WBB Stanford WNBA - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: WBB Stanford WNBA (/thread-25604.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: WBB Stanford WNBA (/thread-25604.html)
RE: WBB Stanford WNBA - 2006alum - 06-10-2025
(06-10-2025, 01:06 PM)jonnyss Wrote: fwiw haley's contemporary college star, aari mcdonald is on a hardship contract as well - after being an all wnba rookie.McDonald is also 5'6" and peaked right before she went pro. I was skeptical about how much success she could achieve given her size, which is obviously not an issue for Jones. It's largely the same reason I'm not surprised Kiana Williams didn't last either - if you're 5'7" or smaller you need to be a lights out shooter, otherworldly distributor, or absolute dog in defense. Williams and McDonald are none of the above.
RE: WBB Stanford WNBA - jonnyss - 06-10-2025
(06-10-2025, 05:37 PM)2006alum Wrote:(06-10-2025, 01:06 PM)jonnyss Wrote: fwiw haley's contemporary college star, aari mcdonald is on a hardship contract as well - after being an all wnba rookie.McDonald is also 5'6" and peaked right before she went pro. I was skeptical about how much success she could achieve given her size, which is obviously not an issue for Jones. It's largely the same reason I'm not surprised Kiana Williams didn't last either - if you're 5'7" or smaller you need to be a lights out shooter, otherworldly distributor, or absolute dog in defense. Williams and McDonald are none of the above.
i suppose you are generally right, but how does jordin canada get by at 5'6 with a career 3 pt % of 29%? and crystal dangerfield at 5'5" and a career 3-pt % of 32%? ivory latta was 5'6 as well.
maybe there are some coaching decisions involved as well as both mcdonald and dangerfield had outstanding rookie seasons, then had trouble thereafter. i don't think candice was used well as a pro; nor was nicole powell.
RE: WBB Stanford WNBA - BostonCard - 06-10-2025
(06-10-2025, 10:07 AM)BillBradley Wrote: She's a guard, and she needed to develop a perimeter shot. That's not a tall order.
Are you kidding me? There are probably 60 total guards on the planet good enough to play in the WNBA (or 60 total wing players, which is probably the better comparison), and probably 100x or more as many really good basketball players who would love to play in the WNBA, but aren’t good enough. Are you telling me that all those 6,000 women could play in the WNBA if they just practiced shooting 500 makes a day, got a shooting coach, etc. Obviously not.
The basket is 22 feet, 1.75 inches away from the three point line in the WNBA. At that distance, a difference of 1 degree left or right would make a 4.6 inch difference in the position of the ball, which is approximately the radius of a WNBA ball. At that distance a 1% difference in launch velocity makes about a 5 inch difference in the distance the ball intersects with the hoop (fortunately for basketball players, landing spot is less sensitive to launch angle assuming you are close to the optimum). Think about that, a WNBA player needs to shoot the ball within about a 1 degree of the hoop and within about 1% of the ideal launch velocity each and every time they shoot the ball, while shooting from a variety of different spots on the court, while fatigued from running around the court; the fact that the best players hit 50% on a wide open three is nothing short of miraculous.
Just to give you a comparison, a degree miss in throwing darts from the standard dart distance makes about a 4 cm difference in where the dart hits the board; that is less than twice the diameter of the bullseye, and less than the diameter of the outer bull, and those guys throw the darts unopposed, at rest, and from the same spot each and every time. And while that degree of practice would make me a better darts player than I am now, there is no way that I could practice myself to being a competitive dart player.
Maybe Jones could be a better shooter if she had practiced more, tried harder, etc, but she may have had an innate upper bound that limited her, just as she had an upper bound in size that meant she would not be an elite post player and an upper bound in quickness that meant she would not become an elite penetrator. I think she was the quintessential jack of all trades, master of none, and while that made her a very good college player, in the pros you really do have to have one go to move, whether it is posting up smaller players, blowing by slower players, or getting an accurate shot off even when closely guarded.
