is it really that hard to imagine a woman playing in the NBA?

[fanofgreen]

I guess everyone is missing my point.

My point is that Deanna Nolan, is the only WNBA player IMO capable of competing for a spot on a Roster, not a rotation. (mins are earned,and  usually over accumulation of years)

Would she have a disadvantage in size, speed, height, weight?.....yes she would, but don't those          advantages already exist in the league? I mean there were times (he's lost weight now, but in the past) when Paul Pierce would have a 20-25 pound weight advantage over his opponent. Ben Wallace every night has a height disadvantage against bigs.

I use the paul pierce and ben wallace examples, purely to demonstrate two of the many physical advantages and disadvantages in the league.

And I dont see how the league having added 1 woman player to the league in Deanna Nolan,  would all of sudden expose players getting blown by, or over-powered, or anything like that. because those things already happen.

And to the point about Lester Hudson. first of all, lets not start dipping into college stats when talking about the NBA, I'll let the names(adam morrison, jj redick, and kurt thomas) explain why. Secondly, you are correct Deanna Nolan would not beat out Hudson for a roster spot on the Celtics of today. (however if this was 2006 C's Hudson (right now) would be in rotation getting good minutes, which means the "bottom of the barrel" or the end of the bench, would be filled with players a lot further down in that "barrel") If this was 2006 I think Deanna Nolan could have been what Lester Hudson is now on that team.

(I personally dont think Lester is at the bottom of the barrel, I think if he was in Don Nelsons "system" I think he would be a decent guard off the bench or the spurs, i think pop would turn him into another "george hill".)

So if  were talking about Deanna Nolan competing for a roster spot on the Celtics right now, then No, she couldn't  get it, but on a team like (GS, Phx,NJ, SAC,) she could get one of those last roster spots #13-15.

I think you're missing how the end of a roster is constructed. There are 2 types of players at spots 10-15 on any team's roster. There are the players that could fill the rotation in an injury, and the players that might one day contribute to a team. There are hundreds....and I mean hundreds of male players not in the NBA right now that contribute adaquately at 4-5 mins a night But the thing is NBA players...they might do that now...but if someone is injured they could also contribute 25 mins a night if they had to.

Why is a GM ever going to bring on a woman to be a 12th or 13th man when there are guys on their own D-League affiliate that could do the same thing twice as well with an expodential fraction less of the distraction. I think if a woman, in the next 50 years, comes on to an NBA team it will be as a poorly concieved publicity stunt, not to actually help anyone. No matter what it won't be because she is any kind of equal talentwise...at least not in my lifetime.

That's not to say I don't respect female basketball players, I just don't think they have the natural athletic ability or height to carve out a roster spot.

I understand your points, believe me i do. However, I personally believe that each GM has their own personal philosophy on how they like to use or define, those last couple of roster spots. but thats another topic for another forum in the future.

But I for the most part completely agree with you and understand that point. However, it is because of that point that I am singling out DEANNA NOLAN, from the rest of the hundreds of WNBA players. I think is the lone exception by a slim margin, who I feel be able to Compete. (not necessarily make it).

And it may be done as a publicity stunt, but I am certain a GM wouldn't just select anybody from the WNBA, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't select  Ann Wauters or Erin Phillips to be on the team. He would be more apt to select a player like Deanna Nolan before any other players, that is if he knew how to look at ability.

[fanofgreen]

I don't follow WNBA. But I did a quick look up of Tarausi and Nolan, because their names keep coming up, so I'm assuming their the best players in the WNBA.

Both are listed as G-F.

Nolan has a career FG% of .416 and career 3p% of .349.
Tarausi has a career FG% of .438 and a career 3p% of .366.

That means, as the BEST players, they put up those numbers with smaller ball, shorter lines, and being guarded by similar players. Nolan is 5'9 and Tarausi is 6'0. Now I can at least assume that as the WNBA's best players, they aren't being guarded by tall women because, as with the NBA, throw a 6'6 guy on Rondo or CP3, and they're blowing by them. So let's assume that these best players put up those numbers WITHOUT a height disadvantage.

