Chicago Sky/WNBA thread 2024

[dougthonus]

They way the women are screwing this up is that they don't seem to understand that while they compete on the court, they make money together at the negotiating table. There is a definite streak of pettiness/jealousy that is actually self-defeating.

In the NBA, the superstar class basically subsidizes a very well-off middle class b/c of how max salaries work. Clark is the first women player that has a stardom level capable of actually getting the salaries to respectability. Instead of embracing that, a whole lot of the WNBA players have acted like crabs in a barrel.

I'm not watching all the Caitlyn Clark games, but given this was a flagrant 1 level foul, in terms of it's physicality and has gotten more talk than any foul in WNBA history, my guess is that she's not getting hit with a 100 brutal cheap shots a game.

The real problem is that Clark just isn't carrying her end of the bargain. The massive rivalry her vs the "just wait until she gets to the WNBA, she an overhyped mediocre player that people like because she's white" crowd would actually be great for the league if it were a discussion, but it isn't because so far she's getting her ass kicked.

The Clark bubble is going to burst if she doesn't look like a superstar player by next year. The WNBA bubble has a pretty good chance to burst if the Clark bubble bursts, since the WNBA bubble is all about the Clark bubble right now. The best thing for the WNBA is for Clark to be awesome, but apart from telling everyone to take it easier on her and rig the game like it's the WWE, there's nothing to be done about that.

I'm sure she's getting physical play, but given the 5 trillion points of discussions I've seen about this one play which really wasn't more violent than a legal hard screen (just a hell of a lot cheaper) my guess is that there isn't just multiple examples a night of dirty plays against her like this one was. The main problem is Clark needs to be rookie Michael Jordan to justify the hype and isn't.

[TheSuzerain]

They way the women are screwing this up is that they don't seem to understand that while they compete on the court, they make money together at the negotiating table. There is a definite streak of pettiness/jealousy that is actually self-defeating.

In the NBA, the superstar class basically subsidizes a very well-off middle class b/c of how max salaries work. Clark is the first women player that has a stardom level capable of actually getting the salaries to respectability. Instead of embracing that, a whole lot of the WNBA players have acted like crabs in a barrel.

I'm not watching all the Caitlyn Clark games, but given this was a flagrant 1 level foul, in terms of it's physicality and has gotten more talk than any foul in WNBA history, my guess is that she's not getting hit with a 100 brutal cheap shots a game.

The real problem is that Clark just isn't carrying her end of the bargain. The massive rivalry her vs the "just wait until she gets to the WNBA, she an overhyped mediocre player that people like because she's white" crowd would actually be great for the league if it were a discussion, but it isn't because so far she's getting her ass kicked.

The Clark bubble is going to burst if she doesn't look like a superstar player by next year. The WNBA bubble has a pretty good chance to burst if the Clark bubble bursts, since the WNBA bubble is all about the Clark bubble right now. The best thing for the WNBA is for Clark to be awesome, but apart from telling everyone to take it easier on her and rig the game like it's the WWE, there's nothing to be done about that.

I'm sure she's getting physical play, but given the 5 trillion points of discussions I've seen about this one play which really wasn't more violent than a legal hard screen (just a hell of a lot cheaper) my guess is that there isn't just multiple examples a night of dirty plays against her like this one was. The main problem is Clark needs to be rookie Michael Jordan to justify the hype and isn't.

I think what's going to be done is basically Nike/WNBA will force the Fever to make roster/coaching changes. There will probably be downright salary cap circumvention to load up the roster (similar to what Vegas is doing with 100k bonus to all of their players).

Because yeah, everyone involved with any power needs the Fever to be playoff caliber by next season.

[ChiefILL53]

I think what the W needs to do is remove the requirement of playing at least 3 years in college. I'm not trying to downplay Clark's hype or the attention she's bringing, but people been talking about JuJu Watkins cuz how much of a hooper she is, yet she has to stay 2 more years in college before she can jump to the league. There are definitely eyes on women's basketball now and even as a casual watcher I can say I've noticed it over the past 4 or so years.

With the 2 new expansion teams (which Im still shocked got approved in a league that doesnt really make a profit) that should cut down on the amount of high lotto players that dont even make the rosters they get drafted to and the showcase for talent should be greater. I think this is prime time for the league to really break out

[Chicago-Bull-E]

Yeah, I’ve probably been kind of unintentionally disrespectful to the purpose of this thread. It’s primarily a Sky thread on a Chicago basketball board and I don’t have a WNBA team that I root for.