BC
RE: WBB Stanford WNBA - BillBradley - 06-10-2025
(06-10-2025, 08:50 PM)BostonCard Wrote:Uh, no. Never said anything close to that. I said "she's a guard and she needed to develop a perimeter shot". That's it. And sorry, but that's not a tall order.(06-10-2025, 10:07 AM)BillBradley Wrote: She's a guard, and she needed to develop a perimeter shot. That's not a tall order.Are you kidding me? There are probably 60 total guards on the planet good enough to play in the WNBA (or 60 total wing players, which is probably the better comparison), and probably 100x or more as many really good basketball players who would love to play in the WNBA, but aren’t good enough. Are you telling me that all those 6,000 women could play in the WNBA if they just practiced shooting 500 makes a day, got a shooting coach, etc.
RE: WBB Stanford WNBA - BostonCard - 06-11-2025
My point is that it is a tall order to develop a perimeter shot, and that the assumption that she could have, had she tried hard enough, while ultimately non-falsifiable, may or may not have been correct.
Why is it that people accept that there is a limit to how much people can improve their quickness and athleticism, but that anybody can become a good perimeter shooter if they just shoot enough shots in the gym day after day?
BC
RE: WBB Stanford WNBA - M T - 06-11-2025
We've all taken a basketball and tried to shoot a hoop for the first time and failed miserably. We've seen practice make us better.
We've heard reports of the best shooters in basketball spending extraordinary time working on their shots.
We know countless examples of practice making you better, whether bowling or putting or shooting hoops..
Typically we call something a "skill" if it seemingly improves with practice & experience & training.
We may call a talent a "gift" or an "innate ability" if it is something (quickness, height, etc) that does not seem to continue to improve with practice. Some of these may depend upon development at an early age while the brain is still developing.
That said, we all know that there is an asymptotic limit on the ability of each player at any particular skill.
Whether it is some slight imperfection in their motor skills or their sight or their ability to judge body position or speed, there will be differences between any two people.
Yes, in theory, she might have reached her limit on her ability to hit threes. But I think most of us have not seen or heard evidence of her putting in the reps to hone her shot. Perhaps more importantly, has anyone heard of her seeking out coaches who have developed great 3pt shooters, or tearing apart her shot to develop a better shot? (That is a question, not an assertion that she didn't.)
As a bit of an aside, I look at swimmers today versus 50 years ago and am stunned at what they can do today. In general, I don't believe that swimmers now are more gifted, but they are a heck of a lot more skilled. The skills come from a variety of influences (body changes, stroke changes, training changes, ...), but I don't believe it is because swimmers practice much more than 50 years ago.
Mark Spitz set the world record for 100M Fly at the 1972 Olympics with a time of 54.72. That time would have missed making the 2024 US Olympic Trials by more than a second (there were 60+ men that qualified with 53.58 or better). Do you think Mark Spitz had reached his physical limit? He had reached the limit of his capabilities then, based on his training and coaching. I would agree that if he had swum an extra 1000 yards a day, or did more sprints per day, he may not have improved much. But if somehow Mark Spitz had been cloned about 50 years after his birth and trained as hard as previously, I think the clone would be right at today's world record (49.45).
RE: WBB Stanford WNBA - BillBradley - 06-11-2025
(06-11-2025, 12:01 AM)BostonCard Wrote: My point is that it is a tall order to develop a perimeter shot, and that the assumption that she could have, had she tried hard enough, while ultimately non-falsifiable, may or may not have been correct.I see. Well, I think we have to clarify something. My assertions have been specific to Haley Jones, not to "anybody" or Shaq. Haley Jones has played the game at a high level her entire life. She was the #1 recruit in the country as a GUARD possessing a wide array of ball skills - dribbling, catching, passing, etc. and does not lack strength or hand-eye coordination. In her case, I don't think it's a question of ability at all. She was always a pretty good free throw shooter (haven't looked up her stats but I'd be surprised if she wasn't at least in the 70's %) and shot the midrange at a high % (although a little flat for my taste). So I stand by my point - not a tall order for her to develop a perimeter shot.
