Sporting News ranks the top seven players of all-time

[Blue Huskie]

All "Best Of" lists are click bait. I don't even bother with them anymore.

 

[Sluconn Husky]

must be some problems with a stat that doesn't have Diana in the top 250.

Great as she was, Diana really didn't have great college production.

 

[my2cents]

We need to judge greatness by championships, not points.

 

[MSSportsGuy]

MSSportsGuy, the argument that Caitlin's not in the ballpark for WCBB GOAT because she hasn't won a national championship is incredulous to true sports fans who appreciate Clark's greatness.

Caitlin made her choice to go to Iowa because she wanted to play near home and help her state university raise its WCBB profile. She's done that beyond the wildest expectations, no matter what happens in this year's NCAA tournament.

That said, for those who watch her play, you honestly don't think she deserves a spot in the Top Ten of all-time? Come on, that's head-in-the-sand silly.

Heck, has any player in history even come close to the extended greatness Caitlin demonstrated during the '23 tournament? And she didn't come away with a title. Did DT, Stewie or anyone else do what Caitlin did then? Surely, some of you will say she didn't do enough... please!

In the meantime, I ask those of you who consider yourselves as objective and appreciative sport fans to simply sit back and enjoy what Caitlin Clark is achieving.

Feel free to take aim and fire, my friends!

I appreciate your feedback and upon further reflection she deserves top 10. Titles don't mean everything but Clark wasn't at the top of the list that started the discussion and the six in front of her won NCs so it's not just fans on this board. I can say her college career has been better than Griner and probably Parker. Moore not being in the top 7 though is laughable.

What she's done the past few years has been amazing. The amount of attention likely grew in relation to how much more media focus there is on the sport now (still small but obviously much more than when those players were in college,) but Clark raised the attention bar even higher and has more people than ever watching the sport. I totally respect her staying home to play for Iowa and getting them to this point but she's not the first to stick around a program that had been marginally successful and make a huge impact.

Her 2023 tournament was incredible. I remember a woman named Swoopes taking the 1993 tournament by storm, just two examples of extremely good players putting their teams on their backs. I'm enjoying her career quite a bit and who knows, last year Iowa took down a heavily favored SC team so it could happen again. It doesn't diminishes her legacy or accomplishments at all if they come up short for the NC but I don't think her four year body of work is better than any of the five I listed originally.

 

[Sluconn Husky]

We need to judge greatness by championships, not points.

That would make creating a list easier, anyway.

 

[maple]

Clark may very well belong in the top 10 but tough to place her now because she hasn't won a NC. If Iowa manages to win one (a tall order) she may cement herself as one of those 10.

Yeah, I personally would not rank any player who hasn't won at least one NC in the top 10. There's been so many talented WBB players throughout many decades (and will always be more to come), there has to be at least some kind of qualifiers to classify the best of the best.

 

[hoophuskee]

I watched DT play throughout her college career and I'll opine she wasn't the caliber player Caitlin Clark is now. Even my brother, who has felt since Stewie's freshman year that she is the WCBB GOAT (and I agreed 'til now), now understands Caitlin is a step ahead of her, too, with or without national titles.

Too many here on the BY base their arguments on national titles. As a fellow Huskies fan since the Lobo/Rizzotti days, I understand that sentiment. Yet judging a player in a totally different circumstance than any of those six players on Noh's list ahead of Caitlin by their standards just doesn't make sense.

In the meantime, I ask those of you who consider yourselves as objective and appreciative sport fans to simply sit back and enjoy what Caitlin Clark is achieving.

Feel free to take aim and fire, my friends!

I’ll take aim and fire and all in good fun. I respect you. Hope you take the counter in good fun too. A little off-topic 1 sentence comment: Your post probably highlights why you have over the years downplayed Muhl while others (me probably in your view) have maybe overvalued her.


First off, if you want to compare eras DT vs Clark -- not sure 100% you meant by "step-ahead" but if it meant over quickness and overall fundamentals and overall impact -- imo it becomes of our own personal biases. Bill Russell would have been nothing more than a rebounder and dunker in the current NBA yet in some years he led team in scoring playoffs and was near tops several years in assists. You can even see him on YT going length to length as though he were a guard sometimes - and his 45+%fg shooting was thought to be above avg for the time yet he is considered still by most among the 5 best ever I believe. And part of his high status was that he won’t titles. I agree with this high stature to a certain level and which is why I agree with those that do base a portion of their argument on National Titles. SO not sure what "step ahead" is meant by you.

