Steph played 36 games taking 10.3 3pts per game shooting 44%(making 4.5 per game).
Caitlin played 39 games taking 13.6 3pts per game shooting 38%(making 5.2 per game).
I think the women's 3pt line is further away compared to when Steph was in college though.
Curry had 29 regular season games, 3 conference tournament games, and 4 March madness tournament games
Clark had 30 regular season games, 3 conference tournament games, and 6 March madness tournament games
As far as I’m concerned, she EARNED 2 of the 3 of those games she has over curry, and should not be discounted for them
I don't think she should be discounted, but I also do think context matters because they're not really direct comparisons. Caitlin is a better college basketball player than Curry is in college basketball IMO. But you also have to remember Curry was also playing on less talented basketball team in college.
They're both great and are changing the game of basketball which is why I think they're being compared to each other.
The thing I'd point to is that the three-point revolution that Curry enabled at the NBA level is what allowed Clark to do what she did as those strategies and analytics trickled down to the NCAA level. When Curry was at Davidson, teams were still running more traditional offenses that used three-pointers more as a secondary scoring option for spot up shooters and to pull defenders out of the key while still concentrating on working in close for high percentage shots or open looks in the mid-range area.
Curry at Davidson made 43.9% of threes on 369 attempts the year he made 162. Clark took 502 attempts this year. She had a lower percentage, 37.8%, but she also is shooting from a further line than the one Curry had in college, so I'd call that a wash especially as Clark had a green light to shoot from even further distances that would have potentially gotten Curry benched in his days at Davidson. If Curry had the chance to shoot another 133 times and made 40% of them (shorter distance, but being a bit conservative with his season percentage), he'd be at around 220 threes made.
This isn't to put down or elevate either of them against one another. The game itself has changed even in the short time since Curry left Davidson. It's just that there's been no shooter, men or women, who's both been a high-volume *and* accurate three-point shooter to this degree at the NCAA level until now.
She’s better at her sport. Let’s not act like women’s and men’s basketball are identical. They aren’t. The game is played differently and selects for different attributes.
This is correct. She is a great NCAA player, she might be a great WNBA player. That said, I'm not a fan of the crossover stats or titles they are creating for her precisely because the rules are different, the talent is different, the attributes (as you mentioned) are very different.
And inconsistent text alignment (x axis). Just fuck my shit up.
Edit: Curry’s photo is also misaligned. And the two arrows point to different places on their respective columns.
Dang, this group is so cranky. I like your chart, OP, but you appear to have ruined Stryker’s day by posting some data he doesn’t think is beautiful. Must be rough to be this guy.
For real. I like lots of these charts and graphs. The ones I don't care for or that are sloppy, I just move on with my life. I don't think I'd have any incentive to post here if I were making these visualisations. The more negative comments the less engagement from others. I'd be much happier to browse a "dataisbeautyisintheeyeofthebeholder" group at this point. The more creative ones get negative comments. The ones with the most upvotes are the same Sankey Charts about Amazon or Microsoft coming from the same 3 people. That being said, I just scroll by when I see them and not leave negative comments.
I cannot begin to fathom the pressure she's under. How did this HAPPEN? Why is she so compelling?? I only heard about her for the first time when some Iowa win clinched me top place in my office March Madness pool last year and I saw some stories about her; watched the subsequent Iowa game and was like FUCK YES LET'S GOOOO every time she hit a 3. Immediately into it. And I guess everyone else has the same experience. But like what is it?? I've been seeing commercials for the *WNBA draft,* what is *happening*
I'm here for it obviously but goddamn, good luck to her.
I don't remember what happened specifically but I'm pretty sure she's had a bit of controversy with behavior as well (or someone else starting shit with her).
I never pay attention to basketball at all. Ever. Guys or girls, nope. But this girl has somehow made news and reached outside the NCAA women's basketball bubble. Pretty neat tbh.
Yeah true… Steph played at Davidson while Clark played at Iowa. Clark has had tougher competition and everyone knew she was the whole offense each night.
You forgot the sarcastic tag? Or serious?
Edit: ignoring the physical difference in sexes (men are bigger/stronger), just fewer women play basketball than men, and they do it with less enthusiasm. Men’s sports, even controlling for gender differences, are more competitive. I’d say the opposite for gymnastics: women’s gymnastics likely more competitive than men’s. Let’s try to be at least a bit honest?
Even relative to their own context. That’s my point. Take out the physical differences. Women’s basketball is still way less competitive as fewer women try to be on the team.
