New WNBA Records Still Need Context
New WNBA Records Still Need Context
More single-season highs were set this year, but how many would have held up in the shorter schedules of yesteryear?
The 2024 WNBA schedule comes to its (pre-playoff) conclusion tonight, and that means the end of what has probably been the most successful regular season in the league’s history.
Leaguewide television ratings were up big in 2024, with Caitlin Clark’s Indiana Fever headlining 18 of the 21 games to garner at least 1 million viewers — proof that the Clark Effect is as strong as it’s ever been. The rookie crop of Clark and Angel Reese (among others) has instantly provided the league with some of its most popular stars. And, just like last year, multiple new single-season records have been set — from A’ja Wilson, who became the first player to ever eclipse 1,000 points, to Clark’s record-setting assist total in her debut.
But, just like last year, those records also need context. While today’s players are probably more skilled than ever, they also have played more games than ever before. The league expanded its schedule to 40 games per team, per season just last year, after playing 34 or fewer for the entirety of WNBA history before that point.
So naturally, with more games to work with, more records are going to fall. The question — as prompted by my former Messenger colleague Alex Azzi, with whom I worked on last year’s version of this story — is whether the new records hold up if we prorate previous seasons’ performances to 40 games as well.
Let’s run through each major single-season statistical category that has a new all-time No. 1 from this year (as we head into the last game of the regular season), and check where the new mark would rank relative to all historical seasons on a per-40-team-game basis.
Good news for Wilson and the most prestigious record to fall in 2024: Her scoring tally would rank first all-time regardless of schedule length — unlike Jewell Loyd’s mark from last season. Wilson already has more points (1,021) than Diana Taurasi’s prorated total from 2006 (1,012), and she figures to pad that lead a bit more in the Aces’ finale against the Dallas Wings. It may not be the only 1,000-point season ever anymore after our adjustment, but Wilson’s campaign is the only high-scoring performance from 2024 that survives to remain in the Top 16 all-time after prorating earlier seasons.
2024 was also a banner year for rebounding records. Reese broke the all-time mark for boards in a season during her 19-rebound outing against the Lynx on Sept. 1, and with eight games left for the Sky from there, it seemed like she would obliterate the mark previously held by Sylvia Fowles in 2018. But unfortunately, Reese suffered a season-ending injury shortly thereafter, and her reign atop the historical leaderboard ended up being very short — Wilson passed her for a new record earlier this week.
(“Record for what?” Wilson said when told of the new mark. “Rebounds? Oh, um, that’s cool. I don’t hunt rebounds, you know, so it’s not something that’s always on my mind.” 😂)
Reese still has the offensive rebound record — but neither mark would be No. 1 in a world where previous seasons were 40 games long. Fowles (2018), Jonquel Jones (2017) and Tina Charles (2010) all had more total boards per 40 games than either Wilson or Reese, and Yolanda Griffith had more offensive boards per 40 than Reese in both 2000 and 2001.
One of Clark’s most impressive accomplishments — out of many — was immediately setting a new all-time WNBA mark for assists in a season. She broke Alyssa Thomas’ old mark (set last year) with No. 317 of the season, one of nine dimes she dropped against the two-time defending champion Aces last Friday.
However, Courtney Vandersloot still reigns supreme if we prorate older seasons to 40 games each. Rather than Clark leading at 329, Vandersloot would be the only WNBA player to ever notch 400 assists in a single season for her work in 2020 — leaving the Fever phenom with still something left to aim for in the record books going forward.
OK, so 2-pointers isn’t exactly the sexiest category — not like 3-pointers, where Sabrina Ionescu’s record of 128 from last season is still eight clear of Clark’s current mark1 — but it is another all-time mark that fell this year to Wilson, in the midst of one of the greatest individual seasons ever.
It’s also a mark that would stand the test of time even if previous eras played 40 games per team. Wilson already had this record — raw or prorated — from last season, and she has already blown away her own 2023 mark, so it’s just a matter of how high she can set the bar… and then probably go for it again next season.
Now let’s dig into some of the advanced value metrics, since a few of those records have fallen in 2024 as well. The first is Estimated Wins Added (EWA), which is the total-value version of Player Efficiency Rating (PER). Wilson is currently jockeying with 2007’s Lauren Jackson for the highest single-season PER in WNBA history; her 34.92 mark fractionally trails Jackson’s 35.04 heading into the regular season finale. (Incidentally, Wilson and Jackson own each of the top four WNBA PER seasons ever.)
