Is Caitlin Clark a bigger star than any of the young NBA talent?

[durden_tyler]

This is an easy yes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[durden_tyler]

No surprise. Outside or Lebron and Curry, she's a bigger star than all the rest of the NBA's elite. I wouldn't limit it to just young stars.

Who do you think your grandma knows more? Caitlyn Clark or Giannis and Jokic? Yeah, going with Caitlyn.

Yeah...no.
How many know her outside the US?
My grandma knows Giannis.
My 7 year old nephew knows Jokic.
The guys you mentioned are global superstars.
Women's basketball is non existent globally.

My side of the world (Asia), she’s equal to Giannis, Jokic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jokeboy86]

You could make a case for it because she has become a pop culture icon.

I don't like the comparison to NBA players, because quite frankly a big reason Clark has become so huge, in addition to her entertaining play style and skill, is that the WNBA just quite frankly is really lacking in overall talent. There are no transcendent generational players, and the top players are pretty good, but the average player pales in comparison to the average nba counterpart, even accounting for differences in athleticism and height/length.

I'm sorry I usually dont take this tone but this is a nonsensical take. If you want to say Clark's big because of her story, her insane 3 pt range and her elite passing okay I wholeheartedly agree with that. But saying the WNBA is lacking in overall talent and there are no transcendent generational players is absurd. It'd be better if u had said u hadnt really been paying attention to the WNBA since its existed than the take u just posted.

[cocktailswith_2short]

No . I have better handles than she does . It auto disqualifies her .

[MrBigShot]

You could make a case for it because she has become a pop culture icon.

I don't like the comparison to NBA players, because quite frankly a big reason Clark has become so huge, in addition to her entertaining play style and skill, is that the WNBA just quite frankly is really lacking in overall talent. There are no transcendent generational players, and the top players are pretty good, but the average player pales in comparison to the average nba counterpart, even accounting for differences in athleticism and height/length.

I'm sorry I usually dont take this tone but this is a nonsensical take. If you want to say Clark's big because of her story, her insane 3 pt range and her elite passing okay I wholeheartedly agree with that. But saying the WNBA is lacking in overall talent and there are no transcendent generational players is absurd. It'd be better if u had said u hadnt really been paying attention to the WNBA since its existed than the take u just posted.

My definition of a "transcendent" player is someone like Steph or LeBron. Clark can become that, but prior to her arrival in the current WNBA there is active player even remotely close to that.

[Doctor MJ]

You could make a case for it because she has become a pop culture icon.

I don't like the comparison to NBA players, because quite frankly a big reason Clark has become so huge, in addition to her entertaining play style and skill, is that the WNBA just quite frankly is really lacking in overall talent. There are no transcendent generational players, and the top players are pretty good, but the average player pales in comparison to the average nba counterpart, even accounting for differences in athleticism and height/length.

I'm sorry I usually dont take this tone but this is a nonsensical take. If you want to say Clark's big because of her story, her insane 3 pt range and her elite passing okay I wholeheartedly agree with that. But saying the WNBA is lacking in overall talent and there are no transcendent generational players is absurd. It'd be better if u had said u hadnt really been paying attention to the WNBA since its existed than the take u just posted.

My definition of a "transcendent" player is someone like Steph or LeBron. Clark can become that, but prior to her arrival in the current WNBA there is active player even remotely close to that.

I'll just say: The next time Clark plays like the best female basketball player in the world will be the first time. Clark's mainstream breakthrough is absolutely not because she's "that much better than the competition". As someone who is cheering Clark on and doesn't see her as generally overrated, that doesn't mean I ever thought - or now think - that she's likely to be peak as the best player in WNBA history.

People may think Clark is popping to them because "she's so good", but that's really not what's happening. It's a combination of her having a game that is really exciting and her being the best player in college at a moment when women's basketball was already breaking out - the hype machine was starting to get really ramped up about Paige before her in jury, and that machinery essentially just turned it's energy to Clark after that.

[basketballwacko2]

No surprise. Outside or Lebron and Curry, she's a bigger star than all the rest of the NBA's elite. I wouldn't limit it to just young stars.

Who do you think your grandma knows more? Caitlyn Clark or Giannis and Jokic? Yeah, going with Caitlyn.

