Player Harper vs Edgecomb vs Bailey vs WNBA

[poopbox]

VJ isn't better but he will get better opportunities to play with the ball in his hand once Embiid and George are hurt and Philly starts tanking

 

[tim_duncan_fan]

And no one worth their salt believes the WNBA is a real basketball product.

It's a lot realer than the NBA, even though A'ja Wilson got a couple of SGA-level ticky-tack calls her way while I was watching the other day lol

 

[scott]

I enjoy the WNBA, but I also understand it's a different animal that the NBA. Just like women's Soccer is a different animal than men's. The reduction in physicality makes it at times much more tactical, and I like that as a change up. Women's soccer players are much more skilled (relative to their male counterparts) than women's basketball players though, so the level of competition in women's soccer is considerably higher.

To each their own.

 

[spurraider21]

VJ is more ready made as a complementary player. And he’d have been a better fit for us.

Everyone knows the fit with Harper was odd but the talent gap was too much to pass.

Have to keep hammering home that Harper is in the Cade tier of prospect. You can’t turn that away, fit be damned.

 

[dn0774]

Solid reporting indicated the Sixers were willing to pay a hefty sum to move up one spot to get Harper instead of VJ. I'll trust that when it comes to comparing their relative ranking as prospects. That being said, I would love to see both of them play 5-10 games with decent minutes before starting to form any major opinions.

 

[The Truth #6]

Isn't VJ like 6'4"? He would have been an undersized small forward the way I see it. And no dependable jumper. He's not as ball dominant so that makes the fit better but it also makes his value way less as an asset.

I'd say that in this instance the Spurs didn't find a way to screw it up, thankfully. Yeah, the fit isn't great. But his trade value is higher which is more important in case a move for fit is determined to be needed. This also means the roster will need time for the cream to rise to the top, but at least we have assets to make a move. But I'm just an armchair endocrinologist, so just an opinion.

 

[Ariel]

I enjoy the WNBA, but I also understand it's a different animal that the NBA. Just like women's Soccer is a different animal than men's. The reduction in physicality makes it at times much more tactical, and I like that as a change up. Women's soccer players are much more skilled (relative to their male counterparts) than women's basketball players though, so the level of competition in women's soccer is considerably higher.

I have to disagree there, the talent gap from even the best women soccer players in the world is astounding, it's like two different sports. I don't follow the WNBA, but from the little I've seen I think Caitlin Clark would have a better chance playing on a men's basketball team somewhere (even if not the NBA) than any women in soccer (whoever the best in the world is). Also I remember watching Sabrina Ionescu in a shooting challenge vs Steph and I came away thinking she'd probably have done better on the Spurs than McDermott

Anyway, I'm pretty confident even the best 11 women's soccer squad you can put in the world would struggle horribly in any half decent league around the world. Here in Argentina, I don't think they could hang even in lower level competitions, they'd be eaten alive on physicality alone but also talent wise. Hell, even young kids (say, 15 or so) should beat them handily. I think there's other sports where the distance is much less, but in soccer it's truly mind boggling.

Bare in mind, the average male soccer player in Argentina has probably played 10x the time a similar age female soccer player in the US did; to paint a picture, in elementary school they wouldn't let us play with a football in breaks, so we literally played with avocados, juggled with oranges, coca cola cans, whatever we could get our hands (feet?) on.

 

[scott]

I have to disagree there, the talent gap from even the best women soccer players in the world is astounding, it's like two different sports. I don't follow the WNBA, but from the little I've seen I think Caitlin Clark would have a better chance playing on a men's basketball team somewhere (even if not the NBA) than any women in soccer (whoever the best in the world is). Also I remember watching Sabrina Ionescu in a shooting challenge vs Steph and I came away thinking she'd probably have done better on the Spurs than McDermott

Anyway, I'm pretty confident even the best 11 women's soccer squad you can put in the world would struggle horribly in any half decent league around the world. Here in Argentina, I don't think they could hang even in lower level competitions, they'd be eaten alive on physicality alone. Hell, even young kids (say, 15 or so) should beat them handily. I think there's other sports where the distance is much less, but in soccer it's truly mind boggling.

