Diana Taurasi helps Mercury sweep Sky to claim third WNBA title (6 losses this season)

[JonLP24]

CHICAGO -- Diana Taurasi and Candice Dupree scored 24 points each and the Phoenix Mercury, playing without star center Brittney Griner, beat the Chicago Sky 87-82 Friday night to complete a three-game sweep of the WNBA Finals for their third championship.

DeWanna Bonner added 12 points for the Mercury, who also won titles in 2007 and 2009. Griner sat out following surgery to correct a retinal issue after she was hit in the right eye in Game 2.

Elena Delle Donne scored 23 points, Sylvia Fowles had 20 points and Allie Quigley had 19 for the Sky.

Taurasi hit a tiebreaking short jumper and was fouled with 14.3 seconds left and she made the ensuing free throw to put Phoenix up 85-82.

http://scores.espn.go.com/wnba/recap?gameId=400582775

Also MVP Maya Moore, Diana Taurasi, Britney Griner, Candace Parker, and Tulsa's Skylar Diggins were named 1st All-WNBA team
http://espn.go.com/wnba/story/_/id/11509386/maya-moore-unanimous-choice-all-wnba-first-team

[ProfessorGAC]

1. At Least For The Skye. . .

. . .they have the best all around player in the game in Delle Donne. She has the most overall skill and size of anybody in that entire league.

She has the quickness and moves of a guard, the size of a big forward or center, with a shooting touch of a watch maker.

She's easily the slickest player in the league.

[JonLP24]

2. Unfortanately I didn't get to see much action

Flipping back-and-forth between Game 1 and the 49ers/Cowboys. The blowout caused me stick w/ the NFL game, I saw the Lynx finish a thrilling comeback in Game 2 which was also on ABC where Maya Moore made her last 5 3-pointers.

Did she make the All-Star game? I'll have to rewatch it on a youtube, I was focusing on the Wests' stars but the East finished strong and sent the game in OT where they later won.

[ProfessorGAC]

5. IIRC Yes

But, i think she was hurt and didn't play. I might be thinking of another player, but pretty sure it was Delle Donne who was hurt.

She's not a secret weapon. Everybody in the league knows how good she is. She faces double teams all the time.

[JonLP24]

7. Didn't mean to imply she was

Was looking for some game action to see her but I see youtube has a full game of the Sky/Fever so I'll check it out.

Don't know too many players well, on the East -- my knowledge pretty much ends w/ Tamika Catchings.

What do you base that she is better than Griner? Not arguing, I'm curious. I see PPG are nearly identical, Griner has higher FG% (C/PF generally do). Griner has more rebounds and blocks aren't even close. I admit I have limited knowledge but it seems to be a universal opinion that Griner is the best defensive player.

on edit - I love player efficiency numbers, your value in them may vary but feel it does a good job of rating the best - http://www.wnba.com/statistics/sortable_player_statistics/index.html?type=points&scope=perGame&experience=-1&conference=overall&positionId=0&seasonType=2

[ProfessorGAC]

8. Here's the List

Far better ball handler. Excellent lateral quickness. Much better range on her shot. Can play face up or back to the basket. Much better clutch free throw shooter. Much better shooter in general. Sees the whole floor.

That's what she does better than Griner. I know you looked up the stats, but you haven't watched the games. Griner doesn't pass the eye test as a great PLAYER. If she's 4 inches shorter, she just been another lady in the league.

Griner is huge and she gets off the ground pretty quickly so her shot blocking is a huge asset. But, she's not the all around player Delle Donne is

Griner plays on a better team, so that can't zone trap her all the time. Geez, Tarausi is on that team and she's one the best woman players ever. Griner isn't even the best player on her own team.

BTW: There's a DU'er who works for (or did work for, because i think she retired) for one of the investors in the Sky. So, i've been interested in them from the very beginning.

Last point: I'm not a big believer in PER. The way that stat was developed was something that wouldn't pass a peer review. They weighted the values so that the numbers matched the already accepted opinions. As an example, if you had a stat that showed Nowitzki was better than Lebron James, and you tweaked the formula until it pushed Lebron to the top of the list, that's not necessarily a valid modeling stat. It just confirms what was already presumed to be true.

[JonLP24]

10. I have watched a few games

I did watch the Lynx-Fever WNBA finals. Caught more games of those finals than this one.

Most of the games I did catch feature Griner. she looked good to me. I also caught Candace Parker's debut game, impressive that the Mercury were double-triple teaming her but couldn't stop her. Not many games especially when I don't have cable. I'm going to check out the Dream-Sky game though. It is available on Youtube.

That isn't at-all my understanding of PER. From what I know is it weighs all the players contribution, simpler than looking at points, then rebounds, then assists, etc. The problem with it is aside from blocks and steals, it doesn't account for great defense. PER would actually hurt Griner in that area. I can't disagree w/ this list -- http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics

MJ is also the career leader in PER.

