2016-17 Starting Five – The Greatest in UConn History?!?

[connie]

Question: Did the 2016-17 UConn WCBB Starting Five—Nurse, Collier, Williams, KLS and Chong—have the best year as a group of any starting five in UConn WCBB history?

Answer: Of course not, because they did not lead the team to an undefeated season culminating in an NCAA Championship.

Putting that critical qualification aside, how do the 16-17 starting five rank among other starting five UConn WCBB teams over the past 20+years? I have yet to conduct anywhere near a complete investigation. And statistics can only tell us part of the story. (Re-read last sentence.) That said, a review of the numbers suggests that the 16-17 starters may well have put up as fine a year as any starting five in UConn history. Given the fact that the starters were comprised of 1 senior, 2 juniors, and 2 sophomores; given the departure the previous year of three All-American seniors; given the challenging schedule, lack of bench support, and relative lack of size . . . the 16-17 starters put up incredible numbers, both in absolute terms, and relative to other years. I hope to assemble stats that will assist in this query.

Let’s begin by looking back at how the 16-17 starters stack up, individually and as a group with the starters from the 2015-16 team. (This data is taken from stats.ncaa.org.) I have taken some liberties here, including (most notably) only including figures based on a 15-16 starting team consisting of the core four (Stewie, Morgan, Kia, Moriah) and KLS. We know that KLS did not begin starting regularly until about, what? 1/3 of the way into the season. As a result, these figures tend to under-represent the overall potency of the 15-16 starters because they omit contributions by other starters (chiefly, Collier and Williams) in games where KLS did not start. I candidly admit that a better comparison would address player-by-player contributions. That said, we can roughly assume that in games KLS did not start, she received playing time similar in amount to that of whoever started in her stead. (A quick and dirty review of about one-third of the games from early in the season bear this out.)

Finally, please bear in mind that I am not a statistician, and may have made some glaring logical error in generating the below. Please point out anything you believe compromises our efforts to arrive at "the truth".

Here are the individual and collective key stats for the 2016-17 starters:

And here are the figures for the 2015-16 starters:

Minutes

The 16-17 starters logged 429 total minutes playing time more than the 15-16 starters. This means that on the year the 16-17 starters played approximately 1.78 more games per starter than the 15-16 team starters—this despite the team playing one less game (38-0, vs. 36-1).

As we know the 16-17 starters’ higher overall minutes is largely because of the lack of team depth. Notwithstanding, the 16-17 starters had higher FG made and higher FG%. That is noteworthy since more minutes over the course of a season can result in greater overall fatigue as the season wears on. This is particularly the case when (as is almost always the case), the minutes are logged during a comparable or shorter timeframe.

FG

The 16-17 starters had more FG attempts, makes, and (significantly) a higher shooting percentage.

3PG

Likewise, the 16-17 starters had more 3PGA, shot made, and (again, significantly) a higher shooting percentage.

Free Throws

Here, the 15-16 team has a slight advantage as to percentage (about 1.3% higher). However, the 16-17 starters went to the line significantly more often that their 15-16 counterparts: more than 27% more trips to the line and makes. That is an impressive difference, resulting in 119 more points scored from the line by the 16-17 starters. While part of this may reflect more overall playing time, adjusting the numbers for playing time does not explain everything. The 15-16 starters played about 430 total minutes less (or 8% percent less playing time). Hence, even adjusting for this difference, the 15-16 starters would still have gone to the line about 120 times less during the year than the 16-17 starters. I welcome thoughts explaining this interesting disparity.

Points

This is a bit of a surprise. The 16-17 starters scored 344 more points than the 15-16 starters. Again, that is partially because of the difference in playing time. However, even adjusting for that the 16-17 starters would have scored 152 more points (or about .025 more points per minute play) than the 15-16 starters.

