OK, which team was better: 2014 or 2002?

[alexrgct]

After the announcement of the WBCA AA team this season, I just *have* to look back on the previous season. It was a tremendous year of UCONN WCBB, and I think it's appropriate to debate whether they or 2001-02 was the better team. Let's break down the variables:


W-L Record:

2014: 40-0

2002: 39-0


Average Margin of Victory:

2014: 35.1 points (82-47)

2002: 35.4 points (87-52)


Lowest single-game MOV:


2014: 11 points (@Baylor- 11 is a record-high lowest single-game MOV)

2002: 9 points (@ Virginia Tech)


Names who are or will be on the HoH Wall:


2014: Moriah Jefferson, Bria Hartley, Kaleena Mosqueda-Lewis, Stefanie Dolson, Breanna Stewart (all five starters- this has never happened)


2002: Sue Bird, Swin Cash, Diana Taurasi


WNBA Draft Picks:


2014: Bria #7, Stef #6, Stewie #1 (projected) KML and Moriah top four projected, Kiah Stokes also a probable first-rounder

2002: Sue and Diana #1, Cash #2, Jones #4, Williams #6


Made Geno cry at the conclusion of the NC game:


2014: Yes

2002: No



So, what say you? I mean, it’s pretty close, isn’t it? At any rate, these were arguably UConn’s best two seasons, also arguably better than any two seasons another program has ever had.

 

[bballnut90]

2014 was more dominant than 2002. Besides the one Baylor game, nothing was competitive last year. Even when they struggled in the first half of a game, they would end up winning by 20 every time. In 2002, they were great but not as dominant. Oklahoma gave them a good game in the championship, Tennessee lost by "only" 14 points, and UCONN easily could have lost to West Virginia, as it was a 2 point game with under 2 minutes to go. That never happened in 2014. 2014 was stronger defensively, had three true inside/outside threats, and 2 players who could drive the lane. While maybe not to the same degree, having Hartley and Jefferson was similar to having Sue/DT in that UCONN had 2 capable poitn guards on the floor who could distribute and score. Offensively, I'd give the edge to 2002 because of their passing ability, great three point shooters and good scoring options inside.

In terms of which team was better? I'd vote 2014, and I think 2014 wins head to head because they played such outstanding defense to slow down 2002, and I don't see 2002 being able to match up with Dolson or Stewart.

Even with 1 loss this year, I think you could argue this is UCONN's most dominant team ever. Statistically, they are hands down the best team of all time when you look at margins, granted this is influenced in part by playing in the AAC compared to the Big East. That said, they still beat the likes of Texas by 51 points and there's a good chance they'll set more records in the Final Four. The defense is not as strong as it was last year or in other championship seasons, but I think this could be UCONN's most dangerous team offensively, with 5 starters who can all score from mid range and 3, and each one of them is capable of taking their defender 1 on 1.

I don't see anybody being within 20 points of UCONN this season, where last year I think Notre Dame gives them a much better fight with Achonwa.

 

[Tenspro2002]

There is some recency bias at play here -- 2002 was a better team.

The draft pick argument is interesting, but you have to consider where those players would have been drafted if the draft took place after that very year.

In 2002, 4 of the starters were seniors and were drafted in the indicated positions. If Diana were in that draft, she'd be a top 5 pick, giving us 5 of the top 7 players.

In 2014, Stef and Bria were drafted #6 and #7. Stewie would have gone top 3, sure. But KML? Maybe #10-15. Mo? Maybe #20?

You could make the argument that 2014 had the most talented players when you consider those players' careers as a whole, but 2002 was the best team if you take their incarnations from that exact year.

 

[DobbsRover2]

UCONN easily could have lost to West Virginia, as it was a 2 point game with under 2 minutes to go.

Huh, UConn won the game by 89-60 against WVU. I haven't checked the play-by-play, but no way UConn outscored the Eers by 27 points in the last two minutes. UConn is 23-0 against WVU during Geno's era, and only four of the games were by less than 10 points, and none in 2002.

