WNBA Mock Draft

[korme]

Neb, what is that quote from? Aren't you in your 20's?

[Cringer]

I could take her 1 on 1. A real man doesn't lose to a woman.

[Neuqua]

Originally Posted by Cringer

I could take her 1 on 1. A real man doesn't lose to a woman.

[JonInMiddleGA]

You purchased 3 tickets to:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Atlanta Dream vs. Los Angeles Sparks
Philips Arena, Atlanta, GA
Sun, May 25, 2008 03:00 PM
Seat location: section 118, row T, seats 5-7

[rjolley]

How much were those tickets? I may have to take the girls to that one.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by rjolley

How much were those tickets? I may have to take the girls to that one.

$25 each (plus junk fees) for those, which are kind of mid-range seats in my opinion. Gets kind of pricey IMO, especially for lower bowl sideline views.

There was an interesting set of tickets in the $19 range, labeled as row NN ... they appear to be the back of what's normally press row but none of the seating charts I could find show an "NN", that section ends at "LL", so I wasn't sure where/what they would actually be, so I went with these instead.

We wanted to go to the pre-season game vs LA on Sat 5/3 too -- all seats only $10 -- but my wife had a previous commitment she couldn't really get out of.

[MikeVic]

Hey caa someone post pics of cute WNBA players?

[rjolley]

Hmmmm, May 3rd. We might be able to make that one. I'll have to check it out.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

Hey caa someone post pics of cute WNBA players?

From some other forum

[MikeVic]

Thanks. I think this would be Pumpy as a WNBA player:

[Young Drachma]

Here are the draft portraits from yesterday

[watravaler]

The price of decent WNBA tickets in Chicago makes me laugh. Seriously, are you kidding me? It's cheaper to see a Blackhawks/Cubs/WhiteSox game...

I'd love to take my niece and her friends, and I probably will get talked into it, but I'm hoping scalpers will be dumping good tickets for 10c on the $ before the game...


http://www.wnba.com/sky/tickets/single.html

What is the strategy here? I was given tickets last year, and there were probably 1,500-2,500 at the game, so I can't quite wrap my head around their prices...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by watravaler

What is the strategy here?

Best I can figure is that they aren't all that worried about single-game ticket sales, just maximizing revenue from corporate season ticket sales.

I follow women's college basketball at least as closely as the men's game at this point, so I supposed I'm at least a secondary candidate for future WNBA fandom (behind affluent lesbians, which really do seem to be the bulk of the fanbase ... not that there's anything wrong with that ) but realistically it's something that I'd consider paying minor league hockey ticket prices for, not NHL prices. But alas the price structure seems to be closer to the latter than the former.

That's certainly their right to determine. But they're smoking crack if they believe I'll ever pay that for more than a game or two a year. And it seems kind of short-sighted, since I'm basically paying to see (and cheer for) former UT/GT players and have no built-in loyalty to the WNBA home team outside of those players. Seems like that would make it tough to sell merchandise.

[scooter]

Considering that each WNBA team only has 17 regular season home games and you begin to understand why they need to set their prices the way they do to make any money.

And stevew, why do you say that the league is a joke? I don't think that's fair. These are the best women basketball players in the world. They are athletes and they probably understand the x's and o's of basketball better than their male counterparts (they have to because the difference in speed and agility between women is much smaller than it is for men). The women's game is actually better fundamentally to watch, in my opinion, because they aren't relying on their athleticism as much as they are their offensive and defensive systems. Now if you are saying that you aren't entertained by the WNBA, that's fine, but that's subjective. Calling it a joke is just a cop-out.

[BishopMVP]

It's a joke that David Stern and ESPN/ABC force so much of it onto TV. The league and the people behind it have these delusions of grandeur, and that's why the backlash is so strong. (For me personally, 3 of my favorite sports to watch struggle for time on Sportscenter - soccer, lacrosse and hurling, but yet we're guaranteed every WNBA highlight. Although the problems with ESPN go much deeper than that.)

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

From some other forum

So no hot players? You could have just said so instead of making me go through 4 pages to find it out.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Cringer

So no hot players? You could have just said so instead of making me go through 4 pages to find it out.

Ehhh... Sue Bird, Candace Parker and Becky Hammon (at least before she became a Communist traitor) are all solid 6.5-7's in my book.

The people posting Diana Taurasi and WNBA Pumpy..... dear god I'm shuddering.

[Radii]

I have had a huge crush on Sue Bird for a long time.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by scooter

They are athletes and they probably understand the x's and o's of basketball better than their male counterparts (they have to because the difference in speed and agility between women is much smaller than it is for men). The women's game is actually better fundamentally to watch, in my opinion, because they aren't relying on their athleticism as much as they are their offensive and defensive systems.

