2023-2024 WNBA Season

[RJ87]

Clark has been getting more than her fair share of “Welcome to the league, rookie” hits. Breanna Stewart looked to be sending a message earlier in the season with a hard pick, but that was a basketball play and some of the more recent actions don’t seem justified. They look like jealousy over her being paid more and getting more attention as the new face of the league.

I can understand the “She hasn’t earned it yet” sentiment but she has brought attention to the league and that will raise up everyone by bringing in more money. Being the player that injured her out of spite won’t be a good look.

That might sound like it’s derogatory to women by attaching emotional attributes like jealousy to in game situations, but it doesn’t look like a hard foul to take her off her game as much as it  seems vindictive when you blindside a player and then can’t own up to the questions afterwards.

Reese and Brink should be in the running for ROY, but neither are the offensive threat that Clark is and votes almost always go to scoring over defense and rebounds.

This is just silly. The Chennedy shot was a cheap one and the upgrade in punishment was well-deserved, but I think that has more to do with Chennedy and her own baggage than people intentionally roughing up Caitlin Clark. I actually do watch these games and there isn't a bull's eye on the girl's back. Even the play you reference with Stewie was a standard screen. Clark - not being a great defensive player - wasn't paying attention and her teammates didn't call it out. Anytime you have a poor defensive team that doesn't communicate, you're bound to see a hard screen like that. It was only a story because Clark was involved.

The funny thing is, she's not the only rookie getting acclimated to a new league. Reese was taken down by a clothesline to the throat last week and no one cared. Reese came out after the game and thanked the vets for teaching her these lessons. Even Brink said she had to just say thank you to Tina Charles for kicking her butt all game.

I'm actually starting to feel bad for Clark because the media and her fans aren't doing her any favors by acting like she's fragile.

[Goldstar88]

The WNBA has been getting a whole lot of attention lately and Caitlin Clark is the one who has gotten a lot of the credit for that. Angel Reese, however, felt that Clark wasn't the only reason for the growth in popularity and that she and others deserved a lot of credit too. "The reason why we're watching women's basketball is not just because of 1 person. It's because of me, too. I want y'all to realize that."

Attendance numbers for WNBA games that Clark played and didn't play in might suggest otherwise, though.

(via Jimmy Traina, SI Now)

Attendance at non-Caitlin Clark WNBA games this past weekend:

7,638

4,015

9,878

7,035

3,265

10,207

7,024

Attendance at Caitlin Clark WNBA games this past weekend:

17,274

17,401

[Roy H.]

Yeah.  It really all is Clark, and the media drive behind that.

I'm not sure why it's happened at this point, but not previously.  There have been lots of great, dominant players.  Lisa Leslie, Sheryl Swoops, Diana Taurasi, Sue Bird, Sabrina Ionescu, Candace Parker, Breanna Stewart and lots of other.  It's not race, it's not physical attractiveness, it's not skill.  Whether it's the college record or something else, Clark has captured the public's attention.

[Goldstar88]

Yeah.  It really all is Clark, and the media drive behind that.

I'm not sure why it's happened at this point, but not previously.  There have been lots of great, dominant players.  Lisa Leslie, Sheryl Swoops, Diana Taurasi, Sue Bird, Sabrina Ionescu, Candace Parker, Breanna Stewart and lots of other.  It's not race, it's not physical attractiveness, it's not skill.  Whether it's the college record or something else, Clark has captured the public's attention.

I think it is skill. Clark’s ability to dribble and shoot deep/step back 3’s is special. It’s like she tried to model her game after Steph Curry. I don’t think women’s basketball has had a player with her skill set.

I’ve never watched women’s college or pro games before this year, but did tune in to see Clark on a few occasions.

[Who]

Yeah.  It really all is Clark, and the media drive behind that.

I'm not sure why it's happened at this point, but not previously.  There have been lots of great, dominant players.  Lisa Leslie, Sheryl Swoops, Diana Taurasi, Sue Bird, Sabrina Ionescu, Candace Parker, Breanna Stewart and lots of other.  It's not race, it's not physical attractiveness, it's not skill.  Whether it's the college record or something else, Clark has captured the public's attention.