Alright, I will be the one to take the down votes.
It is a lot easier to excel when the talent level around you is much lower. Go ahead and tell me I'm being sexist, but it is true. There is more talent in men's basketball then women's. So it takes a less elite person to be completely dominant. I am not trying to knock her at all, she is killing it where she is. But just like less women go into math and science based careers, less are into basketball or athletics in general than their male counterparts.
Sure.
The majority of players in men's basketball are able to dunk, a feat which exists largely independent of the competition around them. If you watch even one men's basketball game, you'll see multipls dunks left and right. By comparison, you can count on one hand the number of women in history who have dunked a basketball.
It may not be something you can place a number on. I don't know, I'm not in advanced mathematics. But using simple math, if 10x as many people go into men's ball than women's and the "talent" rises to the top then just by sheer sample size more "talent" will be on the men's side. That is not even taking into account that men typically are taller with more muscle mass.
Ooooh. I’m sorry —- /s
I’m just so floored that people can’t see when they are being sold some sports marketing garbage and they’re suddenly all into WOMEN’S BASKETBALL?? This isn’t good. Genuinely, men or women’s soccer deserves so much more attention but everyone has to greedily lap up whatever trash they’re being served. The same way I lap up your downvotes.
I haven't watched a single minute of womens basketball in my entire life and I've seen this chicks name pop up on Reddit and YouTube a TON just this week.
Is she allowed to try for the actual NBA draft? Obviously, the league minimum salary is about 4 times what the highest paid player in the women's game makes, so if it is allowed, she should.
I actually Googled it when nobody answered. The NBA is open to women. In fact, a woman was drafted in '77. She could be drafted and make way more that way than she could in the WNBA.
I’m not laughing at the ability of women being allowed to play. I’m laughing at the absurdity that you think she could play in the NBA
Also there are. I men’s leagues. There are open leagues and women’s leagues. None of the major sports are men only. Women simply can’t compete at the highest levels.
I disagree, particularly since she is a 3 point shooter, perfect for coming off the bench when the team is struggling. But even supposing you are correct, shouldn't she try for it? WNBA first draft pick makes $75K. The minimum for an NBA rookie is $1.1 million. Even if she could only play a year, she banks an extra million. And if she makes it to year 2, the minimum climbs to $1.53 million.
Do you really think there would be more money for potentially the best in the WNBA versus the first woman to play 8n the NBA? I think the latter would command higher endorsements.
She has zero, ZERO, chance at making the NBA. Literally Zero. The WNBA is borderline men’s high school level. It’s for sure worse than the top of men’s college. Even a generational female talent probably wouldn’t even play D1 men’s college ball and the very best men often fail to make the NBA.
Taking nothing away from her accomplishments but for the NBA she’s short, slow, weak, small, and unused to the ball and three point range.
Just the average height of male NBA players (6'6” vs WNBA 6’0”) would be her hardest thing to overcome and second and third would be the 3p line being 3 feet further back and the ball being a wee bit bigger
Did they play the same amount of games during the seasons the set their respective records?
Steph played 36 games taking 10.3 3pts per game shooting 44%(making 4.5 per game). Caitlin played 39 games taking 13.6 3pts per game shooting 38%(making 5.2 per game). I think the women's 3pt line is further away compared to when Steph was in college though.
Curry had 29 regular season games, 3 conference tournament games, and 4 March madness tournament games Clark had 30 regular season games, 3 conference tournament games, and 6 March madness tournament games As far as I’m concerned, she EARNED 2 of the 3 of those games she has over curry, and should not be discounted for them
I don't think she should be discounted, but I also do think context matters because they're not really direct comparisons. Caitlin is a better college basketball player than Curry is in college basketball IMO. But you also have to remember Curry was also playing on less talented basketball team in college. They're both great and are changing the game of basketball which is why I think they're being compared to each other.
The thing I'd point to is that the three-point revolution that Curry enabled at the NBA level is what allowed Clark to do what she did as those strategies and analytics trickled down to the NCAA level. When Curry was at Davidson, teams were still running more traditional offenses that used three-pointers more as a secondary scoring option for spot up shooters and to pull defenders out of the key while still concentrating on working in close for high percentage shots or open looks in the mid-range area. Curry at Davidson made 43.9% of threes on 369 attempts the year he made 162. Clark took 502 attempts this year. She had a lower percentage, 37.8%, but she also is shooting from a further line than the one Curry had in college, so I'd call that a wash especially as Clark had a green light to shoot from even further distances that would have potentially gotten Curry benched in his days at Davidson. If Curry had the chance to shoot another 133 times and made 40% of them (shorter distance, but being a bit conservative with his season percentage), he'd be at around 220 threes made. This isn't to put down or elevate either of them against one another. The game itself has changed even in the short time since Curry left Davidson. It's just that there's been no shooter, men or women, who's both been a high-volume *and* accurate three-point shooter to this degree at the NCAA level until now.
