diggerfoot
Humanity Hiker
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2011
- Messages
- 1,591
- Reaction Score
- 8,945
With Taurasi breaking the scoring record once again the GOAT discussion has been revived. While I've favored Taurasi in the past as GOAT at UConn I'm more equivocal than some (including Auriemma, who clearly seems to favor Taurasi). While I agree with Wally East that teammates matter, it also matters what impact the GOAT has on teammates. Yet even Auriemma, an undisputed GOAT in his own right, cannot get the best out of every single player. With that in mind I have arguments in support of either Taurasi, Moore or Stewart depending upon the type of team they are on.
First I'd like to give a nod to the UConn player who is never in the discussion, despite being an Olympian, WNBA MVP and collegiate MVP. In other words, Charles has the talent and pedigree that should put her in the discussion, why hasn't she been? The answer is Moore. Charles could have conceivably won a championship leading a team without Moore ... if she worked as hard on her game as she did after Moore became a Husky.
This is the argument in favor of Moore. None of the others have as much dedication or determination as Moore. This is a particularly good attribute for a GOAT if you are surrounded by all stars whose natural talent perhaps has gotten in the way of their own determination. Why try so hard when you are naturally so good? Well, Moore is the reason why. She's even better than you are yet she's working harder; are you just going to sit and watch or climb on board?
Moore joined a team full of extremely talented players in the Lynx, yet they seriously underperformed until she arrived. More telling, I think, is the play of the newcomer Fowles. I know people favor Griner as the most naturally gifted center, and she is for playing all over the court, but given her body type and other factors I'll take a seriously determined Fowles over Griner for playing solely near the basket. Moore is the GOAT for all stars that need to be motivated.
Yet it should be noted that Moore also has not won a college championship without Charles, or without at least a minimum of two other Olympians on the roster. It should also be noted that she did not win a championship her senior year precisely because she was so good, yet too willing to put everyone on her back while they failed to "climb on board."
I do not think Taurasi is the type of player Fowles needs for greatness, only someone like Moore will do. However, Taurasi is the type of player Griner needs, despite being an all star in her own right .... and for that matter Strother, Turner or Crockett .... who clearly are not. Maybe I'm being too subjective here, but I've always had the impression that Griner needed to be inspired, shot with confidence, more than motivated. In any case, Taurasi is the GOAT you want when you need to boost the confidence of teammates and inspire them to play their best, rather than take a back seat as you take over a game. And let's face it, despite bballnut's superlatives in describing Taurasi's supporting cast on the Mercury, they simply don't compare to Moore's supporting cast on the Lynx.
I've spent more time thinking about how Taurasi and Moore compare, but I don't think anyone can deny Stewart being placed in the GOAT discussion at this point for UConn. Moore is the motivating GOAT, Taurasi the inspiring, I hereby claim Stewart the calming GOAT. She doesn't really look to put a team on her back or motivate them like Moore, or lead or inspire them to play better like Taurasi, but it seems she calms her teammates when needed. They don't take a back seat so much as see Stewart cover their mistakes or come up with a needed play, seemingly without effort, and that settles them down. (As an aside, I've never made up my mind who actually can do more different things better on the court, Moore or Stewart, but Moore makes it seem it's with more athleticism, Stewart makes it seem it is with less effort) I don't think Stewart would be of as much use on a team of all stars like the Lynx, or with Charles as a teammate, or of as much use with teammates like Strother, Turner and Crockett (though Strother did seem not to handle having to be the one very well), but with very good players like Hartley and Dolson, facing a team of equal talent that seemed to have their number, Stewart was just the calming GOAT the doctor ordered.
So I'm equivocating to the end. I don't get the certainty some folks have, though I guess that's just how people are. I will say this, all three have value in terms of what they intangibly do for teammates, which is why all three will be in the discussion for GOAT of the WNBA (Stewart, too, eventually) and Griner, despite greater physical gifts than perhaps all of them, will not. Yes, teammates matter, but for essentially the same reason what really matters is what you do for teammates.
First I'd like to give a nod to the UConn player who is never in the discussion, despite being an Olympian, WNBA MVP and collegiate MVP. In other words, Charles has the talent and pedigree that should put her in the discussion, why hasn't she been? The answer is Moore. Charles could have conceivably won a championship leading a team without Moore ... if she worked as hard on her game as she did after Moore became a Husky.
This is the argument in favor of Moore. None of the others have as much dedication or determination as Moore. This is a particularly good attribute for a GOAT if you are surrounded by all stars whose natural talent perhaps has gotten in the way of their own determination. Why try so hard when you are naturally so good? Well, Moore is the reason why. She's even better than you are yet she's working harder; are you just going to sit and watch or climb on board?
Moore joined a team full of extremely talented players in the Lynx, yet they seriously underperformed until she arrived. More telling, I think, is the play of the newcomer Fowles. I know people favor Griner as the most naturally gifted center, and she is for playing all over the court, but given her body type and other factors I'll take a seriously determined Fowles over Griner for playing solely near the basket. Moore is the GOAT for all stars that need to be motivated.
Yet it should be noted that Moore also has not won a college championship without Charles, or without at least a minimum of two other Olympians on the roster. It should also be noted that she did not win a championship her senior year precisely because she was so good, yet too willing to put everyone on her back while they failed to "climb on board."
I do not think Taurasi is the type of player Fowles needs for greatness, only someone like Moore will do. However, Taurasi is the type of player Griner needs, despite being an all star in her own right .... and for that matter Strother, Turner or Crockett .... who clearly are not. Maybe I'm being too subjective here, but I've always had the impression that Griner needed to be inspired, shot with confidence, more than motivated. In any case, Taurasi is the GOAT you want when you need to boost the confidence of teammates and inspire them to play their best, rather than take a back seat as you take over a game. And let's face it, despite bballnut's superlatives in describing Taurasi's supporting cast on the Mercury, they simply don't compare to Moore's supporting cast on the Lynx.
I've spent more time thinking about how Taurasi and Moore compare, but I don't think anyone can deny Stewart being placed in the GOAT discussion at this point for UConn. Moore is the motivating GOAT, Taurasi the inspiring, I hereby claim Stewart the calming GOAT. She doesn't really look to put a team on her back or motivate them like Moore, or lead or inspire them to play better like Taurasi, but it seems she calms her teammates when needed. They don't take a back seat so much as see Stewart cover their mistakes or come up with a needed play, seemingly without effort, and that settles them down. (As an aside, I've never made up my mind who actually can do more different things better on the court, Moore or Stewart, but Moore makes it seem it's with more athleticism, Stewart makes it seem it is with less effort) I don't think Stewart would be of as much use on a team of all stars like the Lynx, or with Charles as a teammate, or of as much use with teammates like Strother, Turner and Crockett (though Strother did seem not to handle having to be the one very well), but with very good players like Hartley and Dolson, facing a team of equal talent that seemed to have their number, Stewart was just the calming GOAT the doctor ordered.
So I'm equivocating to the end. I don't get the certainty some folks have, though I guess that's just how people are. I will say this, all three have value in terms of what they intangibly do for teammates, which is why all three will be in the discussion for GOAT of the WNBA (Stewart, too, eventually) and Griner, despite greater physical gifts than perhaps all of them, will not. Yes, teammates matter, but for essentially the same reason what really matters is what you do for teammates.
