Rookies always have a transition period. The problem with CC is that she was improperly assessed as a player. 99% of the hype around her as a player was a function of generic, volume based stats like scoring and assists, without any understanding of how she put up those number. In all honesty, any good player who takes 27 shots a game, including14 3 ptrs, can score 32. That's not hyperbole, it's pure math. That's not talent...her status was way overblown because taking a lot of shots isn't talent and there's no chance she'll be allowed to shoot like that in the league. Her TOP was also ungodly, so it's almost impossible not to get 8-10 assists being so ball dominant. Once again people mistook a big nunber of assists for great passing talent. Her TOs are a perfect example that shows she's not a great passer, she makes some exciting plays but also way too many mistakes. No one talks about TO, or D, which is a disaster. If anyone had bothered to look at non volume based advanced stats, or even at what her box score and advanced stats woukd look like if she had similar usage and shot/ball handling volume as other stars, they'd have realized she was maybe a top ten player. I feel bad for CC, it was the NCAA,WNBA, NBA and the media that were so money hungry that they created this superhero and she's not that. It worked for them, but it's going to catch up. She's probably Rachel Banham. If she gets some breaks and works really hard, maybe she's Kelsey Plum and makes an all star team in 5 years. Either way, all this GOAT crap and changing the game narrative is pure hype
Hater alert. She's legitimately already the best player on the Fever right now and she's a rookie. The version of Clark you're seeing today is going to be the worst version of her. She has clear and obvious things to clean up that are within her control, her ball handling to navigate double teams and her nashing on drives to the paint, refining her passing in tight spaces (the windows for certain passes she used to make easily are smaller now) and her off-ball movement (which is already being fixed if you watched the Fever's latest game). But these things are all things that can be fine tuned during the season and fixed throughout the next couple of years. With Clark's shooting and super-underrated passing I think she can easily be a genuine superstar in the W, the best player on a championship winning team.
She's a good player with a lot of holes. Her shooting is continually overrated. Making a 30 footer simply doesn't matter. She shot 37% from 3 against kids and 32% against ranked teams. Those are facts. She's a good passer in transition but rarely does more than P&R in half court because she has no mid-range game to play off of and she has difficulty creating her own shot if it's not a step back from25. Her TOs are a joke and her D is atrocious. She's a two dimensional offensive player who simply isnt very efficient...that's another word for how often the shot actually goes in. Every "star" player is doubled, that's the game. She needs much more variety to be able to break that down and score in other ways. I dont hate her, I detest the media and money grubbers who are creating a false narrative. Sue me, I value the truth. Look at her advanced and value stats in college and now, they are awful now and at Iowa they were good, but not great, particularly defensively. Her entire persona is a function of making a few long 3's that people see on sports center and breaking the scoring record, which was a function of her playing 140 games and taking 2800 shots!! Her fg % was never higher than top 25% and her 3% was never top 20%, in fact she shot 45% for her career while her own teammates shot 52%. They did tell you that on Sports Center do they? Do your own research and formulate your own opinion, right now you are just parroting what you're told to think. Reality is a bit different.
Rookies always have a transition period. The problem with CC is that she was improperly assessed as a player. 99% of the hype around her as a player was a function of generic, volume based stats like scoring and assists, without any understanding of how she put up those number. In all honesty, any good player who takes 27 shots a game, including14 3 ptrs, can score 32. That's not hyperbole, it's pure math. That's not talent...her status was way overblown because taking a lot of shots isn't talent and there's no chance she'll be allowed to shoot like that in the league. Her TOP was also ungodly, so it's almost impossible not to get 8-10 assists being so ball dominant. Once again people mistook a big nunber of assists for great passing talent. Her TOs are a perfect example that shows she's not a great passer, she makes some exciting plays but also way too many mistakes. No one talks about TO, or D, which is a disaster. If anyone had bothered to look at non volume based advanced stats, or even at what her box score and advanced stats woukd look like if she had similar usage and shot/ball handling volume as other stars, they'd have realized she was maybe a top ten player. I feel bad for CC, it was the NCAA,WNBA, NBA and the media that were so money hungry that they created this superhero and she's not that. It worked for them, but it's going to catch up. She's probably Rachel Banham. If she gets some breaks and works really hard, maybe she's Kelsey Plum and makes an all star team in 5 years. Either way, all this GOAT crap and changing the game narrative is pure hype
Carl, all good points. The media needs to stop saying CC is the Messiah for the WNBA.
Hater alert. She's legitimately already the best player on the Fever right now and she's a rookie. The version of Clark you're seeing today is going to be the worst version of her. She has clear and obvious things to clean up that are within her control, her ball handling to navigate double teams and her nashing on drives to the paint, refining her passing in tight spaces (the windows for certain passes she used to make easily are smaller now) and her off-ball movement (which is already being fixed if you watched the Fever's latest game). But these things are all things that can be fine tuned during the season and fixed throughout the next couple of years. With Clark's shooting and super-underrated passing I think she can easily be a genuine superstar in the W, the best player on a championship winning team.
She's a good player with a lot of holes. Her shooting is continually overrated. Making a 30 footer simply doesn't matter. She shot 37% from 3 against kids and 32% against ranked teams. Those are facts. She's a good passer in transition but rarely does more than P&R in half court because she has no mid-range game to play off of and she has difficulty creating her own shot if it's not a step back from25. Her TOs are a joke and her D is atrocious. She's a two dimensional offensive player who simply isnt very efficient...that's another word for how often the shot actually goes in. Every "star" player is doubled, that's the game. She needs much more variety to be able to break that down and score in other ways. I dont hate her, I detest the media and money grubbers who are creating a false narrative. Sue me, I value the truth. Look at her advanced and value stats in college and now, they are awful now and at Iowa they were good, but not great, particularly defensively. Her entire persona is a function of making a few long 3's that people see on sports center and breaking the scoring record, which was a function of her playing 140 games and taking 2800 shots!! Her fg % was never higher than top 25% and her 3% was never top 20%, in fact she shot 45% for her career while her own teammates shot 52%. They did tell you that on Sports Center do they? Do your own research and formulate your own opinion, right now you are just parroting what you're told to think. Reality is a bit different.
Could be worse. They could be Marquesha Davis who has a terrible coach with the Liberty who doesn't play or develop rookies.
The size discrepancy is interesting. And makes sense. Good read.