Caitlin Clark left off USA Roster

[JustBuzzin]

Despite what you laid out, some people are somehow confused and astounded that jealousy exists.

Like these players and elite-level competitors are supposed to be some super robots that can just cast aside the reality of natural emotion.

The nerve of the veteran players to be human.

These brand new WNBA/Clark fans have the audacity to say with a (I assume) straight face that these veteran players need to roll over and let Clark take over because it would be "good for the league". Like they literally said they should not guard her tough or double team her. How delusional of a take is that?

I've never seen anything like this. Of course there's going to be push back from the veteran players. Imagine getting hired on your job as an intern, working your way up for years just for the CEO's grandson to come in and get all of the money, perks and great parking spot. Of course you're going to hate it. It's called being a human being. It's natural.

Caitlin Clark isn’t a benefactor of nepotism lol, if anything it’s the complete opposite. She’s better than Taurasi right now, who’s bitter washed up geezer self won’t move on but is getting a spot on the roster for some stupid legacy/veteran thing.

Taurasi has been the face of the league and a legend for the WNBA. Her not making the team would be like team USA not putting Magic on Team USA.

I'm sorry but y'all have to stop thinking Clarke deserves everything without accomplishing anything in this league.

This is all political. For goodness sakes this lady is making world news. No basketball player should be making the news daily.

Clarke is becoming a cult like figure and she is bringing fans who never watched basketball into the league. Just look at the comments in this thread.

People don't even know who the best players of legends are in the sport.

[BigGargamel]

Taurasi is a legend. Let her end her career with this honor. Clark will be on the USA rosters for the next 18 years. Why does this bother people so much? She doesn't have to be involved in every single freaking thing you guys. It's really okay. But everyone is in too deep with this Clark thing to ease up now. It's a runaway train.

If you're only tuning in to watch one player, even during the Olympics/International play...that's your own problem. She doesn't need to be on this USA team. She would ride the bench, take ALL OF the attention off of the ladies that deserve to represent their country, and would make everything yet another sideshow. No one would care about the five amazing athletes on the court helping the country win the gold. They would just obsess over every minute Clark wasn't on the court. It would be counterproductive to everything USA Basketball is supposed to represent. How is that something you want to watch? This whole thing is extremely unhealthy and bordering on psychotic.

I mean....it's supposed to be about the USA on the front of the jersey but all you care about is the name "Clark" on the back of the jersey. Just admit you don't really care about anything other than the media hype train that is CC. You don't care about the WNBA, you don't care about women's USA basketball, you don't care about growing and promoting the women's game as a whole. You just care about the media/international sensation that is Caitlin Clark, and that's it. She is to you guys what Taylor Swift is to NFL fans.

[Wingy]

Look at these YouTube comments.

The backlash against the Clark “backlash” is a grand chance to **** on the league, and its many black players, gay players, and women’s sport in general.

“It's got to be a bummer playing basketball with a bunch of angry lesbians.“

“Since Caitlin Clark was snubbed from the Olympics, and now the Olympics team only consists of the giant she-boys, I won't be watching.”

Now take these next couple and combine it with my observation right after….

“The racism of the WNBA is grossly obvious. They better tone it down. I'm glad the crowd called it out.“
(as in racist against white people)

“Diversity, equity & inclusion for all except straight people, white folk & conservatives.”

Then plenty of people giddy to pile on and call out the league’s smaller fanbase before Caitlin.

Now let’s combine a league with mostly black players, plenty of gay players and…a lack of attention and fanbase. The best players are near anonymity.

Hmmm. Why is that?

Now white straight girl shows up and people can’t pile on the bandwagon fast enough. Sure, you could make a case she’s better…but that much better…that you get anonymity for current best players vs Caitlin’s level of popularity??

Hmmm. Why is that?

Could it be that there’s obvious racism inherent to attention spans and marginalization of black, and gay, and women players?

Naaaahhh!!!! Couldn’t possibly be!!!

This **** is disgusting. The people “in defense” of Clark that is.

You can tell they know zero about ball and are excited to pile on against the women of the league.

Carrington’s obviously calling out flop/selling the foul. Basically none of these cretins can even recognize that.