I think it is skill. Clark’s ability to dribble and shoot deep/step back 3’s is special. It’s like she tried to model her game after Steph Curry. I don’t think women’s basketball has had a player with her skill set.

I’ve never watched women’s college or pro games before this year, but did tune in to see Clark on a few occasions.

Yes, I think so too. The skill + flair + creativity.

Caitlin Clark is the Pete Maravich of the WNBA. They haven't really had a player like that. Somebody who gets people to jump out of their seat in excitement. A Magic Johnson. A Larry Bird. Someone special. Someone who can do the spectacular.

They have had more like Tim Duncan types. Fundamentally solid and team orientated. Quietly effective. More mechanical than creative / spectacular.

Clark is creative & spectacular.

[Roy H.]

Yeah.  It really all is Clark, and the media drive behind that.

I'm not sure why it's happened at this point, but not previously.  There have been lots of great, dominant players.  Lisa Leslie, Sheryl Swoops, Diana Taurasi, Sue Bird, Sabrina Ionescu, Candace Parker, Breanna Stewart and lots of other.  It's not race, it's not physical attractiveness, it's not skill.  Whether it's the college record or something else, Clark has captured the public's attention.

I think it is skill. Clark’s ability to dribble and shoot deep/step back 3’s is special. It’s like she tried to model her game after Steph Curry. I don’t think women’s basketball has had a player with her skill set.

I’ve never watched women’s college or pro games before this year, but did tune in to see Clark on a few occasions.

Yes, I think so too. The skill + flair + creativity.

Caitlin Clark is the Pete Maravich of the WNBA. They haven't really had a player like that. Somebody who gets people to jump out of their seat in excitement. A Magic Johnson. A Larry Bird. Someone special. Someone who can do the spectacular.

They have had more like Tim Duncan types. Fundamentally solid and team orientated. Quietly effective. More mechanical than creative / spectacular.

Clark is creative & spectacular.

You've missed out on Diana Taurasi's career.  Breanna Stewart is pretty spectacular, too.

[Goldstar88]

Yeah.  It really all is Clark, and the media drive behind that.

I'm not sure why it's happened at this point, but not previously.  There have been lots of great, dominant players.  Lisa Leslie, Sheryl Swoops, Diana Taurasi, Sue Bird, Sabrina Ionescu, Candace Parker, Breanna Stewart and lots of other.  It's not race, it's not physical attractiveness, it's not skill.  Whether it's the college record or something else, Clark has captured the public's attention.

I think it is skill. Clark’s ability to dribble and shoot deep/step back 3’s is special. It’s like she tried to model her game after Steph Curry. I don’t think women’s basketball has had a player with her skill set.

I’ve never watched women’s college or pro games before this year, but did tune in to see Clark on a few occasions.

Yes, I think so too. The skill + flair + creativity.

Caitlin Clark is the Pete Maravich of the WNBA. They haven't really had a player like that. Somebody who gets people to jump out of their seat in excitement. A Magic Johnson. A Larry Bird. Someone special. Someone who can do the spectacular.

They have had more like Tim Duncan types. Fundamentally solid and team orientated. Quietly effective. More mechanical than creative / spectacular.

Clark is creative & spectacular.

You've missed out on Diana Taurasi's career.  Breanna Stewart is pretty spectacular, too.

Two great players, but like Who said, Clark has a flair and creativity that the others don’t have. This sums it up pretty well:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aPE5jB7gW_s&pp=ygUVY2FpdGxpbiBjbEdited.  Profanity and masked profanity are against forum rules and may result in discipline.ayBtaXh0YXBl

[Roy H.]

Yeah.  It really all is Clark, and the media drive behind that.

I'm not sure why it's happened at this point, but not previously.  There have been lots of great, dominant players.  Lisa Leslie, Sheryl Swoops, Diana Taurasi, Sue Bird, Sabrina Ionescu, Candace Parker, Breanna Stewart and lots of other.  It's not race, it's not physical attractiveness, it's not skill.  Whether it's the college record or something else, Clark has captured the public's attention.

