WNBA 101 for Wolves Fans, pt i: The Game
by Stop-n-Pop on Jul 28, 2009 6:00 AM CDT
38 comments
One of the big goals for this site over the summer is to build some interest in the women's game, specifically the Minnesota Lnyx. It will never cease to amaze me that the women's professional game does not have a greater following. In many ways it is the perfect middle-ground between the pack-em-in/slog-it-out male college game and the individual-dominated NBA. Last week I conducted an interview with Lnyx assistant coach (and everyone's favorite TV color commentator) Jim Petersen about women's ball, his choice to coach in the WNBA and the young core of the Minnesota Lynx. His interview contained enough good information that I thought I would put it into a series of posts that would help Wolves/NBA fans become more familiar with the women's game. In this edition I will make some general points about the women's game in comparison to the NBA.
One of the biggest criticisms I hear NBA fans level at the women's game is that it is an unathletic collection of non-dunking ballers who play below the rim. Let's go through these charges one by one. First, if you have not sat in the lower level of the arena during an WNBA game, please do so before you throw out the unathletic card. The WNBA is a hard-hitting league with the best female athletes in the world. From picks to fighting for lose balls, this is a full contact league. Second, while the league isn't playing above the rim (yet), it has undergone a change in the past 5-10 years. "The level of talent has really gone up in the past 10 years," says Petersen. "There has been a [talent] explosion and from talking to people associated with the game, and being associated with the game, it is mainly due to better coaching at all levels, from AAU to the pros. These gals have really risen the level of their games and they're probably 10-15 years behind the men's game in terms of athleticism and closing quickly."
Along with the contact, the speed of the WNBA game is the first thing that will catch your eye should you attend a contest at Target Center or on FSN North. These players are quick on and off the ball and they are miles and miles removed from Pat Reusse's crass "synchronized tip-toeing" generalization of women's ball that was amazingly put into print a decade ago. One of the main draws of the NBA is seeing the world's greatest athletes go at full speed while playing an entertaining game. The WNBA has the world's greatest female athletes going at full speed playing an entertaining game and, in many ways, it is a more entertaining spectator sport for basketball purists than is the NBA. From the paint to the perimeter, this isn't a plodding game.
"We run a lot of the same play sets [as the NBA]," says Petersen. "In the NBA they run something called the horn set; they do this at the WNBA level along with a lot of sideline and middle pick and rolls and a bunch of variations on that theme, but what separates the leagues is that the WNBA is truer to continuity basketball."
"Continuity basketball means that there is not just a single option, or a quick hitter. There are 2nd and 3rd options built into the playsets and you just don't see that in the NBA all that much. In the NBA you'll see the defense broken down on a pass or two. In the WNBA they might not play the greatest defense at all times but you may have to get to a 2nd or 3rd option in order to score."
Of course the NBA apologist response to this is that this is part of what makes the NBA so interesting: it is a league that allows its superstars the ability to take over a game with spectacular individual plays. It is geared in every way, shape and form to allow its players to take long 3 pointers or get into the lane for a spectacular fan-pleasing dunk. The women's game is more team-based in nature.
"The women don't rely on dunking and the 3 pointer or backing people into the deep post," continues Petersen. They are more true to the pass and cut game which is predicated on ball movement and player movement. So often in the NBA you'll see a point guard dribble to the sideline and run a pick and roll and that's it. In the women's game you'll see a ton of weakside action that is just as important as the initial strongside action and I'm amazed at how good the players are with this type of game."