Watch on YouTube

[KembaWalker]

Accusing one side of getting “nepotism” then immediately flipping the argument around to how the worst player is a legend and deserves the spot on legacy. And on top of it being condescending and acting like you’re some long time WNBA fans and nobody else knows the name of a single WNBA player or something. Embarrassing display. Taurasi-esque

[MrDollarBills]

CC was a -30 on the floor last night against The Sun. Dijonai Carrington flat out embarrassed her. Those of you parroting Stephen A's garbage need to stop.

Most of yall in here arguing don't watch games. Maybe you should and you'll realize why she wasn't just gifted a spot on the team over established veterans with pro level accomplishments.

CC will have plenty of opportunities to play for Team USA. Most of the folks in here arguing will probably lose interest when that happens though once the media moves on from inflaming her fandom against other players.

[jc23]

These brand new WNBA/Clark fans have the audacity to say with a (I assume) straight face that these veteran players need to roll over and let Clark take over because it would be "good for the league". Like they literally said they should not guard her tough or double team her. How delusional of a take is that?

I've never seen anything like this. Of course there's going to be push back from the veteran players. Imagine getting hired on your job as an intern, working your way up for years just for the CEO's grandson to come in and get all of the money, perks and great parking spot. Of course you're going to hate it. It's called being a human being. It's natural.

Caitlin Clark isn’t a benefactor of nepotism lol, if anything it’s the complete opposite. She’s better than Taurasi right now, who’s bitter washed up geezer self won’t move on but is getting a spot on the roster for some stupid legacy/veteran thing.

Taurasi has been the face of the league and a legend for the WNBA. Her not making the team would be like team USA not putting Magic on Team USA.

I'm sorry but y'all have to stop thinking Clarke deserves everything without accomplishing anything in this league.

This is all political. For goodness sakes this lady is making world news. No basketball player should be making the news daily.

Clarke is becoming a cult like figure and she is bringing fans who never watched basketball into the league. Just look at the comments in this thread.

People don't even know who the best players of legends are in the sport.

I agree with everything here except the "all political" part. I believe most people are like myself and gradually became CC fans. Hell, i called her female Steph Curry for a few years because i had yet to learn her name. Then the 2023 tournament began and i watched more women's basketball that year then i had all years prior. Im not someone who watches mens college fyi. Her game earned her her notoriety; anyone that says different i fundamentally disagree with.

What you have is gritters on espn, youtube, twitter etc...selling the most extreme opinions to get the most view$. They make the fan bases look more extreme then they really are.

Longtime fans have to get use to noobs in the sport same way soccer fans have to during the world cup. In the end it will result in a mostly positive outcome for all involved.

[JustBuzzin]

She had 10 points last night and for the season 17ppg and 6apg.

All this talk for a average player?

Imagine the circus if her team was actually good and she was a top 5 player. She would be a GOD!

[jc23]

She had 10 points last night and for the season 17ppg and 6apg.

All this talk for a average player?

Imagine the circus if her team was actually good and she was a top 5 player. She would be a GOD!

Steph had similar numbers his rookie year to go along with a pair of styrofoam ankles. ish takes time. To be fair your also contributing to the discussion on what you call an average player. Now lets say she never improves or brings the level of excitement we saw from her in college; her popularity will dwindle.

[JustBuzzin]

She had 10 points last night and for the season 17ppg and 6apg.

All this talk for a average player?

Imagine the circus if her team was actually good and she was a top 5 player. She would be a GOD!

Steph had similar numbers his rookie year to go along with a pair of styrofoam ankles. ish takes time. To be fair your also contributing to the discussion on what you call an average player. Now lets say she never improves or brings the level of excitement we saw from her in college; her popularity will dwindle.

Candace Parker won MVP as a rookie.

Just proves this lady is over hyped. Her college career made her a icon. In reality she's more about marketing more than her actual game.

[Stannis]

Read on Twitter

?s=46

This is quite incredible tbh. The results speak for themselves.

I do think people need to get over the fact that the most popular player isn't the best player. We've seen this in the NBA a lot where the biggest jersey seller isn't actually the best player, but nobody cares.

It's good that the women's college basketball hype moved into the WNBA. They needed it.

[TinmanZBoy]

It is what it is… you’re not going to stop the media hype, arguments… fans and haters… with all of those, I hope the girl can black out all the noises, and focus on improving and helping her team to get more wins… so far CC seems to be handling all these well

[HotelVitale]

Stop with this. Clark is a good WNBA player. Do people even see how she's being guarded in the WNBA? Diana Taurasi isn't being guarded that way. Taurasi isn't even the best guard on her team, let alone one of the best guard in the country. She's a legacy pick at this point. Kelsey Plum is another player that you could have kept off for Clark.

