Who is the GOAT UConn woman's basketball player? - Poll

[MilfordHusky]

Despite what others say, there is no easy answer for me. At least 3 players are at the top of the list and are garnering votes. There are a few others who might deserve consideration.

Nykesha Sales was the missing piece as a freshman to get the team over the hump to its first undefeated national championship season. She set the career scoring record and would have blown it away if not for her injury. She also set the career steals record, which still stands.

Moriah Jefferson would have been the NPOY in a normal, non-Stewie year--perhaps twice. She matches Stewie's 4 NCs, though she was not so instrumental in the first one. She was a 2-time Lieberman Award winner, matching Diana and Skylar. She was also the DPOY, matching Stef, Gabby, et. al. I'm not sure if anyone else was the Lieberman winner and DPOY. MoJeff was a one-player wrecking crew.

Sue Bird lost only 4 games at UConn. Of course, her team lost several games when she was out as an injured freshman. She remains the only 3-time Lieberman Award winner. She was NPOY and the #1 pick. She was the floor general on arguably the best team ever.

 

[Wally East]

I used to pick Maya for polls like this. Greatest scorer, two titles, 4-year All-American, 3-year NPOY. Plus, beyond scoring, the rest of her stats are amazing, too. And a great shooter. She filled stat sheets like no one else.

Maya was a joy to watch, too. She worked hard and appeared to LOVE working hard. That finger roll when finishing a lay up! YES! But those are reasons why she is my favorite player and not reasons why she is the GOAT.

I don't hold not winning a NC her senior year against her. She scored 36.

But, I have changed my mind to Stewie.

Stewie, on a per-minute basis, which is perhaps the fairest way to evaluate players, is close to Maya in a lot of categories and surpasses her in others (both are well ahead of D in everything but assists but both are pretty close). If Maya were a few inches taller and had Stewie's arms, you know she'd do what Stewie and maybe more, but Stewie had Stewie's arms And with those arms and her height, she was able to do things that Maya couldn't. Stewie anchored the team's defense in a way that Maya couldn't, although Maya had a LOT of blocked shots for her height. Both played great positional defense but Stewie also allowed for her teammates to play more aggressively on defense because she was also able to guard the rim.

On offense, she was a nightmare for other teams. Not that Maya wasn't but who do you put on Stewie? A center? Sure, that was a match-up in terms of height, which makes sense. Stewie could still post up the center and pass out of double-teams but she could also pull the center outside, opening a lane for her teammates or herself. Put a forward on her and she would either score inside or just shoot over her.

Stewie, Maya, and D (and Tina and Rebecca and Mo and Sue and ... ) are all phenomenal. I have great memories of all of them. D hitting that bomb 3 against Tennessee. Maya dropping 40 against Syracuse. Stewie and baseline-to-baseline block.

(See, it's not always about stats with me )

 

[Wally East]

But the NCAA and especially the FF can be a struggle for inexperienced college players - what made Stewart as a freshman so surprising especially after her regular season. And I take my hat off to Turner, Strother, and Crockett as well, and Sales in their freshman years - Sales specifically covering up for her upperclassmen's struggles in the first half of the final.

This was a spot where D struggled terribly. Her first FF ended with her fouling out after shooting 1 for 15 and 0 for 13 from 3.

 

[uconnfan68]

What DT did was beyond mere mortal effort. Her last 2 championships were her will. Love them all, think they are all worthy, but Dee has to get this.

 

[diggerfoot]

Two things.

1. Play hard. Play smart. Have fun.
The UConn WCBB mantra applies to the three major contenders, but I think each player was the GOAT for a different one. Moore played harder than anyone else; Taurasi played smarter; Stewart had the most fun. This doesn't settle the matter for me, rather it complicates what would be my choice further.

2. I don't think losing the NC as a freshmen should be held against Taurasi. Taurasi's forte was leadership, but that clearly was Bird's team to lead; Bird, the player whose fault it was if anything went wrong (so said Auriemma). In retrospect we learned there were chemistry issues on that team (though they played better after the roster shrunk via injury); given Taurasi's nature and strengths I don't think she could have fixed that as a freshmen, she may even have been an unwitting cause. I do think a freshman Moore could have fixed it. Because of the different intangible Moore brought to the table I think the team would have performed better in the semi-final game than with Taurasi, not just in that game they lost but for the whole year that team probably would have had better chemistry with Moore rather than Taurasi.