There is nothing I enjoy more than taking my two girls to a basketball game. While I will never turn down an opportunity to see the Wolves, I find that Lynx games provide more teachable and parent-child moments than does an NBA contest. At any point in a Lynx game I can look out at the court, point to any player and say "see what she is doing?" Often, during an NBA game, this would mean finger pointing at someone like Corey Brewer standing around while twiddling his thumbs beyond the arc in a 1/2 court set while Randy Foye dribbles or Al Jefferson sets up a post move. With the Lynx, it's Charde Houston setting up a cutting angle; it's Nicky Anosike positioning herself for a better rebound...you get the picture. In the WNBA there is a lot of stuff happening off the ball and it is a joy to watch. It is Princeton basketball with better players and athletes. It doesn't have to be a father/daughter type moment; this type of ball should appeal to anyone who yearns for the good ol' days of team ball without the over-the-top individualism that took over the NBA in the 90s and early 00s.
The WNBA runs many of the same sets as the NBA. It isn't behind the times. According to Petersen, things like DDM and an increased reliance on the 3 are seeping their way into the league and they should be mainstays in a short time. What the WNBA gives up in terms of dunking and ridiculous acrobatics, it more than makes up for it with a complete team game that is watchable from end line to end line and with each and every single player on the court. Every cut matters. Every pick matters. 2nd and 3rd options matter. There are hard hits and sick handles. There are quick guards and beyond-strong post players. If you like basketball, you will enjoy the WNBA. You will enjoy the Lynx. If you are the type of fan who likes to talk about how the NBA has moved away from a more team-based approach, the WNBA is for you. If you think the Princeton offense or Bobby Knight-ball is the bee's knees, the WNBA is for you. If you enjoy watching off-the-ball action, the WNBA is for you.
I strongly urge you to catch a Lynx game in person. You can view their schedule by clicking here. I highly suggest catching their games against Connecticut (August 7th) or San Antonio (August 9th). The Sun are led by former Gopher Lindsay Whalen and SAS is one of the most professional outfits in the league (surprise). A lower level ticket is worth every penny.
In the next edition of WNBA 101 for Wolves Fans I will write about the Lynx and their players. I am in the process of finding additional interviews with the team and I hope to continue this series throughout the summer. A big thank you also goes out to Jim Petersen. The guy is a serious gentleman and he has continually said nice things about the site while mentioning us on TV and on the radio.
What say you? What do you enjoy about the women's game? What don't you enjoy? Will you go see a game this summer?
Until later.
1 recs |
38 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Wait a Second
“The level of talent has really gone up in the past 10 years,” says Petersen. “There has been a [talent] explosion and from talking to people associated with the game, and being associated with the game, it is mainly due to better coaching at all levels, from AAU to the pros. These gals have really risen the level of their games and they’re probably 10-15 years behind the men’s game in terms of athleticism and closing quickly.”
Wait just a goddamned minute. 15 years ago, Michael Jordan was in his prime. Is Petersen saying that the WNBA has players that are right there with MJ?
That is where I stopped reading this article.
Pining for a Troy Hudson/Marko Jaric backcourt.
Justr ‘cause they can’t jump with the best of them doesn’t mean they aren’t athletic.
Sometimes the obvious is hidden.
by frankenhoops on Jul 28, 2009 10:32 AM CDT up reply actions
Let's Get Real
I’m not a hater of the women’s game. I’m not going to spend a nice summer evening watching a game at Target Center, but I did watch a game on TV this year. There are appealing aspects to the game, but let’s not pretend that the women are “closing fast” on the athleticism of the men. That’s an absurd assertion. There is not one player in the WNBA that could make an NBA roster or an NBA roster 30 years ago or 40 years ago. Men are faster and stronger than women. They jump higher. They are better shooters (I won’t argue that there are some women who are better free throw shooters than some men in the league.) — look at the shooting percentages in the WNBA — and that’s with a smaller ball!
That’s not to say that the quality of play hasn’t improved or that women’s play is not worth anything. I’m just recognizing that there are substantial physical differences between men and women that will never be bridged, I don’t think. What I would say is that there has probably been an improvement in skill level. Women have become better ball handlers, better passers, better defenders, etc. That’s about skill, not about athleticism. That’s about improved training and techniques, not about the raw physical talent that they have.