But because Wilson played more games, she already owned the “real” EWA record and set a brand-new mark this season. And where does Wilson rank on a per-40-team-game basis? She’s at No. 1, comfortably leading Cynthia Cooper from 1997 and Tamika Catchings from 2002, with Jackson’s 2007 ranking lower because she only played 74.7 percent of Seattle’s available minutes (versus Wilson’s 83.6 percent for Las Vegas this year).
Wilson also set a new WNBA single-season record for Win Shares this year, eclipsing her own mark (and that of Breanna Stewart, who was ever-so-slightly behind) from last season. But sorry, A'ja: Our prorated record belongs to the original WNBA GOAT, Cynthia Cooper, who owns both of the Top 2 spots on the all-time list (and three of the Top 5).
Some of the flaws of Win Shares were laid bare when Clark was struggling to beat Reese for No. 1 rookie status earlier in the year, so this is hardly a definitive statement on the greatness of Wilson’s near-certain MVP campaign. But it is a major statistical category with a new all-time leader — except when we account for schedule lengths by season.
Finally, let’s look at Consensus Wins (CW), my composite of EWA, WS and Estimated RAPTOR wins — a blend that is designed to take the overall temperature of what “The Metrics” think of a given player.
And again, Wilson broke her already-existing CW record from a year ago, this time leaving zero doubt over Stewart (whom she beat by a mere 0.1 wins in 2023). But in part because RAPTOR is not quite as high on Wilson as the other metrics — she is still No. 1, just with a lower implied win total somewhat due to surprisingly non-dominant plus/minus stats — Wilson’s prorated tally of 12.5 Consensus Wins per 40 games is not quite tops on the list of GOAT seasons.
Whom does she trail? Unsurprisingly, Cooper’s 1997 and 1998 masterpiece seasons with the Houston Comets check in ahead of Wilson. She’s also behind Tamika Catchings’ 2002 rookie campaign with the Indiana Fever — an underrated gem of an all-around season that saw her dominate at both ends of the court. And then, there’s Sheryl Swoopes’ 2000, which stands as the greatest overall season in WNBA history by the metrics.
It’s kind of fitting, since Swoopes has been so critical of the younger generation of WNBA players — most notably Clark. Based on this analysis, Swoopes has also been a victim of the WNBA’s modernization over the years, with her dominance getting erased to a degree as records are inflated by longer schedules.
Overall, more official records fell this season after a handful had already gone down in the expanded schedule of 2023. But unlike last year — when none of the new major records would have actually stuck if everyone had always played 40 games a year — a few of this year’s all-time marks would hold up regardless of the era. Well, a few that belong to A'ja Wilson, that is.
Wilson’s prorated 2024 records for scoring, 2-pointers and Estimated Wins Added are legitimately the best the WNBA has ever seen, unaided by today’s extra-long seasons. The rest of the league’s new record holders were bolstered by playing more games — an advantage previous generations didn’t get to benefit from. But don’t worry: They’ll still have plenty more chances in the future to surpass their predecessors on a per-game basis.
Filed under: WNBA
Clark averages 3.1 made 3s per game, and her season-high is 7, so one might think Ionescu’s mark is safe for this year with one game left for the Fever… But never say never when it comes to Caitlin Clark breaking records.
Nice article! I love that A'ja's records are standing through historical context. Watching her in person, she seems like a woman from the future head and shoulders above the rest (with a smooth shot and LeBron vision) compared to the mere mortals she shares the court with.
How do the rookie-specific records Clark and Reese have recorded hold up?
For someone who only recently got swept up in the "Clark Effect" this was helpful since I was completely unaware of the expanded number of games. Having said that, records are becoming increasingly meaningless and not easily rectified by simple extrapolations. While they remain valuable to individual athletes for compensation, exposure and ego reasons, their connection to history or any belief in their reflecting a statistical "truth" is already tenuous to the point of extinction.
The reason is the exploding rule changes across sports. When I was much younger, only baseball occupied the zeitgeist of historical statistical analysis. Every kid could list off the key leaders in baseball's historical stats - but strangely, not other sports. Baseball records were part of the culture. When my parents would watch Dragnet or Adam-12, the police badge displayed at the end was #714, which I immediately tied to Babe Ruth and knew Jack Webb was a fan. Same with number 56, 406, 42 and so on - we knew what they represented.
