The women's basketball small forward is the most physically and cognitively demanding position on the court. She must sprint baseline-to-baseline, post up against power forwards, defend ball-handlers 30 feet from the basket, and make two-tenths-of-a-second read-and-react decisions dozens of times per game. At the WNBA level, the small forward averages 6'1" in height and delivers 6'2"–6'7" wingspans that allow her to contest shots, collect rebounds from outside her lane, and close out against perimeter shooters simultaneously. At the NCAA Division I level, the small forward is the most versatile offensive weapon and the hardest position to scout defensively. This article applies the Victevo Method to define what it means to be this athlete—physically, biomechanically, and cognitively—across every developmental tier.
The Athlete, Painted
Physical Archetype
Nature selects for a narrow anthropometric window at the small forward position in women's basketball. WNBA roster data across 2023–2025 seasons places the average SF height between 6'0" and 6'1" (183–185 cm), with elite small forwards in the top percentile typically measuring 6'2"–6'3" (188–191 cm). The body mass follows function: WNBA forwards average approximately 170–185 lbs (77–84 kg), lean enough to guard the perimeter yet dense enough to absorb contact in the paint. A wingspan matching or exceeding standing height — frequently 6'2" to 6'7" — extends the positional advantage by adding shot-contest radius and rebounding range without extra body mass. Body fat percentages in published elite-level studies on women's basketball forwards cluster around 19–23% for collegiate athletes and slightly lower (17–21%) for professionals, reflecting both training age and the sustained aerobic demand of wing play.
The build that succeeds at this position is long-limbed and structurally balanced: near-equivalent femur and tibia lengths, high hip mobility, and proportionally strong posterior chain relative to anterior. Forwards with shorter torsos and longer limbs generate better leverage on box-outs and reach more effectively across defensive rotations. At the youth and high school levels, 5'9"–5'11" (175–180 cm) forwards develop into the D1 window; most programs target 5'10" or taller for their starting wing spots, with high-major programs concentrating near 6'0" and above.
Movement Archetype
The small forward's movement signature is multi-directional and interval-dominant. Game GPS and video tracking research consistently places women's basketball wings among the highest total-distance-traveled positions per game, covering approximately 5.5–6.5 km per 40-minute contest, with bursts of high-speed running (above 18 km/h) occurring every 90–120 seconds. The three primary movement demands are: (1) linear sprint acceleration — exploding from a catch-and-drive, a defensive rotation, or a transition fast-break; (2) lateral and diagonal change-of-direction — closing out on shooters, hedging on screens, and recovering on defensive slides; and (3) vertical displacement — contested rebounds, post-entry denials, and shot rejection.
Research on Division I collegiate women's basketball players from the Journal of Human Kinetics reported mean vertical jump heights of 43.8 ± 6.87 cm, three-quarter-court sprint times of 3.59 ± 0.20 seconds, and pro-agility shuttle times of 4.72 ± 0.30 seconds — metrics that serve as the foundational D1 baseline for this position. At the professional level, WNBA athletes in a comparative study showed double-leg countermovement jump (CMJ) heights of 34.78 ± 3.31 cm alongside 5-0-5 change-of-direction times of 4.27 ± 0.16 seconds — both significantly superior to Division I and semi-professional benchmarks. The small forward requires the highest relative power output among frontcourt positions combined with the lateral quickness of a guard, making it the most physically expensive position to develop.
Mental Archetype
Decision velocity defines the small forward more than any other mental attribute. In open-court basketball, the SF regularly faces multi-option choices — drive vs. kick, post-feed vs. curl cut, close-out vs. contain — with decisive windows under 400 ms. A 2025 peer-reviewed study in PeerJ examining basketball players' tracking speed and decision accuracy found that expert players exhibited significantly superior decision accuracy across all running-speed conditions (p < 0.001 compared to novice players), with the largest group separations occurring at moderate-to-high complexity conditions resembling game-speed wing play. The study established that visual tracking capacity at 10°/s was the key perceptual differentiator between expert and novice groups — a cognitive substrate directly relevant to reading defensive rotations and off-ball cuts.
Beyond perceptual speed, the wing position carries heavy emotional regulation demand. The small forward is often asked to absorb physical fouls, respond to missed shots, and redirect teammates — all while maintaining defensive intensity across 30+ minutes. Sport psychology literature identifies emotional regulation under sustained fatigue as a trainable quality, not a fixed trait, and this has practical implications for how small forwards are developed through high school and college tiers.
