Comparing '92-'93 bball to '12-'13

broke my computer.

but C-Webb is on another level, athletically and production wise. He was clearly the best player on the team.  There is a reason why so many NBA team covet C-Webb coming out of college. Jalen Rose is a big PG who is a great athlete and can score.

I think the Fab 5 has the better starting 5, but this year team has better overall depth and team.  Fab 5 turns the ball over a ton, but plays great defense.  They also are unselfish and play like a team. 

Its a little early to project McGary and Stauskas as first rounders.

Hope your draft forecast is right for Hardaway and Robinson (as in, not 2013).

While I don't agree with all of your analysis/projection of our current team (or your formatting) I love your comparison of the two teams. The current squad is so smart and well coached, and has an excellent chance this year to accomplish something the Fab 5 could not...but dam, that team was so athletic at every position, and what a mismatch for opponents to have to deal with both Webber and Howard in the post!

I was a graduate student during the Fab Five days - it's hard to imagine that the '12-'13 team could keep up with the '92-'93 frontcourt (C-Webb and Juwan Howard vs. Jordan Morgan and GR III).  But, head-to-head, I would bet on '12-'13, if you are talking about a Steve Fisher coached team versus a John Beilein coached team.  In '93, did Fisher ever make meaningful halftime adjustments?  And if it comes to a National Championship Game, you can be certain that, with a minute left, Trey Burke (and every other Wolverine on the floor) will know how many time outs are left!

That was just a different era, when guys who would leave now and be lottery picks stayed until at least their soph. years...Burke would give them fits, though.  '92-'93 Michigan didn't have anyone to guard quick little point guards.

I really didn't even read the OP because you must be a young pup or not really watching the 2013 team. There is no comparison.



2013 team doesn't have the athleticism that the fan five had, and also doesn't play the post game or to me, most importantly, above the rim like the fab five.



In 92', they ran into a buzz saw in Duke, and 93' they blew the title game against UNC. However, most think they are the best team that never won a championship most have seen.



2013 team is a very good team, which could reach elite status but I doubt it. They don't have one player that take over the entire game and win it for them. Sorry to burst the bubble, but I don't believe Burke can, seen him lose his edge in some big games. No one else is in that mold. Together, yet are very good and selfless, which is why they should make a long run in the tournament.

No question about it. This team is better. Better team, much better coach, better point guard.

Fab Five >> '12-'13 team in top-to-bottom athleticism.   Hands down.   They out-talented teams on a regular basis, and - as Cali Wolverine mentioned - provided nightmare mismatches.  But '12-'13 is just so bloody efficient on offense, and their defense has really improved in recent weeks.  

An interesting Fab Five stat:  every starter averaged  2+ assists per game.   They shared the ball, and their bigs were great passers.   The turnovers were frustrating, though.  I blamed that on their collective youth at the time, but the '12-'13 team is very young without the nagging turnover issues.   

This team may play better basketball in some sense but I don't think they are on the same level as the Fab 5. The high end talent, especially for post players was just so much better when the best players would virtually always stay for 3 years. We are after all talking about basically 3 NBA All-Star players on one team and while this team is talented it isn't like that. 

The Fab 5 did have more turnovers as they would often try to make too many passes just for style points. They did not shoot FTs well. The one thing that this team certainly does better is shoot. King could shoot OK and Voskuil and Pelinka were actually solid from the perimter. But that team really could have used a wing 3 who could shoot from the perimeter. I loved Ray Jackson toughness but he was not a good shooter and that team would have been that much better with a Stauskas type at the 3. 

Again, hard to compare rebounding across eras but with Webber, Howard and Eric Riley off the bench they had a lot of height for rebounding. People also forget that that was a better defensive team than this one, mostly because of its length and athleticism. They held opponents to about 41% FG that year IIRC. Although they would double the post touches a lot and that made them vulnerable to good shooting 3 point teams. Though It was a little easier to recover on doubles and help back then as the 3 point line was about a foot closer.

This team is probably closer to its potential whereas the Fab 5 never quite put it all together and lost a lot of close important games ie Duke x2, UNC, IU, OSU etc. They are not as good in absolute terms IMO but obviously they can still win championships so they can still achieve much more than the Fab 5 did.

