Stay Connected with the Seattle Storm Facebook Twitter YouTube Instagram StormWatch
  • Print

2004 WNBA Draft Prospect Stats

To give another perspective on some of the top prospects as the 2004 WNBA Draft approaches, STORM.WNBA.COM has collected the statistics for 20 of these players, evaluating them using some statistics you might not be familiar with, but provide a better perspective on how well they performed in college than merely traditional points, rebounds and assists.

Reading this chart:
TS% - true shooting percentage, the best measure of total shooting efficiency. This is found by PTS/(2*(FGA + (.44*FTA)))
R40 - rebounds per 40 minutes
Pass - combines assist/turnover ratio and assists/minute. This is found by 50 * ((AST/MIN)^2) * (AST/TO)
EFF40 - WNBA.com's Efficiency rating per 40 minutes. This is found by 40*((PTS + REB + AST + STL + BLK - TO - (FGA-FGM) - (FTA-FTM))/MIN)

Player           Pos   Col   MPG   PPG   RPG  APG   TS%   R40  Pass  EFF40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lindsay Whalen    PG   MIN  32.9  20.5   5.1  5.4  .635   6.2  1.93   26.4
Diana Taurasi     PG   CON  31.7  16.2   3.9  4.9  .595   4.9  2.47   22.3
Toccara Williams  PG   MSU  37.6  15.6   5.6  7.1  .410   5.9  3.15   16.9

Player           Pos   Col   MPG   PPG   RPG  APG   TS%   R40  Pass  EFF40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alana Beard       SG  DUKE  31.4  19.7   5.4  3.9  .585   6.9  1.33   28.0
Giuli. Mendiola   SG    UW  36.3  21.3   6.5  5.5  .607   7.1  2.21   26.1
Chandi Jones      SG   HOU  35.6  22.7   5.5  2.4  .524   6.2  0.21   21.5
Kelly Mazzante    SG   PSU  34.7  20.0   4.1  1.6  .515   4.8  0.09   17.4

Player           Pos   Col   MPG   PPG   RPG  APG   TS%   R40  Pass  EFF40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Powell     SF  STAN  33.6  20.2  11.2  4.1  .561  13.3  1.13   30.4
Shereka Wright    SF   PUR  30.2  20.1   6.1  2.3  .579   8.1  0.34   25.9
Catrina Frierson  SF   LAT  28.5  16.2   7.0  0.8  .538   9.8  0.02   23.5
Shameka Christon  SF   ARK  33.3  21.8   7.0  1.8  .533   8.4  0.07   23.1

Player           Pos   Col   MPG   PPG   RPG  APG   TS%   R40  Pass  EFF40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amisha Carter     PF   LAT  29.1  16.9  10.8  0.8  .556  14.8  0.01   29.0
Rebekkah Brunson  PF   GEO  36.4  19.1  12.0  1.3  .522  13.2  0.03   24.7
Stacy Stephens    PF   TEX  26.7  11.6   8.3  0.9  .579  12.5  0.03   24.5
Iciss Tillis      PF  DUKE  28.0  12.5   6.7  2.1  .502   9.5  0.32   22.2

Player           Pos   Col   MPG   PPG   RPG  APG   TS%   R40  Pass  EFF40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Hayden     C    UF  27.4  19.0  10.6  1.3  .544  15.4  0.06   34.3
Lindsay Taylor     C  UCSB  24.8  16.1   7.3  1.3  .601  11.8  0.08   29.9
Nicole Ohlde       C   KSU  30.9  17.5   6.7  3.8  .613   8.6  1.35   27.8
Christi Thomas     C   UGA  26.7  13.2   8.3  0.8  .602  12.4  0.02   27.3
Tera Bjorklund     C   COL  33.9  18.1   7.9  2.2  .630   9.3  0.20   24.9

When looking at the Efficiency per 40 minutes, which is a natural tendency, keep in mind that this statistic tends to be biased towards inside players, which is how the fourth highest-rated center (Christi Thomas) can rate better than any point guard. Posts get more rebounds and blocks than perimeter players get assists and steals, and their field-goal percentages are also generally higher.

Even within position groups, EFF40 is biased towards players who grab a lot of rebounds, like Vanessa Hayden, as opposed to players with high shooting percentages, like Nicole Ohlde and Tera Bjorklund.

Strength of schedule is also an important consideration. While Lindsay Taylor rates ahead of Ohlde and Thomas, she is considered a lesser prospect because she was playing weaker competition. This is true, to a lesser extent, of WAC players like Amisha Carter, Catrina Frierson and Chandi Jones, and possibly even the pair of Pac-10 players.

It should also be noted that these statistics reflect only the player's senior season and not her entire NCAA career. Jones, for example, would rate much better based on her junior season (.578 true shooting percentage and an outstanding 29.6 Efficiency points per 40 minutes).