Now ship them to the NBA, where they'd instantly be slow and undersized for their position (no way a G-F in the WNBA is as fast as any PG in the NBA; remember PG's have to be faster to make up for their height disadvantage compared to Kobes and Pierces). Now they have to move back to NBA range and shoot a bigger ball AND get their shot off against defenders who are definitely taller than anyone they were normally defended by, and I'm sure are also faster and stronger. First of all, .366 for three is not good for an NBA undersized scoring point. Think Eddie House; barely in the league and wouldn't be if he was known as a .366 shooter. He's in the league solely because he's usually at .400 or so. Second, there's no way that going from being a swing player to being the shortest player on the floor and moving back that that .366 stays close to that area.

So what do these player who are used to having their skills being great FOR G-F's bring to a team as an undersized point guard who can't shoot compared to other undersized points?

Your first problem here, is that you went to look at their stats.

The reason I think Nolan could compete for a roster spot, is not because of her stats

Its her skills set, and physical abilities, toughness, and other things, but not her stats.

[Fan from VT]

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.

Great Point. And it is this exact reason, why i believe that Deanna Nolan would have a better chance at "COMPETING" for and NBA roster spot over the likes of CANDACE PARKER, DIANA TAURASI, LAUREN JACKSON, AND TAMIKA CATCHINGS.

Ok, so let's take Paul Pierce.

He decides he's trying out for the ABA (Alien Basketball association.

In the ABA, the three point line is 26 feet from the rim. The ball is 10% larger but the rims are the same size.

In the NBA, Pierce is a GF player. He's having a good NBA year, shooting .430 from 3 and shooting .496 from the field, elite NBA numbers. He's 6-7 and 235 pounds.


The best ABA player is Jebron Lames. Jebron is 7'3, 340 of pure muscle. He shoots .600 from the field and .500 from downtown (26 feet away). He's a fierce rival with Hight Dwoward, an athletic freak with no 3 point range but shoots a tide .675 from the field and stands 8'0 and is 420 pounds but a body fat of 5%. Then there's Prabe Guitt. He only shoots .400 from the 26 point three and .475 from the field. But he's 240 pounds and 6'11; because he's a little slower than all the 6'8 guys but not big enough at his skills to hang with the 7'2 guys he's a "tweener" and can't make the NBA.

But a team has decided on a one-on-one tryout for the final roster spot.

So you're telling me that if Pruitt had the exact same handle as he does now but was 7 inches taller and 80 pounds heavier and could shoot .400 from 26 feet out he wouldn't dominate Pierce one on one?

Pierce doesn't make that team. ABA player Heddie Ouse is 6'7 235 (exactly Pierce's size), is stronger and faster, and shoots .500 from 26 feet out and he's a borderline ABA player.

[Fan from VT]

I don't follow WNBA. But I did a quick look up of Tarausi and Nolan, because their names keep coming up, so I'm assuming their the best players in the WNBA.

Both are listed as G-F.

Nolan has a career FG% of .416 and career 3p% of .349.
Tarausi has a career FG% of .438 and a career 3p% of .366.

That means, as the BEST players, they put up those numbers with smaller ball, shorter lines, and being guarded by similar players. Nolan is 5'9 and Tarausi is 6'0. Now I can at least assume that as the WNBA's best players, they aren't being guarded by tall women because, as with the NBA, throw a 6'6 guy on Rondo or CP3, and they're blowing by them. So let's assume that these best players put up those numbers WITHOUT a height disadvantage.

Now ship them to the NBA, where they'd instantly be slow and undersized for their position (no way a G-F in the WNBA is as fast as any PG in the NBA; remember PG's have to be faster to make up for their height disadvantage compared to Kobes and Pierces). Now they have to move back to NBA range and shoot a bigger ball AND get their shot off against defenders who are definitely taller than anyone they were normally defended by, and I'm sure are also faster and stronger. First of all, .366 for three is not good for an NBA undersized scoring point. Think Eddie House; barely in the league and wouldn't be if he was known as a .366 shooter. He's in the league solely because he's usually at .400 or so. Second, there's no way that going from being a swing player to being the shortest player on the floor and moving back that that .366 stays close to that area.