Yet I also think a senior Taurasi would have led Moore's senior team to a championship. She would have rallied and instructed her younger teammates to do what they needed to do, to do more than what they thought they could, much better than could Moore.

I don't think either the freshman Stewart or Taurasi could have won where the freshman Moore failed, so that's a wash. Yet, while I'm not certain, I think the freshman Stewart would have at least done better than the freshman Taurasi in that situation, not for the whole season but for that one tense game, and the senior Stewart might very well have done better than the senior Moore at keeping her teammates in the game to win that one. I guess I just talked myself into voting for Stewart, though up until writing this sentence that was not the case.

 

[MilfordHusky]

Two things.

1. Play hard. Play smart. Have fun.
The UConn WCBB mantra applies to the three major contenders, but I think each player was the GOAT for a different one. Moore played harder than anyone else; Taurasi played smarter; Stewart had the most fun. This doesn't settle the matter for me, rather it complicates what would be my choice further.

2. I don't think losing the NC as a freshmen should be held against Taurasi. Taurasi's forte was leadership, but that clearly was Bird's team to lead; Bird, the player whose fault it was if anything went wrong (so said Auriemma). In retrospect we learned there were chemistry issues on that team (though they played better after the roster shrunk via injury); given Taurasi's nature and strengths I don't think she could have fixed that as a freshmen, she may even have been an unwitting cause. I do think a freshman Moore could have fixed it. Because of the different intangible Moore brought to the table I think the team would have performed better in the semi-final game than with Taurasi, not just in that game they lost but for the whole year that team probably would have had better chemistry with Moore rather than Taurasi.

Yet I also think a senior Taurasi would have led Moore's senior team to a championship. She would have rallied and instructed her younger teammates to do what they needed to do, to do more than what they thought they could, much better than could Moore.

I don't think either the freshman Stewart or Taurasi could have won where the freshman Moore failed, so that's a wash. Yet, while I'm not certain, I think the freshman Stewart would have at least done better than the freshman Taurasi in that situation, not for the whole season but for that one tense game, and the senior Stewart might very well have done better than the senior Moore at keeping her teammates in the game to win that one. I guess I just talked myself into voting for Stewart, though up until writing this sentence that was not the case.

Interesting approach, Digger!

 

[Wally East]

. I guess I just talked myself into voting for Stewart, though up until writing this sentence that was not the case.

Great response and way to be open-minded

 

[MilfordHusky]

Just another thought on this question and one that supports those who chose Maya - legacy. I think you can trace Hartley and Dolson's two championships to their freshman season and the example/training Maya gave them. We'll see how Stewart's legacy plays out though early returns are pretty good and it is sort of nebulous in the same way that Bascom or Lobo's effect on the program can be used as a justification for their candidacy - and it is dependent on recruiting in years after they are gone, but just a thought.

UConn players have played hard since Geno arrived, but I think that Maya may have upped the level. After Maya left, Geno asked at an early practice who would replace Maya in terms of leading them in practice and demonstrating the energy and effort that everyone would emulate. Not only did he get no takers, he got no eye contact. That group included Tiffany Hayes, Kelly Faris, Stef Dolson, and Bria Hartley, no group of slouches. Kelly's work ethic was passed to Kaleena and Moriah. Moriah passed it to Gabby and Kia. They have passed it to Lou and Pheesa. Azura, Batouly, Crystal, and the freshmen are the next recipients.

It's one thing to measure someone's career based on the high points. The 4 championships garnered by Stewie, Mo, and Morgan trump the 3 by Diana and the 2 by Maya, Sue, Tina, et al. It's another to look at consistency and the low points. I can't find the stat, but I think Maya scored in double-digits about 150 times. I don't think anyone else is close. Diana had a really bad game against Notre Dame in the Final Four. She also struggled against Notre Dame several times (fortunately, Barb Turner was an Irish Killer). To her credit, Diana starred against arch-rival Tennessee. Stewie had a 0-point effort against Baylor as a freshman and was benched her junior year. Maya's worst games were more like mediocre performances and not absolute stinkers. I think Maya was our most consistent player over a full career--and consistently at a very high level.

