Yahoo's Top 5 UCONN WBB players of all time...

[huskyd]

No doubt Mo should be on the list. I hate when some one wants to compare different eras. Who is better and so on, They are all Huskies and we have been so fortunate to have watched and rooted for them the last 21 years. By the way were is Geno on this list? Go UConn.

The question of generations (roughly the time between when you were born and your parents' age) is really whether or not the quality of play has improved, so comparing Lobo and Charles may be iffy. Of course Charles is still playing, so we can gauge her ability contemporaneously. If we assume that players get better, than we can argue for the present stars. I believe, like you, that Mo needs to be on the list. That said, I'd drop Lobo (and Tina), push Dee to forward. That's a front line of Taurasi, Maya, Bre, with Sue and Mo brining it up. Short but sweet. But could Marciano beat Ali?

 

[Jimbo]

To me, the oddest thing in the article was this:

"You could make the argument to go with Charles over Sue Bird, making Charles a power forward beside Lobo, but that's a big lineup."

Setting aside the issue of whether that starting five makes any sense… if you were going to try it, why on earth wouldn't you start Tina at center and slide Rebecca over to power forward?

 

[chrissaran]

It's based on what the players did at UConn. Tina's first 2-and-a -half years she underachieved. It wasn't until the tournament of her junior season that Tina live up to her potential. If you doubt me I remember Geno saying he thought Tina could be an AA all four years she was at UConn. During her junior year Geno told her she hadn't been an AA yet. Rebecca wins for her four years of consistent play. Sue was clutch and missed 26 games her freshman season. Her career numbers would have been better if you include 26 mores games. How much better nobody knows, but better.

 

[VAUConnFan]

Could be? Yes. Has to be in the same way that D, Maya, and Stewie have to be? Well, please show your work



I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying Rebecca didn't have good stats her freshman season? (I hope not, because those stats are better than a certain "has to be there" player's )

All the other UConn greats have gone to multiple Final Fours. All the others whom I rate above all the others have had phenomenal stretches in the postseason tournaments.

 

[Wally East]

All the other UConn greats have gone to multiple Final Fours. All the others whom I rate above all the others have had phenomenal stretches in the postseason tournaments.

That's just rating the players' teammates. No one played with the teammates that Rebecca had her first two seasons.

 

[UcMiami]

Just some thoughts:
Lobo is the only Uconn player to average a double double for her career - 1st in rebounds per game, 5th in points per game, 1st in blocks per game. That is pretty impressive, and her second half in the 1995 title game is the reason this whole Uconn thing got started. (Tina is 3rd in rebounds per game, 11th in points per game, and 5th in blocks per game. Both great players.)

Shea Ralph was the fire behind the 2000 championship team, and yes she was an injury waiting to happen, but when she was on the court she was pretty amazing and she was on the court for 128 games. She is the only non-center in the top 8 in shooting percentage for her career (soon to be joined by Moriah)

Moriah vs. Sue in terms of Uconn career is always going to be an interesting discussion - but if your primary requirement is efficiency from a point guard while putting up 10+ ppg and 5+/- assist per game - Moriah comes out on top. She will end her career shooting close to 100 points higher than Sue from the field and with an A/TO ratio about 0.5 points better. Add in the defensive side where significantly more steals per game is just an indicator of her strength. Sue was maybe a better 'floor general' but that is hard to classify - they have both led their teams to incredible success both in terms of wins and in terms of great team statistics. Personally I go with Moriah, but it is as close to a toss-up as you can get.

The fact that Moriah was not included in the list of possibles is not an indictment of her game, but an indictment of the bozos who put together the list of candidates!

Their list is just fine with me, but those folks that want to trade Lobo for Charles - I am down with that, if you will allow me to trade Moriah for Bird. Either team works for me.

 

[marli]

Why do you think that 3 time All American Svetlana Abrosimova almost never gets a mention?

 

[UcMiami]

Why do you think that 3 time All American Svetlana Abrosimova almost never gets a mention?

Probably because she lost half her senior season, the season she was likely to be NPOY. She occupies that second tier in my mind with players like Sales and Jen. She definitely makes a 12 member team of uconn greats.

