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.
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?
Thanks! And great question. Here are the prorated rookie records for the different categories where the "real" record fell in 2024:
*Points*
Cynthia Cooper, 1997: 887
Seimone Augustus, 2006: 875
A'ja Wilson, 2018: 802
Caitlin Clark, 2024: 781
Tamika Catchings, 2002: 743
(1997 is a tricky one to deal with because it was the first year of the WNBA -- everyone was a rookie!)
*Rebounds*
Tina Charles, 2010: 468
Angel Reese, 2024: 457
Yolanda Griffith, 1999: 411
Cindy Brown, 1998: 401
Cheryl Ford, 2003: 393
*Assists*
Caitlin Clark, 2024: 337
Ticha Penicheiro, 1998: 300
Teresa Weatherspoon, 1997: 247
Sue Bird, 2002: 239
Suzie McConnell Serio, 1998: 237
*3-Pointers*
Caitlin Clark, 2024: 123
Cynthia Cooper, 1997: 96
Tamika Catchings, 2002: 95
Crystal Robinson, 1999: 95
Rhyne Howard, 2022: 94
So Clark's assists and 3P records would hold up, but the rookie scoring and rebounding records would not have held up if previous years played 40 games.
Fantastic! For me this also raises the question of pace... In the NBA, nobody is going to break Wilt's scoring and rebounding records because they played at a blistering pace by today's standards. Early 2000s NBA was the most sluggish. Do you know what the trends are in WNBA history off hand?
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.
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?
Thanks! And great question. Here are the prorated rookie records for the different categories where the "real" record fell in 2024:
*Points*
Cynthia Cooper, 1997: 887
Seimone Augustus, 2006: 875
A'ja Wilson, 2018: 802
Caitlin Clark, 2024: 781
Tamika Catchings, 2002: 743
(1997 is a tricky one to deal with because it was the first year of the WNBA -- everyone was a rookie!)
*Rebounds*
Tina Charles, 2010: 468
Angel Reese, 2024: 457
Yolanda Griffith, 1999: 411
Cindy Brown, 1998: 401
Cheryl Ford, 2003: 393
*Assists*
Caitlin Clark, 2024: 337
Ticha Penicheiro, 1998: 300
Teresa Weatherspoon, 1997: 247
Sue Bird, 2002: 239
Suzie McConnell Serio, 1998: 237
*3-Pointers*
Caitlin Clark, 2024: 123
Cynthia Cooper, 1997: 96
Tamika Catchings, 2002: 95
Crystal Robinson, 1999: 95
Rhyne Howard, 2022: 94
So Clark's assists and 3P records would hold up, but the rookie scoring and rebounding records would not have held up if previous years played 40 games.
Fantastic! For me this also raises the question of pace... In the NBA, nobody is going to break Wilt's scoring and rebounding records because they played at a blistering pace by today's standards. Early 2000s NBA was the most sluggish. Do you know what the trends are in WNBA history off hand?
Just did my own spot check league average pace, based on some years in the tables.
1997, 74
2002, 68(!)
2010, 78
2018, 78
2024, 78
So those early records are a little more impressive and Tamika Catchings moreso (Fever had a pace of 66 that season!).