Maya had the highest scoring average of 19.7, besting Kerry by 1.6 ppg. Her point total surpasses Stewie's by 370, Tina's (the prior record holder) by 690, and Diana's by 880. Maya is also among the leaders in 3-pointers made, 3-point percentage, free throw percentage, rebounds, rebound average, assists, steals, and blocks. No one else has the range of stats that Maya has.

Diana and Stewie were Regional MOPs 3 times. Maya was a Regional MOP 4 times. Maya was a Final Four All-Tournament team member 3 times. Diana was only twice. Stewie was 4 times, of course.

Maya shattered Rebecca's record for number of weeks chosen as the Big East FOW. Rebekkah Brunson won the Big East FOY in Diana's first year. Maya finished 2, 1, 2, 1 in the AP POY voting. Only Candace Parker and Tina Charles edged her out, and both are superstars. No one else has done that well in the POY voting, not even close.

Durability is a factor too. Mo played in 155 games and missed 1. Stewie played in 152 and missed 4. Maya played in 154 and missed 0. Diana played in 144 and missed a handful. Maya Moore is the Lou Gehrig of WCBB.

 

[Wally East]

I chose Maya. 4-time consensus All-American. 150-4, and every loss was an anomaly.

[...]

Maya never missed a collegiate game and was instrumental in most of the 150 wins. She never lost in the State of Connecticut.

If you buy into team record being part of a player's resume, then this is an important point. Maya's teams had no "bad" losses. On the road at Rutgers and at Stanford and then in FF against Stanford and ND.

The same can be said for Stewie. Four losses her freshman season, 3 to ND and 1 to Baylor. And then the loss on the road to Stanford in OT over her last three seasons.

D? Not as much. 2 to ND and 1 to Tennessee her freshman season, undefeated sophomore season, loss to Villanova as a junior, and then Duke at home, ND on the road, Villanova on the road, and Boston College in the BET. That's a lot of losses for someone some claim to be the greatest winner

 

[MilfordHusky]

If you buy into team record being part of a player's resume, then this is an important point. Maya's teams had no "bad" losses. On the road at Rutgers and at Stanford and then in FF against Stanford and ND.

The same can be said for Stewie. Four losses her freshman season, 3 to ND and 1 to Baylor. And then the loss on the road to Stanford in OT over her last three seasons.

D? Not as much. 2 to ND and 1 to Tennessee her freshman season, undefeated sophomore season, loss to Villanova as a junior, and then Duke at home, ND on the road, Villanova on the road, and Boston College in the BET. That's a lot of losses for someone some claim to be the greatest winner

In my mind, the Villanova and B.C. losses hurt Diana's resume. During her senior year, Geno needled Diana by telling her that Sue had won 4 Big East championships and the best that Dee could do was 3. As it turned out, Dee won only 2. Stewie won 3 conference championships. Maya won 4.

Diana played hurt part of her senior year, because she was mugged regularly. That probably explains some of the 4 losses. Maya was sick or hurt in 3 of her 4 losses. Geno and Tiffany were very sick in one of them.

 

[diggerfoot]

Three points.

Milford essentially favors a maximin criteria, that Moore's worst is better than anyone else's worst. I agree with that, and agree that it's a legitimate criteria to use. Moore came in as a freshman with the most college ready physique and conditioning of any player, not just the GOAT candidates, so right there her worst was going to be better than any of them. Because she works so hard her worst is going to be better than anyone else's as well. But the maximin is not the only criteria that's legitimate.

The single greatest season any of them had was Stewart's senior season and with that I think Stewart demonstrated the greatest potential ability of any of them. However, that's not the only criteria either.

Taurasi did the most with the least in terms of her teammates. Yes, yes, Strother, Turner, Moore (Jessica), et al are much better players than the straw man arguments I've seen used that we are inferring they are chopped liver, but they really don't hold a candle to a high functioning Charles, who became at times the best player in her sport, or even a moderate functioning Charles. There are only five players on a court, if one of them is your leading competition for greatest player in the game that makes a helluva difference over good players. The reason Charles finally reached her potential was because of Moore, of course, and I don't think Taurasi would have had the same impact. Maybe they don't go back to back perfect if Taurasi was the teammate of Charles, but I think they still would have won the NCs.

But I've seen no evidence to show that Moore could transform younger teammates the way Taurasi did. In other words, she could very well have also had some bad losses, plus fail to win the NC, if she was working with the same inexperienced players in 2003.

