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

[connie]

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

Well, but for a bounce here or there, there likely would have been no "in the end". Besides, the 16-17 team did stop guard penetration and shut down the opponent's best scorers, at least sufficiently enough all season to get undefeated to the final four. And MSU's best scorer, Vivians, was held to 31% shooting (nothing to brag about), for 19 points. Whatever can be said about the game, it was not lost on defense. UConn held MSU to 14 points in the 2nd quarter and 24 points total in the second half.

 

[cbraarj]

2002 is the Greatest starting 5 of all time at Uconn but also in WCBB history! With 2 No.1 picks and a 2, 4 and 6 in the WNBA Draft.

 

[bballnut90]

I think a better team to compare the starting 5 to would be the 2013-14 Huskies. Both teams had a limited bench which led to starters logging more minutes (30-32/game.)

I'm fairly confident the 2016-17 one looks better statistically than 2013-14 if you're analyzing points, rebounds, assists, FG%, etc but the 2014 squad was one of the best defensive teams ever, holding opposing teams to:
47.8 points (only 3 teams all year cracked 60)
31.0% FG
26.3% 3pt
Blocking over 8 shots per game

Compared to the 2017 Huskies where they gave up:
54.9 points (12 teams scored 60 or more, 2 broke 70 and Maryland broke 80)
35.1% FG
27.6% 3pt
Blocked 5 shots per game

Steals and turnovers skew toward 2017's favor, but I don't think anyone will argue that the 2014 starting 5 was a much stronger defensive unit than 2017.

 

[oldude]

Wonderful OP and great comments by all so I'll keep my comments to a minimum .

The 2016-17 starters were one player short of the "Greatest in UConn history." Take just about any 4 starters from last year's team and add a dominant BIG: Stewie, Tina or maybe Z, and the answer could well be "yes".

So this coming year with Z added to Kia, Gabby, Lou & Pheesa, we should all revisit this question again next April.

 

[Bronxjeff]

The 16/17 team was one of the most enjoyable to watch in a long long time for me. They gave us the honest opportunity to on occasion root for the underdog and they were never exasperating as some of the post-DT teams could be. They far exceeded expectations and did it all with real class!

Connie, thank you very much for doing this, great way to get ready for this year! Personally, I am particularly impressed with Saniya's non-shooting numbers - rebounds, steals, assists even blocks(a couple were memorable, coming out after some deep wing shots).

 

[paisan]

Well, but for a bounce here or there, there likely would have been no "in the end". Besides, the 16-17 team did stop guard penetration and shut down the opponent's best scorers, at least sufficiently enough all season to get undefeated to the final four. And MSU's best scorer, Vivians, was held to 31% shooting (nothing to brag about), for 19 points. Whatever can be said about the game, it was not lost on defense. UConn held MSU to 14 points in the 2nd quarter and 24 points total in the second half.

I guess the answer is how many points per game did the opponents score against each team...I don't know

 

[connie]

2002 is the Greatest starting 5 of all time at Uconn but also in WCBB history! With 2 No.1 picks and a 2, 4 and 6 in the WNBA Draft.

I am putting together a cursory analysis of the starting 5 stats for each team (16-17 and 01-02). At first blush, there is no question that the 16-17 starters exceeded the 01-02 starters in every statistical category, offensively and defensively, for which I have figures. 01-02 had the advantage as to FT% and blocks. The 16-17 starters posted better numbers in everything else (FGM, FG%, 3FG, 3FG%, FTM, Pts., player points per game average, rebounds, assists, and steals)--this despite playing in two fewer games.

 

[j66kicker]

I am putting together a cursory analysis of the starting 5 stats for each team (16-17 and 01-02). At first blush, there is no question that the 16-17 starters exceeded the 01-02 starters in every statistical category, offensively and defensively, for which I have figures. 01-02 had the advantage as to FT% and blocks. The 16-17 starters posted better numbers in everything else (FGM, FG%, 3FG, 3FG%, FTM, Pts., player points per game average, rebounds, assists, and steals)--this despite playing in two fewer games.