The talent back then was so much deeper, with guys staying. There's no one on this team who could have left after 1 year and been #1 overall. The competition was better too. Down low the 5 would kill this team on both sides of the court.

And I question those who think this team is deeper. Behind the 5 there was Riley, Pelinka, Voskuil, and Talley. They had guys coming off the bench who were better than some of our current starters.

However, this team might accomplish more than they did, in their respective eras.

the '92-'93 team was a physically more talented team.  They could rebound better and score inside more easily.  But, this year's team plays with more discipline and teamwork.  What undid the Fab Five in the Finals both time was lack of experience and discipline.  Even then, their immense talent was almost enough to pull both games out.  But, the in the NCAA Finals, it's usually the little things that are the difference.  That's why I like this team's chances. 

The National Semifinal of 1993 is a good idea of how the game might go.

Kentucky rolled into the National Semi looking unbeatable and many thought the Fab Five were going to get blown out. Not many gave Michigan a chance in this game. The Fab Five were feeling the weight of expectations and didn't perform to their capabilities leading up to the Kentucky game. Kentucky, coached by Rick Pitino, and spearheaded by everybody's All American Jamal Mashburn, and point guard (current Oklahoma State coach), Travis Ford had the look of a team of destiny, but Michigan outplayed the Wildcats and managed to win it OT.

The post game handshake between Steve Fisher and Rick Pitino is priceless.

This was one of the most satisfying victories of my Michigan basketball fandom. It felt so good to defeat that Kentucky team

As you can see, Michigan was less than sterling in their march to the Final Four while Kentucky was obliterating all comers.

So after a trip down memory lane, I will have to say the Fab Five would beat the current Michigan Wolverines in OT.

If you compare the Fab Five 92-93 team totals in a few categories to what the projected totals for the current team would be in the same categories if they played the same number of games (and, for simplicity,  assuming they produced at the same rate each game), you would get something like this (granted, only an estimate, and these were different teams in different times, but some general observations could be made): 

Digging deeper into these, looking at shots made versus attempted, you would find perhaps that this season's team was definitely more efficient on offense, and not as apt to generate turnovers, but as others have mentioned, for sheer overall athleticism (and statistically seeming to have an edge on defense), I think the Fab Five might have the edge, and the Fab Five also had a bench that would start in a lot of places too. 

I think the '88-'89 team is actually more comparable including style of play and athletic ability. Rumeal Robinson, Sean Higgins, Loy Vaught, Terry Mills, Glenn Rice were much closer to this current team than the Fab Five. I don't have time to parse out the stats but just from the eyeball test I'd bet that they are closer in comparable team stats. The '89 team shot a ton of threes, (mostly Rice, Robinson, Higgins) played pretty good D and brought some decent contributions from the bench with Hughes, Taylor and Griffin.

Best part is they ended up winning it all in March.

1: Burke vs. Rose -- too close to call

2: Hardaway v. King -- slight edge to Hardaway

3: Ray Jackson v. Nik Stauskas - Stauskas

4: Webber v. GRIII -- Webber

5: Juwan Howard v. Morgan (or McGary) -- Juwan

Bench: McGary/LaVert/Albrecht v. Riley/Pelinka/Voskuil/Talley -- '92-93 team

All the Fab 5 really lacked was an elite 3-point shooter.  I know Pelinka amd Voskuil were pretty good but if the Fab 5 had had one guy like Hardaway or Stauskas they could have been the best team of all time.  There would have been no way to stop Webber, Howard, Rose + a guy shooting 45% from the 3-point line.

The Fab 5 didn't really have a natural PG - part of the reason Webber was bringing the ball upcourt before the TO in the first place. (In a similar situation, Burke sure as hell wouldn't leave the ball in Morgan's hands, or even GRIII's.) This year's team is better coached, and probably has more good outside shooting (oh, and did I mention that Stauskas is more than a shooter?), but, man, the Fab 5 had an awful lot of frontcourt talent that this year's team really can't match.



On the other hand, this year's team has a distinct advantage in Canadians.