05-09-2024, 11:08 PM
Go Chiney!
Couple somewhat contrarian thoughts though:
1) The growth of the NBA didn't happen because the commissioner thought "Oh, this Magic, Larry, and Michael thing is cool - we should capitalize on it". It happened because Magic and Larry and Michael were so much fun to watch. There were many great players that came before them (Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Oscar, West, etc. etc.). But those old timers weren't as fun to watch (although Maravich sure was!), the rivalries weren't as intense, the game was slower, and they didn't have personalties. David Stern did some very smart things, but really the league blew up because of those dudes and how they played the game.
2) I don't know if the "Clark effect" is really going to last. Caitlin is great and all, but if you've watched the first 2 preseason games you can tell that she's not going to dominate in her first season or two. I think she's going to head down the same path that Kesley and Sabrina did. She'll struggle in the beginning, then find her footing, then a few years out she'll be one of the top players in the league. But she won't do what Magic and Larry and Michael did, where they were dominant right out of college. Sooo...I think the WNBA and the press should stop trying to "fabricate a Magic/Larry/Michael moment" and put it all on Caitlin. She isn't quick enough as a guard to immediately dominate in the pros and she doesn't have the personality. I think there could be this dull thud in about a month because people are going to realize she's like the 15th best player in a very talented league. Magic and Larry and Michael were the best players in the league.
3) Leagues need particular types of superstars in order to build rabid fanbases. It's some weird combination of talent, style, and personality. Tiger had it. Scottie Scheffler is an absolute stud, he seems like a terrific person, I root for him...but not like I rooted for Tiger. I was glued to the set when Tiger played. Why were the McEnroe, Borg, Connors years the golden age of tennis? What did they have that Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic don't? The tennis today is absolutely incredible, but not many people watch. Personality and style are key. They keep strutting Caitlin around in Prada. I don't know - looks forced on her. She needs her own style. Like how Tiger had his Sunday red and black.
Couple somewhat contrarian thoughts though:
1) The growth of the NBA didn't happen because the commissioner thought "Oh, this Magic, Larry, and Michael thing is cool - we should capitalize on it". It happened because Magic and Larry and Michael were so much fun to watch. There were many great players that came before them (Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Oscar, West, etc. etc.). But those old timers weren't as fun to watch (although Maravich sure was!), the rivalries weren't as intense, the game was slower, and they didn't have personalties. David Stern did some very smart things, but really the league blew up because of those dudes and how they played the game.
2) I don't know if the "Clark effect" is really going to last. Caitlin is great and all, but if you've watched the first 2 preseason games you can tell that she's not going to dominate in her first season or two. I think she's going to head down the same path that Kesley and Sabrina did. She'll struggle in the beginning, then find her footing, then a few years out she'll be one of the top players in the league. But she won't do what Magic and Larry and Michael did, where they were dominant right out of college. Sooo...I think the WNBA and the press should stop trying to "fabricate a Magic/Larry/Michael moment" and put it all on Caitlin. She isn't quick enough as a guard to immediately dominate in the pros and she doesn't have the personality. I think there could be this dull thud in about a month because people are going to realize she's like the 15th best player in a very talented league. Magic and Larry and Michael were the best players in the league.
3) Leagues need particular types of superstars in order to build rabid fanbases. It's some weird combination of talent, style, and personality. Tiger had it. Scottie Scheffler is an absolute stud, he seems like a terrific person, I root for him...but not like I rooted for Tiger. I was glued to the set when Tiger played. Why were the McEnroe, Borg, Connors years the golden age of tennis? What did they have that Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic don't? The tennis today is absolutely incredible, but not many people watch. Personality and style are key. They keep strutting Caitlin around in Prada. I don't know - looks forced on her. She needs her own style. Like how Tiger had his Sunday red and black.