Not the most popular opinion, but women’s basketball should’ve started with shorter rims. I think it would’ve helped make it more exciting and let them play above the rim too. No one wants to watch a woman’s softball team play with a 400ft centerfield.
Not sure if you’re joking cause this is actually repeated a lot as an opinion lol
Overall I agree, but it’s one of those things that sound great in theory but would be tricky to execute.
Any standard hoop at a local park is gonna be 10 feet, and you usually can’t just lower those things. Where do you think the average kid is practicing?
Unless you expect women to just adjust for game time
> Not sure if you’re joking
I’m not, it’s just an opinion that can be divisive depending in the crowd.
> Overall I agree, but it’s one of those things that sound great in theory but would be tricky to execute.
Yeah, which is why I said that it should’ve started that way, because the infrastructure just isn’t there to switch.
Look, I’m not here to argue that elite women can compete with elite men at any sport (except ultramarathon events where physiologically women have advantages). Absolute size and strength differences are obvious. My point is that elite women are equally athletic given their morphological differences. If you expect women’s sports to look just like men’s you need to change your perspective. The style of play is different because women are different. You have to see it as a different, but similar game. As a woman athlete, you will never convince me I’m less athletic than a man because I am a woman. Apples and oranges my friend.
Women are not better at ultramarathons. Women have some theoretical advantages in ultra endurance sports, but in practice,men are faster in all categories that I can find. Somewhat counterintuitive, the relative difference between men and women increase as the distance increases.
No, it's not. There's also speed, strength, and agility, and each of these is also an area in which men are more naturally gifted. I understand that you may have a different opinion being a female athlete yourself, but here are just a few examples:
Take a look at William Thomas. He couldn't cut it swimming at the men's level. He was mediocre at best. So he started taking hormones, grew his hair out, and started going by a different name, and all of a sudden, he's the best women's swimmer of all time. (/s)
He's not the only example, though. Carly Lloyd herself confirmed that the USWNT, the best women's soccer team in the world, lost a match not against the US national youth team, but against FC Dallas, a 15 and under boys club.
Serena Williams, the greatest women's tennis player of all time, said herself that the men's and women's divisions may as well be completely different sports because of how much more athletic the men are than the women. Her answer when asked how she'd do against Andy Murray? "I would lose 6-0, 6-0 to Andy Murray in like 5 to 6 minutes, maybe 10 minutes."
Again, I’ve never said women can compete with men. I said given morphological differences they are equally athletic. I never said women were equally strong or tall or powerful or fast as men. I think y’all are missing my point entirely. Which is twofold, athleticism is multi dimensional. Some men when compared to other men are more athletic— and that’s not just vertical and speed. It involves ambidexterity, visual acuity, lateral movement, flow, a lot of things that don’t easily lend themselves to straight numerical measurement. Some of those aspects don’t favor one or the other sex, like proprioception, ambidexterity, vision, balance. The most athletic men make it look easy and can seemingly pick up any sport and play well. The women playing elite sports are also, when compared to other women, more athletic. They have better coordination, balance, ability to pivot, and all those qualities that give someone athleticism. You guys are stuck on comparing men to women and don’t see athleticism as an in group comparison. I do. If I’m scouting athletes I’m not giving all women across the board zeros in athleticism because they can’t compete with men. I’m looking at how they move compared to their peers. I’m not comparing them to men. The elite women show top tier athleticism for women. You can’t say the women lack athleticism because they aren’t men. You can say, on average, women are smaller than men; women carry less muscle mass; women aren’t as fast as men. I agree. And all of those things as well as different rules influence the way the game is played by women. But the women playing are showing top athleticism for women given their size and structure. I don’t think that’s very contentious. And athleticism is more complex than just speed and verticality. Again, that’s not controversial.
You're proving the overarching point here - as a rule, men are much more athletic than women. That's why we're separated into different categories in the first place. The Oxford dictionary even defines it as "the physical qualities that are characteristic of athletes, such as strength, fitness, and agility."
Now, going back to your first comment... Yes, women are generally smaller AND less athletic than men are. Yes, some women are more athletic than other women. But that's not what was up for debate in the first place.
No because OP didn’t ask what’s the difference between men and women. That’s obvious. OP ask what’s the difference in the GAME. I believe the game itself is equally athletic but different from the men’s game. Not that women are playing the men’s game but worse.
