WNBA champions vs best men's high school team?

[asianguy]

Most of the top HS teams would have a huge size advantage over WNBA players. Beside shooting, I don't see how WNBA can have any advantage over a top HS team.

[AUnit1390]

Sadly I don't think the WNBA would stand a chance. I played against a D2 womens basketball player in pick up all the time and I was able to beat her and I am an overweight male that couldnt even make my high school's basketball team.

[DK-All Day]

I think your average High School boys team would annihilate any team the WNBA could put together. Males are that much better athletically.

[King Ken]

Most of the top HS teams would have a huge size advantage over WNBA players. Beside shooting, I don't see how WNBA can have any advantage over a top HS team.

Shooting won't be an advantage. I remember playing girls saying they could shoot better. They forgot one thing, how the hell you gonna get your shot off. Especially when most high school ballers got decent verticals and lateral quickness to a degree.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[alienpick]

the WNBA team would have much better coaching and their players would be smarter with a better basketball IQ. I think it would be a long series but the WNBA team would win, probably by 2 games. If it was just a one game series I think the HS team would have a better chance. The fact that the WNBA team, and their coaching staff, get seven games to figure the other team out and how to shut them down would be too much.

[scrabbarista]

Just from reading the first page of this thread, it seems the men are already getting most of the love, but I'll add my two cents: one way to answer this question is to ask who would you'd rather watch play (i.e., who's playing at a higher level) - and I'd definitely prefer to watch a men's HS championship game over a WNBA one.

I don't decide what I watch based on "who is playing at the higher level"--if people did that, then no one would watch College Sports at all. What's important is the competition, and the overall package the WNBA offers in terms of entertainment is higher than a high school game. The production values alone aren't even comparable. HS basketball is only interesting if you went to one of the high schools.

This is what a lot of mostly men, don't get about women's sports, and their growth in popularity. It's really not about how they would stack up against men at all. It's about how women stack up against other women. It's seeing the best women play against the best women, and seeing the game grow. The women's game is different whether it's basketball or soccer--and those differences make it an interesting product to watch.

For me, watching the NWSL is great, the smaller size of the players means that there is more space on the pitch, and it's more about passing the ball, and it's more free flowing. It's a very open game, and there isn't very much diving or simulation either. Plus when you consider these women are playing the sport they love for almost no compensation, in front of small crowds sometimes, it's pretty inspiring. And then the game has bigger characters than most other leagues. The players are very down to earth, and kind of goofy, and the teams are really funny on twitter. It's a fun league, and being able to watch almost all of the games for free on Youtube whenever you want is pretty great. Plus since it's a young league, you can watch it grow. The NWSL is already in it's 4th season which is the longest a women's soccer league has ever lasted in America. They just added a 10th team. I'm hoping they can get more money into the league so they can afford some of the better players that are playing in europe. But yeah. NWSL is great. And the US Women's National Team is really cool too. I love watching Morgan Brian control the midfield. Really excited to see how Mallory Pugh develops. And want to see Carli Lloyd take control of US Soccer. I want to see Crystal Dunn transfer her NWSL form to the national team and take over from Heath or Morgan. Crystal Dunn in NWSL last year was a beast. Her and Kim Little just dominated the league.

Check the bold. Like I said, this was my two cents. It tends to be the way I decide what to watch, but I wasn't prescribing it for anyone else.

[tsherkin]

I don't decide what I watch based on "who is playing at the higher level"--if people did that, then no one would watch College Sports at all.

I 100% do decide what to watch based on quality of play. The WNBA comparatively isn't very good basketball and, as with all but the last few games of the college season (provided there are players in whom I am interested who will eventually make the NBA), I don't really watch that either for much the same reason. MMV, and yours clearly does, but it behooves one to realize that preference is subjective. If you want to watch the WNBA, that's great, but be careful about implying that there are universal reasons to do so.

HS basketball is only interesting if you went to one of the high schools.

In your opinion, sure. But I've watched some Oak Hill games and obviously back in the day, some SVSM games with Lebron that were better than most WNBA games I've seen. Your point about not comparing them ITO how they would stack up to the men in a women vs men game is sound... but if the overall quality of the product is still low in terms of proficiency and strategy, then for me (specifically, not that others need follow), I'm not gonna watch because it's boring and cruddy by comparison to other available content.

Enjoying the WNBA is a viable opinion, just be careful not to imply that people who don't are doing it wrong

[The_Ghost_of_JB]

People are understating how much of a discrepancy in talent there is in talent between pro players (women or not) and high school kids. These women stay in shape and practice all year and most of them have a great BBIQ. The WNBA champions would beat the best high school team.