So what do these player who are used to having their skills being great FOR G-F's bring to a team as an undersized point guard who can't shoot compared to other undersized points?

Your first problem here, is that you went to look at their stats.

The reason I think Nolan could compete for a roster spot, is not because of her stats

Its her skills set, and physical abilities, toughness, and other things, but not her stats.

OK. Then you take a look at Minnesota an New Jersey's rosters. Two worst teams in the NBA by far.

Now let's say it's purely objective, no publicity or public backlash will happen. Pure basketball move.

Who gets cut? And exactly what skill does Nolan replace at anything close to an NBA level at 5'9?

[Eja117]

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.

Great Point. And it is this exact reason, why i believe that Deanna Nolan would have a better chance at "COMPETING" for and NBA roster spot over the likes of CANDACE PARKER, DIANA TAURASI, LAUREN JACKSON, AND TAMIKA CATCHINGS.

Ok, so let's take Paul Pierce.

He decides he's trying out for the ABA (Alien Basketball association.

In the ABA, the three point line is 26 feet from the rim. The ball is 10% larger but the rims are the same size.

In the NBA, Pierce is a GF player. He's having a good NBA year, shooting .430 from 3 and shooting .496 from the field, elite NBA numbers. He's 6-7 and 235 pounds.


The best ABA player is Jebron Lames. Jebron is 7'3, 340 of pure muscle. He shoots .600 from the field and .500 from downtown (26 feet away). He's a fierce rival with Hight Dwoward, an athletic freak with no 3 point range but shoots a tide .675 from the field and stands 8'0 and is 420 pounds but a body fat of 5%. Then there's Prabe Guitt. He only shoots .400 from the 26 point three and .475 from the field. But he's 240 pounds and 6'11; because he's a little slower than all the 6'8 guys but not big enough at his skills to hang with the 7'2 guys he's a "tweener" and can't make the NBA.

But a team has decided on a one-on-one tryout for the final roster spot.

So you're telling me that if Pruitt had the exact same handle as he does now but was 7 inches taller and 80 pounds heavier and could shoot .400 from 26 feet out he wouldn't dominate Pierce one on one?

Pierce doesn't make that team. ABA player Heddie Ouse is 6'7 235 (exactly Pierce's size), is stronger and faster, and shoots .500 from 26 feet out and he's a borderline ABA player.

Well does the ABA also have some players like Berl Eoykins and Buggsy Mougues who are smaller than Pierce and don't shoot as well? 

Is the league well known for unwilling defenders, guys that can't get up and down the court, guys that can't shoot, and guys whose only "skill" is dunking?

Are the backups nowhere near as imposing as Hwight Doward and Jebron Lames?

[CelticG1]

I don't follow WNBA. But I did a quick look up of Tarausi and Nolan, because their names keep coming up, so I'm assuming their the best players in the WNBA.

Both are listed as G-F.

Nolan has a career FG% of .416 and career 3p% of .349.
Tarausi has a career FG% of .438 and a career 3p% of .366.

That means, as the BEST players, they put up those numbers with smaller ball, shorter lines, and being guarded by similar players. Nolan is 5'9 and Tarausi is 6'0. Now I can at least assume that as the WNBA's best players, they aren't being guarded by tall women because, as with the NBA, throw a 6'6 guy on Rondo or CP3, and they're blowing by them. So let's assume that these best players put up those numbers WITHOUT a height disadvantage.

Now ship them to the NBA, where they'd instantly be slow and undersized for their position (no way a G-F in the WNBA is as fast as any PG in the NBA; remember PG's have to be faster to make up for their height disadvantage compared to Kobes and Pierces). Now they have to move back to NBA range and shoot a bigger ball AND get their shot off against defenders who are definitely taller than anyone they were normally defended by, and I'm sure are also faster and stronger. First of all, .366 for three is not good for an NBA undersized scoring point. Think Eddie House; barely in the league and wouldn't be if he was known as a .366 shooter. He's in the league solely because he's usually at .400 or so. Second, there's no way that going from being a swing player to being the shortest player on the floor and moving back that that .366 stays close to that area.