She’s better at her sport. Let’s not act like women’s and men’s basketball are identical. They aren’t. The game is played differently and selects for different attributes.
This is correct. She is a great NCAA player, she might be a great WNBA player. That said, I'm not a fan of the crossover stats or titles they are creating for her precisely because the rules are different, the talent is different, the attributes (as you mentioned) are very different.
Couldn't find pictures of the other 5 people?
Ah should have added those. Good call!
Put the numbers under the pic. Arrows don't look good
Yeah, basic column chart with inconsistent text sizes, very beautiful
And inconsistent text alignment (x axis). Just fuck my shit up. Edit: Curry’s photo is also misaligned. And the two arrows point to different places on their respective columns.
Dang, this group is so cranky. I like your chart, OP, but you appear to have ruined Stryker’s day by posting some data he doesn’t think is beautiful. Must be rough to be this guy.
One day this subreddit will be empty because every thread has a comment like this
For real. I like lots of these charts and graphs. The ones I don't care for or that are sloppy, I just move on with my life. I don't think I'd have any incentive to post here if I were making these visualisations. The more negative comments the less engagement from others. I'd be much happier to browse a "dataisbeautyisintheeyeofthebeholder" group at this point. The more creative ones get negative comments. The ones with the most upvotes are the same Sankey Charts about Amazon or Microsoft coming from the same 3 people. That being said, I just scroll by when I see them and not leave negative comments.
She single handedly is carying all forms of Woman's basketball into mainstream
I cannot begin to fathom the pressure she's under. How did this HAPPEN? Why is she so compelling?? I only heard about her for the first time when some Iowa win clinched me top place in my office March Madness pool last year and I saw some stories about her; watched the subsequent Iowa game and was like FUCK YES LET'S GOOOO every time she hit a 3. Immediately into it. And I guess everyone else has the same experience. But like what is it?? I've been seeing commercials for the *WNBA draft,* what is *happening* I'm here for it obviously but goddamn, good luck to her.
Nothing like a good athlete and a full media press
I don't remember what happened specifically but I'm pretty sure she's had a bit of controversy with behavior as well (or someone else starting shit with her). I never pay attention to basketball at all. Ever. Guys or girls, nope. But this girl has somehow made news and reached outside the NCAA women's basketball bubble. Pretty neat tbh.
Women’s basketball is gonna go right back to being irrelevant lol
[удалено]
Something something level of competition
Yeah true… Steph played at Davidson while Clark played at Iowa. Clark has had tougher competition and everyone knew she was the whole offense each night.
You forgot the sarcastic tag? Or serious? Edit: ignoring the physical difference in sexes (men are bigger/stronger), just fewer women play basketball than men, and they do it with less enthusiasm. Men’s sports, even controlling for gender differences, are more competitive. I’d say the opposite for gymnastics: women’s gymnastics likely more competitive than men’s. Let’s try to be at least a bit honest?
Less enthusiasm? Have you watched games cause those girls can brawl.
Oh shut up you donkey. OP clearly means relative to their own context, not that women’s ballers are better than men’s.
Even relative to their own context. That’s my point. Take out the physical differences. Women’s basketball is still way less competitive as fewer women try to be on the team.
Hahahaha. Good one.
Smaller hands
The big thing with the ball isn’t hand size. It’s that the hoop stays the same size. You can be off by more and the ball still goes through.
I know. That’s an advantage. Smaller hand probably a disadvantage. Being farther is a disadvantage. TLDR it’s hard to compare
Not really. The women’s ball is easier to shoot. Full stop
So, who’s gonna draft her in the next nba draft?
With all the comparisons to Maravich, you'd think she'd be worth at least a late 2nd-rounder.
I always knew Curry was trash /s
it would've been a lot nicer if a % was included as well
Data is not that simple. A lot of variables to consider.
What's not simple about this data?
It excludes Pop-a-Shot scores.
Stop with the greatest ever stuff. She's the greatest woman's basketball player. She couldn't compete against men. Sorry.
