A veteran coach’s perspective on development, freedom, and protecting what makes an athlete extraordinary.
By Coach Steiner, MA
There is a difference between developing an extraordinary athlete and teaching her to play more ordinarily.
That difference matters now as Caitlin Clark continues her professional development in the WNBA.
As a young athlete, I could shoot from farther away than my coaches thought I should. Instead of exploring whether that range could become a weapon, they gave me a simple instruction: Do not shoot from there.
That experience has stayed with me through more than 50 years in athletics as a player, coach, and official. I do not believe a coach’s job is to turn an athlete into the coach’s idea of the perfect player. A coach’s job is to understand what the athlete wants to become, recognize what makes her different, and help her become the best version of herself.
That is why I watched Caitlin Clark’s 2026 season with concern.
Clark remains a great player, and I am not arguing that Indiana Fever head coach Stephanie White is a poor coach. My concern is more subtle: Clark sometimes appears more cautious, less instinctive, and less willing to attempt the outrageous shot, the improbable pass, or the immediate reaction that once defined her game.
The question is this: Can coaching make an extraordinary player more complete without unintentionally narrowing the freedom, instinct, and creativity that made her extraordinary?
Clark Is Not a Conventional Player
Good coaching for most players emphasizes disciplined shot selection, fewer risky passes, and patience. Most players should not regularly shoot from 30 feet, attempt many of Clark’s passes, or play at her preferred pace.
But Clark is not most players.
A decision that is poor for one athlete can be a major weapon for another. At Iowa, Clark’s deep three-pointer did more than score points. It changed how defenses had to play. Opponents had to account for her almost as soon as she crossed half-court, which created space for teammates.
Her passing required teammates to run because Clark might find them. Her willingness to attack before the defense was set created chaos. Those choices sometimes led to turnovers and missed shots, but creativity always carries a cost.
The reward was basketball that made people stop what they were doing and watch.
Add to Her Game—Do Not Replace It
Every athlete needs coaching. Caitlin Clark needs coaching. So did Michael Jordan. So did Serena Williams.
The important distinction is between adding to an athlete’s game and replacing parts of it.
Coaches can and should improve decision-making, defense, conditioning, and situational awareness. They can teach an athlete when to slow down, how to read a defense, and how to manage the demands of a professional season.
But if repeated correction, limited opportunities, or negative reactions to risk begin to make an athlete more hesitant, coaching may improve one part of her game while weakening the quality that made her special.
From my perspective as a longtime observer of the game, I did not consistently see the same immediate freedom in Clark’s play during the 2026 season that she showed at Iowa. At times, she appeared to deliberate before actions that once seemed automatic.
That is an impression, not a statistical conclusion. But for a player whose greatness depends partly on instinct, it is worth asking about.
What the Numbers Do—and Do Not Show
I want to be careful here. My concern is based on watching Clark’s decision-making, body language, and willingness to take certain risks. It is not based on a possession-by-possession film study or a complete statistical model.
The numbers do not neatly prove that Clark has become less creative. In fact, some measures suggest growth. Her 2026 scoring average of 22.3 points per game was higher than her 19.2-point rookie average, and her field-goal percentage improved from 41.7% to 44.5%. Her turnovers also decreased from 5.6 per game in 2024 to 4.6 per game in 2026 (Basketball-Reference, n.d.).
Her playmaking remains exceptional as well. Clark averaged 8.3 assists in 2026, nearly matching the 8.4 assists per game she recorded as a rookie, when she led the WNBA in assists (Basketball-Reference, n.d.).
But there are also signs worth examining. Clark attempted 8.9 three-pointers per game as a rookie and 7.9 per game in 2026. That is not a dramatic decrease, but for a player whose deep range reshaped defenses, even a modest change in shooting volume can matter (Basketball-Reference, n.d.).
More importantly, statistics cannot fully measure hesitation: the extra dribble before an attempted pass, the skipped deep shot, the delayed attack, or the moment when a player chooses the safe play instead of the one that once came naturally.
That is where coaching, confidence, and freedom matter most.
A player can become more efficient and still become less dangerous if she becomes less willing to take the risks that make defenses uncomfortable.
If Clark’s game looks different, coaching is only one possible explanation.
A player’s role can change when she joins a new team. WNBA defenses are stronger, faster, and more physically demanding than college defenses. Clark is also playing against professional athletes who have studied her tendencies, taken away her favorite looks, and learned how to make every possession more difficult.
Injuries, roster changes, teammate development, opponent scouting, and the natural adjustment from college basketball to the WNBA can all affect how a player competes. A player may also become more selective as she gains experience. Choosing not to force a difficult shot is not always hesitation; sometimes it is growth.
That is why I am not claiming to know exactly what has happened in Indiana.
