Should Clark be on the Olympic team?

[GamecockFam]

Not a lot of USA players have 3x3 experience. Those invited do have experience with 3x3 and are active in 3x3 tournaments and multiple USAB training camps not just 3x3.

The article below discusses all participants' experience with 3x3 and USAB programs.
2024 USA 3x3 Women’s National Team Training Camp Roster Announced - USA Basketball

Cameron has significant 3x3 experience: "Brink was named MVP of the 2023 FIBA 3x3 Women’s World Cup after helping USA to the gold medal. Brink also competed in two 2023 FIBA 3x3 Women’s Series stops as a member of USA U24, finishing second in both Montreal and Quebec. A USA Basketball participant since 2017, she also owns 5-on-5 gold medals from the 2018 FIBA U17 Women’s World Cup and 2019 FIBA U19 Women’s World Cup."

IMO Cam also has the perfect body and skills to play that style of game. I think the ideal 3x3 player is a forward or tall guard who can defend both guards and bigs, can shoot the three, and is a decent ball handler. She also is a high energy player who I think has to worry less about fouling out in that style of game.

 

[The deacon]

IMO Cam also has the perfect body and skills to play that style of game. I think the ideal 3x3 player is a forward or tall guard who can defend both guards and bigs, can shoot the three, and is a decent ball handler. She also is a high energy player who I think has to worry less about fouling out in that style of game.

Agreed. That's why Katie Lou excelled at 3 x3 before Covid got her...

 

[Rowdy831]

I think that Caitlin Clark may already be the best player ever in the women's game. She does have a lot to prove but what she did with a very average Iowa team is quite remarkable. All you have to do to beat them is defend CC and very few teams were able to do that when it mattered.

I am really excited to see what she can do when she is surrounded by other players that can actually play the game a a professional level. As far as the Olympics are concerned they need fans to watch and nobody tunes to watch a women play like fans do for CC.

 

[TC22]

Within 6 weeks we will put all these opinions to rest. It won’t take long to determine whether Caitlin is ready to play against a team full of pros and how much playing with a team full of pros elevates her game. I’ll be glad when that happens because I am absolutely tired of all the new WBB fans giving their opinions. And this refers more to the media and talk show hosts than fans.

 

[Bjbod]

Within 6 weeks we will put all these opinions to rest. It won’t take long to determine whether Caitlin is ready to play against a team full of pros and how much playing with a team full of pros elevates her game. I’ll be glad when that happens because I am absolutely tired of all the new WBB fans giving their opinions. And this refers more to the media and talk show hosts than fans.

This whole argument can actually break several ways:

1) Caitlin was surrounded by pedestrian talent at Iowa. When she joins the WNBA she'll flourish, especially on the assist side. Girls at Iowa
either couldn't handle her passes or couldn't convert once they received the ball. Better players as teammates: more assists.

2) Clark will struggle in the WNBA. As Diana Taurasi points out, she's been feasting on a steady diet of hapless 18-year-old little girls in college. Now that she'll be facing "grown women" in the W, her obviously overhyped skills will be exposed and she'll be relegated to
the mediocrity that those in the know have been pointing out all along.

3) Clark obviously makes those around her better with her passing skills and as a decoy to draw defenses to her, therefore making life
easier for her teammates. But what if Clark's teammates along with her coach's system actually make Caitlin better? Their ability to put
the team first and realize they'd be more successful by embracing her talents while humbling themselves is not easy to do, especially
the buy-in seen by an entire team.

4) Will a team of pros be real pros, in the sense their primary objective is to win. Or will they be pros simply by being paid for playing the
game? Will they succumb to pettiness and hazing to make a new player earn their place, or will they do their best to integrate her into
the team....regardless of her skill level. Maybe she will be ordinary; perhaps she'll elevate to become an WNBA star as well. It seems as
if the Fever are willing to take this path, even if the rest of the league isn't on board.

Will be an interesting ride, especially with the heightened audience that's going to be following.

 

[WBBTakeover]

Within 6 weeks we will put all these opinions to rest. It won’t take long to determine whether Caitlin is ready to play against a team full of pros and how much playing with a team full of pros elevates her game. I’ll be glad when that happens because I am absolutely tired of all the new WBB fans giving their opinions. And this refers more to the media and talk show hosts than fans.

Yes! I have no problem with the CC hype (she's earned it), but I can do without clowns like Stephen A Smith and Pat McAfee (among others) telling me what my eyes have already sensed. Just because you can now name ONE WBB player does not make you a WNBA expert.

 

[diggerfoot]

I think that Caitlin Clark may already be the best player ever in the women's game. She does have a lot to prove but what she did with a very average Iowa team is quite remarkable. All you have to do to beat them is defend CC and very few teams were able to do that when it mattered.

I am really excited to see what she can do when she is surrounded by other players that can actually play the game a a professional level. As far as the Olympics are concerned they need fans to watch and nobody tunes to watch a women play like fans do for CC.

Still with the average teammates narrative. There are three paradoxes to Clark’s game.

