Breanna, D and Sue + guests- topic: do you need a natty to be one of the greatest?

[HuskyNan]

How about saying that Caitlin may be one of the greatest, if not The GOAT, never to win a national championship?

Sabrina Ionescu, Courtney Vandersloot, Kelsey Plum, and Jackie Stiles say hi

My opinion, FWIW, is that the discussion is premature. Caitlin has done much for women’s basketball, raising its visibility and bringing in new fans, and doing it with class and humility. Her ability is undeniable and though people will quibble over turnovers or whatever, IMO it’s indisputable that Caitlin is one of the greatest women college players to date.

But, there have been many great players that have left their imprints on the game, Cheryl Miller, Sheryl Swoopes, Tina Thompson, Lisa Leslie, Tischa Penechiero…. I could go on and on. Caitlin will leave her mark, to be sure, but it’s part of the tapestry that makes up the game we love. The discussion of “best ever” changes yearly, as it should, because that means the game is still growing and that’s exciting.

 

[Jaydumo20]

If Tiger played Jack when both were at their best Tiger would win. He by far the best to ever play the game and easily the most influential too. He was slowed by knee and back issues but that doesn't take away from what he did for the game. By your standard Bill Russell would have to be the best player of all time in basketball and I don't know of anyone who would make that argument.

Now you have a guy like Scottie Scheffler on the scene who gets no real credit for his greatness but is consistently and quickly moving up the list of all time players.

You misread my post (I think @UcMiami is the one you meant to reply to)
I think Tiger is the best golfer ever and most influential athlete ever. Maybe the best single athlete of all time- ability and public reception.
(And I'd never say russell is the best. I'd say Jordan every time.)

 

[UcMiami]

If Tiger played Jack when both were at their best Tiger would win. He by far the best to ever play the game and easily the most influential too. He was slowed by knee and back issues but that doesn't take away from what he did for the game. By your standard Bill Russell would have to be the best player of all time in basketball and I don't know of anyone who would make that argument.

Now you have a guy like Scottie Scheffler on the scene who gets no real credit for his greatness but is consistently and quickly moving up the list of all time players.

If Tiger played with the equipment and the balls available to Jack for his professional career, I think it would be a 50/50 proposition. I love Tiger and at his best he was phenomenal. I also really enjoyed Jordon, and Jabar, and Magic, but wow, was Russell amazing. Comparing between eras is always fraught with issues - the competition, the sports medicine and athletic training, the aids to recovery, and the equipment changes drastically over time. Think about the difference between Air Jordans and Chuck Taylors, let alone whatever is the current rage - make LeBron wear Chuck Taylors and see how special he looks and how long he stays healthy!

 

[OviedoFLHusky]

Sabrina Ionescu, Courtney Vandersloot, Kelsey Plum, and Jackie Stiles say hi

My opinion, FWIW, is that the discussion is premature. Caitlin has done much for women’s basketball, raising its visibility and bringing in new fans, and doing it with class and humility. Her ability is undeniable and though people will quibble over turnovers or whatever, IMO it’s indisputable that Caitlin is one of the greatest women college players to date.

But, there have been many great players that have left their imprints on the game, Cheryl Miller, Sheryl Swoopes, Tina Thompson, Lisa Leslie, Tischa Penechiero…. I could go on and on. Caitlin will leave her mark, to be sure, but it’s part of the tapestry that makes up the game we love. The discussion of “best ever” changes yearly, as it should, because that means the game is still growing and that’s exciting.

I said "Caitlin may be one of the greatest ...". Does not exclude others from the conversation!

 

[maple]

Popularity fades. Records are broken. But championships are forever.

 

[darkstar1]

All round, best ever, Brianna Stewart who lead her team to 4 National Championships, MVP each FF, number 1 draft pick, elevated the game as a 6’5” player who could play every position, making her teammates better! Stewey could have put up 40 every game if that’s what the team needed, but that’s not UCONN ball.

Caitlin is one of the greats although no way is she the best of all time. Is she the best three point shooter, I can get behind that statement indeed!

I would actually tighten the scope of her greatness as a player to best VOLUME long distance 3 point shooter. Of course if she played on a team with great players (she did play with very good players) her cumulative number of points and assists would be much lower. Doubt that she would have been in a position to have reached her offensive numbers if she were not the big fish in the small pond. I think her “greatness” is less as a player than as as someone who most aided a huge jump in fan interest in the game. For this we all should be grateful. But I’d rather have at least 10 Huskies I’d choose over her in any ranking of the greats.

