Sure. Charlie Faust went from unstable fan to throwing two innings of Major League Baseball too. I will make it known they were over two games.

Point being a lot of seemingly impossible things happen in sports, brief as they may be.

Surely that is so, but how does that relate to whether Caitlin Clark can make a men's team?

It relates to the idea that a woman will never play competitive basketball with men. I have said all along I'm against an absolute like that. And I've said that it's fine to discuss Clark as an individual player and say she isn't the one. But that opinion seems to be eclipsed by one that applies to all women.

Sports are very physical. Other things like "anticipation" and "intelligence" can help one high level player over another high level player. There is an extremely obvious reason the NBA is not filled with "geniuses" who cannot physically compete with the rest of the players - because it is a very physical sport. The physical is a prerequisite. If I dedicated my entire life to a sport and became #1 in preparation for that sport, I still wouldn't make it because I do not have the prerequisite.

What people want to find and consider virtuously politically correct and is actually true are not the same thing. Women athletes lose to men far below their 'level' whenever it is tried, for the obvious physical reasons and the differences between men and women. Women are different. They are built different. Both genders have plusses and minuses compared to the other. It is simply reality. A woman has not and will not seriously compete in a very physical high-level sporting realm whether we like that or not.

I think the difference is that this version of the same root problem of not understanding the actual differences between the genders is that it splits the victims. Women are a victim group in the ideology, alongside the people who believe that reality is dictated by whatever they claim to be, and a bunch of women getting wrecked by a person almost everyone knows is actually a man is difficult to sort out within the confines of the ideology and pits victim groups against each other.

If a big league team put an actual woman on their roster they would get universal acclaim from the league, the media, and the sporting press and get a huge national PR drive and boost for their ground breaking display of diversity and inclusion. If she gives up 12 runs in 2 innings, it will be put down to the fault of some "ism" and coverage will quietly move.

Likely the most astonishing (and underappreciated) female athlete the world has ever known, Katie Ledecky, is still at her absolute peak (a record shattering, truly staggering, insane 1500) 6 percent or so slower than the top male. And the gap of course gets much much bigger as you move to sports with contact.

Just to compare strength from a sport I like. Inez Carrasquillo has the current log lift world record. It is 321 pounds. Inez is a beast at a real 6'1" and 235 pounds. She is also on ALL the super creatine. CrossFit has used a log in their events before. The 5'8" 180 pound men with very little practice are pressing the same weight.

Looks like the men's record is 510 pounds so significantly higher.

Bet she would be a beast against the Washington Generals.

Almost on cue....See below.

https://nypost.com/2024/03/27/us-new...ender-players/

LOL - They won $1000
Looking at the picture it appears to be eight or nine dudes

In cycling a couple world records have been held by women, not in a division, but outright.

Beryl Burton - in 1967, she set a new 12-hour time trial record of 277.25 miles– a mark that surpassed the men's record of the time by 0.73 miles and was not superseded by a man until 1969. While setting the record, she caught and passed Mike McNamara who was on his way to setting the men's record at 276.52 miles and winning that year's men's British Best All-Rounder. She is reputed to have given him a liquorice allsort as she passed him.

The current motorpaced record is held by a woman who also just helped set a new record in a streamlined bike. (several, mostly womens, but fastest 4 wheeler ever. ) all womens team, and oh yeah, they're all sort of old.

https://www.teamsprocketrocket.com/

I would take her over many D1 men.

Could she defend? Not very well. Plenty of men cannot defend.

Could she consistently score? Absolutely, from long range at that. Plenty of men cannot consistently score.

Clearly, if size and strength are the only attributes you consider important to basketball ability, she could not play against men.

But, I bet on a lower level D1 men's team she would consistently score in double figures and she would beat many of them one on one.

I don't particularly like her and the fact that she played 50 more games than Pete Maravich to overtake his scoring record clearly proves who the actual all time collegiate scorer is.

However, to claim that she could not make a D1 men's team at the lower echelon of the classification if she wanted to is a joke. She would not be a super star but she could contribute off the bench.

If nothing else, her 88% free throw % would make her the designated technical foul shooter on almost every team in D1.

