Diamond is the projected #1 pick in next years draft

#26
#26
Hoya Saxa said:
Kudos to Diamond if that were to happen. Although I'm a little stumped why a player who wasn't on a single All-American team in 2015/2016 (or on the SEC all-conference team in 2015/2016, or even the SEC second team) would suddenly jump to the top of a national list. Is it based on expected (but as yet unrealized) potential? Is it because her game is more suited to the WNBA than to WCBB? Is it because people feel that WNBA coaches will help her develop better than she has with Holly? I'm having a hard time following the rationale for this prediction.
Click to expand...

In a word...yes. Obviously, if next season is more of the same as this, she won't be drafted first. But that list clearly is looking at it based on potential and fit at the next level.

Besides, college accolades are meaningless when measuring pro potential. Nina Davis will likely be a 3-time 1st team AA, but any team that drafts her in the top 4 is crazy, unless she has developed her game to play at the wing by the time she graduates. I can't imagine that any team will waste a high draft pick for a slender 5'11 PF, no matter how good she was in college.
 
#27
#27
Hoya Saxa said:
Kudos to Diamond if that were to happen. Although I'm a little stumped why a player who wasn't on a single All-American team in 2015/2016 (or on the SEC all-conference team in 2015/2016, or even the SEC second team) would suddenly jump to the top of a national list. Is it based on expected (but as yet unrealized) potential? Is it because her game is more suited to the WNBA than to WCBB? Is it because people feel that WNBA coaches will help her develop better than she has with Holly? I'm having a hard time following the rationale for this prediction.
Click to expand...

For a coupla reasons. Mostly next years draft will have a weak crop as is apparent by stating DD will go high. How high would she have gone this past draft?

Two, the WNBA is tolerant of "me first" players out of necessity in that they are in the majority over team players.

Third, the WNBA is not about defense their thought seems to be the higher the scores the more appeal to fans. After 20 years, and at their "too bad" stage of the WNBA development, DD laziness on defense won't be that much of a liability.

Four. No pro team is going to develop DD. She has got to practice and convert herself from gunner to efficient shooter

I don't see DD having a long WNBA career. I see her in the lower grade Turkey and Israel teams soon after. As more fundamentally sound, team first players come into the leage the DD's of the world will become more expendable
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#28
#28
PointGuard said:
For a coupla reasons. Mostly next years draft will have a weak crop as is apparent by stating DD will go high. How high would she have gone this past draft?

Two, the WNBA is tolerant of "me first" players out of necessity in that they are in the majority over team players.

Third, the WNBA is not about defense their thought seems to be the higher the scores the more appeal to fans. After 20 years, and at their "too bad" stage of the WNBA development, DD laziness on defense won't be that much of a liability.

Four. No pro team is going to develop DD. She has got to practice and convert herself from gunner to efficient shooter

I don't see DD having a long WNBA career. I see her in the lower grade Turkey and Israel teams soon after. As more fundamentally sound, team first players come into the leage the DD's of the world will become more expendable
Click to expand...

Thank you for your detailed response. Some of the players on the ten-women (2016) All-American teams will still be playing WCBB next year, and I was surprised that they were not projected to be selected ahead of Diamond. Everything you said makes a lot of sense and clears things up for me.
 
#29
#29
Amb3096 said:
In a word...yes. Obviously, if next season is more of the same as this, she won't be drafted first. But that list clearly is looking at it based on potential and fit at the next level.

Besides, college accolades are meaningless when measuring pro potential. Nina Davis will likely be a 3-time 1st team AA, but any team that drafts her in the top 4 is crazy, unless she has developed her game to play at the wing by the time she graduates. I can't imagine that any team will waste a high draft pick for a slender 5'11 PF, no matter how good she was in college.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say stats are meaningless, but as a scout (pro or otherwise) I would look to see what she did in her best games, versus what she did in her worst games... If I were a pro-scout I would look to her terrific games to see if they were once or twice a season and in one-game spans, if so,then they would be a flash-in-the-pan stats... But if they are in runs, then it is a question of mental-conditions and coaching influence in how to handle this inconsistency. (I promise not to use the A-word!).
 
#30
#30
PointGuard said:
For a coupla reasons. Mostly next years draft will have a weak crop as is apparent by stating DD will go high. How high would she have gone this past draft?

Two, the WNBA is tolerant of "me first" players out of necessity in that they are in the majority over team players.

Third, the WNBA is not about defense their thought seems to be the higher the scores the more appeal to fans. After 20 years, and at their "too bad" stage of the WNBA development, DD laziness on defense won't be that much of a liability.

Four. No pro team is going to develop DD. She has got to practice and convert herself from gunner to efficient shooter

I don't see DD having a long WNBA career. I see her in the lower grade Turkey and Israel teams soon after. As more fundamentally sound, team first players come into the leage the DD's of the world will become more expendable
Click to expand...

I have seen many WNBA games in person and can tell you, it's not the NBA. There is significantly more emphasis on defense, as indicated by the low scoring outputs. Plus I have seen it in person. There is none of that gym-rat mentality that goes on in the NBA. (meaning, letting their assignment get the ball and then backing off to see if they can make the shot, instead of defending the off-the-ball reception of the pass).
 