Caitlin Clark stats
MP: 33.5
PTS: 16.8
FGA: 13.2
2P%: .373
3P%: .327
REB: 5.3
AST: 6.3
STL: 1.5
BLK: 0.9
TOV: 5.6
TS%: .553
PER: 16.4

Diana Taurasi stats
MP: 28.5
PTS: 16.3
FGA: 14.0
2P%: .370
3P%: .360
REB: 4.5
AST: 1.1
STL: 0.6
BLK: 0.1
TOV: 1.4
TS%: .523
PER: 15.2

Kelsey Plum stats
MP: 37.4
PTS: 19.3
FGA: 17.8
2P%: .363
3P%: .349
REB: 1.7
AST: 4.9
STL: 1.0
BLK: 0.0
TOV: 1.9
TS%: .500
PER: 14.7

I agree with your points that the women's team could roster Ariana Grande and still win gold which makes leaving Clark off the roster even more egregious since the on-court product won't suffer by having Clark, but NONE of the other women on the roster have anywhere near the off-the-court following Clark does. Having her on the roster instead of a Taurasi or even Plum makes the women's game a must see event. Now, people will only follow in passing. You need to get eyes on these women to grow the sport, and I don't mean posters on a basketball board, I mean people who don't normally follow basketball. Those are the people you need to rope in if you want to grow the sport. Total missed opportunity to promote women's basketball. This was a chance for Team USA management to think outside the box and they blew it.

People really need to get off the Taurasi point. Taurasi is not of the team because she's a top 12 player in the WNBA. She's on the team because she's been one of the captains of team USA over their past 4 Olympic appearances (she's won 6 gold medals). So yes, team USA has included at least one player that doesn't deserve to be there on the merit of the current level of play. This is a completely separate issue of the team making another exception for a rookie player due to popularity.

It's totally fine if there's a bunch of fans who think Caitlin Clark's popularity is a reason she HAS to be on the team. I don't get why people are so rabid about this point though. Team USA did not decide to capitalize on CC's fame and I'm not sure I really care? I'm surprised other people care so much? It seems like most of the people who suddenly care about the marketing of women's sports were here caring before the CC era. The reactionary nature of the CC era has been a bit unpleasant. (I'm a fan of Clark's and think she's going to be an incredible player).

The stats you're posting are a bad argument. Yes CC has good counting stats but most of that is her usage. Look at those turnovers... this is a player who's struggling to adapt to a big role in a bigger, extremely physical league. She'll be fine, but she's not currently amongst the best WNBA players. Her and Aaliyah Boston were both team USA candidates, but they're having little nightmare seasons right now and I wasn't surprised neither got the invite. By some statistical metrics, Clark is one of the worst performing players in the league so far this year. I've watched 5 Indiana Fever games this year, and while Clark has a ton of jaw dropping plays (which let you know she's definitely going to be fine in the long term), she also looks pretty overwhelmed and sped up by W defenses.

Taurasi might or might not play minutes as a shooting specialist. If neither Clark or Taurasi are important to the rotation, I can't fault team USA for choosing the legacy player and the veteran captain who has been part of the program for 2 decades and 6 gold medals.

Based on performance, the biggest snubs that could have replaced Taurasi are: Arike Ogunbowale, Skylar Diggins-Smith, and Dearica Hamby. I was surprised to see Ariel Atkins left off because she's been on every team USA forever. Benitjah Laney would have been a cool pick.

Only 4 WNBA rookies have ever made team USA. Candace Parker, Taurasi, Sylvia Fowles, and Stewie. All those players were basically MVP candidates as rookies (except for Fowles, who was a DPOY candidate). Parker won MVP as a rookie.

Usage? Clark's usage is nearly identical to Taurasi. Clark is at 27.9, Taurasi is at 26.5. Also, you want Taurasi on the roster, fine, then why is Chelsea Gray on the roster? She's been injured and hasn't played a game this season. There is a perfect candidate to keep home and put someone that will attract attention to this team, league and sport.

Finally, Clark set a WNBA record by being the first player to ever score 200 points and have 75 assists in her first 12 games. But that's a player that is struggling to adapt? You people have set the bar so high for this player that she'll always be a disappointment to some.