 

[Jonathan14]

One thing I don't see mentioned often enough in this conversation is that—regardless of national championships—being a great basketball player is about excelling on both offense and defense. Caitlin is a phenomenal offensive talent: a tremendous scorer and passer with incredible vision. But she's not an elite defender. To be fair, Iowa's style of play didn't really ask her to be, so maybe she has defensive abilities we haven't seen yet. But for my money, the GOAT is someone like Stewie or Maya or Candace Parker or Tamika Catchings or Sheryl Swoopes who anchors the team's defense as well as the offense.

 

[baggerbob]

No one said Jackie Styles was the GOAT. No one said Kelsey Plum was the GOAT. Caitlin Clark broke their scoring records. She was part of 2 FF teams. She has no rings. The teams she played on let her do what she did. We all know many other coaches probably wouldn’t have for any number of reasons. Do we disregard those players because their stats don’t measure up? Or is there another measure of greatness?

Clark was a great college player, but to me only 3 players stand out as GOAT.
To me you have to be great at both ends of the floor, and my choices would be Maya, Stewie, and Parker.
In a couple more years add A'ja to that list.

 

[HuskyNan]

Clark was a great college player, but to me only 3 players stand out as GOAT.
To me you have to be great at both ends of the floor, and my choices would be Maya, Stewie, and Parker.
In a couple more years add A'ja to that list.

Tamika Catchings

 

[VAUConnFan]

CC and Stewie are indeed two of the all time greatest. Some make the argument, fairly or unfairly, that you can't give GOAT to Clark because she didn't win a NC and you can't give it to Stewie because of the surrounding talent that helped her win her 4 titles.
Taurasi may have won 4 NC a la Stewie if her team didn't lose 2 AA her freshmen year. Sophomore year, DT was surrounded by one of the most talented teams of all time but they played poorly in the NC game. In the closing minutes while the upperclassmen played tight, it was DT who calmly made the clutch plays to put the game away for UConn.
Then her junior and senior year, DT was surrounded by what I'll say was good but not great talent. I'll go as far to say DT's surrounding talent in 2003 and 2004 was lesser than what Clark had her last two seasons.
DT led very flawed surrounding talent to a NC not once but twice. The second time in an injury riddled season.
DT didn't elevate the popularity of the game to the same extent as Clark but she created a lot if buzz in her own right.
So while you certainly put Clark, Stewie, and some others in the conversation, for my money DT ranks as the greatest of all time for the combination of excitement she brought to the game along with ability to carry a team multiple times to NCs without great surrounding talent.

I could not possibly disagree with you more:
1. UConn, as a team, did not play poorly in the 2002 national championship game against Oklahoma. However, the future Hall of Fame backcourt duo of Bird and Taurasi shot a combined 8-25, 0-9 from 3; The starting front court of Cash, Williams, and Jones were a combined 20-30. Taurasi herself was 5-16 and made the one play, the and one, with about 90 seconds left to put UConn up 9.
2. The 2003 and 2004 UConn teams featured at least six players that would eventually play in the WNBA. Iowa is only likely to list one player to eventually play in the "W".

Can you imagine being able to say that UConn and Coach Auriemma did not field talented teams? And believing it in order to elevate your choice as the GOAT. No doubt, Ms Taurasi is in the conversation, but do not support your conclusion with false facts. Ms Taurasi's resume speaks for itself; WNBA, Olympics, etc.

 

[VAUConnFan]

A lot of folks here are probably not old enough to remember Cheryl Miller.

My list in no particular order are Janice Lawrence, Cheryl Miller, Sheryl Swoopes, Diana Taurasi, Maya Moore, and Brianna Stewart. Candace Parker, Jackie Stiles, and Cailin Clark are not on this list because I did not see nearly enough of them to render an opinion.

 

[VAUConnFan]

CC can be labeled the greatest scorer, but great scorers are not the GOAT. We wouldn't have considered all the great scorers before her to be the GOAT. What DT did in 2003 and 2004 is more impressive to me.

If what I have been reading/hearing is correct, Ms Clark is the first person to lead the nation in scoring to appear in the national championship game.

 

[fireford]

I could not possibly disagree with you more:
1. UConn, as a team, did not play poorly in the 2002 national championship game against Oklahoma. However, the future Hall of Fame backcourt duo of Bird and Taurasi shot a combined 8-25, 0-9 from 3; The starting front court of Cash, Williams, and Jones were a combined 20-30. Taurasi herself was 5-16 and made the one play, the and one, with about 90 seconds left to put UConn up 9.
2. The 2003 and 2004 UConn teams featured at least six players that would eventually play in the WNBA. Iowa is only likely to list one player to eventually play in the "W".