This was so, because baseball had a longer history and was considered "purer" in terms of the rules. Major changes were rarely made and when they were involved much hand wringing and criticism bordering on hostile outrage. The implementation of the DH in 1973 is an example, it silenced many a Thanksgiving dinner when carelessly brought up. You see, rule purity meant something to fans and was not for sale. Records were sacrosanct.
The rare exception in other sports involved field goals! Outside of Tom Dempsey's unbelievable (even today I can't really comprehend it - RIP Mr. Dempsey) half-footed 63-yard field goal on a horrible field, football and basketball records were opaque and of no interest broadly. It was only when I was an adult many years later that l was surprised to learn that the NBA changed the width of the key on the floor specifically to stop Wilt Chamberlain's dominance and records - during his career. Think about that and what that means to records.
That was seen as a tragic one off and a lesson in bad judgment. Rules were still changed - but very reluctantly. This included the NFL's 5-yard rule in 1978 which ushered in the modern passing game - and why QB Passer Rating is no longer relevant as a comparison tool - and Ken Anderson wildly underrated as a QB. You simply can't compare him to Joe Burrow with Passer Rating.
Today, the rules are on sale at the discount aisle, and the purity of the rules is long passe and meme worthy of "old lawn chair dude" depictions. We are constantly chasing amorphous "aesthetics" and "entertainment value" but never quite reaching a satisfactory state. Rule changes beget only demands for more rule changes. It's growing by leaps and bounds.
Everyone is now in such a hurry to get some state of aesthetic perfection that we no longer allow the games to breathe - to evolve naturally. It's revolution we seek - not evolution.
This morning, I awoke to talking points that the NFL should ban "2-high" coverages by restricting the depth safeties are allowed to play - you know, just like baseball did with the shift ban. Yeah, I also know that didn't work either, but the rule book will nevertheless grow larger along with fan discontent. Its' like watching the dramatic irony in The Blair Witch Project over and over, where the increasingly lost characters are somehow outraged at Mike for losing the map that never helped anyway.
Every year, the NFL announces that the Rules Committee will consider an increasing number of rule changes caused by fan outrage and growing conspiracy theories as to the fixing of games. The Rule Book gets thicker, but the officials become more confused and indecisive and the dissatisfaction with the product only grows. So much so, that we now must have "Rules Experts" on telecasts to tell us why what we just saw is somehow wrong. Social media - again - explodes in anger...every single year. The NFL promises to fix the problems in the offseason. Glenn Frey prophetically said it best years back, "you read it in the headlines, you hear it every day...they say they're gonna stop it, but it doesn't go away."
The NBA is the same. Everyone knows about the 3-point shot and how it changed the game. It's usually offered as a narrow parable of how the statistical hipsters were "proven right after all" after finally convincing the dim-witted front offices that 3 is greater than 2 (you can chuckle now). Yet, what is not focused on enough is how it made the game completely different - a game that fans increasingly don't like from an "aesthetics perspective." They long for some low-post action beyond the 3-point barrage and constant fawning over the vaporous "rim protection" - whatever that means.
For perspective, consider if I were to make a proposal that the NBA go back to the narrow key dimensions when Wilt started to encourage more down low play. Do you know what? I bet I would get quite a few votes for that proposal. In fact, a few historically challenged people might be inclined to call it "a brilliant and elegant solution."
It isn't. It's a sad and ironic commentary on how circuitous our dissatisfaction has become and how too often we now immediately look to rule changes instead of allowing the games to naturally evolve, develop and adjust.
Instead, we now talk incessantly about moving the mound back, or requiring starters to go 6 innings, or the "double hook" to save arms, or new points of emphasis to once again address pass interference or what is a catch, or changing the kickoff and onside kicks to make them utterly banal, or clarifying what is excessive celebration or banning so called "hip drop tackles" that were opposed by the NFLPA and nobody seems to now be able to describe just as the Union specifically warned about, or adding a 2:00 minute warning in CFB to sell more stuff, or reducing the regular season schedules to expand the postseason or requiring 65 games to be eligible for season awards...and so on and so on.
As we have said here many times, the rules are the game...and today the rules are ruining the games one change at a time. They are also ruining the value of historical records. Records have little value except in the moment because they will undoubtedly be changed profoundly if you can only wait just a few more months.
Thanks as always for the space.