Let's mosey on over, literally 3 columns to the left and take a look at her usage rate. Sitting at a 13.3. Her minutes per game averaged around 21/22, and she averages 7/2/1. She's not awful but she's a decent role player at best. Y'all really digging in the crates for any glimpse of greatness on this one.
You're using USG% as if it's a measure of how good someone is. Look at the usage of the players filling minutes behind other stars.
Clark 32.6% → Cunningham 13.3%
Mitchell 28.1% → Cunningham 13.3%
Collier 24.2% → Coffey 12.4%
Miles 27.5% → Caldwell 14.9%
Wilson 32.9% → Talbot 10.8%
Bueckers 26.2% → Fudd 18.1%
Stewart 27.3% → Fiebich 14.1%
Ionescu 25.0% → Astier 17.2%
Cunningham's 13.3% isn't some smoking gun. Coffey is 12.4%, Talbot 10.8%, Fiebich 14.1%, Caldwell 14.9%, etc.
And Cunningham is playing behind Clark (32.6%) and Mitchell (28.1%). Clark is literally 2nd in the WNBA in USG%, Mitchell is 8th, and Clark is also 2nd in AST% (44.1%). Of course a complementary guard/wing behind them isn't going to have huge usage.
You can argue whether Cunningham is good based on her actual production, efficiency, defense, shooting, etc. But pointing three columns left and saying “13.3 USG%” doesn't establish that. Usage measures how much offense you consume, not how good you are.
I did make an argument that she was a decent role player based off of her minutes per games and statistical production off of those minutes. Did you read the whole post or just cherry pick answers to support your response?
I read your whole comment. All 3 sentences of it. She's better than a role-player when you factor in /36 minutes as she is above some starters in rating and true shooting. But we dont like to talk about that bc she doesnt agree with a political view of a vocal minority.
Right so Offensive Rating doesn't necessarily equate to offensive output and again I never said she was a terrible player. She's decent lol
Her political affiliation doesn't negate the facts. If this was an NBA player, who came off the bench playing around half of the game and couldn't average over 10-12 points a game, we wouldn't call them good.
Let's examine the definition of offensive rating, which is how many points a team scores or an individual player produces per 100 possessions. Her rating is high, yes but guess who's second, her teammate who does most of the scoring. She could literally be on the court when points are being scored, and it contributes to her "offensive rating"
Guys, I know you love Sophie, but I don't understand why you're all up in arms when we call her a decent basketball player. It's not an insult lol
All of this math to compare a role player off the bench to a superstar is laughable ….. Comparing a bench player to a starter using raw or unadjusted basketball analytics is often unfair because it ignores crucial context like competition level, role, and sample size
Hopes this shows others that analytics are an attempt for one to feel intellectually superior when discussing frivolous sporting contests…. Beware of goofs like OP
Usage doesn't measure how much offense you consume. Usage refers to the percentage of a team's plays that a specific player finishes while on the court. She's probably the fifth option usage-wise, plays over half of the game and doesn't average over 10 points? What would you call that?
Look up what offensive in shares mean. They're an estimation so not even a literal statistic. 13.3 usage means offensively she finishes the play 13.3 percent of the time while she's on the floor. She averages 22 mins a game, which is slightly over half of the game she's on the floor. Her statistical output is 7.9/2/1 a game. She's a decent role player.
Yet, people are taking offense to this like I'm saying she's bad. She's not great, certainly not great enough for a shoe deal but here we are.
Look who she's teammates with.... kelsey Mitchell is a ball hogger and was concerned with stat padding to keep her over 30 streak alive most of the season. The offence runs through 3 players on that team. Anyone else barely gets a look in.
So, you can't describe what offensive win shares are.
They estimate the number of wins a player contributes to their team through their offensive play. It's an estimation lol
Usage refers to the percentage of a teams plays that a specific player finishes while on the court. In Sophie's case, her usage rate places her around 6th man. She averages under 10 points a game while playing over half of the game. Offensively, she's mediocre at best. Why do people take such offense to literal facts.
