WNBA Dissected: Coping with retirements, playoff format questions, and more from 2022 Week 13
Once again we take a look at intriguing topics from around the world of the WNBA this week
Thanks for reading the Her Hoop Stats Newsletter. If you like our work, be sure to check out our stats site, our podcast, and our social media accounts on Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram. You can also buy Her Hoop Stats gear, such as laptop stickers, mugs, and shirts!
Haven’t subscribed to the Her Hoop Stats Newsletter yet?
One More Year?
Ever since they announced that this would be their final WNBA season, 2022 has turned into something of a farewell tour for Sue Bird and Sylvia Fowles, with Briann January being rightly recognised by some teams along the way as well. But it might not be just those three. By the end of next month, there's a decent chance that we'll also have witnessed the final WNBA games of any or all of: Diana Taurasi, Candace Parker, Angel McCoughtry, Tina Charles, Kristi Toliver, Allie Quigley, Liz Cambage, Chiney Ogwumike, and, sadly, Brittney Griner. Some are more likely to be finished than others, and there are clearly some special cases in there that aren't necessarily due to age or injury, but that doesn't change the fact that they could be done. So how would this affect the league?
The obvious initial impact would be a certain level of talent drain. There are always more players out there to fill spots but most of these players are still starting-caliber, or at least good rotation players, even well past their prime. With expansion likely on the way in upcoming years, and a couple of very weak draft classes in recent years, some observers have understandably questioned whether the level of play could drop off, making the WNBA's basic product less appealing. You can put all the effort and money you want into business partnerships and marketing, but if the basketball gets worse then people are less likely to stick around. I think the league can cope, and has enough young talent to fill the gaps (and add a couple more teams) without a significant drop-off in quality. But it's a reasonable question to ask. There are some exceptional players on their way out in upcoming years, even if they don't all leave after 2022.
The name-recognition and crossover appeal could be a meaningful loss as well. While some of the younger players may have more followers on Instagram or Twitter, players like Bird, Taurasi and Parker have genuinely penetrated the consciousness of regular sports fans. Even if they don't really watch the WNBA, or even follow the league at all, they at least know who those people are. Is that the same for the generation behind them? Does that matter for the league's bottom line? It's honestly hard to tell. The league will always have star players - the term 'star' redefines itself constantly based on who's there to fill it - but they may not be known in the same way outside of WNBA circles. The league is making significant efforts to improve marketing of their players and teams, even in the offseason, but there will still be some fans and viewers who drift away when the pull of people like Taurasi is no longer around.
This generation of players sliding out of the league could also end up changing the way WNBA basketball is played. If Fowles, Cambage and Griner don't play in the league again - albeit for what would obviously be three very different sets of reasons - the WNBA's three primary low-post powerhouses would all be gone in one fell swoop. There would still be plenty of star 'bigs' - Breanna Stewart and A'ja Wilson are likely to finish either 1-2 or 2-1 for MVP this year, after all - but they're part of the new breed. The kind of bigs that can bring the ball up the floor and shoot threes, not the ones who want to punish you under the basket and score repeatedly from two feet. So does the league open up a little more and shift further towards modern smallball? It's not just losing those three, but also teams no longer needing to build their roster knowing they'll have to guard those players. Maybe you don't need to worry about having a 6-foot-5 center on your roster if there aren't many giants left for them to defend?
Ultimately, we probably won't lose all these players in one offseason anyway. I think Quigley and Toliver will probably be gone, injuries may have done too much damage to McCoughtry, Ogwumike may shift focus entirely to her off-court work, and Cambage might have completely worn out her welcome in the US - but all the others could well be back. Taurasi seems to have hinted at returning, and Parker is still so good that it would be a shame to see her quit - although that isn't stopping Fowles from walking away. Hopefully we see Griner play again, but who knows what kind of mental or physical condition she would be in even if she returns from Russia any time soon. And hell, Lauren Jackson just made a comeback at 41 - there's always the possibility for one more year. But if the likes of Bird, Fowles, Parker and Taurasi do all walk off into the sunset together, the Naismith Hall of Fame better be ready to induct a whole bunch of women in the same class in a few years’ time.
The Other Standings Battle
Tuesday night's upset win in Chicago pushed Dallas's nose in front of the pack hunting those last three playoff spots, but it's still worth keeping an eye on the two-year lottery standings as well. Whichever three teams don't make it into the postseason will end up with ping-pong balls instead, albeit some of them would be handing their draft picks over to competitors. So time for another update!
Indiana have the top odds at the No. 1 pick locked up, and have been sitting in that spot for a while now. If they miss the playoffs, Atlanta are still in prime position to have the second-best chance at what will likely be Aliyah Boston. They're 21-42 across 2021/22, three games clear of anyone else. Los Angeles and New York were in a flat tie at 24-38 until last night's game, when New York’s comeback win took them ahead in the regular standings and one game behind in the lottery chase. Then it's Dallas at 28-34, trailing Phoenix at 32-31, and Minnesota's 34-30.
LA, Phoenix and Dallas don't own their own picks anyway due to trades, so they have absolutely no incentive to miss the playoffs (but it does give Washington, Chicago and Indiana, respectively, something to root for). Minnesota's strong 2021 season hurts their potential lottery odds and means they'd have to get very lucky in the draw to really benefit from failing to make the postseason. None of which will have any impact on the participating players anyway. It's just something to keep in mind as an observer. Boston would be a very nice consolation prize for missing out on postseason action.