I like Clark and don't have any deep concerns for her future but if you really think it's controversial to say she's 'struggling to adapt' some then I don't think you're watching her. She's visibly struggling to create space or make the right decisions with that space on many if not most possessions. She looks great sometimes off the bounce at that, and at other times she's drilling 4-5 crazy shots in a row so looks unstoppable, and then a lot of other times she's just kind of running around and trying to make something happen that isn't quite working. I definitely think she'll work it out but she is without question struggling with translating right now. (It's not like the numbers aren't backing that up either--as has been said several times, she has like 40% more TOs than any other WNBA player, and she's been quite inefficient too. If some unknown rookie from Iona was putting up her stats right now everyone would be like 'interesting player but they must be lowkey tanking giving her that much freedom').

The point about Taurasi is already clear. It's not at all difficult to understand why you'd keep someone like Taurasi on a roster over a rookie, when both are having pretty similarly weak statistical seasons. Also stepping back it's never going to be an argument for Clark to say Taurasi or Gray haven't been that good this year. Cupcakes made that point well. You can't say 'because you chose one mediocre player for an honor you MUST choose my mediocre player!'; be like arguing that say, Jamal Magloire making an AS team once is an argument that Jock Landale (or some other mid center you're trying to boost) must always make AS teams. The NBA choosing a player poorly doesn't mean your player should or must also be chosen poorly, or be the one particular player (out of the hundreds of other undeserving ones) that gets the benefit of a poor choice.

I don't think your POV overall is invalid or anything, but I don't think the argument amounts to anything more than 'man it would've been really fun to have Caitlin Clark on team USA!' Better for you as a fan to follow, maybe a better marketing thing. Don't think the basketball, culture, vibes, etc arguments go anywhere, obvious why the team would make the decision they did for that and it's pretty hard to criticize.

[MrDollarBills]

She had 10 points last night and for the season 17ppg and 6apg.

All this talk for a average player?

Imagine the circus if her team was actually good and she was a top 5 player. She would be a GOD!

Steph had similar numbers his rookie year to go along with a pair of styrofoam ankles. ish takes time. To be fair your also contributing to the discussion on what you call an average player. Now lets say she never improves or brings the level of excitement we saw from her in college; her popularity will dwindle.

Candace Parker won MVP as a rookie.

Just proves this lady is over hyped. Her college career made her a icon. In reality she's more about marketing more than her actual game.

I wouldn't consider CC an average player. She is a highly talented rookie and I can see where she needs to improve, and frankly she needs to mature as well (stop chirping at the refs rookie).

That being said, and the media is responsible for this hype, but she is not on the level of a 22 year old Candace Parker. Or 21 year old Stewie for that matter. She has a long ways to go. And that's why she needs to sit this one out.

[cdubbz]

Read on Twitter

[cdubbz]

^Stephen A doesn't know sh*t about women's hoops. That's why Monica McNutt isn't appearing on First Take anymore because she exposed him for talking out of his ass.

This trash thread is 15 pages of people arguing for Clark to be named to a roster, where she would be sitting bench throughout the entire tournament because she isn't better than any of the guards on the roster and that includes a 42 year old Diana Taurasi.

Yall can stay mad about it, but those are facts. If you want to argue that Clark is better than Ionescu, Plum, Loyd, Gray, Taurasi, and Young right now, you might as well just admit that you don't watch women's hoops, because she isn't and that's why she isn't on the team.

A lot of the arguments i've seen from SAS and other NBA analysts or NBA players isn't for Clark to be on the team because she's BETTER than anyone on the roster, but because she's more MARKETABLE to grow the game. It's frustrating for myself to see TeamUSA fumble this.
- More eyeballs watching. More eyeballs = exposing A'Ja Wilson, Stewie, & Sabrina to those who are newer.
- Sellout Clark USA jerseys.

Yes I get that Team USA has been together and have continuity, but they've won Gold fairly easily in how many straight Olympics now? They will win the Gold with or without Clark.

I also don't think Clark would need to sit on the bench the entire tournament - USA blows out some teams by 20+ points. Showcase Clark here and there. She doesn't need to play big minutes.

