Carolyn Peck’s Controversy: Saying Indiana is “More Dangerous Without Caitlin Clark”

Sports Takes Can Get Messy—But This One Drew the Line

Sports discourse thrives on bold opinions, but when ESPN analyst Carolyn Peck suggested on SportsCenter that the Indiana Fever appear “more dangerous” without star guard Caitlin Clark, she ignited a firestorm. In doing so, Peck stepped onto thin ice, prompting an online backlash that showed just how protective fans—and the WNBA as a whole—are of Clark and her impact.

On July 3, after the Fever routed the Las Vegas Aces 81–54 (and just two nights after winning the Commissioner’s Cup over the Minnesota Lynx), Peck weighed in:

“I think that Indiana is even more dangerous when Caitlin Clark doesn’t play … Because she’s a ball‑dominant guard … But when you look at Indiana now, they have so many weapons … they are a threat.” SINew York Post

Fans Fired Back Immediately

Reactions online were swift and scathing. Many fans called the comment “disrespectful” to the player who’s done more than anyone to elevate the WNBA’s visibility:

“Crazy levels of hate for the person who brought WNBA to relevancy.” Athlon Sports

Tweets mocking the idea flooded X (formerly Twitter):

“The Fever are better without Caitlin Clark. LOL.”
“They are LOST without Caitlin.”
“You don’t know ball if you actually believe that.” SI

The sentiment was clear: to downplay Clark was to minimize her influence on and off the court.

What Did the Stats Say?

Let’s break it down:

Clark has missed 10 games due to quadriceps and groin injuries. The SunReuters

The Fever’s record with her absent is 5–5, nearly identical to their 4–4 record with her playing. The SunNew York Post

Offensive tempo changes drastically: Indiana scores 107.5 points per 100 possessions with Clark, dropping to 87.7 without her, according to ESPN stats. ESPN.com

The bottom line? Clark’s absence may allow for more diversified scoring, but her presence alone raises the team’s ceiling, sparks pace, and boosts offensive efficiency.

Fan Response: Voices from Social Media

Fans were unrelenting in their criticism:

Some accused Peck of harboring resentment or waiting to “discredit CC again.”

Others labeled the notion absurd, pointing out that games without Clark lacked its signature fast-break energy and flow. Athlon SportsSI

On Reddit, as of mid-June:

“Caitlin Clark gets blitzed and plays like she controls the offense—and nobody knows how to play with her.” Reddit
This perspective reinforces how deeply fans feel Clark’s style—even when flawed—elevates the play of those around her.

And it’s not just game threads. Casual observers note her drawing power:

When Caitlin plays, WNBA attendance surges over 100%.

She alone accounted for over 33% of league-wide attendance in 2024. Reddit

That kind of star power is rare—and it’s from Clarke’s influence.

What a Few Analysts Say

Expert commentators often caution against sweeping labels:

They argue that while the team showcased resilience during her absence, the long-term impact of losing her is a different story:

“They’re tougher without her—but that doesn’t mean they’re better with her.” clutchpoints.com

Players like Candace Parker stressed the distinction between a team’s temporary overhaul and sustained excellence built around a superstar. Disregarding the latter misses the point.

Final Take: ESPN and the Lessons Learned

Peck’s comment wasn’t entirely without merit analytically—it’s true that ball distribution is more varied in her absence, and other players step up. But parsing that through the lens of “[the team is better without her]” ignores the broader context:

Clark is the league’s cultural motor—her presence bolsters attention, revenue, viewership, and pace. SB NationReddit

She sets the tone on offense and galvanizes teammates in ways not easily quantified. Her absence recalibrates strengths but also reveals systemic weaknesses.

As stats show, the Fever’s offensive efficiency dips significantly without her. ESPN.com

Peck’s comment stung because it theorized away the intangible benefits Clark brings—impact beyond the box score.

How Media Should Approach This

Context matters: Nuanced statements like “Clark’s absence allows deeper rotations” are fair. But saying “they’re more dangerous” toes a disrespectful line.

Star impact is more than stats: Clark brings fan engagement, pace, and hope. Good analysis acknowledges that.

Fan reaction isn’t fickle—it’s fervent: When a player becomes a cultural linchpin, public sentiment can turn negative swiftly if coverage feels dismissive.

TL;DR: Caitlin Clark Remains Vital—Numbers and Narrative Agree

Peck said Indiana is “more dangerous” without Clark.

Fans exploded—many called it disrespectful or tone-deaf.

While Indiana played well absent Clark, their overall performance—pace, offense, energy—still plummets without her.

Clark is a foundational star whose impact transcends her shooting percentage.

ESPN’s lesson: Depth is valuable, but superstar influence is invaluable.

Let me know if you’d like this turned into a headline-driven article, a social media thread, or even include fan tweet quotes—happy to help further