Now that I think about it, this (or more specifically the first half) is also a dumb argument, and part of what annoys me about WNBA supporters. For every LeBron and Dwight Howard out there with superior athleticism, there are 9 more guys on that court who are below them athletically. I know it's hard to think of any NBA player as being below average athletically, but by definition half of them have to fall into that category, and if they're surviving clearly they understand the game unbelievably well. I've seen my share of dumb athletes who didn't understand basketball fundamentals here in Boston - Ricky Davis, Marcus Banks, Gerald Green, Al Jefferson on defense. There's a reason they're out of the league or on losing teams while guys like David West, Paul Pierce, Shane Battier and Andre Miller are borderline all-stars.

The reason the NBA doesn't run complex set offenses because the 24 second clock doesn't allow it, not because the players are too dumb.

This argument is as weak as the one about how girls shoot better because they can hit more from outside. No shit, they're using a smaller ball with the same size rim. They also shoot off the shoulder, which is twice as easy (and 100x as easy to block.)

[scooter]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Now that I think about it, this (or more specifically the first half) is also a dumb argument, and part of what annoys me about WNBA supporters. For every LeBron and Dwight Howard out there with superior athleticism, there are 9 more guys on that court who are below them athletically. I know it's hard to think of any NBA player as being below average athletically, but by definition half of them have to fall into that category, and if they're surviving clearly they understand the game unbelievably well. I've seen my share of dumb athletes who didn't understand basketball fundamentals here in Boston - Ricky Davis, Marcus Banks, Gerald Green, Al Jefferson on defense. There's a reason they're out of the league or on losing teams while guys like David West, Paul Pierce, Shane Battier and Andre Miller are borderline all-stars.

The reason the NBA doesn't run complex set offenses because the 24 second clock doesn't allow it, not because the players are too dumb.

This argument is as weak as the one about how girls shoot better because they can hit more from outside. No shit, they're using a smaller ball with the same size rim. They also shoot off the shoulder, which is twice as easy (and 100x as easy to block.)

You completely misread my comments. I didn't say that NBA players are stupid or that WNBA players are smarter. I said that that WNBA players have to rely on their systems more than men do.

If you look at the best WNBA player and a deep bench player, the difference in speed and agility is much smaller than it is for NBA players. Therefore you don't see that many female players blowing by their defender with a great first step. There is a lot of ball movement and jumpshooting. Centers are usually 6'-3" to 6'-5" (with the occasional oddity) and most of them have similar skill sets, so you don't see many dominant inside players. The women's game is less physical and more strategic, not because they are smarter, but because the athletic spectrum is narrower (but this is changing as the league becomes more established and the talent gets better).

And as far as your last part, I've never made that argument, and I don't think I would. I've seen Ray Allen shoot

[rkmsuf]

As far as the 'strategic' element, do people really enjoy watching them pass the ball around the perimeter struggling to come up with ways to get a shot?

Maybe they pick really well. That's wonderful but ultra boring.

[scooter]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

As far as the 'strategic' element, do people really enjoy watching them pass the ball around the perimeter struggling to come up with ways to get a shot?

Maybe they pick really well. That's wonderful but ultra boring.

My wife really enjoys it. She grew up playing basketball, but she was a bench player and spent a lot of time watching other people play. She really enjoys the chess match of choosing a system to offset what the other team is doing. I think she should really become a coach.

I think it looks a bit like early-era mens basketball (think Hoosiers), but with a lot more missed layups. There's more of a premium on teamwork (passing to get the open shot) and less on shear physicality (dunks, etc).

As far as other people are concerned, I would say the number is small. I think I could probably back that up with some attendance statistics, but I'm not sure that's neccessary.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

It's a joke that David Stern and ESPN/ABC force so much of it onto TV. The league and the people behind it have these delusions of grandeur, and that's why the backlash is so strong. (For me personally, 3 of my favorite sports to watch struggle for time on Sportscenter - soccer, lacrosse and hurling, but yet we're guaranteed every WNBA highlight. Although the problems with ESPN go much deeper than that.)

My position as well.


And honestly I hate the womans style of game. tons of passes, bricked jumpers and then layups. It's like john stockton 101. meh.

[rjolley]

I enjoy the women's game. It's entertaining and the good players/teams are very enjoyable to watch. I don't think the comparison to the men's game is totally fair. Women have a different physical skillset and they utilize that to play the game at a high level for them. Can an average men's player in college beat a top WNBA player? Probably 8 out of 10 times. But that doesn't mean that the WNBA game is any less enjoyable or any less legit.