My concern is simpler: when an athlete’s greatest strength is unconventional, coaches must be careful that development does not quietly become restriction. The question is not whether Clark has changed—every professional player changes. The question is whether the changes are expanding her game or narrowing it.
A Moment That Stayed With Me
One moment from Clark’s 2025 season has stayed with me.
During Indiana’s 102–88 win over the New York Liberty on June 14, 2025, Clark returned to the game after committing consecutive turnovers. White removed her briefly and later described the situation as a learning moment, asking whether the risky pass was needed at that point in the game (EssentiallySports, 2025).
When Clark returned, she had Kelsey Mitchell open in transition. Instead of throwing the pass, Clark hesitated and dribbled the ball out.
Clark later discussed the play on Sue Bird’s Bird’s Eye View podcast. She said, “I literally like go to grab the ball, and then I like just dribble out… And like, you don’t understand how hard it was for me to not throw that” (EssentiallySports, 2025).
When I first saw that play, I thought any fourth-string point guard would have made that pass. But Clark hesitated.
That was the moment I started paying closer attention to how Indiana was coaching her. In my opinion, they were changing parts of her game that did not need to be changed—and not for the better.
I was not alone in that reaction. Many fans who had followed Clark since Iowa saw the same thing: a player whose instinct, audacity, and willingness to take risks were being asked to fit into a more controlled version of professional basketball.
That does not mean White was wrong to coach decision-making. Turnovers matter, and professional basketball requires accountability. But it showed me how quickly a player can begin filtering instinct through fear of making another mistake.
For a player like Clark, that is worth paying attention to.
Coaching or Control?
Clark and White had a widely discussed sideline exchange during a Fever loss to Portland. White substituted Raven Johnson into the game after the exchange, and the moment quickly became a national talking point (Los Angeles Times, 2026).
Clark later downplayed the incident, saying it was simply “two people being competitive” and “two people that really want to win.” She also said, “I ride for Steph,” and emphasized that White “has my back more than anybody” (Los Angeles Times, 2026).
White described the exchange as coaching: “I was challenging a player. It’s coaching” (Los Angeles Times, 2026).
I believe Clark when she says she respects her coach. An athlete can respect, trust, and even care deeply about a coach while still being affected by how she is coached.
I also recognize that I am an outsider. I do not know what happens in Indiana’s practices, film sessions, or private conversations.
But the larger question remains: When does coaching become control?
A coach may begin to think, “I will teach this athlete how basketball is supposed to be played.” But when an athlete may be capable of changing how the game is played, the coach’s responsibility is different.
Iowa Let Clark Be Clark
Watching Clark during the 2026 season, I wondered whether we are seeing the player she might have been at UConn rather than the player she became at Iowa.
This is not criticism of UConn. Under Geno Auriemma, UConn has produced championships, Olympians, and WNBA players. Its program identity is strong, and players are expected to fit into that identity.
At Iowa, the program increasingly adapted to Clark. The boundaries of acceptable play expanded around her. Those choices were not always successful, but they produced extraordinary basketball.
They also produced an audience.
Clark’s final collegiate season set viewership records across the NCAA Tournament. Iowa’s Elite Eight win over LSU drew 12.3 million viewers, its Final Four victory over UConn drew 14.2 million, and the national championship game against South Carolina drew nearly 18.7 million viewers—the largest audience ever recorded for a women’s college basketball game (Sportico, 2024; CNN, 2024).
People did not tune in because Clark played safely. They tuned in because she might do something they had never seen.
White Has Defended Clark’s Range
To be fair, White has publicly supported Clark’s deep shooting. When asked in 2025 whether Clark’s logo threes needed to be limited, White responded, “That’s just who she is,” and added, “Nobody tell Steph Curry not to take good shots, right?” (Sports Illustrated, 2025).
I have no evidence that White has told Clark not to shoot from deep.
My concern is broader than one public statement. Coaching also happens through substitutions, reactions to mistakes, what is praised, and what is corrected.
Over time, athletes learn which behaviors earn approval and which behaviors lead to the bench. Hesitation can develop without anyone ever saying, “Do not do that again.”
Whose Version of Clark Is Being Developed?
The central question is whether Indiana’s development plan is helping Clark become the greatest version of the fearless, creative player she has always been—or whether it is gradually asking her to play within a narrower definition of an elite WNBA point guard.
Those visions may eventually align. But coaches should not assume they automatically do.
My coaching philosophy begins with the individual athlete: her goals, her strengths, and what she is trying to become. That does not mean abandoning discipline, ignoring accountability, or allowing selfish play.
Coaching requires correction. It requires hard conversations. It requires standards.
But an athlete’s greatness belongs to the athlete—not to the coach.
Indiana Inherited a Phenomenon
Indiana did not simply inherit an excellent player. It inherited a phenomenon.
Millions of fans followed Clark from Iowa to the WNBA because of how she plays: the range, the passing, the confidence, and the possibility that something remarkable could happen on any possession.
