Were the Fever better or worse without Caitlin Clark?

‘The Fever have been playing better without Caitlin Clark’

This is a thing that has been said on social media over the last month be it by trolls, full time Caitlin haters, or people who just aren’t paying much attention and are parroting the words of the first two groups. Now to be fair ‘___ play better without their star player’ is a thing that has been said many a time in the history of basketball, and there are always some individual games and isolated cases where it’s true! Not having your star player in the lineup means more minutes, shots and points for some of the other players on the team. They might play more freely without having to adapt to what is undoubtedly a dominating presence of some kind on the floor (the Bulls played a whole season without Michael Jordan and won two less games that year). But is it true this year with the Fever? We have 13 games with Clark to consider and 31 games without her, a pretty good size sample on both sides.  Did the Fever playing better without her, or is that just social media nonsense?  Let’s take a look.

As a team

	With Caitlin	Total w/o Caitlin	Playoffs
Team Pts per game	87.8	83.2	79.6
Opp Pts per game	81.5	81.2	80.1
Avg Team FG%	46.1	45.4	42.6
Avg Opp FG%	41.2	46.9	45.9
W-L	8-5	16-15	4-4

With Clark the Fever were the highest scoring in the entire league, without her they were seventh. They shot a little better from the floor with her than without her (46.1 vs 45.0 on average). With Clark they scored over 100 points twice in 13 games and cracked 90 four other times, without her they’ve scored 100 once in 31 games and cracked 90 eight other times.

But the big, surprising difference is defensively. Despite Clark’s reputation on defense they gave up the same amount of points with than without her (81.5 vs 81.2).  But there’s more! With Clark in the lineup the opposition never shot 50 percent but they did that 12 times without her. The Fever also never gave up 100 points with her in the lineup this season, and only gave up 90 two times but without her they gave up 100 twice and 90 several other times. 

As for wins and losses, the Fever were 61.5% with her (8-5) and were just over .500 without her (20-19, including playoffs). Without Caitlin they went 10-7 against teams under .500 including a whopping 1-3 vs the LA Sparks whereas with Caitlin they went 4-0 against the same kind of teams. Without the Clark-less Fever to play against the Sparks would have been firmly outside of playoff contention but thanks to those three wins they just missed the last playoff spot. Without Clark the Fever also lost to the dreadful 11-33 Connecticut Sun and the 10-34 Wings. In short the Fever have had way more games against losing teams without Clark (17 vs 4), but weren’t able to take advantage of that much weaker schedule.

Now I could just end it there, but what about her individual teammates?

Stats per player

The Fever essentially had a six woman core lineup – Clark at point guard, Kelsey Mitchell at shooting guard, Aliyah Boston at center, Natasha Howard at power forward, and Sophie Cunningham or Lexie Hull at small forward. Here’s how they stacked up with Clark, without Clark during the season, and in the playoffs :

	With Caitlin	Total w/o Caitlin	Playoffs
Kelsey Mitchell	19.2 ppg, 50.2 avg FG%	20.7 pts, 43.1 avg FG%	22.3 ppg, 43.3 avg FG%
Aliyah Boston	16.9 ppg, 52.5 avg FG%	14.3 ppg, 53.3 avg FG%	12.5 ppg, 44.3 avg FG%
Lexie Hull	8.2 ppg, 50.2 avg FG%	6.9 ppg, 32.8 avg FG%	10 ppg, 34.6 avg FG%
Natasha Howard	11.2 ppg, 52.7 avg FG%	11.5 ppg, 53.4 avg FG%	9 ppg, 49.7 avg FG%
Sophie Cunnngham	7.1 ppg, 42.9 avg FG%	9.4 ppg, 42.7 avg FG%*	N/A

Short version? Mitchell scored more points without Clark but shot significantly worse from the floor. Boston scored 3 fewer points without Clark, 5 less in the playoffs. Howard was the same with or without Clark during the season but 2 points worse in the playoffs. Cunningham scored more and shot better without Clark but it should be noted that she  moved into starting lineup after Clark’s injuries sidelined her for good and is thus got more shots, minutes, etc. And then there’s Hull. With Clark Hull scored and shot well enough to start; without her she has really struggled and fell out of the starting five before Cunningham got hurt.

