A great piece that covers this topic in depth and in an extremely balanced way. More specifically, I found this piece inspirational - in the sense that it set my mind to wandering on a detour to a bunch of topics. I'll cover two here.
First, an admission. I don't watch or follow the WNBA or Caitlin Clark beyond seeing occasional highlights. So, I'm not a perfect observer I'll acknowledge up front. Given that caveat, what strikes me when I do see highlights is how much more advanced guard play seems to be than low post play. The WNBA guards seem to be very athletic, with very good quickness and athleticism, with the ability to shoot and guard aggressively.
The low post seems much slower and far less athletic - as if high school coaches early on identify their most athletic players and immediately put them at guard. Some of this is likely also due to a current overall lack of taller women players versus smaller guards.
Often, when I see a tall player get to a spot in the low post, they simply toss the ball off the glass for an easy bucket as defenders stand flat footed with their arms raised. This contrasted with guards who seem to have hands in their face on many contested shots. Those easy low post buckets are not often seen in the NBA because the player knows that some athletic big is waiting for the block - resulting in a kick out pass.
This feels entirely natural to me as the WNBA grows and develops and reminds me of those old videos of the NBA in the 1950s where guards dribbled around with speed while George Mikan grabbed a pass and turned around and banked it in (later a drill called the "Mikan Drill."). So, I would expect to see significant development and increases in athleticism for bigger players over time - like what happened in the NBA.
For now, that means to me that guards entering the WNBA can be expected to have a harder transition than those playing center or power forward. So, Clark's output isn't particularly surprising to me at all - and your data appears to support that.
Beyond that, my mind wandered back to 1976 and the Summer Olympics in Montreal. Going into the games the US women's gymnastics team was not expected to do much - and that was in fact the result. However, another gymnast - Nadia Comaneci - captured the world's attention at only 14. The Montreal Games were at the height of the Cold War, and Comaneci was different than us - she was part of the Soviet Block which we were supposed to hate.
That didn't happen. In fact, something incredible occurred. In the months that followed, young American girls flooded into gyms across the country "to be like Nadia." The result was Mary Lou Retton and a team silver medal in Los Angeles a mere 8 years later.
I'm sure somewhere in Bucharest you can find a 60 plus year old woman who was left off the Romanian team in 1976 who still contends that she was the better more deserving and experienced gymnast who - but for the Karolyis - should have gone instead of Comaneci. There is probably some truth in her bitter words.
But the larger point remains. History and the US Women's Gymnastics program - will remember Comaneci forever. Not just because of her perfect scores, but because she had charisma and a magnetism that drew viewers and inspired a generation of young girls and others to take up the sport...despite the seemingly insurmountable geopolitical barriers.
Revolutionaries are often not the smartest, highest performing or most talented among us at a point in time. They are, however, inspirational. Comaneci was revolutionary to the sport because she crafted a vision of the future that so many young athletes suddenly wanted to dedicate themselves to and occupy - politics notwithstanding. In a word she was inspirational, and the sport rose to new heights because we were able to put politics aside and be inspired.
That is what I do not understand about the reaction to Clark. Instead of embracing her obvious magnetism and elevating the sport so that all WNBA and female basketball players benefit, we seem as a divided nation more intent on pushing narratives and arguments in support of those narratives rather than capturing her huge potential upside. What a loss.
Like that lonely Romanian gymnast looking out the window in her sad apartment, we are fighting phantoms and missing the point. The US team will likely win the gold medal - with or without the last 5 players on the bench. Whether or not Clark's VORP or other metric is shy of somebody else is confusing the forest for the trees here.
We have Nadia moment right in front of us to inspire another group of young women toward basketball, and instead of embracing that and leveraging it, the WNBA and others seem to be fighting it and blowing it. I just shake my head at this enormous, missed opportunity for so many.
I suspect this is the point that Brennan, Kornheiser and others are making. Regardless of her stats, I think they are right.
A quick follow-up from below. As we discussed, what small sample of Clark's passing I saw struck me as having a very high level of difficulty - resulting in a high level of turnovers as she learns the challenges of a new League and her teammates get better with anticipation. It appears that many of those passes are now connecting as her teammates grow more comfortable with her style and are now looking for the ball in certain spots that they didn't previously.
So, while her TOs will likely remain high until next year, the expected increase in AST/TO ratio is starting to appear already.