Clark’s 2024 WNBA Draft alone drew 2.45 million viewers, nearly five times the audience from the previous year (Sportico, 2024).
Fans should not coach the team, and popularity should not determine basketball decisions. But coaches should understand why an extraordinary player became extraordinary.
A person who inherits a racehorse should not begin by teaching it to trot more neatly.
Complete, Not Conventional
Clark may be becoming a more complete player. If White has helped her improve as a rebounder, defender, decision-maker, and competitor, that is good coaching.
But development should not require trading one strength for another.
Coaches can help Clark become stronger, defend better, manage the physical demands of the WNBA, and recognize when a deep shot or spectacular pass is unnecessary. Those skills should be added to her game—not substituted for it.
Becoming more complete is not the same as becoming more conventional.
And convention is not what changed women’s basketball.
A Practical Takeaway for Coaches
This article is not only about Caitlin Clark. It is about every coach who works with an athlete whose greatest strength does not look conventional.
Here is the approach I try to use:
Identify the athlete’s exceptional strength.
Do not start by asking how to make her fit the system. Start by asking what she does that most athletes cannot do.
Agree on when to use it.
Creativity needs boundaries, but boundaries should be built with the athlete, not imposed on her. Discuss when the deep shot, risky pass, or aggressive attack gives the team an advantage—and when a simpler decision is better.
Correct the decision without punishing the identity.
A coach can say, “That was the right read, but against this defense, the extra pass was better,” without saying, “Stop trying that.” The first correction teaches. The second can create hesitation.
Measure growth beyond efficiency.
Yes, evaluate turnovers, shot selection, and defensive execution. But also evaluate whether the athlete still plays with confidence, initiative, and competitive freedom.
The goal is not to protect every mistake. The goal is to protect the qualities that make an athlete hard to guard while helping her make better decisions within those qualities.
Wear the Mindset
Every athlete has a strength that makes her different. The goal is not to coach it out of her—it is to help her trust it, sharpen it, and use it with confidence.
That is the idea behind Athletic Pride Gear.
Explore the Inner Power Collection or the Confidence Wins T-Shirt, created for athletes who understand that belief is part of performance.
Final Thought
My perspective comes from being told not to shoot from where I believed I could.
When I see something unusual in an athlete, my first question is not how to stop it. My first question is whether we can make it better—and whether we can build around it in ways that make her harder to stop.
That is what I want for Caitlin Clark—and for every extraordinary athlete: coaching that adds to her game without asking her to disappear into someone else’s system.
I may be wrong. What we are seeing may simply be the natural evolution of a young professional player.
But I miss the player who crossed half court, made everyone in the arena wonder whether she would really take that shot—and then did.
That player changed women’s basketball.
I hope that, in the effort to make her better, no one teaches her to stop being the player who made us all pay attention.
________________________________________________________________________
From Athletic Pride Gear
Coaching is more than teaching the game. It is helping athletes develop their strengths, trust their preparation, and compete with confidence—without losing what makes them different.
That philosophy is personal to me. It is also part of what inspired Athletic Pride Gear.
Our Coach Built Collection celebrates the people behind that work. With designs such as “Coach Built. Confidence Trained.” and “Coach Built. Pressure Tested.”, it speaks to coaches who know their influence reaches beyond the scoreboard.
Wear Who You Are.
References
Basketball-Reference. (n.d.). Caitlin Clark WNBA stats. https://www.basketball-reference.com/wnba/players/c/clarkca02w.html
CNN. (2024, April 10). How women’s NCAA basketball and Caitlin Clark broke viewership records, in three charts. https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/10/us/ncaa-womens-basketball-ratings-dg
EssentiallySports. (2025, September 3). Caitlin Clark exposed ‘only red flag’ in Stephanie White’s coaching, per WNBA analyst. https://www.essentiallysports.com/wnba-basketball-news-caitlin-clark-exposed-only-red-flag-in-stephanie-whites-coaching-per-wnba-analyst/
Los Angeles Times. (2026, June 2). Caitlin Clark and Stephanie White dismiss ‘tense’ bench exchange: ‘It’s coaching … it’s not a story.’ https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2026-06-02/caitlin-clark-stephanie-white-indiana-fever-heated-bench-moment-explained
Sports Illustrated. (2025, May 5). Stephanie White has blunt 5-word message for question on Caitlin Clark’s logo three. https://www.si.com/wnba/fever/news/stephanie-white-has-blunt-5-word-message-for-question-on-caitlin-clark-s-logo-three-01jtevsndrr2
Sportico. (2024, April 16). Caitlin Clark smashes another TV record as WNBA Draft draws 2.45 million viewers. https://www.sportico.com/business/media/2024/caitlin-clark-smashes-another-tv-record-wnba-draft-1234775744/