The CC Show....

[Joes Place]

Naw, you’re just wrong on this one.

It's literally in the thread, spud.

Posts are here claiming Reese's rebounding numbers "don't matter" because she's rebounding her own misses.
Then, their brains shift gears and look at the shiny Christmas lights of Caitlin assists, ignoring the turnovers and poor shooting percentages early on.

CC was not playing like an All-Star early on; she has certainly changed that since June and the statistics completely support that statement.

 

[Joes Place]

Stats better than 3 Olympian’s.

Yet, you won't show your work; you'll just blather that she was better.

Post their season and career efficiency #s if you think they were better; if they tried out at camp, it's irrelevant, because they demonstrated in person, not based on #'s.

 

[Joes Place]

I haven’t referred to her current play.

You certainly are when you're claiming "she was better than Olympians".

Early on, she was not.

 

[Joes Place]

Stats better than 3 Olympian’s. At least in your a:to criteria. Wait, 4 Olympians in that measurement.

Good thing I've been pointing out comprehensive metrics, and not just a single one (like you and others do here; then, you completely shift gears claiming "rebounds don't matter" for Reese because of other poorer aspects of her game)

Comical, really, the double-standard you've created for yourselves.

 

[cidhawkeye]

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.

Better check your magical Assists/Turnover ratio. You post them regularly.
Back to name calling. Always a solid defense when the facts aren’t on your side.
Nice ‘try out’ slide in. Not everyone tried out…… still the fact. How’s Jru Holliday? Care to take another stab at the Staley interview? You sucked at that one the first time as well. Link another stat from a decade ago and a different league. Laughable efforts from you. Take the ‘L’ and move on

 

[cidhawkeye]

Yet, you won't show your work; you'll just blather that she was better.

Post their season and career efficiency #s if you think they were better; if they tried out at camp, it's irrelevant, because they demonstrated in person, not based on #'s.

Season? Not applicable
Career? Not applicable
Try out? Not all did
Show my work? It’s literally in the thread. Go back and read it.

Now that was fun, channeling the inner slow Joe bold technique….. fyi it’s actually in the thread. Go back to when you had to sink to the ‘well not that much better’ response.

 

[Bank of Hawk]

So about Sturgis..

 

[Joes Place]

Better check your magical Assists/Turnover ratio. You post them regularly.

I do; and hers was poor early on at 1:1

And when you and others claimed other people had low numbers, I pointed out the others actually tried out, and posted comprehensive stats that show you pretty clearly her play was "good for a rookie", but not good for an Olympic team.

 

[Joes Place]

Show my work? It’s literally in the thread. Go back and read it.

It's nowhere in the thread.

You and others cherry-pick the stats you like, ignore the bad ones.
Game Efficiency numbers bear that out, clearly. You won't discuss those, because they undermine your argument.

 

[Bro D]

Olympic snub CC plays today!

 

[Kelsers]

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.

Forget about the stats!! They knew how good she is, and it showed in the all-star game. Ever since that time she has played like EVERYONE knew she could.

 

[TJ8869]

It's literally in the thread, spud.

Posts are here claiming Reese's rebounding numbers "don't matter" because she's rebounding her own misses.
Then, their brains shift gears and look at the shiny Christmas lights of Caitlin assists, ignoring the turnovers and poor shooting percentages early on.

CC was not playing like an All-Star early on; she has certainly changed that since June and the statistics completely support that statement.

For a very long time the comparison was Taurasi v Clark, or in fact Taurasi v literally almost any other starter in the WNBA.

Caitlin v Reese is a non-starter. And don’t insult basic common sense by bringing Caitlin’s early shooting percentage into the discussion. Reese has the worst shooting percentage in the league even though 90% of her shots are directly below the basket. Angel Reese trying to make an offensive move in the paint looks like a wildebeest trying to escape from the jaws of a crocodile.

 

[Joes Place]

Forget about the stats!!

Right?

She was the Greatest Player In the History Of The WNBA after playing in ~10 games.
Forget all the missed shots and turnovers that hurt her team - just focus on the "good" stats!!!

 

[Joes Place]

For a very long time the comparison was Taurasi v Clark

Taurasi tried out.
Clark did not.

No idea why they picked her over other capable players, but they did. Maybe she demonstrated leadership at the camps and mentored the first-time players. You'd have to email them and ask them.

 

[Joes Place]

For a very long time the comparison was Taurasi v Clark, or in fact Taurasi v literally almost any other starter in the WNBA.

Caitlin v Reese is a non-starter. And don’t insult basic common sense by bringing Caitlin’s early shooting percentage into the discussion.