It'll never be a huge success in the US, which is a shame. I enjoy the difference in styles of the NBA, WNBA, and women's and men's NCAA basketball.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by stevew

tons of passes, bricked jumpers and then layups. It's like john stockton 101. meh.

The end result doesn't look all that different from the D1 men's game in that respect, just subtract the extra passing & get quite similar results.

The differences in the top 50 (which is what you can get reported from ncaa.org) this year were about 3% better for the men in FG%, 3P%, and FT%. The women had more turnovers & somewhat lower TO/A ratio but had more steals,comparable blocks, and about 2 fewer fouls per game.

I'd still say the gap in the schools at the #150 or #250 level is greater on the women's side, parity at the top has improved over the past decade but there's still a long way to go (hopefully it never fully gets there AFAIC). On the whole though, I think what Scooter mentioned about his wife enjoying the chess match aspect rings pretty true for me as well. There seems to be a greater premium on execution as well, probably because there isn't quite as much physicality around to overcome poor execution.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by scooter

You completely misread my comments. I didn't say that NBA players are stupid or that WNBA players are smarter. I said that that WNBA players have to rely on their systems more than men do.

If you look at the best WNBA player and a deep bench player, the difference in speed and agility is much smaller than it is for NBA players. Therefore you don't see that many female players blowing by their defender with a great first step. There is a lot of ball movement and jumpshooting. Centers are usually 6'-3" to 6'-5" (with the occasional oddity) and most of them have similar skill sets, so you don't see many dominant inside players. The women's game is less physical and more strategic, not because they are smarter, but because the athletic spectrum is narrower (but this is changing as the league becomes more established and the talent gets better).

Sorry for lumping your point with other WNBA defenders, but I still think you're off on the main reason for the difference in style of play. It's not that there's some huge difference in relative athletic ability in the NBA compared to the WNBA, it's the rules and how games are called. Allow hand checks and zones, call palming violations, and suddenly a quick first step becomes much less important. Look at college - if you wanted to see a less athletic team setting up jumpshooters that relied on team defense, Davidson or Drake fits the bill there. Even Memphis, which was probably the most athletic, freewheeling team this past year, ran a very intricate offensive set with specific places for people to go and ways to react to teammates movements that had to be in perfect sync. It might look like a pick-up game at first, but I guarantee there is a ton of chess match going on there.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The end result doesn't look all that different from the D1 men's game in that respect, just subtract the extra passing & get quite similar results.

The differences in the top 50 (which is what you can get reported from ncaa.org) this year were about 3% better for the men in FG%, 3P%, and FT%.

And I'm sure if we made the ball even smaller (26.5 perhaps?) women could shoot even higher percentages than their male counterparts.

[MikeVic]

They should wear volleyball outfits. I'd watch some games then.

[Pumpy Tudors]

All I've gotten out of this thread is that none of you think I would make a pretty woman. Horrible. Just horrible.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

All I've gotten out of this thread is that none of you think I would make a pretty woman. Horrible. Just horrible.

wait, you're a dude?

[scooter]

MikeVic's comment about volleyball outfits actually triggered a thought in my mind. I think comparing mens and womens basketball is a little like comparing mens and womens volleyball. Both are played in the same way, but the womens game seems slowed down to the point where you can follow the play easier. I can't stand watching mens volleyball, but womens volleyball is very watchable.

I don't want to get too far off the subject though. I guess I'm just able to follow the changes in offense and defense easier at the slower pace.

I understand that the NBA and college game are very system-oriented, but I also know that I don't see too many WNBA teams clearing out so their star can go one-on-one with their defender.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

And I'm sure if we made the ball even smaller (26.5 perhaps?) women could shoot even higher percentages than their male counterparts.

{shrug} If it goes in, it goes in. If it clangs off the rim, it clangs off the rim. Same viewing experience regardless of the ball size.

I don't think anybody is arguing that the best women's team could go toe to toe with the best men's team, just talking about the relative watchability of the two. Like I said, at this point I find the women's college game at least equally enjoyable to the men's -- admittedly influenced by having UT to follow and to a lesser extent seeing the improvement in GT's women's program -- and in watching so much of it maybe I see the similarities more. And I'm sure that the relatively rarity of early exits on the women's side plays a part in it too. There's much more of an opportunity to watch players, develop some attachment to them, and to see them progress year to year than there is in the men's game today. How much impact that has {shrug again} I don't honestly know, but I'm pretty sure it has some.