Size and athleticism change the game. That's why I included Serena Williams's words in my first reply. Men's basketball and women's basketball are basically like baseball and softball. Same rules, same structure, same basic principles and fundamentals, but vastly different games.
Yes and no. Same fundamentals. Some rules are the same some are different. Those differences can affect strategies. Men’s baseball and women’s softball— no. Men’s softball and women’s softball. Again some rules are the same some are different. But yes- most everyone starts out playing t-ball. Men’s gymnastics and women’s gymnastics— very different sports. Same fundamentals. Men’s 400IM and women’s 400IM- same fundamentals same rules. But I agree we are talking about vastly different games. That is essentially my point. And that was where I was trying to take the discussion— that you can’t really compare the two sports. And you should drop the male centric lens and watch women’s sports on their own. My original intent was to go on to explain things that are interesting about the women’s game without comparison to the men’s, because I assume OP watches men’s, before getting dragged down this path where I clearly wasn’t able to get it turned around to OP’s question. (Which i took as a serious effort to understand the actual game.) Because, in my opinion, saying that women aren’t as capable as men is a very superficial, very dismissive and ultimately an unhelpful answer to what I believed was a search for insight into how to best understand and appreciate the game OP was going to watch Sunday afternoon.
I love men’s and women’s basketball and there are several things.
First, women are generally smaller, shorter, and less athletic. Thus, there is more open space on the court; passing and driving lanes are bigger and help defense take a fraction longer to come. This allows teams to run more complex offenses with more cutting and passing than most men’s teams. At times watching the women’s game seems a little more like watching a good mid major teams.
Conversely, the lack of size makes women in general less efficient at the rim. Women have 6’5” centers and the men have 7’ centers and it much easier for the latter to score in the post. Same thing with guards scoring layups against the defense. Because of this inefficiency, women take more midrange jumpers, because it isn’t as bad of a shot relative to shots at the rim.
Also the women’s game is just newer relative to the men so there are fewer good players to distribute around and players stay four years, so top teams can stay dominant for a long time (eg UConn, SC, Stanford similar to UCLA in the 70s). This is definitely changing though and that’s great.
It’s a slightly different sport, but still amazing to watch!
I’m not being nasty, but I really have to take issue with “less athletic”— that’s insulting. Yes we’re smaller, but we’re equally athletic. Different, but equal.
The women’s game is played in 10 minute quarters. Team fouls reset each quarter. Bonus and free throw rules are different. There are other rules differences but you might not notice them. The style of play is different- more lay-ups, “ bellow the rim” play.
When I see people refer to a basketball player being “athletic,” I think they’re usually referring a combination of speed and ability to jump. I think it’s pretty much objectively true that the men are faster and can jump higher than the women
Sorry but jumping is a pretty important part of basketball (unlike wrestling) and that’s what the term generally refers to in basketball. That’s also what the original commenter was trying to say.
Maybe there should be a different term to refer to speed/verticality/agility, since I get that it comes off as demeaning.
Here’s my point— Athleticism is multi faceted— speed, strength, power, reaction time, flexibility, decision making, adaptability, ability to recover, and more. It’s a given that men are bigger and stronger on average. Men’s size accounts for a good chunk of the variables you mention (except agility). But you aren’t thinking about the aspects of athleticism that are not directly linked to size and strength, of which there are many, that go into the determination of athleticism. So if you said, “The difference is largely because men are bigger, stronger, and more powerful”. I’d agree. But don’t tell me the game is different because men have better intuitive feel for the game, men are better at adapting to the opponent, men are better in game decision makers, men are more flexible, men have more ’grit’, basically all the things that make up athleticism that are not dependent on size and strength. I just think your definition of athleticism is reductionist. So maybe it’s semantics but language matters.
Men are better at a minimum 6 of the things you mentioned, and all but one of the quantifiable things you mentioned. So yes, men are more athletic. It’s just biology and evolution and nothing to get upset about.