Pining for a Troy Hudson/Marko Jaric backcourt.
I kind of go back and forth...
…on the athleticism angle. I do tend to side more with Petersen on this claim. Let’s not forget that the men’s game has changed a great deal over the past 10-15 years as well and that even as late as the early 90s you still had players who didn’t do much (if any) off-season work and rosters were still litered with guys like Scott Skiles, Trent Tucker, and big, loping 7 footers who had a hard time moving up and down the court. Renee Montgomery is more athletic than John Paxon. Courtney Paris is just as strong as someone like Gerald Glass or Randy Breuer. I’m sure there are other examples on each and every team from the late 80s to mid 90s.
I think some of what Jim was getting at was lost in my translation. I think he was hinting more at the fact that the women’s game, as a whole, has a level of athleticism across the board that is similar to what you saw, across the board, in the men’s game 10-15 years ago. The skill level comment is also spot-on; the across-the-board skill level is comparable to what we saw in the NBA 10-15 years ago. He attributed the skill-level and talent increases to better coaching and I think that’s spot on.
Also, while Jordan was a phenomenal athlete, and while guys like Dominique were able to jump out of the gym, the athleticism of today’s game, overall, makes the ball of the late 80s and early 90s look like a different sport at times. In the short short days, they all weren’t like Mike. There were some surprisingly unathletic (compared to today’s players) players back then. There are substantial physical differences between men and women but I do think the skill level of the players, the speed, and in a few areas the strength of today’s women’s players matches what was in the NBA 10-15 years ago….definitely the skill.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
For me...
I enjoy watching sports because I want to see the best players in the world compete at a high level. Leagues and players who are not the best in the world are always going to be lower on my list of things to watch and/or care about. That’s true whether its Major League Soccer, the Arena Football League or the WNBA.
Now, I have been to a few WNBA games (5 total, I think), and they are a good time. All of the positives you say about it are true and obviously I admire the players as great athletes and basketball players.
But if I had a choice, I’d always pick an NBA game over a WNBA. And while its true that it is not an either/or situation, given the 24 sports world and the draft/free agency/Summer League/USA Basketball stuff that keeps the NBA going in the offseason (not to mention MLB and the NFL), it is still difficult to devote any real time to WNBA basketball.
Just my two cents.
I like the Women's game
in small doses. I can ususlly watch 1/2 a game before I get frustrated that someone isn’t throwing down those followup layups. You are right though, much more a team oreinted play and very teacheable to Middle and high schoolers that aren’t as talented as a LeBron or a Telfair for that matter. No matter what level, you do have to have that team work. I still have not seen one superstar win a championship on his (or her) own.
Sometimes the obvious is hidden.
I’m sorry, I just can’t get into it. I’ve attended exactly one Lynx game with my brother (who is a big women’s basketball fan, having played on the Duke women’s scout team, and scrimmaged for two weeks with the US Women’s national team). I’m sorry, it bored me to tears. And it’s not about dunks. The women just aren’t as athletic, as fast, or coordinated as male college players. I realize they play hard. I realize they play a superior tactical game of basketball in many ways. I just dispute the idea that they have “sick handles” or comparable athleticism. Therefore, if given the choice, I’ll go watch Howard Pulley league action over the WNBA every time. I also have trouble watching women’s basketball, because every time I do, it gives me the impression that I could at least be competitive if I were to play women’s basketball. (I think I’d make a great 6’3 power forward. I’d be the WNBA’s version of Mark Madsen.) And then that reminds me of the film Juwanna Man, and then I have nightmares.
I wish you luck...
..if you ever were lined up against someone like Nicky Anosike or Renee Montgomery. I don’t know you or your game but I’d be willing to place large amounts of money on the women. I think that argument may have been true a long time ago, but not with today’s players…unless you’re a D-1 male player I don’t think you have a shot.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
Reality
This should be a reality show. Watch men who think they can compete in the WNBA play pick up basketball against WNBA players. They’ve certainly put worse things on television.