Shooting is still an issue due to the athleticism she faces at the perimeter as a guard. In watching the end of one her games, she looked very fatigued. This is to be expected because she had a high-pressure college season (both on and off the court) which immediately rolled into more pressure and scrutiny in the WNBA. I would suspect that not being selected for the Olympics will help her enormously over the last 15 games as she gets much needed rest.
Still, she has to be exhausted at this point which will impact her shooting as every shot is contested. I wouldn't be surprised if she gets much stronger in the offseason and has an enormous year in 2025. We'll see, but an interesting story to follow.
Yes, this article somehow completely ignores that her turnovers are a result of extremely high level passes and that’s why, like every great passer in history, her turnovers are high.
I don’t think we have to wait until 2025 for a great season, though I’m sure you’re right and she be even better then. But she’s having a hell of a historic season now - for example you said Clark’s output “doesn’t surprise you.” But her output, even when she was apparently struggling, was above 15-5-5, which generally earns players All-W honors. it’s unfortunate that it seems folks’ need to be contrarian is stopping them from appreciating what’s right in front of them.
Jill, thank you for the thoughtful follow-up here. I think we are in complete agreement.
First regarding Clark's numbers, it wasn't her counting stats that were suboptimal in my view, it was her efficiency - her shooting percentage in particular. I viewed that in part as a matter of normal rookie adjustment and expected fatigue as well as the fact that she has had an incredibly stressful and long year from Iowa to the Draft to the WNBA season. Not enough attention has been paid to the enormous expectations and demands she has had to carry all year long.
As noted above, I suspected that she would finish stronger over the final 15 games following much needed rest from the Olympics layoff. That is happening to say the least. 2025 was simply a comment as to her increasing trajectory for next year, not a slight on her performance this year.
With regard to the unfortunate "glass half full" contrarian view of Clark, I similarly agree as noted above as well:
"...That is what I do not understand about the reaction to Clark. Instead of embracing her obvious magnetism and elevating the sport so that all WNBA and female basketball players benefit, we seem as a divided nation more intent on pushing narratives and arguments in support of those narratives rather than capturing her huge potential upside. What a loss."
So, I'm excited to see her finish this season strong and develop even more next year. Thank you again for reading and reaching out to offer your perspectives here.
Something new fans might not be aware of is that shooting efficiency in the WNBA is generally low - there’s been a drop off in efficiency for every single player, even the Candace Parker/Diana Taurasi type of generational rookie seasons. So that is not a reflection on CC, but on the nature of league play itself. Even with efficiency struggles, she is above league true shooting average.
Secondly, CC has been playing well long before the Olympic Break, and that’s what I keep seeing overlooked. Even when she “struggling,” she was averaging 15-5-5, which are historic numbers in the WNBA. I think an unfortunate side effect of so many fans just now tuning in is that they don’t really have an understanding of the nature of play in the W, and thus thought CC was underperforming, when actually she was exceeding expectations.
You realize that it’s not like “the hype is exceeding CC’s performance” but that you’re using an absolutely braindead way of measuring her performance?
All of the advanced stats you’re measuring by are TEAM stats. Reese’s team has had a much easier schedule, thus her ”performance” by these team stats reflects that. She also does not have Clark’s level of responsibility, something you seem to be aware of, and yet you seem not to factor into judging Clark’s performance at all. When you’re tasked with more responsibility, you may lose efficiency points in the advanced algebra, but it does not mean that you’re having a subpar rookie year or need time to adjust. It just means you have a lot of responsibility. This point can be further proven by you sharing the players on Indiana whose offensive rating is higher than Clark’s - they include Temi Fagbenle, who’s been out for the majority of the season with an injury, and Damiris Dantas, who just joined the team. This should point to how it’s a flawed metric. I’m not sure how you didn’t arrive at this conclusion yourself, as you keep stating how bigs have better metrics - that’s because the metrics favor bigs, not because the bigs are better than guards. For example, of course bigs will have better efficiency and lower turnovers than guards. Their shots are much higher percentage and they handle the ball less, by nature of the position.
Additionally, you keep comparing her to Plum and Sabrina. I’m not sure in what way her rookie year resembles theirs at all, seeing as Plum averaged like 5 ppg and came off the bench as a rookie, and Sabrina as you stated got injured three games in. They really share no similarities other than all three are white guards - they don’t even play the same position. Clark is a point guard, and they’re both shooting guards. Neither were running a “heliocentric” offense as rookies. Neither of them possess Clark’s passing or shooting ability - you say Clark doesn’t get “extra points” for shooting from range, but that’s being ignorant (willingly or unwillingly, I don’t know.) Shooting from that far out stretches the defense in ways teams aren’t used to having to guard - that is, after all, why her bigs numbers are so great. Her gravity that far out gives them a ton of open looks.