So what do these player who are used to having their skills being great FOR G-F's bring to a team as an undersized point guard who can't shoot compared to other undersized points?

Your first problem here, is that you went to look at their stats.

The reason I think Nolan could compete for a roster spot, is not because of her stats

Its her skills set, and physical abilities, toughness, and other things, but not her stats.

This just makes your argument worse if you really think that her physical abilities and toughness are things that could help her compete at a roster spot. We aren't talking about a high school boys basketball team where those attributes may help her. We are talking about the NBA where her physical abilities and toughness are two glaring reasons why this would never happen. To make a D3 college team like Williams, maybe. To even be able to play in a pick up game with NBA players is a joke.

[Fan from VT]

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.

Great Point. And it is this exact reason, why i believe that Deanna Nolan would have a better chance at "COMPETING" for and NBA roster spot over the likes of CANDACE PARKER, DIANA TAURASI, LAUREN JACKSON, AND TAMIKA CATCHINGS.

Ok, so let's take Paul Pierce.

He decides he's trying out for the ABA (Alien Basketball association.

In the ABA, the three point line is 26 feet from the rim. The ball is 10% larger but the rims are the same size.

In the NBA, Pierce is a GF player. He's having a good NBA year, shooting .430 from 3 and shooting .496 from the field, elite NBA numbers. He's 6-7 and 235 pounds.


The best ABA player is Jebron Lames. Jebron is 7'3, 340 of pure muscle. He shoots .600 from the field and .500 from downtown (26 feet away). He's a fierce rival with Hight Dwoward, an athletic freak with no 3 point range but shoots a tide .675 from the field and stands 8'0 and is 420 pounds but a body fat of 5%. Then there's Prabe Guitt. He only shoots .400 from the 26 point three and .475 from the field. But he's 240 pounds and 6'11; because he's a little slower than all the 6'8 guys but not big enough at his skills to hang with the 7'2 guys he's a "tweener" and can't make the NBA.

But a team has decided on a one-on-one tryout for the final roster spot.

So you're telling me that if Pruitt had the exact same handle as he does now but was 7 inches taller and 80 pounds heavier and could shoot .400 from 26 feet out he wouldn't dominate Pierce one on one?

Pierce doesn't make that team. ABA player Heddie Ouse is 6'7 235 (exactly Pierce's size), is stronger and faster, and shoots .500 from 26 feet out and he's a borderline ABA player.

Well does the ABA also have some players like Berl Eoykins and Buggsy Mougues who are smaller than Pierce and don't shoot as well? 

Is the league well known for unwilling defenders, guys that can't get up and down the court, guys that can't shoot, and guys whose only "skill" is dunking?

Are the backups nowhere near as imposing as Hwight Doward and Jebron Lames?

Sure. Bearl Oykins goes about 6'5 210. But in a baseline to baseline race he's done when pierce is at the three point line. He can also bench press twice as much as pierce and can jump 60% higher, and by any reasonable measure he's twice the ball handler. And yeah, he only shoots .400 from 3. But mostly he's being defended by guys at least 6'7 and the three point line is 26 feet out.

Then of course there's Madam Orrison. Major first round bust. Okay size at 6'11, 300 or so, can bench press 3 times as much as pierce and finishes a full court sprint while pierce is at the foul line. only a 25% higher vertical leap, not known as an athlete. Shooting a terrible .450 from the field, .395 from the 26 foot three. Of course he spent a few years in a more diluted NAAA league where he was shooting .550 from 3 (23'9" away) and about .650 from the field and looked to be a star, until it turned out that (though same size significantly bigger and faster than human pierce) he couldn't get his shot off against ABA defenses and couldn't adjust to 2.25 ft. further out on 3 pointers.