So sorry if it seemed as though I was crapping on the Sky specifically. I was really treating this as a general WNBA thread and talking about a league wide issue.

I haven’t really been following the thread. Just noting that I can’t recall a more unlikable Chicago affiliated team. I suppose the Black Sox scandal over a century ago was pretty deplorable.

Why outside of the Carter incident? Angel? I didn’t really like her at first getting way over sensitive about Clark not guarding some bad shooter that wasn’t even on LSU, then following it up with the don’t see me whatever. The backlash to that was way over the top though. Someone like me “didn’t like” her but many came with pure vitriol.

But she has definitely grown on me, and I’m actually a fan now. She has come off as generally bright and respectful to the game and other players in interviews I’ve seen, but more importantly, seems to play her butt off in the little I’ve watched. Maybe a little Noah-like in that she’s not afraid to talk and stir the pot a little, but then puts it out there grinding on the court.

Ah, man…I just saw that she was up clapping for the Chennedy foul. Step forward, step back.

Yeah Angel isn’t my cup of tea for most of what you noted.

I don’t have very strong opinions on anyone on the Sky, but from a casual perspective, we’re essentially the bad boy pistons of who the WNBA wants to be MJ.

[madvillian]

Perfect storm of silliness right now. Gender, sexual and racial rail road tracks to try and cross for any commentator. I'll focus on what I think is the most pathetic and that is just her fellow players' general reaction. These women need to understand that while nobody is asking them to "go easy" on Clark, everybody is questioning the amount of vitriol for a player whose popularity might finally allow the league to play their players better than construction foremans and garbage collectors.

[dougthonus]

Perfect storm of silliness right now. Gender, sexual and racial rail road tracks to try and cross for any commentator. I'll focus on what I think is the most pathetic and that is just her fellow players' general reaction. These women need to understand that while nobody is asking them to "go easy" on Clark, everybody is questioning the amount of vitriol for a player whose popularity might finally allow the league to play their players better than construction foremans and garbage collectors.

I think there are two camps:

1: This person is popular without merit, and I'm bitter about being better and not getting this level of attention and adulation. I think it's pretty easy to relate to that.

2: This person is improving the situation for all of us. I don't care about whether there is any merit behind it or not. I think it's pretty easy to relate to that too.

I think there are a lot of people that are probably in one camp or the other and also a lot of people that have a foot in each camp.

That said, I don't think the level of vitriol really matters. What matters is if Clark can deliver or not. So far not. If there was a ton of Vitriol, but she came in averaging 25 points a game while shooting 38% from 3 and kicking the league's ass, then it would create an intense rivalry and better story and the back and forth between her and other stars would be legendary and interesting.

The vitriol only matters because Clark's getting her ass kicked, and now the story has to be about whether Clark is being targeted, whether it's fair, whether the angry players are too angry, because we still got to hit the Clark news cycle somehow, and her play isn't good enough to make it about that. A story of a flagrant 1 was the lead story on all the talk shows today because they're trying to find any way possible to keep the Clark bubble going and her play isn't doing it.

If there was no vitriol, what would change? If everyone in the league had a big kumbaya moment and just talked about how great Clark was right before and after kicking her ass, would it help the league any? No. It wouldn't do anything for the league. The only way the league rides a Clark bubble for a long time is not by supporting her, it's by putting up it's best fight against her and her overcoming it. Anything else is going to be meaningless in the long run.

Yeah, shot got hit by one cheap shot in 11 games. So what? I don't think Clark wants or needs the protection anyway, but things sure aren't happening at a level where trying to offer it is going to help her, the league, or anyone.

[madvillian]

Perfect storm of silliness right now. Gender, sexual and racial rail road tracks to try and cross for any commentator. I'll focus on what I think is the most pathetic and that is just her fellow players' general reaction. These women need to understand that while nobody is asking them to "go easy" on Clark, everybody is questioning the amount of vitriol for a player whose popularity might finally allow the league to play their players better than construction foremans and garbage collectors.

The vitriol only matters because Clark's getting her ass kicked, and now the story has to be about whether Clark is being targeted, whether it's fair, whether the angry players are too angry, because we still got to hit the Clark news cycle somehow, and her play isn't good enough to make it about that. A story of a flagrant 1 was the lead story on all the talk shows today because they're trying to find any way possible to keep the Clark bubble going and her play isn't doing it.