We can agree to disagree. I am not saying that women's soccer players can compete with men, I'm just saying that women's soccer overall is a much higher talent level than women's basketball.

 

[spurraider21]

athletic discrepancies would show up way more on a larger field like soccer

Clark is probably not that far off at all from being able to hang in the nba offensively, but she’d get roasted defensively

 

[Robz4000]

Edgecomb has the higher ceiling but Harper has a much easier path to reaching his potential in the NBA imo. Gonna be tougher for Harper on the Spurs but his trade value will still be high if he can't succeed on the Spurs tbh.

 

[scott]

athletic discrepancies would show up way more on a larger field like soccer

Clark is probably not that far off at all from being able to hang in the nba offensively, but she’d get roasted defensively

She's already getting beat to shit in the W... the league would destroy her (and I'm a fan of hers)

 

[Robz4000]

yeah, a WNBA player (even one of the best) has no chance of surviving in the NBA even with the watered down physical play. That said, it'd be interesting to see if they could in a microwave role ala Patty Mills/Bryn Forbes.

 

[spurraider21]

She's already getting beat to shit in the W... the league would destroy her (and I'm a fan of hers)

The WNBA is egregiously bad at protecting their players. It’s honestly insane.

 

[Sugus]

For one, it's not profitable and to be a "product" you must produce a return on investment. Second, ymca youth camps are more fundamental and captivating than any WNBA game ever. Am I truly the only dude who sees that league for what it is, nothing but virtue signaling to a base that doesn't exist? Either way, I'm glad some people, you and others, enjoy that league but let's not pretend it's bball.

But the WNBA does provide a ROI, as it captures a segment of the market that the NBA finds desirable enough to continue funding it. That doesn't negate it being a product at all - in fact, it perfectly fits the definition of a "loss leader", which is a product alright.

No, you're far, far from the only dude to criticize the WNBA product, you can't be serious there. As for the basketball level, it's not bad from the little I've seen, the dunks are missed obviously but the game is just basketball. Having grown up in a third-world country, naturally producing athletes which mostly aren't tall enough to dunk (save for the legends like Manu, Scola etc), you really get accustomed to it if you start watching lower-leagues BBall, tbh.

You can hate the product or have whatever opinion, but dismissing it as "not basketball" just makes you look like you don't know what basketball even is.

 

[Sugus]

I mean the WNBA obviously sucks but it's for women. I don't see why anyone that doesn't watch it should have a strong opinion about it to begin with. If there are little girls out there more inclined to pick up a basketball and get into the sport because of Caitlin Clark or Paige Bueckers, I'm all for it. No one is forcing anyone to watch it tbh

Exactly. And I'll say it's not only women and girls - I've heard many men online discussing it, the kind of men who watch college basketball as well (that is, people who simply like the sport of basketball, regardless of who's playing it).

 

[Sugus]

The fact that it’s demonstrably sub-par play, coupled with a nearly 3-decades’ long subsidy from the NBA and overt virtue signaling might be a start as to why it’s not a real product. Then you can start factoring in shit like the public’s attention span/willingness to pay actual money and then can go from there.

You mean "demonstrably sub-par play" as compared to men's basketball - the same way every single woman's sport is "sub-par play" compared to men's? That's a stupid position to take - clearly people enjoy women's tennis, women's volleyball, etc, despite the lack of testosterone in the players. Otherwise, please point me at how the game played itself is "sub-par", I haven't ever heard it lacking tactics/XOs/etc.

The fact that it's subsidized as a loss leader, again, has absolutely no bearing on it being a product itself. Have yall seriously never heard of the concept of a "loss leader"? The NBA is clearly quite invested in its presence and market capture, whatever it is.