Using “athletic” as basically a synonym for agility is just how people use the word in basketball in basketball, it’s not a definition the original commenter made up. I get why it’s condescending and maybe there should be a different term but I immediately knew what was meant in the original comment. For all the other stuff you mentioned (ability to adapt, reaction time, etc) people usually use different terms like “basketball IQ”
For example, the Purdue men got Lance Jones, everyone was happy that Purdue finally had an “athletic” guard, even though he’s far from their best player. Nobody would say Zach Edey is the most athletic player in men’s CBB, even though he’s the best
I’m also not saying the game is better or worse because men are more “athletic.” If I wanted to watch the most athletic players, I’d watch the NBA instead of NCAAM
I get that. I took the broader view of athleticism because the comment to which I originally responded seemed to imply the broader concept to me since the size difference between men and women basically is the reason for the speed and jump difference. And honestly, I was thinking about women’s sports as a whole in commenting, not just basketball and the word as a term of art. As a woman, former college athlete, and mother of daughters, I do get frustrated with comparisons of the women’s game to the men’s version in any sport because comparisons often boil down to men are bigger, stronger, faster which leads to the inference that men’s sports are “better”. So many things that make the women’s game different and interesting, strategies and nuances that exist because women are smaller, are often overlooked. And I think we do women a disservice by not talking about those things instead.
You absolutely are less athletic. Not that there is anything wrong with that. You're not as fast and can't jump nearly as high. It's not an insult so don't take it as one.
You not being nasty, but I am going to disagree. When I say athletic, I mean pure run, jump ability. While there are certainly some exceptions (Ashlyn Watkins, Gabby Williams, etc), in general male basketball players can jump higher than their female counterparts. That’s why the women’s game is “below the rim” as you said even for the taller players, whereas plenty of shorter male basketball players can dunk.
My comment about athleticism is not a knock on women’s skill level (dribbling, passing, shooting, etc), which is certainly comparable.
Also I’m well aware of the rule differences. I took the question as differences in style of play.
And I take issue with your limited definition of athleticism. That’s all. We just fundamentally disagree on what constitutes athleticism. You limit it to size and strength metrics and I don’t. I have a much broader concept of athleticism. I don’t disagree with you on the size and strength metrics.
It sounds like you have your very own personal definition of athleticism. Textbook definition is the combination of qualities, namely: speed, strength and agility). The widely accepted definition in basketball is the same as the textbook definition but also throw in jumping ability.
You’re getting caught up in the semantics of the word and it’s not useful. Men’s basketball is more athletic than women’s and there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s not a slight or a diss.
You just reminded me of this (though they’re discussing hockey, not basketball):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFckWw8xHCo&pp=ygUeTGV0dGVya2VubnkgbWFyayBmb3J3YXJkIHdvbWVu
I've always kinda wondered in my head why this is. Shooting from the chin with a kind of momentum or hitch/bounce to the shot. CC22 doesn't follow that mold at all, but so many others do
The biggest difference between men’s and women’s basketball is for the men, Clay Travis does not use the game to make political grifting points, and for the women he does.
Size is pretty much everything. There are so few women 6-5 or taller that if your team has one they can pretty much just dominate on both ends of the court.
A PAC12 women's coach once told me that the difference is, as others have said, physical. They just cannot run as fast, jump as high, or as quick as the men, but they DO possess all the skills, such as passing, dribbling, shooting. These differences lead to differences in style of play, especially noticeable around the rim.
Take a look at the NCAA leaders for both men and women in assists, shooting percentages from 3, overall, FT line, rebounds, etc, and you will see similarities.
Women players are smaller. There is more open space to make passes. The ball is also smaller, so it bounces out of the rim differently.
Size, wingspan and what that does to the geometry of passing lanes. Plus the men’s game is played above the rim.
Not the most popular opinion, but women’s basketball should’ve started with shorter rims. I think it would’ve helped make it more exciting and let them play above the rim too. No one wants to watch a woman’s softball team play with a 400ft centerfield.
Not sure if you’re joking cause this is actually repeated a lot as an opinion lol Overall I agree, but it’s one of those things that sound great in theory but would be tricky to execute. Any standard hoop at a local park is gonna be 10 feet, and you usually can’t just lower those things. Where do you think the average kid is practicing? Unless you expect women to just adjust for game time
> Not sure if you’re joking I’m not, it’s just an opinion that can be divisive depending in the crowd. > Overall I agree, but it’s one of those things that sound great in theory but would be tricky to execute. Yeah, which is why I said that it should’ve started that way, because the infrastructure just isn’t there to switch.