This is the problem with individual stats, including wins and losses, because such stats are void of the context facing the player. For example, I've seen the A/T ratio brought up a few times in comparing Bird and Jefferson. I think Jefferson is the better all around player because of her defense, but not because of the A/T ratio. Is the senior Chong also a better facilitator by virtue of the A/T ratio? Nurse at times? Faris?

Bird played teams where she had the primary responsibility for feeding the post. At 5'11" she had a natural advantage for doing that over a 5'7" Jefferson, but at a disadvantage in comparison with a 6'5" passing center out of the high post like Dolson. In the context of the teams they played with of course Bird's A/T ratio is not going to fare as well as players like Jefferson or Chong (who also relied on others feeding the post), they had the luxury of making safer passes. I know this is very unsatisfactory/unreliable evidence for many, but according to my "eyeballs," Bird could make just about any type of pass, and knew when to do so, even as a freshman; Jefferson could not really feed the post well until her senior year, perhaps into her junior, but fortunately she didn't really have to, she could safely feed the high percentage KML on the perimeter and let Dolson feed the post. I still say Jefferson was the better all around guard though.

Which is why I have so much trouble deciding on the GOAT. It really does matter who your teammates are, not just in ability but in make-up and responsibilities. I go with Stewart now only because it was not proven that there was a set of teammates where she could not deliver in a tournament, whereas for the other two there is such proof, but I realize I am on as shaky ground as anyone else championing any other GOAT.

 

[iamcbs]

I don't if anyone's mentioned this in this thread but the thing many people forget about DT3 is that were it not for injuries to Shea and Sveta during her Frosh year, she would be a 4-time NCAA Champ as well. Those last two teams she took to Championships were all on her. She's not only the GOAT at Connecticut but period!!

 

[diggerfoot]

I don't if anyone's mentioned this in this thread but the thing many people forget about DT3 is that were it not for injuries to Shea and Sveta during her Frosh year, she would be a 4-time NCAA Champ as well. Those last two teams she took to Championships were all on her. She's not only the GOAT at Connecticut but period!!

It has been mentioned, but there's no guarantee of your conclusions. There were chemistry problems on that team, evident at the time but also reported by Ralph years later I believe, which no doubt stemmed from trying to mesh too much all star talent. While you can point to Auriemma teams with good chemistry as gelling and doing their best in March, you can also point to Auriemma teams that lacked chemistry during the season and that continued to plague them into March. The 2001 team, until weaned by injuries, fit the latter. Comparing apples to apples, other Auriemma teams that lacked chemistry during the season, rather than apples to oranges, teams with chemistry, would suggest the 2001 team would not even do as well as they did towards the end, would in fact play more like the discombobulated (don't you just love that word) team that did poorly against Notre Dame the entire game the first time they played.

That should not be a reflection or demerit on Taurasi's responsibility or leadership, the team was not hers to lead at that time. Yet the evidence of apples to apples, rather than assuming a team that lacked chemistry would acquire it by tournament time, despite past evidence to the contrary, suggests that Taurasi would not be in possession of 4 NCs regardless, nor would she have been the focal point of success if they did. After all, she did not even get Big East FOY because of her lesser role on an all star laden team, it was after the injuries that she was really called upon to shine. But yes, leading inexperienced players to the NCs was primarily on her, and I'm not sure any of the other GOAT candidates could do that.

 

[Wally East]

I don't if anyone's mentioned this in this thread but the thing many people forget about DT3 is that were it not for injuries to Shea and Sveta during her Frosh year, she would be a 4-time NCAA Champ as well.

This was far from guaranteed. In addition to what digger mentions above, I think a lot of people forget that they had already been easily handled by ND when the team was at full strength, losing 92-76.

This, combined with the chemistry problems, would lead one to think that beating ND was pretty unlikely. That team just didn't really have an answer for Ruth Riley.

 

[chrissaran]

Breanna is the only one who went four for four. The Huskies lost during D's freshman year when the team was loaded with talent. Sorry, I can't overlook that.

 

[MilfordHusky]

Three points.

Milford essentially favors a maximin criteria, that Moore's worst is better than anyone else's worst. I agree with that, and agree that it's a legitimate criteria to use. Moore came in as a freshman with the most college ready physique and conditioning of any player, not just the GOAT candidates, so right there her worst was going to be better than any of them. Because she works so hard her worst is going to be better than anyone else's as well. But the maximin is not the only criteria that's legitimate.