Due to these measurements being so flawed, I also don’t think any of them were considered in deciding the Olympic team. I’d think instead they maybe would’ve liked to take a point guard, since theirs was injured. Additionally, Diana Taurasi was taken as a rookie guard, even thought by your logic apparently all guards suck as rookies.
Lastly, you cannot seriously believe lineups with Clark don’t improve the Fever. The plus/minus being better without her again only serves to highlight that as a flawed statistic - additionally, for those watching the games, you can see the “superior” lineup is used against weaker teams, thus of course they perform better. Again, net rating is a team stat more than anything else.
I understand if you’re not a fan of Clark, all of the hype about her is frustrating. However, I think there is a middle ground that doesn’t have to involve cherry picking stats to try to state that she’s not at all living up to expectations. She’s averaging numbers that generally have put players on All-W teams. The Fever is comfortably in the playoffs for the first time in nearly a decade. I don’t know how serves the W to act like a legitimately game-changing rookie actually isn’t all that great. Why would we want Clark to just be another Plum or Ionescu (or Andrew Wiggins), when her talent and performance thus far both show that she’s clearly going to surpass both of them - and not just in terms of popularity, as you keep trying to claim. I think it could serve you to take your own advice, and evaluate her strengths and weaknesses in a more objective matter, not just by using these cherry-picked stats not generally used to judge individual performance.
First of all, thanks for subscribing, even if it was just to leave this comment. ;)
Second of all, these types of advanced metrics -- especially RAPTOR-like metrics that try to tease out a player's effect on his/her team's net rating -- are the standard baseline for how NBA teams measure player performance. (I should know; I used to work for one.) They're not team stats, they explicitly try to separate the individual's value from team factors. Metrics like Offensive Rating are, indeed, influenced by team context; I mention it as one of the factors that help explain part of what is being accounted for in the overall picture, but it is just one descriptive measure of many.
Third of all, Estimated RAPTOR is position-agnostic. It literally is designed so that every position is perfectly balanced on average across the league. So it is absolutely not the case that bigs have an inherent advantage -- the opposite is actually true.
Finally, I have nothing against Clark. I have been a huge fan of hers for years in college, and I even made an updating tracker following her record-breaking progress last season:
This is my point about a general lack of objectivity about her from all sides, though. I look at things through the prism of statistics, and call things how they are off of those. Perhaps the stats miss things sometimes -- but again, that is a framework that every NBA team uses at least as a starting point for their assessments. Given all of the emotions and needless political noise around Clark (from all directions, for no good reason), my job is to provide an assessment that contains none of that, and merely goes off of the numbers.
And yet, you continually compare her to Sabrina Ionescu and Kelsey Plum, both of whose rookie years she’s absolutely blowing out of the water. What would have prompted you to do that, other than going off of outside noise? It doesn’t seem very objective to compare her to players that are so different from her. It seems you wanted to frame her as having a multiple season adjustment period as they did, when her “adjustment period” was maybe a few weeks, and most of the adjustment was not a result of her being a rookie but of being a point guard playing with a new team.
I am aware that these ratings are used to measure individual impact on a team - however, as you just stated, they are used as a starting point and are never generally used in a VACUUM the way you’re using them, and not with as small of a sample size as you had at the point of writing this article. I don’t know why you would only use these stats, other than as an over correction for what you’ve stated as “all the noise surrounding her.” You speak to the stats informing an overall picture, but you’re not using them that way. There are many other factors that would play into a comprehensive “rookie ranking,” including, say, basic counting stats and where each rookie’s teams currently fall in the standings.
And sharing that you wrote an article measuring Clark’s milestone doesn’t really show me you’re a fan of hers, just that you wanted to capitalize on a moment everyone was talking about. I imagine that’s why you’re writing incendiary rookie rankings based purely on advanced algebra and yes it probably was silly of me to indulge and pay $6
Because they're useful avatars for the overall trend in the data of guards taking longer than bigs to break out? (I also mentioned Jackie Young as another example, though she started from a higher level as a rookie.) Seems simple enough to understand...
