Player Harper vs Edgecomb vs Bailey vs WNBA

[dn0774]

What is VJ's theoretical ceiling thought to be? Ant Edwards?

 

[Sugus]

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 mean the words' literal definition - it's a perfectly entertaining sport to watch. Whether it's an interesting enough competition to make people "go out of their way" to watch is irrelevant, and the Olympics' nationalism is irrelevant since 1) people are going out of their way to watch that, as well, and 2) female sports are entertaining regardless of the country played for, as the Olympics show (are you the weirdo that only watches their own countries' competitions? Most people's draw to the Olympics is the opposite, being able to randomly tune in at any time and watch quality sports).

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.

Another irrelevant question - I am not a "paying customer" of the NBA by any means, either, which doesn't prevent me from enjoying it. I illegally stream every game and have bought no memorabilia, only having watched an in-game Heat-Lakers (a Heatles game at that!) game by chance on a trip to the US years ago.

You can perfectly say it's an annoying topic because you're sexist, in addition to any other factors - I have yet to hear a single logical reason for such disdain over the WNBA even existing that isn't fundamentally sexist, tbh, you're free to make the case. I don't know what you mean about Doris Burke being equally popular as the W? But it's surely not relevant to the topic at hand (whether the WNBA is a valid product, which it is by any non-sexist definition around).

If your argument is that the NBA is made worse because of Doris Burke, and your mental process is "Doris Burke is annoying, she is a woman, my favorite sport is made worse by a woman being there", then guess what buddy..... Yeah.

But look, there's an alternative! You can just say "Doris Burke sucks! She's a terribly analyst and media presence!!" instead, and have the statement be absolutely not sexist at all! Funny how that works!

 

[spurraider21]

What is VJ's theoretical ceiling thought to be? Ant Edwards?

I see pre-injury Oladipo in him offensively but a more tenacious defender

 

[LeBowen]

Potential injury issues aside, I don't see how can Harper bust to the level of not being at least a solid 6th man.
He's got high IQ, solid athleticism and great positional size. Most backup PGs make it because of their IQ despite being undersized and unathletic.
Harper will surely be an NBA player, we'll see what's his ceiling.

VJ on the other hand can easily bust, how many athletic SGs that don't have enough playmaking/shooting have we seen bust over the years?
His ceiling is also high, but I'm always taking higher IQ player as the safer bet.

 

[Shmurs]

none of this projection really bothers me. I’m not scared of my opinions.

the NBA is intentionally making its product significantly worse in order to make marginal gains in viewership, under the premise that men are captive audiences when it comes to sports. I don’t know what kind of sales and marketing experience you have at the Fortune 500 level, but this is not a controversial take. The WNBA has been a low-cost loss leader for bringing a global, female presence to the NBA market. It didn’t seem particularly effective but it also didn’t cost anything and kept them out of conversations regarding diversity and inclusion.

But that wasn’t enough. We have Malika every night as an authority over something she likely doesn’t even enjoy or know anything about, Candace Parker as a lead analyst even though her expertise isn’t even as relevant as hundreds of high school boys. Then we have clunky play by play from a growing pool of unqualified local announcers. And Doris was the final boss. Someone with no care for her craft with no meaningful experience to interpret what’s happening on an NBA court and that’s our national analyst.

It all paints a picture of the league and its affiliates believing that their core audience should put up with anything so that a handful of people who barely care about the product buy a Curry jersey.

 

[spurraider21]

T

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.

Lonnie is not a direct comp just a spurs analog. Ie worst case i see him as a reasonable scorer with bounce. Adequately sized for a 2. And he has always shown effort on D, has a reasonable 3 point shot. It’s why i don’t think he has a dreadfully low floor.

Harper on the other hand is plus sized but defensive effectiveness is more theoretical than anything given the traits and actual track record. If his outside shot doesn’t reach at least case levels it will be hard to find success. A lead guard who gets sagged off of, not necessarily a plus on defense… may not be viable at all

 

[koriwhat]

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.

Dunking is the least of my concerns when it comes to the WNBA. All the missed shots from point blank and the goofy back and forth posessions with 0 buckets is more of a concern than dunking. It's just trash bball but whatever, to each their own.