The Training Grid: 4 Pillars, 5 Segments, 4 Seasons
Pillar 1: Strength & Power
| Segment | Off-Season | Pre-Season | In-Season | Post-Season |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Youth (8–12) | Bodyweight squat/lunge progressions 3×/wk; focus on bilateral symmetry | Introduce medicine ball throws 2×/wk; maintain movement quality | 1×/wk maintenance; broad jumps and wall sits | Active recovery; gymnastics/dance cross-training for hip mobility |
| Middle School (13–14) | Goblet squat, hip hinge, push-pull patterns 3×/wk; no 1RM loading | DB Romanian deadlift and step-ups; CMJ baseline test | 2×/wk full-body lift, 2 sets per movement; prioritize posterior chain | Deload week followed by 4-wk GPP block; retest CMJ |
| High School (15–18) | 3×/wk, 70–80% 1RM back squat, hex-bar deadlift, trap bar jump; CMJ check monthly | 2×/wk power emphasis: hang clean 3×3, box jump 4×5, single-leg press 3×8 | 2×/wk maintenance: 1 lower power, 1 upper strength; no near-maximal loading within 48 hrs of game | 3-wk progressive overload block; address bilateral deficit if CMJ asymmetry >10% |
| College (D1/D2/D3/NAIA/JUCO) | 4×/wk periodized hypertrophy + power: squat variation, Olympic pulls, single-leg power; force plate CMJ monthly | 3×/wk, transition to strength-power blend; reduce volume 20%; reactive box drop + sprint complex | 2×/wk, conjugate structure; 1 max-effort lower, 1 dynamic-effort; weekly HRV-guided load adjustment | Active deload 2 wks; then 6-wk off-season bridge block; address any force asymmetry from in-season |
| Pro / Elite | 4×/wk individualized; heavy compound lower-body 85–95% 1RM paired with plyometric contrast; biweekly force plate profiling | 3×/wk, power-to-strength taper; sprint-loaded sled pulls, depth jumps, maximal CMJ sets | 2×/wk short-session high-intensity lifts (≤45 min); CMJ monitored weekly for fatigue index; modify if >5% CMJ drop from baseline | Full deload 2–3 wks; then structural evaluation and off-season goal setting with sport scientist |
Pillar 2: Speed & Agility
| Segment | Off-Season | Pre-Season | In-Season | Post-Season |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Youth (8–12) | Tag games, ladder drills, basic 10m acceleration mechanics 3×/wk | Reactive mirror drills 2×/wk; first-step quickness games | Short-sided games that naturally develop cutting; no formal agility testing | Introduce broad jump and standing long jump as baseline metrics |
| Middle School (13–14) | 3-cone and 5-10-5 shuttle 2×/wk; 10m and 20m sprint with split-time tracking | Resisted sprint starts with bands; lateral shuffle mechanics drills | Game-speed defensive slide sessions 2×/wk; no structured testing during season | Retest 5-10-5 and compare to pre-season baseline |
| High School (15–18) | Linear speed work 3×/wk: acceleration mechanics, 10–20m sprints, max velocity strides; agility: Y-drill, T-drill | 2×/wk high-intensity COD: reactive agility with visual stimulus; basketball-specific cuts off screens | 2×/wk short speed work embedded in warm-up (3–4 × 10m max-effort); reactive agility games | Sprint and agility retest; address any deceleration mechanics deficits identified in film review |
| College (D1/D2/D3/NAIA/JUCO) | 4×/wk structured speed: block starts 10–20m, flying 20m, resisted/assisted sprints; reactive agility: light-gate triggered COD | 3×/wk, transition to court-specific speed: shell drill reads, deny/help-side slides, transition sprints; track 3/4-court sprint weekly | 2×/wk court speed embedded in practice warm-up; weekly sprint time tracking; GPS monitoring if available | 3-wk speed emphasis block off full court-sport demands; retest 3/4-court sprint and pro-agility shuttle |
| Pro / Elite | 5×/wk combined: 2 linear acceleration, 2 reactive agility (visual/auditory cues), 1 deceleration mechanics; wearable GPS tracking | 4×/wk game-speed specifics: pistol actions, DHO reads, trapping rotations; finalize 3/4-court sprint benchmark | 2–3×/wk embedded; GPS load thresholds set per game schedule; HSD (high-speed distance) targets tracked | Off-court sprint assessment; biomechanical gait analysis if injury flagged in-season |
Pillar 3: Endurance & Conditioning
| Segment | Off-Season | Pre-Season | In-Season | Post-Season |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Youth (8–12) | 20–30 min continuous aerobic activity 3×/wk (cycling, swimming, tag games); no sport-specific interval runs | Introduce structured intervals: 4 × 30-second suicides with 90-second rest; emphasize fun | Rely on practice volume for conditioning base; no additional conditioning runs | Active rest 2 wks; then low-intensity aerobic 3×/wk |