Bobbi Gibb unofficially ran the 1966 Boston marathon. She was not officially entered into the race because the organizers thought women were too fragile to run it.

She completed the race with a time that was better than two thirds of the people running it.

There also seems to be a fallacy in the discussion of women in sports. I think the bar is being set unreasonably high for what is considered competing. A woman does not need to be Lebron James to be considered competitive. Lebron James is better than 99% of all players who have ever played basketball professionally in any capacity. All a woman needs to do to compete is be good enough to wear a jersey. I don't see anyone suggesting someone like Brian Scalabrine isn't a competitive basketball player.

To go back to the example given of a woman giving up 12 runs in two Major League innings, that would be considered an immortal moment for women in the sport, not a failure. How many men have similar debuts? Larry Yount got hurt warming up and didn't even throw a pitch, but he still appeared in a Major League game. Was he not a competitive pitcher?

I'm still curious to see what kinds of adjustments she'd require to go from using a women's ball to a men's ball.

Anecdotally, I tried to shoot a women's/youth 9-11 ball in college, and my shot was all over the place. Even with slight differences in circumference and weight, I might as well have been going from a softball to a baseball.

I mean if we’re going to adopt the lunacy that giving up 6 runs an inning is competitive and a success for a pitcher, sure. Of course everyone will see a 54 ERA as a successful outing. There’s been so many male pitchers with 54 ERA’s that we consider competitive. It’s competitive to get annihilated. Down is up. Left is right. Arguments like this are when you know there’s no real case just a desire for their to be one :rolleyes:

Haha what does that mean exactly? That reaching the major leagues is not a measurement of success in the sport?

Not when it is a publicity stunt for someone that really does not deserve to be there.

Isn't that assuming a lot? I merely said if a women made an appearance in the major leagues it would be a major moment regardless of performance.

And the counter argument was that unless you dominate your start it's meaningless. But we all know that's not true. How many stories are there every so often of the career minor leaguer who finally gets an at bat or makes an appearance? It's the pinnacle of success in the sport.

I am saying, while shocked it needs further clarification and even needed to be said in the first place, that a pitcher with a 54 ERA is not competitive by any rational definition. Obviously. Making it as a publicity stunt and then getting shelled would not be a success for the narrative, women, the league, or anyone else.

The league and the media would absolutely love having a new diversity first to promote. The only reason not to bring a woman in is because they are not actually going to be competitive and it will be embarrassing. There’s a reason it hasn’t happened.

You are inventing a scenario where a woman is a publicity stunt.

You also contending that reaching the major leagues isn't an accomplishment unless you dominate in some way. Progressing through the minor leagues and playing in a major league game is a major accomplishment for anyone regardless of performance.

Obviously a woman coming in and getting slammed for a 54 ERA 8: a publicity stunt. It is not competitive. You can call being a diversity hire a competitive all you want, but it’s not competitive in this scenario you tried to spin into a win and would make abundantly clear that a woman is not going to be competitive.

There is a giant gap between a 54 ERA and having to “dominate in some way to be competitive. Can we apply some basic common sense and think about things before just spouting bullshit?

Common sense like considering this woman was drafted or signed out of high school or college, or perhaps signed as an amateur free agent like every single person ever signed by a major league team? Common sense like considering this woman pitched several seasons of minor league baseball and was called up to the majors?

How are these things not common sense considerations to make about a potential woman playing major league baseball? That is how you find yourself on a major league roster.

I think what goes against common sense is to suggest the only scenario under which a woman plays major league baseball is a publicity stunt.

Yeah, I'm sure a woman will make it via genuine merit and performance. That's why, with a league that would absolutely love for that to happen, it never has.

We know damn well that if a woman was placed on the roster tomorrow it would be a diversity agenda publicity stunt. I'm sure you and a good deal of others would consider that 54 ERA a success for some fantasyland bullshit you want to make up because narrative comes first, but any rational person knows well that's not competitive. Can't wait for the next absurdist spin.

You keep saying placed on a roster and eluding to publicity stunts which has to mean you aren't considering a woman playing her way onto a team. It makes it very difficult to have a conversation about competitiveness when you don't allow any space for a person to be skilled.