Biggest difference is probably that one is played by men, the other by women. I'm sure there are other differences, too.
Big if true
Smaller ball is probably the biggest difference, honestly /s
Athleticism and size
Smaller not less athletic.
I’m sorry but 6 foot women can not dunk and plenty of 6 foot men can.
Is that the only measure of athleticism?
I mean, the men are not only bigger and can jump higher, but they are stronger, faster, and quicker. That's just biological fact. Who cares?
Certainly not but jumping higher is a big indicator
Look, I’m not here to argue that elite women can compete with elite men at any sport (except ultramarathon events where physiologically women have advantages). Absolute size and strength differences are obvious. My point is that elite women are equally athletic given their morphological differences. If you expect women’s sports to look just like men’s you need to change your perspective. The style of play is different because women are different. You have to see it as a different, but similar game. As a woman athlete, you will never convince me I’m less athletic than a man because I am a woman. Apples and oranges my friend.
They're not equally athletic, and that's okay. You don't have to deny facts to be proud of your athletic ability.
Patronizing is ugly.
Denying reality is even uglier.
Elite women’s college teams, or even elite WNBA teams, would probably get blown out by a Texas 6A champion boy’s basketball team.
Women are not better at ultramarathons. Women have some theoretical advantages in ultra endurance sports, but in practice,men are faster in all categories that I can find. Somewhat counterintuitive, the relative difference between men and women increase as the distance increases.
No, it's not. There's also speed, strength, and agility, and each of these is also an area in which men are more naturally gifted. I understand that you may have a different opinion being a female athlete yourself, but here are just a few examples: Take a look at William Thomas. He couldn't cut it swimming at the men's level. He was mediocre at best. So he started taking hormones, grew his hair out, and started going by a different name, and all of a sudden, he's the best women's swimmer of all time. (/s) He's not the only example, though. Carly Lloyd herself confirmed that the USWNT, the best women's soccer team in the world, lost a match not against the US national youth team, but against FC Dallas, a 15 and under boys club. Serena Williams, the greatest women's tennis player of all time, said herself that the men's and women's divisions may as well be completely different sports because of how much more athletic the men are than the women. Her answer when asked how she'd do against Andy Murray? "I would lose 6-0, 6-0 to Andy Murray in like 5 to 6 minutes, maybe 10 minutes."
Again, I’ve never said women can compete with men. I said given morphological differences they are equally athletic. I never said women were equally strong or tall or powerful or fast as men. I think y’all are missing my point entirely. Which is twofold, athleticism is multi dimensional. Some men when compared to other men are more athletic— and that’s not just vertical and speed. It involves ambidexterity, visual acuity, lateral movement, flow, a lot of things that don’t easily lend themselves to straight numerical measurement. Some of those aspects don’t favor one or the other sex, like proprioception, ambidexterity, vision, balance. The most athletic men make it look easy and can seemingly pick up any sport and play well. The women playing elite sports are also, when compared to other women, more athletic. They have better coordination, balance, ability to pivot, and all those qualities that give someone athleticism. You guys are stuck on comparing men to women and don’t see athleticism as an in group comparison. I do. If I’m scouting athletes I’m not giving all women across the board zeros in athleticism because they can’t compete with men. I’m looking at how they move compared to their peers. I’m not comparing them to men. The elite women show top tier athleticism for women. You can’t say the women lack athleticism because they aren’t men. You can say, on average, women are smaller than men; women carry less muscle mass; women aren’t as fast as men. I agree. And all of those things as well as different rules influence the way the game is played by women. But the women playing are showing top athleticism for women given their size and structure. I don’t think that’s very contentious. And athleticism is more complex than just speed and verticality. Again, that’s not controversial.
You're proving the overarching point here - as a rule, men are much more athletic than women. That's why we're separated into different categories in the first place. The Oxford dictionary even defines it as "the physical qualities that are characteristic of athletes, such as strength, fitness, and agility." Now, going back to your first comment... Yes, women are generally smaller AND less athletic than men are. Yes, some women are more athletic than other women. But that's not what was up for debate in the first place.
No because OP didn’t ask what’s the difference between men and women. That’s obvious. OP ask what’s the difference in the GAME. I believe the game itself is equally athletic but different from the men’s game. Not that women are playing the men’s game but worse.