In relation to the rest of the WNBA she's the biggest draw for only her 2nd season. I think the reason is there is no reason to watch the WNBA except to see her play because the quality of the play is Horrible! They play with a ball that is smaller the NBA ball and the same size hoop. The 3pt line is 1 foot 9 inches closer. The game is shorter the season is shorter. And it's still unwatchable for me. I have tried watching and just can't.

The primary difference between a WNBA basketball and an NBA basketball lies in their size and weight. The WNBA uses a size 6 ball, which is smaller and lighter than the size 7 ball used in the NBA. Specifically, WNBA balls have a circumference of 28.5 inches and weigh 20 ounces, while NBA balls have a circumference of 29.5 inches and weigh 22 ounces,

https://fangirlclothing.com/blogs/news/whats-the-difference-between-the-wnba-and-the-nba?srsltid=AfmBOorZ_LS-DOxcxWY1rgxfg523OSMApIS9yCdUmwvA7fjqOf1PH4on

[Doctor MJ]

The impact she has as an individual in her league is pretty unprecedented:

That got me thinking, if she's actually a bigger figure in basketball today than any of the young rising NBA stars of today? Ant, Haliburton, SGA, Wemby etc.

I never thought we'd see a day when a WNBA player has that argument.

So, some thoughts:

1. Clark is absolutely a bigger mainstream phenomenon than any of the other basketball players of her generation at this time.

2. This means that if Clark has a GOAT WNBA career she's going to go down generally as a bigger deal in basketball than at least the vast majority of the "etc" we might consider form the men's side, and it will lead to the WNBA becoming a much, much bigger deal than it even is right now.

3. But of course, if Clark is never able to be a WNBA MVP or lead teams to chips because she's just not good enough at basketball, her star will sink precipitously, and quite possibly it will lead to another major setback for the WNBA, which I'd argue has had quite the run of misses in choosing which of their stars to try to hype. A good chunk of that was bad luck to be fair, but regardless of blame, the reality is that it's now probably going to be a problem for the WNBA if Clark doesn't reach the highest highs.

[basketballwacko2]

Yeah...no.
How many know her outside the US?
My grandma knows Giannis.
My 7 year old nephew knows Jokic.
The guys you mentioned are global superstars.
Women's basketball is non existent globally.

Yeah, sure.

Numbers say otherwise. What new eyes have Jokic and Giannis brought to the sport? Clark has single handedly made a boring sport stuck in perpetual decline relevant to the masses. And she did so in weeks. I'm still not watching but again, the numbers and the fact that I know more about the WNBA than I care for is proof enough. Your granny probably has a Clark jersey stashed away.

Which numbers? Where?

How many people know her in Italy, China, Greece, Spain? France, Serbia or wherever.
Nobody watches WNBA overseas.

This is probably true, I don't know I have not looked up anything to see if the games are even shown outside of the USA.

[Mephariel]

You could make a case for it because she has become a pop culture icon.

I don't like the comparison to NBA players, because quite frankly a big reason Clark has become so huge, in addition to her entertaining play style and skill, is that the WNBA just quite frankly is really lacking in overall talent. There are no transcendent generational players, and the top players are pretty good, but the average player pales in comparison to the average nba counterpart, even accounting for differences in athleticism and height/length.

I'm sorry I usually dont take this tone but this is a nonsensical take. If you want to say Clark's big because of her story, her insane 3 pt range and her elite passing okay I wholeheartedly agree with that. But saying the WNBA is lacking in overall talent and there are no transcendent generational players is absurd. It'd be better if u had said u hadnt really been paying attention to the WNBA since its existed than the take u just posted.

My definition of a "transcendent" player is someone like Steph or LeBron. Clark can become that, but prior to her arrival in the current WNBA there is active player even remotely close to that.

I think it is accurate to say that there isn't a transcendent player in the WNBA. And Clark and Paige are two of the best prospects to reach that level. My problem with Clark is not Clark, it is Clark's fanbase. Do they actually like the WNBA or just Clark? People say that you need a gateway drug to get people through the door, and Clark is that drug, but do people actually like the other side? For example, Michael Jordan got me into the NBA. Absolutely he did. But once I crossed over, I genuinely appreciate all the players. I loved to watch Shawn Kemp, David Robinson, John Stockton, Hakeem, etc.

