ESPN analyst wants to know identity of voter who snubbed Caitlin Clark
May 3, 2024; Dallas, Texas, USA; Indiana Fever guard Caitlin Clark (22) reacts after scoring during the first quarter against the Dallas Wings at College Park Center. Mandatory Credit: Kevin Jairaj-USA TODAY Sports
After a historic first season, Indiana Fever guard Caitlin Clark was recently named WNBA Rookie of the Year. However, the vote was not unanimous.
Clark received 66 of a possible 67 votes with one going to Chicago Sky forward Angel Reese. The single holdout robbed Clark of a much-deserved unanimous honor, and some in the sports world aren’t thrilled about that.
ESPN WNBA Countdown co-host Andraya Carter thinks the voter who snubbed Clark should be identified.
“If you were the person who had that one vote, you should be able to stand on it, and we should know who you are”
Andraya Carter on Caitlin Clark receiving 66/67 Rookie of the Year votes pic.twitter.com/OYyO6wuz7I
— Clark Report (@CClarkReport) October 5, 2024
“Hats off to Caitlin, should have been unanimous, but I’ll stop there,” Carter said on ESPN Friday.
“No no no, I’m (going to) pick it up because she should have been a unanimous Rookie of the Year,” fellow co-host Chiney Ogwumike said. “Ever since Angel Reese had that injury, and also coming off of Olympic break, Caitlin Clark separated herself. She should have been unanimous.”
Carter also argued that the WNBA should do away with anonymous voting for exactly this reason.
“And this is why we would love for the WNBA to make voting not anonymous. Because if you were the person that had that one vote, you should just be able to stand on it and we should know who you are,” she said. “In the NBA, voting is not anonymous. So I would love for the WNBA to make the voting. . . so that we see who put the votes where.”
The four-woman panel agreed. Unanimously.
Thus far, the holdout vote has not made himself or herself known, and it’s likely they won’t. If they genuinely believed Reese was the better rookie than Clark, they should have no issue defending that stance. Instead, it appears this was little more than a protest vote.