Rebounds

This is another surprise. The 16-17 starters significantly out-rebounded their 15-16 counterparts: 72 more ORebs., 85 more DRebs., and 157 more total rebounds. Again, adjusting for minutes still shows a decided 16-17 advantage in each category. Indeed, even adjusting for minutes played the 16-17 starters out-rebounded the 15-16 starters by 87 rebounds—about 10% more total rebounds. (By the way, while a player-to-play comparison is for another day, please note that Gabby collared 24 more ORebs. in 16-17 than Stewie in 15-16—almost 25% more ORebs. on the year. What makes this all the more remarkable is that Stewie really had no other competition from her starter teammates when it came to rebounds. Tuck was the next closest with 64 ORebs. Compare with Gabby’s starter teammate Collier, with 108 ORebs.—28 more than Stewie.)

Assists

As we know, the 16-17 team broke a number of NCAA team assist records. That is largely due to the starters. That said, the 15-16 starters are very close, with only 8 fewer assists on the season. This too is impressive given the 15-16 starters’ relatively fewer minutes played.

Turnovers

The 16-17 starters turned the ball over more, though that is partly because they played more minutes. Adjusting for that shows that the 15-16 starters actually turned the ball over more often (i.e., more TO per overall minute played).

Steals

Here, the 16-17 starters again exceeded the 15-16 starters. However, adjusting for minutes played gives the 16-17 starters only a 3 steal advantage.

Blocks

I expected 15-16 to dominate. And it did, for reasons that should be obvious. Adjusting for minutes played tilts the advantage even more in favor of the 15-16 starters’ superiority in this area. We should note, however, that the 15-16 starters had only one genuine shot blocker (Stewie). The 16-17 team had two—Collier (77) and Gabby (52). Once you get past Stewie, you get to Morgan, with a mere 10 blocks on the season (or three more than Saniya in 16-17).


PF

The 16-17 starters fouled a lot more than the 15-16 starters. Adjusting for minutes played, the 16-17 starters fouled about 34 more times than their 15-16 counterparts.


Conclusion

Based on these stats. (and their dubious manipulation), it is plausible (though refutable) to suggest that the 16-17 starters were:

· more durable (only Kia lost time to starting, and everyone else logged major minutes);

· better shooters (both FG% and 3PG%);

· much better at getting to the line, though less accurate once getting there;

· better offensive and defensive rebounders;

· about even in assists;

· better at protecting the ball;

· about even (with a very slight advantage) in taking the ball away;

· inferior in shot blocking, but with two proven blockers (as against one Godzilla); and

· fouled significantly more.

Let’s not forget the fact that the 16-17 team played numerous ranked opponents during the year, including several on the road. (Can someone determined how many ranked teams the 15-16 team played during that regular season).

I’d say this puts the 16-17 starters in pretty rarified air. Are they “better” than their 15-16 counterparts? Well, Kia and KLS 15-16 are certainly no better than Kia and KLS 16-17. In fact, while Kia has been a rock each year, KLS was demonstrably a superior player in 16-17. Collier was statistically significantly more effective than Tuck in just about every single offensive and defensive category. Stewie out-rebounded Gabby for their respective years, though Gabby had a significant ORebs. advantage, and had to compete with Collier for rebounds (whereas Stewie had no other starter teammate with whom to compete in that statistical category). Stewie averaged about 5 points/game more than Gabby. But Gabby had way more assists and steals. Stewie dominated in blocks. As for Moriah and Saniya . . . statistically, the two are relatively close in many categories, though Moriah averaged 4 points/game more (I would have thought more), and significantly more assists. Moriah is significantly better on defense, with a huge steal advantage—more twice as many steals per minute of play.

To be continued. . .

 

[RockyMTblue2]

I hope you will have occasion to want to repeat this excellent exercise at the end of this 2017-2018 season. "If you know what I mean."

 

[BostonCanuck]

Excellent and well-supported thesis. However, what the stats tend to under-emphasize, although you did a good job of pointing it out where the data did support it, is where the 2016-17 had a tendency to struggle. And that is defensively. We did not have a Brianna Stewart to shut down big girls in the paint and block shots. We did not have a Morgan Tuck to counter the moves of a strong power forward. And we certainly did not have a Moriah Jefferson to face guard elite threats like Courtney Williams and Morgan William. And in my opinion, Nurse had lost a step defensively from her freshman and sophomore years, possibly because of the foot troubles she was going through, and possibly because she was just bigger. And while the Gabulous One was an absolute beast on defense, the need to make up for all that had been lost was at times overwhelming, even for her.