A huge number of Clark fans seem to genuinely hate the WNBA. I never hear them talk positively about other players. They didn't think Wilson should have gotten MVP, they think nobody in the league besides Clark has talent, and everyone should kiss her ring. Every physical play against Clark should be crime and her not getting on the Olympic team should be a felony. I honestly think they wanted the WNBA to hand Clark a championship.

Having more transcendent players would certainly solve this issue. There will be more players to root for and talked about. This is why I don't think the WNBA can truly turn the corner until there are more players like Watkins, Clark, Paige, Hidalgo in every draft.

[Doctor MJ]

No surprise. Outside or Lebron and Curry, she's a bigger star than all the rest of the NBA's elite. I wouldn't limit it to just young stars.

Who do you think your grandma knows more? Caitlyn Clark or Giannis and Jokic? Yeah, going with Caitlyn.

In relation to the rest of the WNBA she's the biggest draw for only her 2nd season. I think the reason is there is no reason to watch the WNBA except to see her play because the quality of the play is Horrible! They play with a ball that is smaller the NBA ball and the same size hoop. The 3pt line is 1 foot 9 inches closer. The game is shorter the season is shorter. And it's still unwatchable for me.

The primary difference between a WNBA basketball and an NBA basketball lies in their size and weight. The WNBA uses a size 6 ball, which is smaller and lighter than the size 7 ball used in the NBA. Specifically, WNBA balls have a circumference of 28.5 inches and weigh 20 ounces, while NBA balls have a circumference of 29.5 inches and weigh 22 ounces,

https://fangirlclothing.com/blogs/news/whats-the-difference-between-the-wnba-and-the-nba?srsltid=AfmBOorZ_LS-DOxcxWY1rgxfg523OSMApIS9yCdUmwvA7fjqOf1PH4on

If Clark is watchable for you, but you also believe the rest of WNBA is unwatchable because they are worse are basketball, I've got some bad news for you:

Clark's never been the best female player around, so you're actually finding superior basketball play unwatchable relative to an inferior, and rather than simply owning that, you're deluding yourself into thinking that your preference must have its roots in the basketball insight you like to believe you have.

[Doctor MJ]

Having more transcendent players would certainly solve this issue. There will be more players to root for and talked about. This is why I don't think the WNBA can truly turn the corner until there are more players like Watkins, Clark, Paige, Hidalgo in every draft.

In reality, likely none of those players will ever be as good as Maya Moore was in the 2010s.

I'm not a hater of this new generation at all, I'm excited for every one of them, but what people need to understand is that what's happening is more about a chance in the hype surrounding women's basketball than it is a sudden escalation in female basketball talent.

Now I'm not saying it's completely unrelated to the actual basketball being played because it's not a coincidence that all the players you mention are non-bigs who play fast and shoot a lot, with 3's of course being the signature shot. I absolutely believe that pace & space is an important factor in helping women's basketball players get hyped right now.

The grand irony? The WNBA had a dynasty led by a player like this right form the jump in the '90s with Cynthia Cooper. Had the WNBA been a "copycat league" in the sense that whatever was winning WNBA chips got copied by all the other teams, the WNBA would have preceded the NBA in the 3-point transformation. Instead, what's tended to happen in the WNBA is that they copy from the NBA on a delay leading to a game that's slower and stodgier...along the lines of what you'd expect watching the NBA in the early '00s.

Why wasn't Cooper a bigger deal? Because Team USA has basically stereotyped her as a role player level player and perceived her European professional stardom as just a product of a weak league. So the WNBA, informed by that misclassification, hyped a group of younger players as the future of the women's game rather than looking to hype Cooper as something like the female Jordan come home to create the best pro league in the world.

And when you hype the wrong stars, what tends to happen is neither those wrong stars nor the right stars are able to gain the momentum they need to become a mainstream crossover celebrity.

[Dominator83]

She is single handedly the league's meal ticket. When she was announced as out for the Sky game, you were able to get a ticket for $3! Thats the impact. It reminds me of Zion's debut summer league game. Once he was out for the 2nd half, everyone stopped watching and the seats started to empty

[jokeboy86]

You could make a case for it because she has become a pop culture icon.