When I wrote this story nearly 2 months ago, Clark's RAPTOR was essentially the same as Ionescu's was in her true rookie year of 2021 (tossing out the injured 2020 season). But as I note here, Clark has improved that number a lot since then:
So she is improving at a more rapid rate than we would even expect from the historical data. But that historical baseline is useful as a comparison point, because it helps contextualize the expectations for her growth going forward.
They’re not the only two guards to ever enter the league, and again, neither them nor Jackie Young play the same position as Clark. It would be more accurate to compare to a point guard. But if you choose them to compare her to, why would you not point out how her rookie season is a lot better. I’m not sure why you wouldn’t do that, unless again, you’re trying to say she’s going to have a multi-year transition which it does not appear is going to be the case.
As for Sabrina’s RAPTOR rating her sophomore being the same as Caitlin’s - again, why would that be an apt comparison? When Sabrina had an entire season of exposure to the WNBA, and an offseason of training under her belt?
But overall, Clark is showing an exception to the guard rule you lay out, about the transition, and has shown that all season. You lay out in your rookie rankings, that in addition to RAPTOR rankings, you factor in scoring, true shooting percentage, assist rate, and rebounding percentage. Those are all categories in which Clark leads Reese - and while she doesn’t lead her in rebounding, she is an excellent rebounder for a guard. But you don’t actually seem to consider them in your rankings at all. I read the NBA rookie rankings every week and never was only RAPTOR used. So I return to my initial point - you seem intent on proving that Clark is “not living up to the hype,” and that the hype is overblown, when by pretty much every metric she is excelling. You even said in the article you linked that they have the easiest schedule moving forward - does that not mean Angel’s schedule has been easier? Why would that not factor into the rankings? And your point also seems to be grounded in the fact that “all guards struggle,” but you do not acknowledge that she is already very much lapping the rookie years of guards you keep using as examples.
You also just wrote an article during the college season about why Paige Bueckers is better than Caitlin Clark (based on their high school rankings of all things), so I’m not sure why you’re acting like you don’t have a bias against her and are determined to rank anyone you can above her
A great piece that covers this topic in depth and in an extremely balanced way. More specifically, I found this piece inspirational - in the sense that it set my mind to wandering on a detour to a bunch of topics. I'll cover two here.
First, an admission. I don't watch or follow the WNBA or Caitlin Clark beyond seeing occasional highlights. So, I'm not a perfect observer I'll acknowledge up front. Given that caveat, what strikes me when I do see highlights is how much more advanced guard play seems to be than low post play. The WNBA guards seem to be very athletic, with very good quickness and athleticism, with the ability to shoot and guard aggressively.
The low post seems much slower and far less athletic - as if high school coaches early on identify their most athletic players and immediately put them at guard. Some of this is likely also due to a current overall lack of taller women players versus smaller guards.
Often, when I see a tall player get to a spot in the low post, they simply toss the ball off the glass for an easy bucket as defenders stand flat footed with their arms raised. This contrasted with guards who seem to have hands in their face on many contested shots. Those easy low post buckets are not often seen in the NBA because the player knows that some athletic big is waiting for the block - resulting in a kick out pass.
This feels entirely natural to me as the WNBA grows and develops and reminds me of those old videos of the NBA in the 1950s where guards dribbled around with speed while George Mikan grabbed a pass and turned around and banked it in (later a drill called the "Mikan Drill."). So, I would expect to see significant development and increases in athleticism for bigger players over time - like what happened in the NBA.
For now, that means to me that guards entering the WNBA can be expected to have a harder transition than those playing center or power forward. So, Clark's output isn't particularly surprising to me at all - and your data appears to support that.
Beyond that, my mind wandered back to 1976 and the Summer Olympics in Montreal. Going into the games the US women's gymnastics team was not expected to do much - and that was in fact the result. However, another gymnast - Nadia Comaneci - captured the world's attention at only 14. The Montreal Games were at the height of the Cold War, and Comaneci was different than us - she was part of the Soviet Block which we were supposed to hate.
That didn't happen. In fact, something incredible occurred. In the months that followed, young American girls flooded into gyms across the country "to be like Nadia." The result was Mary Lou Retton and a team silver medal in Los Angeles a mere 8 years later.
I'm sure somewhere in Bucharest you can find a 60 plus year old woman who was left off the Romanian team in 1976 who still contends that she was the better more deserving and experienced gymnast who - but for the Karolyis - should have gone instead of Comaneci. There is probably some truth in her bitter words.