She wouldn't even be able to make a high school boys basketball team for tryout if the coaches were serious. She MIGHT be a able to make a Jr. High/Middle school boys team, nothing higher.

Not even remotely close to as much as your posts on the subject.:)

I'm pretty sure she could easily make the boys basketball team at my kids' high school.

Enlighten me. I have posted about the natural path to the major leagues only. You have only discussed the topic in terms of spectacle.

Women were banned from participating in major league affiliated baseball from 1952 to 1992. Since then they have been making inroads in the game. Women have played independent league baseball. Kelsie Whitmore has pitched in the Atlantic League the last two seasons. Women are coaching and managing in major league affiliated baseball. Olivia Pichardo made the 2023 Brown baseball team (Division 1) as a walk on. I see a future.

For the 50th time, if a woman could play at that level, it would have happened. The league and the media would absolutely love the ability to have a diversity push and talk about how great this is and forward thinking and inclusive they are. The ONLY reason for it not to happen is that it will be an embarrassment, and almost everyone knows it. Women cannot play competitively with men in most sports and physical activities for the obvious physiological reasons. It is a simple and blatantly obvious fact everyone was aware of until the PC crowd decided they didn't like reality. I'm sorry reality does not mesh with your agenda and what you want to find. It is very difficult to have a conversation when you deny objective reality.

There is a gender gap. There just is. And it's wider the more a sport involves physical contact with the opponent. It's not comparable to the gap between a stronger or weaker NBA player. It's a difference of kind, not degree. As mentioned, even in an individual sport not involving contact or really strength, and even though she is probably by a wide margin the greatest female athlete ever, Katie Ledecky is still 6 percent or in the case of some distances 7 percent slower than the best male. That's a lot. Appreciate the great women athletes for what they are. Full stop.

Kelsie Whitmore has played on the Staten Island FerryHawks in the Atlantic League during the past 2 seasons. Her stats have not been impressive so she doesn't look likely to be playing at a higher level.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelsie_Whitmore

As an addition to this thought experiment: what if the first woman in Major League Baseball is a man masquerading as a woman, who has invaded the collegiate women's spaces, but has a devastating curve ball and a monster slider?
Would the DEI folks head explode?

Polly came from Miami, FLA
Hitchiked her way across the USA
Plucked her eyebrows on the way
Shaved her legs and then he was a she

Comparing the games is laughable stuff. Women play a totally different game, smaller ball and closer 3-point line, nowhere near as physical. Average height of a female player is 5'6", male player is 6'6". Only 8 women have ever dunked the ball in NCAA women's basketball. I don't think it is an accident that the greatest women players have not made it to the NBA; they'd be destroyed on both ends of the floor every night. That's not a slam on them, just a physical reality. Strength and power count. Same reason there are gender and weight divisions in combat sports. It isn't fair to pit a lightweight against a heavyweight, or even match a woman against a man in the same division. Ann Wolfe was as imposing and terrifying a woman as ever set foot in the ring but put her in with a male boxer the same size and he kills her to death inside three rounds, as Mickey might say.

Baseball and basketball are so very different.

As far as baseball goes, a couple bits of info/suggestions.

Go find a batting cage that's up around 90. Many places have them now.
It's a real eye opener. The realization that the guy whose batting you laughed at by the stats like anyone under .200..... Is far more talented than nearly anyone. (I couldn't really even see the ball, and was happy to get an audible foul tip on the last of 50 pitches. And that's with a fairly consistent machine that wasn't trying to get me out or throwing inside. )

I played softball with a couple people who were amazing.
One had played college baseball, but left when the coach said he would have to choose engineering or baseball. -He went with the odds.

The other was a female Olympic hockey player. And was maybe the best player on the team. The guy had control trouble on infield throws because of trying to throw gently enough for the rest of us.
The Olympian? Made a throw home that I couldn't have made at all. And mentioned after that throwing like that made her unrepaired rotator cuff sore.
I usually caught, but played outfield with her a couple times. She was never out of position, never. Which made me a better outfielder, because I could go for balls I'd let drop with anyone else in the field. Simply because I knew backup was in the right spot, and had a much better arm.

