2023-2024 WNBA Season

[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.

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.

You are wrong here. As a basketball fan in Iowa, the excitement over here was grass roots, not top-down. Little girls became huge fans. One game and one highlight at a time.

Some people are more marketable than others. That's the reality. If the WNBA fails to realize this, they will miss this opportunity. If they think its just a fad or the way she was covered by the media or something else, they will mismanage what they have, because they won't even realize what they have.

Clark is the most marketable athlete of the last 3-4 years and is now on a short list with other athletes. Its not media coverage or favoritism. It's a lightning strike that has been few and far between for female ballers.

[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.

You are wrong here. As a basketball fan in Iowa, the excitement over here was grass roots, not top-down. Little girls became huge fans. One game and one highlight at a time.

Some people are more marketable than others. That's the reality. If the WNBA fails to realize this, they will miss this opportunity. If they think its just a fad or the way she was covered by the media or something else, they will mismanage what they have, because they won't even realize what they have.

Clark is the most marketable athlete of the last 3-4 years and is now on a short list with other athletes. Its not media coverage or favoritism. It's a lightning strike that has been few and far between for female ballers.

In Iowa, I'm sure the excitement was organic.

[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.

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.

Disagree.  Certainly it can happen either way but media can spur something on that otherwise would go mildly noticed.  You could say the difference between us knowing about the Smart abduction, Natalie Holloway murder, Amanda Knox trial is because Americans would only be interested when cute or attractive white girls/women are victims, or you could say that media latched onto these stories assuming that the appearance of these people would attract attention.  It’s possible that it was media that pushed these and  didn’t push other equivalent stories because of assumptions of what people would find interesting.  As opposed to media solely following what people found interesting.  My guess is that this is often reciprocal and both have influence in many cases. 

[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

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?

I don’t have to follow her career to know that she doesn’t look or play the same way that Clark does. Can easily see this by watching highlights of both players on YouTube.

Again, she’s a great player but not nearly as creative or flashy as Clark is. If she was, more people would have been tuning in to the WNBA over the last 10+ years.

[bdm860]

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.

This feels contradictory.

Because you admit ESPN tries to create interest in things.

So why can this not  be ESPN pushing something, and it finally takes?  Sure it stays a story now because the public has interest, but how did the public get interest in the story in the first place?

Seems like a chicken and egg thing to me.

Personally, I think the media pushes stuff (as you admit), a lot of things don't take, but some times things do take.  Clark is one of the things that took.

[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?

I don’t have to follow her career to know that she doesn’t look or play the same way that Clark does. Can easily see this by watching highlights of both players on YouTube.

Again, she’s a great player but not nearly as creative or flashy as Clark is. If she was, more people would have been tuning in to the WNBA over the last 10+ years.

Nonsense, but I wish you continued luck with your extensive YouTube research.

[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.

This feels contradictory.

Because you admit ESPN tries to create interest in things.

So why can this not  be ESPN pushing something, and it finally takes?  Sure it stays a story now because the public has interest, but how did the public get interest in the story in the first place?

Seems like a chicken and egg thing to me.

Personally, I think the media pushes stuff (as you admit), a lot of things don't take, but some times things do take.  Clark is one of the things that took.

ESPN didn't pick Clark up as a story until she was already a massive draw.  ESPN did not create Clark hype, it was already there.  Clark is the story, that is why news organizations like CNN run stories on her.  She is the story because people care about her.

[Goldstar88]

UConn women's basketball coach Geno Auriemma said that although WNBA rookies must go through "the growing pains of being a professional basketball player," he thinks the Indiana Fever's Caitlin Clark has been "targeted" with physical play.

"Is she facing the rookie challenge, the rookie hardships that are inherent with being a rookie? Yes," Auriemma told reporters in Connecticut before the UConn Coaches Road Show on Tuesday. "She's also being targeted."

Clark was shoulder-checked from behind by Chicago Sky guard Chennedy Carter before the ball was inbounded during Saturday's game. Clark was knocked down in what was a non-basketball play and was initially ruled a common foul, but it was upgraded to a flagrant foul 1 by the WNBA upon review Sunday.

Auriemma also said high-profile players entering a professional sports league are likely to attract extra attention from opposing teams, but he thinks it's more extreme with Clark, who was the No. 1 pick in this year's draft.

"I don't remember when [Michael] Jordan came into the [NBA], guys looking to go out and beat him up," Auriemma told reporters. "I don't remember when [Larry] Bird and Magic [Johnson] came in the league and elevated the NBA, them getting targeted and getting beat up just because of who they were and the attention they were getting.

"Appreciate the fact that now's the time [for the WNBA]. I get it. It's long overdue. Why are you blaming that kid? It's not her fault, because you would trade places with her in a minute, but you are not there. You're not her. So, you're [complaining] that she's getting what she's getting."

[RJ87]

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?

I don’t have to follow her career to know that she doesn’t look or play the same way that Clark does. Can easily see this by watching highlights of both players on YouTube.

Again, she’s a great player but not nearly as creative or flashy as Clark is. If she was, more people would have been tuning in to the WNBA over the last 10+ years.

This is... not a good take. You can't write off DT's creativity or flash and then say in the same post that you've watched only her highlights. People tuning in or not doesn't change greatness.

Next you're going to claim Clark is a better rookie than Candace Parker because more people are watching her games.

[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

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?

