Sue (the writer) re: Dee (her sister) and The W - Analyze This!

[JavaMan]

Analyze This
by Sue Bird

Who do you think led the NBA in charges drawn last season?”

Diana Taurasi, or Dee, was asking the kind of question you start to ask when you’re as familiar as siblings, and about a month into an unforgiving Russian winter.

It’s about five years ago, and we’re at dinner with Todd Troxel, an assistant coach for the Phoenix Mercury, playing out a scene we do almost every night in every WNBA offseason. Dee and I are on the same Russian team — Spartak Moscow Region, one of the best. We only have two games a week, with practices punctuated throughout. There’s a lot of free time. When you’re half a world away from family and friends, and you don’t speak the local language, and when the number of days you haven’t seen the sun far outnumbers those you have, time is fluid. It could be any day because most days are the same. In Russia, there’s not a lot to do but eat, drink and debate.

Dee’s great at all three.

​

We all think we’re right. How many elite competitors do you know who ever think they’re wrong? Dee and Todd grab their phones and start Googling. “It’s Grant Hill. 65 charges over 80 games and 2,409 minutes.”

Figures it’d be a Duke guy.

Dee’s already on to the next one: “Who do you think led the WNBA in charges drawn last season?” We throw out names over one another.

It’s someone who wouldn’t chase the block. Tamika Catchings? Nah, Candace Parker.

It’s hard not to recognize how important numbers are to the sports conversation, especially modern-day sports fandom.

We grab our phones again. The best part about barroom debates isn’t just the debate — it’s the settlement. We all want a finite answer to specific question. I Google: “wnba leader charges drawn.”

“Did you mean ‘charges drawn nba’?” I read back to myself. I didn’t. I could see Dee and Todd’s thumbs syncopated in a search of their own.

Nothing.

A search for NBA stats, however, yields sources cross-referenced with sources, cited by sources. If you want to find it, there it is — jump-ball win percentages, loose-ball fouls, shooting fouls drawn, defensive efficiency. Any argument we could have as fans can be solved. As much as I want to look across the table at Dee and say I was right, I also just wanted to know.

We still don’t know who won that debate.

The disparity between NBA data — even data across all male sports — and WNBA data is glaring. Data for the WNBA is relegated to basic information: points, rebounds, steals, assists, turnovers, blocks. While worthy of being noted, those are the most rudimentary numbers in our game.

MORE...

Sue has a way with words. I like it.

 

[noirwestern]

Excellent writing and a damn good point.

 

[vtcwbuff]

"And I think there is also some subtext to the lack of data in women’s sports. Is the WNBA, for example, not worthy of a deep dive? Do women, as fans — who account for about 70 percent of our fanbase in arenas across the league — have less of a mind, or less of an interest in numbers, than their male counterparts?"

IMO - In general, yup. An opinion supported by this site. As far as I can tell, the BY stats geeks are all male.

 

[bleeckerhusky]

Sue makes some excellent points, although I am not into analytics and fantasy leagues in any sport. However, I am disappointed that she chose to do it on Derek Jeter's Players Tribune. Derek Jeter is someone who for his entire playing career never provided his fans with any insight as to what it was like to be the team captain and play shortstop for the NY Yankees. Now, that he can profit from it, he sees himself as the great communicator.

 

[noirwestern]

I read all of the pieces penned by women alongside Bird's article and found Maya Moores's to be spot on. She talks about the minimal coverage for professional female athletes or in the case of the WNBA, total lack thereof. Take a look at ESPN and see how far you have to dig before you find anything about any female sports. Even articles about kids, so long as they're male, come first. SI is worse still, a bit on Sharapova's drug issue and then it's off to the hot chicks section. I suspect Ms Bird is happy to have a venue, regardless of who or what is giving her column space.

 

[j66kicker]

I read all of the pieces penned by women alongside Bird's article and found Maya Moores's to be spot on. She talks about the minimal coverage for professional female athletes or in the case of the WNBA, total lack thereof. Take a look at ESPN and see how far you have to dig before you find anything about any female sports. Even articles about kids, so long as they're male, come first. SI is worse still, a bit on Sharapova's drug issue and then it's off to the hot chicks section. I suspect Ms Bird is happy to have a venue, regardless of who or what is giving her column space.

2 Clicks
http://espn.go.com/womens-basketball/

 

[UcMiami]

"And I think there is also some subtext to the lack of data in women’s sports. Is the WNBA, for example, not worthy of a deep dive? Do women, as fans — who account for about 70 percent of our fanbase in arenas across the league — have less of a mind, or less of an interest in numbers, than their male counterparts?"

IMO - In general, yup. An opinion supported by this site. As far as I can tell, the BY stats geeks are all male.

Ah, but the likes we receive for our stats analysis are I bet pretty evenly distributed across gender.
I think it just point to men being better procrastinators than women - much rather crunch some numbers than do something useful!