Why is it that people accept that there is a limit to how much people can improve their quickness and athleticism, but that anybody can become a good perimeter shooter if they just shoot enough shots in the gym day after day?
BC
FWIW, I do agree that not everyone will become a good shooter just by shooting tons of shots day after day. That statement brings all sorts of "people" into the equation, all with different innate abilities. Shaq probably (I really don't know, this is just my opinion) lacked some of these abilities and therefore couldn't ever get over the hump at the FT line. But I 100% believe that a catch and shoot 3 pointer is something that can be developed by guards if they put in the work. Again, I'm not talking about running and catching and shooting, or dribbling, step-back, Curry-ish shooting. Just simple catch and shoot or step-in 3's. Enough to keep the defense honest so they don't back off you and dare you to shoot it, much like we saw at Stanford. Get a shooting coach, work on your fundamentals, shoot thousands of shots in the offseason, and yes - you will very much improve. There have been so many players over the years (I could create a really long list if I wanted to spend the time) who improved their shooting... It's not like it's some crazy unfair ask for Haley. For whatever reason, she didn't do it.
RE: WBB Stanford WNBA - jonnyss - 06-11-2025
(06-11-2025, 09:35 AM)BillBradley Wrote:(06-11-2025, 12:01 AM)BostonCard Wrote: My point is that it is a tall order to develop a perimeter shot, and that the assumption that she could have, had she tried hard enough, while ultimately non-falsifiable, may or may not have been correct.I see. Well, I think we have to clarify something. My assertions have been specific to Haley Jones, not to "anybody" or Shaq. Haley Jones has played the game at a high level her entire life. She was the #1 recruit in the country as a GUARD possessing a wide array of ball skills - dribbling, catching, passing, etc. and does not lack strength or hand-eye coordination. In her case, I don't think it's a question of ability at all. She was always a pretty good free throw shooter (haven't looked up her stats but I'd be surprised if she wasn't at least in the 70's %) and shot the midrange at a high % (although a little flat for my taste). So I stand by my point - not a tall order for her to develop a perimeter shot.
Why is it that people accept that there is a limit to how much people can improve their quickness and athleticism, but that anybody can become a good perimeter shooter if they just shoot enough shots in the gym day after day?
BC
FWIW, I do agree that not everyone will become a good shooter just by shooting tons of shots day after day. That statement brings all sorts of "people" into the equation, all with different innate abilities. Shaq probably (I really don't know, this is just my opinion) lacked some of these abilities and therefore couldn't ever get over the hump at the FT line. But I 100% believe that a catch and shoot 3 pointer is something that can be developed by guards if they put in the work. Again, I'm not talking about running and catching and shooting, or dribbling, step-back, Curry-ish shooting. Just simple catch and shoot or step-in 3's. Enough to keep the defense honest so they don't back off you and dare you to shoot it, much like we saw at Stanford. Get a shooting coach, work on your fundamentals, shoot thousands of shots in the offseason, and yes - you will very much improve. There have been so many players over the years (I could create a really long list if I wanted to spend the time) who improved their shooting... It's not like it's some crazy unfair ask for Haley. For whatever reason, she didn't do it.
here's a video from 9 months ago of haley working out with her shooting coach, packie turner. he also coaches, among others, amen thompson.
link
here's another
link
and another
link
karl smesko working with haley on 3s
link
RE: WBB Stanford WNBA - BostonCard - 06-11-2025
Quote:Again, I'm not talking about running and catching and shooting, or dribbling, step-back, Curry-ish shooting. Just simple catch and shoot or step-in 3's. Enough to keep the defense honest so they don't back off you and dare you to shoot it, much like we saw at Stanford.
I haven't looked at the stats, so this could be wrong, but johnyss noted that:
Quote:i suppose you are generally right, but how does jordin canada get by at 5'6 with a career 3 pt % of 29%? and crystal dangerfield at 5'5" and a career 3-pt % of 32%? ivory latta was 5'6 as well.