#31
#31
After Mercedes Russell big year this year she will be # 1, if not a big year she will stay at Tennessee for one more year, but unlike Diamond DeShields family they are not loaded with money.
 
#32
#32
The WNBA scores a lot higher than the SEC. While the scoring is not as high as it should be it is not good defense keeping it lower it is the fact that inefficient players abound in the WNBA. Chippies are missed with too often. 7 or so really good players (efficient were drafted this past season and 3 of them play really good defense and a coupla OK defense. And those will ease who off a WNBA team?

The league is 20 years in and it's still painful to watch a lot of games.

I think DD will join their ranks after this season. If you enjoy those that need to jack-up 14 to 15 shots to score 14 points then you enjoy WNBA and most of Womens college hoops.

I'm not a coach, but some of the things you state, and other things you overlook are baffling to me for someone who sees himself as a candidate Div I womens coach.
 
#33
#33
PointGuard said:
The WNBA scores a lot higher than the SEC. While the scoring is not as high as it should be it is not good defense keeping it lower it is the fact that inefficient players abound in the WNBA. Chippies are missed with too often.
Click to expand...

You've described women's basketball in general. The WNBA has been better with regards to players that can actually score, but players play defense better than offense in general, which makes it so painful to watch.
 
#35
#35
Amb3096 said:
You've described women's basketball in general. The WNBA has been better with regards to players that can actually score, but players play defense better than offense in general, which makes it so painful to watch.
Click to expand...

Not trying to argue but you must watch different games than I have. LOL. There are more bad teams than good ones in the league for my taste
 
#37
#37
PointGuard said:
Not trying to argue but you must watch different games than I have. LOL. There are more bad teams than good ones in the league for my taste
Click to expand...

The reason for the stagnate growth in the WNBA has nothing to with talent, it has everything to do with money. . .The bottom salaries are less than a McDonald's manager.
Players play here only to showcase their skills.They go to Europe to make a living.
 
#40
#40
PointGuard said:
... The league is 20 years in and it's still painful to watch a lot of games.

I think DD will join their ranks after this season. If you enjoy those that need to jack-up 14 to 15 shots to score 14 points then you enjoy WNBA and most of Womens college hoops.

I'm not a coach, but some of the things you state, and other things you overlook are baffling to me for someone who sees himself as a candidate Div I womens coach.
Click to expand...


The WNBA is the poorest marketed entity in all of sports. They do nothing to market the game. Both in cities that have teams and outlying cities like these. The Atl Dream had ONE sign in all of Atlanta to announce the new WNBA team and wouldn't even put pamphlets on the free-publication racks in Kroger, Quick-trip and Blockbuster. They could have had weekly news letters or offers for less than the cost of a good meal for four at Ye Old Steakhouse....I know this because I used to be one of the ops managers for those free-publication racks. And, knew the owner of the Dream (Kathy Betty) and still couldn't get it done.

Michael Jordan, the greatest BB player ever had a career shooting percentage of .505... I very much enjoy seeing a player Jack-up 14 shots for 14 points. It is exactly what "Air Jordan" shot for his lifetime stat.

And ... I will be involved "somehow" with the transition of this team back to its success. Maybe not officially, but I will volunteer my time until I get seen by the right people.
 
#41
#41
PointGuard said:
Not trying to argue but you must watch different games than I have. LOL. There are more bad teams than good ones in the league for my taste
Click to expand...

Probably, but there are some teams that are well coached and know to run an offense (Minneapolis, Chicago, Dallas and Atlanta come to mind).
 
#42
#42
Coach Jumper said:
The WNBA is the poorest marketed entity in all of sports. They do nothing to market the game. Both in cities that have teams and outlying cities like these. The Atl Dream had ONE sign in all of Atlanta to announce the new WNBA team and wouldn't even put pamphlets on the free-publication racks in Kroger, Quick-trip and Blockbuster. They could have had weekly news letters or offers for less than the cost of a good meal for four at Ye Old Steakhouse....I know this because I used to be one of the ops managers for those free-publication racks. And, knew the owner of the Dream (Kathy Betty) and still couldn't get it done.

Michael Jordan, the greatest BB player ever had a career shooting percentage of .505... I very much enjoy seeing a player Jack-up 14 shots for 14 points. It is exactly what "Air Jordan" shot for his lifetime stat.

And ... I will be involved "somehow" with the transition of this team back to its success. Maybe not officially, but I will volunteer my time until I get seen by the right people.
Click to expand...

Regarding that a point scored per field goal attempted is good and that's what MJ did, that is factually inaccurate.
If an NBA team scored only 1 point per field goal attempted, they would wind up in last place. Just look at NBA boxscores and you'll see that it doesn't happen very often. In the vast majority of games, an NBA team will score more than 1 point per fga.
Jordan scored 32,000+ points on 24,000+ field goal attempts. If he averaged only 1 point per field goal attempted, you would have to erase about 8,000 points from his lifetime total.
The LV's this year shot .408 from the field and still scored more than 1 point per field goal attempted.
No, scoring only 1 point per field goal attempted is not very good at all.
 
