| Anna DeForge |
Starter/Star (1.1) |
31.3 |
High (1.2) |
11.9 |
3.1 |
2.1 |
1.9 |
49.90 |
Functioned as the Mercury’s primary perimeter scorer, stretching defenses with confident three-point shooting while carrying a heavy offensive workload. Independent coverage regularly highlighted her chemistry with the backcourt and her ability to create momentum swings, reflected by a Player of the Week honor during the season alongside her efficient scoring. (WNBA) |
WNBA Player of the Week (2004) |
| Adrian Williams-Strong |
Starter/Star (1.1) |
29.0 |
Medium (1.1) |
9.8 |
7.4 |
0.9 |
2.3 |
49.25 |
Worked as the club’s physical interior anchor, setting hard screens, battling on the glass and absorbing difficult defensive assignments. Contemporary reporting often praised her toughness and willingness to do the dirty work that rarely appeared in the box score. |
|
| Tamicha Jackson |
Starter/Star (1.1) |
28.2 |
Medium (1.1) |
8.8 |
2.4 |
4.3 |
1.6 |
41.50 |
Operated as a pass-first lead guard whose value came from organizing the offense rather than chasing shots. Season coverage frequently pointed to her tempo control, perimeter defense and responsibility initiating half-court sets despite inconsistent shooting. |
|
| Kayte Christensen |
Key Contributor (1.05) |
22.0 |
Low (1.0) |
6.9 |
4.2 |
0.5 |
1.3 |
27.09 |
Filled an energy-forward role off the bench, bringing rebounding and physical interior play whenever frontcourt depth was needed. Writers commonly viewed her hustle and willingness to contest bigger players as her biggest contributions. |
|
| Slobodanka Tuvic |
Key Contributor (1.05) |
21.5 |
Low (1.0) |
7.5 |
3.9 |
0.7 |
1.5 |
28.14 |
Provided size in the frontcourt with a defensive-first approach, using her length around the basket more than as a featured scorer. Contemporary coverage noted that her role centered on rim protection and interior rotation rather than offensive creation. |
|
| Plenette Pierson |
Key Contributor (1.05) |
18.2 |
Low (1.0) |
6.0 |
2.4 |
0.7 |
1.0 |
21.21 |
Supplied instant offense from the second unit by attacking the paint instead of settling for jumpers. Coaches and reporters regularly viewed her as an aggressive young reserve whose physicality translated well against opposing benches. |
|
| Lisa Harrison |
Starter/Star (1.1) |
25.4 |
Low (1.0) |
5.5 |
3.6 |
1.1 |
1.1 |
24.86 |
Played a steady veteran frontcourt role built around positioning, screening and dependable team defense. Coverage from the season often emphasized her experience and stabilizing presence more than individual production. |
|
| Edwina Brown |
Key Contributor (1.05) |
15.4 |
Low (1.0) |
3.5 |
2.1 |
1.8 |
1.1 |
17.64 |
Brought defensive activity and backcourt depth, frequently being trusted to pressure opposing guards despite limited offensive opportunities. Her role was largely about energy and ball pressure rather than scoring volume. |
|
| Iziane Castro Marques |
Bench (1.0) |
11.1 |
Low (1.0) |
4.3 |
0.8 |
0.6 |
0.5 |
12.40 |
Showed flashes of aggressive shot creation as a young perimeter reserve, although her minutes were inconsistent. Early reports focused on her athletic upside and confidence attacking defenders even while adjusting to the league. |
|
| Tamara Moore |
Bench (1.0) |
10.0 |
Low (1.0) |
3.0 |
1.7 |
0.7 |
0.9 |
12.60 |
Served as a reserve combo guard capable of handling the ball or defending either backcourt spot. Analysts generally viewed her versatility as more valuable than her scoring output during limited minutes. |
|
| Stacey Thomas |
Bench (1.0) |
9.8 |
Low (1.0) |
2.4 |
1.4 |
0.5 |
1.0 |
10.60 |
Added frontcourt depth through rebounding effort and defensive activity. Contemporary coverage was limited, but available reporting consistently described her as a role player asked to provide physical minutes when called upon. |
|
| Sonja Mallory |
Bench (1.0) |
7.3 |
Low (1.0) |
1.7 |
1.7 |
0.0 |
0.9 |
8.60 |
Limited contemporary coverage was available. In her brief appearances she filled an interior reserve role focused on rebounding and defensive rotations rather than offensive involvement. |
|
| Nevriye Yilmaz |
Bench (1.0) |
6.8 |
Low (1.0) |
2.8 |
0.6 |
0.4 |
0.0 |
7.60 |
Limited contemporary reporting was available. She projected as a developmental post player whose opportunities came in short reserve stretches while adapting to the professional game. |
|
| Edniesha Curry |
Bench (1.0) |
10.3 |
Low (1.0) |
1.7 |
0.6 |
1.2 |
0.5 |
8.00 |
Brought defensive intensity and ball-handling depth off the bench. Available reporting emphasized her willingness to pressure opposing guards and inject pace into reserve lineups. |
|
| Felicia Ragland |
Bench (1.0) |
13.0 |
Low (1.0) |
1.7 |
0.7 |
0.7 |
0.7 |
7.60 |
Limited contemporary coverage was available because of her brief stint. Her appearances came primarily as developmental reserve minutes. |
|
| Grace Daley |
Bench (1.0) |
9.3 |
Low (1.0) |
0.7 |
0.7 |
1.0 |
0.3 |
5.40 |
Limited independent reporting was available. She filled a reserve guard role with responsibilities centered on ball movement and spot minutes. |
|
| Dalma Ivanyi |
Bench (1.0) |
8.5 |
Low (1.0) |
1.5 |
1.0 |
0.5 |
0.3 |
6.60 |
Limited contemporary coverage was available. Her role was confined to short reserve appearances providing frontcourt depth. |
|
| Tracy Reid |
Bench (1.0) |
6.0 |
Low (1.0) |
1.0 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
1.0 |
6.00 |
Limited contemporary reporting was available because she appeared only briefly. She was used as experienced frontcourt depth when needed. |
|
| Charmin Smith |
Bench (1.0) |
4.3 |
Low (1.0) |
0.0 |
1.0 |
0.3 |
0.0 |
2.60 |
Limited independent coverage was available. Her contribution came almost entirely through reserve rebounding and defensive possessions. |
|
| Gergana Slavtcheva |
Bench (1.0) |
6.0 |
Low (1.0) |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.5 |
0.0 |
1.00 |
Limited contemporary reporting was available due to her very brief playing time. She served as developmental roster depth. |
|
| Michaela Pavlickova |
Bench (1.0) |
3.6 |
Low (1.0) |
0.8 |
0.5 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
3.00 |
Limited contemporary reporting was available. Her appearances were limited to end-of-rotation minutes in a developmental role. |
|
| TEAM TOTALS |
— |
— |
— |
91.7 |
39.1 |
20.7 |
17.7 |
352.61 |
Combined totals for all players listed. |
**** |