Secondly, DT came to UCONN if I recall her comment because she came was that she loved Showtime Lakers and UCONN was closest to it. She came to UCONN because she wanted to be a part of "winning." SO this naturally means she is will to take less shots have the ball less etc., correct? While Calrk was looking to build with opportunities in her hand as much a possible, it's either she leads the team or they are "done." SO I can't count DT's willingness to want to play more in a structure where she wasn't as ball dominant in order to win vs a a player that wants to build everything on her own back? CC is not "selfish" in a bad way., but how can I look away from winning titles from a player that won many and was NPOY and FF MVP twice etc.? When we are comparing super vs super, this isn't supposed to be a separator in any instance?

I'll put it this way, the way DT commented on "Showtime" and choosing to win, imo if she were coming out of High School she would have loved to play with Clark be a part of a new "Showtime" "in order to win." While I don't believe Clark would care much who she played for other than make it a personal challenge within herself to show she can build a team. While extremely admirable - I'm taking the player who before she ever played a college game seemed focus on winning titles. While it isn't the only thing it is important. Just like I'm taking Russell over Wilt. Wilt and Calrk definitely would win one-on-one but imo that has far less meaning.

Would have been interested many years ago to read your posts on Angel vs Maya. With all that is said-- imo there are 6 for sure ahead of CC. In no order- Miller, the 3 Huskies, and the two Vols.

 

[nwhoopfan]

To play devils advocate, winning Championships is certainly a function of how talented your teammates are in addition to individual greatness.

 

[hoophuskee]

Great as she was, Diana really didn't have great college production.

Historically overall UCONN players of the past didn't have much high college production because they play more of a team game, correct?

But in DT's junior year, was she something like 2nd all time scoring in for one-season-run into the NCAA's just behind Holdsclaw?

 

[hoophuskee]

To play devils advocate, winning Championships is certainly a function of how talented your teammates are in addition to individual greatness.

As you point out I highlight in bold. It is a factor that can't be ignored. Which is why a guy like Bill Russell is so highly regarded. What were his other elite stats?

How does a superstar that chooses to be part of a machine team that wins titles get fairly evalauted vs a one-player machine that chose to join a team knowing he or she would rack up stats and just gambled with low chance that they can win - if titles can't be a part of the discussion? Part of the reason they went there is that they felt team is a bit more important than their individual stats, right? So, can't take that completely away from them. OFc the player with little chance to win due to a much lesser talented team is going to rack up more enormous stats, right?

Comes down to our preferences/biases etc.

I do have biases too. Just like I choose Russell over Wilt, I choose the past UCONN Machine teams with DT, MM, and BS as "a part of . . ." over the new era "Pistol Pete's." And in a lighter conversation on the old ESPN Boards back in the day I chose teh WCBB Maya Moore over WCBB Angel in a heartbeat.

 

[nwhoopfan]

As you point out I highlight in bold. It is a factor that can't be ignored. Which is why a guy like Bill Russell is so highly regarded. What were his other elite stats?

How does a superstar that chooses to be part of a machine team that wins titles get fairly evalauted vs a one-player machine that chose to join a team knowing he or she would rack up stats and just gambled with low chance that they can win - if titles can't be a part of the discussion? Part of the reason they went there is that they felt team is a bit more important than their individual stats, right? So, can't take that completely away from them. OFc the player with little chance to win due to a much lesser talented team is going to rack up more enormous stats, right?

Comes down to our preferences/biases etc.

I do have biases too. Just like I choose Russell over Wilt, I choose the past UCONN Machine teams with DT, MM, and BS as "a part of . . ." over the new era "Pistol Pete's." And in a lighter conversation on the old ESPN Boards back in the day I chose teh WCBB Maya Moore over WCBB Angel in a heartbeat.

You bring up good points.

I'm going to take a different viewpoint. I think it's admirable when someone chooses a school that isn't a machine and has the goal of trying to elevate that program to new heights. We've seen a number of those in recent years. While they put up stats that were more than if they had chosen some other programs, they also led their chosen school to unprecedented levels of success. In addition to Clark, I'm thinking of players like Ionescu and Plum. Who knows what will happen with USC while Watkins is there. Now of course they have been to the pinnacle before, but it's been 30+ years.

