10 Second Rule for WBB

[meyers7]

There is no necessary cause and effect relationship. Men have bigger hands and are quicker and stronger. These be be the source of the difference, too.

There is no reason to think it isn't a cause and effect.

But according to the argument simply the presence of playing against pressing should improve the ball handling. That does not necessarily follow..

Sure it does. Why wouldn't it? You learn and adapt.

 

[meyers7]

You appear to be suggesting that the reason men are much better ball handlers than women is because of the ten-second rule.

Only to the untrained eye. Not necessarily "because", but certainly a reason. Or as ice was looking for, evidence.

Makes as much sense as the argument by that NRA guy about how much safer we will all be once everybody is packing heat.

Well Chicago, Detroit and New Orleans would help support that argument.

I am inclined to think that the thousands upon thousands of hours on playgrounds, in gymnasiums, in practices, in games -- generally far more for boys than girls -- is the biggest difference maker, without even touching on the effect of good coaching (again, generally better for boys than girls).

Also valid reasons.

 

[RadyLady]

Yes, they were less exciting and interesting. You liked several minutes of passing the ball before a shot was even attempted?

And in general, a 90-88 game is more fun to watch for me than a 50-48.

Villanova can be interesting when they have good enough players. But for the most part, it's way less precision and more putting up 3 pointers after running down the clock.

If more fans liked the slowdown game they wouldn't have added the shot clock.

You really would like it eliminated?

Good heavens, no. It would be all Rutgers, all the time....yes, and Villanova..

zzzzzz.......

 

[Icebear]

Women have a smaller ball, so the bigger hand argument doesn't exactly work.

That is not possible to say definitively without identifying the exact ratio of handsize to ball size for each and because the smaller ball is, also, lighter and reacts differently off the bounce, too.

 

[doggydaddy]

That is not possible to say definitively without identifying the exact ratio of handsize to ball size for each and because the smaller ball is, also, lighter and reacts differently off the bounce, too.

So your original point that the bigger hands for men help is not something or can say definitively either. Which really was my point.

 

[Icebear]

So your original point that the bigger hands for men help is not something or can say definitively either. Which really was my point.

Exactly, but it is one potential source of variance which is the comparing the ratios of hand size to ball size is more valid and the variance should include hand strength as an issue, too.

Doing a little research the average women's hand is 6.72" from the base of the palm to the tip of the middle finger and 2.9" wide, the average man's hand is 7.44" long and 3.3" wide the ratio is a women's hand is 91% the size of a man's. The NBA basketball is 29.5" in circumference and the women's college ball is 28.5". This is a ratio of 96% so the women are still using a ball proportionally larger to their hand than the men. The weight of the women's ball is from 18-20oz. and the men's being 20-22oz with 22oz. specified for the NBA. the variation of weight can be as 81% of the NBA ball to 91%. Laws of physics dictate the lighter ball to have more deflection in reaction to external forces or bouncing of greater masses all else being the same. When dropped from 6ft the rebound for the men's ball is to be from 49-54" while the rebound for the women's ball is specified at 51-56". So the women's ball is livelier, too.

 

[doggydaddy]

Exactly, but it is one potential source of variance which is the comparing the ratios of hand size to ball size is more valid and the variance should include hand strength as an issue, too.

Sorry, not buying it.

 

[bmayuc]

Sorry, not buying it.

Not buying Icebear at all.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Icebear]

Not buying Icebear at all.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2

Not asking anyone to buy anything just noting there are potential real physical issues that must be considered.

 

[doggydaddy]

Not asking anyone to buy anything just noting there are potential real physical issues that must be considered.

And I'm not agreeing that hand strength has anything to do with it.

 

[reno tony]

Just thought I would throw in my two cents. The following are just my opinions with made up numbers to show a point so don't start quoting statistics from some obscure website. I believe many more men play basketball than women and will set that ratio at ten to one. With that many additional men, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that one would have to be a lot better to make the men's team versus the women's team with respect to the population of basketball players.

In other words, if you must be in the top ten percent to make the women's team, you would have to be in top one percent to make the men's team. That is of course assuming my 10 to 1 ratio is accurate. Other ratios can be used and a more accurate number of college players can be used to come up with a more accurate result.

My point is that men are not only better players, but better with respect to the population of male players. So if previous bloggers assumptions were correct, better players would lead them to more easily handle the ten second rule, ball handling skills and full court presses.

 

[meyers7]

Sorry, not buying it.

