Right, Redick came to mind due to the shooting aspect.
However, Steph Curry only got better as a pro. Hope that is how it turns out for Clark.
The WNBA: Thread II
- Thread starter Phil Plantier
- Start date
However, Steph Curry only got better as a pro. Hope that is how it turns out for Clark.
True but I think it’s less likely. It’s a much shallower pool and Clark was so dominant. It would be like Larry Bird failing in the NBA.
All true. But the argument that she might not be CAITLIN CLARK in the WNBA is that virtually every player she goes up against will be far better than virtually everyone she went up against in college (and she was a mediocre defender at best in college and is going to get absolutely abused in the WNBA, barring some serious improvement on that end - which, by the way, she's probably capable of). And she might not have the same level of freedom to just gun from everywhere on the court when someone like Aliyah Boston is calling for the ball in the post. A WNBA team might not be too interested in Clark going 17-46 (36%) like she did against UConn and South Carolina (teams with WNBA talent) in the Final Four.
Personally I think she'll be more than fine and will adjust her game accordingly, but the above ^ is the argument against her being as successful in the WNBA as she was in college.
Basically that while she was very good, half the WNBA were similar level talents in college. It's an incredibly small league with a ton of talent. Clark has been amazing, but she's not the best college player of the last decade, maybe the best scorer, but her all around game isn't at the level of Stewart, Moore, etc. The player whose scoring record she broke this year is Kelsey Plum... a very good player but also one who took 6 years to make a WNBA all-star team and didn't break 10 ppg until her 4th season. Going from college to the WNBA is as hard (maybe harder) than the college to NBA transition. The talent concentration gets much tighter. Like some of the top 15 picks in this year's draft.... might not make a roster, that's how tight it is right now.
Clark will probably end up a star scorer in the WNBA, maybe even quickly, but also... maybe not? She'll face much better talent than she ever has, and they'll all be experienced pros.
I can see that. She will have to adjust to not be as much of a gunner, as that won’t fly on a team with better talent. I could also see players “getting up” to guard her to take her down a . While the attention on her is good for the sport, I’m sure it has created some jealousy.
Athletically, how does she compare? About average? Below average?
Caitlin Clark is a point guard. She's Sue Bird with a better shot. I think the WNBA will showcase her passing and court vision in addition to her shooting. Against UConn, she had a quickness that enabled her drives to the basket, so I think she'll adjust well to the speed of the pro game. The only concern would be her defense, but I don't think it's going to matter. The Fever is a great spot for Clark as they already have Kelsey Mitchell and Aliyah Boston. Her skills will make the other players better.
I don't watch as much WNBA as some here, but my sense would be, slightly below average. There are players in the league who are there because of extreme athleticism, who don't have her shot or her creative court vision. The frontcourt players generally all dominated college like adults playing with children. Some guards are there for defense and hustle.
I wouldn't say she's outclassed, but the athleticism of the opposition and their willingness to defend her really energetically, will take some getting used to. When Sue Bird and Diana Taurasi joined the league, the talent wasn't at the same level. The WNBA was the same size it is today, but the investment in college WBB wasn't nearly as substantial. Now college has outpaced the pros in terms of generating talent for the last decade plus, concentrating the talent and raising the floor, and while they might be about to expand, it hasn't happened yet.