 

[Sakibomb25]

DT got robbed. Uconn should be 1-2, pick your order. Game on the line, who would you want to have the ball in her hands?

Have you ever seen Cheryl Miller play before, either in person or on film?

 

[fomalhaut]

Win Shares are laughable. So Sue Bird, Taurasi, Rebecca Lobo, Abrosimova, and others are not among the 250 best players ever, but Kalana Greene and Barbara Turner are? The two biggest flaws are that it is skewed in favor of games played, and is based on an unproven statistical model (as are most such rating systems used in sports, such as Wins Above Replacement used in baseball).

 

[Sluconn Husky]

Historically overall UCONN players of the past didn't have much high college production because they play more of a team game, correct?

But in DT's junior year, was she something like 2nd all time scoring in for one-season-run into the NCAA's just behind Holdsclaw?

Ok, but I don't think these kinds of rankings are taking just tourney runs into consideration.

 

[The deacon]

I appreciate your feedback and upon further reflection she deserves top 10. Titles don't mean everything but Clark wasn't at the top of the list that started the discussion and the six in front of her won NCs so it's not just fans on this board. I can say her college career has been better than Griner and probably Parker. Moore not being in the top 7 though is laughable.

What she's done the past few years has been amazing. The amount of attention likely grew in relation to how much more media focus there is on the sport now (still small but obviously much more than when those players were in college,) but Clark raised the attention bar even higher and has more people than ever watching the sport. I totally respect her staying home to play for Iowa and getting them to this point but she's not the first to stick around a program that had been marginally successful and make a huge impact.

Her 2023 tournament was incredible. I remember a woman named Swoopes taking the 1993 tournament by storm, just two examples of extremely good players putting their teams on their backs. I'm enjoying her career quite a bit and who knows, last year Iowa took down a heavily favored SC team so it could happen again. It doesn't diminishes her legacy or accomplishments at all if they come up short for the NC but I don't think her four year body of work is better than any of the five I listed originally.

Well said, and, as always, open to opinion... thanks, MSSportsGuy.

 

[The deacon]

I’ll take aim and fire and all in good fun. I respect you. Hope you take the counter in good fun too. A little off-topic 1 sentence comment: Your post probably highlights why you have over the years downplayed Muhl while others (me probably in your view) have maybe overvalued her.


First off, if you want to compare eras DT vs Clark -- not sure 100% you meant by "step-ahead" but if it meant over quickness and overall fundamentals and overall impact -- imo it becomes of our own personal biases. Bill Russell would have been nothing more than a rebounder and dunker in the current NBA yet in some years he led team in scoring playoffs and was near tops several years in assists. You can even see him on YT going length to length as though he were a guard sometimes - and his 45+%fg shooting was thought to be above avg for the time yet he is considered still by most among the 5 best ever I believe. And part of his high status was that he won’t titles. I agree with this high stature to a certain level and which is why I agree with those that do base a portion of their argument on National Titles. SO not sure what "step ahead" is meant by you.

Secondly, DT came to UCONN if I recall her comment because she came was that she loved Showtime Lakers and UCONN was closest to it. She came to UCONN because she wanted to be a part of "winning." SO this naturally means she is will to take less shots have the ball less etc., correct? While Calrk was looking to build with opportunities in her hand as much a possible, it's either she leads the team or they are "done." SO I can't count DT's willingness to want to play more in a structure where she wasn't as ball dominant in order to win vs a a player that wants to build everything on her own back? CC is not "selfish" in a bad way., but how can I look away from winning titles from a player that won many and was NPOY and FF MVP twice etc.? When we are comparing super vs super, this isn't supposed to be a separator in any instance?

I'll put it this way, the way DT commented on "Showtime" and choosing to win, imo if she were coming out of High School she would have loved to play with Clark be a part of a new "Showtime" "in order to win." While I don't believe Clark would care much who she played for other than make it a personal challenge within herself to show she can build a team. While extremely admirable - I'm taking the player who before she ever played a college game seemed focus on winning titles. While it isn't the only thing it is important. Just like I'm taking Russell over Wilt. Wilt and Calrk definitely would win one-on-one but imo that has far less meaning.