The single greatest season any of them had was Stewart's senior season and with that I think Stewart demonstrated the greatest potential ability of any of them. However, that's not the only criteria either.

Taurasi did the most with the least in terms of her teammates. Yes, yes, Strother, Turner, Moore (Jessica), et al are much better players than the straw man arguments I've seen used that we are inferring they are chopped liver, but they really don't hold a candle to a high functioning Charles, who became at times the best player in her sport, or even a moderate functioning Charles. There are only five players on a court, if one of them is your leading competition for greatest player in the game that makes a helluva difference over good players. The reason Charles finally reached her potential was because of Moore, of course, and I don't think Taurasi would have had the same impact. Maybe they don't go back to back perfect if Taurasi was the teammate of Charles, but I think they still would have won the NCs.

But I've seen no evidence to show that Moore could transform younger teammates the way Taurasi did. In other words, she could very well have also had some bad losses, plus fail to win the NC, if she was working with the same inexperienced players in 2003.

This is the problem with individual stats, including wins and losses, because such stats are void of the context facing the player. For example, I've seen the A/T ratio brought up a few times in comparing Bird and Jefferson. I think Jefferson is the better all around player because of her defense, but not because of the A/T ratio. Is the senior Chong also a better facilitator by virtue of the A/T ratio? Nurse at times? Faris?

Bird played teams where she had the primary responsibility for feeding the post. At 5'11" she had a natural advantage for doing that over a 5'7" Jefferson, but at a disadvantage in comparison with a 6'5" passing center out of the high post like Dolson. In the context of the teams they played with of course Bird's A/T ratio is not going to fare as well as players like Jefferson or Chong (who also relied on others feeding the post), they had the luxury of making safer passes. I know this is very unsatisfactory/unreliable evidence for many, but according to my "eyeballs," Bird could make just about any type of pass, and knew when to do so, even as a freshman; Jefferson could not really feed the post well until her senior year, perhaps into her junior, but fortunately she didn't really have to, she could safely feed the high percentage KML on the perimeter and let Dolson feed the post. I still say Jefferson was the better all around guard though.

Which is why I have so much trouble deciding on the GOAT. It really does matter who your teammates are, not just in ability but in make-up and responsibilities. I go with Stewart now only because it was not proven that there was a set of teammates where she could not deliver in a tournament, whereas for the other two there is such proof, but I realize I am on as shaky ground as anyone else championing any other GOAT.

Interesting stuff, Digger, but Sue is only 5'9". BTW, Moriah was 5'7" as a collegian but 5'6" as a pro.

 

[tomcat]

Really an impossible question because you could make a case for any one of five or so wonderful players. I chose DT, reluctantly, but could have easily chosen any of the other breakthrough players -- Maya, Stewie or Lobo. To me, if you want to be chosen as greatest, you not only have to be spectacular and put up great numbes, y0ou have to be a breakthrough type. Lobo was, I believe, the first of her kind, as were Diana, Maya and Breanna. I loved Rizottti and Bird, and they were spectacular at their positions, but at the end of the day, they were superlative guards, not breakthrough players.

 

[bizarro aj]

To me greatest of all time means they are still great now. There's only one player on the list that plays for a championship every year be it here in the U.S. or over seas, and thats the great Maya. How long has it been since DT won a wnba title?

 

[CL82]

To me greatest of all time means they are still great now. There's only one player on the list that plays for a championship every year be it here in the U.S. or over seas, and thats the great Maya. How long has it been since DT won a wnba title?

That's specifically defined out of this particular poll. To me DT is easily the GOAT if you look at her overall career, but just looking at UConn, I'd have to give the nod to Breanna. What more could she have done?

 

[j66kicker]

To me greatest of all time means they are still great now. There's only one player on the list that plays for a championship every year be it here in the U.S. or over seas, and thats the great Maya. How long has it been since DT won a wnba title?

Mercury = WNBA Champs 2014
UMMC Ekaterinburg = EuroLeague Champs 2016

 

[Wally East]

To me greatest of all time means they are still great now.

This is an interesting qualification for being the greatest of all-time. So, Rebecca couldn't be considered the greatest center at UConn because she hasn't played in 22 years? And Tina couldn't either since she hasn't played in 7?