First. We do not know if she is a two way player. She may be able to play defense and Iowa was just protecting her, but until she proves she is a two way player how can she be considered the “best player ever?” Curry may be considered the best shooter ever, but no one puts him in the same category as Jordan, Bryant, Bird or other greats who were two way players.

Second, and this is what really gets me about Clark’s “average“ teammates. Take away Clark’s numbers and the rest of the team shot over 53% for the past two years. This past year they shot 8% better than Clark. 8% better!!! Has any other player in the “greatest” conversation ever shot 8% worse than his/her collective teammates. Ever?! Perhaps Allen Iverson, but I doubt it. 8%. If you think Clark will be considered an all star in the pros if her teammates shoot 8% collectively better, think again. Meanwhile, I bet that ”average” Iowa team is going to finish much higher next year than everyone suspects.

Third. Has any “greatest“ guard averaged 4.7 turnovers before? A serious question. Has any? Now this can be excused due to Iowa’s high possession per game offense, and Clark’s ball dominance in that high possession offense, but then that diminishes her high assists achievement, particularly considering her teammates shoot at 53%. Bottom line, Clark averaged 1.87 A/T ratio last season, not bad, not great.

 

[TheFarmFan]

It's wild, wild to me how much talent ESPN has let go of in recent years in order to afford to pay McAfee to run his mouth all day. I love KP and it was so painful I couldn't get through 5 minutes of that interview. Wild...

 

[CL82]

She should be invited to try out. After that, it’s up to the coach.

She missed the last try out.

 

[cancontent]

This whole argument can actually break several ways:

1) Caitlin was surrounded by pedestrian talent at Iowa. When she joins the WNBA she'll flourish, especially on the assist side. Girls at Iowa
either couldn't handle her passes or couldn't convert once they received the ball. Better players as teammates: more assists.

2) Clark will struggle in the WNBA. As Diana Taurasi points out, she's been feasting on a steady diet of hapless 18-year-old little girls in college. Now that she'll be facing "grown women" in the W, her obviously overhyped skills will be exposed and she'll be relegated to
the mediocrity that those in the know have been pointing out all along.

3) Clark obviously makes those around her better with her passing skills and as a decoy to draw defenses to her, therefore making life
easier for her teammates. But what if Clark's teammates along with her coach's system actually make Caitlin better? Their ability to put
the team first and realize they'd be more successful by embracing her talents while humbling themselves is not easy to do, especially
the buy-in seen by an entire team.

4) Will a team of pros be real pros, in the sense their primary objective is to win. Or will they be pros simply by being paid for playing the
game? Will they succumb to pettiness and hazing to make a new player earn their place, or will they do their best to integrate her into
the team....regardless of her skill level. Maybe she will be ordinary; perhaps she'll elevate to become an WNBA star as well. It seems as
if the Fever are willing to take this path, even if the rest of the league isn't on board.

Will be an interesting ride, especially with the heightened audience that's going to be following.

This is where I'm at with the season fast approaching. The humbling comment had me pause though. Looking at who is on the roster (Samuelson, Boston, Berger, Hull, etc.), there are several players who came from programs where team came ahead of the individual. Have a hard time seeing players like them not buying in. It seemed like they were last season even though it was rough.

 

[CajunHusky]

This whole argument can actually break several ways:

1) Caitlin was surrounded by pedestrian talent at Iowa. When she joins the WNBA she'll flourish, especially on the assist side. Girls at Iowa
either couldn't handle her passes or couldn't convert once they received the ball. Better players as teammates: more assists.

2) Clark will struggle in the WNBA. As Diana Taurasi points out, she's been feasting on a steady diet of hapless 18-year-old little girls in college. Now that she'll be facing "grown women" in the W, her obviously overhyped skills will be exposed and she'll be relegated to
the mediocrity that those in the know have been pointing out all along.

3) Clark obviously makes those around her better with her passing skills and as a decoy to draw defenses to her, therefore making life
easier for her teammates. But what if Clark's teammates along with her coach's system actually make Caitlin better? Their ability to put
the team first and realize they'd be more successful by embracing her talents while humbling themselves is not easy to do, especially
the buy-in seen by an entire team.

4) Will a team of pros be real pros, in the sense their primary objective is to win. Or will they be pros simply by being paid for playing the
game? Will they succumb to pettiness and hazing to make a new player earn their place, or will they do their best to integrate her into
the team....regardless of her skill level. Maybe she will be ordinary; perhaps she'll elevate to become an WNBA star as well. It seems as
if the Fever are willing to take this path, even if the rest of the league isn't on board.

Will be an interesting ride, especially with the heightened audience that's going to be following.

That door swings both ways .... can Clark realize the team will be more succesful by embracing her teammates obvious talents while humbling herself?

 

[Bjbod]

Absolutely! And this is how she's played on USA teams previously. If Indiana becomes a winner CC would be completely satisfied averaging 8 points and 13 assists per game.