Given that defense is half the game, overall I'd say that the 2015-16 starters were stronger, and would have beaten the 2016-17 team probably nine times out of ten if a head-to-head matchup were possible.

We saw it on several occasions last season, that when the offence was not clicking, we were sometimes in trouble because we could not prevent the other team from scoring. I expect it to be a big point of focus for Geno this year.

 

[Huskee11]

Great post, thanks for taking the time and effort to compile all of that!

I would note that Gabby and Napheesa started a total of 21 games between them in 2015-2016, and combined to average 15.6 points and 10.8 rebounds that year (obviously including games they did not start as well). There were a total of 26 games started by "others" that season, versus only 7 for the 2016-2017 team. So, that would skew the stats somewhat, though unable to be any more precise than that.

In any event, as we know, more was required of the starters in 2016-2017 due to a smaller bench, and those starters certainly delivered. The 2016-2017 team did not have the luxury of having Gabby and Napheesa coming off the bench and occasionally starting.

Both teams were a joy to watch! Statistics aside, and focusing solely on those two starting teams, I would give the edge to 2015-2016 starters due to the presence of Stewie and the ability to match up better on the defensive end against size in the paint and quickness at the point. My "sentimental" vote would go to the 2016-2017 starting team, though. Of course, there have been numerous other phenomenal starting fives, and 2001-2002 would have to be in that larger conversation for the greatest ever.

 

[Gus Mahler]

Great post. Last year's was quite a remarkable team.

I find it interesting that Chong had more O-boards last year than both Kia and Lou. Maybe she benefited from being small and sneaky.

 

[CocoHusky]

@connie very deep and thorough analysis, and much fun as last years team was it was not one of UCONN's best IMO.
The 2013-14 was a far superior team. Each of the 5 starters (Dolson, KML, Stewie, Hartley & Jefferson) were or would become multiple time first team All-American. "multiple" time. All five of the 2013-14 UCONN starters would easily start over the 2016-17 UCONN starters. On the UCONN 2013-14 bench were 4 players (Tuck, Stokes, Banks & Chong) who could start for the 2016-17 UCONN squad.

 

[connie]

Excellent and well-supported thesis. However, what the stats tend to under-emphasize, although you did a good job of pointing it out where the data did support it, is where the 2016-17 had a tendency to struggle. And that is defensively. We did not have a Brianna Stewart to shut down big girls in the paint and block shots. We did not have a Morgan Tuck to counter the moves of a strong power forward. And we certainly did not have a Moriah Jefferson to face guard elite threats like Courtney Williams and Morgan William. And in my opinion, Nurse had lost a step defensively from her freshman and sophomore years, possibly because of the foot troubles she was going through, and possibly because she was just bigger. And while the Gabulous One was an absolute beast on defense, the need to make up for all that had been lost was at times overwhelming, even for her.

Given that defense is half the game, overall I'd say that the 2015-16 starters were stronger, and would have beaten the 2016-17 team probably nine times out of ten if a head-to-head matchup were possible.

We saw it on several occasions last season, that when the offence was not clicking, we were sometimes in trouble because we could not prevent the other team from scoring. I expect it to be a big point of focus for Geno this year.

Yes; Yes. and yes. There are many intangible. And defense is one of them. Not just raw stats., but things that are typically not reflected in stats. Agree re. Nurse. She was definitely favoring the ankle the last 1/3 of the season. Still, she really became a monster 3pt threat.

I love the head-to-head fantasy. Nurse and KLS cancel each other out (though one could argue that offensively 16-17 Nurse is stronger than 15-16, and KLS is no doubt better all around, though dropped off 3PT shooting toward the last 1/3 of the 16-17 season). I think Phees overall outperforms Morgan. Moriah outperforms Sanyia. Stewie and Gabby? Wouldn't that be something to see?!?

But you are probably right as to the outcome more often than not. And a basketball game cannot be determined by simplistic statistical comparisons of individual players. While it is hard to image the 16-17 team ever winning against the 15-16 team, five starters on five starters would be interesting. And don't forget, the 16-17 starters were (I think) pretty healthy throughout the year (except for lost time for Nurse). The 15-16 starters were sound enough. But Morgan was a bit hampered by the knee, and I think Moriah lost a game or two. (Or was that 14-15?)