Cynthia Cooper, Lisa Leslie, and Cheryl Miller aren't in the conversation for greatest of all time because they've been retired for a while?

I don't think I understand the rationale here.

 

[bizarro aj]

This is an interesting qualification for being the greatest of all-time. So, Rebecca couldn't be considered the greatest center at UConn because she hasn't played in 22 years? And Tina couldn't either since she hasn't played in 7?

Cynthia Cooper, Lisa Leslie, and Cheryl Miller aren't in the conversation for greatest of all time because they've been retired for a while?

I don't think I understand the rationale here.

You mean Rebecca lobo who has 0% in the poll and tina charles who isn't even listed in the poll?
They were both good players but sorry they are not in the top 5 greatest huskies IMO. The other 3 you listed didn't even play for uconn. For the record i'd take maya over anyone thats ever played wbb. If you notice there's 4 names on the poll that are still playing and only one of them will be winning the wnba championship, can you guess which one?

 

[Wally East]

You mean Rebecca lobo who has 0% in the poll and tina charles who isn't even listed in the poll?
They were both good players but sorry they are not in the top 5 greatest huskies IMO. The other 3 you listed didn't even play for UConn. For the record i'd take maya over anyone thats ever played wbb. If you notice there's 4 names on the poll that are still playing and only one of them will be winning the wnba championship, can you guess which one?

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

I fully understand what the OP has asked. What I don't understand is your qualification for consideration.

When you go about considering GOAT of anything, UConn women's player, best women's player regardless of school affinity, best center at UConn, best NBA center, or anything else, you believe they must be "still great now"?

I'm not sure what current status has to do when examining a body of work in terms of all-time greatness. Could you explain the relation please?

 

[wbbfan]

I would say Stewart.

 

[Waquoit]

I also choose DT. Remember without Shea and Svetlana being injured in DT's freshman year, she also would have won 4 NC.

So you are saying that if DT had two more great players on her team (besides the 4 that played) she would have won. I don't see how that helps your case.

 

[UConnCat]

Both Diana and Stewie faced Notre Dame in the Final Four semis as freshman. UConn needed both to "meet the moment" in order to win. One did and the other didn't. I say that not as a criticism of Diana; it was a lot (clearly too much) to put on a freshman. What Stewart was able to do as a freshman -- from playing 7 minutes against Baylor to winning FF MVP -- was remarkable. What Diana did as a junior and senior was also remarkable. Tough call. I settled it by voting for Maya.

 

[chrissaran]

To me the poll was for their years at UConn; otherwise, I would pick Maya. Breanna still has a long career ahead of her.

 

[hoophuskee]

I chose Stewie. Not as much "because she won 4" while DT won 3 while Maya won 2. I went with her because I thought she had the greatest impact because of her defense.

All I had to hear one time from Muffett and I believe it was in the finals when Stewie was hurt, she said "NOW we can start going inside." And that was brought to home when I recall one of ND's players had a wide open layup in a game while Stewie was in and she threw up an airball. IMO Stewie made everyone better at the defensive end because she could cover so well off the ball.

As for offense, you had to collapse your defense to defend Stewie which meant many times she was indirectly responsible for wide open looks just by her presence. Though to a degree so was DT and Maya. I just think Stewie was more.

I understand any vote for DT or Maya too.

 

[hoophuskee]

I don't if anyone's mentioned this in this thread but the thing many people forget about DT3 is that were it not for injuries to Shea and Sveta during her Frosh year, she would be a 4-time NCAA Champ as well. Those last two teams she took to Championships were all on her. She's not only the GOAT at Connecticut but period!!

I thought UCONN could have handled ND the 3rd time if they were healthy that year. I was never a huge Sveta fan but I thought she turned the corner during her sr year and started to be incredible. When she went down then Shea went down and we still beat ND once- I think 2001 would have won. But for me -- "number of titles" doesn't do it for me. There has to be more. Otherwise why not say Sam Jones was better than Jordan and LeBron? OR DWade greater than West or Oscar?

I don't think ND could have stopped Seveta. They sat in a zone and were big. We would have attacked with the dribble drive. We beat them without two of our a/a's later in the year after the beat us MUCH earlier.

 

[Waquoit]

But for me -- "number of titles" doesn't do it for me. There has to be more. Otherwise why not say Sam Jones was better than Jordan and LeBron?

Are you saying that Stewie didn't have this "more" of which you speak?