 

[DRR25]

This whole argument can actually break several ways:

1) Caitlin was surrounded by pedestrian talent at Iowa. When she joins the WNBA she'll flourish, especially on the assist side. Girls at Iowa
either couldn't handle her passes or couldn't convert once they received the ball. Better players as teammates: more assists.

2) Clark will struggle in the WNBA. As Diana Taurasi points out, she's been feasting on a steady diet of hapless 18-year-old little girls in college. Now that she'll be facing "grown women" in the W, her obviously overhyped skills will be exposed and she'll be relegated to
the mediocrity that those in the know have been pointing out all along.

3) Clark obviously makes those around her better with her passing skills and as a decoy to draw defenses to her, therefore making life
easier for her teammates. But what if Clark's teammates along with her coach's system actually make Caitlin better? Their ability to put
the team first and realize they'd be more successful by embracing her talents while humbling themselves is not easy to do, especially
the buy-in seen by an entire team.

4) Will a team of pros be real pros, in the sense their primary objective is to win. Or will they be pros simply by being paid for playing the
game? Will they succumb to pettiness and hazing to make a new player earn their place, or will they do their best to integrate her into
the team....regardless of her skill level. Maybe she will be ordinary; perhaps she'll elevate to become an WNBA star as well. It seems as
if the Fever are willing to take this path, even if the rest of the league isn't on board.

Will be an interesting ride, especially with the heightened audience that's going to be following.

I haven't seen anything from "those in the know" who've said CC is overhyped and will be relegated to mediocrity once she gets to the W. Some basketball fans have said that but I don't know that all bb fans count as people "in the know." And Taurasi didn't say Clark wouldn't succeed, she just said there's going to be a transition period and that great players find a way to rise to the top. I think she'll do both-struggle and flourish. And Clark should get whatever "rookie treatment" all the other rookies get, whether it's petty or not. Opposing players will treat her to some "welcome to the league" moments and hopefully she'll navigate through it just like Aliyah Boston and other rookies have done.

 

[Vowelguy]

It's wild, wild to me how much talent ESPN has let go of in recent years in order to afford to pay McAfee to run his mouth all day. I love KP and it was so painful I couldn't get through 5 minutes of that interview. Wild...

McAfee is hugely popular.
And ESPN made their cuts for years before acquiring McAfees services.

 

[bballnut90]

Still with the average teammates narrative. There are three paradoxes to Clark’s game.

First. We do not know if she is a two way player. She may be able to play defense and Iowa was just protecting her, but until she proves she is a two way player how can she be considered the “best player ever?” Curry may be considered the best shooter ever, but no one puts him in the same category as Jordan, Bryant, Bird or other greats who were two way players.

Second, and this is what really gets me about Clark’s “average“ teammates. Take away Clark’s numbers and the rest of the team shot over 53% for the past two years. This past year they shot 8% better than Clark. 8% better!!! Has any other player in the “greatest” conversation ever shot 8% worse than his/her collective teammates. Ever?! Perhaps Allen Iverson, but I doubt it. 8%. If you think Clark will be considered an all star in the pros if her teammates shoot 8% collectively better, think again. Meanwhile, I bet that ”average” Iowa team is going to finish much higher next year than everyone suspects.

Third. Has any “greatest“ guard averaged 4.7 turnovers before? A serious question. Has any? Now this can be excused due to Iowa’s high possession per game offense, and Clark’s ball dominance in that high possession offense, but then that diminishes her high assists achievement, particularly considering her teammates shoot at 53%. Bottom line, Clark averaged 1.87 A/T ratio last season, not bad, not great.

The team FG% argument is a cherry picked statistic that you continue to bring up. FWIW, Taurasi’s teammates consistently shot 4-6.5% better than her throughout her UCONN career for another GOAT comparison. She’s also never been an above average defender which discredits point #1 unless you’re eliminating Taurasi from contention.

Clark’s teammates are capable shooters but the entire offense ran through Clark and was dependent on Clark’s ability to create for others or make shots herself. She scored or assisted on 68.5% of Iowa’s made field goals. The vast majority of those points were Clark creating her looks for herself or others. Her assists were usually wide open catch and shoot jumpers for teammates, transition layups from Clark’s great passing, or cutting layups in the half court from Clark threading the needle. Her teammates were being put in great positions to score due to Clark’s passing. Her teammates were solid, but only Martin (2nd round draft pick) and Stuelke (sophomore this year) have a realistic shot to make a WNBA roster. Compared to almost every other program that’s made consecutive Final Fours, that’s a notably weak roster she was working with.


In regards to point 3, you can cherry pick the individual turnovers as a negative, but I’d argue it’s a product of her handling 68.5% of the offense, so of course she’ll have more TOs. As the person responsible handling the majority of the offense, she led Iowa to a 91ppg scoring average, good for first in the nation by 5+ points. You can’t harp on the turnovers without acknowledging how potent the offense was with Clark managing the bulk of it. Individually she had higher TOs but it led to her running the best offense in the country.

 

[Vowelguy]

Team to be announced June 1st