 

[Gus Mahler]

2014 was more dominant than 2002. Besides the one Baylor game, nothing was competitive last year. Even when they struggled in the first half of a game, they would end up winning by 20 every time. In 2002, they were great but not as dominant. Oklahoma gave them a good game in the championship, Tennessee lost by "only" 14 points, and UCONN easily could have lost to West Virginia, as it was a 2 point game with under 2 minutes to go. That never happened in 2014. 2014 was stronger defensively, had three true inside/outside threats, and 2 players who could drive the lane. While maybe not to the same degree, having Hartley and Jefferson was similar to having Sue/DT in that UCONN had 2 capable poitn guards on the floor who could distribute and score. Offensively, I'd give the edge to 2002 because of their passing ability, great three point shooters and good scoring options inside.

In terms of which team was better? I'd vote 2014, and I think 2014 wins head to head because they played such outstanding defense to slow down 2002, and I don't see 2002 being able to match up with Dolson or Stewart.

Even with 1 loss this year, I think you could argue this is UCONN's most dominant team ever. Statistically, they are hands down the best team of all time when you look at margins, granted this is influenced in part by playing in the AAC compared to the Big East. That said, they still beat the likes of Texas by 51 points and there's a good chance they'll set more records in the Final Four. The defense is not as strong as it was last year or in other championship seasons, but I think this could be UCONN's most dangerous team offensively, with 5 starters who can all score from mid range and 3, and each one of them is capable of taking their defender 1 on 1.

I don't see anybody being within 20 points of UCONN this season, where last year I think Notre Dame gives them a much better fight with Achonwa.

Maybe Virginia Tech?

 

[alexrgct]

There is some recency bias at play here -- 2002 was a better team.

The draft pick argument is interesting, but you have to consider where those players would have been drafted if the draft took place after that very year.

In 2002, 4 of the starters were seniors and were drafted in the indicated positions. If Diana were in that draft, she'd be a top 5 pick, giving us 5 of the top 7 players.

In 2014, Stef and Bria were drafted #6 and #7. Stewie would have gone top 3, sure. But KML? Maybe #10-15. Mo? Maybe #20?

You could make the argument that 2014 had the most talented players when you consider those players' careers as a whole, but 2002 was the best team if you take their incarnations from that exact year.

I disagree with this. There's the opposite bias to recency that exists in a lot of ways. For instance, there is nothing any NFL defense can do that will convince some they were better than the 1985 Bears. Of course, that Bears defense was historically great, but that doesn't mean no defense can ever be greater. Similarly, the 2002 UConn team is one of the very best in the history of WCBB. Some might say that recency bias is why some think that team was better than undefeated immaculata, La Tech, Texas, Tennessee, or UConn 1995 teams. But these teams aren't scared ground, and UConn 2002 shouldn't be either.

I do understand that the 2002 team in that year specifically produced four top six WNBA draft picks, whereas I'm talking about players who won't be drafted for a year or more after their own magical season. However, it's not like Stewie KML, and Kiah wouldn't have been high picks in 2014 had that been their senior years. Only Moriah is building her case all the more into 2015, or somewhat akin to how Diana did into 2004. Moreover, that's one variable of several. Even if the WNBA draft pick category is advantage 2002 (which can be debated), there are other criteria that favor 2014.

Of course, the notion that 2002 is the better team is entirely admissible. I just don't fully agree with your argument in its favor.

 

[snlMINAJ]

virginia tech

 

[ASweet3781]

Why wasn't 2009 or 2010 included? LOL Talk about an embarrassment of riches.

I didn't think it was possible to think 2002 could be touched but by any standard we are looking at Stewart being our best player ever, Mosqueda-Lewis being our best shooter ever, and Moriah being our best PG ever. Throw in seniors Dolson/Hartley and it's not far fetched.

 

[Wbbfan1]

All Five Starters on the 2014 Will be on the Wall of Honor. The only team to accomplish that.