Would have been interested many years ago to read your posts on Angel vs Maya. With all that is said-- imo there are 6 for sure ahead of CC. In no order- Miller, the 3 Huskies, and the two Vols.

Right back to you, hoophuskee.

I agree with virtually everything you say, just not your synopsis.

Anyway, when I wrote that, I knew it'd be spitting into the wind with many here. That's okay. You make convincing points, likely in agreement with most here.

By the way, my favorite b-ball player has been Tim Duncan, at the start because he was a Deacon, then increasingly over the years because of his remarkable success built on both his individual talents and his unselfish nature.

Not coincidentally, as far as I'm concerned, Tim never won a national title at Wake because he just didn't have the teammates around him, yet I believe most supposed experts would call him one of the all-time best men's college basketball players. My point there is I just believe much of the antipathy toward Caitlin on the BY is because she's taken the torch from the injury-plagued Paige and run with it.

Anyway, thanks for keeping the good conversation going...

Go, Huskies! It's halftime of yet another Big East blowout.

 

[hoophuskee]

You bring up good points.

I'm going to take a different viewpoint. I think it's admirable when someone chooses a school that isn't a machine and has the goal of trying to elevate that program to new heights. We've seen a number of those in recent years. While they put up stats that were more than if they had chosen some other programs, they also led their chosen school to unprecedented levels of success. In addition to Clark, I'm thinking of players like Ionescu and Plum. Who knows what will happen with USC while Watkins is there. Now of course they have been to the pinnacle before, but it's been 30+ years.

I agree. You make good points. I want to say here I did not mean to give an iota of implication that what CC has done or the great players like Ionescu or Plum were not "admirable." They are all "folklore/legend" players too.


I'll just mention again "bias" - which I admit I have. As a kid I saw "Earl The Pearl Monroe" take down my prior champ Knicks. Two years later Knicks won title and they had “Earl Monroe.” Monroe remarked in later years he knew it was Clyde Frazier's team when he joined, so he toned down his play to be the type of teammate the team needed him to be instead of "Earl The Pearl" despite having outplayed Clyde in the playoffs the year before he joined the Knicks.

So, his stats dropped bigtime with the Knicks but we won it all because he chose to tone down his game rather than force himself out to continue to be "Earl The Pearl" and try to build from there (that would have been admirable too just like CC and SI was admiraable – Mays vs Aaron etc.)). SO, even as a young kid, I had always thought if you could tone down your game a bit maybe that can mean more rather than when Pistol Pete came into the NBA with his prolific scoring but lead his team nowhere. I do admire Pistol. I do admire CC and Ionescu.

But while Monroe made the sacrifice to no longer be "Earl The Pearl," I'm not going to give CC and SI a complete pass for not winning it all when they knew from the start they wanted to be a version of "Earl The Pearl" instead .of teammate "Earl Monroe." So, give me the Diana Taurasi (note I’m referring to DT—not just any good or great player but specific DT) that wants to win being/ shown to be a hybrid Earl Monroe and Earl the Pearl while CC and SI wanted to also win but were far more restrictive in that they wanted to be exclusively Earl The Pearl.

****In 01-02 UCONN probably doesn’t win a title if DT was trying to be “Earl The Pearl” in which she missed every 3pt shot taken. Yet at the end of the game, UCONN gave her the ball late with game on the line and she made the biggest play of the game. Stats are important but so are titles is the point.

 

[The deacon]

I agree. You make good points. I want to say here I did not mean to give an iota of implication that what CC has done or the great players like Ionescu or Plum were not "admirable." They are all "folklore/legend" players too.


I'll just mention again "bias" - which I admit I have. As a kid I saw "Earl The Pearl Monroe" take down my prior champ Knicks. Two years later Knicks won title and they had “Earl Monroe.” Monroe remarked in later years he knew it was Clyde Frazier's team when he joined, so he toned down his play to be the type of teammate the team needed him to be instead of "Earl The Pearl" despite having outplayed Clyde in the playoffs the year before he joined the Knicks.