Can you imagine being able to say that UConn and Coach Auriemma did not field talented teams? And believing it in order to elevate your choice as the GOAT. No doubt, Ms Taurasi is in the conversation, but do not support your conclusion with false facts. Ms Taurasi's resume speaks for itself; WNBA, Olympics, etc.

You do realize a "false fact" is a contradiction, no?

But if you want just plain facts here they are:

Below is a summary of the 2002 championship game. One which UConn was expected to roll over Oklahoma and did anything but. If you thought they played anything less than subpar that game then you watched a different game than I did.

Huskies Win Third National Championship - University of Connecticut Athletics

March 31, 2002 SAN ANTONIO, TX - Led by 20 points and 13 rebounds from Final Four MVP senior Swin Cash (McKeesport, PA), the University of Connecticut

uconnhuskies.com

A few notable quotes from above that support what I'm telling you.

<<Oklahoma took advantage of UConn's sloppy play>> Sloppy play = poor play

Cash, Williams and Jones had those gaudy numbers because the backcourt missed a lot of shots. Oklahoma did not have a front court to match that front court so UConn got a lot of easy put backs. The 8-25 perimeter shooting and 0-9 from 3 you mention = poor shooting. Poor shooting = poor play.

<<The score was 73-67 with 1:31 remaining when sophomore Diana Taurasi (Chino, CA), who struggled from the floor throughout the game, hit the shot that mattered most, a jumper from just inside the free throw line>> A close score that late in the game against a team they were expected to rout = poor play. And yes, Taurasi's overall shooting was part of that. But as I mentioned the team was playing a little tight at that point and her shot "that mattered most" as stated above, was among the most crucial of the game. Point being she stepped up in a big moment as superstars do as the rest of the team was playing tight and was starting to press right before she hit the shot.

For the 2002-3 season here is the pre-season poll.

2002-03 Coaches Poll Women's College Basketball Rankings, Preseason - ESPN

Find the complete NCAAW Preseason rankings on ESPN. Includes the full votes and trend for the top 25 NCAAW teams.

www.espn.com

They only had one number one vote for first place (likely from a homer writer). They were expecting to be a "rebuilding" team after all the graduations that year and Taurasi carried them to the title. Not getting any love in the pre-season poll supports that.

Here is the roster filled with the "great" players that you mention.

2002-03 Women's Basketball Roster - University of Connecticut Athletics

The official 2002-03 Women's Basketball Roster for the University of Connecticut Huskies

uconnhuskies.com

Who other than Tarausi on this roster was a superstar? Short answer: None. They were all role players. And I didn't say they weren't talented. I said they were good not great, which is a fair an accurate statement. No better than the Iowa supporting cast which does not make two title games unless they are halfway decent regardless of how good Clark is. Your (likely inaccurate) prediction that only one other Iowa player will get a shot at the WNBA is merely speculative at this point.

And I didn't go into WNBA, Olympics etc. because my understanding is we're talking GOAT college player here and that those achievements, while they enhance her argument about just plain GOAT, do not support the argument about GOAT college player.

Therefore, I stick to Taurasi as my GOAT college player for the reasons I stated and supported above.

 

[NoSpamHere]

CC and Stewie are indeed two of the all time greatest. Some make the argument, fairly or unfairly, that you can't give GOAT to Clark because she didn't win a NC and you can't give it to Stewie because of the surrounding talent that helped her win her 4 titles.
Taurasi may have won 4 NC a la Stewie if her team didn't lose 2 AA her freshmen year. Sophomore year, DT was surrounded by one of the most talented teams of all time but they played poorly in the NC game. In the closing minutes while the upperclassmen played tight, it was DT who calmly made the clutch plays to put the game away for UConn.
Then her junior and senior year, DT was surrounded by what I'll say was good but not great talent. I'll go as far to say DT's surrounding talent in 2003 and 2004 was lesser than what Clark had her last two seasons.
DT led very flawed surrounding talent to a NC not once but twice. The second time in an injury riddled season.
DT didn't elevate the popularity of the game to the same extent as Clark but she created a lot if buzz in her own right.
So while you certainly put Clark, Stewie, and some others in the conversation, for my money DT ranks as the greatest of all time for the combination of excitement she brought to the game along with ability to carry a team multiple times to NCs without great surrounding talent.

This 1000 times over!

There are many good arguments why CT isn't the GOAT and that's fine. Whatever floats your boat. There is, however, one argument that can't be refuted. If you take the criteria people are applying to Clark as the GOAT and apply it to Diana, DT wins every time because she has NCs and Clark doesn't. Now I happen to think DT has it over Clark for other reasons, but just the NCs is enough to end the debate IMHO.