I think it is skill. Clark’s ability to dribble and shoot deep/step back 3’s is special. It’s like she tried to model her game after Steph Curry. I don’t think women’s basketball has had a player with her skill set.

I’ve never watched women’s college or pro games before this year, but did tune in to see Clark on a few occasions.

Yes, I think so too. The skill + flair + creativity.

Caitlin Clark is the Pete Maravich of the WNBA. They haven't really had a player like that. Somebody who gets people to jump out of their seat in excitement. A Magic Johnson. A Larry Bird. Someone special. Someone who can do the spectacular.

They have had more like Tim Duncan types. Fundamentally solid and team orientated. Quietly effective. More mechanical than creative / spectacular.

Clark is creative & spectacular.

You've missed out on Diana Taurasi's career.  Breanna Stewart is pretty spectacular, too.

Two great players, but like Who said, Clark has a flair and creativity that the others don’t have. This sums it up pretty well:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aPE5jB7gW_s&pp=ygUVY2FpdGxpbiBjbEdited.  Profanity and masked profanity are against forum rules and may result in discipline.ayBtaXh0YXBl

Again, if you haven't seen Taurasi's flair and creativity, you haven't been watching her career.  Why you admitted above, so why are you arguing?

[DefenseWinsChamps]

Yeah.  It really all is Clark, and the media drive behind that.

I'm not sure why it's happened at this point, but not previously.  There have been lots of great, dominant players.  Lisa Leslie, Sheryl Swoops, Diana Taurasi, Sue Bird, Sabrina Ionescu, Candace Parker, Breanna Stewart and lots of other.  It's not race, it's not physical attractiveness, it's not skill.  Whether it's the college record or something else, Clark has captured the public's attention.

I think it is skill. Clark’s ability to dribble and shoot deep/step back 3’s is special. It’s like she tried to model her game after Steph Curry. I don’t think women’s basketball has had a player with her skill set.

I’ve never watched women’s college or pro games before this year, but did tune in to see Clark on a few occasions.

Yes, I think so too. The skill + flair + creativity.

Caitlin Clark is the Pete Maravich of the WNBA. They haven't really had a player like that. Somebody who gets people to jump out of their seat in excitement. A Magic Johnson. A Larry Bird. Someone special. Someone who can do the spectacular.

They have had more like Tim Duncan types. Fundamentally solid and team orientated. Quietly effective. More mechanical than creative / spectacular.

Clark is creative & spectacular.

You've missed out on Diana Taurasi's career.  Breanna Stewart is pretty spectacular, too.

If Clark is some kind of mix between Curry and Pistol Pete, then Taurasi is Chris Paul, Stewart is Durant, etc.

There have been a lot of great WNBA players, but few of them are as fun to watch as Clark for the average fan. It's not that they aren't similar basketball players in skill or greatness. It's the marketability and excitement of watching them.

It's a similar difference between Anthony Edwards and other young stars in the NBA. There's a charisma and excitement to their play that makes Edwards so fun to watch, even if I'd take multiple other players over him if I needed to win a game.

[Roy H.]

Yeah.  It really all is Clark, and the media drive behind that.

I'm not sure why it's happened at this point, but not previously.  There have been lots of great, dominant players.  Lisa Leslie, Sheryl Swoops, Diana Taurasi, Sue Bird, Sabrina Ionescu, Candace Parker, Breanna Stewart and lots of other.  It's not race, it's not physical attractiveness, it's not skill.  Whether it's the college record or something else, Clark has captured the public's attention.

I think it is skill. Clark’s ability to dribble and shoot deep/step back 3’s is special. It’s like she tried to model her game after Steph Curry. I don’t think women’s basketball has had a player with her skill set.

I’ve never watched women’s college or pro games before this year, but did tune in to see Clark on a few occasions.

Yes, I think so too. The skill + flair + creativity.