If you adjust for 40 minutes, it actually puts Bella in the top 5.

[ProfessorGAC]

11. You're Sort of Proving My Point Jon

The statistic is flawed because it they use weighting factors for the importance of one thing over another. But, in the development, the weights were based upon making sure the players everyone already agreed were the best floated to the top.

Now in statistical modeling that's ok, if: as an example i was modeling the kinetics of a chemical reaction and i know that since the rate is exponentially dependent upon the temperature at point of reaction, that this factor would be weighted such. It's not linear so i make that exponentially more important. Moreover, as the concentrations of the reactants falls due to some reaction occurring, the mass transfer falls exponentially, so time becomes and exponential factor. Weighting time as a moving average with descending exponential impact is perfectly valid.

Weighting factors to make the model fit the empircal data is not something that would pass muster as a valid statistical model. I've done enough of these, and peer reviewed enough that i know the difference.

If a guard gets 6 rebounds a game, but he's a 3 point shooter, is the rebound worth the same as if Shaq got it. One guy is spreading the whole floor, defending the wing and still get 7 rebounds a game, that would be a valuable PER stat. Nobody is taking Nick Anderson over Shaq though.

So, they adjusted the weighting because in its infancy, the stat didn't always accurately reflect what everyone who was watching the games already knew.

That's my problem with it. And, again if Griner is easily ahead of Delle Donne in PER, then there is something wrong with the statistic. I don't dislike Britney Griner. I just know that my eyes tell me Delle Donne is a better overall player.

[JonLP24]

12. I'm not aware of the development that led to it

I think it is a good but flawed statistic and think it does a good job of weighing overall production. If it combines the actual player's stats and shows they have the highest PER, IOW, they are playing better than anybody else. Durant had more PPG by a somewhat significant margin and more rebounds. The guy on top won the MVP award, the top WNBA won the MVP.

With Griner having the same PPG, higher FG%, more rebounds, more blocks, explains why she probably has a higher PER. Shaq is the third highest PER, Nick Anderson scores only half as many as Shaq.

Even without PER, the player having the most overall statistics would likely be rated over everyone else. Griner isn't easily ahead when looking at 40minute numbers. Down the road maybe perhaps she'll outplay her statistically.

[ProfessorGAC]

13. Believe It Or Not

Some of the really early sabermetric stuff was "peer reviewed". These were common assignments in statistics and applied mathematics classes in the 5 and 6 hunrdreds during the late 80's and forward.

The assignment was to review the actual math and statistical mechanics behind various sabermetrics and determine the validity of, and flaws within those metrics.

Students got really engaged and only a few of the advanced metrics were really solidly valid. Even some of those that seemed pretty obvious were only so-so as valid predictors of value and/or future outcomes.

I haven't seen anyone use PER this way, but since i have been plugged into these teaching moments, i've seen the fundamental math and background models of very many of the advanced metric.

There are others i feel much worse about than i do PER. Not a fan of PER. In vehement opposition to some others i find way worse. This is mostly true of most of the baseball defensive metrics.

[JonLP24]

14. I usually don't like unit-less stats

Like QB rating. I've seen games where the RB lead drives that set-up short touchdown throws and games where the QB lead drives that led to short. Guess which games led to the super high QB rating vs the other?

ESPN came out w/ a Total QBR which was a lot better but haven't heard much about it since. Personally, I start w/ YPA, then look at TD-INT ratio. Completion % isn't that important, especially in offenses where the QB is a check down man -- taking off with it instead of dumping it off. Brad Johnson and David Carr had high completion %.

W/ your baseball example, I realize I'm not a fan of the vast majority of proprietary stats. I like PER because it is a handy tool to see where players stack up w/ others. Can't think of one better though I hear WAR is pretty good. Like QB rating, if you're doing a good job you'll score high and if poorly, low -- but I'm beginning to see your reasoning and feel much the same way myself.

Link to PER formula -- http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/per.html

Also -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_efficiency_rating#Calculation

[ProfessorGAC]

15. I Know The Formula for PER

That's one of the stats we used in those classes to teach peer review. Easy to do in a Chicago school since so many young adults are Bulls fans.

[joeybee12]

3. I understand why she left UCONN, but if she had stayed...

She would have won all the awards Griner, Moore did, IMHO. SHe was a great player on a bad team - Delaware - goes to show you it helps for recognition when you're at a top school.

[ProfessorGAC]

4. You Bet

She was better than Griner then and she's better than her now.

[joeybee12]

6. I love Diana Taurasi...she's intense...glad they won...nt

[ProfessorGAC]

9. She Has A Handle

And her release is really quick. She needs just a split second to get her legs under her and get the shot off. And when she runs the floor she is full speed and you just see no indication she would ever lose control of the ball.