I can understand your point that getting Jones to a competent three point shooting when unguarded may be more feasible than getting her to be even at the level of an average wing in the WNBA. You may well be right, but it is also possible that Jones' ceiling is too low. Ultimately we don't know how much she tried, and what the opportunity costs would have been.
Quote:We've all taken a basketball and tried to shoot a hoop for the first time and failed miserably. We've seen practice make us better.
Remember, by the time you get to Jones' level, whether she has made a point to specifically practice shooting at range or not, she has probably attempted hundreds of thousands of shots over the course of her life and you are way past the steep part of the learning curve, and barring a weird non-linear phenomenon where it "suddenly clicks" or she overcomes a mental block, we are probably talking about already being in the range of diminishing returns. This is not someone who is relatively new to basketball and we are talking about the massive effect that dedicated practice for the first time. It is possible; some people certainly get to be better shooters with practice over time, but I still maintain that the fact that she didn't improve her shooting is not adequate evidence that she didn't try hard enough to improve her shooting.
BC
RE: WBB Stanford WNBA - jonnyss - 06-11-2025
haley has said that she was looking forward to being "turned loose by atlanta" (had she stayed).
i can imagine haley faring better as a jimmy butler than as a point guard or as a 3 - ie a powerful, driving 3/4 rather than an outside shooting 3. butler has a career 3 pt % of 32%. so does draymond green for that matter, and haley's height (6'1") and draymond's (6'6") are comparable for their genders.
haley is strong. imo it might be easier for haley to will herself to be a more aggressive defender of 6'3" fours than to will herself to a higher 3-point %.
nicole powell had the same hurdle - being parked by the coach out at the 3-point line when much of her strength was down low (although nicole was obviously a better outside shooter).
RE: WBB Stanford WNBA - BillBradley - 06-11-2025
(06-11-2025, 05:16 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Remember, by the time you get to Jones' level, whether she has made a point to specifically practice shooting at range or not, she has probably attempted hundreds of thousands of shots over the course of her life and you are way past the steep part of the learning curve, and barring a weird non-linear phenomenon where it "suddenly clicks" or she overcomes a mental block, we are probably talking about already being in the range of diminishing returns. This is not someone who is relatively new to basketball and we are talking about the massive effect that dedicated practice for the first time. It is possible; some people certainly get to be better shooters with practice over time, but I still maintain that the fact that she didn't improve her shooting is not adequate evidence that she didn't try hard enough to improve her shooting.
BC
To be clear about the actual drills I'm talking about, here are a few videos of Steph.
https://youtu.be/VDAExNXyP_Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXCol8YeqxQ
This is how a guard develops a three point shot. Massive amounts of repetition. This isn't specific to Steph - you can go onto YouTube and find videos of tons of players working out this way. The videos posted with Haley working out were more like Haley's game - mid-range, post up etc. Don't you think if she spent multiple summers with a shooting coach doing what Steph is doing in these videos (which BTW many players at all levels DO work on their shot like this all summer, every summer), her shot would have improved? With her talent? She was 2 for 34 her senior year! I'm not trying to be mean by saying she didn't try - I'm just saying, I really don't think she seriously drilled or she would have been a better shooter.
Like 2006Alum, I also like Haley and very much appreciate the years she gave at Stanford (especially of course, the natty). I too hope that she can develop a perimeter shot and make a career in the W.
RE: WBB Stanford WNBA - Nobadeer - 06-17-2025
Full schedule in the WNBA tonight. LSJU alums were on all of the winning teams!
Seattle 98, LA 67. N. Ogwumike season high 26 pts 5 reb 2 ast for victorious Storm.
Minn 76, Vegas 62. Alanna Smith 31 minutes, 10 pt *13 reb* 3 ast; Karlie S. 4 mins 0 pts for Minn.
Dallas 80, Valkyries 72. Carrington 22 minutes, just 1 of 9 shooting and 8 total pts, 4 reb, 4 ast for Dallas. Newly signed Haley Jones DNP.