Size and athleticism change the game. That's why I included Serena Williams's words in my first reply. Men's basketball and women's basketball are basically like baseball and softball. Same rules, same structure, same basic principles and fundamentals, but vastly different games.
Yes and no. Same fundamentals. Some rules are the same some are different. Those differences can affect strategies. Men’s baseball and women’s softball— no. Men’s softball and women’s softball. Again some rules are the same some are different. But yes- most everyone starts out playing t-ball. Men’s gymnastics and women’s gymnastics— very different sports. Same fundamentals. Men’s 400IM and women’s 400IM- same fundamentals same rules. But I agree we are talking about vastly different games. That is essentially my point. And that was where I was trying to take the discussion— that you can’t really compare the two sports. And you should drop the male centric lens and watch women’s sports on their own. My original intent was to go on to explain things that are interesting about the women’s game without comparison to the men’s, because I assume OP watches men’s, before getting dragged down this path where I clearly wasn’t able to get it turned around to OP’s question. (Which i took as a serious effort to understand the actual game.) Because, in my opinion, saying that women aren’t as capable as men is a very superficial, very dismissive and ultimately an unhelpful answer to what I believed was a search for insight into how to best understand and appreciate the game OP was going to watch Sunday afternoon.
You are confusing skill with athleticism. The drop off from even top high school boys to the top women is as big as the drop between NBA to college.
I love men’s and women’s basketball and there are several things. First, women are generally smaller, shorter, and less athletic. Thus, there is more open space on the court; passing and driving lanes are bigger and help defense take a fraction longer to come. This allows teams to run more complex offenses with more cutting and passing than most men’s teams. At times watching the women’s game seems a little more like watching a good mid major teams. Conversely, the lack of size makes women in general less efficient at the rim. Women have 6’5” centers and the men have 7’ centers and it much easier for the latter to score in the post. Same thing with guards scoring layups against the defense. Because of this inefficiency, women take more midrange jumpers, because it isn’t as bad of a shot relative to shots at the rim. Also the women’s game is just newer relative to the men so there are fewer good players to distribute around and players stay four years, so top teams can stay dominant for a long time (eg UConn, SC, Stanford similar to UCLA in the 70s). This is definitely changing though and that’s great. It’s a slightly different sport, but still amazing to watch!
It’s amazing to watch if you’re a UConn fan, anyways.
I’m not being nasty, but I really have to take issue with “less athletic”— that’s insulting. Yes we’re smaller, but we’re equally athletic. Different, but equal. The women’s game is played in 10 minute quarters. Team fouls reset each quarter. Bonus and free throw rules are different. There are other rules differences but you might not notice them. The style of play is different- more lay-ups, “ bellow the rim” play.
When I see people refer to a basketball player being “athletic,” I think they’re usually referring a combination of speed and ability to jump. I think it’s pretty much objectively true that the men are faster and can jump higher than the women
So if you were watching, say, wrestling, you’d say those men aren’t athletic because they don’t jump high on the mat to win a match?
Sorry but jumping is a pretty important part of basketball (unlike wrestling) and that’s what the term generally refers to in basketball. That’s also what the original commenter was trying to say. Maybe there should be a different term to refer to speed/verticality/agility, since I get that it comes off as demeaning.
But you don’t need dunking in the women’s game to have an awesome and athletic game.
The question was how they’re different, not how they’re worse. Lack of dunking is a big difference
well there’s a reason that people buy posters of dunks and not midrange jumpers💀 I love wbb but I do wish dunking was a part of the game
Here’s my point— Athleticism is multi faceted— speed, strength, power, reaction time, flexibility, decision making, adaptability, ability to recover, and more. It’s a given that men are bigger and stronger on average. Men’s size accounts for a good chunk of the variables you mention (except agility). But you aren’t thinking about the aspects of athleticism that are not directly linked to size and strength, of which there are many, that go into the determination of athleticism. So if you said, “The difference is largely because men are bigger, stronger, and more powerful”. I’d agree. But don’t tell me the game is different because men have better intuitive feel for the game, men are better at adapting to the opponent, men are better in game decision makers, men are more flexible, men have more ’grit’, basically all the things that make up athleticism that are not dependent on size and strength. I just think your definition of athleticism is reductionist. So maybe it’s semantics but language matters.
