Having a much better supporting cast is why I rank Stewart #2, as Taurasi's 2003 and 2004 seasons demonstrated she could do more with less, so to speak.
Taurasi succeeded at doing more with less than Stewart. But Stewart did not fail at that, she simply did not have the opportunity.
On the other hand, Stewart succeeded at something that Taurasi failed at, helping her team win a championship as a freshman. Make no mistake, both their roles were pivotal in the different results. Make no mistake, Taurasi was even surrounded by better teammates.
The aggregate ranking of Taurasi's teammates in high school were higher than Stewart's; they had more than five times previous championship experience, including the starting point guard. Moving forward after that year Taurasi's teammates were drafted higher in the aggregate and three became Olympians. No Olympians among Stewart's teammates. I realize there is another poster using numbers, somewhat unconvincingly, to denigrate the relative worth of Taurasi's teammates her freshman year but, given the information I presented, either not one but five players all dipped in their abilities for one puzzling year, or the situation and chemistry of the year led to a dip in their aggregate numbers. Taurasi's teammates were better her freshman year, as most evaluative data confirms.
And they played like it for the first half of the FF game against Notre Dame, with little help from Taurasi. They had Notre Dame on the ropes before falling apart in the second half. Meanwhile, Taurasi was something like 1 for 15, essentially a volume shooter for that one game who failed. Either the team was relying on her too much or the Taurasi was trying to do too much. In either case, Taurasi flat out did not succeed at winning a championship her freshman year, despite having the opportunity and playing a pivotal role in the outcome.
Stewart played a pivotal role against Notre Dame as well, finally getting the monkey off of UConn back's after Notre Dame had won 7 out of 8 (and boy, did we have to hear about that often enough). Trying to claim which team is better than which is tricky business but the domination of Notre Dame over UConn going into the 2013 championship was greater than their domination over UConn going into 2001, not even close. Yet the 2013 squad beat Notre Dame with Stewart not just playing a pivotal role, but absolutely the best player on the floor without a close second. She flat out succeeded where Taurasi failed, carrying a team as a freshman, even though her teammates were not Olympic caliber, even though they both were being relied upon.
Unlike many here taking sides I do not think the rankings are clear cut. Taurasi failed at something Stewart succeeded at; she succeeded at something Stewart did not have the opportunity to test. For the record, I do think Taurasi can do more with less for teammates, because of the confidence she instills in them, that's why I think anyone claiming certainty in these rankings is misguided. But claiming Taurasi to be the best is based on speculation for something that did not happen. Claiming Stewart to be the best does not require as much speculation. Taurasi failed once; Stewart never did.
