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 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.