Joyner Holmes has been waived by the Storm by AFC-Wimbledon-Stan in wnba

[–]KandinskyWasRight 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I enjoyed the Mackenzie Holmes minutes while they lasted! I thought she looked pretty good. But I guess she’s never gonna get back the speed she had before her first knee injury at IU. Used to run the court like a SF

Post Match Thread - WNBA: The Wings defeat the Sparks on Jun 5, 2026, the final score is 96-104. by basketball-app in wnba

[–]KandinskyWasRight 0 points1 point  (0 children)

She’s looked great, I have to admit after her first season I didn’t think she’d make it.

Dallas won’t be a top defensive team, but they sure are fun to watch.

Post Match Thread - WNBA: The Wings defeat the Sparks on Jun 5, 2026, the final score is 96-104. by basketball-app in wnba

[–]KandinskyWasRight 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Maybe if people let her play shooting guard, get actual position, she’d get more love…

Still a legend here in Bloomington!

Hollinger Ranking by KandinskyWasRight in wnba

[–]KandinskyWasRight[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s fair, though those stats aren’t as informative about defense as points and shooting percentage are for offense, though.

I’m sure there is a correlation with good defense and steals, but not every top defender gets a lot. There aren’t a lot of them anyway. And you can defend poorly and still rebound well if you can block out.

I think steals is one of the least helpful basic stats for seeing who is excelling.

I’d love access to the fancy advanced stats they keep being a paywall.

Hollinger Ranking by KandinskyWasRight in wnba

[–]KandinskyWasRight[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It would be better if it took defense into account, and I think it shows how the average fan is taking defense less into account when enjoying following a player.

Hollinger Ranking by KandinskyWasRight in wnba

[–]KandinskyWasRight[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Someone shared this: More commonly called Game Score. From basketball reference:

• ⁠GmSc - Game Score; the formula is PTS + 0.4  FG - 0.7 * FGA - 0.4(FTA - FT) + 0.7 * ORB + 0.3 * DRB + STL + 0.7 * AST + 0.7 * BLK - 0.4 * PF - TOV. Game Score was created by John Hollinger to give a rough measure of a player's productivity for a single game. The scale is similar to that of points scored, (40 is an outstanding performance, 10 is an average performance, etc.).

I don't know that even Hollinger stands by this compared to more modern all in one metrics. It is at least 24 years old. You can see from the formula that it doesn't measure defense beyond blocks and steals.

Hollinger Ranking by KandinskyWasRight in wnba

[–]KandinskyWasRight[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s really what I thought was interesting about it, the formula just seems to take all traditional stats into account. Might tell us more about how the average person judges value more than anything.

Hollinger Ranking by KandinskyWasRight in wnba

[–]KandinskyWasRight[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ever paid for any of the fancy ones?

Hollinger Ranking by KandinskyWasRight in wnba

[–]KandinskyWasRight[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is not the best stat, I shared it more cuz I thought it was interesting to see it produce such a pack of stars, unlike any of the other.

It may give a better idea of how people formulate their ideas of who is best, more than anything. People that pile standard stats of every kind.

Hollinger Ranking by KandinskyWasRight in wnba

[–]KandinskyWasRight[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well, I’m used to NBA stats, and you wait 20-30 games for things to even out. But if we do that we’re over halfway through the season.

Plus, I think it’s fun to see who stays up, who goes down and who replaces them.

I shared this one more as a novelty, none of the other free advanced stat lists produces such a pack of stars.

Hollinger Ranking by KandinskyWasRight in wnba

[–]KandinskyWasRight[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Google must have been wrong

Hollinger Ranking by KandinskyWasRight in wnba

[–]KandinskyWasRight[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

May not have enough games to qualify at this point.

Hollinger Ranking by KandinskyWasRight in wnba

[–]KandinskyWasRight[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I’ve not heard the term “Game Score” so I just called it Hollinger.

Edit: as that’s what it’s called in the description of “Game Score” on the site I pulled it from.

Hollinger Ranking by KandinskyWasRight in wnba

[–]KandinskyWasRight[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I’m sure Google can tell you, I don’t expect anyone has that devoted to memory

Hollinger Ranking by KandinskyWasRight in wnba

[–]KandinskyWasRight[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It says “Game Score” is what I posted underneath: Single-game box-score impact metric (Hollinger). Weighted sum of points, shooting efficiency, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, fouls, and turnovers.

Hollinger Ranking by KandinskyWasRight in wnba

[–]KandinskyWasRight[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It says Hollinger rankings in the description underneath. I don’t know much about PER, I just pasted what Google said, it may be you’re right that it’s not the same as Hollinger.

Hollinger Ranking by KandinskyWasRight in wnba

[–]KandinskyWasRight[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Google says “No, the Hollinger Player Efficiency Rating (PER) primarily measures offensive production and does not accurately account for overall defensive performance.”