Angel Reese went straight to Instagram to celebrate just hours after the WNBA declared her the 2025 rebounding leader.
“YEAR 2. You taught me so much. You taught me so many lessons…. This is only the beginning,” she wrote, sharing both a post and a story with her 23-year-old confidence on full display.
The moment, however, did not pass without controversy. Reese‘s second season had been rocky, beginning with uneven play before she surged to lead the league in boards per game.
By year’s end, she was averaging 12.6 rebounds, a figure that secured her second consecutive Peak Performer Award for rebounding. While Reese basked in the recognition, skeptics online questioned whether the league should even be awarding such honors in the first place.
One social media user bluntly asked: “Why are we giving consolation prizes? Joke of a f**** league lol.”
Peak Performer history meets modern scrutiny
The WNBA has been handing out Peak Performer Awards since 1997, originally honoring conference leaders in shooting.
By 2002, the focus shifted to league-wide statistical leaders in points and rebounds per game, with assists added in 2005.
In that context, Reese‘s back-to-back wins put her in the company of players who built reputations on statistical dominance. But that hasn’t stopped critics from framing her latest recognition as excessive or inflated.
The sharpest criticism stems from the now-viral “mebounds” narrative, a jab at Reese‘s offensive rebounding numbers that some claim are inflated by missed shots of her own.
According to Polymarket Hoops, Reese had 255 total rebounds by mid-July 2025. When so-called “mebounds” were removed, that number dropped to 228. Stripped further of offensive rebounds, it plummeted to just 176.
For detractors, it was proof that her totals weren’t as impressive as they appeared. One commenter quipped, “The real question: How many of those rebounds were the result of her bricks off the rim, backboard or both?”
Reese has leaned into the trolling before, even going so far as to trademark the “mebounds” phrase, an act that only fueled further debate. This time, though, the backlash included not just anonymous users but also media voices.
Read the full article here