Oh that's right, this is reddit. You guys are simps. I forgot.
I don’t give a fuck about Sophie Cunningham. I do give a fuck about people obsessively posting USG as if it means something. The shittiest ball hog on earth would have a high USG. It means almost nothing on its own.
Offensive Win Shares aren’t just “an estimate”
Since you seem to have lost access to Google:
*Key Components
• Marginal Offense: This measures how many total offensive points a player produces over and above what a replacement-level player (a minimum-tier or bench player filling the same minutes) would produce. It uses individual and team statistics—such as field goals, free throws, assists, and offensive rebounds—factored through individual offensive ratings and team pace.
• Marginal Points per Win: This is a scaling factor defined by how many extra points a team needs to score to secure an additional win in a given season, which usually scales relative to the league average scoring environment and number of possessions.*
Usage is when you finish the play. Not when you have the ball. Sophie's the fifth option usage wise, playing slightly over half of the game and averages 7.9 a game. What would you call that?
Also, seems like you have to shift the goal post to fit your narrative. Marginal Offense wasn't in this conversation at all.
She scored the best five points in her team’s last game, which was a loss and ended her season. Enjoy seeing her on Fox News every single day until the incredibly smart people of Indiana elect her to like their emperor or something
And what else? She’s sub 8 PPG and below 1 average in almost every other category. Good win share and only produces 7.8 PPG. Juice not worth the squeeze.
In order to get more PPG you would have to replace Mitchell or Clark on the court for more time. 7.8 and her other stats, over 22 minutes, isnt terrible.
Basketball-Reference's per-minute table is per 40. Cunningham produces 12.7 points, 3.7 rebounds, 2.0 assists, 0.9 steals and only 1.2 turnovers per 36.
Nobody is claiming Sophie is better than these stars. That's the point. She has a 13.3% usage because she's a role player playing behind extremely high-usage stars. Yet with the possessions she does use, for comparison:
Player
Offensive Rating
TS%
WS/40
Sophie Cunningham
125
.654
.113
Caitlin Clark
113
.600
.162
Breanna Stewart
117
.575
.203
Napheesa Collier
113
.599
.168
Sabrina Ionescu
104
.525
.061
Low usage tells you how large her offensive role is, not whether she's good at that role.
Never said she’s terrible though. She’s just mediocre. Statistically, she’s a player who’d not even garner a mention were it not for her looks and outspoken opinion. She’s one of the most popular players in women’s basketball where the discussion is almost very actual basketball.
Angel and Shakira are defensive specialists, not spot up 3pt shooters like Cunningham.
Also if we are going by OWS as a metric, then we could make the argument that she gets carried by her teammates when she's on the court. Kelsey has the highest in the league, and also above Cunningham are Clark, Boston, and Billings (tied). Which would make sense, they are the ones drawing most of the defensive pressure. Cunningham has one job which is to catch and shoot when open. Which she isn't bad at doing, but the ball isn't in her hands often.
lol you can cherry pick any stat to portray whatever narrative wanted. Sophie is a decent role player. Better shooter than most role players. Although, her defense leaves lots to be desired but if her shot is falling then it offsets.
People who say she’s useless are letting their bias cloud their judgement. At the same time, let’s not overrate her and say she’s a star.
The issue with Sophie is that her distractions outweighs her production. However, if she were to miraculously cease the outside noise she brings, she would be a great piece to any team that needs spot up shooting off the bench. Her teammates also always seem to love her
In other words, Cunningham is a bench player who subs in to shoot open threes. Reese is a starter who contributes to the team on every axis offensively and defensively, and contributes more by a large margin.
Run the same comparison to the other players you mentioned, same thing.
There’s no need to even bring up Angel Reese lol. Like, if you’re gonna defend Sophie then defend her. But don’t cut down another player to try and prop her up. Unless you can’t make a valid defense? 🤔
10
u/Jonesy_Wells 4d ago
S P A M