I don't like the comparison to NBA players, because quite frankly a big reason Clark has become so huge, in addition to her entertaining play style and skill, is that the WNBA just quite frankly is really lacking in overall talent. There are no transcendent generational players, and the top players are pretty good, but the average player pales in comparison to the average nba counterpart, even accounting for differences in athleticism and height/length.

I'm sorry I usually dont take this tone but this is a nonsensical take. If you want to say Clark's big because of her story, her insane 3 pt range and her elite passing okay I wholeheartedly agree with that. But saying the WNBA is lacking in overall talent and there are no transcendent generational players is absurd. It'd be better if u had said u hadnt really been paying attention to the WNBA since its existed than the take u just posted.

My definition of a "transcendent" player is someone like Steph or LeBron. Clark can become that, but prior to her arrival in the current WNBA there is active player even remotely close to that.

See I think you mean transcendent "star" and "player" combined. Were Kareem, Duncan, Jokic transcendent "stars"? No. Were they transcendent generational players? Absolutely. Imo Wilson and Stewart are transcendent players and its going to be hard for Clark to have a career that is equal to them. Is she a bigger star than they ever were at any point of there careers? Yes. And I would argue the WNBA has had transcendent star/players before Clark as well. Lisa Leslie was a transcendent player along with Taurasi as well. And I'm surprised everyone is acting like Candace Parker wasnt a phenom starting back in high school and with massive hype going into the WNBA(winning MVP as a rookie mind you) and playing in the 2nd largest market in the league.

[basketballRob]

Paige Bueckers is stealing her popularity.

Read on Twitter

?t=xt_lf4OoRoL3rBOV_LIOEw&s=19

Read on Twitter

?t=yzUXD0OR2zZczOc_GjDxkw&s=19

Sent from my SM-G781U using RealGM mobile app

[basketballwacko2]

No surprise. Outside or Lebron and Curry, she's a bigger star than all the rest of the NBA's elite. I wouldn't limit it to just young stars.

Who do you think your grandma knows more? Caitlyn Clark or Giannis and Jokic? Yeah, going with Caitlyn.

In relation to the rest of the WNBA she's the biggest draw for only her 2nd season. I think the reason is there is no reason to watch the WNBA except to see her play because the quality of the play is Horrible! They play with a ball that is smaller the NBA ball and the same size hoop. The 3pt line is 1 foot 9 inches closer. The game is shorter the season is shorter. And it's still unwatchable for me.

The primary difference between a WNBA basketball and an NBA basketball lies in their size and weight. The WNBA uses a size 6 ball, which is smaller and lighter than the size 7 ball used in the NBA. Specifically, WNBA balls have a circumference of 28.5 inches and weigh 20 ounces, while NBA balls have a circumference of 29.5 inches and weigh 22 ounces,

https://fangirlclothing.com/blogs/news/whats-the-difference-between-the-wnba-and-the-nba?srsltid=AfmBOorZ_LS-DOxcxWY1rgxfg523OSMApIS9yCdUmwvA7fjqOf1PH4on

If Clark is watchable for you, but you also believe the rest of WNBA is unwatchable because they are worse are basketball, I've got some bad news for you:

Clark's never been the best female player around, so you're actually finding superior basketball play unwatchable relative to an inferior, and rather than simply owning that, you're deluding yourself into thinking that your preference must have its roots in the basketball insight you like to believe you have.

I never said she was watchable. The whole game is horrible, she's a great player looking at her stats but I can't want these games. I had a girlfriend in College who was the starting pg on her team and she was a great player. IF there'd been a WNBA back then she would have been in it. But this league is horrible the officiating is rancid from the clips I"ve seen. I tried to watch some games last season and had to turn it off because the level of play was just terrible.

[basketballwacko2]

She is single handedly the league's meal ticket. When she was announced as out for the Sky game, you were able to get a ticket for $3! Thats the impact. It reminds me of Zion's debut summer league game. Once he was out for the 2nd half, everyone stopped watching and the seats started to empty

The Fever averaged about 4000 per game before she came here, I'm from Indianapolis and never been to a game. Now they're getting a full house every game. If you want to watch sloppy basketball ok for you or whoever.