We will have to wait a couple years to find out if the 16-17 starters will match or exceed the 01-02 starters in overall WNBA draft position:

#1 Bird
#1 Taurasi
#2 Cash
#4 Williams
#6 Jones

 

[bballnut90]

We will have to wait a couple years to find out if the 16-17 starters will match or exceed the 01-02 starters in overall WNBA draft position:

#1 Bird
#1 Taurasi
#2 Cash
#4 Williams
#6 Jones

2014/15 has:
1. Stewart
2. Jefferson
3. KML
3. Tuck
Nurse (remains to be seen)

If you want to look a lineup from top to bottom, 2015-16 will likely be the best when looking at where players end up being drafted:
1. Stewart
2. Jefferson
3. Tuck
26. Chong
Not yet drafted:
-Kia Nurse (projected top 10)
-Gabby Williams (projected top 5)
-KLS (projected top 5)
-Collier (projected top 5)

It could easily end up being a roster with 6 players who were top 3 picks.

If you're looking for a best starting 5 from an All-American perspective, 2013-14 is probably your best bet:
Moriah Jefferson-1AA in 2016, 2AA in 2015. 2x WBCA AA
Bria Hartley-2AA AP in 2014, WBCA AA in 2012 and 2014,
KML-2x 2AA in 2013 and 2015, 2x WBCA AA
Breanna Stewart-3x 1AA and 3x POY (2014-2016), 3x WBCA AA
Stefanie Dolson-2AA in 2014, 3AA in 2013, 2x WBCA AA

So in total, the 5 starters accumulated 11 WBCA awards and 10 AP All American awards (4 1st Team AP awards, 5 2nd Team AP awards and one 3rd Team award).

In contrast, 2002's starting 5 accumulated just 5 WBCA awards (3 in 2002, and DT in 2003/2004). 2001's loaded roster had 9 WBCA awards, but that's the 2nd closest at this point to 2013-14.

 

[diggerfoot]

I understand this is done mainly as a fun exercise, but in the spirit of "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts" I can't take these particular statistics too seriously. If I wanted to do a real comparison (unfortunately, I don't, but if someone else does be my guest) these are the 5 statistics I would look at in order of importance (in my opinion): 1. Defensive efficiency; 2. Defensive FG %; 3. Offensive efficiency; 4. Offensive FG %; 5. A/T ratio.

Going just by my impressions the 16-17 was one of the smoothest operating offensive machines. Only Collier I would rate as a just average passer, the other starting five were superb, and I mean that in the sense of anticipation of knowing where a player would be and getting the ball there, in the end getting the best of shots with great offensive efficiency. Very impressive.

However, their defensive efficiency was not as good as the other great teams and, consequently, I would not be persuaded that this starting five should be considered the best unless someone could shut me up by showing me I'm wrong about my hunch as to their defensive efficiency and defensive FG%.

 

[cbraarj]

I am putting together a cursory analysis of the starting 5 stats for each team (16-17 and 01-02). At first blush, there is no question that the 16-17 starters exceeded the 01-02 starters in every statistical category, offensively and defensively, for which I have figures. 01-02 had the advantage as to FT% and blocks. The 16-17 starters posted better numbers in everything else (FGM, FG%, 3FG, 3FG%, FTM, Pts., player points per game average, rebounds, assists, and steals)--this despite playing in two fewer games.

I went by the title of the thread and 01-02 had more wins, a NC and all 5 starters made AA. Only team to ever do that.

 

[Wally East]

I went by the title of the thread and 01-02 had more wins, a NC and all 5 starters made AA. Only team to ever do that.

Haaaaave you met '13-'14? That team won more games and its players had more total All-American seasons. All starters are on the wall as part of the Huskies of Honor.

Also, no, Tamika Williams was never an All-American. Ashja Jones was "only" AP All-American third team and is not on the wall.

