Is the Nikon 18-200mm f3.5 VR good for basketball?

I'm looking for a good lens for highschool basketball, and I've read that this one isn't very good for highschool gyms. I just wanted some different opinions before I spend 1, 000 dollars plus for an f2.8 lens. I want to buy this lens, but really don't want to be disappointed. Please let me know what lens would be best, if this one isn't good.

I have the Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-4.5 VR and have tried to use it for basketball. Unfortunately, the slower apertures (especially when zoomed out to the 200mm range) force me to use slower shutter speeds and raise the ISO to such heights that I get very pixelated images.

I love my 18-200mm as a walkabout lens, but most of the time, it stays in my camera bag at home when I'm shooting sports.

The only way to go for basketball is a faster lens, such as the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8. For a lower cost, you should look at the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 HSM series. I use an older version myself and you can see some of the results here. In these shots, I alternated between a Nikon 35mm f/1.8 and the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8.
http://www.sportspagemagazine.com/content/bb/mp-bb/gal-mp-bb/sacramento-kings-99-vs-los-angeles-lakers.shtml?39321
http://www.sportspagemagazine.com/content/bb/mp-bb/gal-mp-bb/nba-sacramento-kings-97-v-oklahoma-city-thunder-99.shtml?45495

The best lens will be either the 70-200mm f/2.8, or if you want to save yourself some money, the 80-200mm f/2.8.

The difference between the two lenses - other than $1, 200, is the 80-200mm is a bit slower focusing as it is AF (vs AF-S on the 70-200mm) and the 80-200mm does not have VR.

But those are not insurmountable odds, and if you are an accomplished photographer, you should have no problem using the 80-200.

However, if you have an entry-level Nikon (D3xxx or D5xxx) the 80-200mm will not autofocus on your camera. But it would still be less expensive to sell your camera, buy a D7000 and the 80-200mm than buy just the 70-200mm - notwithstanding the focus speed and VR advantages.

The 18-200 is not adequate. It should only be considered a daylight lens. You need to shoot at 1/250th of a second minimum (and ideally higher) if you want to keep movement blur down. This means in the typical setting, you are looking at an awfully high ISO.

Even with a f/2.8 lens, it is still only a 2 stop improvement over f/5.6, and you may still be in the ISO 400-800 range, which in many DSLRs is the threshold of visible noise. Given that even at f/2.8, you will still be obtaining less than perfect results, the 18-200 is going to be pretty awful.

I have shot indoor hockey with the 80-200mm f/2.8, and even then, I have to bump up the ISO to at least 400~800 to get adequate light with a moderately fast shutter speed.

I also owned a 70-300 f/4~5.6 before I bought the 80-200, here is a trick I used. If you limit yourself to around 100mm, the lens is still around f/4, which is a 1 stop improvement over the 300mm end. That, along with some slight noise reduction in Lightroom (which will also soften the photo if overdone) is about the best you can do.

Here is a before and after close up of noise at 3200, and using noise reduction in lightroom:

Before:

After:

You can clearly see the noise reduction also softens the photo. But that is a close up. The photo itself does not look that bad:

Before:

After: