Stewie's place in UCWBB History | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Stewie's place in UCWBB History

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bonpland said:
After I clicked send on my post earlier today I said to myself, "Damn how could you fashion a list of all-time greats and not include Miller?" Because it was so long ago we forget that she may have been the best to ever play this game.
Expand ...
I think your last sentence above is so true - the lack of any exposure and of any national consciousness of WCBB before really 1995 and except for TN and CT, really before the 2000s makes it very tough to relate to the earlier stars - no television, no US professional options and very few international options at that time beyond national team play. Add in that to remember watching college stars of the early 90s and before you have to be getting on in years as well being from a tiny fan base. While we may complain of lack of fan support for women's basketball, it really has exploded in the last 15 years even if it is still dwarfed by those of the men's sports.
 
divots said:
Great grouping but pretty tough to leave Cheryl Miller off of any Top 5 list.
Expand ...


divots- - -When I was writing the above I couldn't think of Cheryl Miller's name and put Swoopes instead. Thanks for reminding me, switch Miller in for Swoopes!
 
UcMiami said:
Well, we have gone five rounds in another thread on personal stats vs. team stats and fought to a draw, so I will just mention that with everything that Stewart has already accomplished and the good things to come this year, she will still finish behind Maya in the following statistics:
1. Points - wide margin
2. Assists - wide margin
3. Assits/TO
4. Rebounds
5. Steals - wide margin

Stewart will win only one statistical category: Blocks - wide margin

Shooting - Moore currently leads comfortably in both overall and 3 point percentages, but Stewart is having an anomalous year so if that continues they will be pretty close.

They will have both played about the same number of games so per game stats will be similar to the above, but Maya will end up having played more minutes per game so per minute stats will lessen the statistical advantages though I suspect will not swing them all the way to the other side. But minutes per game is also a reflection of Stewarts struggles as a freshman, and Maya's shorter and weaker bench and perhaps stronger overall SOS.

Awards - they both have been NPOY three years, but Maya is the first and only four time AA in Uconn history. Stewart is the first 3 time MVP of the FF and may get a fourth, but you have to win the NC for serious consideration so that is almost double counting the same accomplishment - Stewart has been on the all tournament team three years, Maya three years and DT two years. Interestingly Maya made the all tournament team as a senior when she didn't even make it to the finals (and DT was left off in 2002 when her team did win it.) Maya also was an academic all america three years (Stewart has one) and academic all american NPOY 2 years something Stewart hasn't won yet (only Lobo 1 and Jen 1 have won that award before.)

So ... personal stats belong to Maya, but ....
To me championships do matter and while the difference between 2 and 3 and 4 isn't as important, I would tend to rank the big three in descending order of championships which is likely the reverse of the statistical rankings.
Expand ...

Stats aside, you have to subjectively consider Breanna's impact at the other end of the floor. Her blocks and steals don't begin to tell the story as to how much she means to UConn defensively. Maya was a flashy but careless defender, and Taurasi, well... When you consider how important defense has been to UConn's success, I give the nod to Breanna.
 
boontonbomber said:
Stats aside, you have to subjectively consider Breanna's impact at the other end of the floor. Her blocks and steals don't begin to tell the story as to how much she means to UConn defensively. Maya was a flashy but careless defender, and Taurasi, well... When you consider how important defense has been to UConn's success, I give the nod to Breanna.
Expand ...
I disagree with that characterization of Maya's defense (she was never careless in anything she has done in life I think! :)), and I think DT's defensive liability has always been more of a myth generated by Geno than reality. None of these players were quite Kelly Faris in terms of defensive intensity, but they all played good defense. I will give Breanna a slight edge because of her height, but Maya playing both up in size against taller players and down in size against faster players performed very well.
 
Wally East said:
Now, if you want to talk about best duo? Yes, Stewie and Mo. I would take them first over any other set of same-class or adjoining-class teammates (what I mean is teammates that played together for 3 or 4 years) (Maya and Tina would probably be the next pick). They're probably the 3rd and 4th best players in school history and they're in the same class. Remarkable :) It's no wonder that Stewie already has three rings :)
Expand ...
upload_2016-1-27_18-35-46.png
 
.-.
If UConn wins this year, Stewart will be the unquestioned GOAT. I think she's the best even if they don't.
 
UcMiami said:
And i would match both or those with Diana's play at the end of the TX NCAA game - not a single moment of stunning brilliance, but one after another clutch basket (plus a missed free throw or two! :() followed by the final steal to prevent a shot as the buzzer sounded.
Expand ...
Plus there was that take-your-breath-away pass to Crockett.
 
Every once in awhile this comes up, with comparisons to supporting casts. Taurasi, Moore and Stewart all had talented supporting casts, to emphatically insist that one supporting cast was better or worst than another only reveals the bias of the advocate. They were all talented; it's beyond the capabilities of any Boneyarder to demonstrate which was most or least talented aside from "because I say so."

However, there are a couple things we can decisively determine. Taurasi won a championship with decisively the least experienced talent. Maybe the talent of Strother, et al was greater or lesser than others ... once again, that cannot be objectively determined ... but they were undeniably the least experienced squad to win a UConn championship and they did so mainly because Taurasi led that team to overcome their inexperience. Whether Moore's teammates her senior year were a more talented bunch or not, which cannot be concluded outside of a biased "I say so," is beside the point. They were her team to lead and, if anything, a little more experienced than Taurasi's crew her junior year, and they could not get it done.

Moore scored a bunch (35 points?) in the last game she lost ... and I felt that was the problem. She did not know how to involve her team and make them better to the extent that Taurasi could. I'm not saying that Moore is bad at that, just that she could not do so like Taurasi. With Stewart we will never know. She always played with more experienced talent. I don't think she could do what Taurasi did with an inexperienced crew, but we will never know. However, Stewart did duplicate Taurasi's ability to lead an underdog to the championship ... and as a mere freshman. Moore only won championships while playing for teams that were heavy favorites. Granted, she was a big reason why they were heavy favorites, yet the same can be said for Taurasi and Stewart on their impressive teams. Only Taurasi and Stewart led teams that were not heavy favorites. In Stewart's case she was the key player in beating a team that already beat us three times that year.

For me, how one can lead a team to victory is the most important criterion for greatness. The greater the obstacles faced the greater the achievement. Taurasi overcame the greatest obstacles (though, in fairness, Stewart did not have the chance to overcome the inexperienced teammates obstacle), Stewart overcame the second greatest obstacle. For that reason I'd have to rank them Taurasi, Stewart and Moore.
 
diggerfoot said:
Every once in awhile this comes up, with comparisons to supporting casts. Taurasi, Moore and Stewart all had talented supporting casts, to emphatically insist that one supporting cast was better or worst than another only reveals the bias of the advocate. They were all talented; it's beyond the capabilities of any Boneyarder to demonstrate which was most or least talented aside from "because I say so."

However, there are a couple things we can decisively determine. Taurasi won a championship with decisively the least experienced talent. Maybe the talent of Strother, et al was greater or lesser than others ... once again, that cannot be objectively determined ... but they were undeniably the least experienced squad to win a UConn championship and they did so mainly because Taurasi led that team to overcome their inexperience. Whether Moore's teammates her senior year were a more talented bunch or not, which cannot be concluded outside of a biased "I say so," is beside the point. They were her team to lead and, if anything, a little more experienced than Taurasi's crew her junior year, and they could not get it done.

Moore scored a bunch (35 points?) in the last game she lost ... and I felt that was the problem. She did not know how to involve her team and make them better to the extent that Taurasi could. I'm not saying that Moore is bad at that, just that she could not do so like Taurasi. With Stewart we will never know. She always played with more experienced talent. I don't think she could do what Taurasi did with an inexperienced crew, but we will never know. However, Stewart did duplicate Taurasi's ability to lead an underdog to the championship ... and as a mere freshman. Moore only won championships while playing for teams that were heavy favorites. Granted, she was a big reason why they were heavy favorites, yet the same can be said for Taurasi and Stewart on their impressive teams. Only Taurasi and Stewart led teams that were not heavy favorites. In Stewart's case she was the key player in beating a team that already beat us three times that year.

For me, how one can lead a team to victory is the most important criterion for greatness. The greater the obstacles faced the greater the achievement. Taurasi overcame the greatest obstacles (though, in fairness, Stewart did not have the chance to overcome the inexperienced teammates obstacle), Stewart overcame the second greatest obstacle. For that reason I'd have to rank them Taurasi, Stewart and Moore.
Expand ...

I agree- but I would like to add-- that year Maya lost- Geno had said two times he started the game off telling his team to get Maya going from the start. The other game was Stanford. Both games they lost. Geno changed the offense to start the game- though it is possible he did other times and didn't want his team taking blame. And I often wonder when you play a terrific team 4 times in one season like Maya had to do- how much that matters.

Look how fearful many get at the thought of having to play USF 4 times. Heck even Debbie Antonelli is out of her mind calling on USF to beat UCONN this year. And now with Stewie going head-to-head vs ND if she was a sophomore- could we have expected to beat them 4 times / a sweep in the past two years from her soph year till now? In a way Stewie and DT never had to go through the gauntlet of beating a strong well-coached offensive juggernaut team 4 times in a year like Maya had to.

Over the past 3 years there is no way UCONN would have gone "unscathed" vs ND if they we to have played 12 times. This play that game could very well have been in the NCAA tourney even though UCONN was superior and maybe would have beaten them three other times. Stewie would take a "hit" for that? I guess so. It becomes sooo subjective.
 
.-.
diggerfoot said:
Every once in awhile this comes up, with comparisons to supporting casts. Taurasi, Moore and Stewart all had talented supporting casts, to emphatically insist that one supporting cast was better or worst than another only reveals the bias of the advocate. They were all talented; it's beyond the capabilities of any Boneyarder to demonstrate which was most or least talented aside from "because I say so."

However, there are a couple things we can decisively determine. Taurasi won a championship with decisively the least experienced talent. Maybe the talent of Strother, et al was greater or lesser than others ... once again, that cannot be objectively determined ... but they were undeniably the least experienced squad to win a UConn championship and they did so mainly because Taurasi led that team to overcome their inexperience. Whether Moore's teammates her senior year were a more talented bunch or not, which cannot be concluded outside of a biased "I say so," is beside the point. They were her team to lead and, if anything, a little more experienced than Taurasi's crew her junior year, and they could not get it done.

Moore scored a bunch (35 points?) in the last game she lost ... and I felt that was the problem. She did not know how to involve her team and make them better to the extent that Taurasi could. I'm not saying that Moore is bad at that, just that she could not do so like Taurasi. With Stewart we will never know. She always played with more experienced talent. I don't think she could do what Taurasi did with an inexperienced crew, but we will never know. However, Stewart did duplicate Taurasi's ability to lead an underdog to the championship ... and as a mere freshman. Moore only won championships while playing for teams that were heavy favorites. Granted, she was a big reason why they were heavy favorites, yet the same can be said for Taurasi and Stewart on their impressive teams. Only Taurasi and Stewart led teams that were not heavy favorites. In Stewart's case she was the key player in beating a team that already beat us three times that year.

For me, how one can lead a team to victory is the most important criterion for greatness. The greater the obstacles faced the greater the achievement. Taurasi overcame the greatest obstacles (though, in fairness, Stewart did not have the chance to overcome the inexperienced teammates obstacle), Stewart overcame the second greatest obstacle. For that reason I'd have to rank them Taurasi, Stewart and Moore.
Expand ...
Nice post, but just a note of caution - we all have this impression that 2003 was Taurasi and a bunch of callow freshman - but the starters on that team were:
Taurasi - junior 37 games
Moore - red shirt sophomore 38 games
Conlon - junior 29 games
M Valley - junior 18 games
Battle - red shirt sophomore 13 games
Strother - freshman 38 games
Wolfe - freshman 10 games
Turner - freshman 7 games

So there were 55 games started by freshman - Ann averaged 31.5 minutes a game, Turner 20.8, and Crockett 15.9 and Nicole was injured in the 10th game and didn't return that season (25.8 minutes in those ten)

On Maya's senior team:
Maya - senior 38 games
Hayes - junior 38 games
Faris - sophomore 38 games
Hartley - freshman 36 games
Dolson - freshman 34 games
Dixon - senior 4 games
Buck - red shirt sophomore 1 game
Walker - freshman 1 game

So there were 71 games started by freshman - Hartley averaged 31.8 minutes a game, Dolson 24.2, and other freshman 11.7 with Walker leaving after 17 games (18.8 in those games)

You can argue relative talent but minutes played by freshman for both of those teams were basically identical, the number of freshman starts tilts heavily to Maya's team, and in terms of ranking and reputation coming out of HS Strother and Turner were more highly regarded than Hartley and Dolson, and the two that did not finish the year also tilted toward Wolfe I think but they sort of cancel each other out. Willnett was a more effective contributor than Engeln and Johnson the other two freshman Maya's senior year as her minutes suggest.

The rest of the team experience is pretty well balanced - the sophomores on Taurus's team were both in their third year in the system so growth-wise close to juniors.

It is often argued that centers and PGs take longer to develop in college than other positions and I think while Stef was great, relying on a freshman center and a freshman PG in the NCAAs is harder than relying on a freshman guard and forwards and Stef really was all they had as a center by the NCAAs.

What Taurasi and that 2003 team was able to accomplish was magical, what Moore and that 2011 team was unable to accomplish was 'shattering' - they both had daunting tasks to lead teams relying for important contributions from freshman.
 
UcMiami said:
You can argue relative talent but minutes played by freshman for both of those teams were basically identical, the number of freshman starts tilts heavily to Maya's team, and in terms of ranking and reputation coming out of HS Strother and Turner were more highly regarded than Hartley and Dolson, and the two that did not finish the year also tilted toward Wolfe I think but they sort of cancel each other out. Willnett was a more effective contributor than Engeln and Johnson the other two freshman Maya's senior year as her minutes suggest.
Expand ...

You've done some nice research; I'll temper one claim because of it but double down on another.

You can compare talent based on what came out of high school, based on what happened in pros, their years in college or any combination of the three. Depending on the formula you use one cohort of teammates will come out better than the other. Perhaps there is the "One" best formula to determine talent level of teammates but that gets to another point. Is the talent of your teammates a discrete or continuous variable in terms of becoming championship caliber? I think it's pretty obvious we are talking about a discrete variable. As long as a certain threshold of talent is passed, your teammates can provide the material needed for a championship. I say it's a fools game to try to specially determine which set of teammates is the most talented, based on high school, college and/or pro performance, when what really matters is if they collectively passed a threshold of talent needed or not. Best players, like best coaches, will adapt to the specific type and quantity of talent they have around them as long as a certain level is reached. Taurasi, Stewart and Moore all had sufficient talent to work with for a championship, each one of their years.

The same might be said for quantifying experience, though your post leads me to recant the opinion that Moore may have had a little more experience surrounding her. Taurasi and Moore were both the respective leaders of inexperienced squads. To turn experience into a continuous variable for debate leads to the same faulty reasoning as with talent; I regret that I started on that path and you correctly called me out on it. Both the junior Taurasi and senior Moore were the leaders of what could be objectively classified inexperienced squads, at least as a discrete variable. Taurasi succeeded; Moore did not. I think Moore is probably a better all around player, though Taurasi's alleged faults such as with defense are largely Boneyard myth. Yet if I'm putting together a team, particularly one that must deal with inexperience, I'm starting with Taurasi without any deliberation.

I'd like to tack on what is more of a reply to hoophuskee here (who also provided a thought-provoking response). There's a famous anecdote of Auriemma conceding a game against Tennessee where we were seemingly down too much, too late. He later characterized Taurasi's response to his own defeatism as looking at him like he had two heads and proceeding to marginalize him from the huddle where she was rallying her teammates to win. Yes, Taurasi made THE clutch shot in that game, but they were behind by a bunch and she also got her teammates to do what they needed to do on defense and offense. Auriemma wants his players to read situations and take charge, particularly the leaders of the team, regardless of what even his own instructions are. Again, I don't want to paint Moore as faulty in this regards, more like Taurasi as exceptional.
 
hoophuskee said:
I agree- but I would like to add-- that year Maya lost- Geno had said two times he started the game off telling his team to get Maya going from the start. The other game was Stanford. Both games they lost. Geno changed the offense to start the game- though it is possible he did other times and didn't want his team taking blame. And I often wonder when you play a terrific team 4 times in one season like Maya had to do- how much that matters.

Look how fearful many get at the thought of having to play USF 4 times. Heck even Debbie Antonelli is out of her mind calling on USF to beat UCONN this year. And now with Stewie going head-to-head vs ND if she was a sophomore- could we have expected to beat them 4 times / a sweep in the past two years from her soph year till now? In a way Stewie and DT never had to go through the gauntlet of beating a strong well-coached offensive juggernaut team 4 times in a year like Maya had to.

Over the past 3 years there is no way UCONN would have gone "unscathed" vs ND if they we to have played 12 times. This play that game could very well have been in the NCAA tourney even though UCONN was superior and maybe would have beaten them three other times. Stewie would take a "hit" for that? I guess so. It becomes sooo subjective.
Expand ...

?? I think I understand the point you are trying to make ... see my response to UcMiami ... yet you are bringing up something that does not jive well with your post. Out of the three, Stewart had to face the most terrific opponent of all four times, the senior Diggins squad. The Notre Dame squads that Moore faced were not as opposing as the one Stewart beat when it had to be done. True, Stewart lost three times to them as an inexperienced freshman but won the most important game of all. Stewart was the most important player in helping us beat a better team at the most important time that year. Beating a strong but inferior team four times in a year is not as impressive to me as beating a strong and superior team only once, the one time that matters most. I can see the logic in always being able to beat a strong but inferior team, even four times in a row, as an indicator of greatness. I don't think that compares well with the greatness of beating a superior team when it matters most. Yes, our respective criterion for greatness is subjective, as is all of human endeavor even when using objective numbers to make claims more reliable, but at least it's not as beside the point as debating precisely which squad had better surrounding talent.
 
Digger & UC great stuff as usually. I agree on many points but I would have to put Stewie (slightly) ahead of DT because of the individual growth which it took to get to what I consider the defining moments for DT-2004 Finals vs Tenn. and for Stewie 2013 Semi-final vs ND. Sewie made a greater leap IMO. That leap for Stewie including two dreadful games against ND shooting 1 of 7 and 5 of 17 and making her way into the UCONN starting lineup.
In the 2003-'04 Season UCONN beat Tenn. in Knoxville fairly comfortable during the regular season 81 to 67. It was not a giant leap to expect UCONN to beat Tenn. again in the Championship game on a neutral floor. In 2013 simis UCONN beating ND by such a wide margin was almost entirely due to Stewie's growth as a freshmen.
 
Zorro said:
Certainly one of the top three, along with you-know-who and damned if I know how (or why) you would rank one of them above the others. I am not entirely sure that it shouldn't be the top four, with Moriah only very slightly down the mountain from the others.
Expand ...
That's a good question. It's obvious Stewart is in the Top 3 (DT, Moore, Stewart), but is Jefferson in that second tier? (and with whom? Bird, Charles, Abrosimova, Lobo, Jefferson? KML?)
 
meyers7 said:
That's a good question. It's obvious Stewart is in the Top 3 (DT, Moore, Stewart), but is Jefferson in that second tier? (and with whom? Bird, Charles, Abrosimova, Lobo, Jefferson? KML?)
Expand ...
Wolters Sales, Bascom....
 
.-.
UcMiami said:
Nice post, but just a note of caution - we all have this impression that 2003 was Taurasi and a bunch of callow freshman - but the starters on that team were:
Taurasi - junior 37 games
Moore - red shirt sophomore 38 games
Conlon - junior 29 games
M Valley - junior 18 games
Battle - red shirt sophomore 13 games
Strother - freshman 38 games
Wolfe - freshman 10 games
Turner - freshman 7 games

So there were 55 games started by freshman - Ann averaged 31.5 minutes a game, Turner 20.8, and Crockett 15.9 and Nicole was injured in the 10th game and didn't return that season (25.8 minutes in those ten)

On Maya's senior team:
Maya - senior 38 games
Hayes - junior 38 games
Faris - sophomore 38 games
Hartley - freshman 36 games
Dolson - freshman 34 games
Dixon - senior 4 games
Buck - red shirt sophomore 1 game
Walker - freshman 1 game
Expand ...
Just looking at the two squads the scales are pegged to Taurasi as doing the most with the least. Besides Moore being a Sr vs DT as a Jr, Moore had Hayes (as a Jr) who was as good as anyone on DT's squad. Add in 2 eventual 2X AA's in Hartley and Dolson, and Faris who is arguably the best defensive player ever at UCONN, and the talent level is not even close between these two squads.
 
diggerfoot said:
Every once in awhile this comes up, with comparisons to supporting casts. Taurasi, Moore and Stewart all had talented supporting casts, to emphatically insist that one supporting cast was better or worst than another only reveals the bias of the advocate. They were all talented; it's beyond the capabilities of any Boneyarder to demonstrate which was most or least talented aside from "because I say so."

However, there are a couple things we can decisively determine. Taurasi won a championship with decisively the least experienced talent. Maybe the talent of Strother, et al was greater or lesser than others ... once again, that cannot be objectively determined ... but they were undeniably the least experienced squad to win a UConn championship and they did so mainly because Taurasi led that team to overcome their inexperience. Whether Moore's teammates her senior year were a more talented bunch or not, which cannot be concluded outside of a biased "I say so," is beside the point. They were her team to lead and, if anything, a little more experienced than Taurasi's crew her junior year, and they could not get it done.

Moore scored a bunch (35 points?) in the last game she lost ... and I felt that was the problem. She did not know how to involve her team and make them better to the extent that Taurasi could. I'm not saying that Moore is bad at that, just that she could not do so like Taurasi. With Stewart we will never know. She always played with more experienced talent. I don't think she could do what Taurasi did with an inexperienced crew, but we will never know. However, Stewart did duplicate Taurasi's ability to lead an underdog to the championship ... and as a mere freshman. Moore only won championships while playing for teams that were heavy favorites. Granted, she was a big reason why they were heavy favorites, yet the same can be said for Taurasi and Stewart on their impressive teams. Only Taurasi and Stewart led teams that were not heavy favorites. In Stewart's case she was the key player in beating a team that already beat us three times that year.

For me, how one can lead a team to victory is the most important criterion for greatness. The greater the obstacles faced the greater the achievement. Taurasi overcame the greatest obstacles (though, in fairness, Stewart did not have the chance to overcome the inexperienced teammates obstacle), Stewart overcame the second greatest obstacle. For that reason I'd have to rank them Taurasi, Stewart and Moore.
Expand ...

I agree with everything you said except for Moore scoring the 35 points which may have been the problem. How many of those points did she score in the 4th quarter? I believe the rest of the team, especially Tiff Hayes and Bria Hartley, didn't show up. With that being said, yup, Taurasi did the most with least.
 
Bonpland said:
I'd be careful judging a player's place in history by the number of awards she receives. There are too many tangential factors to identify exactly why players are chosen AA, MOP, NPOY.

Court presense is the best consideration I think. What does a player mean to her team when she's on the court? How does she affect the game? For how many years was she the most influential player in the country.

Catchings and Parker were that player for Tennessee for their careers. Griner at Baylor, and we've had three that truly fit that mold. Taurasi, Maya and now Stewie.

There are other potential nominees but the total number of players that have dominated the game in this way while they played is not great.

Taurasi was the greatest single force the game has seen. Skill, leadership, pure bravado. Maya was the best athlete I've seen play the game. The fluid nature of her game, her instincts and her determination. But Stewie brings with her size the abilty to hurt an opponent from anywhere on the court.

All three are great athletes. All could score, pass and defend, and all are champions. D and Maya have continued to prove that in their pro and international careers. I don't see a need to rate them against each other.

Ask yourself if Stewie would being going for four if Steff were not on the court with her those first two years, or if Maya would have finished her career here with 150 wins and only four loses if Tina was not her teammate for three of those years, and of course Taurasi played with four first round WNBA draftpicks her fist two years.

A tweak here or there and anyone of them might have four NC's or, managed only one. I'm not a statistics guy. How many wins a player accumulates is a function of team. What they do, and what they mean when they are on the court is the best way to judge a players value; their legacy.

If we somehow get beaten in the tournament will Stewie's supporters drop her a knotch? We've been lucky enough to watch a long string of AA's play for Geno and we've had more NPOY than any other program. And at the top of that impressive congregation of talent we hoist three of the best who ever played the game.

I have no problem letting them stand side-by-side.
Expand ...
What a wonderful response. Talking about all the variables that may have changed team outcomes and determined successes. The one thing I agree is how the team is influenced when you are actually on the court. In that regard, I have to say that you've won the argument for Maya being considered at least the best Huskie ever. I seem to feel that she influenced the game more than either Stewie or Diana when she was on the court though it isn't a slam dunk. I just felt that she influenced the flow of the game more so when she is in the game and was more of a determining factor. The grace and class that she always displayed has always astounded me. Maybe those qualities are another reason why I have always preferred her over Diana as my pick for the all time great Huskie.
 
meyers7 said:
Just looking at the two squads the scales are pegged to Taurasi as doing the most with the least. Besides Moore being a Sr vs DT as a Jr, Moore had Hayes (as a Jr) who was as good as anyone on DT's squad. Add in 2 eventual 2X AA's in Hartley and Dolson, and Faris who is arguably the best defensive player ever at UCONN, and the talent level is not even close between these two squads.
Expand ...
What I would say is that the talent in women's basketball over those two seasons was at a very low ebb. I agree Diana should be given some accolades with her leadership but the quality of the "top tier teams" was quite low.
 
UcMiami said:
I disagree with that characterization of Maya's defense (she was never careless in anything she has done in life I think! :)), and I think DT's defensive liability has always been more of a myth generated by Geno than reality. None of these players were quite Kelly Faris in terms of defensive intensity, but they all played good defense. I will give Breanna a slight edge because of her height, but Maya playing both up in size against taller players and down in size against faster players performed very well.
Expand ...
Thank you. When I heard that response, I was highly offended. Maya was a good defender and her overwhelming advantage in steals means that she took the ball out of the other teams hands and given it to yours. That is probably the biggest advantage on the defensive end you can get. Blocked shots can be recovered by the offensive team and may still lead to scores against you. Not so, steals.
 
diggerfoot said:
?? I think I understand the point you are trying to make ... see my response to UcMiami ... yet you are bringing up something that does not jive well with your post. Out of the three, Stewart had to face the most terrific opponent of all four times, the senior Diggins squad. The Notre Dame squads that Moore faced were not as opposing as the one Stewart beat when it had to be done. True, Stewart lost three times to them as an inexperienced freshman but won the most important game of all. Stewart was the most important player in helping us beat a better team at the most important time that year. Beating a strong but inferior team four times in a year is not as impressive to me as beating a strong and superior team only once, the one time that matters most. I can see the logic in always being able to beat a strong but inferior team, even four times in a row, as an indicator of greatness. I don't think that compares well with the greatness of beating a superior team when it matters most. Yes, our respective criterion for greatness is subjective, as is all of human endeavor even when using objective numbers to make claims more reliable, but at least it's not as beside the point as debating precisely which squad had better surrounding talent.
Expand ...
I never felt that the Diggins teams were superior though they were obviously quite talented. In just about every game that UConn was losing to Notre Dame in those few years it was UConn faltering mentally and making uncharacteristic mistakes including blowing the leading end of one and ones and overall lousy foul shooting along with dumb unforced turnovers. I don't think anyone on the boneyard would have called these Notre Dame teams SUPERIOR at that time so had did they all of a sudden become so. The Maya teams outside of Tina Charle's senior year were not considered heavy favorites to win the national championship and has anyone ever taken over a championship game more so than did Maya against Stanford in the second half?????????? I respected Diana's talent but I never liked her persona on the court and no one has ever had a better balance of talent and grace than has Maya on the court. She's probably the biggest ambassador of UConn women's basketball ever.
 
.-.
I think a lot of the Stewart as GOAT debate has to do with the fact she plays for the UConn of 2013-2016. The reason she has a chance at 4 NCs has as much to do with where Auriemma has gotten the program in its current "generation/iteration". Put Stewart on the 2001-2004 and DT on the 2013-2016 UConn teams, and it would be really interesting to see their NCs and stats. All hypothetical of course, but still...
 