Caitlin Clark is the Pete Maravich of the WNBA. They haven't really had a player like that. Somebody who gets people to jump out of their seat in excitement. A Magic Johnson. A Larry Bird. Someone special. Someone who can do the spectacular.

They have had more like Tim Duncan types. Fundamentally solid and team orientated. Quietly effective. More mechanical than creative / spectacular.

Clark is creative & spectacular.

You've missed out on Diana Taurasi's career.  Breanna Stewart is pretty spectacular, too.

If Clark is some kind of mix between Curry and Pistol Pete, then Taurasi is Chris Paul, Stewart is Durant, etc.

There have been a lot of great WNBA players, but few of them are as fun to watch as Clark for the average fan. It's not that they aren't similar basketball players in skill or greatness. It's the marketability and excitement of watching them.

It's a similar difference between Anthony Edwards and other young stars in the NBA. There's a charisma and excitement to their play that makes Edwards so fun to watch, even if I'd take multiple other players over him if I needed to win a game.

Kobe called Taurasi the "White Mamba" because of her drive, intensity and clutchness.  I think if she received the media attention, a ton more fans would have tuned in.

And Breanna Stewart is like Duncan mixed with Durant.

[Moranis]

Yeah.  It really all is Clark, and the media drive behind that.

I'm not sure why it's happened at this point, but not previously.  There have been lots of great, dominant players.  Lisa Leslie, Sheryl Swoops, Diana Taurasi, Sue Bird, Sabrina Ionescu, Candace Parker, Breanna Stewart and lots of other.  It's not race, it's not physical attractiveness, it's not skill.  Whether it's the college record or something else, Clark has captured the public's attention.

I think it is skill. Clark’s ability to dribble and shoot deep/step back 3’s is special. It’s like she tried to model her game after Steph Curry. I don’t think women’s basketball has had a player with her skill set.

I’ve never watched women’s college or pro games before this year, but did tune in to see Clark on a few occasions.

Yes, I think so too. The skill + flair + creativity.

Caitlin Clark is the Pete Maravich of the WNBA. They haven't really had a player like that. Somebody who gets people to jump out of their seat in excitement. A Magic Johnson. A Larry Bird. Someone special. Someone who can do the spectacular.

They have had more like Tim Duncan types. Fundamentally solid and team orientated. Quietly effective. More mechanical than creative / spectacular.

Clark is creative & spectacular.

You've missed out on Diana Taurasi's career.  Breanna Stewart is pretty spectacular, too.

If Clark is some kind of mix between Curry and Pistol Pete, then Taurasi is Chris Paul, Stewart is Durant, etc.

There have been a lot of great WNBA players, but few of them are as fun to watch as Clark for the average fan. It's not that they aren't similar basketball players in skill or greatness. It's the marketability and excitement of watching them.

It's a similar difference between Anthony Edwards and other young stars in the NBA. There's a charisma and excitement to their play that makes Edwards so fun to watch, even if I'd take multiple other players over him if I needed to win a game.

Kobe called Taurasi the "White Mamba" because of her drive, intensity and clutchness.  I think if she received the media attention, a ton more fans would have tuned in.

And Breanna Stewart is like Duncan mixed with Durant.

The media doesn't make attention, the media responds to attention.  Clark is a media story because people watch her and are interested, not because the media covers her

[bdm860]

I think Diana Taurasi was born 20 years too early (and probably Cherryl Miller 40 years too early).  I could see them being stars like Clark (or even bigger than her).  They both had the skill and charisma.

And I think a big part of the Caitlin Clark star power is right place/right time/right look/right situation.  The women's game has made a lot of progress, especially over the last several years (probably standing on the shoulders of UConn/Tennessee).  And I think Clark's race/height/average looks all help too.  She's a plain, white girl, that makes it easier for the masses to rally around, relate to, and envision themselves as.  Many (but not all) of the women stars before her were taller, perhaps putting them in the "big men don't sell shoes" category (Leslie, Lobo, Parker, Stewart all 6'4" plus), darker (Swoops, Moore), less of a one woman show (Bird, Ionescu, anybody that played on the great teams like UConn, Tennessee).