Great article - well written and very interesting points being made.
And I notice it myself when I want to check something - quite often I find I can only get results that lead to NBA or MCBB and not to the women's game.

I am also very aware in google searches when I search a school name of whether or not a women's basketball link is present in the results or if it is only men's teams that come up. Schools that bring up a link to women's teams get a little gold star in my rating system.

 

[noirwestern]

2 Clicks
http://espn.go.com/womens-basketball/

Of the over 200 clickable links on the opening page six are devoted to female athletes, three of them repeating the same Alex Morgan story - I don't think the point is all that hard to miss.

 

[Farney]

Anybody want to orangize/run a WNBA fantasy league?

 

[Wally East]

Ah, but the likes we receive for our stats analysis are I bet pretty evenly distributed across gender.
I think it just point to men being better procrastinators than women - much rather crunch some numbers than do something useful!

Or even just more willing to argue in a public forum.

I am also very aware in google searches when I search a school name of whether or not a women's basketball link is present in the results or if it is only men's teams that come up. Schools that bring up a link to women's teams get a little gold star in my rating system.

Yes!

Additionally if you google a men's game and score, you get the score in the results. If you do the same for a women's game? A link to a score. Subtle but annoying.

 

[j66kicker]

Of the over 200 clickable links on the opening page six are devoted to female athletes, three of them repeating the same Alex Morgan story - I don't think the point is all that hard to miss.

No, I get it. Content is presented on the "generic" main page based on what the majority of the readers are interested in seeing. But ESPN does provide a lot of women's content (actual sports content, unlike SI's "Swimsuit" content), and it's very easy to get to.
http://espn.go.com/womens-college-b...or-breanna-stewart-espnw-national-player-year

 

[CL82]

Sue's a good writer. It's tough to write a magnum opus regarding 1) analytics and 2) sports gender inequality without coming off as 1)boring/nerdy or 2)whiney. It was an interesting and compelling article.

On a semi related note: Caption this:

" I wonder if he realizes I don't speak Russian?"

 

[pinotbear]

"And I think there is also some subtext to the lack of data in women’s sports. Is the WNBA, for example, not worthy of a deep dive? Do women, as fans — who account for about 70 percent of our fanbase in arenas across the league — have less of a mind, or less of an interest in numbers, than their male counterparts?"

IMO - In general, yup. An opinion supported by this site. As far as I can tell, the BY stats geeks are all male.

Is it a difference in interest, or a difference is historical opportunity and/or cultural expectations? I think, given the age demographic of the BY, that historic opportunity and cultural expectations - remember when talking Barbie was programmed to say "math is hard!" - might be a factor in the stat-geekiness of BY males. Or, they may just be more comfortable flying their geek flag in public.

Whatever the mathematical interest in our generation or our parents' may have been, given that the majority of college students are now female and that the historical disparity in the hard sciences at the grad and undergrad level is beginning to level out, this "less of an interest" should diminish.

I'd also add that, historically, there are far more male sportswriters and sports broadcasters than there are female. It seems highly likely that this Y-chromosome filter might affect which sports numbers are presented and emphasized in the media, and what are not.

 

[bags27]

Sue makes some excellent points, although I am not into analytics and fantasy leagues in any sport. However, I am disappointed that she chose to do it on Derek Jeter's Players Tribune. Derek Jeter is someone who for his entire playing career never provided his fans with any insight as to what it was like to be the team captain and play shortstop for the NY Yankees. Now, that he can profit from it, he sees himself as the great communicator.

are you a Red Sox fan by any chance?

 

[jcoton56]

Sue's a good writer. It's tough to write a magnum opus regarding 1) analytics and 2) sports gender inequality without coming off as 1)boring/nerdy or 2)whiney. It was an interesting and compelling article.

On a semi related note: Caption this:

" Look,that's Sara Palin's house"

 

[lne001]

It seems highly likely that this Y-chromosome filter might affect which sports numbers are presented and emphasized in the media, and what are not.

Doubtful. Much more likely that XX-chromosomes just don't care enough about the sports played by some of their sisters, let alone the statistical minutia deep beneath the surface. When women follow female sports as avidly as men follow male sports the coverage, pay and fame will be equal. It's called supply and demand, and the demand is just not there, regardless of how well Sue Bird writes an article.

 

[pinotbear]

Doubtful. Much more likely that XX-chromosomes just don't care enough about the sports played by some of their sisters, let alone the statistical minutia deep beneath the surface. When women follow female sports as avidly as men follow male sports the coverage, pay and fame will be equal. It's called supply and demand, and the demand is just not there, regardless of how well Sue Bird writes an article.

You're kinda makin' my point. "When women follow female sports as avidly as men follow male sports the coverage, pay, and fame will be equal". Implicit in that comment is, male sportswriters, sportscasters, and male-owned papers, TV stations, and other media outlets feature male sports coverage - that there are "male sports" with its' own gender-based fan group and media support. How do women create the "supply and demand" if the coverage is unequal?