 

[bags27]

@connie very deep and thorough analysis, and much fun as last years team was it was not one of UCONN's best IMO.
The 2013-14 was a far superior team. Each of the 5 starters (Dolson, KML, Stewie, Hartley & Jefferson) were or would become multiple time first team All-American. "multiple" time. All five of the 2013-14 UCONN starters would easily start over the 2016-17 UCONN starters. On the UCONN 2013-14 bench were 4 players (Tuck, Stokes, Banks & Chong) who could start for the 2016-17 UCONN squad.

this is the kind of non-statistical, barroom conversation I love!! I just gotta believe there'd be a place for Pheesa on that team, Coco. No, she doesn't have KML's amazing outside shot (and KML also had fantastic, under-appreciated "ball" instincts), but Pheesa with Stewie and Stef would have made one of the great forecourts in WCBB history.

Great stuff, as always, Connie. We should expect nothing less from one of the greatest mathematicians from antiquity, Hypathia.

 

[connie]

Great post, thanks for taking the time and effort to compile all of that!

I would note that Gabby and Napheesa started a total of 21 games between them in 2015-2016, and combined to average 15.6 points and 10.8 rebounds that year (obviously including games they did not start as well). There were a total of 26 games started by "others" that season, versus only 7 for the 2016-2017 team. So, that would skew the stats somewhat, though unable to be any more precise than that.

In any event, as we know, more was required of the starters in 2016-2017 due to a smaller bench, and those starters certainly delivered. The 2016-2017 team did not have the luxury of having Gabby and Napheesa coming off the bench and occasionally starting.

Both teams were a joy to watch! Statistics aside, and focusing solely on those two starting teams, I would give the edge to 2015-2016 starters due to the presence of Stewie and the ability to match up better on the defensive end against size in the paint and quickness at the point. My "sentimental" vote would go to the 2016-2017 starting team, though. Of course, there have been numerous other phenomenal starting fives, and 2001-2002 would have to be in that larger conversation for the greatest ever.

You're right about the Gabby and Phees starts. I tried adjusting by comparing with respect to minutes played. The whole exercise seeks to focus on a comparison of starting fives. This requires deciding who the 5th player is in 15-16. Statistically, Lou only started 3/5 of the games (I think). So her overall numbers (and those of the starting five) would be down. I adjusted for that by applying a percentage based on the ratio of overall minutes played.

I tend to agree giving the nod to 15-16 starters. Still, who can say what would happen 5 on 5. Defense may be the real difference. The difference in offensive output, while arguably statistically favoring the 16-17 starters, is not that big. A defense's ability to guard effectively, control the lane and boards, anticipate and react, frustrate and disrupt -- those things don't have any simple and obvious statistical corollaries.

 

[connie]

I find it interesting that Chong had more O-boards last year than both Kia and Lou

One of the fun things about do this is finding these statistical oddities. There are many!

 

[CL82]

Question: Did the 2016-17 UConn WCBB Starting Five—Nurse, Collier, Williams, KLS and Chong—have the best year as a group of any starting five in UConn WCBB history?

Answer: Of course not, because they did not lead the team to an undefeated season culminating in an NCAA Championship.

Putting that critical qualification aside, how do the 16-17 starting five rank among other starting five UConn WCBB teams over the past 20+years? I have yet to conduct anywhere near a complete investigation. And statistics can only tell us part of the story. (Re-read last sentence.) That said, a review of the numbers suggests that the 16-17 starters may well have put up as fine a year as any starting five in UConn history. Given the fact that the starters were comprised of 1 senior, 2 juniors, and 2 sophomores; given the departure the previous year of three All-American seniors; given the challenging schedule, lack of bench support, and relative lack of size . . . the 16-17 starters put up incredible numbers, both in absolute terms, and relative to other years. I hope to assemble stats that will assist in this query.