She also has had good foes, in Angel Reese, UConn, South Carolina.  Basic wrestling booking, everybody wants to see the baby face hero chase the title, take down Goliath.

To give some credit to Reese (and to re-emphasize the women's game is making progress), it's not all Clark (maybe just 90% Clark).   A couple of WNBA teams, who have yet to face Clark at home, have seen a boost in home attendance (at least according to his source).  Still early (only a few home games each so far) but Dallas Wings up 1600, Chicago Sky up 1k, while all 6 teams who have hosted Clark at home have seen bumps, 2 of them (Aces +818 and Sun +657) are up less than what the Wings/Sky have done without Clark yet (4 other teams who have yet to face Clark have smaller changes +446, -129, -191, -640).

[Neurotic Guy]

Yeah.  It really all is Clark, and the media drive behind that.

I'm not sure why it's happened at this point, but not previously.  There have been lots of great, dominant players.  Lisa Leslie, Sheryl Swoops, Diana Taurasi, Sue Bird, Sabrina Ionescu, Candace Parker, Breanna Stewart and lots of other.  It's not race, it's not physical attractiveness, it's not skill.  Whether it's the college record or something else, Clark has captured the public's attention.

I think it is skill. Clark’s ability to dribble and shoot deep/step back 3’s is special. It’s like she tried to model her game after Steph Curry. I don’t think women’s basketball has had a player with her skill set.

I’ve never watched women’s college or pro games before this year, but did tune in to see Clark on a few occasions.

Yes, I think so too. The skill + flair + creativity.

Caitlin Clark is the Pete Maravich of the WNBA. They haven't really had a player like that. Somebody who gets people to jump out of their seat in excitement. A Magic Johnson. A Larry Bird. Someone special. Someone who can do the spectacular.

They have had more like Tim Duncan types. Fundamentally solid and team orientated. Quietly effective. More mechanical than creative / spectacular.

Clark is creative & spectacular.

You've missed out on Diana Taurasi's career.  Breanna Stewart is pretty spectacular, too.

If Clark is some kind of mix between Curry and Pistol Pete, then Taurasi is Chris Paul, Stewart is Durant, etc.

There have been a lot of great WNBA players, but few of them are as fun to watch as Clark for the average fan. It's not that they aren't similar basketball players in skill or greatness. It's the marketability and excitement of watching them.

It's a similar difference between Anthony Edwards and other young stars in the NBA. There's a charisma and excitement to their play that makes Edwards so fun to watch, even if I'd take multiple other players over him if I needed to win a game.

Kobe called Taurasi the "White Mamba" because of her drive, intensity and clutchness.  I think if she received the media attention, a ton more fans would have tuned in.

And Breanna Stewart is like Duncan mixed with Durant.

The media doesn't make attention, the media responds to attention.  Clark is a media story because people watch her and are interested, not because the media covers her

You don’t think there’s some reciprocity there?  I certainly had no interest in Clark till the media blitzed her approaching the record. No doubt that started with media being alerted to it but likely also saw publicizing it as a way to create buzz and clicks.

[Roy H.]

Yeah.  It really all is Clark, and the media drive behind that.

I'm not sure why it's happened at this point, but not previously.  There have been lots of great, dominant players.  Lisa Leslie, Sheryl Swoops, Diana Taurasi, Sue Bird, Sabrina Ionescu, Candace Parker, Breanna Stewart and lots of other.  It's not race, it's not physical attractiveness, it's not skill.  Whether it's the college record or something else, Clark has captured the public's attention.

I think it is skill. Clark’s ability to dribble and shoot deep/step back 3’s is special. It’s like she tried to model her game after Steph Curry. I don’t think women’s basketball has had a player with her skill set.

I’ve never watched women’s college or pro games before this year, but did tune in to see Clark on a few occasions.

Yes, I think so too. The skill + flair + creativity.