When 2-1 Might Not Be So Great
Personally, I'm quite fond of 2-1s right now. Had to pause the dancing to write this. But from a WNBA perspective, we're about to run into a bunch of 2-1s that are going to cause significant debate.
When the WNBA announced a new playoff format, attention was understandably largely focused on the removal of single-elimination games and byes. I didn't mind the one-off games for seeds 5-8, but the possibility that the third-best team in the regular season could be dumped out of the playoffs in one game definitely needed to go. So the league switched to best-of-three first-round series, before the same best-of-five semifinals and Finals that we've had since 2016.
The problem is that best-of-threes are awkward, especially in a league that's dumped conferences and could therefore end up with teams on opposite sides of the country facing each other (and the league's only paying for charter flights once we get to the Finals). Most recently (2010 to 2015), the WNBA used a 1-1-1 format, but that was when the playoffs were still split into East and West, so at least you knew the teams wouldn't be flying too far. They switched to that structure after teams tired of the 1-2 format, where the lower seed got to open on their home floor and potentially take the lead in the series, forcing the higher seed to win two in a row to stay alive.
Now we're going with the only remaining alternative for best-of-threes, a 2-1 format. Coming off a structure where higher seeds gained a big advantage from byes through the early rounds, I can understand why they've gone in this direction, seeing it as maintaining a significant advantage for those teams that have earned it in the regular season. If the higher seed does their job they get two home playoff games, and push their way through into the semis without ever having to leave town.
However, there are drawbacks. If the lower seed manages to steal a game - and the league's been tight enough this season that at least a couple probably will - then everyone has to fly off for a deciding game to be played on the lower-seed's court. So either the series finishes 2-0 (lower seed: "Hang on, we made the playoffs but didn't even get to host a game?"), or someone wins it 2-1 (higher seed: "Wait, we have to play a deciding game on their court? What happened to home-court advantage?"). Also, as always with these tightly-scheduled series, no one's going to know if Game 3 actually exists until about 48 hours beforehand. So the lower seeds may earn a game back home, but it's going to be very difficult to sell tickets. With such short notice, win-or-go-home playoff games could be played in front of limited crowds, which is the last thing you want for your showpiece occasions.
I'm not convinced this format will last very long. Byes and single-elimination games were dumped because of the volume of complaints, and this seems primed to lead to plenty of whining as well. Also, Cathy Engelbert keeps bringing up how the Commissioner's Cup is helping to build conference rivalries by increasing the meaning of intra-conference games early in the season. I don't think that's actually true, but if increasing conference rivalries is something you want to do, then you know the glaringly obvious way to do it? Go back to conferences and split the playoffs into East and West. You could even do that just for the first round, so that you limited travel for best-of-threes but worried less about it for the best-of-fives.
Alternatively, as mentioned last week, if there's room for 40 regular season games then expand the playoffs instead. Give us more of the exciting, vital postseason games rather than run-of-the-mill regular season ones. We could go to best-of-five in the first round, or even some kind of double-elimination structure that requires more thought and work to make it fair.
For now, we'll have to settle for 2-1. Worked out well for me on Sunday, to be fair.
Clark's Corner
Who am I to deny Kevin 'The Machine' Pelton?
And here's the play:
Those of us who watch the European leagues knew that Rebekah Gardner could play, especially after last season in Girona, but she's been a revelation nonetheless. "32-year-old rookie" makes a cute line, but she's proven that she deserves to be in this league, regardless of age or WNBA experience. Offensively she picks her moments, near league-average from three so teams can't ignore her even though she doesn't really want that shot, and a remarkable 55% from the field overall, strikingly high for a perimeter player. Defensively, as the above play illustrates, she's earned the trust of James Wade and her teammates and now is often tasked with slowing down many of the best players in the WNBA.
There's something special about players who don't make the WNBA initially, but go away and work hard to improve (and make money), then eventually fight their way back into the league. It would be easy to give up, make some money overseas instead or become one of those people who tells everyone on the playground that they would've made it if they'd just been given a fair shot. But then there are players like the one this section is named after, Alysha Clark, who remade her game from being a dominant post scorer in college to become a deluxe role-playing wing in the WNBA. Or Emma Cannon, who had to prove herself overseas for years and still seems to need to keep reminding WNBA teams that 6-foot post players can succeed when they work hard enough. Or Gardner, who got a couple of quick training camp looks in 2014 and 2017, but had to wait until she was 31 and a more rounded player to finally stick.
Even coming off the bench for virtually the whole season, Gardner's going to end up on some All-Defense ballots, and she's definitely in the running to become the oldest ever member of a WNBA All-Rookie team. Age ain't nothing but a number.
Thanks for reading the Her Hoop Stats Newsletter. If you like our work, be sure to check out our stats site, our podcast, and our social media accounts on Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram.
I read "One More Year" with interest, but cringed at the summary of Brittany Griner, which came across, to me, a bit tone deaf and insensitive. Along with so many others, I think of her plight daily, her grace under this unimaginable pressure, and her deep desire to continue to play basketball. I hope she returns home very soon.