Is 1999 Duke the best basketball team ever?

[HuskyHawk]

You need a KenPom subscription to access everything.

You can see this past year for free on 2019 Pomeroy College Basketball Ratings

Full stats are available from 2002 on with a subscription. Also, the 'D1-Universe' page has the rankings of every team in the main categories from the year 1997-today without every single stat. Because it is very hard to find stats that account for varying paces of play, this time period is known as the Tempo-Free era.

What we do know is that '99 Duke is the most dominant team since '97. In most years, the champion does not eclipse 34 adjusted efficiency margin. 2015 Kentucky, the team that won it's first 38 games, is tied for the best of this millennium with a 37 adjEM. Wisconsin, who beat them, had an adhEM of 34, which is high even among recent champions. That was a great year in college basketball. National Champion 2001 Duke also achieved a 37 adjEM, featuring Battier, Boozer, and Jay Will. 1998 Duke AND North Carolina (Carter, Jamison, Haywood, etc.) both reached 35 adjEM.

The other recent teams to achieve at least 34 adjEM are:
2008 Kansas, who beat Memphis in the NC on that miracle 3 by Chalmers (and the Rose missed FTs).
2018 Villanova, who steamrolled their way to the title but lost 3 in 6 games in Big East play but were 33-1 otherwise.
2002 Duke, the Jay Williams led team who were ranked #1 in offense and defense in their year, but lost to an insanely underseeded Indiana team in the S16 by 1 (who eventually lost to Maryland in the final) and were up 6 with 2:41 to go in that game but choked it away with 3 mostly unforced turnovers in the final 3 minutes (and Indiana got a few favorable whistles and bounces)..
2000 national champions Michigan St, led by Mateen Cleaves and the Flntstones, who capped off their 3rd straight Final Four.
1997 Kentucky, attempting to repeat following '96's championship, was Pitino's last year coaching Kentucky and they lost in OT of the NC game.

1999 Duke reached an adjEM of 43. Yes, you read that correctly. They're the only team in the tempo-free era to reach above 37 and they hit 43 even with their loss to UConn. This is the reason why people consider them the greatest team of all time. Only 5 other teams even manged 35 adjEM in the last 24 years, and none higher than 37, but Duke in 1999 hit 43.

So if you don't consider them the best team of all time, it's pretty reasonable to conclude they are the best in the tempo-free era, even with losing the title game to Rip and co.

There's a pretty clear and obvious advantage towards pre-prep to pros NBA draft teams. 7 of the 11 teams that broke 33+ adjEM are from the period of 97-2002 and only 4 came between 2003 and 2019. Of course, I would love to see how 1999 Duke compares to the Tark UNLV teams, or Laettner Duke teams, or 1996 Kentucky, or the Wooden UCLA teams, but it's too hard to objectively compare between eras.

Those KenPom numbers aren’t what determines anything. They are a predictive measure that he adjusts after they fail or succeed at predicting. In this case they were obviously wrong. And you can’t compare numbers one season to the next. It’s meaningless.

My memory of 1999 was that there were two teams at #1 all year, Duke or UConn. MSU was a clear #3 and everybody else was meh. The level of talent that year wasn’t high. So a very good Duke team looked better by those metrics than it was. Plenty of other teams in that era would have beaten them. And UConn was the better team in 1999, clearly. So that reveals what? It reveals that KenPom adjEM isn’t a stat that tells you who the best teams are. It almost never is. It’s flawed.

 

[Inyatkin]

We just won the game. And that is one of the things that makes sports amazing. I don't have to conclude that UConn was the better team to celebrate that win for the last 20 years. 2 different things can be true at the same time: we won that game because we were the better team that night and '99 Duke was a ridiculously incredible team all season that is likely the best team of the the last 24 years. If their adjEM was 35 or 36, it would be fair to conclude otherwise, but 43 adjEM is insane and pretty much unassailable.

I almost hate when the '99 title game comes up on this board, even though it was my favorite memory as a sports fan. It inspires so many people to imply that Duke wasn't that good, as if the rest of the world was making things up.
They were great. We were great, too, but if we played 10 times we probably don't win more than a handful of times because you can't expect us to shoot 53 percent as a team while holding Duke to 41 percent and win by three points. That 53 percent takes into account a just-OK 10-22 from Rip and 5-12 from El-Amin, which shows how far out of character everyone else was -- 6-10 from Ricky, 3-4 from Mouring, 2-2 from Wane, etc.
None of which matters in the slightest. They don't play a series, they play a game, and we won, and it was the best thing ever and I don't get why people try to minimize it by saying Duke was overrated.

 

[auror]

My memory of 1999 was that there were two teams at #1 all year, Duke or UConn. MSU was a clear #3 and everybody else was meh. The level of talent that year wasn’t high. So a very good Duke team looked better by those metrics than it was. Plenty of other teams in that era would have beaten them. And UConn was the better team in 1999, clearly.