Cuz CC's early game crappy shooting percentages just don't matter for ANYTHING!!!

(meanwhile, I'm comparing season-long trends, which clearly show there's no comparison anymore. What was a reasonable early season comparison is no longer a close call)

 

[Joes Place]

Forget about the stats!! They knew how good she is, and it showed in the all-star game.

That 1-for-7 from 3 pt range was Greatest All Star Of All Time level stuff!!!

 

[TJ8869]

Clark did not (try out)

That’s because they made sure she couldn’t.

 

[Joes Place]

That’s because they made sure she couldn’t.

Sure, she could
She just chose to play w/ her Iowa teammates in the Final Four

And, as has already been pointed out to you very early in the thread - this year there was about 1 month less between the FF weekend and Olympics than in prior years. Ergo, in past years, FF would have been 2-3 weeks sooner relative to Olympic team cutoffs.

But, by all means, keep pushing your "conspiracy" nonsense.

 

[Kelsers]

That 1-for-7 from 3 pt range was Greatest All Star Of All Time level stuff!!!

How about the rest of her game??

 

[Kelsers]

Right?

She was the Greatest Player In the History Of The WNBA after playing in ~10 games.
Forget all the missed shots and turnovers that hurt her team - just focus on the "good" stats!!!

I think she probably is the greatest player in the history of the WNBA!!

 

[Joes Place]

I think she probably is the greatest player in the history of the WNBA!!

She very well could end up there.

But not after 10 games.
Not even after 40 games.

 

[Joes Place]

How about the rest of her game??

Oops...I forgot - we can only focus on the "good" stats!!!

 

[cidhawkeye]

Taurasi tried out.
Clark did not.

No idea why they picked her over other capable players, but they did. Maybe she demonstrated leadership at the camps and mentored the first-time players. You'd have to email them and ask them.

I thought how they played was a criteria. CC had better stats than DT at selection time. As did several other players that weren’t selected.

 

[Joes Place]

I thought how they played was a criteria.

How CC played was a criteria.
Because unlike most of the team, she did not try out.

Every other player that did not attend tryouts had one or more seasons of experience, in comparison. The Committee "knew what they were getting" from WNBA veterans.

 

[cidhawkeye]

and hers was poor early on at 1:1

Yet better than 4 Olympians. Is the ratio valid or not? If it continues to be thrown out as a ‘why not on the team’ than it seems it didn’t apply to others…….seems consistent…. To slow Joe

 

[cidhawkeye]

That 1-for-7 from 3 pt range was Greatest All Star Of All Time level stuff!!!

W

Stands for win.

 

[TJ8869]

Sure, she could
She just chose to play w/ her Iowa teammates in the Final Four

What a bitch!

And, as has already been pointed out to you very early in the thread - this year there was about 1 month less between the FF weekend and Olympics than in prior years. Ergo, in past years, FF would have been 2-3 weeks sooner relative to Olympic team cutoffs.

I’m aware that you’ve pointed out this bullshit claim before. It was nonsense then and it’s still nonsense now. The Paris Olympics started on July 26. The 2020 Tokyo Olympics were originally scheduled to start on July 23 before they were postponed to 2021 because of COVID. The 2016 Rio Olympics started on August 5. The 2012 London games started on July 27. You have to go all the way back to the 2000 Sydney games, which started on September 15, to find one where the difference in the gap between the FF and the Olympics was even close to one month.

But, by all means, keep pushing your "conspiracy" nonsense.

It’s not a “conspiracy”. The committee simply didn’t care whether Clark was on the team or not. They could have easily held the camp the day after the title game, but they chose instead to hold it during the Final Four. I think they did her and the Fever a favor in that Clark clearly needed a break. But they passed up on a huge opportunity to market their league and women’s basketball in general on the world’s biggest stage. That’s their choice and their prerogative, I suppose.

 

[Joes Place]

What a bitch!

What a teammate!!!

 

[Joes Place]

It’s not a “conspiracy”. The committee simply didn’t care whether Clark was on the team or not.

Correct.

If she had demonstrated she was clearly capable of playing at that level, they'd have added her.
But her early WNBA play was erratic, and had not helped her team in winning games.

Committee outright told you that "popularity" was not one of the criteria they were allowed to consider. Yet, here you are, with post after post jabbering about how "CC would have brought so many more game watchers". Probably true, but not a selection criteria.

 

[cidhawkeye]

How CC played was a criteria.
Because unlike most of the team, she did not try out.