[Mephariel]

Having more transcendent players would certainly solve this issue. There will be more players to root for and talked about. This is why I don't think the WNBA can truly turn the corner until there are more players like Watkins, Clark, Paige, Hidalgo in every draft.

In reality, likely none of those players will ever be as good as Maya Moore was in the 2010s.

I'm not a hater of this new generation at all, I'm excited for every one of them, but what people need to understand is that what's happening is more about a chance in the hype surrounding women's basketball than it is a sudden escalation in female basketball talent.

Now I'm not saying it's completely unrelated to the actual basketball being played because it's not a coincidence that all the players you mention are non-bigs who play fast and shoot a lot, with 3's of course being the signature shot. I absolutely believe that pace & space is an important factor in helping women's basketball players get hyped right now.

The grand irony? The WNBA had a dynasty led by a player like this right form the jump in the '90s with Cynthia Cooper. Had the WNBA been a "copycat league" in the sense that whatever was winning WNBA chips got copied by all the other teams, the WNBA would have preceded the NBA in the 3-point transformation. Instead, what's tended to happen in the WNBA is that they copy from the NBA on a delay leading to a game that's slower and stodgier...along the lines of what you'd expect watching the NBA in the early '00s.

Why wasn't Cooper a bigger deal? Because Team USA has basically stereotyped her as a role player level player and perceived her European professional stardom as just a product of a weak league. So the WNBA, informed by that misclassification, hyped a group of younger players as the future of the women's game rather than looking to hype Cooper as something like the female Jordan come home to create the best pro league in the world.

And when you hype the wrong stars, what tends to happen is neither those wrong stars nor the right stars are able to gain the momentum they need to become a mainstream crossover celebrity.

I was there watching when Cooper was playing in the WNBA. I am sorry but I think Paige, Clark, Watkins, etc. are all more advanced players. Cooper doesn't have that peak offensive style that you crave in a signature star. Clark is Curry. Paige is Chris Paul. Watkins is SGA. They each have a very high level offensive blueprint that is pleasing to watch and think about. Plus, Cooper was 34 years old when she joined the WNBA. You can't hype up a 34 year old player. But you can hype up the next generation. Clark to me is hopefully the start of the step back, long 3, shifty guard, type players that brings next level interests.

[Doctor MJ]

Having more transcendent players would certainly solve this issue. There will be more players to root for and talked about. This is why I don't think the WNBA can truly turn the corner until there are more players like Watkins, Clark, Paige, Hidalgo in every draft.

In reality, likely none of those players will ever be as good as Maya Moore was in the 2010s.

I'm not a hater of this new generation at all, I'm excited for every one of them, but what people need to understand is that what's happening is more about a chance in the hype surrounding women's basketball than it is a sudden escalation in female basketball talent.

Now I'm not saying it's completely unrelated to the actual basketball being played because it's not a coincidence that all the players you mention are non-bigs who play fast and shoot a lot, with 3's of course being the signature shot. I absolutely believe that pace & space is an important factor in helping women's basketball players get hyped right now.

The grand irony? The WNBA had a dynasty led by a player like this right form the jump in the '90s with Cynthia Cooper. Had the WNBA been a "copycat league" in the sense that whatever was winning WNBA chips got copied by all the other teams, the WNBA would have preceded the NBA in the 3-point transformation. Instead, what's tended to happen in the WNBA is that they copy from the NBA on a delay leading to a game that's slower and stodgier...along the lines of what you'd expect watching the NBA in the early '00s.

Why wasn't Cooper a bigger deal? Because Team USA has basically stereotyped her as a role player level player and perceived her European professional stardom as just a product of a weak league. So the WNBA, informed by that misclassification, hyped a group of younger players as the future of the women's game rather than looking to hype Cooper as something like the female Jordan come home to create the best pro league in the world.

And when you hype the wrong stars, what tends to happen is neither those wrong stars nor the right stars are able to gain the momentum they need to become a mainstream crossover celebrity.

I was there watching when Cooper was playing in the WNBA. I am sorry but I think Paige, Clark, Watkins, etc. are all more advanced players. Cooper doesn't have that peak offensive style that you crave in a signature star. Clark is Curry. Paige is Chris Paul. Watkins is SGA. They each have a very high level offensive blueprint that is pleasing to watch and think about. Plus, Cooper was 34 years old when she joined the WNBA. You can't hype up a 34 year old player. But you can hype up the next generation. Clark to me is hopefully the start of the step back, long 3, shifty guard, type players that brings next level interests.