[Stannis]

Read on Twitter

Wished the Knicks acted on "business" and "not emotion" back in LInsanity. Instead, they acted on emotion, let him walk, and fans got to watch Jason Kidd brick 85% of his shots in the 2013 playoffs.

[cdubbz]

Read on Twitter

Wished the Knicks acted on "business" and "not emotion" back in LInsanity. Instead, they acted on emotion, let him walk, and fans got to watch Jason Kidd brick 85% of his shots in the 2013 playoffs.

Technically it was a business decision to not match the Rockets offer to Lin from what I remember. And then getting Kidd was better anyways for them.

Situations are completely different though. I do disagree with that one statement that Gil said about men act on business and women on emotion. But the rest of the points he made were solid about jersey sales, throwing Brink and Reese on the team for all their fans. I know Brinks is already on the 3x3 team, but his point was valid.

[Doctor MJ]

She had 10 points last night and for the season 17ppg and 6apg.

All this talk for a average player?

Imagine the circus if her team was actually good and she was a top 5 player. She would be a GOD!

Steph had similar numbers his rookie year to go along with a pair of styrofoam ankles. ish takes time. To be fair your also contributing to the discussion on what you call an average player. Now lets say she never improves or brings the level of excitement we saw from her in college; her popularity will dwindle.

Candace Parker won MVP as a rookie.

Just proves this lady is over hyped. Her college career made her a icon. In reality she's more about marketing more than her actual game.

So I'll jump in just with some context and opinions here:

I think Parker winning MVP as a rookie was crazy for the voters to do, and it speaks to Parker at the time being the most hyped rookie in WNBA history after the first season when the WNBA was being hyped like crazy with Leslie, Swoopes & Lobo being the focus of that hype.

In a nutshell: If 2024 women's basketball people were thinking like 2008 women's basketball people, I think Clark's on the Olympic roster.

I don't want to come across like Parker didn't have a great WNBA career because she did, but I don't think she was ever an MVP level player. Period. This despite the fact that if you list off everything she can do on the court and watch her highlights, she seems like a GOAT candidate.

Now to be clear: I still think Parker had one of the most accomplished rookie seasons in WNBA history, but it has to be understood that the prior season LA Sparks' GOAT Lisa Leslie was out giving birth to a child. So for context, here's the Sparks' record in the run up to Parker's rookie season:

2006: 25-9 (Leslie plays)
2007: 10-24 (no Leslie)
2008: 20-14 (Leslie's back, Parker's a rookie)

The idea then that Parker was the MVP of the league joining a team that was not as good as it had been the last time they were at full strength is just pretty silly to me.

But I still say Parker had a fantastically accomplished rookie season because she played a major part on a winning team. Not Clark's fault for getting drafted on to a terrible team - that's how the draft is supposed to work - but Parker was drafted into a situation conducive to immediate team success and proved she fit, and so has something of a rookie advantage over most other ROYs in my book even if I think she got dramatically overrated as this was happening.

This then to say: While I don't think it's a given that Clark will have a better career than Parker, there's really nothing about Clark's rookie season that says she's clearly below Parker in her capacity to lead elite teams.

Now, on the other hand: I actually think there's a pretty solid case that Maya Moore (Clark's hero), was the MVP of the WNBA as a rookie. I don't think Clark is as good of a rookie as Moore, and I don't think it likely that Clark will be as good a player as Moore became. So there is a gap in my mind between Clark and the absolute best rookie in WNBA history, it's just that when comparing Clark with most of the other hyped rookies in WNBA history (Parker, Taurasi, Griner, etc), I don't really think Clark's disappointing.

(Worth noting that rookie Moore wasn't hyped for accolades beyond ROY. On her team it was the veterans Whalen & Augustus who were named All-WNBA and given serious consideration for MVP. Whalen & Augustus were on the team the previous season when the team went 13-21, and so it seems pretty weird to give them the most credit for the team going to 27-7 and winning the title the next year...but they were the top 2 PPG players on the team as Moore - unlike Parker or Clark - was asked to shift away from her college role as a mega-scorer to become a fill-in-the-gaps player. And so box score-wise, it didn't seem strange for people to assume that the rookie couldn't actually be THE difference from the previous year...but I'd say she was.)

[JustBuzzin]

Steph had similar numbers his rookie year to go along with a pair of styrofoam ankles. ish takes time. To be fair your also contributing to the discussion on what you call an average player. Now lets say she never improves or brings the level of excitement we saw from her in college; her popularity will dwindle.

