LMAO!!!
I've posted a graphic which clearly illustrates my point.
Need that reposted for you? CC's play is almost 2x better the last 10 games than it was around the Olympic selection timeframe.
The CC Show....
- Thread starter Joes Place
- Start date
LMAO!!!
I've posted a graphic which clearly illustrates my point.
Need that reposted for you? CC's play is almost 2x better the last 10 games than it was around the Olympic selection timeframe.
Those statements seem mutually exclusive.
And it's why one player is doing more to help their team, irrespective of her stats.
Relevance to our discussion? None.
She had better stats than Olympic team members at the time of selection.
That has been posted, discussed and proven. Your attempt to discredit has been debunked, multiple times
Not sure why I would deny the statistics and facts that support my posts. Feel free to revisit your recent posting of parts of a sentence, the magical 9.1 point steal from a decade ago and the remainder of your weak efforts. You keep moving the goal posts, reaching for some sliver that you can hang on to. All with no success. Keep it up
Complete and comprehensive relevance.
In fact, your buddies have been lamenting all the "rebounds records" attention Reese is getting, pointing out that she is firing up brick after brick and getting her own rebounds.
Basically illustrating that "a statistic" or two does not provide clear context to the overall level of play.
Game Efficiency scores do that, because they take into account things like shot misses, turnovers, etc.
And that is PRECISELY what I've been pointing out to them w.r.t. CC's early play - Sure she had points and assists, but also shot poorly and turned the ball over as often as she dished out an assist. Her early play was erratic and hurt her team - just like Reese's play gets her big numbers, but doesn't really help her team win.
And you, along with your buddies here, are too stupid to understand it. You're applying different standards, based on one player you "like" and another you "dislike". Literally why I went to an independent and overall efficiency metric which demonstrates CC's play has improved a TON since the Olympic selections were made, and shows exactly that Reese's statistics are overblown, whatever records she may be setting.
I have not moved the goalposts at all.
I've provided a standard, overall metric for gauging CC's level of play (and Reese's).
That metric supports the position you and your buddies like: Reese's rebounds are great, but she does a lot of other stuff that hurts her team (like throwing up brick after brick after getting the rebound, instead of dishing to a teammate who can actually shoot).
And it debunks the position you have (and don't like pointed out): CC had a weak start to the season and her level of play is dramatically improved since the Olympic selections were made. And IF she had played back then like she is now, she would clearly have deserved a spot.
I have yet to reference Reese……
This discussion was about the Olympic selections.
Any irony in the ‘not moving goal posts’ and then referencing someone I never mentioned?
Did you want to go back to the statistics at selection time? When CC was better than a few Olympic team members. That was the discussion but you keep going with your ‘but she’s better now’ spiel.
Here's the 6-game running average for CC, Magic Johnson and Reese in their rookie seasons.
Magic's axis is reduced to 'half-games' to shift it down closer to the 40 game WNBA schedule (he actually played >90 games). Makes it easier to match up progress thru different-length seasons.
Very apparent that Reese's numbers were actually better than Clark's, through the Olympic selection deadline, but their game productivity has diverged completely since that point.
Now, Clark's numbers mirror Magic Johnson's productivity during his first season, and Reese has fallen off the table.
CC's last Game Efficiency score was >30, one of her best games of the season vs the Sky. In this last stretch of the season, she's completely transformed her game (despite some silly TO's last night trying to get too cute with behind the back passes - still had a 4:1 Assist/TO ratio that could have been 6:1 or better). Clark playing at this level (or better) will make the Fever a very dangerous playoff team that could score some big upsets. Couple her improvement w/ a healthy Temi F, and they may surprise some people.
And I've posted the graphic for you that her pre-Olympic performances simply were not good. Reese was playing better than her, early on.
You don't want to hear that, but the numbers bear it out.
Huh?
Read a graph - Clark did not perform well enough to justify an Olympic spot. The rest she got has enabled her to perfect her game for the 2nd half.
Why do you keep bringing up Reese?
That’s right because your defense of DT failed. Keep spinning.
Reality… better stats than several Olympian’s at the time of selection.
But she wasn’t old enough….. keep spinning
Ummm… the 9.1 steal came from….
Wait for it….. a slow Joe link from a decade ago. Please review your posts. Not my link, all you.
In 20 years, people will be shocked to hear Clark didn’t make the Olympic team…and Joe’s Place will lean in towards them and say, ‘accctuallllly…there was a 10 game stretch in her rookie year where her game efficiency, and turnover ratio, blah, blah, blah’.
“According to the Hollinger Game Score Formula….”, said no basketball analyst ever.
Because folks like yourself continue to use a different standard in bashing Reese's play compared to Clark's play.
"Oh, all those rebounds don't count because she keeps rebounding her own misses"
"Hey, just look at another kewl assist by Clark" (followed by another 2 turnovers you don't see)
I'm the only person in the thread applying a standardized metric; and that metric supports both my criticisms of Clark's early play, and Reese's continued play
No; they really won't.
Just like people who hear Michael Jordan got cut off his HS basketball team (he wasn't that good then)
Oh, you're all bent out of shape about a metric that doesn't apply to 'actual points'. I never stated it did.
Go complain to 538 and Nate Silver, who's website posted that analysis.
CCs turnovers early in the season hurt her team, badly. It's why they were 2-9. Her ratio was 1:1
Last game it was 4:1, and could have been 6:1 or 12:1 if she hadn't tried a couple cute behind-the-back-passes during the game.
2:1 or better is what you want, and she was under-water early in the season.
