Comparing the Starting Five: 2016-17 vs. 2001-02

[connie]

Comparing the Starting Five: 2016-17 vs. 2001-02

“16-17” and “01-02” refers to the Starters, not the entire team.

Minutes

No data for 2001-02 starters. So this compromises the ability to extrapolate some of the other data.

Shooting: FG, 3PG, FT, Pts.

Advantage: 16-17. 16-17 had a more potent and more efficient offense. More total points. Higher points per game average. More FGM in fewer games. 16-17 also relied much more on 3FG, though 01-02 had a higher 3FG%. 16-17 also had more FT makes on fewer attempts and a significantly higher FT% (notwithstanding Bird and Taurasi on 01-02 team). I caution that without minutes played, these numbers are potentially misleading. For example, it is possible that the 01-02 Starters logged considerably less playing time per game, hence few scoring opportunities.

Rebounds

Advantage 01-02. Way more total rebounds. Higher RB/Game. And much greater parity among rebounders.

Assists

Advantage 16-17. More assists on fewer games. 17.8 assists/game for 16-17 starters, vs. 16.26 assists/game for 01-02 starters.

Turnovers

No data for 01-02.

Steals

Advantage 16-17. More steals absolutely. More steals per game.

Blocks

Advantage 01-02. 28 more blocks on the season. More blocks per game.

PF

no data for 01-02.

Conclusion

Advantage 01-02.

Having now looked at the data for UConn Starters for the years 01-02, 13-14, 14-15, 15-16 and 16-17, there is a good argument to be made (subject to the below caveat) that the 16-17 Starters are among the most potent offenses in UConn history. Notwithstanding, the 01-02 Starters get the nod here, largely due to rebounding and greater parity on offense. 4 of the 5 Starters averaged about 14+ points per game. No doubt, there will be some who argue that the 01-02 Starters’ overall defense was much better than the 16-17 starters. To the extent these statistics do not allow an adequate way of measuring overall defense, I offer no opinion.

For completion’s sake, I note that as a team (starters and bench players), 01-02 scored 87 points per game on average—exactly the same as the 16-17 team. This suggests that the 01-02 team had a more effective bench (again, not surprising). The 01-02 team allowed about 51.6 points per game, resulting in a 35.4 average per game scoring margin. The 16-17 team allowed about 54.9 points per game, with a 32.2 average scoring margin.

Caveat. Finally, it must be stressed that statistical comparisons between years is only so meaningful. In my opinion, it is likely that the average NCAA WCBB player of today is “better than” the average player 15 years ago, with the differences between the best and the worst having narrowed. Over the years, athletic abilities have improved generally in every single sport where performance can be measured through an objective standard (e.g., a stop watch). So why not WCBB? In this respect, without more it may well be meaningless to compare, say, points per game or average margin of victory as a measure of superiority. We may assume that the 1927 Yankees had a considerable average margin of victory over their opponents that year. But that hardly means the ’27 Yankees are “better than”, say, the 2017 Philadelphia Phillies (who I am pretty sure could beat the ’27 Yankees 4 out of 5 times in a 7-game series). Of course, it does not therefore follow that because players have (presumably) generally improved, the 16-17 Starters are necessarily "better than" the 01-02 Starters.

 

[cbraarj]

Connie you did a good job with the stats here and the other threads you started! I just wanted to let you know I did appreciate your efforts and enjoyed reading them. But now picking on the Yankees OMG ( just kidding about the Yankees) lol!

 

[TWG236]

Connie, I believe that last year's starting five possibly played more minutes then any other starting five in Geno's career. Think of what the stats the starting five of 01-02 or many of the other (Maya) teams could have achieved if they had also played the same amount of minutes. I see a drop in individual stats for the starters this coming year, as Geno has a lot more players who will being taking minutes from the starters. I also don't really believe that last years starters are better than players before them. Except maybe for Gabby, because I don't believe I have ever seen a woman with her athletic ability before. She would be a nightmare in any era. Keep the post coming.

 

[connie]

Connie, I believe that last year's starting five possibly played more minutes then any other starting five in Geno's career. Think of what the stats the starting five of 01-02 or many of the other (Maya) teams could have achieved if they had also played the same amount of minutes. I see a drop in individual stats for the starters this coming year, as Geno has a lot more players who will being taking minutes from the starters. I also don't really believe that last years starters are better than players before them. Except maybe for Gabby, because I don't believe I have ever seen a woman with her athletic ability before. She would be a nightmare in any era. Keep the post coming.

Could be. I tried to adjust for minutes played when tracking various years (so far). Can't do that for the 01-02 season since minutes are not available. For other years, the offense numbers are pretty close or favor the 16-17 starters with or without adjusting for minutes. I think the 13-14 starters logged a lot of minutes (due to short bench). Can't remember at this point. I'd have to look at the stats. again.

As for whether last year's starters are "better" . . . that is hard to say. But I am sure you don't literally mean that you "don't really believe that last years starters are better than players before them". I haven't seen all past performances of all teams. But it is almost certain that the 16-17 starters are better than, say, the 74-75 starters. If you are speaking specifically of UConn starters since the 2001-02 season, then you could be right. Notwithstanding, for the reasons stated I think there is a good argument to be made that today's players are on average and in general "better" than players from 75 years ago, and perhaps even 25 years ago. Does this mean the 16-17 starting five, specifically, are "better" individually and/or as a group than the 1994-95 starting five? Maybe. But there is no way of "proving" that. In the "contingent science of history" (a phrase I like but did not invent) there are many uncertainties. Of course, this does not mean anything goes. Clearly, the 16-17 starters (and team) were better shooters than the 94-95 starters. The 16-17 FT% was 80.5%. The 94-95 FT% was about 68%. The 16-17 starters had a higher FG% and 3FG%. But that tells us only so much. The ability to hit a shot depends a lot on the ability to stop it (just as the ability to hit a baseball depends on the ability to pitch effectively). It could be that defenses in 1994-95 were much tougher than today (though I doubt it).

I agree that this year we will likely see a relative decline in absolute numbers among the starters, for the reasons you flag.

As for Gabby . . . yes, it is likely that she would be very competitive in any past era. But it is important to keep in mind that the pool of potential available talent changes for various cultural/economic/historical reasons. Early professional baseball did not feature many hispanic stars not because there were no Clementes out there. Let's see what the future brings. Provided the human species does not exterminate itself, it could be that in 100 years WCBB features teams loaded with Gabby's and Stewie's. If so, then the Gabby's of the world will be average relative to the competition.

 

[Wally East]

Here's the 2002 team boxscore and includes minutes played. It should help the analysis.