Wash 79, Chi 72. Iriafen 27 minutes, 8 pts 6 reb.
Fever 88, Conn 71. Hull 31 minutes 8 pts 3 reb 2 ast.
RE: WBB Stanford WNBA - Hieronymus - 06-18-2025
(06-17-2025, 11:29 PM)Nobadeer Wrote: Full schedule in the WNBA tonight. LSJU alums were on all of the winning teams!
Seattle 98, LA 67. N. Ogwumike season high 26 pts 5 reb 2 ast for victorious Storm.
Minn 76, Vegas 62. Alanna Smith 31 minutes, 10 pt *13 reb* 3 ast; Karlie S. 4 mins 0 pts for Minn.
Dallas 80, Valkyries 72. Carrington 22 minutes, just 1 of 9 shooting and 8 total pts, 4 reb, 4 ast for Dallas. Newly signed Haley Jones DNP.
Wash 79, Chi 72. Iriafen 27 minutes, 8 pts 6 reb.
Fever 88, Conn 71. Hull 31 minutes 8 pts 3 reb 2 ast.
I watched Hull in the Fever game, and classic Lexie glue-gal game as usual. Stats were modest, but she has an impact. Her 3 pt shot is much improved, but she still can’t finish on the drive in traffic. Still does all the little stuff absolutely right.
On a side note - wow the league has an officiating/Clark problem. On the one hand, Clark takes absurd punishment, and on the other hand Clark is absolutely a pot stirrer. And the refs can’t handle any of it.
There is no world though where Cunningham’s safe but intentional foul on a breakaway at the end of the game should trigger a flagrant 2/ejection and Mabrey’s blind shot, dead ball push on Clark earlier is just a technical foul. Absolutely baffling. That whole Q3 Clark situation was an officiating disaster class.
Also, the Sun reaction on the Cunningham intentional foul was just silly. It’s going to be an obvious flagrant. There was no risk of injury on the play. The game is practically over. Take the free throws and the ball and move on. Stupid, but everybody is already all pissed off, and that is what you get. I guess the refs get to look tough tossing a bunch of people, but it’s mostly the refs fault that is the situation. And at that point it’s just for show - totally meaningless. Again, the game was well over.
At this point the other team is so wound up in Clark games, just about anything creates a meltdown. The league/officials have to get it under control, and the players have to settle down.
RE: WBB Stanford WNBA - Nobadeer - 06-18-2025
WaPo story today on the WNBA and its officiating (or lack thereof):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2025/06/18/caitlin-clark-fever-sun-foul-fight-cunningham/
RE: WBB Stanford WNBA - Leftcoast - 06-18-2025
(06-18-2025, 02:22 PM)Nobadeer Wrote: WaPo story today on the WNBA and its officiating (or lack thereof):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2025/06/18/caitlin-clark-fever-sun-foul-fight-cunningham/
Sadly, I can't read it unless I subscrrbe to an out-of-town newspaper for $40/yr. Can you summarize?
(When are newspapers going to solve this ridiculous problem. I've always been a fan of the micro-payments option which was floated years ago. Newspapers should band together and agree to one subscription for out-of-city web access and a minimal per page charge. Sending viewers away because they won't pay $40 for a single page is ... suboptimal.)
RE: WBB Stanford WNBA - Nobadeer - 06-18-2025
Some excerpts, aligning with Hieronymus' post.
"For the people who love the WNBA, the players who better have great health insurance just to work in this league, and for the league itself. Because the truth is, the basketball here is evolving, but the inadequate officiating is not.
That was evident during the skirmishes between Sun veteran Marina Mabrey and the Fever’s Caitlin Clark, which were followed by a late-game fight between Fever guard Sophie Cunningham and the Sun’s Jacy Sheldon. Before all that, the referees swallowed their whistles too many times, missing too many shoves. As a result, Fever Coach Stephanie White delivered some blows of her own. On the night her team became the Eastern Conference representative in the Commissioner’s Cup final with an 88-71 win over the Sun, White let loose on officiating that is harming the game.