 

[VAUConnFan]

You do realize a "false fact" is a contradiction, no?

But if you want just plain facts here they are:

Below is a summary of the 2002 championship game. One which UConn was expected to roll over Oklahoma and did anything but. If you thought they played anything less than subpar that game then you watched a different game than I did.

Huskies Win Third National Championship - University of Connecticut Athletics

March 31, 2002 SAN ANTONIO, TX - Led by 20 points and 13 rebounds from Final Four MVP senior Swin Cash (McKeesport, PA), the University of Connecticut

uconnhuskies.com

A few notable quotes from above that support what I'm telling you.

<<Oklahoma took advantage of UConn's sloppy play>> Sloppy play = poor play

Cash, Williams and Jones had those gaudy numbers because the backcourt missed a lot of shots. Oklahoma did not have a front court to match that front court so UConn got a lot of easy put backs. The 8-25 perimeter shooting and 0-9 from 3 you mention = poor shooting. Poor shooting = poor play.

<<The score was 73-67 with 1:31 remaining when sophomore Diana Taurasi (Chino, CA), who struggled from the floor throughout the game, hit the shot that mattered most, a jumper from just inside the free throw line>> A close score that late in the game against a team they were expected to rout = poor play. And yes, Taurasi's overall shooting was part of that. But as I mentioned the team was playing a little tight at that point and her shot "that mattered most" as stated above, was among the most crucial of the game. Point being she stepped up in a big moment as superstars do as the rest of the team was playing tight and was starting to press right before she hit the shot.

For the 2002-3 season here is the pre-season poll.

2002-03 Coaches Poll Women's College Basketball Rankings, Preseason - ESPN

Find the complete NCAAW Preseason rankings on ESPN. Includes the full votes and trend for the top 25 NCAAW teams.

www.espn.com

They only had one number one vote for first place (likely from a homer writer). They were expecting to be a "rebuilding" team after all the graduations that year and Taurasi carried them to the title. Not getting any love in the pre-season poll supports that.

Here is the roster filled with the "great" players that you mention.

2002-03 Women's Basketball Roster - University of Connecticut Athletics

The official 2002-03 Women's Basketball Roster for the University of Connecticut Huskies

uconnhuskies.com

Who other than Tarausi on this roster was a superstar? Short answer: None. They were all role players. And I didn't say they weren't talented. I said they were good not great, which is a fair an accurate statement. No better than the Iowa supporting cast which does not make two title games unless they are halfway decent regardless of how good Clark is. Your (likely inaccurate) prediction that only one other Iowa player will get a shot at the WNBA is merely speculative at this point.

And I didn't go into WNBA, Olympics etc. because my understanding is we're talking GOAT college player here and that those achievements, while they enhance her argument about just plain GOAT, do not support the argument about GOAT college player.

Therefore, I stick to Taurasi as my GOAT college player for the reasons I stated and supported above.

You can rely on a summary from 22 years ago or one can rely on memory from having watched and rewatched that 2002 tournament run dozens of times. UConn, although not playing nearly as well as the semifinal game against Tennessee, totally outplayed and outclassed Oklahoma. The only reason the game was as close as it was at the 1:31 mark was because Dianna and Sue had an off night. I do not agree that poor shooting equates to poor play. Sometimes, the shots just do not fall. It was not as if the guards were taking bad, ill advised shots. Plus, UConn shot 30-57 in that game. I went to public school, but that should work out to a better than respectful shooting percentage.

I do not believe the word great was used to describe the UConn players who supported Diana's incredible threepeat. Just pointing out that a number of them were good enough to secure WNBA contracts in numbers higher than one can expect from Iowa.

Diana Taurasi is among my all time favorites; a proven winner. And, truth be told, I have seen so little of Caitlin Clark, that I cannot in good conscience debate whether she had a better college career than Diana Taurasi. I can only opine that she played on a less talented team based on the projected success of her teammates. We can revisit this in four years.

 

[Cuango]

You misread my post (I think @UcMiami is the one you meant to reply to)
I think Tiger is the best golfer ever and most influential athlete ever. Maybe the best single athlete of all time- ability and public reception.
(And I'd never say russell is the best. I'd say Jordan every time.)

That is your opinion! These kinds of statements can rarely be meaningful as there is no way of knowing what would have happened. Sometimes, if the eras are far enough apart, it can be virtually certain. I’m not sure that’s the case with Jack and Tiger! Actually, I apologize, as this was supposed to be in response to the post that said Tiger would beat Jack in his prime. I must have clicked on the wrong “Reply”.