So, by your own criteria, '13-'14 is better

It has been a pleasure

 

[paisan]

I do admire the accomplishments of this young team , but after several close calls poor defense did them in...no Stewie, mo, or tuck to cover mistakes.

 

[cbraarj]

Haaaaave you met '13-'14? That team won more games and its players had more total All-American seasons. All starters are on the wall as part of the Huskies of Honor.

Also, no, Tamika Williams was never an All-American. Ashja Jones was "only" AP All-American third team and is not on the wall.

So, by your own criteria, '13-'14 is better

It has been a pleasure

The best starting 5 ever is 2002 and Tamika was Honorable Mention AA in 02. Anyone of those 5 would have been the star on any other team. The 2014 team won 40 games but we were comparing 2002 and 2017. No team had a better starting 5 than 2002!

 

[connie]

The best starting 5 ever is 2002 and Tamika was Honorable Mention AA in 02. Anyone of those 5 would have been the star on any other team. The 2014 team won 40 games but we were comparing 2002 and 2017. No team had a better starting 5 than 2002!

Could be.

But again, the focus here is on the performance of the starting five in the year at issue--not peak value, "career value", etc. The 01-02 starting five may well be the best group ever to take the floor wearing the UConn uniform. But that is not necessarily because they all had the best year of their careers in 01-02, but rather, because on the whole and given their performance over their four years in the program they put up the best numbers and best performances as measured against others.

One should also point out that in some respect, the numbers here can only be meaningful when looked at in terms of the competition. With the exception of a stat like free throws, number of shots taken, made, rebounds, etc. don't tell us much unless we look at averages within the year in question and in the context of overall improvement in play.

 

[HoopsFan21]

I'm taking 2002. What starting five is the best? The one that has DT!

 

[Wally East]

The best starting 5 ever is 2002 and Tamika was Honorable Mention AA in 02. Anyone of those 5 would have been the star on any other team. The 2014 team won 40 games but we were comparing 2002 and 2017. No team had a better starting 5 than 2002!

"I'm going to proclaim criteria and then say my favorite starting five best meets those criteria and when it is pointed out that another starting better fits those same criteria then I will ignore those criteria, and ALL criteria, and just proclaim my favorite to be the best just because! JUST BECAUSE!"



It's okay to have a favorite. It's okay to love that favorite beyond all others regardless of reason. Everyone understands favorites. But, just because something or someone is your favorite does not necessarily make them the best in an objective way.

 

[connie]

Haaaaave you met '13-'14? That team won more games and its players had more total All-American seasons. All starters are on the wall as part of the Huskies of Honor.

Understood. But starters' performance in a given season is not measured by total AA seasons of individual starters or by whether a starter makes the wall, which is presumably based on performance over a college career.

Anyway, for what it's worth as compared to the 13-14 Starters, the 16-17 Starters had:
more points in fewer games
higher FG%
more 3FG
higher 3FG%,
more FT made
higher FT%
higher average points per game
more steals, and
fewer turnovers.

Yesterday, I posted a comparison on the two groups of starters

 

[connie]

I understand this is done mainly as a fun exercise, but in the spirit of "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts" I can't take these particular statistics too seriously. If I wanted to do a real comparison (unfortunately, I don't, but if someone else does be my guest) these are the 5 statistics I would look at in order of importance (in my opinion): 1. Defensive efficiency; 2. Defensive FG %; 3. Offensive efficiency; 4. Offensive FG %; 5. A/T ratio.

Going just by my impressions the 16-17 was one of the smoothest operating offensive machines. Only Collier I would rate as a just average passer, the other starting five were superb, and I mean that in the sense of anticipation of knowing where a player would be and getting the ball there, in the end getting the best of shots with great offensive efficiency. Very impressive.

However, their defensive efficiency was not as good as the other great teams and, consequently, I would not be persuaded that this starting five should be considered the best unless someone could shut me up by showing me I'm wrong about my hunch as to their defensive efficiency and defensive FG%.