Yeah, shot got hit by one cheap shot in 11 games. So what? I don't think Clark wants or needs the protection anyway, but things sure aren't happening at a level where trying to offer it is going to help her, the league, or anyone.

I've said elsewhere I think she's over rated and will struggle to adapt but FFS she's like 5% into the season, and .05% into her career on an absolutely awful squad. No reason to think she's going to be this bad.

her NBA comp, Trae Young, also started out horrifically but has settled into a top 25 ish spot in the league. I think Clark will eventually settle in around top 10 in the WNBA.

[dougthonus]

I've said elsewhere I think she's over rated and will struggle to adapt but FFS she's like 5% into the season, and .05% into her career on an absolutely awful squad. No reason to think she's going to be this bad.

her NBA comp, Trae Young, also started out horrifically but has settled into a top 25 ish spot in the league. I think Clark will eventually settle in around top 10 in the WNBA.

To be clear, I'm not making any prediction about where Clark ends up.

I'm also not commenting whether it's fair or unfair that she has to be the face of the league and show out to keep the momentum going.

That's just the situation though. Trae Young didn't join the league and double its ratings, and if she's the WNBA equivalent of Trae Young then it's going to be dicey whether they keep any of the momentum.

[madvillian]

I've said elsewhere I think she's over rated and will struggle to adapt but FFS she's like 5% into the season, and .05% into her career on an absolutely awful squad. No reason to think she's going to be this bad.

her NBA comp, Trae Young, also started out horrifically but has settled into a top 25 ish spot in the league. I think Clark will eventually settle in around top 10 in the WNBA.

To be clear, I'm not making any prediction about where Clark ends up.

I'm also not commenting whether it's fair or unfair that she has to be the face of the league and show out to keep the momentum going.

That's just the situation though. Trae Young didn't join the league and double its ratings, and if she's the WNBA equivalent of Trae Young then it's going to be dicey whether they keep any of the momentum.

It's a unique situation in my lifetime at least in men's sports I've never seen a player with transcendent popularity emerge from the college ranks that would single handedly lead to things like 5x ticket sales and ratings and be like a revenue cheat code despite not having proved super stardom in the pros yet.

It's just a novel situation and people are crawling out of the woodwork to talk about it without really having anything to say other than attention seeking type stuff.

[Ice Man]

No reason to think she's going to be this bad.

While I agree with the general tone of this discussion about Clark, her PER for the season is 14.4, not 4.4. Steph Curry (as an example) had a PER of 16.3 for his rookie season. Clark has obviously plummeted from her Pete Maravich level college numbers, but "this bad" (your term) and "ass kicked" (Doug's words) seem a bit strong, particularly given that she has played 6 of her 11 games against the league's 3 best teams.

That said, she clearly falls into the camp of most rookies, which is "has a lot to learn at the next level," as opposed to Mike, who was "now that the leash is off me, y'all had better watch out."

[Jeffster81]

did you guys not see Kyries sky hook floater game winner a few months back? it was real nice. had a huge impact on playoff seeding too.

I did see that and it was cool. But this comes down to personal opinion in terms of aesthetics. These days NBA offenses spam 3s, run a whole lot of picks rolls, and are heliocentric and guard-heavy. Most WNBA offenses look like 80s throwbacks to me with more 3s. Plus, more physical defense is allowed.

Does not change the fact that the current product sucks.

What don't you like about it?

Just about everything but mostly that it's become a 3 point shooting contest. If I could not eliminate the 3 point line, I would move it back 5-10 feet. I would eliminate the corner three.

[dougthonus]

Just about everything but mostly that it's become a 3 point shooting contest. If I could not eliminate the 3 point line, I would move it back 5-10 feet. I would eliminate the corner three.

I think prior to this it was mostly just dominated by centers and that was worse. It would be nice to add more variety to the game again, but that's probably going to be difficult because analytics are so good that people will figure out the analytical meta and play to it.

The current NBA meta has a few qualities:
1: Play fast - people have finally realized that more time on the shot clock means more time to get a good shot and break down the defense.

All in all, I think this is good and entertaining for fans relative to the reverse of playing slow.

2: Little post play - post ups are the least efficient of play types, and so teams only use them as occasional switch ups unless they have some absolutely dominant force or a mismatch. You probably need some capability here, but you generally avoid doing too much here and certainly don't build your team this way

All in all, a good change too. Post offense typically is low pass, low ball movement, slow, plodding, and also no so relatable IMO. You spend an absurd amount of time holding the ball on the perimeter while someone establishes position, then feeding htem in the post, then they back into a guy for 3 seconds, kick out for a shot or a repost. I'm not missing any of this action as the primary lever of half court offense.

