Is 1999 Duke the best basketball team ever?

[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.