Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="diggerfoot, post: 4686393, member: 1673"] Saying that ‘99 and ‘23 both gelled hints at missing the point. The only bad games ‘99 had was when they were down two starters. They gelled for the entire season, not just the playoffs. Was the question about potential peak or actual peak? The ‘99 Duke team was being considered one of the greatest teams of all time, certainly better than ‘04 Duke, and would have been had not UConn beat them. ‘99 UConn beat the toughest team and set a record for beating the spread in a championship game. I would call that an actual peak performance that bests ‘04. Finally, using your metrics to support your claim, I would be forced to say that ‘99 Duke was better than ‘99 UConn, since they had more pro talent. Not happening. I insist that ‘99 UConn was a better team than ‘99 Duke despite having less pro talent. Sometimes the whole really is greater than the sum of the parts. [/QUOTE]