Let’s begin by looking back at how the 16-17 starters stack up, individually and as a group with the starters from the 2015-16 team. (This data is taken from stats.ncaa.org.) I have taken some liberties here, including (most notably) only including figures based on a 15-16 starting team consisting of the core four (Stewie, Morgan, Kia, Moriah) and KLS. We know that KLS did not begin starting regularly until about, what? 1/3 of the way into the season. As a result, these figures tend to under-represent the overall potency of the 15-16 starters because they omit contributions by other starters (chiefly, Collier and Williams) in games where KLS did not start. I candidly admit that a better comparison would address player-by-player contributions. That said, we can roughly assume that in games KLS did not start, she received playing time similar in amount to that of whoever started in her stead. (A quick and dirty review of about one-third of the games from early in the season bear this out.)

Finally, please bear in mind that I am not a statistician, and may have made some glaring logical error in generating the below. Please point out anything you believe compromises our efforts to arrive at "the truth".

Here are the individual and collective key stats for the 2016-17 starters:

View attachment 24587

And here are the figures for the 2015-16 starters:

View attachment 24589


Minutes

The 16-17 starters logged 429 total minutes playing time more than the 15-16 starters. This means that on the year the 16-17 starters played approximately 1.78 more games per starter than the 15-16 team starters—this despite the team playing one less game (38-0, vs. 36-1).

As we know the 16-17 starters’ higher overall minutes is largely because of the lack of team depth. Notwithstanding, the 16-17 starters had higher FG made and higher FG%. That is noteworthy since more minutes over the course of a season can result in greater overall fatigue as the season wears on. This is particularly the case when (as is almost always the case), the minutes are logged during a comparable or shorter timeframe.

FG

The 16-17 starters had more FG attempts, makes, and (significantly) a higher shooting percentage.

3PG

Likewise, the 16-17 starters had more 3PGA, shot made, and (again, significantly) a higher shooting percentage.

Free Throws

Here, the 15-16 team has a slight advantage as to percentage (about 1.3% higher). However, the 16-17 starters went to the line significantly more often that their 15-16 counterparts: more than 27% more trips to the line and makes. That is an impressive difference, resulting in 119 more points scored from the line by the 16-17 starters. While part of this may reflect more overall playing time, adjusting the numbers for playing time does not explain everything. The 15-16 starters played about 430 total minutes less (or 8% percent less playing time). Hence, even adjusting for this difference, the 15-16 starters would still have gone to the line about 120 times less during the year than the 16-17 starters. I welcome thoughts explaining this interesting disparity.

Points

This is a bit of a surprise. The 16-17 starters scored 344 more points than the 15-16 starters. Again, that is partially because of the difference in playing time. However, even adjusting for that the 16-17 starters would have scored 152 more points (or about .025 more points per minute play) than the 15-16 starters.

Rebounds

This is another surprise. The 16-17 starters significantly out-rebounded their 15-16 counterparts: 72 more ORebs., 85 more DRebs., and 157 more total rebounds. Again, adjusting for minutes still shows a decided 16-17 advantage in each category. Indeed, even adjusting for minutes played the 16-17 starters out-rebounded the 15-16 starters by 87 rebounds—about 10% more total rebounds. (By the way, while a player-to-play comparison is for another day, please note that Gabby collared 24 more ORebs. in 16-17 than Stewie in 15-16—almost 25% more ORebs. on the year. What makes this all the more remarkable is that Stewie really had no other competition from her starter teammates when it came to rebounds. Tuck was the next closest with 64 ORebs. Compare with Gabby’s starter teammate Collier, with 108 ORebs.—28 more than Stewie.)

Assists

As we know, the 16-17 team broke a number of NCAA team assist records. That is largely due to the starters. That said, the 15-16 starters are very close, with only 8 fewer assists on the season. This too is impressive given the 15-16 starters’ relatively fewer minutes played.

Turnovers

The 16-17 starters turned the ball over more, though that is partly because they played more minutes. Adjusting for that shows that the 15-16 starters actually turned the ball over more often (i.e., more TO per overall minute played).

Steals

Here, the 16-17 starters again exceeded the 15-16 starters. However, adjusting for minutes played gives the 16-17 starters only a 3 steal advantage.