[tsherkin]

The WNBA champions would beat the best high school team.

Maybe, but if we're talking men's HS... They'd potentially be pretty badly outclassed from an athletic standpoint.... and the best team in the WNBA shot 36.0% on ~ 14.7 3PA/g. This past year, Oak Hill had 6 guys shooting over 40% from 3, two of them who took 100+ 3PA. The one player on the Fever (the team who shot 36% in the WNBA) who shot 100+ 3PA posted 33.6%.

So now we're talking a totally different environment as far as close-outs and length for contesting shots and what have you.

The Minnesota Lynx, who won the WNBA title, had 7 players who started 10+ games. 6'2, 6'3, 6'0, 5'8, 6'6 (center), 5'9 and 6'0.

Those players are are the size of point guards (or smaller), and their center is the size of a shooting guard. That's going to cause really significant matchup issues, particularly given that they're already pretty weak shooters by point of comparison (and to give you an idea of the difference between the NBA and the WNBA, NBA league average is 35.3% on 23.8 3PA/g).

It's well and good to respect the WNBA for trying to develop the sport for women, but the timeline is too short for us to see much beyond what we already have. The WNBA started in 96. We're talking 20 years of ball, which is not a lot when you're basically discussing bootstrapping a sport. They're in proto-league form, and as far as the OP topic of the best male HS team, I mean you're talking about players the Lynx (or any WNBA team) flatly wouldn't be able to stop. There would be a MONSTROUS height and athletic advantage for the HS team, and many of them are better shooters.

It's not really a FAIR point of comparison, and as others have mention, it's not the way to evaluate the WNBA at all. The progress the league has made since 96 is of much more significant consideration.

[RoyceDa59]

High school team would sweet in a blowout. Just way too athletic.

[rasta_marley]

The wnba champs would kick the **** out of them lol.

[Johnlac1]

The wnba champs would kick the **** out of them lol.

How are the women going to stop athletic 6'7+ big men? The boy's team guards will certainly be faster, quicker than the women. The bigs will be bigger and stronger....and probably more athletic as well. The women will have to be far more skilled to have a chance. Even then that probably won't be enough.

[California Gold]

The wnba champs would kick the **** out of them lol.

You're smoking something.

You can't honestly believe this, right?

[Klomp]

This is what this guy said on ESPN:

I work for an NBA team. The company that runs this NBA team is also in charge of a WNBA team. Before I took this job, I, too, hated the WNBA, mostly for gender reasons. After being forced to watch the WNBA, I learned to drop my gender bias, but, at the same time, developed a more sensible argument against the WNBA.

The talent level is low. I look at basketball basically on the levels of: Youth, High School, College, Minor League, and Professional. Obviously there are sublevels to all of those categories, but those are the basic five. The level of talent in the WNBA, to me, is not at the "professional" level that it promises.

I attended one of the practices for our WNBA team, and they were scrimmaging against a group of my fellow co-workers (all male) that had been thrown together that day. I have played ball with all of the men on that court, and my talent level is roughly even to theirs. The scrimmage at this practice was competitive, and very even (this was the practice, by the way, that took place before the team's first playoff game, so the intensity and focus levels were high). I am no professional basketball player. In fact, none of the guys on that court even played college basketball.

That is why I don't like the WNBA. It is truly not worth watching, from a basketball standpoint, when there is essentially year-long basketball on TV now (NBA, NCAA, FIBA, Summer Leagues, etc.). I firmy believe that a well-coached men's high school basketball team (and I'm not referring to Oak Hill, but a decently talented high school team with a few college level prospects) could beat the WNBA champion Detroit Shock 5 times out of 10.

Recap: It's not the gender, it's the talent. They just aren't good enough yet. I say yet, because I recognize the progress they've made. The NBA didn't start with the greatest talent either, and I'm sure the WNBA will eventually evolve into a watchable product.

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/5468/still-making-people-mad-the-wnba

Interesting points are made in this article. However, that was 7 years ago. The talent level of the WNBA today is not what it was 7 years ago. The number of talented players in the league is growing.

That being said, the scrimmages is what came to my attention. I think people are writing off the WNBA players too quickly, but there are valid points being made. As an example, for the Minnesota Lynx over the years, practice squad players have included Division II players, JUCO recruits and high schoolers. Probably the most well-known practice squad player for the team has been Tyus Jones, who scrimmaged about a dozen times with the Lynx the summers before his sophomore, junior and senior years of high school, in between his other basketball commitments with Team USA and on the AAU circuit.

Here's a good article on that: http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2015/03/27/tyus-jones-duke-blue-devils-ncaa-tournament-minnesota-lynx

[mademan]

THIS IS MEN STUFF

[TheSuzerain]

Chino Hills would decimate the best WNBA team.