Need a truth nuke emoji

It's certainly not worth using for the millionth post bashing the WNBA? New round here?

This is like saying any corporation that ever gets sued shouldn’t be viewed as a legal enterprise

I agree with you -- which is why it can't be used as a point to discredit the WNBA being a product. I explained above why the other listed reason is stupid as well, got any others, tbh?

 

[Sugus]

The levels at which people get their panties in a bunch, and abandon all logic simply because other people enjoy something that they don't, continues to be a fascinating view. Brings me back to good ole ST

 

[wemvp]

It's a lot realer than the NBA, even though A'ja Wilson got a couple of SGA-level ticky-tack calls her way while I was watching the other day lol

It's a more pure basketball product than the NBA, and that's because it isn't super profitable. There's no one who doesn't really love the game but goes through the motions to be millionaires in it. There's plenty of those in the NBA. There's no incentive for big money cheating like with Balmer.

I don't watch it hardly ever, but it does have not being like basketball WWE to it's credit. The NBA has gotten so bad I only watch the Spurs. And have for 2 decades now.

 

[Sugus]

I have to disagree there, the talent gap from even the best women soccer players in the world is astounding, it's like two different sports. I don't follow the WNBA, but from the little I've seen I think Caitlin Clark would have a better chance playing on a men's basketball team somewhere (even if not the NBA) than any women in soccer (whoever the best in the world is). Also I remember watching Sabrina Ionescu in a shooting challenge vs Steph and I came away thinking she'd probably have done better on the Spurs than McDermott

This has been obvious and known for decades, since the "Battle of the Sexes" with Serena Williams and that random dude.

It doesn't take away from either sport being "better" or "more legitimate" than the other, they're simply different because the talent pool of players feature different physical composition. Personally I don't follow neither the WNBA nor women's football (soccer), but I've always admired women's tennis, it really can be more fun to watch than ace-intensive men's matches.

 

[Ariel]

This has been obvious and known for decades, since the "Battle of the Sexes" with Serena Williams and that random dude.

It doesn't take away from either sport being "better" or "more legitimate" than the other, they're simply different because the talent pool of players feature different physical composition. Personally I don't follow neither the WNBA nor women's football (soccer), but I've always admired women's tennis, it really can be more fun to watch than ace-intensive men's matches.

To be fair I probably have narrower interests than most here, I mainly watch two sports (NBA basketball and fútbol AKA "soccer") and most of that is related to my favorite teams (Spurs and Independiente) and Argentina's respective NTs. However, I will occasionally watch other sports, especially the Olympic games or certain events (boxing matches / MMA, rugby WC, some tennis tournament, etc).

Even though it's clear you cannot expect the same performance in, say, an athletic contest, swimming, gymnastics, you can for the most part forget about it and watch it much the same as you'd do in a men's competition. For instance, I've watched quite a bit of Argentina's female hockey teams (i.e., "las Leonas"), and did not find that to be less enjoyable a sport than their male counterparts.

I don't find that to be the case for basketball or football / soccer, probably because I've played and watched so much that my mind immediately brings back Messi, Zidane, Ronaldo (el gordo), Jordan, Tim, etc, so every play reminds me of this. It's like watching a sci-fi movie where there's a ridiculous premiss that doesn't allow you to let go and enjoy the movie (this has happened to me more than once ).

 

[TBdog]

It's going to be like Evans vs Harden. Evans actually won ROY. It took two seasons to play out.

 

[Sugus]

Even though it's clear you cannot expect the same performance in, say, an athletic contest, swimming, gymnastics, you can for the most part forget about it and watch it much the same as you'd do in a men's competition. For instance, I've watched quite a bit of Argentina's female hockey teams (i.e., "las Leonas"), and did not find that to be less enjoyable a sport than their male counterparts.

