ADVERTISEMENT

***Official Caitlin/Fever/Kate/Meg Games Mega Thread***

I wish one of you smart guys would do a deep dive on the Vegas odds versus public perception. I am in no way exaggerating when I say I am mesmerized by this spread and the narrative being driven by a handful of media outlets..

The closest this thing has ever been odds wise was after AR put up 27 & 18 & somewhere around - 450 to +300 give or take.

It has now ballooned back out to what -1000 to +650. Those are monstrous odds absolutely humongous and yet the media narrative is it’s not only close but AR might be in the lead.

Who actually votes on this by the way, and if Vegas generally mirrors, public perception in an attempt to get somewhat even money, how is this even possible? I mean, they clearly don’t want people betting on Clark a 1000 bet to win 100 what the holy hell, there is only one bet and that is Angel & yet their professional oddsmakers who get paid shit tons of money to handicap give her basically no shot…

Is this not crazy and insane to any of the rest of you?

How can the media even push this narrative and these advanced metrics. I’ve never believed in them and maybe they’re more spot on in other sports but the more I read about them and the more I dig into them they’re absolutely junk, and that’s probably not even fair more than that they’re misleading and skewed to interior players😱
 
  • Like
Reactions: hawkosx
I can respect a change of view once it can't be denied. It's certainly a lot more refreshing than the "Oh shit, I am definitely wrong here so let's DOUBLE DOWN ON IT!" that has taken over so much discourse these days.
Of course. I think people can and do change, but I just can't resist the opportunity to be a smart-ass now and then. I guess I'm more convinced that what she said before the game is how she really feels, and then some PR person told her to dial it back in the post-game press conference. In the past they could say what was on their mind, and no one would pay it one wit's attention. Now, it's under the klieg-lights of Caitlin's fame, and they're learning you have to be diplomatic. I think Ms. Taurasi learned this as well. Not to say they can't change their minds, and that they can embrace a new perspective - but, within 2-3 hours of the first comment? That's quite a transformation. But, maybe like Jake Blues, she saw the light.

Blues Brothers GIF
 
Most of the time, coaches teach players how to fit into their system. IMHO, and as an armchair coach/GM, wouldn't it be wiser to for Sides to teach her players how to play according to what Clark brings to the table on offense, and develop her game plans accordingly. And, by all means, don't put a ball and chain on Clark by not utilizing her abilities to the highest extent possible. Pretty generic take, but good grief.
Really, NO coach was going to take Clark or ANY rookie and tell their players to play how the rookie wants. We are all too close to CC and her stardom to keep that perspective. Now they have started to adapt to her and this will continue for the next few years in both style of play and future drafts. Just IMHO....
 
I wish one of you smart guys would do a deep dive on the Vegas odds versus public perception. I am in no way exaggerating when I say I am mesmerized by this spread and the narrative being driven by a handful of media outlets..

The closest this thing has ever been odds wise was after AR put up 27 & 18 & somewhere around - 450 to +300 give or take.

It has now ballooned back out to what -1000 to +650. Those are monstrous odds absolutely humongous and yet the media narrative is it’s not only close but AR might be in the lead.

Who actually votes on this by the way, and if Vegas generally mirrors, public perception in an attempt to get somewhat even money, how is this even possible? I mean, they clearly don’t want people betting on Clark a 1000 bet to win 100 what the holy hell, there is only one bet and that is Angel & yet their professional oddsmakers who get paid shit tons of money to handicap give her basically no shot…

Is this not crazy and insane to any of the rest of you?

How can the media even push this narrative and these advanced metrics. I’ve never believed in them and maybe they’re more spot on in other sports but the more I read about them and the more I dig into them they’re absolutely junk, and that’s probably not even fair more than that they’re misleading and skewed to interior players😱
Looks like the voters are a panel of journalists. Apparently, a panel of journalists issued interim standings of voting last week and Clark is winning by a 2-1 margin. I have no idea if this is the same panel who actually votes.

 
  • Like
Reactions: cmhawks99
Dan Patrick spitting truth:

Boy, he made a great point. I hadn’t even thought of, they do, meaning other teams, very much say stop C Clark and we’re probably going to win. And he’s also right they’re not trying to stop “Reese” from anything other than getting 700 rebounds, now that’s a chore, and they haven’t really been very successful, but the Sky are still losing games 🤷‍♂️

So a quick thought here, I think we’ve all assumed they front loaded and over scheduled the Fever in the first month of the season for viewership and ultimately money.