Well, I don't agree with you're characterizing styles. Clark's not primarily an on-ball rover, but more of a traditional playmaker. She shoots without hesitation like Curry, but so does Trae Young and Young is also such a playmaker, so I'd say Young is the closer match to style, and I'd also say no one was saying, "You know what women's basketball needs, a bunch of Trae Youngs!". I might actually say Paige is more Curry, I'd also say Watkins is more Westbrook than SGA.

All of this may just come across as pedantic nitpicks, but the point isn't really about who is right and wrong about the analogues so much as that there's a lot more going on here than fitting into a small set of really popular archetypes.

Re: Current WNBA players more advanced than Cooper was in '90s. That's true, although I would say the same is just as true when talking about current NBA players relative to Jordan. That's not meant as a knock on Jordan to be clear - he'd change how he played if he saw others beating him doing things he wasn't doing - but in the '90s, Jordan played like a '90s player.

Re: Can't hype up a 34 year old but you can hype the next generation. Well, now you're getting to the essence of why their starting assumptions were such a handicap.

Back in 1996, the NBA thought - because Team USA's leadership thought - that they were seeing a "Golden Generation" of women's basketball talent that would allow them their best opportunity to launch a major league since Cheryl Miller broke through in the '80s. Of course they really did win the Gold medal - the first of many in a row - after falling short in 1992, so "Golden Generation" seems like an appropriate name, but only if you ignore the connotation of "A particularly special generation of players", because the reality is that none of the players they hyped (Leslie, Swoopes, Lobo) were actually that special.

In retrospect what I feel pretty comfortable saying is this:

After Cooper was born in 1963 & Miller was born in 1964, there wasn't another female player born until at least 1979 (Tamika Catchings) that even really has an argument of being at the same level, and the WNBA was launched looking to promote a cohort born in the 1971-73 range.

That's a recipe for disappointment.

Now to be clear, what I was suggesting was a long-term hype job leading up to Cooper coming back from Europe to come dominate her home country professionally. If you do that, and then keep hyping her up as such as long as she keeps leading her team to titles, then what you have a good chance to get is all sorts of buzz around the women's game as she takes her last victory laps.

Of course they couldn't even consider doing that, because Cooper was not on their radar as a player that would be a star in the WNBA at all, so I'm not saying this was so much a missed opportunity for them as much as it was a monkey wrench they weren't remotely prepared to adjust to.

And realistically, if you know that your best player is 34, and that nobody currently in their 20s is a generational player on that level, what you probably is hold off trying to make a league, a bit similar to why buzz around such a league in the '80s really died with Miller's injury.

[Doctor MJ]

In relation to the rest of the WNBA she's the biggest draw for only her 2nd season. I think the reason is there is no reason to watch the WNBA except to see her play because the quality of the play is Horrible! They play with a ball that is smaller the NBA ball and the same size hoop. The 3pt line is 1 foot 9 inches closer. The game is shorter the season is shorter. And it's still unwatchable for me.



https://fangirlclothing.com/blogs/news/whats-the-difference-between-the-wnba-and-the-nba?srsltid=AfmBOorZ_LS-DOxcxWY1rgxfg523OSMApIS9yCdUmwvA7fjqOf1PH4on

If Clark is watchable for you, but you also believe the rest of WNBA is unwatchable because they are worse are basketball, I've got some bad news for you:

Clark's never been the best female player around, so you're actually finding superior basketball play unwatchable relative to an inferior, and rather than simply owning that, you're deluding yourself into thinking that your preference must have its roots in the basketball insight you like to believe you have.

I never said she was watchable. The whole game is horrible, she's a great player looking at her stats but I can't want these games. I had a girlfriend in College who was the starting pg on her team and she was a great player. IF there'd been a WNBA back then she would have been in it. But this league is horrible the officiating is rancid from the clips I"ve seen. I tried to watch some games last season and had to turn it off because the level of play was just terrible.

If you don't find Clark to be watchable, then I would suggest you do less talking and more looking to learn from others when seeking to understand what's going on with Clark in the WNBA.