I don't find that to be the case for basketball or football / soccer, probably because I've played and watched so much that my mind immediately brings back Messi, Zidane, Ronaldo (el gordo), Jordan, Tim, etc, so every play reminds me of this. It's like watching a sci-fi movie where there's a ridiculous premiss that doesn't allow you to let go and enjoy the movie (this has happened to me more than once ).

Don't worry, I understand your point just fine (vamos las Leonas carajo!!). I'm waiting to see if the other poster will admit the true reason of his ardent hatred of the WNBA, or continue trying to paint a perfectly fine sport as "not a product".

The Olympics are a perfect example now that you say it - I don't think I've caught women's basketball that I can recall, but most other sports' female teams are perfectly watchable as they are. Since everyone is a woman (lol) the competition field is evened, and you simply adjust your expectations, same as watching college basketball/football/any lower league competition.

 

[spurraider21]

Steering this back to topic, i see Harper as the lower floor player between the two.

With VJ you kind of are looking at a worst case scenario of a better Lonnie Walker. But the floor on a ball dominant guard with questionable shooting is somewhat low. At least Harper has good size.

But the ceiling/value of a jumbo sized point guard with that kind of scoring and driving ability is just much higher than VJ from what we can reasonably project.

Harper’s two main bullish comps have been Cade and Harden and we’ve seen how valuable that can be.

FYI it took Cade until year 3 to become a reasonable outside shooter

 

[Shmurs]

Clark is probably not that far off at all from being able to hang in the nba offensively, but she’d get roasted defensively

this is the type of comment that just resets the conversation back to zero.

Shed be a disaster on an NBA court.

Don't worry, I understand your point just fine (vamos las Leonas carajo!!). I'm waiting to see if the other poster will admit the true reason of his ardent hatred of the WNBA, or continue trying to paint a perfectly fine sport as "not a product".

The Olympics are a perfect example now that you say it - I don't think I've caught women's basketball that I can recall, but most other sports' female teams are perfectly watchable as they are. Since everyone is a woman (lol) the competition field is evened, and you simply adjust your expectations, same as watching college basketball/football/any lower league competition.

what do you mean by “watchable”? People don’t go out of their way to watch unless it’s contained in a once-every-4-years wrapper like the Olympics or World Cup, where you get subsidized by nationalism. No woman’s sport other than tennis draws enough of a paying crowd to call it a successful business.

I think the other poster is hung up on this thing where even in this thread people are saying that they get some joy out of these women’s sports events but do you guys consider yourselves paying customers? This is an annoying topic not because I’m a sexist but because of the incredible amount of gaslighting happening on this broad topic. And it’s bad enough that you have installations like Doris Burke, who is equally popular as the WNBA, but is put in an NBA broadcast because of an imaginary notion of gender dynamics.

So that kind of sucks. Things I like made worse because of this very topic. I wish the things I liked were better, personally.

 

[Sugus]

Steering this back to topic, i see Harper as the lower floor player between the two.

With VJ you kind of are looking at a worst case scenario of a better Lonnie Walker. But the floor on a ball dominant guard with questionable shooting is somewhat low. At least Harper has good size.

But the ceiling/value of a jumbo sized point guard with that kind of scoring and driving ability is just much higher than VJ from what we can reasonably project.

Harper’s two main bullish comps have been Cade and Harden and we’ve seen how valuable that can be.

FYI it took Cade until year 3 to become a reasonable outside shooter

Sorry for helping take it off-topic in the first place, lol!

But I'm not seeing how Harper's floor can be worse than "better Lonnie Walker"? A player famously criticized for being unable to string positive plays together for seasons on end, while also unable to leverage his otherwordly physical talents into anything meaningful? Harper's positional size alone is significantly better than Lonnie's who was an undersized SG. Not a good comp for VJ either, IMO, from what I've seen.

You're not wrong that "ball dominant guard with questionable shooting" is a low-seller in the NBA right now, but I'm not seeing the comparison here, tbh. That said, I really liked VJ's game on the preseason, and his motor combined with his physical attributes may well make him a better player than Harper in the long run.