And, that leads me back to the crux of my first post, which your observation emphasizes: that historical practice/structure and cultural expectations, particularly of the BY demographic, have a role in the very small statistical observation that the stat geeks who post on the BY happen to be male - not merely the fact that they aren't female.

 

[UcMiami]

In all of this do not forget GAMBLING. It is a huge driver of all sorts of data mining for sports, generates enormous amounts of money, and is also a male dominated industry but as purveyors and end users.

 

[lne001]

How do women create the "supply and demand" if the coverage is unequal?

The coverage is a function of the demand. When women begin attending/watching/discussing women's team sporting events in far greater numbers than they do today the supply will increase. This is a great country - if enough people want something some entity will be happy to sell it to them, at a profit.

 

[pinotbear]

The coverage is a function of the demand. When women begin attending/watching/discussing women's team sporting events in far greater numbers than they do today the supply will increase. This is a great country - if enough people want something some entity will be happy to sell it to them, at a profit.

But, the demand is motivated by coverage - that's the whole concept behind marketing, after all. At heart, this is a version of "which came first, the chicken or the egg?", more than "supply and demand". Thanks to efforts such as Title IX, there's a fair supply out there - but, it receives scant coverage, scant marketing.

 

[lne001]

But, the demand is motivated by coverage - that's the whole concept behind marketing, after all. At heart, this is a version of "which came first, the chicken or the egg?", more than "supply and demand". Thanks to efforts such as Title IX, there's a fair supply out there - but, it receives scant coverage, scant marketing.

The reason it receives 'scant' (your characterization) coverage and marketing is that there is far from sufficient demand, and thus an unwillingness to flush very expensive advertising/marketing costs down the drain. To keep the cliches flowing, the NBA can lead women to the WNBA river but can't make them drink.

As far as the chicken and egg trope, that was solved a while ago by Darwin and proven conclusively more recently. The egg was first, as is true with all new species. Does not apply to economics, however, which is the core of this issue.

 

[vtcwbuff]

Media coverage and marketing may be a factor, but the reality is that most women have little interest in watching competitive female sports. Maybe if they spent a small portion of their reported $426 billion annual outlay in beauty products on female sports the coverage would be different.

My wife has tried for 20 years to generate interest among her female co workers and friends, including our daughter a UConn alum. So far no takers.

 

[BroadwayVa]

"And I think there is also some subtext to the lack of data in women’s sports. Is the WNBA, for example, not worthy of a deep dive? Do women, as fans — who account for about 70 percent of our fanbase in arenas across the league — have less of a mind, or less of an interest in numbers, than their male counterparts?"

IMO - In general, yup. An opinion supported by this site. As far as I can tell, the BY stats geeks are all male.

Your theme about the Vermonteers --brings to mind two thoughts--I visited the cemetery in Northampton, Ma with the monument to the dead from the battle in the Wilderness (Richmond)--then too from local Va relatives of the Lee's army of Virginia---out fed, out arms produced, out gunned--but NEVER OUT FOUGHT. (American's all) The monument at Bedford Va for the company of Bedford men killed on D day attests to that..

 

[BroadwayVa]

The coverage is a function of the demand. When women begin attending/watching/discussing women's team sporting events in far greater numbers than they do today the supply will increase. This is a great country - if enough people want something some entity will be happy to sell it to them, at a profit.

Part of the problem is: 1. Top players miss many games due to "over playing over seas" (yea it's about money) 2. Top players are off playing for their countries during the WNBA season.
Not much local rah rah rah stuff going on in local markets to develop a fan base out side of fans of Conn, Duke, Md, etc if you have one of yours on a WNBA team you are more likely to watch. It's not about a great country--or numbers --it's about MONEY!! And Money comes from visibility --catch 22???

 

[pinotbear]

Media coverage and marketing may be a factor, but the reality is that most women have little interest in watching competitive female sports. Maybe if they spent a small portion of their reported $426 billion annual outlay in beauty products on female sports the coverage would be different.

My wife has tried for 20 years to generate interest among her female co workers and friends, including our daughter a UConn alum. So far no takers.

I get concerned when folks throw out statements like this without substantiation. Without it, such statements - "little interest in watching .. female sports.", "..spent a small portion of ...annual outlay in beauty products", added to the original posts' opinion that women aren't as interested in statistics, all this smacks of the cultural/historical sexism that I referred to in my original post. It's not quite "a women's place is in the kitchen", or "barefoot and pregnant", but it still alludes to stereotypes about women as being poor in math, not interested in sports, but fixated on looking pretty. I'd a-thought, here in 2016, that we'd be past that sort of thing - particularly fans of a program that celebrates women for whom athletics, impressive numbers, and the value of work over appearance matter a great deal.