Sunday, May 23rd, 2010 at 2:38 pm  |  8 responses

It’s Raining Buckets

How contraction in the WNBA expands scoring—and excitement.

by Clay Kallam

In basketball, the difference between two and three is a lot more than one – and it’s already showing in the WNBA this season.

It’s about strategy: If a basketball team at any level has two scorers, a defense can adjust. (By “scorer,” I mean a player who can either create her own shot, or must be guarded even on the weak side.)

For example, If Sue Bird and Lauren Jackson are on the floor with three non-scorers, the defense can assign one defender each to Bird and Jackson, and the other three defenders are always conscious of the two Seattle stars. That essentially means Bird and Jackson are always guarded by one-and-a-half defenders, and sometimes two.

But now let’s add a Swin Cash who’s shooting well, and demands a defender. Now, there are only two unoccupied defenders and three scorers, so the opposing coach can only assign one-and-a-half defenders to two of the three Seattle scorers.

Or, to put it another way, the addition of the third scorer means that one of the three scorers will be able to work on a defender and not worry about help. It also means the offense can pick the best matchup – it will take the weakest of the three one-on-one defenders and go right at her.

With only two scorers, that option is not available because there will always be help – and only two top defenders are required (and most WNBA teams have two strong defensive players).

Throughout the history of the WNBA, there have been few teams with three legitimate scoring threats – and the primary reason has been that there have been too many teams and not enough scorers. Even most good teams had only two players who counted as scorers, so those two scorers always one-and-a-half defenders to beat.

With contraction, however, the game has changed. Now more teams than ever have three scoring options, and all of a sudden, point totals are exploding. In regulation Saturday, the lowest point total for any of the six teams was 78, and when you add the overtimes, the lowest number was 81.

This is just what the WNBA needs, as points are a lot more fan-friendly than defense – and despite the deserved emphasis coaches place on defense when it comes to winning games, the league most of all needs to win fans. And games like last year’s 59-56 Sparks-Monarchs’ extravaganza aren’t going to win anything but an acknowledgement that stifling defense is like really horseradish: A little goes a long way.

Let’s take San Antonio as another example. Before the arrival of Chamique Holdsclaw, the Silver Stars had two weapons, Sophia Young and Becky Hammon. Michelle Snow? Never a real scoring threat, especially if kept off the offensive boards. Ruth Riley? Sooner have a root canal than accept contact in the lane. Helen Darling? Shot below 30 percent the last two seasons. And so on …

Which meant that defending San Antonio was pretty easy, at least in theory. Three players always had half of their attention on Young and Hammon, and should one of those be out of the game, there was only one scorer to worry about. (Of course, Hammon and Young are so good that they can often beat the help, but if both didn’t play well, it was a struggle for the Silver Stars to score.)

But now, with Holdsclaw playing as aggressively as she did Saturday, two things happen: Things open up for Hammon and Young; and the pressure on Hammon and Young is much less. Again, looking at Saturday’s 88-81 win over L.A., Hammon only took nine shots, and the combination of Hammon shooting fewer than 10 times and San Antonio winning the game was highly unlikely in 2009. Now, with scorer number three on the floor, even not knowing the offense, the Silver Stars are either a) going to have one of their big three going one-on-one, or b) another player on the floor left pretty much wide open (hence Edwige Lawson-Wade and Snow combining for 28 points).

That same scenario is being played out around the league, as contraction has finally put the WNBA in a position to show off the offensive skills of its best players. Defenses can no longer focus on the one or two scorers on an opposing roster, and have help always at hand. With more scorers getting one-on-one opportunities, there are going to be more points, and there’s going to be a lot more excitement game in and game out.

And in the second summer of our economic discontent, the league needs excitement more than ever.

  • Add a Comment
  • Share
  • RSS

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • http://slamonline.com/ Tzvi Twersky

    I agree 100 with you. I could go for contraction in all the major sports.

  • Clay Kallam

    Just think how good the NBA would be with 24 teams … each remaining team would pick up a legit starting candidate, and the depth of talent would be amazing. That means that coaches could rest stars more, everyone would be fresher all season and injury attrition would be significantly lower.

  • http://www.wnbanewsandnotes.blogspot.com Aneela

    Yup, it’s true. The league does need MORE excitement, and points do bring more fans into the mix. I’ve found myself cheering for alot more teams this year than past.

  • Ace

    I still think dunks would add 10x more excitement, come on ladies dunk the ball please.

  • Clay Kallam

    You know, most dunks are boring — the dunks that exciting are the windmill, mustard-added, in-your-face slams, and women just can’t jump high enough, or grip the ball well enough, to make that happen.

    I agree that more dunking would be good for the game, but it’s not going to save the WNBA or anything. The most important thing is to play the game well.

  • Ace

    You have women in the WNBA that can palm the ball and jump high enough, they just don’t do it. Like how Griner didn’t dunk for most of her season at Baylor. I’m convinced that it’s their mindset that stops them from just posterizing someone. I don’t expect dunking to save the game, but it will make it more exciting imo.

  • Clay Kallam

    That’s an interesting thought — Margo Dydek, at 7-2, could easily dunk, but simply wouldn’t.

    I’ve watched Griner since her summer high school days, and she will dunk when the opportunity presents itself, but as you say, it doesn’t appear that she really seeks it out.

    I’m not convinced, though, that a lot of other women can get high enough above the rim to dunk without a perfect setup — and perfect setups seldom occur in games, especially in the WNBA. Obviously, Michelle Snow and Candace Parker can both dunk, but I don’t know that Lauren Jackson can, for example. It would seem that a woman shorter than 6-4 probably can’t dunk, and there aren’t that many in the W who are taller.

  • Ace

    Good point about Margo and the perfect setup. Then it makes you wonder why they don’t dunk on a breakaway with nobody chasing them. Angel McCoughtry, Maya Moore(more of a rim grazer style though and 6-0) and her former UConn teammate Tina Charles all can dunk. The USA team has 5 dunkers on their team but I would bet money on none of them dunking during the World Championship or the Olympics. I want someone to start a revolution, so dunking in the WNBA becomes the norm. I don’t know if Lauren Jackson can dunk either, I know DT tried and just hit rim. She was heavier then so maybe she could now if she tried.

Advertisement
Fullcourt.com