Here's the thing, though: those player's you're citing are in the 5'8" - 5'9" range. The only players of that stature that succeed in the NBA are the exceptionally fast ones, and even then, how many examples can you think of of short NBA players?
These women may be exceptionally fast compared to other women, but how would they stack up against even average men? A 5'8" player of average speed doesn't even make the Division I, let alone the NBA.
Also, I don't think that great defense against other women would equate to good defense against men. There's a huge, huge strength, speed, and size difference.
Thats my point. I am not saying that they would excel in the NBA. What i am saying, is they are that much quicker, and way more athletic enough against other women, that they have the ability to 'compete for a spot on the nba roster, and would have a chance at gettig on a nba roster. I dont think they would excel or get big minutes, but they are dfinely capable of competing for a spot against other men, n a tryout.
The problem here is that you mention these players being good defenders. However, they defend other people their size. Literally every player they would try to defend in the NBA could post them up AND is faster AND can jump higher AND is stronger. Everyone in the D-league, too. There are so many male players out there that can give exactly what a potential WNBA player could conceivably contribute (Hustle and deadeye shooting being the only things I realistically can see) without giving up nearly as much weight, speed, and strength. They don't have to just crack a roster, they have to be better than guys that aren't playing now (Ty Lue, every player on D-League assignment like Paddy Mills, Lester Hudson, etc.)
Marcus Banks, at what, 6-2, would essentially be a combination of Barkely and Wade in the WNBA: League lead in rebounding and scoring and assists with insanely suffocating defense while not being the tallest player in the league. And he can't play in the NBA!
Tyronne Lue???.....Deanna Nolan right now is better than Ty Lue.
And to your point about every player trying to post them up because, of the mismatch; that doesn't happen right now?? The whole league does that already without females in it. what ends up happening? teams bring an extra guy, and dbl-team and everybody else rotates defensively.......Taking advantage of smaller players in the post has been going on since Mikan and will continue beyond LBJ HOF induction.
They try and post up Earl Boykins, Nate Robinson, Allen Iverson, Tim Hardaway, Spud Webb, Muggsy, Damon Stoudemire, etc all that happens is a double team is drawn.
And there are man male players who can give exactly what the Select few Wnba players could conceivably contribute, which is why I said I believe that the SELECT FEW are capable of COMPETING for a spot. And there is already a weight, height, speed, and strength discrepancy the exist in the league right now (ex. Rondo and Anthony Johnson) both pg's in the league, but two differnt body types, game styles, abilities, etc.
All in all, if you watch Deanna Nolan play, in an actual game, you'll see what I'm talking about. It will plain as day!
What players, if any, do you think Nolan could beat out?
I mean, look at Lester Hudson. He's a scrub in the NBA, and barely got drafted. However, the guy is 6'3", 190 pounds, and averaged 27.5 points per game in college. Deanna Nolan is 5'9" and is listed at 147 pounds. There's no way under the sun that Nolan could compete with Hudson, is there? Yet, as far as NBA point guards go, Hudson is near the bottom of the barrel.
I'm on page with Roy here.
Think of it like this.
Premise 1: Do you agree that, in general, as size goes up, coordination and skill goes down? In other words, Boykins was much more skilled than Shaq because a) he needed to be in order to makeup for his huge height disadvantage, and b) the talent pool of 5'7 guys is enormous compared to the 7'2 talent pool, and Boykins is easily the best 5'7 baller in the U.S. Realize, of course, that skill does not equate effectiveness; it is the combination of skill and size that determines effectiveness. This is why Perk is 10000x more effective than Giddens, even though Giddens is better at passing, dribbling, shooting, and speed.
Premise 2: Do you agree that, in general, men are taller than women?
Premise 3: Do you agree that height matters more in basketball than in soccer?
Once you establish all that, it creates a further barrier to thinking of a woman playing in the NBA. WNBA player XX may be the best WNBA player based on the effectiveness at her given skill and size combination. So let's say you take a very skilled, average sized WNBA player, someone 6'1 or so. She's the Kobe of the WNBA. The first barrier, that is in and of itself essentially insurmountable, is that she will instantly be weaker than everyone and slower than about 95% of the league. But the second barrier is that this player XX is a Kobe type player in the WNBA: high skill, average, swing position size. In other words, for her average size, her skills are high. But now you've lifter her out of that situation, haven't changed her size, and dropped her in the NBA, where players that are 6'1 are so skilled that they can play in the same league as Kobe despite a 5-6 inch disadvantage. In other words, you'd have an elite WNBA SF trying to do SF type things, but being defended and trying to defend PGs. Gabe Pruitt was 6'3 and can do everything basketball-wise better than anyone in the WNBA. If gabe pruitt were 6 inches taller and 50 pounds heavier, he'd have been a very good player. But at 6'3 he can't make the NBA. Who's beating him out? Who can do better than him from the WNBA?
Kobe is not the most skilled player in the NBA. He has an elite combination of skill for his size; shrink him to 6'1 and leave his skills exactly as they are, and he's still good, but not nearly as good; not a superstar. Lots of 6'1 players are more "skilled" than he.
It takes more skill to play the smaller positions on the court because a) you can make up for lack of skill with size advantage, and b) the talent pool is deeper and more competitive the smaller you go.
By trying to get a WNBA player to play in the NBA, it would already be hard if you could take a SF, give them an extra 5 inches and 50 pounds, and let them play. They'd still be weaker and slower than anyone their size. But you can't even give them that. So you take this SF who has skills that are good FOR SF IN THE WNBA, then ask them to try those things against PGs in the NBA, where the talent and skill set is much higher than NBA SF's let alone WNBA SFs.
Oops, and to tie into the point about height mattering more in bball than soccer:
men are taller than women. so lets talk about averages of elite athletes, like just the Olympic soccer, WNBA, NBA pool. man of average height is more athletic than woman of average height. AND that average height is about 4-5 inches more for men than women.
Now we have the spokesman of USA women's soccer saying that the best 11 female players in the U.S. play competitive matches against 15 year old club teams (not even all-state teams) and get dominated by 17 year olds (again, not even all-star or state champ teams, just clubs of high school boys. Hardly the elite of the male soccer world). Now, throw in the fact that height matters way more in bball than soccer. Now throw in the fact that instead of pitting best of the best against random high schoolers, we're throwing best of the best against best of the best of an even larger pool because male pro sports attract a larger talent pool than female pro sports due to money. Not a chance for a female player from the WNBA, no matter how good, to beat out every graduating college player, U.S. player overseas wanting to come back, and D-leaguer trying to make it.
Topic: is it really that hard to imagine a woman playing in the NBA? (Read 60094 times)