Last edited:
#43
#43
volnationnj said:
Regarding that a point scored per field goal attempted is good and that's what MJ did, that is factually inaccurate.
If an NBA team scored only 1 point per field goal attempted, they would wind up in last place. Just look at NBA boxscores and you'll see that it doesn't happen very often. In the vast majority of games, an NBA team will score more than 1 point per fga.
Jordan scored 32,000+ points on 24,000+ field goal attempts. If he averaged only 1 point per field goal attempted, you would have to erase about 8,000 points from his lifetime total.
No, scoring 1 point per field goal attempted is not very good at all.
Click to expand...

Well its a little more complicated than that. Jordans two-point % was just under 50%; his three point % was 33% and he shot 83% from the FT line (and he got to the line a lot- scoring over 7,000 of his regular season points). If take out FT and include the threes, Jordan scored 25,000 points on just over 26,000 shots (roughly a point a shot but the FTs tip the balance).

NBA.com: Michael Jordan Career Stats

As a more recent comparison, Steph Curry in this years' MVP season averaged .505 (for 2s); 454 (from behind the arc) and 90% from the FT. He scored 2375 pts on 1691 shots in total and if we take out FT points (363) that works out to 1.18 pts. per shot.

So, I think one conclusion is that a 1 pt per shot is not such a bad ratio.
 
#44
#44
madtownvol said:
Well its a little more complicated than that. Jordans two-point % was just under 50%; his three point % was 33% and he shot 83% from the FT line (and he got to the line a lot- scoring over 7,000 of his regular season points). If take out FT and include the threes, Jordan scored 25,000 points on just over 26,000 shots (roughly a point a shot but the FTs tip the balance).

NBA.com: Michael Jordan Career Stats

As a more recent comparison, Steph Curry in this years' MVP season averaged .505 (for 2s); 454 (from behind the arc) and 90% from the FT. He scored 2375 pts on 1691 shots in total and if we take out FT points (363) that works out to 1.18 pts. per shot.

So, I think one conclusion is that a 1 pt per shot is not such a bad ratio.
Click to expand...

You can conclude that 1 pt per shot is not a bad ratio, but then that would be the wrong conclusion. You had to eliminate free throws entirely in order to reduce MJ:s ratio to close to 1:1. Is that a fair statistical analysis ?
Look at any NBA boxscore. See how many teams score less than 1 point per field goal attempted.
 
#45
#45
volnationnj said:
You can conclude that 1 pt per shot is not a bad ratio, but then that would be the wrong conclusion. You had to eliminate free throws entirely in order to reduce MJ:s ratio to close to 1:1. Is that a fair statistical analysis ?
Look at any NBA boxscore. See how many teams score less than 1 point per field goal attempted.
Click to expand...

Go back and look at each of our games box scores this past year... better than 40% would have changed our outcome dramatically.

Mj's career stats:
MJ shots makes %
2's 24,537 12,192 0.496882259
3's 1,778 581 0.326771654
overall 26,315 12,773 0.485388562
free throws 8,772 7,327 0.835271318
if you considered FT too 35,087 20,100 0.572861744

If I included his FTs it would be 57%
 
Last edited:
#46
#46
Coach Jumper said:
Go back and look at each of our games box scores this past year... better than 40% would have changed our outcome dramatically.

Mj's career stats:
MJ shots makes %
2's 24,537 12,192 0.496882259
3's 1,778 581 0.326771654
overall 26,315 12,773 0.485388562
free throws 8,772 7,327 0.835271318
if you considered FT too 35,087 20,100 0.572861744

If I included his FTs it would be 57%
Click to expand...

According to Tennessee's website, the LV's shot .408
in fga this past season. I agree that if we had shot a significantly higher percentage, it would have changed the outcome of games dramatically. I don't see how that can be argued. My only point (and evidently, not well made) was that scoring 1 point per field goal attempt is not a good ratio in the overall scheme of the game. Foul shots made are also involved in the outcome of the game. Again, look at NBA boxscores. .
Compare the fga against total points scored. It wil almost always be greater than 1:1 ratio in favor of points scored.
 
#47
#47
volnationnj said:
According to Tennessee's website, the LV's shot .408
in fga this past season. I agree that if we had shot a significantly higher percentage, it would have changed the outcome of games dramatically. I don't see how that can be argued. My only point (and evidently, not well made) was that scoring 1 point per field goal attempt is not a good ratio in the overall scheme of the game. Foul shots made are also involved in the outcome of the game. Again, look at NBA boxscores. .
Compare the fga against total points scored. It wil almost always be greater than 1:1 ratio in favor of points scored.
Click to expand...

I do agree with you, a higher ratio could be attained. And I feel will be. But it has to come from a newly rejuvenated mental positioning... They have to feel they have freedom to take shots and not feel that if they do so,they will be called out for not feeding the post, or for pulling a good trigger.....BAD shot selection, yes JUMP all over them, but not publicly!.. Do so so only the culprit knows what is said. That way they can feel the words was for THEM, not across the board to those who do take wisely calculated shots.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top