 

[rocky rococo]

A special characteristic of the 2002 team was that 4 of the starters were in their 4th year of playing together. They knew and felt each other by intuition, and their play together was lubricated with that understanding. Combine this with the fact that they were all very good players, and the one non-senior was the ultimate gym rat, and the team displayed a smoothness, a certainty, almost unheard of in the college game, women or men.

 

[MilfordHusky]

AA status for 2014:

Bria 2x
Stef 2x
Kaleena 2x
Moriah 1x and counting
Stewie 2x and counting

That's 9, with 11 being probable.

 

[sarals24]

I'd say 12...Tuck will be an AA next year if there is a God.

 

[sarals24]

And technically Tuck played on the 2014 team.

 

[2Husky]

They are both incredible, for me It's almost a coin flip, but I wouldn't bet against DT so I go with 2002. But really don think there is a wrong answer

 

[bballnut90]

There is some recency bias at play here -- 2002 was a better team.

The draft pick argument is interesting, but you have to consider where those players would have been drafted if the draft took place after that very year.

In 2002, 4 of the starters were seniors and were drafted in the indicated positions. If Diana were in that draft, she'd be a top 5 pick, giving us 5 of the top 7 players.

In 2014, Stef and Bria were drafted #6 and #7. Stewie would have gone top 3, sure. But KML? Maybe #10-15. Mo? Maybe #20?

You could make the argument that 2014 had the most talented players when you consider those players' careers as a whole, but 2002 was the best team if you take their incarnations from that exact year.

You can't look at it that way because it excludes all of the great freshmen/sophomores/juniors in that season.

In 2002, if WNBA GMs could draft any Freshman-Senior in women's basketball, there's no way UCONN has 4 of the top 6 or 5 of the top 7. Jones and Williams likely fall outside top 10, and it's doubtful that both Cash and Taurasi are top 5 picks. Beard probably would have gone 1st overall, which looks silly in hindsight, but she was runner up for POY as a sophomore and appeared to have more upside than anyone in the country.

2002 also had an incredibly weak WNBA draft class. Outside of UCONN's seniors, Teasley and Michelle Snow, no one went on to have good careers in the W.

Comparatively, 2014 looks to be a very strong class. Sims, McBride and Ogwumike were outstanding as rookies, Thomas, Hartley and Howard had promising rookie campaigns, and Achonwa/Gray could develop into really good WNBA players after being sidelined with injuries.

 

[bballnut90]

Maybe Virginia Tech?

Yes...Virginia Tech, thank you. Game was tied with about 3 minutes left. Just discovered this game summary:

http://www.uconnhuskies.com/sports/w-baskbl/spec-rel/012902aaa.html

 

[hoophuskee]

I go with 2002 team. Last year's team had no matchup for DT. An example is- in the Oklahoma game when DT got the decisive basket - Geno said he could have ran that play of isolation anytime he wanted but didn't want to play like that. Last year's team had no one that could guard her. The guards are too small. The Sr Swin Cash could have guarded Stewie.

The backcourt of DT and Sr Bird was best backcourt ever - and in big games best backcourts are hard to beat.

And as for KML - look at how she played last year vs this year. No comparison. Just because she helped us win last year doesn't mean she was great last year.

 

[hoophuskee]

Why wasn't 2009 or 2010 included? LOL Talk about an embarrassment of riches.

I didn't think it was possible to think 2002 could be touched but by any standard we are looking at Stewart being our best player ever, Mosqueda-Lewis being our best shooter ever, and Moriah being our best PG ever. Throw in seniors Dolson/Hartley and it's not far fetched.

Stewie wasn't the best player in UCONN history ever last year. She may become over time the greatest. But I wouldn't call that the best ever for a husky in that specific year. KML - overall it was probably her worst year last year. And Moriah -- last year they deliberately left her WIDE OPEN in both Stanford game and ND game. There was a reason.

IMO you can't cherry pick MoJeff's jr year and put her on last year's team (I see what I feel are irrelevant posts of that the whole team from last year is now on the wall). A player such as MoJeff is far superior this year.