And Eja, no one has addressed this:

How do you account for the fact that the U.S. women's olympic team can't beat club teams of 17 year olds in soccer (where height doesn't matter in getting your shot off), but you'd expect a WNBA player to make a Pro basketball team (a significantly more concentrated talent pool than high school clubs in a sport where height definitely matters)?

[fanofgreen]

I don't follow WNBA. But I did a quick look up of Tarausi and Nolan, because their names keep coming up, so I'm assuming their the best players in the WNBA.

Both are listed as G-F.

Nolan has a career FG% of .416 and career 3p% of .349.
Tarausi has a career FG% of .438 and a career 3p% of .366.

That means, as the BEST players, they put up those numbers with smaller ball, shorter lines, and being guarded by similar players. Nolan is 5'9 and Tarausi is 6'0. Now I can at least assume that as the WNBA's best players, they aren't being guarded by tall women because, as with the NBA, throw a 6'6 guy on Rondo or CP3, and they're blowing by them. So let's assume that these best players put up those numbers WITHOUT a height disadvantage.

Now ship them to the NBA, where they'd instantly be slow and undersized for their position (no way a G-F in the WNBA is as fast as any PG in the NBA; remember PG's have to be faster to make up for their height disadvantage compared to Kobes and Pierces). Now they have to move back to NBA range and shoot a bigger ball AND get their shot off against defenders who are definitely taller than anyone they were normally defended by, and I'm sure are also faster and stronger. First of all, .366 for three is not good for an NBA undersized scoring point. Think Eddie House; barely in the league and wouldn't be if he was known as a .366 shooter. He's in the league solely because he's usually at .400 or so. Second, there's no way that going from being a swing player to being the shortest player on the floor and moving back that that .366 stays close to that area.

So what do these player who are used to having their skills being great FOR G-F's bring to a team as an undersized point guard who can't shoot compared to other undersized points?

Your first problem here, is that you went to look at their stats.

The reason I think Nolan could compete for a roster spot, is not because of her stats

Its her skills set, and physical abilities, toughness, and other things, but not her stats.

OK. Then you take a look at Minnesota an New Jersey's rosters. Two worst teams in the NBA by far.

Now let's say it's purely objective, no publicity or public backlash will happen. Pure basketball move.

Who gets cut? And exactly what skill does Nolan replace at anything close to an NBA level at 5'9?

No one gets cut!

the players that are on those teams are on those teams.

  But during the offseason and before or during  training camp, when teams look to fill-out their roster or when they hold tryouts, I think Deanna Nolan could a player who is capable of competing for a spot.

I am not sayin she could replace a player on teams right now

[fanofgreen]

I don't follow WNBA. But I did a quick look up of Tarausi and Nolan, because their names keep coming up, so I'm assuming their the best players in the WNBA.

Both are listed as G-F.

Nolan has a career FG% of .416 and career 3p% of .349.
Tarausi has a career FG% of .438 and a career 3p% of .366.

That means, as the BEST players, they put up those numbers with smaller ball, shorter lines, and being guarded by similar players. Nolan is 5'9 and Tarausi is 6'0. Now I can at least assume that as the WNBA's best players, they aren't being guarded by tall women because, as with the NBA, throw a 6'6 guy on Rondo or CP3, and they're blowing by them. So let's assume that these best players put up those numbers WITHOUT a height disadvantage.

Now ship them to the NBA, where they'd instantly be slow and undersized for their position (no way a G-F in the WNBA is as fast as any PG in the NBA; remember PG's have to be faster to make up for their height disadvantage compared to Kobes and Pierces). Now they have to move back to NBA range and shoot a bigger ball AND get their shot off against defenders who are definitely taller than anyone they were normally defended by, and I'm sure are also faster and stronger. First of all, .366 for three is not good for an NBA undersized scoring point. Think Eddie House; barely in the league and wouldn't be if he was known as a .366 shooter. He's in the league solely because he's usually at .400 or so. Second, there's no way that going from being a swing player to being the shortest player on the floor and moving back that that .366 stays close to that area.

So what do these player who are used to having their skills being great FOR G-F's bring to a team as an undersized point guard who can't shoot compared to other undersized points?