But the larger point remains. History and the US Women's Gymnastics program - will remember Comaneci forever. Not just because of her perfect scores, but because she had charisma and a magnetism that drew viewers and inspired a generation of young girls and others to take up the sport...despite the seemingly insurmountable geopolitical barriers.
Revolutionaries are often not the smartest, highest performing or most talented among us at a point in time. They are, however, inspirational. Comaneci was revolutionary to the sport because she crafted a vision of the future that so many young athletes suddenly wanted to dedicate themselves to and occupy - politics notwithstanding. In a word she was inspirational, and the sport rose to new heights because we were able to put politics aside and be inspired.
That is what I do not understand about the reaction to Clark. Instead of embracing her obvious magnetism and elevating the sport so that all WNBA and female basketball players benefit, we seem as a divided nation more intent on pushing narratives and arguments in support of those narratives rather than capturing her huge potential upside. What a loss.
Like that lonely Romanian gymnast looking out the window in her sad apartment, we are fighting phantoms and missing the point. The US team will likely win the gold medal - with or without the last 5 players on the bench. Whether or not Clark's VORP or other metric is shy of somebody else is confusing the forest for the trees here.
We have Nadia moment right in front of us to inspire another group of young women toward basketball, and instead of embracing that and leveraging it, the WNBA and others seem to be fighting it and blowing it. I just shake my head at this enormous, missed opportunity for so many.
I suspect this is the point that Brennan, Kornheiser and others are making. Regardless of her stats, I think they are right.
Thanks again for the inspiration.
A quick follow-up from below. As we discussed, what small sample of Clark's passing I saw struck me as having a very high level of difficulty - resulting in a high level of turnovers as she learns the challenges of a new League and her teammates get better with anticipation. It appears that many of those passes are now connecting as her teammates grow more comfortable with her style and are now looking for the ball in certain spots that they didn't previously.
So, while her TOs will likely remain high until next year, the expected increase in AST/TO ratio is starting to appear already.
Shooting is still an issue due to the athleticism she faces at the perimeter as a guard. In watching the end of one her games, she looked very fatigued. This is to be expected because she had a high-pressure college season (both on and off the court) which immediately rolled into more pressure and scrutiny in the WNBA. I would suspect that not being selected for the Olympics will help her enormously over the last 15 games as she gets much needed rest.
Still, she has to be exhausted at this point which will impact her shooting as every shot is contested. I wouldn't be surprised if she gets much stronger in the offseason and has an enormous year in 2025. We'll see, but an interesting story to follow.
Yes, this article somehow completely ignores that her turnovers are a result of extremely high level passes and that’s why, like every great passer in history, her turnovers are high.
I don’t think we have to wait until 2025 for a great season, though I’m sure you’re right and she be even better then. But she’s having a hell of a historic season now - for example you said Clark’s output “doesn’t surprise you.” But her output, even when she was apparently struggling, was above 15-5-5, which generally earns players All-W honors. it’s unfortunate that it seems folks’ need to be contrarian is stopping them from appreciating what’s right in front of them.
Jill, thank you for the thoughtful follow-up here. I think we are in complete agreement.
First regarding Clark's numbers, it wasn't her counting stats that were suboptimal in my view, it was her efficiency - her shooting percentage in particular. I viewed that in part as a matter of normal rookie adjustment and expected fatigue as well as the fact that she has had an incredibly stressful and long year from Iowa to the Draft to the WNBA season. Not enough attention has been paid to the enormous expectations and demands she has had to carry all year long.
As noted above, I suspected that she would finish stronger over the final 15 games following much needed rest from the Olympics layoff. That is happening to say the least. 2025 was simply a comment as to her increasing trajectory for next year, not a slight on her performance this year.
With regard to the unfortunate "glass half full" contrarian view of Clark, I similarly agree as noted above as well:
"...That is what I do not understand about the reaction to Clark. Instead of embracing her obvious magnetism and elevating the sport so that all WNBA and female basketball players benefit, we seem as a divided nation more intent on pushing narratives and arguments in support of those narratives rather than capturing her huge potential upside. What a loss."
So, I'm excited to see her finish this season strong and develop even more next year. Thank you again for reading and reaching out to offer your perspectives here.