As for ROI, not trying to get political, but what's Disney's ROI on their big budget woke flops? Same ordeal imo, pushing an agenda/narrative with no regard to revenue.

 

[Shmurs]

Vj has concerning touch around the rim. At his position that’s a huge red flag for his future as a shooter and finisher. Harper is the better pick, even though I’d love watching VJ every night.

 

[Shmurs]

Dunking is the least of my concerns when it comes to the WNBA. All the missed shots from point blank and the goofy back and forth posessions with 0 buckets is more of a concern than dunking. It's just trash bball but whatever, to each their own.

As for ROI, not trying to get political, but what's Disney's ROI on their big budget woke flops? Same ordeal imo, pushing an agenda/narrative with no regard to revenue.

Star Wars, marvel, lord of the rings…institutions assumed to be permanent hobby horses of young men that studios are comfortable making worse because of the passion of the devotes, which are male audiences.

Sounds familiar…

 

[rjv]

I don't understand the commentary in this thread; is Edgecombe in the WNBA?

 

[Shmurs]

It’s all one thing now! It’s caving in!

…genuinely sorry for my contributions to this tbh

 

[koriwhat]

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

I truly don't care that people enjoy the WNBA but to talk about it as if it's synonymous, in entertainment and as a product, with the NBA is laughable or to even claim a WNBA player could potentially be in the NBA is peak mental illness. We have eyes, you can't gaslight us all.

It's a more pure basketball product than the NBA

It's not more pure bball, it's a jester's courtyard. I attended 1 WNBA game in my life and it was horrific! I've never left a bball game early and wanted to leave that game 5 mins in. It was a finals game and I was sitting 5-10 rows from the court for $5, parking was $8. My buddy played his PSVita the whole time out of boredom, he was playing nba2k lol; he was a weird dude anyhow. But with all that said, the game itself was torture to watch. I've seen better games at parks. The product is just trash.

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".

I think I know where this is going, I'm a misogynistic woman hating asshole, amirite? It has nothing to do with that and everything to do with lying to ourselves about how truly unwatchable the WNBA is and how the players feel entitled to salaries they've not earned and will never earn all in the name of equality.

Without being subsidized, we wouldn't even be discussing the WNBA whatsoever.

 

[koriwhat]

my bad, I'll get back on topic now...

 

[Shmurs]

I truly don't care that people enjoy the WNBA but to talk about it as if it's synonymous, in entertainment and as a product, with the NBA is laughable or to even claim a WNBA player could potentially be in the NBA is peak mental illness. We have eyes, you can't gaslight us all.



It's not more pure bball, it's a jester's courtyard. I attended 1 WNBA game in my life and it was horrific! I've never left a bball game early and wanted to leave that game 5 mins in. It was a finals game and I was sitting 5-10 rows from the court for $5, parking was $8. My buddy played his PSVita the whole time out of boredom, he was playing nba2k lol; he was a weird dude anyhow. But with all that said, the game itself was torture to watch. I've seen better games at parks. The product is just trash.



I think I know where this is going, I'm a misogynistic woman hating asshole, amirite? It has nothing to do with that and everything to do with lying to ourselves about how truly unwatchable the WNBA is and how the players feel entitled to salaries they've not earned and will never earn all in the name of equality.

Without being subsidized, we wouldn't even be discussing the WNBA whatsoever.

There’s just no chance that you or me have healthy relationships in real life with women, though. Our opinions about basketball have surely bled into slapping our coworkers butts and demanding our SO’s make us sandwiches.

I think doing gymnastic routines in service of a notion of equality makes for a great ally to a social movement but not all of us have to bend reality to feel like we respect women

 

[Blizzardwizard]

I mean the words' literal definition - it's a perfectly entertaining sport to watch. Whether it's an interesting enough competition to make people "go out of their way" to watch is irrelevant, and the Olympics' nationalism is irrelevant since 1) people are going out of their way to watch that, as well, and 2) female sports are entertaining regardless of the country played for, as the Olympics show (are you the weirdo that only watches their own countries' competitions? Most people's draw to the Olympics is the opposite, being able to randomly tune in at any time and watch quality sports).