But is there a potentiality if the top brass share much of the same “liberal“ agendas as much of the players, Talking Heads and coaches could’ve they purposefully set her up for failure? I’m really not this much of a conspiracist anymore and that feels a little bit like killing the golden goose, but…

Could’ve they naïvely been trying to say hey you’re here to see Caitlin Clark, but look how good the rest of these teams are. So maybe, trying to “brand their image” with CC as a catalyst.

I mean, as I say it out loud that doesn’t necessarily seem out of line, but it could’ve had really dire consequences, couldn’t it have, in reality I think it increased her stardom?!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawksfor3
Boy, he made a great point. I hadn’t even thought of, they do, meaning other teams, very much say stop C Clark and we’re probably going to win. And he’s also right they’re not trying to stop “Reese” from anything other than getting 700 rebounds, now that’s a chore, and they haven’t really been very successful, but the Sky are still losing games 🤷‍♂️

So a quick thought here, I think we’ve all assumed they front loaded and over scheduled the Fever in the first month of the season for viewership and ultimately money.

But is there a potentiality if the top brass share much of the same “liberal“ agendas as much of the players, Talking Heads and coaches could’ve they purposefully set her up for failure? I’m really not this much of a conspiracist anymore and that feels a little bit like killing the golden goose, but…

Could’ve they naïvely been trying to say hey you’re here to see Caitlin Clark, but look how good the rest of these teams are. So maybe, trying to “brand their image” with CC as a catalyst.

I mean, as I say it out loud that doesn’t necessarily seem out of line, but it could’ve had really dire consequences, couldn’t it have, in reality I think it increased her stardom?!
I do not think there is any way the top brass purposefully set her up for failure - that does not make sense to me. However, that does not mean they aren't incompetent, or that they do not know how to build up other players without diminishing Caitlin. I just think it is a mismanaged league with too many people in positions of power who cannot consistently refrain from making emotional/childish/improvident decisions.
 
DT's career A/TO rate is 1.6. Clark is at 1.4 this season. Cut down on a few careless mistakes like stepping on the sideline and get some spot up shooters that can convert wide open 3s and she will have an equal or better A/TO rate soon.
Now take away the TOs where her teammates should have caught the pass and add the assists where they missed an entirely makeable shot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawksfor3
So John Kennedy, the humorous senator from Louisiana, just said that the only better VP nominee would have been Caitlin Clark.

Btw, no politics intended. Just noting another marker in Caitlin's broad popularity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cmhawks99
I do not think there is any way the top brass purposefully set her up for failure - that does not make sense to me. However, that does not mean they aren't incompetent, or that they do not know how to build up other players without diminishing Caitlin. I just think it is a mismanaged league with too many people in positions of power who cannot consistently refrain from making emotional/childish/improvident decisions.

Yes, based on other things I’ve witnessed I think that is likely a good take. And you are right it does not make sense. It just seems like a poorly thought out decision.🤷‍♂️
 
Could’ve they naïvely been trying to say hey you’re here to see Caitlin Clark, but look how good the rest of these teams are. So maybe, trying to “brand their image” with CC as a catalyst.
I would say that Clark is diminishing the sometimes Mediocrity from some of those teams in front of their fans, with Greatness, and that fills seats. If I were the Organization facing the Fever, I'd say, Hell ya' let's ride this like a "borrowed mule" as long as we can.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cmhawks99
I would NOT blow up this team unless you want to waste another half season hoping the newbies will be any better at adjusting to CC.

Unless Hannah grows 4" this fall she will get blocked out of the league shooting around the rim.

Mitchell is a good 3pt and FT shooter. I'd give Lexi and KLS the off season to adjust and get up to speed.

Smith and Temi do the job.

And finally CC has had a lot of off nights shooting and passing from what we are use to.

Work in process, don't start all over.
Teams are leaving Wheeler, Hull, Wallace, and even KLS wide open on 3 attempts. They want them to take those shots. The Fever need to bring in at least one better shooter in the offseason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawksfor3
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT