Starter’s Pistol: How One Pro’s Rookie Season Resembles That of Another

The dog days of summer have come early this year, with them a brutal heatwave in New York and the Hudson Valley.  The Independence Day holiday weekend segued directly into an observance more personal to us at the site – the celebration of my 70th birthday.  Accordingly, anyone expecting a heavy or penetrative tome this week will be sorely disappointed.

Instead, this week I am writing about a lighter subject, even though lighter fare is usually the province of A.H.  For weeks I have been thinking about the most controversial and polarizing person in America today, and have decided that, even though this piece may interest nobody but me, I would indulge myself (it is my birthday, after all) by putting my thoughts to computer screen.  No, I am not talking about Donald Trump or Joe Biden.  I am not talking about Prince Harry or Meghan Markle.  I am not talking about Travis Kelce or Taylor Swift.  No, I am talking about Caitlin Clark, the rookie guard for the Indiana Fever of the WNBA.  While the travails of a women’s basketball player may seem like small potatoes in today’s scheme of things, in actuality, her story touches upon broader issues hotly debated in this country, including race and sexuality.

My interest in Clark stems from one of my three passions in life.  While I have written frequently about one, opera, I have two others about which I have not -- soccer, which I played into adulthood as a participant in the old German-American League in New York City, and basketball, where I was the point guard on the 1972 Class C New England Private School Championship team, and which I continue to (cos)play in my senescence.

I suspect I know more about women’s basketball than the average male fan – that is to say I have watched a handful of games.  I would like to pretend that my expertise is a result of my broadmindedness and acceptance of women’s sports generally, but the reality is that I started watching the WNBA only out of politeness to my orthopedist, herself a Division I player for the Lady Aggies of Texas A&M, who consults with New York’s WNBA team, the Liberty, and who suggested I give it a shot.

While the WNBA is the object of much ridicule by comedians and even political commentators (e.g., Ben Shapiro), the quality of play is, for those who have never watched a game, quite good.  This is not for the patronizing reasons given by many male observers (women are fundamentally more sound, they move the ball, etc.), but because many of these women can really play.  For example, Sabrina Ionescu’s dropping 25 of 27 shots at last year’s All Star game 3-point contest was a remarkable feat, regardless of her sex.  The quality of women’s basketball is particularly good when compared to women’s soccer where, in my view, the gulf between the men’s game and the women’s game is much wider.  In that regard, I cannot imagine the United States women’s basketball team, which is far more successful than the soccer team, having won the Olympic gold medal seven straight times, getting trounced by a local team of boys under 15 as was the national soccer team.  While I think any decent male player would be little troubled by, for example, Megan Rapinoe in her prime, I suspect that any male not an elite basketball player would find himself in dire straits against a 6’4’ Breanna Stewart.  To be sure, the women do not possess the athleticism of the men, but their skill level is impressively high.  There certainly is an element of race in the fact that the women’s soccer team is revered, and the basketball is, at best, respected.

It is a testament to Clark’s game that so many commentators are talking about the WNBA and women’s basketball in general (Author’s Note:  The WNBA is such an insignificant brand that when this author accidentally typed “WNBa” for this piece, Microsoft Word did not include “WNBA” as a suggested correct spelling).  However, commentary as to her reception in the league has overshadowed discussions of her game itself.  More specifically, observers have debated whether she has received unusually rough treatment in games, whether this treatment is due to her race and/or sexuality, and whether players are rightfully jealous of the attention she has drawn, or whether they should be grateful.  Here at History, Rinse, & Repeat, we debate a fourth question:  Is there a historical precedent for the Clark hoopla?

Is Clark Getting “Special Treatment?”

It is quite clear, from even a small sample of games that I have watched, that teams have been especially geared up to stop Clark from scoring, regardless of the tactics.  She has been on the receiving end of extremely physical defense, which her detractors have justified by a “welcome to the pros” attitude.  The two most notorious incidents of so-called physical play involved two players from the Chicago Sky.  In the first, guard Chennedy Carter simply ran up to Clark and bodychecked her to the ground, at a time when the ball was not even in play.  In the second, fellow rookie Angel Reese administered a blow to Clark’s head as the latter went up for a layup.  Carter issued no statement about her foul;  Reese expressed annoyance that hers was deemed to be a Flagrant 1 foul, rather than a common foul (The NBA and WNBA have a scale of fouls:  (1) a common foul, where a team is awarded free throws; (2) Flagrant 1, where the team is awarded free throws and thereafter possession of the ball: and, (3) Flagrant 2, where, in addition to free throws and possession, the fouling player is ejected.).

Kennedy’s foul cannot be characterized as a part of basketball.  The game was not being played, Clark was uninvolved in any action, and Carter simply came from Clark’s blind side and knocked her over.  It was the basketball equivalent of the recent scourge in New York City of strangers slapping random women in the face. 

That the Sky players celebrated the assault, and the league only upgraded the foul to a Flagrant 1 the following day, speaks volumes about how players and the league regard Clark.

The second foul was a more traditional example of rough, if dirty play, as anyone old enough to remember Kevin McHale and Kurt Rambis can attest.  Reese challenged a Clark layup, and in doing so swung her arm and hit Clark directly in the head. 

What made this foul particularly notable was Reese’s complaint that it was ruled a Flagrant 1 foul, saying “I guess some people got a special whistle.”  Reese’s comment reflects her view that another standard should be applied to Clark.  The foul was not merely a Flagrant 1 foul, but, as this video provided by the NBA demonstrates, it was literally a textbook Flagrant 2 for which Reese should have been ejected from the game.

These fouls are just two examples of the treatment Clark has been receiving.  A more telling statistic is one provided by ESPN, which analyzed Clark’s utilization of the basic basketball play, the pick and roll, where Clark’s teammate provides a pick for Clark that forces: (1) Clark’s defender to fight through the pick, (2) the picking player’s defender to switch onto Clark, or (3) both defenders to ignore the picking player and doubleteam, or “blitz” Clark.  Teams were so focused on stopping Clark that they “blitzed” her twice as often as any other player in the league, forcing her to give up the ball.  However, she is such a good passer that her success rate on the pick and roll is ranked second in the league.

In short, Clark is drawing extra attention on defense, and extra physical attention.

Clark’s Race and Sexuality

This author is ill-equipped to discuss to what extent Clark’s sexuality has been a factor in the hostility directed toward her by her peers in the NBA.  It has been reported that anywhere from 29% to 38% of the league’s players are openly lesbian, and a large number of the league’s top players are gay.  In that regard, one well-known player, Candice Wiggins, asserted in an interview that she had retired from the league two years earlier than she had planned because she was “bullied” for being heterosexual.  She described the atmosphere in the league as “harmful” and “toxic.”  Nevertheless, there are straight players in the WNBA who do not appear to stir the emotions that Clark does.  A prime example is Ionescu, who, like Clark, led the country in scoring as a collegian and was the No. 1 overall pick in the draft.  Compare the reaction of her competitors after her 3-point performance at the All Star game, noted above, to the reaction of Clark’s opponents to the dirty play directed at her.

Race, on the other hand, has always been a factor in basketball.  Even Larry Bird was derided by certain opponents as overrated because of his race.  However, the WNBA is filled with white stars.  For example, the aforementioned Breanna Stewart came into the league with almost as much hoopla as Clark, having won the NCAA championship all four years she played for Connecticut.  Diana Taurasi and the recently retired Sue Bird are revered players who are white.  These players do not generate the same animus as Clark.

While it is likely that race plays some role with respect to Clark, it is also likely not the determining factor.

Are WNBA Players Rightfully Jealous?

This question is more easily answered than the others.  As Charles Barkley put it in his inimitable way, WNBA players were flying commercial until the attention generated by Clark allowed them to fly on private jets.  Attendance has skyrocketed since Clark joined the league, rising almost 50%.  Television viewership has increased at a significantly higher rate.  According to ESPN, viewership is up an astounding 183%.  Clark has been really good for the WNBA as a whole. 

Perhaps the biggest beneficiary of Clark’s fame is her severest critic, Angel Reese.  Taking nothing away from her as a player, Reese’s strengths – rebounding and inside scoring – are not ones to put fans into the seats.  Known to a limited set of niche fans, Reese catapulted to national prominence by her John Cena, “You can’t see me” hand gesture directed at Clark at the end of the 2023 NCAA championship game.  Without Clark, it is highly unlikely that Reese would be modeling for Sports Illustrated’s swimsuit edition, that she would be the subject of SNL skits, or that she would be the most followed Instagram account among all WNBA players.  Reese is best known as a foil for Clark, and their rivalry mirrors that of Larry Bird and Magic Johnson.

As many commentators have observed, a dynamic similar to Clark’s occurred when Tiger Woods burst onto the scene in professional golf.  To be sure, certain golfers were jealous, but the vast majority embraced him, not just for his talent, but because they recognized that he single-handedly was raising the profile of professional golf and, in doing so, putting money in their pockets.

Was There A Caitlin Clark In the Past?

Basketball history is filled with figures who were on the receiving end of rough treatment, particularly early in their career.  Most famously, Michael Jordan was the subject, or the victim, of “Jordan Rules,” devised by the Detroit Pistons during their many playoff series against the Chicago Bulls.  The guiding principle of Jordan Rules was that Jordan was to be roughed up, largely but not entirely within the laws of the game, to as great an extent as possible.  However, there was no personal animus against Jordan.  The Rules were devised because there was no other way to beat him.

Basketball is also filled with players who were universally despised.  Perhaps best-known is Christian Laettner, whose prep school good looks belied his blue-collar upbringing in Buffalo, New York.  His image of arrogance while at Duke caused such enmity that ESPN produced a feature-length documentary about him entitled, I Hate Christian Laettner.  Laettner was the only collegian to be a member of the “Dream Team,” NBA players chosen to play in the 1992 Olympics, but was frozen out by his professional teammates.  However, as good as he was, Laettner did not have the impact on the game that Clark has had.

There is, however, one player whose career arc closely parallels that of Caitlin Clark.  It is the player whose collegiate scoring records she broke this past year, Pistol Pete Maravich.

Like Clark, Maravich was a prodigious scorer in college, averaging 44 points per game over his career at LSU.  He accomplished his record in three years, not four as did Clark, and he did it without the benefit of the 3-point shot.  But more than being a great scorer, Pete Maravich, with his long hair and floppy socks, was a showman.  Like Clark, he hit shots from greater distances than anyone before.  He performed eye-catching tricks with the ball (behind the back, between the legs, and no-look passes) long before they became a staple of the NBA.  While in college, he would perform exhibitions of ball tricks before every game.  Like Clark, he brought fans to the area who had little interest in basketball (On a personal note, he was the only player my father, who had no interest in basketball, bought a ticket to watch).  Also, like Clark, he was white, although he played with a style that was universally characterized as Black.  Indeed, an LSU coach at the time, frustrated by his inability, because of segregation, to recruit local black players such as Willis Reed and Elvin Hayes, was quoted as saying “that he finally got his black player at LSU when he coached Pete Maravich.”

Maravich entered the pro game with as much fanfare as Caitlin Clark.  But the transition to the pro game was not seamless for him.  Sports publications of the time bore such headlines as: “Pete Maravich: A Thin Line Between Love and Hate,” and “Pete Maravich: The Battle to Earn the Pros’ Respect.”   Unlike Clark, Maravich was drafted by a quality team, filled with recognized veterans.  From the outset, Maravich was greeted with hostility not just by his opponents, but by his teammates who resented his arrival.  As one writer put it:

In the case of Maravich, it wasn’t just any rookie. It was Pistol Pete. It was a white among blacks, which, isn’t a big thing in a sport, dominated by Black men. What was bigger, more important, and certainly more difficult to overcome was that Maravich was hailed as the Second Coming before he arrived.  He was going to be the savior. He would pull the Hawks to heights they had never achieved, despite the fact that they were one of the most solid professional teams ever assembled while Pistol Pete was still playing cowboys and Indians at LSU.

While race may have played a role, Maravich’s reception in the pro game was influenced by another factor.  According to his coach:

“Last year at this time,” says Guerin, who was almost as much a victim as Maravich, “Pete was resented, but not because he was Pete. More because of the image management presented in the kind of money that was given to him.  “Really, who the hell is worth the amount of money that he is said to be getting? If there was trouble, it was the money, not Maravich. Pete proved himself to be a helluva ballplayer.

Maravich’s first year in the pros was problematic, even though he had a successful rookie season.  As Sport magazine wrote at the time:

[T]here was no denying that the lopsided attention paid Maravich wherever he went had irritated and distracted the others on the club. But there was also no denying another fact, obscured by the poor Hawk performance and the super expectations burdening Maravich: that he was having one of the finest rookie years for a guard in recent NBA history.

Maravich’s adjustment to the pros mirrors that of Clark on the court.  Like Clark, his shooting percentage did not match that of his college days.  Like Clark, he had trouble adjusting to the physicality of the pro game, particularly on defense.  Like Clark, while Maravich excelled as a passer, he committed an inordinate number of turnovers his first year.  Nevertheless, as noted above, Maravich, like Clark, put together one of the best rookie seasons on record (Clark recently became the first WNBA rookie to record a triple double, i.e., double figures in scoring, assists, and rebounds).

Ultimately, Maravich went on to have a Hall of Fame career.  Ironically, he became even more admired as his physical ability was impaired by injury and fans could appreciate his level of skill.  He maintained that his favorite year in the NBA was his final one, when he played as a substitute for the Boston Celtics.  Even in his diminished state, he was respected by his teammates who would become champions the following year.  Sadly, Maravich died, playing basketball, at the age of 40.

Like Maravich, Caitlin Clark has been perceived as the Second Coming, in her case of women’s basketball.  While she does not earn a salary comparable to that of Maravich, even adjusted for inflation, her off the court earnings likely dwarf those of most, if not all, WNBA players.  It is hardly surprising that Clark’s reception in the pro game has mirrored that of Maravich.  However, like Maravich, Caitlin Clark is a helluva basketball player, and she likely will have as successful, if not a more successful, career than he did.