3: Everyone needs to shoot, and we shoot a crap ton of threes - 3 is worth more than 2, and generally getting an open 3 is the best half court play you can generate other than an open drive

I'm a bit mixed on this one, I think with greater variance around three point shooting it has enhanced a make/miss league and made the results game in and game out more random (but better teams still emerge in longer trends). I think the increased skill level is great to see with all players, and think it isn't inherently bad.

4: Modern heliocentric play - Get the ball to your best player, and he will create the action the vast majority of the time off the dribble on the perimeter

I think the NBA has always had heliocentric play, but it's just maximized even more now with James Harden maybe the first guy who made it ridiculously obvious and painful to watch. The Harden offense is probably the part I like least about the NBA with one star player just holding the ball and dancing for long periods of time and hten shooting a step back or driving and dishing into 3 swing passes for an eventual open 3.

Of these main traits around the NBA, I don't care about the demise of the mid range game. Guys shooting from slightly different spots inside the arc wasn't so exciting to me. Nor do I think there was so much difference in crazy offensive creativity from a practical perspective even though now everyone runs a 4 out or 5 out offense, the difference is in the coverages you use to defend it and the personnel each team has to do it.

When I really think about it, the one thing I'd probably change is put in a perimeter 3 second rule. You can't dribble in one place on the perimeter for more than 3 seconds without going. I think that would break up the most annoying aspects of the Harden dance which I can't stand. That said, I don't think anyone else wants to put in that rule (never heard someone else mention it) and it probably isn't a big enough problem to solve. However, I do think it would bust up a lot of the worst aspects of heliocentric guard play.

[_txchilibowl_]

Getting a bit off topic but from a fan perspective...I don't really care about efficiency. Why does it matter to me if a shot goes in 48% of the time as opposed to 45%? Similarly, why do I care if scoring is up if the manner in which it is done is mind numbingly boring?

I want variety. I don't want four players standing around 3-point line waiting for something to happen.

The next time I see someone pass up a layup for a kick out three I think I'm gonna lose my ****.

[Andi Obst]

Getting a bit off topic but from a fan perspective...I don't really care about efficiency. Why does it matter to me if a shot goes in 48% of the time as opposed to 45%?

Uhhh...because it gives your team a higher chance to win the game?

[DuckIII]

No reason to think she's going to be this bad.

While I agree with the general tone of this discussion about Clark, her PER for the season is 14.4, not 4.4. Steph Curry (as an example) had a PER of 16.3 for his rookie season. Clark has obviously plummeted from her Pete Maravich level college numbers, but "this bad" (your term) and "ass kicked" (Doug's words) seem a bit strong, particularly given that she has played 6 of her 11 games against the league's 3 best teams.

That said, she clearly falls into the camp of most rookies, which is "has a lot to learn at the next level," as opposed to Mike, who was "now that the leash is off me, y'all had better watch out."

She’s also facing incredible amounts of defensive pressure and anger every night and is the flashpoint for about three different combustible social war issues that are second in the news only to the felony conviction of one of our Presidents.

She will be a dominant NBA player. The hand wringing about her poor play is whatever but will look silly later.

[DuckIII]

This is definitely the first, and probably the last, time I will ever know enough about what Pat MacAfee says about anything to ever discuss him.

But am I the only one who thinks the media is blasting his “white bitch in the draft” comment for the wrong reason. I’ve read multiple articles about how it’s racist and insulting to CLARK. Am I the only who thinks they don’t understand what they heard? He was praising her. Carter has just screamed “YO BITCH!” before blindsiding her, and Angel “Face Palm” Reese had just made her comment about how the rookie class and not just Clark should get credit after recently celebrating the cheap shot on Clark.

He was definitely being a race baiting ass. But isn’t pretty obvious he was insulting black female WNBA players like Carter, Reese and Wilson by using the stereotypical “white bitch” line that black women use when they are perceived to be jealous of a white woman? Or white women in general?

He was pretty clearly trying to make black WNBA women as a whole look bad and like they hated the “white bitch” just for being white.

Don’t get me wrong, I hate knuckle dragging sports media. I don’t watch guys like McAfee. It’s meathead media and makes me lose faith in humanity (really).

