Does more experience improve chance for UConn to win a championship? | The Boneyard

Does more experience improve chance for UConn to win a championship?

maccca3232

maccca3232

Joined
Feb 27, 2017
Messages
810
Reaction Score
2,967
The below chart plots the Finish versus the Experience (i.e. career UConn minutes at start of season) for the past 26 seasons.

Even though the team with the least experience did win (in 2002-03) and the team with the most experience didn't win (in 2007-08) generally teams with more experience perform better.

Based on experience:

The teams that over achieved were:
  • 1999-00 (TASSK So.)
  • 2001-02 (Taurasi So.)
  • 2002-03 (Taurasi Jr.)
The team that under achieved was:
  • 2004-05 (1st after Taurasi left)
This season we had 8,261 career UConn minutes, which ranks 21st.

1580388778609.png
 
Last edited:
Yea, most teams that win the NC have a pretty good Sr/Jr class. Nice graphs.
 
Great research. Thanks. Clarify contextual question for the BY. When was the last time the UCONN roster was without collegiate AA?
 
.-.
Great OP - lots of effort and very interesting.

I don't think 'overwhelming abundance of talent' is the right phrase - the failures in 2001 and 2008, and the 'over achievements' in your noted years point to two things - the competitive landscape for these teams is constantly changing and in a one and done universe success/failure in a six round tournament does not actually define the 'best team' vs. 'the hottest team'; and team dynamics and a superstar can cover for playing experience.
 
The 2000 team had 2 Srs and a red shirt Jr. who played a lot of minutes in their careers. The only question mark was point guard and Bird put that question to bed quickly! They lost 1 game by 1 point and still remained the No. 1 team in the country after the loss! They were expected to win the NC.

How did 2002 over achieve that year? They were expected to go undefeated and win the National Championship! The greatest starting 5 in the history of WCBB! All 5 starters named AAs for the one a
 
cbraarj said:
How did 2002 over achieve that year? They were expected to go undefeated and win the National Championship! The greatest starting 5 in the history of WCBB! All 5 starters named AAs for the one a
Expand ...

I agree. Don't understand the point at all. The 01-02 team had 4 seniors starting. The 02-03 team was the opposite. WHy are the bunched together? Because of 1 player?
 
.-.
In my opinion, the team with great experienced players, Kia, Pheesa, KLS, Gabby, and Sonia/Chrystal for two years were the best players that did not win a Championship.
 
cbraarj said:
The 2000 team had 2 Srs and a red shirt Jr. who played a lot of minutes in their careers. The only question mark was point guard and Bird put that question to bed quickly! They lost 1 game by 1 point and still remained the No. 1 team in the country after the loss! They were expected to win the NC.

How did 2002 over achieve that year? They were expected to go undefeated and win the National Championship! The greatest starting 5 in the history of WCBB! All 5 starters named AAs for the one a
Expand ...

hoophuskee said:
I agree. Don't understand the point at all. The 01-02 team had 4 seniors starting. The 02-03 team was the opposite. WHy are the bunched together? Because of 1 player?
Expand ...

I think you have missed the qualification, and reason for the OP.

maccca3232 said:
Based on experience:

The teams that over achieved were:
  • 1999-00 (TASSK So.)
  • 2001-02 (Taurasi So.)
  • 2002-03 (Taurasi Jr.)
The team that under achieved was:
  • 2004-05 (1st after Taurasi left)
Expand ...
 
maccca3232 said:
I think you have missed the qualification, and reason for the OP.
Expand ...
I still do. I don't understand why you mentioned DT regarding the experienced 01-02 team that was hardly "over-achieving." Unless you think they over-achieved because they are now arguably thought to be the greatest wcbb team ever?
 
cbraarj said:
No I think you did!
Expand ...

Your last reply doesn't even make sense as I wrote the OP.

Yes, they had 4 seniors but the remaining 7 players on the 2001-02 team consisted of 3 So. and 4 Fr. The fact is, even with 4 seniors, that team ranked 19th out of 27 teams in career minutes played for UConn at the start of that season (this was included in a table in the OP).

Are you disputing that fact?
 
Last edited:
maccca3232 said:
Your last reply doesn't even make sense as I wrote the OP.

Yes, they had 4 seniors but the remaining 7 players on the team consisted of 3 So. and 4 Fr. The fact is, even with 4 seniors, the 2001-02 team ranked 19th out of 27 teams in career minutes played for UConn at the start of that season (this was included in the table in the OP).

Are you disputing that fact?
Expand ...