| Middle School (13–14) | 3×/wk: 2-mile time trial baseline; aerobic steady-state 25 min + 2 × court sprints; Yo-Yo Level 1 test | 2×/wk progressive intervals: court suicides, 17-second drills, 5-min rest cycles | Practice conditioning sufficient; optional 1×/wk 20-min aerobic steady-state | Yo-Yo retest; compare to pre-season; address aerobic floor if below age-group baseline |
| High School (15–18) | 3×/wk periodized: weeks 1–3 aerobic base (30–40 min steady-state); weeks 4–6 lactate threshold intervals; weeks 7–8 sport-specific HIIT | 3×/wk HIIT: 8 × 40-second max-effort drill intervals with 2:1 rest ratio; Yo-Yo test final week | 2×/wk conditioning embedded in practice; track and manage total workload to avoid preseason injury patterns | 2-wk aerobic base restoration; Yo-Yo retest |
| College (D1/D2/D3/NAIA/JUCO) | Periodized 3-phase off-season: aerobic base → threshold → HIIT; Yo-Yo IR1 baseline; VO2 estimation via Yo-Yo equation; align conditioning load with strength training fatigue | 3×/wk sport-specific conditioning: 4-min game-simulation intervals, 17-second court sprint sets, lactate monitoring if available | S&C staff monitors GPS load; limit total weekly high-intensity minutes to ≤60% of preseason peak; taper before conference tournament | Aerobic deload 2 wks; retest Yo-Yo IR1; address any V̇O2max decline from in-season conditioning reduction |
| Pro / Elite | 4–5 wks structured base phase: 3–4 × 45-min moderate-intensity aerobic sessions/wk; HR zone 2 emphasis for mitochondrial adaptation | Progressive HIIT overload 4 wks: ramp to 90–95% HRmax intervals; court-specific lactate work with blood lactate testing where available | HRV and GPS integrated; personalized load management; conditioning volume reduced but intensity maintained; Garmin or WHOOP data reviewed weekly | 2-wk full conditioning deload; then longitudinal physiological assessment with team sport scientist |
Pillar 4: Skill & Sport-IQ
| Segment | Off-Season | Pre-Season | In-Season | Post-Season |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Youth (8–12) | Triple-threat position, jab-step, and one-on-one fundamentals; 30-min daily dribbling and passing repetition | Introduce catch-and-shoot off the wing; basic v-cut and L-cut off the post | Game-play and coach feedback; no formal film study | Beginner video review: identify one correct and one improvement per game clip |
| Middle School (13–14) | Catch-and-shoot from 3 spots; off-ball cuts: backdoor, curl, fade; basic screen-and-slip footwork | Read-and-react fundamentals against live defense; spot-up shooting from 12–15 feet; post entry passing | Weekly individual skill work 30 min; film with coach on defensive rotations | Off-season skill audit: identify primary scoring action to develop for next season |
| High School (15–18) | Develop one primary off-the-dribble move (pull-up, drive-kick, floater); perimeter shooting from 3 wing spots; 1-on-1 post skill | Expand shot-creation: pin-down reads, lift actions off horns; introduce DHO and PNR ball-handler reads | Weekly 30-min skill work; film sessions on two-man game reads and defensive rotations; develop 1–2 countermoves | Shooting chart from full off-season film review; rank 5 skill priorities for next developmental year |
| College (D1/D2/D3/NAIA/JUCO) | Systematic skill development: 90-min daily sessions with 60% shooting and 40% decision-making reps; tape study of 3 positional comparison film clips per week | Integrate skill into system reads: motion offense actions, BLOB sets, secondary break triggers; scout opponent tendencies | 30-min daily pre-practice skill work; weekly position-group film; in-game tracking of turnovers and contested shot selection | End-of-season analytics review: eFG%, assist-to-turnover ratio, defensive rating; set measurable skill targets for off-season |
| Pro / Elite | Daily skill + decision-making integration: 60-min individual workout with at least 30% live-defender constraint drills; off-ball positioning mastery | System deep-dive with coaching staff; 3–5 set-play reads mastered; scout upcoming opposition for 2–3 weeks of pre-season | Daily 20-min pre-practice skill work; data-driven shot-selection refinement; biweekly meeting with analytics staff on efficiency metrics | Full statistical debrief: on/off court impact, shot quality (expected vs. actual), defensive rotational grade; 3-pillar off-season plan delivered |
Position-Specific Numbers
The following benchmark table applies the Victevo 8-Core Testing framework as the canonical reference column. Published NCAA and WNBA comparative data are listed alongside as context columns. All women's basketball benchmarks reflect the small forward position.
