  +1; (2 Road Wins – 1 Home Loss) / No. 4 overall

Flow:  -2.00; (39.8 stops OF opp [No.12] – 41.8 stops BY opp [No.3] / No.8 overall

Striping:  +1.40; (-0.10) conversions [No. 6] – (-1.50) conversions [No. 3] / No. 3 overall

SPOR-t:  +14; (566 [No. 3] – 552 [No. 10]) / No. 6 overall

Abacus Revelation: The newest Texans lead the league in per-game 3-point attempts at 21.2.

No. 5 Indiana Fever, 2-2 (26.5)

[2015 Abacus rating: 4]

KK:  -1; (0 Road Wins – 1 Home Loss) / No. 5 overall (tied)-5

Flow:  -1.00; (41.75 stops OF opp [No.9] – 42.75 stops BY opp [No.4] / No.5 overall

Striping:  -0.37; (-0.75) conversions [No. 9] – (-0.37) conversions [No. 6] / No. 7 overall (tied)

SPOR-t:  -15; (524 [No. 5] – 539 [No. 9]) / No. 7 overall

Abacus Revelation: The Fever have been the third best shooters in the league.

ABACUS INFOMERCIAL

Scoring Pace

100+ points: 1

90-99 points: 11

80-89 points: 15

70-79 points: 23

60-69 points: 4

<60 points: 0

No. 6 Chicago Sky, 1-4 (28)

[2015 Abacus rating: 3]

KK:  -2; (0 Road Wins – 2 Home Losses) / No. 10 overall (tied)-3

Flow:  -1.20; (42.6 stops OF opp [No.7] – 43.8 stops BY opp [No.6] / No.6 overall

Striping:  -1.10; (-0.60) conversions [No. 7] – (+0.50) opp conversions [No. 7] / No. 9 overall

SPOR-t:  +86; (586 [No. 1] – 500 [No. 4]) / No. 2 overall

Abacus Revelation: The Sky have been the WNBA’s top rebounders at the season’s outset.

No. 6 New York Liberty, 2-2 (28)

[2015 Abacus rating: 1]

KK:  -1; (1 Road Win – 2 Home Losses) / No. 5 overall (tied)-5

Flow:  +3.25; (51.5 stops OF opp [No.1] – 48.25 stops BY opp [No.11] / No.4 overall

Striping:  -1.50; (-0.75) conversions [No. 9] – (+0.75) opp conversions [No. 9] / No. 12 overall

SPOR-t:  +22; (467 [No. 9] – 445 [No. 2]) / No. 5 overall

Abacus Revelation: Just like last year, the rugged Libs play the league’s best FG defense (.339).

ABACUS INFOMERCIAL

Scoring Differential

1-5 points: 8 games

6-10 points: 11 games

11-15 points: 3 games

16-20 points: 2 games

>20: 3 games

No. 8 Connecticut Sun, 1-3 (31.5)

[2015 Abacus rating: 9]

KK:  -1; (1 Road Win – 2 Home Losses) / No. 5 overall (tied)-5

Flow:  -7.50; (41.25 stops OF opp [No.11] – 48.75 stops BY opp [No.12] / No.12 overall

Striping:  +0.25; (-1.50) conversions [No. 11] – (-1.75) conversions [No. 2] / No. 4 overall (tied)

SPOR-t:  -47; (468 [No. 8] – 515 [No. 5]) / No. 8 overall

Abacus Revelation: The Sun struggle offensively, No. 12 in shooting (.367) and No. 11 in scoring (72.5 ppg).

No. 9 Washington Mystics, 2-3 (33)

[2015 Abacus rating: 7]

KK:  -1; (2 Road Wins – 3 Home Losses) / No. 5 overall (tied)-5

Flow:  -1.40; (43.6 stops OF opp [No.5] – 45.0 stops BY opp [No.7] / No.7 overall

Striping:  -1.30; (-0.70) conversions [No. 8] – (+0.60) opp conversions [No. 8] / No. 10 overall

SPOR-t:  -51; (475 [No. 7] – 526 [No. 8]) / No. 9 overall

Abacus Revelation: The Mystics rank first in 3-point accuracy (.378).

ABACUS INFOMERCIAL

Masters of the Craft (Part 2)

Are not the exceptionally inept worthy of some recognition? Here are the teams that hold a Bottom Four offensive and defensive ranking in our key elements of play: FG shooting, three-point shooting, PPG, Offensive Rebounding, Turnovers and SPOT-t.

FG%: Connecticut, Dallas

3FG%: Chicago

PPG: Washington

OR%: Phoenix

TO%: Seattle, Washington

SPOR-t: Phoenix, San Antonio

No. 10 San Antonio Stars, 1-3 (34)

[2015 Abacus rating: 12]

KK:  -2; (0 Road Wins – 2 Home Losses) / No. 10 overall (tied)-3

Flow:  -3.50; (41.75 stops OF opp [No.9] – 45.25 stops BY opp [No.8] / No.11 overall

Striping:  +2.63; (+0.75) conversions [No. 3] – (-1.88) opp conversions [No. 1] / No. 1 overall

SPOR-t:  -97; (457 [No. 10] – 554 [No. 11]) / No. 11 overall

Abacus Revelation: The scrappy Stars rank No. 3 in scoring defense.

No. 10 Seattle Storm, 1-3 (34)

[2015 Abacus rating: 11]

KK:  -1; (1 Road Wins – 2 Home Losses) / No. 5 overall (tied)-5

Flow:  -3.25; (42.25 stops OF opp [No.8] – 45.50 stops BY opp [No.9] / No.9 overall (tied)

Striping:  -0.37; (+1.13) conversions [No. 2] - (+1.50) opp conversions [No. 12] / No. 7 overall (tied)

SPOR-t:  -90; (432 [No. 11] – 522 [No. 6]) / No. 10 overall

Abacus Revelation: The Storm squander one in five possessions by means of a turnover.

No. 12 Phoenix Mercury, 0-4 (37)

[2015 Abacus rating: 4]

KK:  -2; (0 Road Wins – 2 Home Losses) / No. 10 overall (tied)-3

Flow:  -3.25; (42.75 stops OF opp [No.6] – 46.0 stops BY opp [No.10] / No.9 overall (tied)

Striping:  +0.25; (+1.50) conversions [No. 1] – (+1.25) opp conversions [No. 11] / No. 4 overall (tied)

SPOR-t:  -165; (401 [No. 12] – 566 [No. 12]) / No. 12 overall

Abacus Revelation: It’s puzzling how such tall timber rebounds so poorly, dead last at the offensive end.