That's like saying Mike Trout can't hit well at 5:04 PM on Sunday afternoon because he never got hit at that time so pitch ot him at 5:04 PM. It's an irrelevant stat just as your minutes stat. How much did the 01-02 bench contribute to that team? Not that much. Juts look at the championship game when Oklahoma hung tough. How much of the bench did they use? If you add DT and the bench, the 4 UCONN seniors in a tight game that they might lose played 70% of the game. The reason why the bench was being played was either because Tamika was hurt or they were wiping out opposing teams. Their average margin of victory was obscene. OFC the bench was going to play. But it didn't make them inexperienced. You're using stats to draw some conclusion that has no business being drawn.
 
.-.
maccca3232 said:
Your last reply doesn't even make sense as I wrote the OP.

Yes, they had 4 seniors but the remaining 7 players on the 2001-02 team consisted of 3 So. and 4 Fr. The fact is, even with 4 seniors, that team ranked 19th out of 27 teams in career minutes played for UConn at the start of that season (this was included in a table in the OP).

Are you disputing that fact?
Expand ...
Yeah 4 Srs. who went 1, 2, 4 and 6 in the WNBA draft and their best player who was a Sophomore at the time! The best starting 5 in the history of WCBB! It was expected and they accomplished the only numbers that mattered! 39-0!!!
 
hoophuskee said:
That's like saying Mike Trout can't hit well at 5:04 PM on Sunday afternoon because he never got hit at that time so pitch ot him at 5:04 PM. It's an irrelevant stat just as your minutes stat.
Expand ...

There is a difference between saying something is not important or even irrelevant (your last post) as opposed to saying something is incorrect or wrong (your original post).

It doesn't bother me that you think it is irrelevant, you are entitled to your opinion, but it does bother me that you couldn't articulate between what you thought was relevant and factual, as it just wastes everybody's time.
 
maccca3232 said:
There is a difference between saying something is not important or even irrelevant (your last post) as opposed to saying something is incorrect or wrong (your original post).

It doesn't bother me that you think it is irrelevant, you are entitled to your opinion, but it does bother me that you couldn't articulate between what you thought was relevant and factual, as it just wastes everybody's time.
Expand ...
You are the one wasting peoples time! Have you ever played, coached or scouted basketball games? I have done all 3 for a very long time! Keep trying to make something out of nothing!
 
veryolddog said:
In my opinion, the team with great experienced players, Kia, Pheesa, KLS, Gabby, and Sonia/Chrystal for two years were the best players that did not win a Championship.
Expand ...
Disagree it was 2001 team with Shea, Paige, Kelly, Stacy, KJ, Sveta, Tamicka, Aisha, Swin, Diana, Sue, Christine and the other freshmen!
 
cbraarj said:
You are the one wasting peoples time! Have you ever played, coached or scouted basketball games? I have done all 3 for a very long time! Keep trying to make something out of nothing!
Expand ...
Perhaps if you had read the original post where it stated: "Finish versus the Experience" you wouldn't have wasted people's time. It is a mathematical exercise not an opinion.
 
FWIW. I don’t think there is such a thing as over achieving, and there is such a thing as under achieving. You can’t achieve more than you are capable of. I think exceeding expectations is a better way to look at it. The view of Geno is that he is able to get more out of players than most coaches than the players thought they had in them. He makes them maximize their skills.

I’m too lazy to do the great work in the OP. Just wondering what effect injury has on the ultimate success of a particular team.
 
.-.
cbraarj said:
Disagree it was 2001 team with Shea, Paige, Kelly, Stacy, KJ, Sveta, Tamicka, Aisha, Swin, Diana, Sue, Christine and the other freshmen!
Expand ...

I'm with you on this thread. I think everything you've said is spot on. I think everything on this thread makes no sense just as at 5:04 PM you can pitch to Mike Trout expecting he won't get a hit because he hasn't at 5:04 PM ever gotten a hit before. I won't post to this thread going forward.
 
OP:Teams with more experience perform better.

So by that standard, our current team is lacking experience...
And teams like Oregon have a distinct advantage.

But:

If Christyn finds her shot and Anna is hot this team could be dangerous for anyone
Not saying it's going to happen...but it could.

That's what makes this season so fascinating...stats be damned.
 
ThisJustIn said:
Perhaps if you had read the original post where it stated: "Finish versus the Experience" you wouldn't have wasted people's time. It is a mathematical exercise not an opinion.
Expand ...
I wasted no ones time! This is a college basketball forum! Which is what I have talked about every post I made! Maybe the person who started this thread and now you have wasted peoples time! That's why hardly anyone posted about this! Go find a mathematics forum where this belongs!
 
After reading these posts I've decided to spend my life savings on stock in Microsoft.
 
hoophuskee said:
I'm with you on this thread. I think everything you've said is spot on. I think everything on this thread makes no sense just as at 5:04 PM you can pitch to Mike Trout expecting he won't get a hit because he hasn't at 5:04 PM ever gotten a hit before. I won't post to this thread going forward.
Expand ...
With you too HH! It just doesn't make sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,014
Messages
4,549,649
Members
10,431
Latest member
TeganK


Top Bottom