Another irrelevant question - I am not a "paying customer" of the NBA by any means, either, which doesn't prevent me from enjoying it. I illegally stream every game and have bought no memorabilia, only having watched an in-game Heat-Lakers (a Heatles game at that!) game by chance on a trip to the US years ago.

You can perfectly say it's an annoying topic because you're sexist, in addition to any other factors - I have yet to hear a single logical reason for such disdain over the WNBA even existing that isn't fundamentally sexist, tbh, you're free to make the case. I don't know what you mean about Doris Burke being equally popular as the W? But it's surely not relevant to the topic at hand (whether the WNBA is a valid product, which it is by any non-sexist definition around).

If your argument is that the NBA is made worse because of Doris Burke, and your mental process is "Doris Burke is annoying, she is a woman, my favorite sport is made worse by a woman being there", then guess what buddy..... Yeah.

But look, there's an alternative! You can just say "Doris Burke sucks! She's a terribly analyst and media presence!!" instead, and have the statement be absolutely not sexist at all! Funny how that works!

you're wasting your time using reason and logic with people who earnestly complain about women's sports/women on tv

the 'commercial viability' line is funny too given how much of a financial shitheap the NBA was for decades through the late 80s. terrible attendances. terrible tv ratings etc. yet these guys don't go around demanding players from the 70s retrospectively forfeit their salaries to the team owners who were subsidizing the league and keeping the whole thing afloat for years.

outside of the NFL most professional mens sports leagues globally are loss-making ventures for team owners. hundreds of millions of dollars worth of losses usually. these leagues still have players' unions that lobby for greater pay and better work conditions regardless. they never bring this up either

 

[Shmurs]

You see it’s MEN’S sports that are unprofitable, actually…as nba players are now making 70 million a year and hockey players in a relatively unpopular league are making 16. The owners are just laundering money, evidently.

I watch sports on tv and screw around on the internet a lot. In both settings women’s sports are put in front of my face so I have to indulge my subconscious and ask the question, “huh?”. Nobody goes and stews about this after they log off. It’s just a topic with a very clear truth. But the truth isn’t what we’re allowed to say in public settings. I find that annoying. And then I go live life.

 

[spurraider21]

You see it’s MEN’S sports that are unprofitable, actually…as nba players are now making 70 million a year and hockey players in a relatively unpopular league are making 16. The owners are just laundering money, evidently.

I watch sports on tv and screw around on the internet a lot. In both settings women’s sports are put in front of my face so I have to indulge my subconscious and ask the question, “huh?”. Nobody goes and stews about this after they log off. It’s just a topic with a very clear truth. But the truth isn’t what we’re allowed to say in public settings. I find that annoying. And then I go live life.

just let it go and get back on topic perhaps?

 

[Shmurs]

just let it go and get back on topic perhaps?

Oooh I saw that ninja edit

It’s tough to stay on track when we reset to zero with things like sexism allegations.

 

[spurraider21]

Oooh I saw that ninja edit

It’s tough to stay on track when we reset to zero with things like sexism allegations.

i thought better of it

 

[Arguendo]

Potential injury issues aside, I don't see how can Harper bust to the level of not being at least a solid 6th man.
He's got high IQ, solid athleticism and great positional size. Most backup PGs make it because of their IQ despite being undersized and unathletic.
Harper will surely be an NBA player, we'll see what's his ceiling.

VJ on the other hand can easily bust, how many athletic SGs that don't have enough playmaking/shooting have we seen bust over the years?
His ceiling is also high, but I'm always taking higher IQ player as the safer bet.

I'm with you, imo both a (significantly) higher floor and ceiling. I think he's in a different tier of prospect.

Harper is taller, more standing reach, +20lbs, and +3" wingspan. Literally bigger in every way.
Shot way better overall, better creator and ballhandler, much better a getting to the line (which turns role-players into stars, stars into HOFers). Edgecombe is obviously a better d-fender and slightly better 3% shooter, but that's close.
Even being +20lbs, Harper outperformed the "athletic" Edgecombe in lane agility, 3/4 sprint, and standing vertical. Edgecombe had the edge on shuttle run and max vert.
I also put significant stock into Professional pedigree, growing up learning how to be a Pro. That, the size & athleticism, and the playmaking give him a very high floor (barring injury).