Now to the details. Mitchell maxed out her scoring without Clark but mostly against bad teams; ten of her seventeen 20+ point games without Clark are against teams under .500 including all 4 of her 30 point games. She shot over 50 percent 8 times with Clark in 13 games but has only did it 11 times in 31 games without her. She also shot under 40 percent 3 times with Clark but 10 times without her. Howard has one 20 point game with Clark and two without, but also has a 0 point game without her. Hull scored in double figures four times with her but only five times without her and also has a 0 point game without her and six games where she didn’t hit a single shot. The only one who has seen a significant jump without Clark is Cunningham and that’s at least in part to her getting into the starting lineup while Clark was out.

What’s that all mean? Mitchell is much more consistent with Clark (over one ten game stretch without Clark she had 35 points, then 8, 23, 9, 34, 12, 26, 24, 14, and 38 followed by an 8 game stretchwhere she went 27, 26, 21, 12, 14, 29, 20, 10). Boston gets more scoring chances and thus more points with Clark, Howard is essentially the same with or without her and Hull falls off a cliff without her. It’s impossible to make any judgement on Cunningham either way until she gets to start with Clark in the lineup. Before she also got injured Aaru McDonald filled in as a starter and averaged 10.5 points, 5.6 assists, and 3.3 turnovers. That’s 6 points and 3 assists less than Clark’s 16.5 and 8.8 but also 2.3 fewer turnovers. But it should be noted that McDonald’s assist to turnover ratio as a starter was 1.72, the same as Clark’s. So for all the hullabaloo about Clark’s turnovers they are more than offset by everything else she does and don’t make the team any worse than when she’s not there. And her reputation as a defensive liability is way overstated; the opposition scores more and shoots better when she isn’t playing. She’s no lockdown defender but there’s no statistical evidence that I found to suggest that they are a better defensive team without her. 

Did the Fever win games without her? Yes. But as you saw in the numbers their individual performances were demonstrably worse. Don’t let anyone tell you different.  The only reason this is even suggested is there has been a dedicated section of WNBA fans looking for any way to diminish what she’s done so far, and for the accolades that come with it to go to someone else.  And that narrative has shifted over time.  Was it ridiculous to call her the best player in the league?  Of course. 

But to talk as if she’s Jimmer Fredette or Danny Ferry is even more ridiculous.  Last season she led the league in assists and assists per game, was seventh in the league in scoring, was the highest rebounding guard in the league (16th overall), was first team all WNBA, fourth in the MVP voting and led the Fever from 13 wins in 2023 to 20 wins and a playoff berth in 2024.  And even in what was an injury plagued 2025 season her averages would still be good for 14th in scoring, second in assists and tied for first in rebounding among guards.  And she even brought her turnovers down from last season.  She’s not being handed any accolades whatsoever. 

And for the ‘what about teh turnovers?’ crowd, consider this.  They averaged just as many team turnovers without her (13.8) as they did with her (14.1), and had a whopping 19 when they got eliminated in the playoffs.  For all intents and purposes she eats up a few turnovers that her teammates would have gotten on their own.  I showed how each of her most prominent teammates fare with and without her and the only one with higher numbers is Cunningham who just got promoted in the last two weeks.  They struggled to beat even the worst teams in the league without her. 

Finally, does the Fever playoff run prove anything?  I’d say it can validate whatever your take is.  That they made the semifinals and took the Aces to five games without her is proof enough for some people.  But I will again point you to the individual performances and note that of the four people (Mitchell, Boston, Hull, and Howard) who played both with and without her this season all of them continued to either score less or shoot much worse without her in the playoffs.