Great Idea
pay attention Fox!!
Sometimes the obvious is hidden.
by frankenhoops on Jul 29, 2009 9:45 AM CDT up reply actions
Tough to say
I watched a mediocre high school player (he was the third best on my HS team) crush a D1 female in a 1 on 1 game. Now she was among the lower tier of D1 players, but still. A guy who didn’t end up playing basketball for any college was toying with a D1 female player. I’d wager that anyone good enough to make a D1 mens team (even a bad one) would do very well in the WNBA.
Los Angeles Lakers 2009-2010 Western Conference Chumps
I guess that's the whole story
The women aren’t 1on1 players, they’re 5on5 players.
Really would love to see some of those games since it really sounds like my kind of basketball (even though I’m not really good at recognizing all of the off-the-ball stuff)
We got Rubio!
by Wim (Belgium) on Jul 28, 2009 3:38 PM CDT up reply actions
Ehh
Men’s game is also 5 on 5. Also, women guards should be able to play 1 on 1 just as good as the men guards. They still need to be able to drive, finish, defend other guards, and so on.
Los Angeles Lakers 2009-2010 Western Conference Chumps
em
I think you missed my point, let me clarify:
What I mean is that the women’s game is always geared toward playing a team game. So a good player in the women’s game is someone who moves well without the ball; knows when to cut or set a screen or … (and I’m not saying men don’t have to do this).
So the game is just very different. In men’s game there are a lot more isolation 1on1 plays. And let’s be honest, 1on1 is a game that is geared towards athletecism and speed; not much about tacticallity and team play.
So the women’s is about tacticallity and team play; not about athletecism and speed. Men will always have an advantage when it comes to the latter, that’s not the point, the point is the women are good in the first two things because that is what makes their game.
We got Rubio!
by Wim (Belgium) on Jul 29, 2009 1:58 AM CDT up reply actions
I'd have to see some evidence backing this up
Iso numbers, number of steps taken away from the ball, or something. Calling the women’s game more of a team game than the men’s game is a bit too cliche for me.
Los Angeles Lakers 2009-2010 Western Conference Chumps
number of steps taken away from the ball? LoL; that would be a fun one to track :p. I haven’t seen one womens game, I’m basing what I’ve written above on what SnP said in the article.
We got Rubio!
by Wim (Belgium) on Jul 30, 2009 6:16 AM CDT up reply actions
Not convincing
This personal anecdote about a lower level D1 female getting crushed by a “mediocre” high school player does not provide any evidence at all about what Candace Parker would do to most D2 and D3 mens players. There is a huge and immeasurable gap between playing lower level D1 basketball and playing professionally. Even the best college players fail in professional basketball, both male and female.
Umm
You just compared Parker to D2 and D3 players. I believe I said that anyone who could make a D1 men’s team would do well in the WNBA.
Saying that the best player in the WNBA could compete with D2 men isn’t really going against my argument atl all.
Los Angeles Lakers 2009-2010 Western Conference Chumps
Agreed
My point was that your anecdotal evidence does not dispute s-n-p’s point that “unless you’re a D-1 male player I don’t think you have a shot.”
I apologize for not making this clear. I had assumed that you were arguing against that point in your “tough to say” comment, but upon a closer reading I see you reach the same conclusion as stop-n-pop.
I apologize for the confusion.
I guess I’m not clear about exactly what argument your anecdote supports. That was the nature of my post.
Thanks.
Women's game is boring to put it bluntly
They players are better than male HS players, but couldn’t compete with any real male college team. Basically, I don’t watch women’s basketball for the same reason’s that I don’t watch single A baseball. The talent just isn’t there.
This isn’t a knock on women’s sports in general. There are many sports where I prefer to watch the women play because the lack of power/athleticism they have makes the games more more interesting.