Caitlin Clark is the Pete Maravich of the WNBA. They haven't really had a player like that. Somebody who gets people to jump out of their seat in excitement. A Magic Johnson. A Larry Bird. Someone special. Someone who can do the spectacular.

They have had more like Tim Duncan types. Fundamentally solid and team orientated. Quietly effective. More mechanical than creative / spectacular.

Clark is creative & spectacular.

You've missed out on Diana Taurasi's career.  Breanna Stewart is pretty spectacular, too.

If Clark is some kind of mix between Curry and Pistol Pete, then Taurasi is Chris Paul, Stewart is Durant, etc.

There have been a lot of great WNBA players, but few of them are as fun to watch as Clark for the average fan. It's not that they aren't similar basketball players in skill or greatness. It's the marketability and excitement of watching them.

It's a similar difference between Anthony Edwards and other young stars in the NBA. There's a charisma and excitement to their play that makes Edwards so fun to watch, even if I'd take multiple other players over him if I needed to win a game.

Kobe called Taurasi the "White Mamba" because of her drive, intensity and clutchness.  I think if she received the media attention, a ton more fans would have tuned in.

And Breanna Stewart is like Duncan mixed with Durant.

The media doesn't make attention, the media responds to attention.  Clark is a media story because people watch her and are interested, not because the media covers her

The media selectively decides what to report on and what to bury.  If Clark got ignored like women players have typically been reported on, she'd be no more than a promising rookie.

[Moranis]

Yeah.  It really all is Clark, and the media drive behind that.

I'm not sure why it's happened at this point, but not previously.  There have been lots of great, dominant players.  Lisa Leslie, Sheryl Swoops, Diana Taurasi, Sue Bird, Sabrina Ionescu, Candace Parker, Breanna Stewart and lots of other.  It's not race, it's not physical attractiveness, it's not skill.  Whether it's the college record or something else, Clark has captured the public's attention.

I think it is skill. Clark’s ability to dribble and shoot deep/step back 3’s is special. It’s like she tried to model her game after Steph Curry. I don’t think women’s basketball has had a player with her skill set.

I’ve never watched women’s college or pro games before this year, but did tune in to see Clark on a few occasions.

Yes, I think so too. The skill + flair + creativity.

Caitlin Clark is the Pete Maravich of the WNBA. They haven't really had a player like that. Somebody who gets people to jump out of their seat in excitement. A Magic Johnson. A Larry Bird. Someone special. Someone who can do the spectacular.

They have had more like Tim Duncan types. Fundamentally solid and team orientated. Quietly effective. More mechanical than creative / spectacular.

Clark is creative & spectacular.

You've missed out on Diana Taurasi's career.  Breanna Stewart is pretty spectacular, too.

If Clark is some kind of mix between Curry and Pistol Pete, then Taurasi is Chris Paul, Stewart is Durant, etc.

There have been a lot of great WNBA players, but few of them are as fun to watch as Clark for the average fan. It's not that they aren't similar basketball players in skill or greatness. It's the marketability and excitement of watching them.

It's a similar difference between Anthony Edwards and other young stars in the NBA. There's a charisma and excitement to their play that makes Edwards so fun to watch, even if I'd take multiple other players over him if I needed to win a game.

Kobe called Taurasi the "White Mamba" because of her drive, intensity and clutchness.  I think if she received the media attention, a ton more fans would have tuned in.

And Breanna Stewart is like Duncan mixed with Durant.

The media doesn't make attention, the media responds to attention.  Clark is a media story because people watch her and are interested, not because the media covers her

You don’t think there’s some reciprocity there?  I certainly had no interest in Clark till the media blitzed her approaching the record. No doubt that started with media being alerted to it but likely also saw publicizing it as a way to create buzz and clicks.

No I don't. The media only gets buzz and clicks on stories that people care about.  The media cannot create interest in something people don't care about.  ESPN tried for years to create interest in the NHL, the WNBA, and countlss other things, but people just didn't care.  The public cares about Clark so the story is covered.  It really is that simple.

That is also why the NFL gets year round coverage. People care about it, so there isn't an offseason.