I know, probably should put this in a different sub, but this is fascinating. I looooove numbers. And this is a well constructed piece. And Clark will forever be at the core of Hawkeye women's hoops basketball...past or present.
18% (6) of all (34/35) flagrant fouls called in the WNBA were against Clark. One other player had 3 committed against them, and another with 2. Interesting that Chennedy had the most called on her (4). But has never had one called before in her career. Nearly twice as many flagrants were called this year than the previous season. He does an awesome job at leveling the field and looking for actual statistical differences (assuming everyone had the same chance of being fouled, the chance of someone being on the receiving end of 6 of them is .001%) and then trying to explain how it could be.
He makes a really great point in that there's 3 reasons why someone would be on the receiving end of a flagrant more than other players. Ill will against the player. Player plays with such intensity and success that stopping them requires harder play. Or the refs are 'protecting' that player.
I've seen the flagrants Clark took. 1 or 2 of them? Could be somewhat questionable. So, the 'protecting' factor can be argued. But, I think you can make the case that statistically all three apply.
There was some 'protection' factor. But that only explains some of it. Considering that she took that many (and that 4 of them were at the hands, hips, or elbows of the Chicago Sky), the numbers say that her detractors would have to admit to both the fact that she is "that good" and that there is "ill will" at play.
statsurge.substack.com
18% (6) of all (34/35) flagrant fouls called in the WNBA were against Clark. One other player had 3 committed against them, and another with 2. Interesting that Chennedy had the most called on her (4). But has never had one called before in her career. Nearly twice as many flagrants were called this year than the previous season. He does an awesome job at leveling the field and looking for actual statistical differences (assuming everyone had the same chance of being fouled, the chance of someone being on the receiving end of 6 of them is .001%) and then trying to explain how it could be.
He makes a really great point in that there's 3 reasons why someone would be on the receiving end of a flagrant more than other players. Ill will against the player. Player plays with such intensity and success that stopping them requires harder play. Or the refs are 'protecting' that player.
I've seen the flagrants Clark took. 1 or 2 of them? Could be somewhat questionable. So, the 'protecting' factor can be argued. But, I think you can make the case that statistically all three apply.
There was some 'protection' factor. But that only explains some of it. Considering that she took that many (and that 4 of them were at the hands, hips, or elbows of the Chicago Sky), the numbers say that her detractors would have to admit to both the fact that she is "that good" and that there is "ill will" at play.
Analysis of Flagrant Fouls in the 2024 WNBA season
Caitlin Clark was flagrantly fouled 6 times this year. What’s the probability of that happening? I answer this question and more with a Poisson process.
statsurge.substack.com