1. Volleyball (Beach/Gym)- Watching men gets dull. The smashes are so ridiculous that it gets boring to watch. With the women, you see a LOT more diving saves on spikes because the ball doesn’t get to the ground quite as fast. The women are also lower to the ground and get there sooner for the saves. (The outfits help, but even if they all looked like Whoopie Goldberg I’d still watch it.)
2. Tennis- The Wimbledon finals between Roddick and Federer was legendary, and largely boring. Both guys were serving so well that the rallies were over too soon 90% of the time. They played 80+ games and the server lost four times total. Yawns. The women’s game has better rallies and more tricky play.
3. Soccer- This is just personal preference. The women’s game seems to be more fluid than the mens.
As for sports that I can’t stand watching women player… put basketball at the top.
Los Angeles Lakers 2009-2010 Western Conference Chumps
Tennis for sure
Men’s tennis is b-o-r-i-n-g. Serve, return, volley, point over. Serve, return into net, point over. Serve, point over. Women’s tennis is ten times more interesting.
Pining for a Troy Hudson/Marko Jaric backcourt.
to make my point below
I disagree. I really enjoyed the Roddick vs. Federer match. Watched it again the next day. That’s not to say I don’t enjoy women’s tennis, but I certainly don’t find all men’s tennis boring. It’s a mistake to think you can objectively quantify watchability. But I get the larger point.
agreed...
….they’ve had 1, maybe 2, talked-about matches in the past 10 years it seems like.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
Blocks
I live just a few blocks from where the Chicago Sky play their home games. I have yet to see a game (busy summer) but will definitely see a game or two before the summer is out.
I think it’s unlikely that most male basketball players could compete in the WNBA. Unless you played Division I ball I think you get lunched by the best ladies in the game.
Regardless, all of that is beside the point. This “I only want to see the best” metric is inherently flawed. Where is the cut off? If we’re going to take this seriously, why watch the Timberwolves if you are only interested in “the best”? Why watch anyone other than Michael Jordan?
Once you move beyond Michael Jordan, you’re no longer watching the best, you’ve “watered down” your standards. It’s also difficult to define who is best at something. Are you better if you can beat some one one-on-one or are you better if you make your team better? Are you better if you can score more or if you block more shots and rebound? are you better if you jump higher? Are you better if you’re smarter or if you’re faster? All subjective.
I find the BORING argument more compelling. Yes, the men in tennis are stronger but some people would rather watch women play. I’m sure some people find women’s tennis boring and would rather see the men play, because Serena Williams could never beat Roger Federer.
I don’t find the WNBA boring at all. It’s all preference and all in what you like.
Obviously preference is preference
I guess for me it comes down to this.
Women will always be less athletic than men. Period. So, in what sports does that make it less enjoyable to watch, and in what sports does it make it more enjoyable?
Tennis and Volleyball become more enjoyable for the above reason, and basketball becomes a lot less enjoyable. (As you said, enjoyability is in the eye of the beholder, but these will always hold true for me.)
Also, there are some sports that are MORE fun to watch at a lower level. Wrestling is a big one. The Olympic game is so refined that the matches are typically boring beyond belief. The best example of course being that Russian dude who wasn’t scored on for a decade. Yawns. It’s like watching a 3-0 football game or a 70-66 basketball game. The level of defensive play was probably astounding in these games, but it’s pretty boring to watch barring 15 sacks or 30 blocks in these games.
Los Angeles Lakers 2009-2010 Western Conference Chumps
competition
what I value most is competition. So I enjoy watching two evenly matched opponents in a competitive match more than watching the best smoke the rest. Thankfully, we are not often faced with such a stark dichotomy when selecting our sporting entertainment.
I guess I always assumed I was bored by the Russian wrestling guy because I didn’t know enough to appreciate his talent. I love baseball and for the life of me I don’t understand how people get bored watching a 1-0 baseball game. Yet, I feel like my mind is bleeding when I watch a soccer match that ends 1-0 or 0-0. I’m bored out of my mind. I chalk that bored feeling up to it being a “littleboxes (that’s me) problem” as opposed to a problem with the sport or the players.