| Metric | Average D1 SF | Top 10% D1 SF | WNBA Pro Baseline | Source / Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sprint — ¾ Court (3/4, ~22.86m) | 3.59 ± 0.20 s | ≤ 3.40 s | ≤ 3.37 s | Banda et al. 2019; WNBA combine data 2025 |
| CMJ Height (bilateral) | 32–34 cm | ≥ 38 cm | ≥ 35 cm | Spiteri et al. 2017; D1 = 32.03 ± 5.14 cm; WNBA = 34.78 ± 3.31 cm |
| CMJ — Max Vertical (approach) | 43.8 ± 6.9 cm (17.3 in) | ≥ 51 cm (20+ in) | ≥ 54 cm (21+ in) | Banda et al. 2019; WNBA combine approach jump |
| Force Plate — Relative Peak Power | 48–50 W/kg | ≥ 55 W/kg | ≥ 55.9 W/kg | Spiteri et al. 2017; WNBA = 55.87 ± 9.04 W/kg |
| Reactive Agility — 5-0-5 COD Time | 4.43 ± 0.12 s | ≤ 4.30 s | ≤ 4.27 s | Spiteri et al. 2017 |
| Pro-Agility Shuttle | 4.72 ± 0.30 s | ≤ 4.45 s | (Victevo editorial target — derived from Spiteri et al. 2017 pro-level COD data) | |
| Aerobic Capacity — Yo-Yo IR1 | ~27 shuttles (VO₂ ~46 mL/kg/min) | ≥ 40 shuttles (VO₂ ~47+ mL/kg/min) | ≥ 50 shuttles (VO₂ ~48–50 mL/kg/min) | Fort-Vanmeerhaeghe et al. 2016; U16/U18 elite VO₂ = 45.9–46.6 mL/kg/min |
| Grip / Iso Strength — Dominant Hand | 28–32 kg | ≥ 35 kg | ≥ 35 kg | (Victevo editorial target — derived from published female basketball force plate and strength norms) |
| Sport-Skill Composite (SF Efficiency) | eFG% 45–48%; 1.5–2.0 AST:TOV | eFG% ≥ 50%; ≥ 2.5 AST:TOV | eFG% ≥ 52%; ≥ 3.0 AST:TOV | NCAA.com stats; WNBA reference data |
| Recovery / HRV (morning resting) | 55–65 ms RMSSD | ≥ 70 ms RMSSD | ≥ 75 ms RMSSD | (Victevo editorial target — derived from sport-science HRV norms for female team-sport athletes) |
| Wingspan : Height Ratio | ~1.00–1.01 | ≥ 1.02 | ≥ 1.02 | WNBA position anthropometric data; Wikipedia / WNBA position data |
| Lean Body Mass | 57–62 kg | 62–67 kg | 63–70 kg | (Victevo editorial target — derived from WNBA average weight ~77 kg and estimated 19–22% BF norms) |
Medical & Scientific Anchors
ACL Injury Epidemiology in Female Wings
The single most consequential medical risk for the women's basketball small forward is anterior cruciate ligament rupture. A 2024 systematic review published in Bone & Joint Open confirmed that female athletes sustain ACL injuries at a rate two to eight times higher than their male counterparts — a disparity rooted in anatomical, hormonal, and biomechanical factors that converge specifically during the cutting, landing, and deceleration movements that define wing play. Mancino et al. (2024) identified quadriceps-dominant landing mechanics — where female athletes preferentially contract the quadriceps over the hamstrings on impact — as a primary biomechanical driver, creating stiff-legged extended knee postures with tibial translation forces that strain the ACL within 40–105 ms of ground contact. The training implication is unambiguous: small forwards at every level require year-round hamstring and hip-abductor loading to correct the quadriceps-to-hamstrings co-activation ratio, combined with explicit plyometric technique instruction focused on soft, flexed-knee landings. Combined neuromuscular prevention programs incorporating plyometrics, strengthening, balance, and technique feedback have been shown to reduce ACL injury risk in female athletes by up to 90%.