Something new fans might not be aware of is that shooting efficiency in the WNBA is generally low - there’s been a drop off in efficiency for every single player, even the Candace Parker/Diana Taurasi type of generational rookie seasons. So that is not a reflection on CC, but on the nature of league play itself. Even with efficiency struggles, she is above league true shooting average.
Secondly, CC has been playing well long before the Olympic Break, and that’s what I keep seeing overlooked. Even when she “struggling,” she was averaging 15-5-5, which are historic numbers in the WNBA. I think an unfortunate side effect of so many fans just now tuning in is that they don’t really have an understanding of the nature of play in the W, and thus thought CC was underperforming, when actually she was exceeding expectations.
You realize that it’s not like “the hype is exceeding CC’s performance” but that you’re using an absolutely braindead way of measuring her performance?
All of the advanced stats you’re measuring by are TEAM stats. Reese’s team has had a much easier schedule, thus her ”performance” by these team stats reflects that. She also does not have Clark’s level of responsibility, something you seem to be aware of, and yet you seem not to factor into judging Clark’s performance at all. When you’re tasked with more responsibility, you may lose efficiency points in the advanced algebra, but it does not mean that you’re having a subpar rookie year or need time to adjust. It just means you have a lot of responsibility. This point can be further proven by you sharing the players on Indiana whose offensive rating is higher than Clark’s - they include Temi Fagbenle, who’s been out for the majority of the season with an injury, and Damiris Dantas, who just joined the team. This should point to how it’s a flawed metric. I’m not sure how you didn’t arrive at this conclusion yourself, as you keep stating how bigs have better metrics - that’s because the metrics favor bigs, not because the bigs are better than guards. For example, of course bigs will have better efficiency and lower turnovers than guards. Their shots are much higher percentage and they handle the ball less, by nature of the position.
Additionally, you keep comparing her to Plum and Sabrina. I’m not sure in what way her rookie year resembles theirs at all, seeing as Plum averaged like 5 ppg and came off the bench as a rookie, and Sabrina as you stated got injured three games in. They really share no similarities other than all three are white guards - they don’t even play the same position. Clark is a point guard, and they’re both shooting guards. Neither were running a “heliocentric” offense as rookies. Neither of them possess Clark’s passing or shooting ability - you say Clark doesn’t get “extra points” for shooting from range, but that’s being ignorant (willingly or unwillingly, I don’t know.) Shooting from that far out stretches the defense in ways teams aren’t used to having to guard - that is, after all, why her bigs numbers are so great. Her gravity that far out gives them a ton of open looks.
Due to these measurements being so flawed, I also don’t think any of them were considered in deciding the Olympic team. I’d think instead they maybe would’ve liked to take a point guard, since theirs was injured. Additionally, Diana Taurasi was taken as a rookie guard, even thought by your logic apparently all guards suck as rookies.
Lastly, you cannot seriously believe lineups with Clark don’t improve the Fever. The plus/minus being better without her again only serves to highlight that as a flawed statistic - additionally, for those watching the games, you can see the “superior” lineup is used against weaker teams, thus of course they perform better. Again, net rating is a team stat more than anything else.
I understand if you’re not a fan of Clark, all of the hype about her is frustrating. However, I think there is a middle ground that doesn’t have to involve cherry picking stats to try to state that she’s not at all living up to expectations. She’s averaging numbers that generally have put players on All-W teams. The Fever is comfortably in the playoffs for the first time in nearly a decade. I don’t know how serves the W to act like a legitimately game-changing rookie actually isn’t all that great. Why would we want Clark to just be another Plum or Ionescu (or Andrew Wiggins), when her talent and performance thus far both show that she’s clearly going to surpass both of them - and not just in terms of popularity, as you keep trying to claim. I think it could serve you to take your own advice, and evaluate her strengths and weaknesses in a more objective matter, not just by using these cherry-picked stats not generally used to judge individual performance.
First of all, thanks for subscribing, even if it was just to leave this comment. ;)
Second of all, these types of advanced metrics -- especially RAPTOR-like metrics that try to tease out a player's effect on his/her team's net rating -- are the standard baseline for how NBA teams measure player performance. (I should know; I used to work for one.) They're not team stats, they explicitly try to separate the individual's value from team factors. Metrics like Offensive Rating are, indeed, influenced by team context; I mention it as one of the factors that help explain part of what is being accounted for in the overall picture, but it is just one descriptive measure of many.