A 3 point difference in a 1 game series that Duke led for much of makes it "clear" that UConn was the better team? On that night after the 40th minute, sure.

So that reveals what? It reveals that KenPom adjEM isn’t a stat that tells you who the best teams are. It almost never is. It’s flawed.

You're actually making my point. 1 game trials don't determine who the best teams are. They never truly have. They crown a champion, not the best team. Teams that are favored by 6 points by Vegas win only ~80% of the time. Teams that are 9.5 point favorites still lose 1 out of 6 games. Those outcomes don't always make the spreads or AdjEm or whatever wrong and they don't mean that the best team was actually worse. They happen. And we watch sports for those 1 out of 6. The unpredictability is one of the things that makes sports great.

AdjEM isn't perfect. It's not exact, because even 30-40 game trials aren't enough data. In addition, team quality isn't static (just ask 2011 UConn). But it's a hell of a lot more representative than 1 or even a handful of game results, and proven much more accurate than the polls.

There is likely a margin of error between close adjEMs. Is a team with 37 definitively better than with 34? Usually, but probably not always. But what my argument comes down to is that the gulf between 37, let alone 34, and 43 adjEM is double (or triple) that. It's a legitimate separation beyond margin of error or inaccuracy after that many games.

 

[CL82]

Maybe we all can just agree that Duke was the best team to lose in the national championship game?

 

[Husky25]

I almost hate when the '99 title game comes up on this board, even though it was my favorite memory as a sports fan. It inspires so many people to imply that Duke wasn't that good, as if the rest of the world was making things up.
They were great. We were great, too, but if we played 10 times we probably don't win more than a handful of times because you can't expect us to shoot 53 percent as a team while holding Duke to 41 percent and win by three points. That 53 percent takes into account a just-OK 10-22 from Rip and 5-12 from El-Amin, which shows how far out of character everyone else was -- 6-10 from Ricky, 3-4 from Mouring, 2-2 from Wane, etc.
None of which matters in the slightest. They don't play a series, they play a game, and we won, and it was the best thing ever and I don't get why people try to minimize it by saying Duke was overrated.

Duke was a great team. Not the greatest of all time and probably not the greatest to ever not win the Tournament, but they are in the conversation. They were overrated in that the two best teams in the country all season long met in the championship game and anyone who took Duke as a 9.5 point favorite didn't factor in the circumstances or experience.

BTW, 10/22 = 45.45%. Hamilton, a jump shooter, shot 44.3% for the season. El-Amin was precisely on his season average (4.8FGs/11.7FGA per game). Neither championship game performance was outside anyone's margin for error.

Moore's offensive performance on the other hand, was. He shot 42% during the season, averaging less than 5 FGA/G. Also UConn's FT shooting was comparatively atrocious. They shoot 73% for the year and in the mid 50s in the NC.

Moore's defense was at its typical stellar level, as was the combined defense of the front court (stellar, if not typical). UConn held Brand to only 8 shots, and Freeman and Voskuhl had 5 blocks between them. Oh, and before anyone mentions that 74 points doe not necessarily reflect great defense, Duke averaged 92 points that year. UConn was right on their average.

 

[Husky25]

Maybe we all can just agree that Duke was the best team to lose in the national championship game?

I will concede that Duke was the best team to lose in the National Championship game in 1999.

 

[HuskyHawk]

A 3 point difference in a 1 game series that Duke led for much of makes it "clear" that UConn was the better team? On that night after the 40th minute, sure.



You're actually making my point. 1 game trials don't determine who the best teams are. They never truly have. They crown a champion, not the best team. Teams that are favored by 6 points by Vegas win only ~80% of the time. Teams that are 9.5 point favorites still lose 1 out of 6 games. Those outcomes don't always make the spreads or AdjEm or whatever wrong and they don't mean that the best team was actually worse. They happen. And we watch sports for those 1 out of 6. The unpredictability is one of the things that makes sports great.

AdjEM isn't perfect. It's not exact, because even 30-40 game trials aren't enough data. In addition, team quality isn't static (just ask 2011 UConn). But it's a hell of a lot more representative than 1 or even a handful of game results, and proven much more accurate than the polls.

There is likely a margin of error between close adjEMs. Is a team with 37 definitively better than with 34? Usually, but probably not always. But what my argument comes down to is that the gulf between 37, let alone 34, and 43 adjEM is double (or triple) that. It's a legitimate separation beyond margin of error or inaccuracy after that many games.

The biggest lead by either team was 9-2 Duke, which was quickly erased, with UConn leading 15-13 not long after. There were constant lead changes all game long. It certainly wasn't a game Duke lead until the 40th minute. It was a game of two evenly matched teams.