So, his stats dropped bigtime with the Knicks but we won it all because he chose to tone down his game rather than force himself out to continue to be "Earl The Pearl" and try to build from there (that would have been admirable too just like CC and SI was admiraable – Mays vs Aaron etc.)). SO, even as a young kid, I had always thought if you could tone down your game a bit maybe that can mean more rather than when Pistol Pete came into the NBA with his prolific scoring but lead his team nowhere. I do admire Pistol. I do admire CC and Ionescu.

But while Monroe made the sacrifice to no longer be "Earl The Pearl," I'm not going to give CC and SI a complete pass for not winning it all when they knew from the start they wanted to be a version of "Earl The Pearl" instead .of teammate "Earl Monroe." So, give me the Diana Taurasi (note I’m referring to DT—not just any good or great player but specific DT) that wants to win being/ shown to be a hybrid Earl Monroe and Earl the Pearl while CC and SI wanted to also win but were far more restrictive in that they wanted to be exclusively Earl The Pearl.

****In 01-02 UCONN probably doesn’t win a title if DT was trying to be “Earl The Pearl” in which she missed every 3pt shot taken. Yet at the end of the game, UCONN gave her the ball late with game on the line and she made the biggest play of the game. Stats are important but so are titles is the point.

You've backtracked, my friend. How can you compare what Caiitlin is doing in college to what Monroe did at any point in his career? I'm wholly confident Clark will be a complete team player in the pros, just with lower stats.

Oh, well... signing off on this one.

 

[hoophuskee]

You've backtracked, my friend. How can you compare what Caiitlin is doing in college to what Monroe did at any point in his career? I'm wholly confident Clark will be a complete team player in the pros, just with lower stats.

Oh, well... signing off on this one.

Clark was ideintfied by me as an admidrable all-time great. Where is the backtrack?
CC is not among the top 6 WCBB yet. Where is the backtrack?
I did nto mention CC a a pro. Where is any reference of backtracking wiht somethign I never said?
CC came to Iowa; had to have a strong rational understanding that she probaly wasn't going to win a ttile. Where is the backtrack?
DT came to UCONN with the understanding that she wasn't going to be the number 1 player early on. but with a rational understanding she was going to win at least once. Where is the backtrack?

This thread is about WCBB top players ever. I used an NBA player relatable to me to explain my bias to the other poster as a kid that identifes why I believe titles matter (it's why I say this in fun-- I disagree with you and your bro- teel bro I said hello- and nayone else that agrees with thoughts that CC should be considered greater than DT as a wcbb. - Did not mention what CC will do as a pro.). How is that backtracking on my view when I responded to you that DT is a greater WCBB at this point than CC, and what does have anythign to do with CC as a pro?

 

[hoophuskee]

ANd let me add again The Deacon. CC is no way better than Maya as college player either. ANd ofc no way better than Stewart. As many have brought up "a sham" that Maya is not on this person's list

 

[Skeets]

I'm not saying she should be part of any list but the person who gets ignored the most and gets absolutely no love is Jackie Stiles. She was the Caitlin Clark before there was a Caitlin Clark. No NCs but that is what you get when you play for Southwest Nowhere State...

 

[RSHERMVIKES]

The following, IMHO, is how I look at greatness!
As stated above some players lower their personal expectations to have the team reach unreachable heights!
When a great HS player decides on what college to play for he/she decides WHAT that school needs to be successful and what she needs to be successful!
When Shea Ralph came to UConn she was a very vain practice player and Geno and staff made her see how she can still lead the team and be a star player!
When DT came to Storrs she was the best player on the team from the start (per Geno in an interview), but she had to learn how to MOLD her play to bring the best out of everyone else!
How great a player is is determined by the talent she plays with! No one can convince me that DT could have set almost all offensive UConn records but became what UConn needed to win Championships! 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 was one of the most awesome examples of LEADERSHIP that I've ever seen! DT took average players and by her skills and her heart/will won 2 National Championships! Almost driving herself to a nervous breakdown (also per Geno in a past interview)!
Caitlin Clark is a GREAT WBB player but she doesn't have the greatness around her for 4 years, so she must be 90% of her team's offense to win games and possibly a Championship!
UConn players come to UConn to win National Championships not for individual glory, they check their egos at the door and work their hardest to get the most out of the TEAM!
Again IMHO when a great HS player recruited by UConn chooses to go somewhere else, I laugh to myself that she doesn't want to work UConn HARD and wants the INDIVIDUAL glory more than winning a Championship! Her stated reason maybe I want to play closer to home, my best friend goes there, or whatever reason she can think of, but it takes a SPECIAL player/person to go to UConn!
Ask any present or past UConn player and they'll say the practices are insane and harder than any opponent they'll face!
The UConn staff won't let the players WIN in practice as they constantly raise the bar so there is very little chance of achieving the Goal!
And Geno sets up drills of 3 on 5, 8 on 5, so it takes near perfection to achieve the goal!
There is so much HS talent around nowadays but their is only a handful of that talent that could succeed at UConn!

