Post by clayk on Jun 28, 2023 11:50:15 GMT -5
So when Awak Kuier runs down the court, you see a tall, graceful athlete. She looks comfortable on the court and looks like a WNBA player.
When Maddy Siegrist runs down the court, it looks like there are a bunch of moving parts that have been poorly assembled and need a generous helping of oil to work more smoothly. She always seems a little awkward, and looks somewhat out of place.
This dichotomy is the epitome of the issues around talent evaluation. (Now I'm not saying either of these players is going to blossom into an all-star, or even a starter, but they really exemplify the difficulty of projecting production.)
Kuier came to the WNBA at age 20, without the training ground of the NCAA experience. And there, of course, is question one: Is the NCAA a better place to develop talent than overseas leagues?
In Kuier's 64-game career, she has averaged 10 minutes a game, though this year, she's getting the fewest (7.9). The traditional stats are not impressive: 36.1% shooting, 14.9% from three, 44/39 A/TO. Her per-100 possession rebounding is fine (10.8) and her on/off numbers are good. By PER and advanced metrics, she is not an effective player, and will turn 22 in August.
Siegrist took the traditional path, spending four years in college, and is one year older (just turned 23). Her NCAA stats were dazzling, but many questioned her viability in the league because of lack of athleticism. And some claim she was only drafted third overall because she was white.
Siegrist is averaging 8.1 mpg, shooting 42.9% overall and 28.6% from three. She has one assist in 118 minutes, and three turnovers. She shoots the ball about twice as often as Kuier. Her PER is much higher, her offensive rating is much higher, but her defensive rating is worse. (It is true, though, that defense improves over time, and Siegrist was never expected to defend in college.)
So the eye test says Kuier -- and if you're a GM or coach answering to the owner, it's very easy to justify giving Kuier minutes. All you have to say is "Just look at her. Watch her run. See how athletic she is."
The numbers lean to Siegrist, and the high draft slot means she will get chances. But if she bombs out, questions will arise from the owner, who could easily say "I could tell she wouldn't make it after I watched her run up and down the court -- why couldn't you?"
So who will be the better player in three years? The correct answer may be we don't know because neither will be in the league, but if you were a GM, who would you bet on? The player who can score and looks awkward, or the player who looks great but has yet to produce?
This is a classic dilemma at all levels of talent evaluation, from high school tryouts to the WNBA. Potential or production? Athleticism or skill?
When it comes to Siegrist vs. Kuier, I lean to Siegrist because it looks like she has more room to improve, primarily because she's still adjusting to a league Kuier is familiar with. But it took Ezi Magbegor a while to find her way, and Megan Gustafson never has, so there's that bit of countering evidence.
Curious to see how people feel about Kuier and Siegrist, and love to get some guesses. If we're all around in a couple years, we can check back in to see how we did as GMs ...
When Maddy Siegrist runs down the court, it looks like there are a bunch of moving parts that have been poorly assembled and need a generous helping of oil to work more smoothly. She always seems a little awkward, and looks somewhat out of place.
This dichotomy is the epitome of the issues around talent evaluation. (Now I'm not saying either of these players is going to blossom into an all-star, or even a starter, but they really exemplify the difficulty of projecting production.)
Kuier came to the WNBA at age 20, without the training ground of the NCAA experience. And there, of course, is question one: Is the NCAA a better place to develop talent than overseas leagues?
In Kuier's 64-game career, she has averaged 10 minutes a game, though this year, she's getting the fewest (7.9). The traditional stats are not impressive: 36.1% shooting, 14.9% from three, 44/39 A/TO. Her per-100 possession rebounding is fine (10.8) and her on/off numbers are good. By PER and advanced metrics, she is not an effective player, and will turn 22 in August.
Siegrist took the traditional path, spending four years in college, and is one year older (just turned 23). Her NCAA stats were dazzling, but many questioned her viability in the league because of lack of athleticism. And some claim she was only drafted third overall because she was white.
Siegrist is averaging 8.1 mpg, shooting 42.9% overall and 28.6% from three. She has one assist in 118 minutes, and three turnovers. She shoots the ball about twice as often as Kuier. Her PER is much higher, her offensive rating is much higher, but her defensive rating is worse. (It is true, though, that defense improves over time, and Siegrist was never expected to defend in college.)
So the eye test says Kuier -- and if you're a GM or coach answering to the owner, it's very easy to justify giving Kuier minutes. All you have to say is "Just look at her. Watch her run. See how athletic she is."
The numbers lean to Siegrist, and the high draft slot means she will get chances. But if she bombs out, questions will arise from the owner, who could easily say "I could tell she wouldn't make it after I watched her run up and down the court -- why couldn't you?"
So who will be the better player in three years? The correct answer may be we don't know because neither will be in the league, but if you were a GM, who would you bet on? The player who can score and looks awkward, or the player who looks great but has yet to produce?
This is a classic dilemma at all levels of talent evaluation, from high school tryouts to the WNBA. Potential or production? Athleticism or skill?
When it comes to Siegrist vs. Kuier, I lean to Siegrist because it looks like she has more room to improve, primarily because she's still adjusting to a league Kuier is familiar with. But it took Ezi Magbegor a while to find her way, and Megan Gustafson never has, so there's that bit of countering evidence.
Curious to see how people feel about Kuier and Siegrist, and love to get some guesses. If we're all around in a couple years, we can check back in to see how we did as GMs ...