NCAA Injury Surveillance: Rates, Patterns, and the Wing Position
A five-year prospective epidemiological study published in the Journal of Athletic Training examined 2,980 reported injuries across NCAA women's basketball programs from 2014–2015 through 2018–2019. Lempke et al. (2021) reported an overall injury rate of 7.01 per 1,000 athlete exposures, with competition rates (10.35 per 1,000 AEs) consistently outpacing practice rates (5.93 per 1,000 AEs). ACL tears represented 2.5% of all injuries, with 67.6% occurring as noncontact mechanisms — the exact pattern that wing-position movement demands generate most frequently. Forwards accounted for 27.4% of all injuries in the dataset, proportional to roster distribution, with knees (17.3% of injuries) and ankles (19.0%) ranking as the most common anatomical sites. Preseason injury rates were 41% higher than regular-season rates (IRR = 1.41; 95% CI = 1.31–1.53), reinforcing the importance of gradual pre-season progressions rather than full-intensity training exposure from day one.
Cognitive Performance and Decision Accuracy in Basketball
Expert basketball players operate with a measurably different perceptual-cognitive architecture than developing athletes. A 2025 study published in PeerJ tested 60 players across expert and novice cohorts on multiple object tracking (MOT) capacity and basketball decision accuracy at three running speeds. Gou & Li (2025) found that expert players demonstrated significantly greater MOT tracking accuracy at 10°/s (60.42 ± 13.98% vs. 41.25 ± 13.93% in novices, p < 0.001) and superior decision accuracy across all game-speed conditions (p < 0.001). Importantly, at high speeds simulating transition and fast-break situations — the operating environment of the wing position — shooting decisions degraded relative to passing and drive decisions, suggesting that small forwards should train shot-selection under progressive fatigue and defensive pressure rather than only in static shooting-drill formats. This provides a scientific basis for constraint-based practice design: presenting small forwards with time-compressed, multi-option decisions during practice to accelerate perceptual-cognitive development.
Victevo 8-Core Testing Anchor: Bilateral CMJ and Force-Plate Profiling
The Victevo 8-Core Testing protocol uses bilateral and unilateral countermovement jump (CMJ) force-plate assessment as the primary power and asymmetry diagnostic for wing athletes. Research comparing Division I collegiate, semi-professional (WNBL), and WNBA athletes (Spiteri et al. 2017) found that WNBA athletes produced significantly greater relative peak power on both bilateral (55.87 ± 9.04 W/kg vs. 48.39 ± 5.58 W/kg at D1) and single-leg CMJ tests (p = 0.01–0.03). Crucially, the study also identified that Collegiate athletes exhibited greater lower-body sidedness (asymmetry) than professional athletes, which aligns with ACL injury risk data indicating that inter-limb force deficits above 10% correlate with elevated non-contact injury risk. The Victevo 8-Core CMJ protocol captures bilateral force-time metrics — jump height, modified reactive strength index, braking rate of force development, and left-right force asymmetry — to identify the specific gap between an athlete's current profile and the D1 or pro standard. A monthly CMJ test cadence during in-season allows coaches to track neuromuscular fatigue and adjust load before performance degradation compounds into injury risk.
The Gap, Measured
Most small forwards at the high school and early college level know they need to be faster, stronger, and a better shooter. What they lack is a precise measurement of where the gap exists and a structured plan to close it.
The Victevo Method addresses this directly through six steps.