“Players are faster, they’re better, they’re bigger, they’re stronger,” White said. “Things are happening quickly. Everybody’s getting better, except the officials.”
“When the officials don’t get control of the ballgame, when they allow stuff to happen, and it’s been happening all season long … this is what happens,” White said. “You’ve got competitive women, who are the best in the world at what they do, right? And when you allow them to play physical, and you allow these things to happen, they’re going to compete.”
White had been sounding an alarm for weeks about “disrespectful” officiating. Tuesday night, there was no bias. Just blindness. How could the officiating trio not have noticed the clashes around the perimeter? The extra stuff happening inside? Or be aware of the potential for bitterness between Mabrey, a fierce competitor and a holdover from the Sun team that eliminated the Fever last year in the playoffs, and Clark, who had her rookie season run-ins with Connecticut?
It seems the refs still haven’t learned that it takes more than a long review — and a decision to essentially play on — to supervise the most physical basketball league in our land. Throughout this game — just like any game in the W, on any given night — the paint was no place for punks. In the first half, Indiana guard Kelsey Mitchell got yanked down from behind. Later, another Fever guard, Lexie Hull, took a blow to her chin, and somehow she was called for the foul.
The paint in the WNBA is a physical and violent and often unsafe place. It’s high time these refs learned how to officiate it. “It’s something that people really have to start looking at because, people are dropping like flies with concussions. And it’s not just our team,” Hammon said, referencing the head injuries suffered by star rookie Paige Bueckers and the Washington Mystics’ Shakira Austin. “There’s been too many shots to the face. … This is a physical game. I don’t think anyone’s trying to hurt anybody; however, there are some vicious ones.”
Wilson might be the W’s MVP, but Clark is the crossover celebrity. If officiating ever allows her to get injured, then the scariest place on Earth just might be among the casuals rioting outside the league office. But it shouldn’t take unbridled anger to awaken the WNBA. The league has a problem, and it better fix it before the whole product turns foul."
RE: WBB Stanford WNBA - BobK - 06-18-2025
Ah it’s the officials fault the players keep fighting. Got it. Plus the coaches are ignoring. My thought poor coaching poor maturity
RE: WBB Stanford WNBA - TonyLima - 06-18-2025
This starts at the top. I gave up watching the WNBA because what they're playing is not basketball. Officiating could be a whole lot better, but it starts at the top. The league office clearly thinks this stuff fills seats. They lost me. I wish them all the luck because the women deserve a chance to play professionally.
Bring back the ABA!
RE: WBB Stanford WNBA - Nobadeer - 06-20-2025
Valkyries 88, Fever 77 at Chase Center last night. I was there! Quite a game night atmosphere, with a sellout crowd, Lacob, Dunleavy and Podziemski courtside and Steve Kerr and some Bay FC players and 49ers (incl. former LSJU Curtis Robinson) also in the building.
Hull started and played 33 minutes (more than anyone else in the game besides Caitlin Clark at 34 minutes), but was mostly ineffective. 1 of 5 shooting, just 3 pts 3 reb 3 ast, wasn't getting open often, and was the primary defender on too many Valkyries jump shots and drives.
Clark looked less than 100% (quad injury still affecting her?) and had one of her worst games as a pro, 0 for 7 on threes and 3 of 14 overall, scored just 11 pts and had 6 turnovers. Yet the Fever were ahead most of the game until the V's overran the Fever defense in the 4th quarter.
RE: WBB Stanford WNBA - StanFanFam13 - 06-20-2025
I was there last night too—what a game! This Valkyries squad is easy to cheer for (though of course I wish they had some Stanford alums on the roster). Agreed that it wasn't Lexie's best night, but I still enjoyed seeing her play in person again.
Per SWBB instagram, it looks like Shay Ijiwoye was also in the house—shadowing Stanford's Kevin Danna in the radio booth. How cool! I hope Stanford can keep strengthening ties with the new WNBA team in our backyard. Seems like it's to everyone's benefit.