Your first problem here, is that you went to look at their stats.

The reason I think Nolan could compete for a roster spot, is not because of her stats

Its her skills set, and physical abilities, toughness, and other things, but not her stats.

This just makes your argument worse if you really think that her physical abilities and toughness are things that could help her compete at a roster spot. We aren't talking about a high school boys basketball team where those attributes may help her. We are talking about the NBA where her physical abilities and toughness are two glaring reasons why this would never happen. To make a D3 college team like Williams, maybe. To even be able to play in a pick up game with NBA players is a joke.

In what way does this make my argument worse? Because i told you i'm not purely lookin at her stats to determine if she would be able to compete for a spot? but that her physical abilities play a role in my argument?

You haven't seen her play based off your first statement, and is the reason you gave the examples of the stats. this is not a shot at you for not watching the WNBA but i am merely pointing out the fact that when i say her physical abilities, I cant help but wondering how you would have any idea of what I'm talking about, having not seen her play in any or multiple games.

[Hoops]

I don't follow WNBA. But I did a quick look up of Tarausi and Nolan, because their names keep coming up, so I'm assuming their the best players in the WNBA.

Both are listed as G-F.

Nolan has a career FG% of .416 and career 3p% of .349.
Tarausi has a career FG% of .438 and a career 3p% of .366.

That means, as the BEST players, they put up those numbers with smaller ball, shorter lines, and being guarded by similar players. Nolan is 5'9 and Tarausi is 6'0. Now I can at least assume that as the WNBA's best players, they aren't being guarded by tall women because, as with the NBA, throw a 6'6 guy on Rondo or CP3, and they're blowing by them. So let's assume that these best players put up those numbers WITHOUT a height disadvantage.

Now ship them to the NBA, where they'd instantly be slow and undersized for their position (no way a G-F in the WNBA is as fast as any PG in the NBA; remember PG's have to be faster to make up for their height disadvantage compared to Kobes and Pierces). Now they have to move back to NBA range and shoot a bigger ball AND get their shot off against defenders who are definitely taller than anyone they were normally defended by, and I'm sure are also faster and stronger. First of all, .366 for three is not good for an NBA undersized scoring point. Think Eddie House; barely in the league and wouldn't be if he was known as a .366 shooter. He's in the league solely because he's usually at .400 or so. Second, there's no way that going from being a swing player to being the shortest player on the floor and moving back that that .366 stays close to that area.

So what do these player who are used to having their skills being great FOR G-F's bring to a team as an undersized point guard who can't shoot compared to other undersized points?

Your first problem here, is that you went to look at their stats.

The reason I think Nolan could compete for a roster spot, is not because of her stats

Its her skills set, and physical abilities, toughness, and other things, but not her stats.

OK. Then you take a look at Minnesota an New Jersey's rosters. Two worst teams in the NBA by far.

Now let's say it's purely objective, no publicity or public backlash will happen. Pure basketball move.

Who gets cut? And exactly what skill does Nolan replace at anything close to an NBA level at 5'9?

No one gets cut!

the players that are on those teams are on those teams.

  But during the offseason and before or during  training camp, when teams look to fill-out their roster or when they hold tryouts, I think Deanna Nolan could a player who is capable of competing for a spot.

I am not sayin she could replace a player on teams right now

She's not good enough to replace a player on a team right now, but she might be able to replace someone next fall during training camp? C'mon now. Anybody that's on a roster now will only be cut next fall because somebody else proves to be better in training camp. There are hundreds and hundreds of guys on the fringes that are dying to get a shot to play in the NBA. Essentially there are probably 1000 guys out there that are phenomenal basketball players but there are only a few hundred NBA roster spots. You think any of those guys is going to get beat out for a roster spot by a smaller, less athletic female? I really don't think so.

[CelticG1]

I don't follow WNBA. But I did a quick look up of Tarausi and Nolan, because their names keep coming up, so I'm assuming their the best players in the WNBA.

Both are listed as G-F.