[TheSuzerain]

Most of the top HS teams would have a huge size advantage over WNBA players. Beside shooting, I don't see how WNBA can have any advantage over a top HS team.

Top HS Teams have the shooting advantage as well.

[tsherkin]

Interesting points are made in this article. However, that was 7 years ago. The talent level of the WNBA today is not what it was 7 years ago. The number of talented players in the league is growing.

Not to a meaningful extent. And there remains the functional divide in size and physical tools. That's one thing which isn't going to change any time soon, either. They aren't as good at shooting the basketball, and they'll pretty much always been physically outmatched. There's also a broader interest base for men in terms of basketball than women from what I've seen (please, god, correct me if I'm wrong so I can meet the basketball ladies!), and that's another problem.

The WNBA plays centers that are the size of mid-size NBA shooting guards. On that basis alone, they're basically outmatched. The most rudimentary of post sets will basically ruin them. PnR will be their bane. Then you layer on MAJOR differences in shooting caliber, transition offense, offensive rebounding, I mean it's all over before it even starts.

[EscapoTHB]

I don't decide what I watch based on "who is playing at the higher level"--if people did that, then no one would watch College Sports at all.

I 100% do decide what to watch based on quality of play. The WNBA comparatively isn't very good basketball and, as with all but the last few games of the college season (provided there are players in whom I am interested who will eventually make the NBA), I don't really watch that either for much the same reason. MMV, and yours clearly does, but it behooves one to realize that preference is subjective. If you want to watch the WNBA, that's great, but be careful about implying that there are universal reasons to do so.

It's all relative innit? I mean, do you have a team in basketball that you are watching that isn't the Warriors or Spurs? The quality of play is not the same, so why watch them if they are inferior? Sports fandom is going to be subjective at the end of the day. I don't watch the WNBA, but I do watch the NWSL and watch every USWNT soccer game. I also watch Manchester United. And based upon my tastes in what entertains me about football, I've been more entertained this year by the "inferior" level. Like I said, I like the personalities of the NWSL, I like how hard they play, for relatively nothing, and I like how much more open the play is. Plus it's cool to watch the sport and the league grow before your eyes. It's fair to say that women are starting at about a hundred year disadvantage when it comes to men in sports. More if you factor in how long they've been ostensibly made to be sedentary by the demands of society. They get little to no support either in terms of money, or just in terms of fans--but they progress all the same. The future of women's sports is on an upward curve, and I don't think it's fair to even begin to guess at what the ceiling actually is. I'd wager the WNBA would probably beat the old peach basket days of men's basketball. Women are getting biger, stronger, faster, and more skilled as they receive better and better coaching at younger and younger ages. It's pretty cool to see all of these advances in one's lifetime.

In your opinion, sure. But I've watched some Oak Hill games and obviously back in the day, some SVSM games with Lebron that were better than most WNBA games I've seen. Your point about not comparing them ITO how they would stack up to the men in a women vs men game is sound... but if the overall quality of the product is still low in terms of proficiency and strategy, then for me (specifically, not that others need follow), I'm not gonna watch because it's boring and cruddy by comparison to other available content.

Enjoying the WNBA is a viable opinion, just be careful not to imply that people who don't are doing it wrong

I should say, that all opinions are my own, and anyone is free to have their own. I'm trying to speak to my own experience. That's all. I'm not sure I really agree about the level of play of a men's highschool game vs. a women's professional game. I too, remember watching Lebron in high school, and it wasn't a very sophisticated brand of basketball, and it largely consisted of Lebron dominating smaller kids. The pro game, men's or women's, even the college game, has a higher level of sophistication of basketball, because everyone there is going off of more years of basketball experience, so you can do more things strategically. Your defensive schemes can be more complex, and your ball movement can be more precise. Footwork is more advanced too.

Also interesting to note that Lebron's high school team, even with him on it, would be undersized if they played the Phoenix Mercury, where Brittney Griner would be the tallest player on the floor. If you took Lebron off that team, it might be an interesting 7 game matchup.

[spacemonkey]

This is what this guy said on ESPN:

I work for an NBA team. The company that runs this NBA team is also in charge of a WNBA team. Before I took this job, I, too, hated the WNBA, mostly for gender reasons. After being forced to watch the WNBA, I learned to drop my gender bias, but, at the same time, developed a more sensible argument against the WNBA.

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/5468/still-making-people-mad-the-wnba

lol "hate" is a pretty strong emotion to feel about a sports league, especially because of gender... I honestly don't really understand that line.

What are "gender reasons"?

I hate the WNBA because THEY'RE WOMEN!

??