Those teams played three common opponents, and UConn had larger margins of victory over those teams. Anything else, statistically, is not much more than garbage. KenPom is barely more than garbage. RPI is worse still. As I pointed out, nobody but UConn or Duke was ranked #1 in 1999. How often does that happen? Duke's gaudy adjEMs is attributable to the fact that they didn't face many good teams. Neither did UConn. They were the two best teams in 1999 by a LOT. Only MSU was even in the ballpark. The whole of the NCAA was weak at that moment.

Comparing them to teams from other seasons? It's meaningless. 1995-96 Kentucky was better. 2004 UConn was better.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Maybe we all can just agree that Duke was the best team to lose in the national championship game?

They weren't even that. The Georgetown team that lost to Nova was better as were the Olajuwon - Drexler Houston teams.

 

[auror]

The biggest lead by either team was 9-2 Duke, which was quickly erased, with UConn leading 15-13 not long after. There were constant lead changes all game long. It certainly wasn't a game Duke lead until the 40th minute. It was a game of two evenly matched teams.

Those teams played three common opponents, and UConn had larger margins of victory over those teams. Anything else, statistically, is not much more than garbage. KenPom is barely more than garbage. RPI is worse still. As I pointed out, nobody but UConn or Duke was ranked #1 in 1999. How often does that happen? Duke's gaudy adjEMs is attributable to the fact that they didn't face many good teams. Neither did UConn. They were the two best teams in 1999 by a LOT. Only MSU was even in the ballpark. The whole of the NCAA was weak at that moment.

Comparing them to teams from other seasons? It's meaningless. 1995-96 Kentucky was better. 2004 UConn was better.

It has been empirically proven that using less games (ie just common opponents) is less predictive than using more games, even specific ones. You don't know what you're talking about. Again, opponent quality is adjusted for in the "adj" part of adjEM.

Here's what I do know: KenPom adjEM is better than your opinion or mine for that matter. Because it "sees" every single game and knows how to weight them better than you or I.

So if adjEM is garbage, our opinions are worse than garbage, and we should still use adjEM when having pointless debates like this since it's the best tool..

 

[HuskyHawk]

It has been empirically proven that using less games (ie just common opponents) is less predictive than using more games, even specific ones. You don't know what you're talking about. Again, opponent quality is adjusted for in the "adj" part of adjEM.

Here's what I do know: KenPom adjEM is better than your opinion or mine for that matter. Because it "sees" every single game and knows how to weight them better than you or I.

So if adjEM is garbage, our opinions are worse than garbage, and we should still use adjEM when having pointless debates like this since it's the best tool..

Well in this case my opinion was right and it was wrong. I'll take my chances. There are at least a dozen college teams since 1990, probably more than that, that would beat that 1999 Duke time 6 out of 10.

 

[superjohn]

Yep, this notion that Duke was this unstoppable all-time team and we played the game of our lives is nonsense. The teams were evenly matched but we were slightly better than them.

We were preseason #1 in most publications if I remember correctly. We were the more veteran battle tested team. Our only loss when healthy was a heartbreaker to Miami who was a really good team. We had the two best creators on the floor, Duke didn't really have creators. Brand was great but we had the bodies and gameplan to slow him down, Rip couldn't be slowed down in big games. The only one who played above their level was Ricky with his offense in the first half (defense was there all season, best on ball defender in the country.) We didn't play our best and had a really sloppy stretch in the second half which kept it close.

 

[superjohn]

A 3 point difference in a 1 game series that Duke led for much of makes it "clear" that UConn was the better team? On that night after the 40th minute, sure.



You're actually making my point. 1 game trials don't determine who the best teams are. They never truly have. They crown a champion, not the best team. Teams that are favored by 6 points by Vegas win only ~80% of the time. Teams that are 9.5 point favorites still lose 1 out of 6 games. Those outcomes don't always make the spreads or AdjEm or whatever wrong and they don't mean that the best team was actually worse. They happen. And we watch sports for those 1 out of 6. The unpredictability is one of the things that makes sports great.

AdjEM isn't perfect. It's not exact, because even 30-40 game trials aren't enough data. In addition, team quality isn't static (just ask 2011 UConn). But it's a hell of a lot more representative than 1 or even a handful of game results, and proven much more accurate than the polls.

There is likely a margin of error between close adjEMs. Is a team with 37 definitively better than with 34? Usually, but probably not always. But what my argument comes down to is that the gulf between 37, let alone 34, and 43 adjEM is double (or triple) that. It's a legitimate separation beyond margin of error or inaccuracy after that many games.

It was a close game but did Duke ever even lead in the last 15 minutes of the game?

 

[HuskyHawk]

Yep, this notion that Duke was this unstoppable all-time team and we played the game of our lives is nonsense. The teams were evenly matched but we were slightly better than them.