And neither you nor your buddies want to acknowledge that she has set the record for season-turnovers many many games ago...
Pick a metric, then, which uses all statistical aspects to compare CC to others.
I posted my numbers; they support my position completely. Meanwhile, you flounder to claim "Reese's rebound stats don't matter because she gets her own misses", yet you completely ignore the negatives Clark had which were glaring earlier in the season.
My numbers I've posted even demonstrate the significant growth in her game over the course of the season. And likewise demonstrate "regression" for Reese at this point. It's why I do not think Reese will have a shot at ROY unless she significantly turns it around. Clark will lead her team into the playoffs, and if she keeps playing better might even get them a round or 2 in. Lots more eyes on her play will tip that award toward her.
Again, you lump me in with others. Try to respond to me and my posts if that is what you want to do.
Why do you move the goal posts? Attempt to assign an opinion to me that I haven’t posted?
Because you haven’t been able to refute the facts and statistics.
When you need to resort to the ‘well they are better but not that much better’ you know you have lost the discussion. Keep deflecting and diverting.
The only one you are fooling is….. well you. Keep it up.
How she is doing now is immaterial to our discussion.
You linked 538 and Nate Silver, epic fail on your part
You hold CC to the 2:1 ratio while ignoring that her ratio was better than 1/3 of the Olympic team
Keep throwing garbage at the wall… who brought up 538 and Nate Silver? Slow Joe…. Since your reading comprehension and attention to facts is lacking…. That is you.
You made an attempt to use 10 year old garbage and it failed.
Time to throw some things in bold so someone will believe you. That is your only chance. Stats and logic are not on your side with this thread
‘My numbers I've posted even demonstrate the significant growth in her game over the course of the season.’
So? Not part of the discussion.
Throw some other stuff out that doesn’t apply. Your attempts are embarrassing for you
Because you're posting the same claims.
And you're apparently incapable of understanding what an "impartial" metric is.
If you want to claim CC's game was "good enough" to be on the Olympic team, then you should be pushing that Reese should have been on it, too, as Reese's early season play was actually better than Clark's.
Most certainly is.
Because your buddies here are referring to her CURRENT play to justify PAST qualifications for Olympic consideration.
That analysis demonstrates those are misguided claims, and gaslight that her early play was actually pretty erratic.
That, again, is why her team started the season 7 games under .500
It is relevant to THE discussion, because people are looking at her records now to justify an Olympic spot for her, back when her play was not nearly as good.
Have yet to see you (or anyone else) post comprehensive comparisons of her first 12-13 game stats vs actual Olympians' stats (aside from Taurasi). Probably because you looked them up, and they didn't support your argument.
Taurasi actually attended the tryout camp (IIRC), so anyone who was there wouldn't need 2024 stats to back up their claim. Committee even said CC's early play would be her "tryout", and the numbers I'd posted for you graphically do not paint a picture that justifies a spot. She was worse than Reese at the time, and nowhere near a previous NBA rookie that someone wanted to claim "had nearly as many turnovers as her".
Your reading comprehension is pathetic. My claim was that CC was better than some that were on the team. I haven’t lobbied for her to be on the team. You can’t address specifics because you don’t have a leg to stand on. Now you attempt to introduce Reese into the conversation. It will go as well as your Jrue Holliday reference.
I haven’t referred to her current play. You have. Another pathetic attempt on your part. Feel free to address their claims in their posts, not mine. Stick to my posts and claims….. but you can’t. You remind me of Arthur Fonzarelli. Just can’t admit you were wrong. You can’t attack my posts on their merits so you shotgun out random items that I haven’t mentioned.
Stats better than 3 Olympian’s. At least in your a:to criteria. Wait, 4 Olympians in that measurement. You can’t refute that with any stats.
She’s the first WNBA player with 30 and 12 assists. Ever.
That’s pretty damn cool.
That’s pretty damn cool.
Yup. Graduated from "The first rookie...." to the bigs!
This is really still going on...? JFC, Joe. I know I'm ignored by you, but if you ever check all posts, seek help. And find a life. You've been wrong in life. It happens. To all of us. Holy hell, what an insufferable ass.
If Caitlin had been on punt coverage that would have been a 15 yard penalty on DeShields for illegal block in the back. And of course the Chennedy Carter hip check a couple months ago was about as blatant as it gets.
The Sky have some talent but they have serious discipline issues, which is why their season is tailspinning.
Big day in the W tomorrow. Every team is in action except New York and Washington and several games will have playoff implications.
The Fever are in Dallas. The Sky are in Minnesota, where Chennedy Carter is listed as a game time decision. The Dream are in Los Angeles.
A win by Indiana coupled with a loss by Atlanta would bring the Fever’s magic number down to 1. A win by the Fever would also put them above .500 for the first time since 2019, when they started the season 4-3 before losing 12 of their next 14 games.
The Fever are in Dallas. The Sky are in Minnesota, where Chennedy Carter is listed as a game time decision. The Dream are in Los Angeles.
A win by Indiana coupled with a loss by Atlanta would bring the Fever’s magic number down to 1. A win by the Fever would also put them above .500 for the first time since 2019, when they started the season 4-3 before losing 12 of their next 14 games.
The day could easily come when CC gets hurt by one of these cheap shots.
The WNBA will not like the blowback and what that tran$lates to for them.
They need to address it especially prior to playoffs.
The statistics do not support that, at the time of the selections
And that IS "supporting that she should be on the team", Cletus. She did not try out.
Similar threads