 

[Wink96]

I go with 2002 team. Last year's team had no matchup for DT. An example is- in the Oklahoma game when DT got the decisive basket - Geno said he could have ran that play of isolation anytime he wanted but didn't want to play like that. Last year's team had no one that could guard her. The guards are too small. The Sr Swin Cash could have guarded Stewie.

The backcourt of DT and Sr Bird was best backcourt ever - and in big games best backcourts are hard to beat.

And as for KML - look at how she played last year vs this year. No comparison. Just because she helped us win last year doesn't mean she was great last year.

 

[Wink96]

I agree with the 2002 team.However I think we should Wait un till this season is over.

 

[Henry]

Actually, the 2001 team was better than both except for the injuries to Shea and Svet.

 

[hoophuskee]

Actually, the 2001 team was better than both except for the injuries to Shea and Svet.

But they had the injuries. Thus they never reached what they could have reached.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Stewie wasn't the best player in UCONN history ever last year. She may become over time the greatest. But I wouldn't call that the best ever for a husky in that specific year. KML - overall it was probably her worst year last year. And Moriah -- last year they deliberately left her WIDE OPEN in both Stanford game and ND game. There was a reason.

IMO you can't cherry pick MoJeff's jr year and put her on last year's team (I see what I feel are irrelevant posts of that the whole team from last year is now on the wall). A player such as MoJeff is far superior this year.

Did you by any chance check MoJeff's sophomore year stats before you wrote that? She shot 57.5% and a very-good-by-any-standards-except-this-year's-MoJeff 41.8% on 3s. She had far more steals and and also possibly more assists last year, and she also had way more rebounds. Sure she's taking far more shots and scoring 2.3 more ppg than last year, but MoJeff's soph season was pretty fantastic. As to any claim that teams "just left her open," that's only your opinion, and you still have to hit the shots to knock them down at 57.5%

KML obviously missed 8 games completely and was limited in 4 others, but teams are judged more proportionately by how they do at the end of the season, and KML's 102 points and 48 rebounds in the Tourney is pretty great for a "worst year."

 

[hoophuskee]

Did you by any chance check MoJeff's sophomore year stats before you wrote that? She shot 57.5% and a very-good-by-any-standards-except-this-year's-MoJeff 41.8% on 3s. She had far more steals and and also possibly more assists last year, and she also had way more rebounds. Sure she's taking far more shots and scoring 2.3 more ppg than last year, but MoJeff's soph season was pretty fantastic. As to any claim that teams "just left her open," that's only your opinion, and you still have to hit the shots to knock them down at 57.5%

KML obviously missed 8 games completely and was limited in 4 others, but teams are judged more proportionately by how they do at the end of the season, and KML's 102 points and 48 rebounds in the Tourney is pretty great for a "worst year."

Stats? Did you see the games in which Stanford and ND left her wide open? Are we to go only by stats and not look at why she was left wide open? Why did they leave her wide open?

Sure KML's stats were pretty good for worst year. But we are talking all-time greatest teams ever. "Worst year" is not that close to "best year" and the difference between all these super-supreme teams isn't much. Thus to be near the top of your game is important because your competition in this fantasy game is on the top of theirs.

As far as "teams left her open-- c'mon you saw the games. DO I really need to go to the website that has all the games and point it out?

 

[ASweet3781]

Actually, the 2001 team was better than both except for the injuries to Shea and Svet.

Maybe on paper 2001, but even before the injuries to Shea and Svet, they got waxed at Notre Dame, a loss to Tennessee, and had some sluggish efforts. That keeps them out of discussion when you have several UConn teams that went undefeated and untested. I don't think 2001 ever quite gelled. Sue hinted that some of the upperclassmen were perhaps threatened by Tauarsi being the best player on the team as a freshman and when you look at some of the scrums Svetlana and Taurasi had overseas that might explain a lot. 2001 proved that there may be a thing as too much depth.