 

[diggerfoot]

MSSportsGuy, the argument that Caitlin's not in the ballpark for WCBB GOAT because she hasn't won a national championship is incredulous to true sports fans who appreciate Clark's greatness.

Caitlin made her choice to go to Iowa because she wanted to play near home and help her state university raise its WCBB profile. She's done that beyond the wildest expectations, no matter what happens in this year's NCAA tournament.

That said, for those who watch her play, you honestly don't think she deserves a spot in the Top Ten of all-time? Come on, that's head-in-the-sand silly.

I watched DT play throughout her college career and I'll opine she wasn't the caliber player Caitlin Clark is now. Even my brother, who has felt since Stewie's freshman year that she is the WCBB GOAT (and I agreed 'til now), now understands Caitlin is a step ahead of her, too, with or without national titles.

Too many here on the BY base their arguments on national titles. As a fellow Huskies fan since the Lobo/Rizzotti days, I understand that sentiment. Yet judging a player in a totally different circumstance than any of those six players on Noh's list ahead of Caitlin by their standards just doesn't make sense.

Heck, has any player in history even come close to the extended greatness Caitlin demonstrated during the '23 tournament? And she didn't come away with a title. Did DT, Stewie or anyone else do what Caitlin did then? Surely, some of you will say she didn't do enough... please!

I'll be rooting for Paige and Co. to win it all this year, against the odds, but otherwise will be cheering for Iowa until it falls, very possibly in the Sweet Sixteen, Elite Eight or whenever. No matter when Caitlin's season ends, she's long ago shown her talents and performances are beyond anything we've seen before in WCBB.

In the meantime, I ask those of you who consider yourselves as objective and appreciative sport fans to simply sit back and enjoy what Caitlin Clark is achieving.

Feel free to take aim and fire, my friends!

I know we have been at odds regarding Clark due to our respective biases, though it appears you believe you do not have a bias, you just believe those who disagree do.

When I once wrote that Clark is not in the same league as Bueckers defensively I later admitted that was a touch of hyperbole. Clark is better at defense than I initially gave her credit. I still do not think she is as good at keeping her opponent in front of her and other attributes of good defense as Bueckers, while perhaps you do, but I’ll chock that up to our biases.

The certainty that you have your own bias emerges when you say Clark is a step ahead of Stewart. Even if you want to give an edge to Clark offensively, there is no way her value approaches Stewart on defense. Other teams had to change their offense because of Stewart in the line up, the same cannot be said for Clark.

Holdsclaw, Parker, Miller, Griner and Beard are also players whose defense surpassed Clark’s; that’s not really debatable regardless of one’s bias.

As for offense, Stewart averaged about 16 shots per game. I do not know what Clark’s is, but I will take a wild guess it’s substantially more. If you go right outside the three-point line they are comparable shooters. The farther out you go the more that is Clark’s territory. The closer in you go the more that is Stewart’s. They are both capable of making shots the other can’t.

As for taking over a game, in Stewart’s freshman year UConn faced a ND team in the FF that they had lost to 3 times previously that year. Despite missing the first game of the tourney Stewart had finally realized her potential. She put the team on her back to score 29 points against a team that had repeatedly demonstrated they were better throughout the year. That’s much like what Clark did against SC, except Stewart did it as a freshman. If you want to run with talking point that Stewart had better teammates: 1). those “better” teammates still were not as good as ND that year and 2) Clark’s teammates shot collectively better in the SC game than she did.

That we might differ on the offensive worth of Clark vs Stewart or Bueckers, fine, we have our own biases, whether recognized or not. To overlook the defensive end of the equation to proclaim Clark a step ahead of Stewart is about as blind a bias as you can have.