 

[scott]

I don't recall a single reputable draft content creator who had VJ ranked above, or even close to even with, Harper. Of course, that doesn't mean Harper will automatically be better... but it's interesting to see this "did we pick the right guy" debate raging now.

 

[spurraider21]

I don't recall a single reputable draft content creator who had VJ ranked above, or even close to even with, Harper. Of course, that doesn't mean Harper will automatically be better... but it's interesting to see this "did we pick the right guy" debate raging now.

yeah it was the clear choice tbh

right after the lotto my snap reaction was "giannis package" but within about 12 hours or so it was pretty clear the correct play is to just take harper

 

[ambchang]

My perspective is that it really depends on what you are looking for when watching the game. If you are there for entertainment then yeah, NBA is a much better product. Some of the things they do is just super human. I mean I bet nobody we know personally can any anything basketball wise as any random 15th man on the team can do. Whereas I’m pretty sure I know people who can do, at least some aspects of basketball, what a wnba play can do on the court.

However if you’re looking at understanding the game and watching basketball in its purest form to learn the game, the wnba is an excellent venue to do so. The fundamentals re excellent. Positioning, cutting, passing, all of it are done at a high level where you can actually take those sets and not rely on these superhuman abilities to accomplish.

In terms of Edgecombe vs Harper, it really depends how they are used. There are the Duncan’s and the Kidd who will dominate no matter their situations, just more so or less so. There are the Anthony Bennetts and James wiseman’s who will bust no matter the situation because of their attitudes, but then there are the Billups and the Brunsons and the Dyson Daniels who needs the right situations to prosper. I believe Harper an easier path to stardom due to his skill set and understanding of the game, while edgecombe can end up being a Vince Carter like player who can electrify if the situation is right.

 

[Sugus]

Dunking is the least of my concerns when it comes to the WNBA. All the missed shots from point blank and the goofy back and forth posessions with 0 buckets is more of a concern than dunking. It's just trash bball but whatever, to each their own.

As for ROI, not trying to get political, but what's Disney's ROI on their big budget woke flops? Same ordeal imo, pushing an agenda/narrative with no regard to revenue.

Last post on the subject and I'll move on, promise.

If missed shots and empty possessions are your concerns, I take it that you don't watch any other forms of basketball than the NBA? Because that shit happens in Eurobasket, happens in the G-League and D-League, college basketball everywhere... We really take for granted the ease of scoring baskets for humans over 6ft tall - what you describe happens at every level where that isn't the norm. I've personally been to Euroleague games here in Spain where Unicaja, the top team, did that shit repeatedly. Didn't ruin my night or my view of it as a product whatsoever.

You're actively making it political, lol, what's Disney got to do with it? Are you one of those "everything's a woke agenda!!" folks? I'll answer your question anyway, Disney produces lots of movies trying to cater to their audience and what their marketing dept. determines that sells. If the biggest movie studio in the world is making "woke" movie one after the other, maybe it's because they sell? Movies like Frozen, Tangled, and Moana have all been massive international hits, whatever you think of them, just to name a few.

You're not really doing anything to dispel the very evident narrative, but again, I'm done taking this off-topic tbh. Folks being triggered by the WNBA existing is a very Spurstalk topic, old news.

 

[Sugus]

I don't recall a single reputable draft content creator who had VJ ranked above, or even close to even with, Harper. Of course, that doesn't mean Harper will automatically be better... but it's interesting to see this "did we pick the right guy" debate raging now.

It's honestly mostly Harper being injured right now while VJ had that breakout pre-season game. The debate gets re-hashed with every draft class... And then forgotten forever once the players actually hit the NBA floor.

I will say, I'm also personally a bit anxious to see Harper play, and it's given me a lot of perspective on what Sixers fans must've felt drafting Embiid, and having him red-shirted for his entire rookie season and then time after that....... I don't know if we'd be able to endure that as a fanbase