Buzzyboy said:
I
I respected Diana's talent but I never liked her persona on the court and no one has ever had a better balance of talent and grace than has Maya on the court. She's probably the biggest ambassador of UConn women's basketball ever.
Expand ...
You bring up an interesting aspect of this comparison-the persona. Athletically all three did things that at times took your breath away. After the play Diana was likely to pop her collar, Maya just elegantly swaggered back down the court for the next play & Stewie was more Cali- kool business like-as in what is everyone jumping up and down for? Different styles for sure and I actually wonder how many fans align with (in your case go away from) each player based on style or persona? Because face it, the substance of each is pretty much the same-spectacular!
 
If one is to judge a body of work, I think it's fair to compare freshman years. Who was better than Stewie in the Big Dance as a frosh?
 
Buzzyboy said:
What I would say is that the talent in women's basketball over those two seasons was at a very low ebb. I agree Diana should be given some accolades with her leadership but the quality of the "top tier teams" was quite low.
Expand ...
Agree that is one thing to look at, the competition.
 
I hope everyone is enjoying this discussion because it really is interesting to me with lots and lots of good points being brought up. I am going to try and keep this a little short, but who knows with so many issues under consideration::rolleyes:
1. I think a defining moment for the Stewart/Taurasi comparison is that freshman year semi-final - Diana's worst game ever (?) vs. one of Breanna's best ever - their freshman years pretty similar (except for injuries) and one stepped up big time and the other did not - general feeling in both instances was that was the championship game. Both surrounded by very talented and experienced teammates.

2. We think of Stef and Bria as 'future AAs' and national championship winners without Maya, and we think of Turner and Strother, and Crockett as 'unable to get it done' on their own. But we also have to remember the 'reinforcements' that were added for Stef and Bria - AAs KML, Breanna, Moriah, and Morgan - and it wasn't until the second wave of reinforcements that they were actually able to break through for their last two years. Ann, Barb, and Willnett never got that type of infusion of talent - the only future AA arrived their senior season in Rene - there were some good recruits in Houston Thomas and Swanier, and Greene their senior year, as well as the injured Hunter as a transfer but there really isn't any comparison. And KML, Stewart, Tuck, and Jefferson to that 2005 and 2006 team and who knows what would have happened!

3. Specific to Stef - it wasn't until after her freshman experience that she realized she had to transform herself and proceeded to do so. Stef in her championship years is a very different player from Stef as a freshman.

4. Specific to Ann and Bria - they were actually very comparable as freshman - Hartley scored a little more 12.4 to 10.0, but Strother had more assists and fewer turnovers, and more rebounds - both playing 31+ minutes per game.

5. Faris was great and really good as a sophomore but she was sort of Battle 2.0 - they were both incredibly athletic and great defenders who provided a little offense when needed - Battle played fewer minutes but per minute provided very similar stats - scoring significantly more and more efficiently, while not being as good a passer with a significantly worse A/TO. They both rebounded really well from the wing/guard spot - per minute the edge goes to Battle, per game to Faris.

6. Taurasi as a guard and primary ball handler had an easier leadership role to perform than Maya as a forward. On that senior year team she was not only playing the 4, but for the 15 minutes per game that Stef was unable to play, she was playing as an undersized center and Faris was playing as an undersized 4 after Walker decamped. A much tougher job to direct the offense from those positions.

7. A good point about 4th games against the same opponent in a season ND, Baylor, and Uconn have all failed that test in the NCAA tournament - and in the last 5 years.

8. Digger - I am in complete agreement about making evaluations of relative talent based on previous and future accomplishments and trying to assign a value to a specific moment in time - a semifinal game. I am just trying to fight against mythology that has developed over time and get everyone to really look at those two years through a lens of actual facts, not the future disappointments or triumphs that somewhat muddy our memories. Neither of the two teams lacked in talented players, both relied on inexperienced players to grow up quickly and perform in the biggest moment. And both teams had wonderful superstar leaders. In a team sport against varying competition there is no answer, just a lovely discussion.

Aside: On TN iconic players - we think of Catchings with the whole package of college, pros, and USA rolled together, but in college Holdsclaw was the real terror of those TN teams I think and would be the one to stand with Parker. (Not unlike Moriah/Breanna)

Not so short after all.:oops:
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,472
Messages
4,576,592
Members
10,487
Latest member
husky62


Top Bottom