1. Measure. Begin with the Victevo 8-Core battery: bilateral CMJ on a force plate, standing and approach vertical, ¾-court sprint, 5-10-5 shuttle, grip strength, Yo-Yo IR1, and HRV baseline. Capture wingspan-to-height ratio and body composition. Administer a standardized shot-selection and decision-quality game-film review alongside the physical data.
2. Compare. Map your athlete's results against the tier table above. A sophomore D1 SF who sprints the ¾ court in 3.72 seconds sits below the D1 average. A CMJ height of 29 cm falls 3–5 cm below the average benchmark. A 5-0-5 of 4.60 s is 0.17 s slower than the D1 mean. These are not failures — they are coordinates.
3. Identify the gap. Name the precise delta: "This athlete is 0.13 s behind the D1 average on the ¾-court sprint and 5 cm below average on CMJ. Her Yo-Yo IR1 is also below the D1 floor at 22 shuttles. Primary gap: lower-body power production and aerobic capacity." Avoid generic characterizations. Numbers create accountability.
4. Build the plan. Pull from the Pillar × Segment × Season table above. For the athlete above at the high school level in the off-season: Pillar 1 calls for 3×/week at 70–80% 1RM with hex-bar deadlift emphasis and monthly CMJ checks. Pillar 3 calls for a periodized aerobic base block of 6–8 weeks before HIIT exposure. Pillar 2 adds resisted sprint starts and pro-agility shuttle work three times per week.
5. Use real equipment and testing. The Victevo 8-Core protocol uses a calibrated force plate for CMJ assessment, electronic timing gates for sprint and agility tests, and a validated Yo-Yo IR1 protocol. Estimating from wall-reach tests or coach observation introduces measurement error that compounds over months. See the 8-Core →
6. Re-measure and prove. Retest at the end of each training block — minimally every 8 weeks during off-season and monthly during in-season. A half-centimeter CMJ improvement per month over six months is a 3 cm gain. That gap from 29 cm to 32 cm is the difference between average and above-average D1 power output. Document, adjust, repeat.
The women's basketball small forward is the most measurably demanding position in team sports. Every gap has a number. Every number has a plan.
See the Victevo Method → | See the 8-Core →
Sources
Mancino F, Kayani B, Gabr A, Fontalis A, Plastow R, Haddad FS. Anterior cruciate ligament injuries in female athletes: risk factors and strategies for prevention. Bone Jt Open. 2024;5(2):94–100. DOI: 10.1302/2633-1462.52.BJO-2023-0166
Lempke LB, Chandran A, Boltz AJ, Robison HJ, Collins CL, Morris SN. Epidemiology of injuries in National Collegiate Athletic Association women's basketball: 2014–2015 through 2018–2019. J Athl Train. 2021;56(7):727–737. DOI: 10.4085/1062-6050-466-20
Gou Q, Li S. The influence of basketball players' tracking speed ability on sports decision performance. PeerJ. 2025;13:e20266. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.20266
Spiteri T, Binetti M, Scanlan AT, Dalbo VJ, Dolci F, Specos C. Physical determinants of Division 1 Collegiate basketball, Women's National Basketball League and Women's National Basketball Association athletes: with reference to lower body sidedness. J Strength Cond Res. 2019;33(1):159–166. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001905
Banda DS, Beitzel MM, Kammerer JD, Salazar I, Lockie RG. Lower-body power relationships to linear speed, change-of-direction speed, and high-intensity running performance in Division I collegiate women's basketball players. J Hum Kinet. 2019;68:223–232. DOI: 10.2478/hukin-2019-0067
Fort-Vanmeerhaeghe A, Montalvo A, Latinjak A, Unnithan V. Physical characteristics of elite adolescent female basketball players and their relationship to match performance. J Hum Kinet. 2016;53:167–178. DOI: 10.1515/hukin-2016-0020
NCAA Injury Surveillance Program. National Collegiate Athletic Association Sport Science Institute. https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2018/4/9/ncaa-injury-surveillance-program.aspx
WNBA Player Height by Position (2024 data). WNBA.com / Aggregated league roster data. Small forward average: 6'0"–6'1". Referenced via multiple sources including sportnexgen.com/average-wnba-height/ and homeschoolhoop.com/average-wnba-height/