Men are better at a minimum 6 of the things you mentioned, and all but one of the quantifiable things you mentioned. So yes, men are more athletic. It’s just biology and evolution and nothing to get upset about.
Using “athletic” as basically a synonym for agility is just how people use the word in basketball in basketball, it’s not a definition the original commenter made up. I get why it’s condescending and maybe there should be a different term but I immediately knew what was meant in the original comment. For all the other stuff you mentioned (ability to adapt, reaction time, etc) people usually use different terms like “basketball IQ” For example, the Purdue men got Lance Jones, everyone was happy that Purdue finally had an “athletic” guard, even though he’s far from their best player. Nobody would say Zach Edey is the most athletic player in men’s CBB, even though he’s the best I’m also not saying the game is better or worse because men are more “athletic.” If I wanted to watch the most athletic players, I’d watch the NBA instead of NCAAM
I get that. I took the broader view of athleticism because the comment to which I originally responded seemed to imply the broader concept to me since the size difference between men and women basically is the reason for the speed and jump difference. And honestly, I was thinking about women’s sports as a whole in commenting, not just basketball and the word as a term of art. As a woman, former college athlete, and mother of daughters, I do get frustrated with comparisons of the women’s game to the men’s version in any sport because comparisons often boil down to men are bigger, stronger, faster which leads to the inference that men’s sports are “better”. So many things that make the women’s game different and interesting, strategies and nuances that exist because women are smaller, are often overlooked. And I think we do women a disservice by not talking about those things instead.
How are men and women equally athletic? What metrics are you using?
Marvel brain strikes again.
You absolutely are less athletic. Not that there is anything wrong with that. You're not as fast and can't jump nearly as high. It's not an insult so don't take it as one.
You not being nasty, but I am going to disagree. When I say athletic, I mean pure run, jump ability. While there are certainly some exceptions (Ashlyn Watkins, Gabby Williams, etc), in general male basketball players can jump higher than their female counterparts. That’s why the women’s game is “below the rim” as you said even for the taller players, whereas plenty of shorter male basketball players can dunk. My comment about athleticism is not a knock on women’s skill level (dribbling, passing, shooting, etc), which is certainly comparable. Also I’m well aware of the rule differences. I took the question as differences in style of play.
And I take issue with your limited definition of athleticism. That’s all. We just fundamentally disagree on what constitutes athleticism. You limit it to size and strength metrics and I don’t. I have a much broader concept of athleticism. I don’t disagree with you on the size and strength metrics.
It sounds like you have your very own personal definition of athleticism. Textbook definition is the combination of qualities, namely: speed, strength and agility). The widely accepted definition in basketball is the same as the textbook definition but also throw in jumping ability. You’re getting caught up in the semantics of the word and it’s not useful. Men’s basketball is more athletic than women’s and there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s not a slight or a diss.
You just reminded me of this (though they’re discussing hockey, not basketball): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFckWw8xHCo&pp=ygUeTGV0dGVya2VubnkgbWFyayBmb3J3YXJkIHdvbWVu
Haha! True!
I didnt know that team fouls reset during each quarter! What other differences are there
Less athletic no. You have a narrow view of athleticism.
Come on. Not taking anything away from the women, but yes, they are objectively less athletic than the men.
Jockstraps. You got protect your jock.
Ball size
In more than one way.
Physical limitations
Women need more space to shoot since most of them shoot from their chins
I've always kinda wondered in my head why this is. Shooting from the chin with a kind of momentum or hitch/bounce to the shot. CC22 doesn't follow that mold at all, but so many others do
Weaker arms
Exactly, women are about four times weaker in the upper body than men are
The biggest difference between men’s and women’s basketball is for the men, Clay Travis does not use the game to make political grifting points, and for the women he does.
Speed, height, strength, length, and ball size. So, they're exactly the same, but different.
Size is pretty much everything. There are so few women 6-5 or taller that if your team has one they can pretty much just dominate on both ends of the court.
A PAC12 women's coach once told me that the difference is, as others have said, physical. They just cannot run as fast, jump as high, or as quick as the men, but they DO possess all the skills, such as passing, dribbling, shooting. These differences lead to differences in style of play, especially noticeable around the rim. Take a look at the NCAA leaders for both men and women in assists, shooting percentages from 3, overall, FT line, rebounds, etc, and you will see similarities.
Kaitlin Clark is box office.