We were preseason #1 in most publications if I remember correctly. We were the more veteran battle tested team. Our only loss when healthy was a heartbreaker to Miami who was a really good team. We had the two best creators on the floor, Duke didn't really have creators. Brand was great but we had the bodies and gameplan to slow him down, Rip couldn't be slowed down in big games. The only one who played above their level was Ricky with his offense in the first half (defense was there all season, best on ball defender in the country.) We didn't play our best and had a really sloppy stretch in the second half which kept it close.

Agreed. And the only way to compare across seasons is to look at the actual players. For example, there was nobody on that Duke team who would have a prayer of slowing down, let alone stopping Ewing, Olajuwon or Jabaar. Or Bill Walton for that matter. Those teams were much more talented than that Duke team, which was slightly overrated.

It's a game of match-ups, always has been. That Duke team was flawed in key ways, including being undersized and having a very short bench. Maggette on the bench was certainly a strong option, but he was a freshman and the rest of the bench sucked. UConn had 43 bench minutes to Duke's 24. Duke had a big edge in FT attempted and UConn was awful at the line.

 

[superjohn]

Agreed. And the only way to compare across seasons is to look at the actual players. For example, there was nobody on that Duke team who would have a prayer of slowing down, let alone stopping Ewing, Olajuwon or Jabaar. Or Bill Walton for that matter. Those teams were much more talented than that Duke team, which was slightly overrated.

It's a game of match-ups, always has been. That Duke team was flawed in key ways, including being undersized and having a very short bench. Maggette on the bench was certainly a strong option, but he was a freshman and the rest of the bench sucked. UConn had 43 bench minutes to Duke's 24. Duke had a big edge in FT attempted and UConn was awful at the line.

Duke and Uconn would have gotten their butts kicked by UCLA, Houston, and G-Town.

 

[auror]

It was a close game but did Duke ever even lead in the last 15 minutes of the game?

They tied it a few times, but I don't think so. But they did lead for most of the 1st half, at halftime, and first ~5 minutes of the 2nd.

 

[Husky25]

They tied it a few times, but I don't think so. But they did lead for most of the 1st half, at halftime, and first ~5 minutes of the 2nd.

Interesting enough, UConn didn't lose a game that year when they were losing at the half. The also didn't lose outside the state of Connecticut.

 

[HuskyHawk]

They tied it a few times, but I don't think so. But they did lead for most of the 1st half, at halftime, and first ~5 minutes of the 2nd.

I just speed watched the first half on YouTube and the lead changed many, many times. Nobody lead "most of the first half". After UConn erased that initial 9-2 I don't think anybody went up by more than 4. Lead went back and forth all game.

 

[Waquoit]

Langdon shooting out of his mind is the only reason the game was that close.

 

[seeya27]

I just speed watched the first half on YouTube and the lead changed many, many times. Nobody lead "most of the first half". After UConn erased that initial 9-2 I don't think anybody went up by more than 4. Lead went back and forth all game.

I seem to recall that UConn never trailed in the second half of that game. A tie or two, however. But I haven't researched it..

 

[Husky25]

I seem to recall that UConn never trailed in the second half of that game. A tie or two, however. But I haven't researched it..

UConn was trailing by 2 at the half, so unless the first play was a half court alleyoop and the timekeeper was late in starting the clock (I don't recall exactly, but I don't think this was the case), this is factually incorrect from the outset.

 

[whaler11]

That's only two options...

or one 40 sample may not be enough to truly know!

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Agreed. And the only way to compare across seasons is to look at the actual players. For example, there was nobody on that Duke team who would have a prayer of slowing down, let alone stopping Ewing, Olajuwon or Jabaar. Or Bill Walton for that matter. Those teams were much more talented than that Duke team, which was slightly overrated.

It's a game of match-ups, always has been. That Duke team was flawed in key ways, including being undersized and having a very short bench. Maggette on the bench was certainly a strong option, but he was a freshman and the rest of the bench sucked. UConn had 43 bench minutes to Duke's 24. Duke had a big edge in FT attempted and UConn was awful at the line.

I agree on Duke's short bench, but I think the team speed was decisive. Duke was probably a slightly more talented team overall, but UConn was so much faster that it was just a bad matchup for Duke.

I am going to stop short of proclaiming 1984 Georgetown or the early 80's Houston teams as head and shoulders better than the 1999 teams. A big difference was obviously that if Hakeem played in the late 90's, Houston would have been lucky to get 2 years out of him, although he only stayed 3 seasons at Houston. I am reluctant to lean too heavily on NBA careers as indicators of how good they were in college. Karl Malone, John Stockton and Scottie Pippin were nobodies before they got to the NBA. You can't retroactively make them great college players because they had great pro careers.

 

[Zissou]

UConn: National Champs
Duke: "We had a really high adjEM!"

I'd take the title.

 

[Waquoit]

It's been awhile but I seem to recall Magette getting beat so bad on D that K had to sit him.