Sports news outlets seem intent on promoting Iowa basketball star Caitlin Clark the best they can, without context or in-depth analysis. Sound familiar? Sure, because modern sports mediots are all about hyperbole instead of actual contextual and factual analysis. It serves a low-IQ audience better, perhaps, in terms of getting more clicks from the bait thrown out all over the Internet, and it’s all about money now. Clickbait!

No single number defines any player’s greatness, of course, so a career scoring record doesn’t mean much other than the individual shoots the ball a lot. We saw this recently with the mediots’ coverage of Stephen Curry and Kobe Bryant: we see it again here with Clark. She leads her team with a 40.6-percent usage rate, when the next player on the team has a mere 24.7-percent usage rate. So, that alone tells us something.

Quantity doesn’t equal quality, either, which is what most Americans always forget in their rush to assume “bigger is better”—and no, we’re not talking about penis size, folks. What’s more interesting is Clark’s effective and true-shooting percentages: she is merely seventh on her own team in effective FG percentage (.594) and sixth on the Iowa roster this year for True Shooting Percentage (.632). These are serious flaws.

The Hawkeyes have mostly been able to overcome Clark’s inefficiencies in shooting due to the volume, of course, but the team would be smarter to use other players more often if it wants to win the NCAA title—something it came up short of last season. That being said, it’s also important to look at Clark’s inefficiency issues in context of women’s basketball history. Guess where Clark ranks historically in eFG and TS%?

You should know since we’re bringing it up: since 1987, Clark ranks outside the Top 250 for eFG in her sport’s history, and for TS%? She ranks 117th in history and isn’t even the best player named “Clark” on that list. How is that even possible, if she’s so great? It shouldn’t be. What it—again—tells us is that the sports mediots hype quantity over quality more often than not because it’s all the audience seems to be able to get.

Clark also ranks only 20th all time in Win Shares, and while she does lead the nation in that category this year (currently), she will not crack the Top 10 all time, in probability. Her best individual season, in terms of WS (last year, when she didn’t even lead the nation), rates out only as the 38th best season ever. By the time this season is over, she won’t be in the Top 10 for single-season best, either. So, again … what’s the fuss?

She shoots the ball a lot, which means she’s going to score a lot. Ho hum. You’d think people would be smarter than this, but … sadly, they’re really not. There’s a lot more to basketball than just scoring points, as value comes from many different aspects of the game. Even in terms of scoring, there are efficient scorers like Curry—and there are inefficient scorers like Bryant and Clark. Which do you want on your team?

Remember, Bryant was never the best player on any of his 5 NBA championship teams: he just scored a lot of points with “flair” or whatever, so he captured people’s imaginations and led them to believe some things that are not demonstrated in modern sabermetric and statistical analysis. The same thing happens with athletes like cheatin‘ Tom Brady and now Clark. Do yourself a favor and think deeper about this stuff.