 

[hoophuskee]

I know we have been at odds regarding Clark due to our respective biases, though it appears you believe you do not have a bias, you just believe those who disagree do.

When I once wrote that Clark is not in the same league as Bueckers defensively I later admitted that was a touch of hyperbole. Clark is better at defense than I initially gave her credit. I still do not think she is as good at keeping her opponent in front of her and other attributes of good defense as Bueckers, while perhaps you do, but I’ll chock that up to our biases.

The certainty that you have your own bias emerges when you say Clark is a step ahead of Stewart. Even if you want to give an edge to Clark offensively, there is no way her value approaches Stewart on defense. Other teams had to change their offense because of Stewart in the line up, the same cannot be said for Clark.

Holdsclaw, Parker, Miller, Griner and Beard are also players whose defense surpassed Clark’s; that’s not really debatable regardless of one’s bias.

As for offense, Stewart averaged about 16 shots per game. I do not know what Clark’s is, but I will take a wild guess it’s substantially more. If you go right outside the three-point line they are comparable shooters. The farther out you go the more that is Clark’s territory. The closer in you go the more that is Stewart’s. They are both capable of making shots the other can’t.

As for taking over a game, in Stewart’s freshman year UConn faced a ND team in the FF that they had lost to 3 times previously that year. Despite missing the first game of the tourney Stewart had finally realized her potential. She put the team on her back to score 29 points against a team that had repeatedly demonstrated they were better throughout the year. That’s much like what Clark did against SC, except Stewart did it as a freshman. If you want to run with talking point that Stewart had better teammates: 1). those “better” teammates still were not as good as ND that year and 2) Clark’s teammates shot collectively better in the SC game than she did.

That we might differ on the offensive worth of Clark vs Stewart or Bueckers, fine, we have our own biases, whether recognized or not. To overlook the defensive end of the equation to proclaim Clark a step ahead of Stewart is about as blind a bias as you can have.

I don't think he said "Step ahead of Stewart." I don't think Stewart was addressed, was she?

IMO I have Stewart as best ever. I can't get into a Cherly Miller arguemnt never saw her play so I keep her as someone always up there. You bring up a great point about Defense. And just to add DT's Defense was underrated. She was a tremendous rebounder considering she was a guard.

Our 3 players of Stewie, DT and Maya are extemely tough nuts to crack and breakthrough. And begrudgingly, I say that about the two legendary Vols players too - though I might add one of them I don't care for much at all.

My bias or no bias - How this person that wrote the article didn't put Maya on this list is truly mind-boggling.

 

[nwhoopfan]

Is Tamika Catchings about as big of an omission as Maya Moore? An all time top 7 list is very exclusive, so of course some worthy candidates are going to be missed.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

Often a voice of reason, visitingcock, you've clearly lost it on this one...

I grade on effort. Unlike this judge:

 

[uconnfan68]

Great as she was, Diana really didn't have great college production.

She carried 2 teams to NCs. If that was easy, show me someone else that did it.

 

[Sluconn Husky]

Win Shares are laughable. So Sue Bird, Taurasi, Rebecca Lobo, Abrosimova, and others are not among the 250 best players ever, but Kalana Greene and Barbara Turner are? The two biggest flaws are that it is skewed in favor of games played, and is based on an unproven statistical model (as are most such rating systems used in sports, such as Wins Above Replacement used in baseball).

You can certainly put those players high up in any list you like, but win shares measures productivity and success, and if you miss games you will have less of both. Had Maya played 1-1/2 seasons before suffering a career-ending injury you would've thought she was a tremendous player but who would rank her among the greatest ever?

 

[Sluconn Husky]

She carried 2 teams to NCs. If that was easy, show me someone else that did it.

Sure, but that's not what's being measured here. You can rate players a number of ways: eye tests, titles won, awards, stat totals, advanced stats, etc.....

 

[hoophuskee]

You can certainly put those players high up in any list you like, but win shares measures productivity and success, and if you miss games you will have less of both. Had Maya played 1-1/2 seasons before suffering a career-ending injury you would've thought she was a tremendous player but who would rank her among the greatest ever?

We agree that WIn Shares shouldn't be the only stat when defining all-time greatness, correct?

Win Shares are a suppleemnt. Not close to being an end-all-be-all. I emphasize "not close."