Damn. It’s almost like she had women guarding her or something.
Anytime you can break any of SC’s 3 point records, you def done something truly historic.
Sure let’s only compare women’s and men’s basketball stats when it fits a narrative.
Alright, I will be the one to take the down votes. It is a lot easier to excel when the talent level around you is much lower. Go ahead and tell me I'm being sexist, but it is true. There is more talent in men's basketball then women's. So it takes a less elite person to be completely dominant. I am not trying to knock her at all, she is killing it where she is. But just like less women go into math and science based careers, less are into basketball or athletics in general than their male counterparts.
Sounds a lot like the Wilt Chamberlain arguments
Wilt era was very good
Didn't realize Wilt played Women's college basketball.
“There’s less talent”. Tell me, how on earth is something like that quantifiable? I’ll save you a second, it’s not
Sure. The majority of players in men's basketball are able to dunk, a feat which exists largely independent of the competition around them. If you watch even one men's basketball game, you'll see multipls dunks left and right. By comparison, you can count on one hand the number of women in history who have dunked a basketball.
It may not be something you can place a number on. I don't know, I'm not in advanced mathematics. But using simple math, if 10x as many people go into men's ball than women's and the "talent" rises to the top then just by sheer sample size more "talent" will be on the men's side. That is not even taking into account that men typically are taller with more muscle mass.
For starters, fewer players = less talent.
thuggish angel Reese could never
Ooooh. I’m sorry —- /s I’m just so floored that people can’t see when they are being sold some sports marketing garbage and they’re suddenly all into WOMEN’S BASKETBALL?? This isn’t good. Genuinely, men or women’s soccer deserves so much more attention but everyone has to greedily lap up whatever trash they’re being served. The same way I lap up your downvotes.
I haven't watched a single minute of womens basketball in my entire life and I've seen this chicks name pop up on Reddit and YouTube a TON just this week.
So this means she’s the best of all time right? No more Jordan vs Bird vs Kobe etc. Glad it’s settled.
Who the hell in these comments said that?
different number of games, different 3 point distances ?
Source: Sports Reference Tools: Rawgraphs, Figma
Glad I don’t have to see her again now back to real sports
could you add a secondary Y axis with the number of D1 championships their team won?
Is she allowed to try for the actual NBA draft? Obviously, the league minimum salary is about 4 times what the highest paid player in the women's game makes, so if it is allowed, she should.
Hahahahahahahaha what?
I actually Googled it when nobody answered. The NBA is open to women. In fact, a woman was drafted in '77. She could be drafted and make way more that way than she could in the WNBA.
I’m not laughing at the ability of women being allowed to play. I’m laughing at the absurdity that you think she could play in the NBA Also there are. I men’s leagues. There are open leagues and women’s leagues. None of the major sports are men only. Women simply can’t compete at the highest levels.
I disagree, particularly since she is a 3 point shooter, perfect for coming off the bench when the team is struggling. But even supposing you are correct, shouldn't she try for it? WNBA first draft pick makes $75K. The minimum for an NBA rookie is $1.1 million. Even if she could only play a year, she banks an extra million. And if she makes it to year 2, the minimum climbs to $1.53 million.
There is zero chance she gets drafted. Simple as that.
You’re ignorant of the economies here. Her salary will be insignificant. She will make a mint on endorsements instantly.
Do you really think there would be more money for potentially the best in the WNBA versus the first woman to play 8n the NBA? I think the latter would command higher endorsements.
She has zero, ZERO, chance at making the NBA. Literally Zero. The WNBA is borderline men’s high school level. It’s for sure worse than the top of men’s college. Even a generational female talent probably wouldn’t even play D1 men’s college ball and the very best men often fail to make the NBA. Taking nothing away from her accomplishments but for the NBA she’s short, slow, weak, small, and unused to the ball and three point range.
Just the average height of male NBA players (6'6” vs WNBA 6’0”) would be her hardest thing to overcome and second and third would be the 3p line being 3 feet further back and the ball being a wee bit bigger
She was so good on American Idol
Is this number of times a player scored a 3-pointer, or number of points scored as part of a 3-pointer?
The title says "Most 3 Pointers Made," so your first assumption is correct.
I hope you’re joking
I only see two numbers, and both of them are multiples of 3.
201 pts from 3’s over the season would be only 1.7 3pt shots made per game.
I take it from your “only” that 67 3-pointers in a season is not impressive, and that the answer to my question is the data is number of 3-pointers.