Candace Parker won MVP as a rookie.

Just proves this lady is over hyped. Her college career made her a icon. In reality she's more about marketing more than her actual game.

So I'll jump in just with some context and opinions here:

I think Parker winning MVP as a rookie was crazy for the voters to do, and it speaks to Parker at the time being the most hyped rookie in WNBA history after the first season when the WNBA was being hyped like crazy with Leslie, Swoopes & Lobo being the focus of that hype.

In a nutshell: If 2024 women's basketball people were thinking like 2008 women's basketball people, I think Clark's on the Olympic roster.

I don't want to come across like Parker didn't have a great WNBA career because she did, but I don't think she was ever an MVP level player. Period. This despite the fact that if you list off everything she can do on the court and watch her highlights, she seems like a GOAT candidate.

Now to be clear: I still think Parker had one of the most accomplished rookie seasons in WNBA history, but it has to be understood that the prior season LA Sparks' GOAT Lisa Leslie was out giving birth to a child. So for context, here's the Sparks' record in the run up to Parker's rookie season:

2006: 25-9 (Leslie plays)
2007: 10-24 (no Leslie)
2008: 20-14 (Leslie's back, Parker's a rookie)

The idea then that Parker was the MVP of the league joining a team that was not as good as it had been the last time they were at full strength is just pretty silly to me.

But I still say Parker had a fantastically accomplished rookie season because she played a major part on a winning team. Not Clark's fault for getting drafted on to a terrible team - that's how the draft is supposed to work - but Parker was drafted into a situation conducive to immediate team success and proved she fit, and so has something of a rookie advantage over most other ROYs in my book even if I think she got dramatically overrated as this was happening.

This then to say: While I don't think it's a given that Clark will have a better career than Parker, there's really nothing about Clark's rookie season that says she's clearly below Parker in her capacity to lead elite teams.

Now, on the other hand: I actually think there's a pretty solid case that Maya Moore (Clark's hero), was the MVP of the WNBA as a rookie. I don't think Clark is as good of a rookie as Moore, and I don't think it likely that Clark will be as good a player as Moore became. So there is a gap in my mind between Clark and the absolute best rookie in WNBA history, it's just that when comparing Clark with most of the other hyped rookies in WNBA history (Parker, Taurasi, Griner, etc), I don't really think Clark's disappointing.

(Worth noting that rookie Moore wasn't hyped for accolades beyond ROY. On her team it was the veterans Whalen & Augustus who were named All-WNBA and given serious consideration for MVP. Whalen & Augustus were on the team the previous season when the team went 13-21, and so it seems pretty weird to give them the most credit for the team going to 27-7 and winning the title the next year...but they were the top 2 PPG players on the team as Moore - unlike Parker or Clark - was asked to shift away from her college role as a mega-scorer to become a fill-in-the-gaps player. And so box score-wise, it didn't seem strange for people to assume that the rookie couldn't actually be THE difference from the previous year...but I'd say she was.)

You lost me after you said Parker was never a MVP caliber player.

She was a point forward who could play all 5 positions if she wanted to. She's also one of the few players in history who could dunk the basketball in live game action.

If you feel this way about Parker then you are in for a rude awakening for Clarke, because I don't even think she will be in the conversation as GOAT womens player. You can look at her game and tell she's not going to be able to do the stuff she did in college. If her 3ball isn't falling she's just another player.

I just hate the media is putting all this pressure on her with these non stories and making it a big deal. At some point people will get fed up hearing her name in the news for stuff that's not even about her basketball production.

[Doctor MJ]

Candace Parker won MVP as a rookie.

Just proves this lady is over hyped. Her college career made her a icon. In reality she's more about marketing more than her actual game.

So I'll jump in just with some context and opinions here:

I think Parker winning MVP as a rookie was crazy for the voters to do, and it speaks to Parker at the time being the most hyped rookie in WNBA history after the first season when the WNBA was being hyped like crazy with Leslie, Swoopes & Lobo being the focus of that hype.

In a nutshell: If 2024 women's basketball people were thinking like 2008 women's basketball people, I think Clark's on the Olympic roster.

I don't want to come across like Parker didn't have a great WNBA career because she did, but I don't think she was ever an MVP level player. Period. This despite the fact that if you list off everything she can do on the court and watch her highlights, she seems like a GOAT candidate.