I agree that there is certainly something to be said for the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. Aside from that, I think you are on the right path here. We need to come up with a way of measuring defensive efficiency and offensive efficiency. (I think there are numbers in recent years for determining defensive FG%; we have offensive FG% and A/T ratio.) Not sure what is meant by "efficiency" here.

Separate from that, we really should also factor in how well each group did w/r/t the average performance of their opposition. For example, assume that in 1975 Team A allows only 35 points per game on the season, while in 2010 Team B allows an average of 45 points per game. Does Team A have better defense? Suppose I told you that in 1975, teams averaged 31 points per game, while in 2010 teams averaged 50 points per game. Now who has the better defense?

Finally, we need to consider whether there has been general improvement over time. I question whether there is anything noticeable over the past, say, 10 seasons. Beyond that, who knows?

 

[cbraarj]

"I'm going to proclaim criteria and then say my favorite starting five best meets those criteria and when it is pointed out that another starting better fits those same criteria then I will ignore those criteria, and ALL criteria, and just proclaim my favorite to be the best just because! JUST BECAUSE!"



It's okay to have a favorite. It's okay to love that favorite beyond all others regardless of reason. Everyone understands favorites. But, just because something or someone is your favorite does not necessarily make them the best in an objective way.

I really dont have a favorite team in regards to Uconn. I have loved watching them play since 1987 That was the year Laura Lishness started her career at Uconn. Laura is from my hometown and was followed by Kathy Ferrier 2 years later. No favorites and I played for their HS coach and once in a while practice against their team. I played for 38 yrs, coached 29 yrs, scouted 29 yrs and officated for 15. My favorite sport is basketball and I am a Connecticut fan and mainly WCBB now But I dont play favorites for anyone including my children and grandchildren. The way Uconn plays the game and that never changes, is why I like watching all of their teams the last 30 yrs. 2002 had the best starting 5 and 2001 the most talented team they ever had!

 

[Wally East]

2001 the most talented team they ever had!

Most talented by what measure? How about who is in the Huskies of Honor? That seems as good a measure of which players were talented as any, right?

In terms of members who made it to Huskies of Honor:

2001 had Sveta, Shea, Sue, D, and Swin -- 5. Those 5 combined for 9 WBCA All-American seasons.

2014 had Mo, Morgan, Stewie, KML, Stef, and Bria -- 6. Those 6 combined for 12 WBCA All-American seasons.

It seems like 2014 is a greater collection of talent, yes? But if you have another measure, great! I'd love to hear it.

 

[cbraarj]

Most talented by what measure? How about who is in the Huskies of Honor? That seems as good a measure of which players were talented as any, right?

In terms of members who made it to Huskies of Honor:

2001 had Sveta, Shea, Sue, D, and Swin -- 5. Those 5 combined for 9 WBCA All-American seasons.

2014 had Mo, Morgan, Stewie, KML, Stef, and Bria -- 6. Those 6 combined for 12 WBCA All-American seasons.

It seems like 2014 is a greater collection of talent, yes? But if you have another measure, great! I'd love to hear it.

Sue over Mo, Dee over Bria, Swin over Morgan, Sveta over KML, Aisha over Steph, Stewie over Tamika. You cant go by AA status with 7 players who should have and 3 can.only be picked for the team. This team also had Shea, Schumaker and KJ. 6 of these players were Jrs and Srs. Again you can only have 3 on a team.. They had the most depth and talent out of any team.

 

[Wally East]

You cant go by AA status with 7 players who should have ... Again you can only have 3 on a team

Weird because in '01, only 1 player was named WBCA All-American and only two were named AP All-American. With all of that talent, you'd think there would be three. So, yeah. The limit of 3 doesn't really matter all that much if you're not bumping up against it.

Also, I can play that game, too:
Mo > Sue, D > Bria, Swin> Morgan, KML > Sweta , Steph > Ashja (this one isn't even close), Stewie > Tamika (obviously, this isn't close, either)