Just to add another wrench in the size of hand argument. If the hands are bigger they should be able to handle the ball better, correct? (ice's theory anyway) However, posts being much taller (for the most part) usually have bigger hands (we won't address what else might be bigger) and therefore should be able to handle the ball better than guards. However, we know this is not so. And that would be true for men and women.

 

[doggydaddy]

Just to add another wrench in the size of hand argument. If the hands are bigger they should be able to handle the ball better, correct? (ice's theory anyway) However, posts being much taller (for the most part) usually have bigger hands (we won't address what else might be bigger) and therefore should be able to handle the ball better than guards. However, we know this is not so. And that would be true for men and women.

The closer you are to the ground, the better you can handle the ball.

So women should be better? Makes as much sense as stronger hands.

 

[Icebear]

Just to add another wrench in the size of hand argument. If the hands are bigger they should be able to handle the ball better, correct? (ice's theory anyway) However, posts being much taller (for the most part) usually have bigger hands (we won't address what else might be bigger) and therefore should be able to handle the ball better than guards. However, we know this is not so. And that would be true for men and women.

There may well be an optimal relationship for hand size to ball. Maybe something like a bell curve. Plus hand size to ball and strength are not the only factors, just considerations. As are various other things mentioned including the liveliness of ball bounce and the larger pool of male players and more court time. It all works together.

 

[meyers7]

There may well be an optimal relationship for hand size to ball. Maybe something like a bell curve. Plus hand size to ball and strength are not the only factors, just considerations. As are various other things mentioned including the liveliness of ball bounce and the larger pool of male players and more court time. It all works together.

LOL. I was almost going to put in that post that you would come back with a "diminishing returns" argument.

You are too funny. (and quite predictable)

 

[doggydaddy]

Strong hands?

 

[meyers7]

Strong hands?

His hands seem soooo small.

 

[Icebear]

Fancy dribbling is not ball handling under pressure. Nor should ball handling be in any way reduced to dribbling. Strength and hand size is involved when another player attacks the ball in the press. Having large and strong hands allows one to maintain control under such pressure and hack. Maintaining contact with the ball allows control that is why players ride the ball up on the bounce making contact initially below the waist and riding it up as high as the ribs.

 

[Phil]

Exactly, but it is one potential source of variance which is the comparing the ratios of hand size to ball size is more valid and the variance should include hand strength as an issue, too.

Doing a little research the average women's hand is 6.72" from the base of the palm to the tip of the middle finger and 2.9" wide, the average man's hand is 7.44" long and 3.3" wide the ratio is a women's hand is 91% the size of a man's. The NBA basketball is 29.5" in circumference and the women's college ball is 28.5". This is a ratio of 96% so the women are still using a ball proportionally larger to their hand than the men. The weight of the women's ball is from 18-20oz. and the men's being 20-22oz with 22oz. specified for the NBA. the variation of weight can be as 81% of the NBA ball to 91%. Laws of physics dictate the lighter ball to have more deflection in reaction to external forces or bouncing of greater masses all else being the same. When dropped from 6ft the rebound for the men's ball is to be from 49-54" while the rebound for the women's ball is specified at 51-56". So the women's ball is livelier, too.

Don't forget, the ball used by women in FIBA is larger than that used in US college ball. In fact, a little larger than the NBA ball.

This means we should get some insight into difference by looking at players who have played in both FIBA and College/WNBA to see how the numbers line up. Far form perfect, as the defense might nto be the same, but we could look at free throws, which should provide some insight into the impact on shooting percentage. We could look at steals or other turnovers per game to get a handle on ball handling, so to speak, although, as mentioedn, that will be affected by defenses.

 

[meyers7]

Fancy dribbling is not ball handling under pressure. Nor should ball handling be in any way reduced to dribbling. Strength and hand size is involved when another player attacks the ball in the press. Having large and strong hands allows one to maintain control under such pressure and hack. Maintaining contact with the ball allows control that is why players ride the ball up on the bounce making contact initially below the waist and riding it up as high as the ribs.

Hope you took a ladder with you to get out of there.

 

[doggydaddy]

Fancy dribbling is not ball handling under pressure. Nor should ball handling be in any way reduced to dribbling. Strength and hand size is involved when another player attacks the ball in the press. Having large and strong hands allows one to maintain control under such pressure and hack. Maintaining contact with the ball allows control that is why players ride the ball up on the bounce making contact initially below the waist and riding it up as high as the ribs.

No, good dribbling is needed to get separation from the defender.

I have no idea how strength and hand size help.

Good ball handling is mostly dribbling. And to break a press you need a scheme and plan where players know where to go and when to pass.

I believe hacking is a foul.