Now, it’s not my job to like or appreciate every sport, so who really cares. But I’d like to modify my above argument to say that it’s both preferences and knowledge of the game that determine enjoyment. I don’t mean to knock anyone’s knowledge of basketball (and I certainly don’t claim to be all that knowledgeable) but I would bet that the WNBA becomes more enjoyable the more you know about basketball. There’s just so much about sports to appreciate from high-flying dunks, coaching strategy, team work, emotional outbursts, physicality, fights, crying, diving for loose balls, flawless shooting mechanics, finding the open man (or woman), bounce passes, outlet passes, and the list goes on and on.
Of course, the knowledge sword cuts both ways. The more you know about basketball the less you might like watching college basketball, where the lack of skill become more obvious. But there are always other things to enjoy about the game. Hell, watching sixth graders can be fun (even if you’re not a parent) if you appreciate different things about the game.
"Hell, watching sixth graders can be fun (even if you’re not a parent) if you appreciate different things about the game."
Plus, it’s a lot easier to rig a sixth graders game so that “your” team just barely misses covering the spread.
“Pssst—Adrian! How’d you like to get TWICE as many fruit snak packs after the game is over?”
Rooting for a Rubio Revolucion since roughly 10:20 a.m. on June 24th, 2009
Seriously though
Kids should be taught to the throw the game for the fun of it, not for fruit snak packs. Or you can use it as a teaching moment concerning the power of emotional bribery, something they’ll need to fend off as successful adults. If you love Mommy, you’ll throw the ball to the other team. show mommy you love her.
Here is where...
…I always thought Mark Madsen was a solid example for the kiddies. If you can throw a game while people laugh at you, that’s a talent that shouldn’t be wasted.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
Depending on how MIN and LAC do this season,
that ability of Mad Dog’s could end up shifting some ping pong balls from the Wolves and to the Clippers.
Rooting for a Rubio Revolucion since roughly 10:20 a.m. on June 24th, 2009
that would be perfect...
…especially if he makes the 3s for the clippers.
The World's Leading Exporter of Small Area Quickness
www.canishoopus.com
"Not your 'birth' Mommy . . .
. . . but me. ‘Weekend’ Mommy."
Rooting for a Rubio Revolucion since roughly 10:20 a.m. on June 24th, 2009
To be honest...
I’d rather watch any random April NBA game than the WNBA Finals.
That’s all I’ve really got to say about this.
My kids kind of like it
so I’ve been to two games. Not a choice I would make on my own.
Ladies: They made the New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/sports/29softball.html?hp
“As the popularity of youth tournaments has intensified over the past decade, a peculiar trend has emerged: girls sporting events tend to attract more relatives and generate more revenue for tourism than similar events for boys, a finding that is drawing increased attention from economic development officials.”
Although the best line in the article is:
Although Schumacher said he and others did not keep statistics on the economic impact of girls sporting events, many of his 500 members nationwide have reported anecdotally that such events are often more lucrative than those for boys.
But, hey, it’s in the NYT, it’s gotta be right. It won’t be the last time that economic development decisions were made on the basis of anecdotes.
The main reason I don't watch Women's sports.
is because I feel like I am watching a college game. Sometimes I feel like I could be out on the court too doing well. I like to watch the NBA because I know that I could never hope to be as good as the guys on the court.
My problem with the NBA is, if I had a different mindset going thru HS, I COULD have been one of those guys. Not Jordan, by any stretch of the imagination, but Wally or Mikey Miller or Charles Barkley. Yeah I know, make fun of me if you will, but that is the way it could have been.
Sometimes the obvious is hidden.
by frankenhoops on Jul 29, 2009 10:22 AM CDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