Nolan has a career FG% of .416 and career 3p% of .349.
Tarausi has a career FG% of .438 and a career 3p% of .366.

That means, as the BEST players, they put up those numbers with smaller ball, shorter lines, and being guarded by similar players. Nolan is 5'9 and Tarausi is 6'0. Now I can at least assume that as the WNBA's best players, they aren't being guarded by tall women because, as with the NBA, throw a 6'6 guy on Rondo or CP3, and they're blowing by them. So let's assume that these best players put up those numbers WITHOUT a height disadvantage.

Now ship them to the NBA, where they'd instantly be slow and undersized for their position (no way a G-F in the WNBA is as fast as any PG in the NBA; remember PG's have to be faster to make up for their height disadvantage compared to Kobes and Pierces). Now they have to move back to NBA range and shoot a bigger ball AND get their shot off against defenders who are definitely taller than anyone they were normally defended by, and I'm sure are also faster and stronger. First of all, .366 for three is not good for an NBA undersized scoring point. Think Eddie House; barely in the league and wouldn't be if he was known as a .366 shooter. He's in the league solely because he's usually at .400 or so. Second, there's no way that going from being a swing player to being the shortest player on the floor and moving back that that .366 stays close to that area.

So what do these player who are used to having their skills being great FOR G-F's bring to a team as an undersized point guard who can't shoot compared to other undersized points?

Your first problem here, is that you went to look at their stats.

The reason I think Nolan could compete for a roster spot, is not because of her stats

Its her skills set, and physical abilities, toughness, and other things, but not her stats.

This just makes your argument worse if you really think that her physical abilities and toughness are things that could help her compete at a roster spot. We aren't talking about a high school boys basketball team where those attributes may help her. We are talking about the NBA where her physical abilities and toughness are two glaring reasons why this would never happen. To make a D3 college team like Williams, maybe. To even be able to play in a pick up game with NBA players is a joke.

In what way does this make my argument worse? Because i told you i'm not purely lookin at her stats to determine if she would be able to compete for a spot? but that her physical abilities play a role in my argument?

You haven't seen her play based off your first statement, and is the reason you gave the examples of the stats. this is not a shot at you for not watching the WNBA but i am merely pointing out the fact that when i say her physical abilities, I cant help but wondering how you would have any idea of what I'm talking about, having not seen her play in any or multiple games.

I wasn't the one showing her stats because I wouldn't care what the numbers would be anyway and I have never seen a full WNBA game play out. But as far as "physical abilities" go Earl Boykins can bench press 300+ pounds as player who is about her height. Do you think she could even bench half of that? I think the answer is obviously no. Earl Boykins because of his height needs to be able to be the strong to play in the NBA because if he wasn't he would get tossed around like a rag doll (more than he already does). He is one of the very few players that despite his height is such an athletic freak that he can play in the NBA. Do you really think that this girl Nolan possesses any of the "physical abilities" that these NBA players have? If you do than I really  think you are kidding yourself.

As for what Fan From VT said regarding the soccer statement, my friend's u-16 team a few years back scrimmaged the boston breakers (women's pro) played down a couple men and still destroyed that team. It really shows how far a gap there is. That would be like a u-16 bball team playing with 4 guys and beating a WNBA team with 5 girls. If you had 4 of the top u-16 AAU guys they probably would beat a WNBA team. Nolan would be the smallest player on my high school's basketball team and I am pretty sure would not be as strong as any of them. Granted my high school's team was pretty good but only one of the players made it to the NBA and only lasted a couple years. But he was at least 6-8 240

[CbrewEra]

imagine a woman tryin to get boards against kg and kendrick... ouch, i dont know about them out musclin any NBA guys.

[Roy Hobbs]

Watching the UConn / Kentucky game right now, it's hard to imagine a female player competing at this level, let alone in the NBA.

[Rondo_is_better]

Why is this topic still alive? Its an open and shut case.

[indeedproceed]

I think the real gem we're all missing is that everyone but fanofgreen is agreeing with Lebron James about something. For that, we should all be ashamed.