 

[Icebear]

Don't forget, the ball used by women in FIBA is larger than that used in US college ball. In fact, a little larger than the NBA ball.

This means we should get some insight into difference by looking at players who have played in both FIBA and College/WNBA to see how the numbers line up. Far form perfect, as the defense might nto be the same, but we could look at free throws, which should provide some insight into the impact on shooting percentage. We could look at steals or other turnovers per game to get a handle on ball handling, so to speak, although, as mentioedn, that will be affected by defenses.

Great suggestion, Phil.

BTW, here from Wikipedia are the FIBA specs. They assume it to be an NBA (size 7) ball but allow more upside in circumference from the NBA standard of 29.5" up to 30.7". FIBA has extremely specific standards for balls including standards for testing.

The International Basketball Federation (FIBA) has very strict criteria for its certified basketballs: The ball must be size 7, bear the name of the manufacturer and a serial number. It must be made of either genuine or artificial/synthetic leather and must be free of toxic materials and materials which may cause allergic reactions, and must also be free of heavy metals and AZO colors, though FIBA does not specify a specific color for the ball. It must be between 749 millimeters (mm) and 780 mm (29.5–30.7 in) in circumference, it must bounce at least 1300 mm (51.2 in) measured from the top of the ball when dropped from a height of 1800 mm (70.9 in) measured from the bottom of the ball[2] on a hard surface with a mass of more than 1 ton, and it must weigh between 567 grams (g) and 650 g (20–22.9 oz). The ball must also pass a battery of rigorous tests: a fatigue test where it is bounced 20,000 times at a reference pressure without leaking any air, and then perform to specification when dropped from the reference height (1800 mm); a heat test where it is stored in a room for 7 days at 70 Celsius (158 Fahrenheit) and show no difference in appearance or performance; a valve test where a dry inflation needle is inserted into the ball 100 times and the ball must not show any leakage afterwards; and a friction test where the outer surface must match or exceed friction requirements or perform to the testers' satisfaction in a practice game. The manufacturer of the ball must have been certified by FIBA, which entails submitting balls for testing and paying a $3,000 testing fee, paying $13,000 per year in licensing fees, and printing the FIBA logo on each ball.

 

[DobbsRover2]

My stepson who played soccer for quite a few years, does not like basketball. I asked him why one day, because parts of the game are very similar (dribbling, passing the ball, passing into space, defending one on one, team defending, cutting out passing lanes, off ball movement, etc.). He said because there is too much scoring in basketball. (I had not heard that before.) He said it made points cheap, they didn't mean anything. In soccer when you scored it was a big accomplishment, had value. I had not thought about it like that.

Ah, let's not get too far into the soccer vs basketball equation because there are fewer things in the sports worse than bad keep-away game of 0-0 in World Cup soccer, except maybe a Jets game from last year. And perhaps nothing is more frustrating in sports than a striker on very inferior team selling an early swan dive in the penalty box and than watching that team sit back on defense to gain an ill-gotten win. There are pluses either way, but one advantage that basketball, baseball, and football have over soccer and hockey is that teams can go from losing with one second or out to go to being the winners with one score. Plus they don't have vuvuzelas.

 

[meyers7]

Ah, let's not get too far into the soccer vs basketball equation

To each his.

because there are fewer things in the sports worse than bad keep-away game of 0-0 in World Cup soccer,

True, though I have seen some very exciting 0-0 games. You get to the end and wonder how did anyone not score???

And perhaps nothing is more frustrating in sports than a striker on very inferior team selling an early swan dive in the penalty box and than watching that team sit back on defense to gain an ill-gotten win.

True don't like diving, but......it ain't just soccer.

There are pluses either way, but one advantage that basketball, baseball, and football have over soccer and hockey is that teams can go from losing with one second or out to go to being the winners with one score.

You can do that in soccer too, complete despair to complete joy or vice-versa on a single play. Not from losing to winning a single game, but in the bigger picture - win the league, make it out of group, etc. or lose it all. (see ManCity scoring two goals in added time to win the league in 2012 or Arsenal scoring in added time in 1989 to win the league from Liverpool, Donovan's goal against Algeria in 2010.)

 

[DobbsRover2]

Well sure, the result of one score can affect a soccer game in a way that goes from winning to losing in the long run, but that's true for many sports. And soccer's added time puts it in some virtual unreal other world where nothing is quite certain anymore, plus it smacks of the famous added time some years back on the scoreboard at TBA that let the Vols win a game that they should have lost.

And yeah, soccer has it over basketball in that I have never watched an exciting 0-0 BB game, though some of the Rutgers games have been fairly scoring challenged and had a spot or two of excitement.