I don’t have to follow her career to know that she doesn’t look or play the same way that Clark does. Can easily see this by watching highlights of both players on YouTube.

Again, she’s a great player but not nearly as creative or flashy as Clark is. If she was, more people would have been tuning in to the WNBA over the last 10+ years.

This is... not a good take. You can't write off DT's creativity or flash and then say in the same post that you've watched only her highlights. People tuning in or not doesn't change greatness.

Next you're going to claim Clark is a better rookie than Candace Parker because more people are watching her games.

I certainly can watch highlights of both and give an opinion on which player looks more flashy and creative. These are their top plays, the highlights. I’m not saying that Clark is better than player “X” or player “Y”, I just think her brand of basketball is more exciting to watch and apparently I’m not the only one who feels that way as she is drawing in 2-3 times more fans to her games than other WNBA teams are.

[kraidstar]

Definitely media hype. But also social media hype. Look at this thread. It's all about Clark.

[W8ting2McHale]

Definitely media hype. But also social media hype. Look at this thread. It's all about Clark.

Yes, let’s remedy that a little.

A’ja Wilson just did something no other WNBA player has ever done.

Wilson became the first player in WNBA history to have at least 35 points, 10 rebounds and 5 steals in a game. She also is the first with at least 35 points and 5 steals in multiple games.

I wasn’t familiar with her and was surprised to learn that she’s also the first to average 25 and 10 for a season. (That’s so far this season, she could cool off and miss the mark).

I used to watch Seattle Storm games when Lauren Jackson and Sue Bird were winning championships. I thought Jackson had done that her MVP season, but she fell short. I looked at other great bigs like Griner, Parker, Stewart, and a few others like Lisa Leslie and it was true. No woman had even come close to those numbers.

I was really surprised by how many great players there have been and none have accomplished what is pretty routine in the NBA. The women’s game just doesn’t score as many points and that’s probably been a contributing factor to the WNBA being less successful. Scoring is up the past few years though and I think that is driving some of the increased popularity. Clark being a big time scorer factors into this too.

[Moranis]

Definitely media hype. But also social media hype. Look at this thread. It's all about Clark.

Yes, let’s remedy that a little.

A’ja Wilson just did something no other WNBA player has ever done.

Wilson became the first player in WNBA history to have at least 35 points, 10 rebounds and 5 steals in a game. She also is the first with at least 35 points and 5 steals in multiple games.

I wasn’t familiar with her and was surprised to learn that she’s also the first to average 25 and 10 for a season. (That’s so far this season, she could cool off and miss the mark).

I used to watch Seattle Storm games when Lauren Jackson and Sue Bird were winning championships. I thought Jackson had done that her MVP season, but she fell short. I looked at other great bigs like Griner, Parker, Stewart, and a few others like Lisa Leslie and it was true. No woman had even come close to those numbers.

I was really surprised by how many great players there have been and none have accomplished what is pretty routine in the NBA. The women’s game just doesn’t score as many points and that’s probably been a contributing factor to the WNBA being less successful. Scoring is up the past few years though and I think that is driving some of the increased popularity. Clark being a big time scorer factors into this too.

they play 8 less minutes, so I'm sure that is a factor.

[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?

I don’t have to follow her career to know that she doesn’t look or play the same way that Clark does. Can easily see this by watching highlights of both players on YouTube.

Again, she’s a great player but not nearly as creative or flashy as Clark is. If she was, more people would have been tuning in to the WNBA over the last 10+ years.

This is... not a good take. You can't write off DT's creativity or flash and then say in the same post that you've watched only her highlights. People tuning in or not doesn't change greatness.

Next you're going to claim Clark is a better rookie than Candace Parker because more people are watching her games.

I certainly can watch highlights of both and give an opinion on which player looks more flashy and creative. These are their top plays, the highlights. I’m not saying that Clark is better than player “X” or player “Y”, I just think her brand of basketball is more exciting to watch and apparently I’m not the only one who feels that way as she is drawing in 2-3 times more fans to her games than other WNBA teams are.

It's a ridiculous take.  If you go by highlight reals, Mac McClung might be the flashiest and most fun player in the world.  Rudy Gay is one of the flashiest, most exciting guys in NBA history! (said nobody ever).

[RJ87]

Definitely media hype. But also social media hype. Look at this thread. It's all about Clark.

Yes, let’s remedy that a little.

A’ja Wilson just did something no other WNBA player has ever done.

Wilson became the first player in WNBA history to have at least 35 points, 10 rebounds and 5 steals in a game. She also is the first with at least 35 points and 5 steals in multiple games.

I wasn’t familiar with her and was surprised to learn that she’s also the first to average 25 and 10 for a season. (That’s so far this season, she could cool off and miss the mark).

I used to watch Seattle Storm games when Lauren Jackson and Sue Bird were winning championships. I thought Jackson had done that her MVP season, but she fell short. I looked at other great bigs like Griner, Parker, Stewart, and a few others like Lisa Leslie and it was true. No woman had even come close to those numbers.

I was really surprised by how many great players there have been and none have accomplished what is pretty routine in the NBA. The women’s game just doesn’t score as many points and that’s probably been a contributing factor to the WNBA being less successful. Scoring is up the past few years though and I think that is driving some of the increased popularity. Clark being a big time scorer factors into this too.

A'ja has been special to start the season. She really took that single 4th place MVP vote last season personally.