I figure a woman in baseball is a someday thing.

Other sports, maybe not, or maybe only a chance thing with the right team/coach/player/situation. But in some ways that's the same thing holding many athletes back.

I'm curious what level of men's tennis would the top women's tennis player in the world (ie Iga Swiatek or whoever it is) be able to defeat a male in a series of games ? Men's Division III college top player ? Boys High School top player ? JCC retired guy recreational player :D Thoughts ?????

Same question with swimming.

I would agree that women have a better chance in non-contact sports. This said, size and speed will make a difference in tennis. I'd probably give even odds to the world number 1 female tennis player against the number 3 ranked high school male tennis player in Florida.

In swimming, I think you'd have to go long course, open ocean, where a woman's body fat percentage works in her favor. I haven't looked at the data, but I wouldn't be surprised if the female world record for crossing the English Channel is pretty close to the men's record.

Here are the english channel records.
Men Germany Andreas Waschburger [39] 06:45 Sep. 2023
Women Czech Republic Yvetta Hlaváčová 07:25 2006
Men two ways New Zealand Philip Rush 16:10 1987
Women two ways Australia Susie Maroney 17:14 1991
Men three ways New Zealand Philip Rush 28:21 1987
Women three ways United Kingdom Alison Streeter 34:40 1990

In a state like Florida, I'd probably go with the high school player. Just too much difference in how hard men and women hit the ball.

Let her take a flagrant foul from Draymond Green or run over by Lebron and see how long she lasts - 1 sec. - before they have to take her off the court in pieces. That's a question constantly asked about females in a male sport and I have NEVER ONCE heard an argument that ends well for the girl.

Just in the ordinary course of a game, assuming people didn't let up on her, she would get the crap beaten out of her if she even tried to cover anyone, or go for a rebound, or go around a pick. The whole discussion is rather inane. This is a skinny young woman we're talking about. It's fantasy. And that takes nothing away from her, it's just biology.

Biology is an offensive construct of an oppressive system and cognizance of it enables bigotry.

I was amazed to learn how popular women's college basketball is.

According to ESPN:

"Iowa's 94-87 victory over LSU in the Elite Eight of the women's NCAA tournament on Monday night averaged 12.3 million viewers on ESPN, according to Nielsen. That makes it one of the most-viewed games in any sport other than NFL football over the past year.

Iowa-LSU outdrew all but one of the five games in last year's NBA Finals, along with the clinching game of last year's World Series (11.48 million)....

Only one men's NCAA tournament game this year had bigger viewership: North Carolina State's win over Duke on Sunday in the men's Elite Eight on CBS averaged 15.1 million.

The 60 women's tournament games are averaging 1.5 million, a 127% increase over last year."

The men's game has increasingly become boring.

The womens tourney is insanely more exciting than the mens this year. They have marketed the women well and the storylines and competition have been fantastic.

Lots of drama. The demonization of LSU and Kim Mulkey. The otherworldly shooting of Clark. UConn and Paige Bueckers who basically missed two seasons to injuries. The absolute dominance of an unusually deep South Carolina team.

Totally enjoyed that game... it takes a bit to adjust to the game being played below the rim and I am now probably crazy spoiled watching CC sink 26-30 foot shots with relative ease. I appreciated and enjoyed Reese and teammates intensity and skill but they were NO match for Clark.

And I even enjoyed rooting against a very unlikable LSU coach...

I have to imagine the WNBA is working hard to think about how to parlay this fervor into success at the pro level.

I don't think even Clark can sustain what she did against LSU. I'm going with UConn and Bueckers.

I would say this is completely proven in any Iowa game with Audi Crooks in the key. They have near zero ability to handle size. Audi has a 2.5" vertical and takes forever to cross the court but can still drop 40 just in layups?

That said, I can't believe that Audi could score a single basket in a game against any men's team because it would be stuffed consistently....but I sure as hell wouldn't take a charge from her. At 6'3" she has to weigh more than any NBA player of her height in the history of the league. There have definitely been bigger players, but I would like to see one at 6'3" or under.