Every other player that did not attend tryouts had one or more seasons of experience, in comparison. The Committee "knew what they were getting" from WNBA veterans.

So it’s how they played unless they aren’t good enough there
Or it’s stats unless those aren’t good enough
Well unless they tried out
Or they played well a year + ago
Or they are old
Or they played on a national team before
Or they didn’t play in the final four

‘Yeah but’ solid rationale for some I guess

 

[Joes Place]

They could have easily held the camp the day after the title game,

CC would not have been able to attend "the day after".

A week or so after, probably.
But, this year there were 3-4 FEWER weeks than usual between FF and Olympics. Which probably made this much more difficult to try and schedule.

They did not do it "to keep her from attending"; they did it because that's the usual # of weeks before the Olympics they run tryouts, and with a month less time, it (likely) wasn't practical this time around.

 

[Joes Place]

So it’s how they played unless they aren’t good enough there

LOLWUT?

Players who attended the camp got evaluated at the camp. Committee had 1 or more years of data/info on other players at WNBA level for evaluating them.

They had 10 games to evaluate CC, and her resume didn't look all that great at the time.

 

[cidhawkeye]

But they passed up on a huge opportunity to market their league and women’s basketball in general on the world’s biggest stage.

Part of their mission statement yet they chose to ignore it. Ignore game stats, ignore growing the game.
The 0 minute performance in the Gold medal game was impressive.

 

[Joes Place]

So it’s how they played unless they aren’t good enough there
Or it’s stats unless those aren’t good enough
Well unless they tried out
Or they played well a year + ago
Or they are old
Or they played on a national team before
Or they didn’t play in the final four

‘Yeah but’ solid rationale for some I guess

Look who's "all over the map" now....

They evaluated CC on her first games in the WNBA; her numbers were not great, compared to typical WNBA All Stars and former Olympic players. They opted not to risk adding her. Email them if you want details.

 

[Joes Place]

Part of their mission statement yet they chose to ignore it.

It is NOT part of their mission statement.
That is an Olympic mission statement, not that of the Team USA Selection committee.

If it was, they'd have considered it - they outright told you it was NOT a criteria for the team.
You continue to whine about this. Email them if you think they should have used it - the selection committee told you they were directed NOT to consider that. Whether that was Team USA or the Coach who directed them to ignore "popularity" is unknown. Ask them.

 

[Joes Place]

W

Stands for win.

And the Fever were 2-9 around the time the Selection Committee decided.
Maybe they didn't want a player who wasn't leading their team to wins....

 

[TJ8869]

Committee outright told you that "popularity" was not one of the criteria they were allowed to consider. Yet, here you are, with post after post jabbering about how "CC would have brought so many more game watchers". Probably true, but not a selection criteria.

I’m well aware that the committee said it wasn’t part of their criteria. My point is that it should have at least been considered. Clark has tripled viewership and attendance figure almost every time she steps on the court. The amount of attention she has brought to the sport is completely unprecedented and almost not even believable.

The committee’s attitude of “Nah, we’re good” is an unconscionable refusal to capitalize on the biggest opportunity that has ever fallen into their lap.

 

[TJ8869]

CC would not have been able to attend "the day after".

A week or so after, probably.
But, this year there were 3-4 FEWER weeks than usual between FF and Olympics. Which probably made this much more difficult to try and schedule.

They did not do it "to keep her from attending"; they did it because that's the usual # of weeks before the Olympics they run tryouts, and with a month less time, it (likely) wasn't practical this time around.

You’re just blatantly lying here. I’ve posted the start dates for the past several Olympics. They are a matter of historical record. You can’t just make up your own fake history. The last time the difference in the gap was anything close to a month was Sydney in 2000. At that time Diana Taurasi had not yet played her first game at UConn.

 

[TJ8869]

It is NOT part of their mission statement.

It absolutely IS part of their mission statement.

That is an Olympic mission statement, not that of the Team USA Selection committee.

Our Mission​

As the governing body for basketball in the United States, USA Basketball is a worldwide leader in the sport through competitive excellence in international competition and by promoting, growing and elevating the game at all levels while ensuring that athletes and other participants compete and develop in a safe, inclusive and welcoming environment.

Link

 

[cidhawkeye]

Look who's "all over the map" now....

They evaluated CC on her first games in the WNBA; her numbers were not great, compared to typical WNBA All Stars and former Olympic players. They opted not to risk adding her. Email them if you want details.

‘All over the map’
Courtesy of Joe. Funny that Joe doesn’t recognize the summary of his lengthy list of rationalizations.