As for the WNBA, I'm probably an interesting test case of sorts for them. I've never been able to work up more than an extremely casual interest in it, but if they're ever going to hook me at all this would be their shot. There's an expansion team being built in Atlanta, there's multiple personal favorites now collected on one team out in L.A. If they can't get me beyond checking-the-results-every-couple-of-weeks interest now, they probably never will. One thing for sure, we'll find out soon enough, season starts in just over a month.

[albionmoonlight]

Kind of off topic, but a year or so ago I was with some friends and it was a nice day, so we decided to start shooting some hoops. And I was hitting shots from all over. It was awesome, because normally I suck.

Only halfway through did my buddy inform me that we were using a woman's ball that he had in his trunk because he helped coach a girls' AAU team.

Turns out I still sucked.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Kind of off topic, but a year or so ago I was with some friends and it was a nice day, so we decided to start shooting some hoops. And I was hitting shots from all over. It was awesome, because normally I suck.

Only halfway through did my buddy inform me that we were using a woman's ball that he had in his trunk because he helped coach a girls' AAU team.

Turns out I still sucked.

not only that but you have no feel for ball size

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

not only that but you have no feel for ball size

None. I really suck at pretty much all aspects of basketball. Which is a shame because I enjoy playing whenever I get a chance.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by scooter

I can't stand watching mens volleyball, but womens volleyball is very watchable.

I think this just means you're not gay.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Logan

I think this just means you're not gay.

what's your stance on men's diving?

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by rjolley

Can an average men's player in college beat a top WNBA player? Probably 8 out of 10 times.

Seriously? 8 out of 10? More like 10 out of 10. The women's hand speed is so much noticeably slower than the men's, that's where the difference is. If an average scholarship men's basketball player really decided to clamp down on a WNBA player, she wouldn't be able to get a good shot off. I've seen it.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The differences in the top 50 (which is what you can get reported from ncaa.org) this year were about 3% better for the men in FG%, 3P%, and FT%. The women had more turnovers & somewhat lower TO/A ratio but had more steals,comparable blocks, and about 2 fewer fouls per game.

Yes, but the women were defended by women. The men were defended by men. Not to mention that the higher steals number is mostly explained by the higher turnovers number.

I don't want anyone to think I hate women's basketball. I actually enjoy watching it from time to time, even moreso now that my 7-year-old daughter is getting into sports. We'll watch it together. I also don't think men's basketball is all that great of a spectator sport at this time, particularly the NBA. I hate what the 24 second shot clock does to the offenses.

Either way, it's silly to argue that the WNBA teams could beat even an average men's college basketball team, IMO. The first thing to consider is that they would have to use the same ball. More importantly, I honestly believe the women's team would have about 30-40% of their shot attempts blocked. Doesn't mean anything as far as women's basketball is concerned. But arguing for women's basketball by comparing and contrasting with men's basketball is a bad idea the way I see it. Argue for it based on its own merits.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Yes, but the women were defended by women. The men were defended by men.

So? The point I was making was in reference to complaints about the (alleged) missed shots in the women's college game. Regardless of who's guarding whom, or the size of the ball, or whatever, the shooting percentages are quite comparable.

Not to mention that the higher steals number is mostly explained by the higher turnovers number.

Umm ... wouldn't that be the other way around?

Either way, it's silly to argue that the WNBA teams could beat even an average men's college basketball team, IMO.

Having seen enough average men's teams, I disagree.

Doesn't mean anything as far as women's basketball is concerned.

I tend to agree

But arguing for women's basketball by comparing and contrasting with men's basketball is a bad idea the way I see it.

I don't know, if the discussion is about what you find appealing/unappealing for one versus the other, seems like comparison in that regard are pretty relevant. Flamenico & 80's metal are pretty different animals but if you're trying to explain why you prefer one to the other, using one to provide a frame of reference (when the other person in the conversation is familiar with one of them) for the other seems okay to me.

[rjolley]

Actually, I say 8 out of 10 because I've seen very good women's players beat average college players 1-on-1. And I don't mean top 5% women's players like Swoopes or Leslie or Parker, I mean very good in college players. Also, I'm not talking about #8 on the depth chart at Duke or UNC, where everyone is a 4 or 5 star high school player.

The point of the whole statement is that, while the men are better at the game than the women, on average, that should not discount that the women play their brand of basketball very well. If you want to see more 1-on-1 play and a lot less structured play, watch an NBA game. If you want to watch more structured play, watch NCAA men's and women's or the WNBA. Each has its place, though the NBA's brand of basketball needs more scoring. I miss the 120 ppg team scoring averages.