 

[HardHatGuy#2]

Lobo has superior stats to Charles in every category except FG%.

Stats are minutiae, nice to make small talk about at the water cooler, valuable only when comparing apples-to-apples. You cannot compare Women basketball players in the early-mid 90s to the ones just a decade later, much less today; the differences in the athleticism are remarkable.

Tina has that great 18-foot shot, but Lobo could range beyond the arc, and would have an advantage, there. In the post, Tina Charles would have her for lunch. Tina is much quicker with her feet and considerably stronger, so Lobo would turn into Vlade Divac, depending on her passing and court vision to help her team. There would be no inside game for her, and since that is what defines a post player, I have to go with Charles over Lobo.

No dig on Lobo, she was GREAT in her day, GREAT for the program, GREAT for Women's sports, and I think she is really good as a sideline/studio reporter.

 

[huskiemaniac]

Having so many greats to pick from sure is a good problem to have...we're very fortunate!

 

[ME Husky Fan]

I'll take Bascom and Sales over Lobo.

 

[UcMiami]

Stats are minutiae, nice to make small talk about at the water cooler, valuable only when comparing apples-to-apples. You cannot compare Women basketball players in the early-mid 90s to the ones just a decade later, much less today; the differences in the athleticism are remarkable.

Tina has that great 18-foot shot, but Lobo could range beyond the arc, and would have an advantage, there. In the post, Tina Charles would have her for lunch. Tina is much quicker with her feet and considerably stronger, so Lobo would turn into Vlade Divac, depending on her passing and court vision to help her team. There would be no inside game for her, and since that is what defines a post player, I have to go with Charles over Lobo.

No dig on Lobo, she was GREAT in her day, GREAT for the program, GREAT for Women's sports, and I think she is really good as a sideline/studio reporter.

Well by your definition - Uconn is terrible in the post currently and would be fed their lunch by Charles, but basketball is not simply one style of play, and I suspect senior Charles would find a number of her shots come straight back at her against either Lobo or Stewart and would be exhausted chasing them around the perimeter after the first five minutes. No question there are changes over time, but in putting together all time lists, rather than just selecting the current team, one makes allowances for those changes. Babe Ruth - at best a double A baseball player in todays world, but most people include him in their 'greatest ever' lists.

 

[NoelAustin]

No question there are changes over time, but in putting together all time lists, rather than just selecting the current team, one makes allowances for those changes. Babe Ruth - at best a double A baseball player in todays world, but most people include him in their 'greatest ever' lists.

I do enjoy reading your posts, but why do you make such a depreciating assessment of what Babe Ruth's abilities would be today? Would you make similar judgments about Walter Johnson, Ted Williams, or Bob Feller?

 

[UcMiami]

I do enjoy reading your posts, but why do you make such a depreciating assessment of what Babe Ruth's abilities would be today? Would you make similar judgments about Walter Johnson, Ted Williams, or Bob Feller?

Yes. Or name your sport - same thing. I needed to make my point that 'old timers' in any sport including the icons of those sports would be on then sidelines in the current universe. (And love the Babe - my aunt actually knew him quite well and went out with him - I have a silver cigarette case he gave her!)

 

[VAUConnFan]

That's just rating the players' teammates. No one played with the teammates that Rebecca had her first two seasons.

You have a point. No one is ever as good or as successful as they are with very good teammates. But Ms Lobo's teammates were pretty good. Her last two years, she was surrounded by outstanding players.
It is good that you made the point about success being a team function.

 

[Wally East]

You have a point. No one is ever as good or as successful as they are with very good teammates. But Ms Lobo's teammates were pretty good. Her last two years, she was surrounded by outstanding players.
It is good that you made the point about success being a team function.

Thanks

Yes, her last two years, Rebecca's teammates are practically peerless. Two other POYs and another All-American (and Jamelle). But her first two years and her freshman year especially? Not as much. As much as I loved Debbie Baer, well, she's not Sue Bird or Mo. Wendy Davis wasn't KML. Meghan Pattyson wasn't Kalana Greene.