But there is some comedy to me in how the media has completely missed how what he said was offensive, why, and to whom it was directed. Because it sure as hell wasn’t directed at Clark who his key demographic probably can’t talk about for 5 seconds without complaining that she’s the victim of “woke reverse racism” with a LETS GO BRANDON thrown in for good measure.

It’s almost like we’ve found an issue that makes both sides of the race debate look like a bunch of racist ass holes.

[Wingy]

No reason to think she's going to be this bad.

While I agree with the general tone of this discussion about Clark, her PER for the season is 14.4, not 4.4. Steph Curry (as an example) had a PER of 16.3 for his rookie season. Clark has obviously plummeted from her Pete Maravich level college numbers, but "this bad" (your term) and "ass kicked" (Doug's words) seem a bit strong, particularly given that she has played 6 of her 11 games against the league's 3 best teams.

That said, she clearly falls into the camp of most rookies, which is "has a lot to learn at the next level," as opposed to Mike, who was "now that the leash is off me, y'all had better watch out."

She’s also facing incredible amounts of defensive pressure and anger every night and is the flashpoint for about three different combustible social war issues that are second in the news only to the felony conviction of one of our Presidents.

She will be a dominant NBA player. The hand wringing about her poor play is whatever but will look silly later.

Putting the many, and real non-hoop factors aside, one thing people critical of Clark’s play are failing to recognize is the unique schedule of the W, and I’m not just talking about the overly packed, brutal schedule for the Fever that has made this even worse.

NBA rookies get almost 7 months before they have to play a real game. Work on their body, work on their weaknesses, work on the schemes, private work outs with teammates if they choose, rest after their college season.

Clark, Angel, Cam, Rickea, et al had to step up levels and roll directly into a pro game immediately after their college careers ended. The deck is stacked even harder against them, and it’s never mentioned.

[_txchilibowl_]

Getting a bit off topic but from a fan perspective...I don't really care about efficiency. Why does it matter to me if a shot goes in 48% of the time as opposed to 45%?

Uhhh...because it gives your team a higher chance to win the game?

Ok cool. Still don't care. I watch sports for more than just the victories. I'd like to see a game that's aesthetically pleasing and diverse. Otherwise, why waste my time?

If you like the current brand of NBA basketball then more power to you. I'm about done with it.

[DuckIII]

While I agree with the general tone of this discussion about Clark, her PER for the season is 14.4, not 4.4. Steph Curry (as an example) had a PER of 16.3 for his rookie season. Clark has obviously plummeted from her Pete Maravich level college numbers, but "this bad" (your term) and "ass kicked" (Doug's words) seem a bit strong, particularly given that she has played 6 of her 11 games against the league's 3 best teams.

That said, she clearly falls into the camp of most rookies, which is "has a lot to learn at the next level," as opposed to Mike, who was "now that the leash is off me, y'all had better watch out."

She’s also facing incredible amounts of defensive pressure and anger every night and is the flashpoint for about three different combustible social war issues that are second in the news only to the felony conviction of one of our Presidents.

She will be a dominant NBA player. The hand wringing about her poor play is whatever but will look silly later.

Putting the many, and real non-hoop factors aside, one thing people critical of Clark’s play are failing to recognize is the unique schedule of the W, and I’m not just talking about the overly packed, brutal schedule for the Fever that has made this even worse.

NBA rookies get almost 7 months before they have to play a real game. Work on their body, work on their weaknesses, work on the schemes, private work outs with teammates if they choose, rest after their college season.

Clark, Angel, Cam, Rickea, et al had to step up levels and roll directly into a pro game immediately after their college careers ended. The deck is stacked even harder against them, and it’s never mentioned.

Excellent post and point.

[DuckIII]

Doug, I’m not going to go line by line through all your posts but you seem to be reducing the controversy surrounding this to how well Clark is playing and that if she’d just play better none of this would matter.

Surprised seeing that coming from you, who has always had such a keen sense nuance. There is infinitely more going on here, just as there is so much more to “MAGA vs. Woke Libs” than political ideology.

She has become the epicenter of several massive social war, class and cultural issues. Including - and here is the key part - via statements and actions of hostility by her own co-workers and some of the most powerful and famous veterans of the sport that have been going on since before she was even drafted.

Your head is in the sand on this one. If she was dominating everyone from day 1 this stuff might be less obvious, but it could even be worse and produce more hostility. Regardless, the story here is what it represents and what it represents is the fractured nature of our society at toxic levels.

It’s absolutely not about a random cheap **** here and there. That’s a straw man.