Blocks

I expected 15-16 to dominate. And it did, for reasons that should be obvious. Adjusting for minutes played tilts the advantage even more in favor of the 15-16 starters’ superiority in this area. We should note, however, that the 15-16 starters had only one genuine shot blocker (Stewie). The 16-17 team had two—Collier (77) and Gabby (52). Once you get past Stewie, you get to Morgan, with a mere 10 blocks on the season (or three more than Saniya in 16-17).


PF

The 16-17 starters fouled a lot more than the 15-16 starters. Adjusting for minutes played, the 16-17 starters fouled about 34 more times than their 15-16 counterparts.


Conclusion

Based on these stats. (and their dubious manipulation), it is plausible (though refutable) to suggest that the 16-17 starters were:

· more durable (only Kia lost time to starting, and everyone else logged major minutes);

· better shooters (both FG% and 3PG%);

· much better at getting to the line, though less accurate once getting there;

· better offensive and defensive rebounders;

· about even in assists;

· better at protecting the ball;

· about even (with a very slight advantage) in taking the ball away;

· inferior in shot blocking, but with two proven blockers (as against one Godzilla); and

· fouled significantly more.

Let’s not forget the fact that the 16-17 team played numerous ranked opponents during the year, including several on the road. (Can someone determined how many ranked teams the 15-16 team played during that regular season).

I’d say this puts the 16-17 starters in pretty rarified air. Are they “better” than their 15-16 counterparts? Well, Kia and KLS 15-16 are certainly no better than Kia and KLS 16-17. In fact, while Kia has been a rock each year, KLS was demonstrably a superior player in 16-17. Collier was statistically significantly more effective than Tuck in just about every single offensive and defensive category. Stewie out-rebounded Gabby for their respective years, though Gabby had a significant ORebs. advantage, and had to compete with Collier for rebounds (whereas Stewie had no other starter teammate with whom to compete in that statistical category). Stewie averaged about 5 points/game more than Gabby. But Gabby had way more assists and steals. Stewie dominated in blocks. As for Moriah and Saniya . . . statistically, the two are relatively close in many categories, though Moriah averaged 4 points/game more (I would have thought more), and significantly more assists. Moriah is significantly better on defense, with a huge steal advantage—more twice as many steals per minute of play.

To be continued. . .

Need to adjust stat to per 40 mins if you want to compare totals, though percentages are certainly relevant.

Perhaps take into consideration those reduced minutes for the 2015-2016 starters are due to their ability to get and maintain separation. Also need to factor in the quality of the bench. For example if we had a 2015-2016 KLS and NC on the bench that would make it easier for a a 2016-2017 KLS and NC to get a break.

Semi-related, if our bench was a bit more game ready last year and our starters got more rest over the season, would they have lost Miss St.? Impossible to say but I don't think so.

 

[connie]

@connie very deep and thorough analysis, and much fun as last years team was it was not one of UCONN's best IMO.
The 2013-14 was a far superior team. Each of the 5 starters (Dolson, KML, Stewie, Hartley & Jefferson) were or would become multiple time first team All-American. "multiple" time. All five of the 2013-14 UCONN starters would easily start over the 2016-17 UCONN starters. On the UCONN 2013-14 bench were 4 players (Tuck, Stokes, Banks & Chong) who could start for the 2016-17 UCONN squad.

This is fine. Just to be clear about the approach I'm taking (which is not necessarily the best or only approach) I am focusing on the player performance in the year at issue, as opposed to peak performance or career value . A 13-14 freshman Saniya could never start on the 2016-17 Huskies. After all, who's place would she take? Saniya 16-17?

 

[cbraarj]

The reason the 2016 team had more depth than 2017was the 30 pt leads they had even against ranked opponents most of the time. In the close games each team mainly used 7 players. Also Morgan averaged around 8 rbs a game.

 

[baggerbob]

Stewie, Moriah, and Morgan still would have had big games against Mississippi St, and won by at least 20.

 

[GoingPostal]

Connie a great post. This is the kind of analysis that separates the BY from the rest of WCBB blogs.