Now to be clear: I still think Parker had one of the most accomplished rookie seasons in WNBA history, but it has to be understood that the prior season LA Sparks' GOAT Lisa Leslie was out giving birth to a child. So for context, here's the Sparks' record in the run up to Parker's rookie season:

2006: 25-9 (Leslie plays)
2007: 10-24 (no Leslie)
2008: 20-14 (Leslie's back, Parker's a rookie)

The idea then that Parker was the MVP of the league joining a team that was not as good as it had been the last time they were at full strength is just pretty silly to me.

But I still say Parker had a fantastically accomplished rookie season because she played a major part on a winning team. Not Clark's fault for getting drafted on to a terrible team - that's how the draft is supposed to work - but Parker was drafted into a situation conducive to immediate team success and proved she fit, and so has something of a rookie advantage over most other ROYs in my book even if I think she got dramatically overrated as this was happening.

This then to say: While I don't think it's a given that Clark will have a better career than Parker, there's really nothing about Clark's rookie season that says she's clearly below Parker in her capacity to lead elite teams.

Now, on the other hand: I actually think there's a pretty solid case that Maya Moore (Clark's hero), was the MVP of the WNBA as a rookie. I don't think Clark is as good of a rookie as Moore, and I don't think it likely that Clark will be as good a player as Moore became. So there is a gap in my mind between Clark and the absolute best rookie in WNBA history, it's just that when comparing Clark with most of the other hyped rookies in WNBA history (Parker, Taurasi, Griner, etc), I don't really think Clark's disappointing.

(Worth noting that rookie Moore wasn't hyped for accolades beyond ROY. On her team it was the veterans Whalen & Augustus who were named All-WNBA and given serious consideration for MVP. Whalen & Augustus were on the team the previous season when the team went 13-21, and so it seems pretty weird to give them the most credit for the team going to 27-7 and winning the title the next year...but they were the top 2 PPG players on the team as Moore - unlike Parker or Clark - was asked to shift away from her college role as a mega-scorer to become a fill-in-the-gaps player. And so box score-wise, it didn't seem strange for people to assume that the rookie couldn't actually be THE difference from the previous year...but I'd say she was.)

You lost me after you said Parker was never a MVP caliber player.

She was a point forward who could play all 5 positions if she wanted to. She's also one of the few players in history who could dunk the basketball in live game action.

If you feel this way about Parker then you are in for a rude awakening for Clarke, because I don't even think she will be in the conversation as GOAT womens player. You can look at her game and tell she's not going to be able to do the stuff she did in college. If her 3ball isn't falling she's just another player.

I just hate the media is putting all this pressure on her with these non stories and making it a big deal. At some point people will get fed up hearing her name in the news for stuff that's not even about her basketball production.

I'd point to the part where I said "This despite the fact that if you list off everything she can do on the court and watch her highlights, she seems like a GOAT candidate." when you talk about the stuff in bold. I'm aware of what you say, and yet surprisingly, the data doesn't bare her being a GOAT candidate out for me.

Now as I say this: ESPN's long-time stat wonk Kevin Pelton ranked Parker as his #2 all-time WNBA player in 2021 (behind Tamika Catchings) so it's certainly not the case that all data-oriented people are low on Parker. Definitely a big factor here is that Pelton's more of a "production" analyst - meaning relying on traditional box score production - whereas I'm more of an "impact" analyst - meaning relying more on +/- data.

I'll point out one last thing: While I think everyone agrees that Parker's best years came in LA, I actually think her championship run as a role player in Chicago really highlighted what made her unusually special for a star. Basically, Parker's got so many different talents that if you already have a roster that has serious talent and you can just let her focus on what the team is weak at, she'll fill in the gaps. Most superstars can't do this - Clark certainly will never be able to because she's a Taurasi-like figure whose greatness will be determined by how much she can dominate with her scoring-based offense rather than general physical basketball talent.

But yeah, when it comes to the MVP, I think most people who go through and do the analysis year-by-year will be surprised that Parker doesn't look as strong as they'd expect. You could argue that this isn't about a fundamental lack of talent of course, but just in practice, I don't think she was ever adding more value to her team than everyone else in the WNBA.

Re: hate media, pressure, fed up, etc. Makes sense. I understand frustration with all of this, and feel some of it too.