Third of all, Estimated RAPTOR is position-agnostic. It literally is designed so that every position is perfectly balanced on average across the league. So it is absolutely not the case that bigs have an inherent advantage -- the opposite is actually true.
Finally, I have nothing against Clark. I have been a huge fan of hers for years in college, and I even made an updating tracker following her record-breaking progress last season:
https://neilpaine.substack.com/p/when-will-caitlin-clark-break-the?utm_source=publication-search
This is my point about a general lack of objectivity about her from all sides, though. I look at things through the prism of statistics, and call things how they are off of those. Perhaps the stats miss things sometimes -- but again, that is a framework that every NBA team uses at least as a starting point for their assessments. Given all of the emotions and needless political noise around Clark (from all directions, for no good reason), my job is to provide an assessment that contains none of that, and merely goes off of the numbers.
And yet, you continually compare her to Sabrina Ionescu and Kelsey Plum, both of whose rookie years she’s absolutely blowing out of the water. What would have prompted you to do that, other than going off of outside noise? It doesn’t seem very objective to compare her to players that are so different from her. It seems you wanted to frame her as having a multiple season adjustment period as they did, when her “adjustment period” was maybe a few weeks, and most of the adjustment was not a result of her being a rookie but of being a point guard playing with a new team.
I am aware that these ratings are used to measure individual impact on a team - however, as you just stated, they are used as a starting point and are never generally used in a VACUUM the way you’re using them, and not with as small of a sample size as you had at the point of writing this article. I don’t know why you would only use these stats, other than as an over correction for what you’ve stated as “all the noise surrounding her.” You speak to the stats informing an overall picture, but you’re not using them that way. There are many other factors that would play into a comprehensive “rookie ranking,” including, say, basic counting stats and where each rookie’s teams currently fall in the standings.
And sharing that you wrote an article measuring Clark’s milestone doesn’t really show me you’re a fan of hers, just that you wanted to capitalize on a moment everyone was talking about. I imagine that’s why you’re writing incendiary rookie rankings based purely on advanced algebra and yes it probably was silly of me to indulge and pay $6
Because they're useful avatars for the overall trend in the data of guards taking longer than bigs to break out? (I also mentioned Jackie Young as another example, though she started from a higher level as a rookie.) Seems simple enough to understand...
When I wrote this story nearly 2 months ago, Clark's RAPTOR was essentially the same as Ionescu's was in her true rookie year of 2021 (tossing out the injured 2020 season). But as I note here, Clark has improved that number a lot since then:
https://neilpaine.substack.com/p/caitlin-clark-is-poised-for-a-huge
So she is improving at a more rapid rate than we would even expect from the historical data. But that historical baseline is useful as a comparison point, because it helps contextualize the expectations for her growth going forward.
They’re not the only two guards to ever enter the league, and again, neither them nor Jackie Young play the same position as Clark. It would be more accurate to compare to a point guard. But if you choose them to compare her to, why would you not point out how her rookie season is a lot better. I’m not sure why you wouldn’t do that, unless again, you’re trying to say she’s going to have a multi-year transition which it does not appear is going to be the case.
As for Sabrina’s RAPTOR rating her sophomore being the same as Caitlin’s - again, why would that be an apt comparison? When Sabrina had an entire season of exposure to the WNBA, and an offseason of training under her belt?
But overall, Clark is showing an exception to the guard rule you lay out, about the transition, and has shown that all season. You lay out in your rookie rankings, that in addition to RAPTOR rankings, you factor in scoring, true shooting percentage, assist rate, and rebounding percentage. Those are all categories in which Clark leads Reese - and while she doesn’t lead her in rebounding, she is an excellent rebounder for a guard. But you don’t actually seem to consider them in your rankings at all. I read the NBA rookie rankings every week and never was only RAPTOR used. So I return to my initial point - you seem intent on proving that Clark is “not living up to the hype,” and that the hype is overblown, when by pretty much every metric she is excelling. You even said in the article you linked that they have the easiest schedule moving forward - does that not mean Angel’s schedule has been easier? Why would that not factor into the rankings? And your point also seems to be grounded in the fact that “all guards struggle,” but you do not acknowledge that she is already very much lapping the rookie years of guards you keep using as examples.
You also just wrote an article during the college season about why Paige Bueckers is better than Caitlin Clark (based on their high school rankings of all things), so I’m not sure why you’re acting like you don’t have a bias against her and are determined to rank anyone you can above her