 

[eebmg]

@connie very deep and thorough analysis, and much fun as last years team was it was not one of UCONN's best IMO.
The 2013-14 was a far superior team. Each of the 5 starters (Dolson, KML, Stewie, Hartley & Jefferson) were or would become multiple time first team All-American. "multiple" time. All five of the 2013-14 UCONN starters would easily start over the 2016-17 UCONN starters. On the UCONN 2013-14 bench were 4 players (Tuck, Stokes, Banks & Chong) who could start for the 2016-17 UCONN squad.

I am not sure that is the case. I think Collier would start over KML (I know there was no one more clutch in the biggest games than KML but overall?) and if not now, she would if she continues to improve. I think part of the comparison (and fun) is to extrapolate the 2016 team to their potential senior year. There is alot more ceiling for Lou as well. I do however think the other 2013 players are safe amd would not be overtaken although I think Hartley and Nurse are quite close.

 

[rugbymate]

Fantastic post and thanks for taking the time to do the work that helps us keep so well informed. Imo , however, while the stats can lead to a legitimate debates the eye test tells some of us that any favorable comparison to the 15/16 team is a stretch. BostonCanuck and Bagger bob got it right. Having said that, stats aside, I found the 16/17 team as the most likable team in recent memory and i suspect the 17/18 team will be just as entertaining if not more so.
What will be interesting, given this years depth, experience , quickness and length(i.e....no apparent weaknesses) is whether a year end analysis puts them in the best team ever conversation.

 

[paisan]

IN the end the poor defense did them in..inability to stop guard penetration ..no stopper on the opponents best scorer

 

[paisan]

In the end the poor defense did them in . Inability to stop guard penetration and no stopper on opponents best scorer

 

[bags27]

I found the 16/17 team as the most likable team in recent memory and i suspect the 17/18 team will be just as entertaining if not more so..

+1 . definitely. great kids, fantastic season. But I wonder to what extent it's because: 1. we have increasing media coverage (both professional and personal) and therefore get to know the players better; 2. they vastly exceeded our expectations.

And therefore wonder whether this year's team can ever satisfy our incredibly high expectations. I mean, say they win every game by a ton. Isn't that sort of what we expect?

 

[Wally East]

The '16-'17 team was one of the weaker defensive teams UConn has had in recent years. For example:

'16-17:
blocks per game: 5.03
steals per game: 10.0
Opponents' FG%: 35.1
Opponents PPG: 54.9
rebound margin: 6.6

'15-'16:
blocks per game: 6.3
steals per game: 11.8
Opponents' FG%: 33.2
Opponents PPG: 48.3
rebound margin: +11.1

 

[connie]

one of the greatest mathematicians from antiquity, Hypathia.

A tip of the tinfoil hat from Pythagorus, Zeno, Euclid, and Archimedes. I am certain there are others!

 

[connie]

The '16-'17 team was one of the weaker defensive teams UConn has had in recent years. For example:

'16-17:
blocks per game: 5.03
steals per game: 10.0
Opponents' FG%: 35.1
Opponents PPG: 54.9
rebound margin: 6.6

'15-'16:
blocks per game: 6.3
steals per game: 11.8
Opponents' FG%: 33.2
Opponents PPG: 48.3
rebound margin: +11.1

You bet! But the focus here is on the starters only, not the team.

 

[connie]

+1 . definitely. great kids, fantastic season. But I wonder to what extent it's because: 1. we have increasing media coverage (both professional and personal) and therefore get to know the players better; 2. they vastly exceeded our expectations.

And therefore wonder whether this year's team can ever satisfy our incredibly high expectations. I mean, say they win every game by a ton. Isn't that sort of what we expect?

For me, what made the 16-17 team extra special was the youth, inexperience, lack of bench (any bench!?!), lack of an obvious star (coming into the season), lack of height, carrying the weight of the legacy (4 consecutive titles and the win streak), and the prospect of the loaded schedule. Despite all that, we came within a whisker of going all the way undefeated.

 

[bags27]

A tip of the tinfoil hat from Pythagorus, Zeno, Euclid, and Archimedes. I am certain there are others!

yes, but those are all very early: classical or Hellenistic. Hypatia was one of the very greatest of late antiquity. very different culture, different times. She died a martyr to her great pagan beliefs in Neoplatonism, her skin torn from her body by rioting Christian monks. And I believe she's the only woman in Raphael's School of Athens.