national champs baby
Comparing '92-'93 bball to '12-'13
February 1st, 2013 at 11:06 PM | 
The Webber Difference
The Webber Difference
February 1st, 2013 at 11:40 PM |
Basically...
Basically...
You're talking '12-'13 Michigan vs. '11-'12 Kentucky for the youngsters that never saw the Fab 5 or are too young to remember.
Fab 5 has more pure talent...this Michigan team is a better TEAM. Honestly, I think it would be close.
If they played a best of 7 I think it would go 7 but I think there would be 1-2 games where the Fab 5 would blow this team out of the water.
When they were on, they were pretty unstoppable.
With that said, there would also be a game where this team shot the lights out and beat the Fab 5 by 15-20.
The other 4-5 games would be amazing to watch...two totally different styles, some VERY good basketball players, great teamwork in two different ways.
While Morgan and McGary would be a decent matchup for Webber, he'd still own both. Juwan Howard would have a field day on GRIII, but GRIII would get some points back with Howard not guarding him as hard on the perimeter.
Watching Rose and Burke would be like watching maize and blue basketball porn. #greatness
“True loyalty is that quality of service that grows under adversity and expands in defeat. Any street urchin can shout applause in victory, but it takes character to stand fast in defeat. One is noise — the other, loyalty.”
February 2nd, 2013 at 1:32 PM |
Fab 5 has more pure
Fab 5 has more pure
Fab 5 has more pure talent...this Michigan team is a better TEAM.
Why do you say that? The '92-'93 team, starting five sophomores (which was still very young for that time) went 31-5 and 15-3 in league play against opponents mostly made up of older players. You don't accomplish that without being able to work together. Look at the assist averages for each of the Fab Five. Each player averaged over two a game. That's rare.
I love our current team, but it's a different era. It would have been very hard-pressed to compete against elite teams of the early '90s.
February 1st, 2013 at 11:48 PM |
Sidenote
Sidenote
The fact that we can even have the convo is pretty damn cool.
“True loyalty is that quality of service that grows under adversity and expands in defeat. Any street urchin can shout applause in victory, but it takes character to stand fast in defeat. One is noise — the other, loyalty.”
February 2nd, 2013 at 12:15 AM |
some arguments for '12-13 team, against 92'-'93 team
some arguments for '12-13 team, against 92'-'93 team
Main guy: Burke (a B1G champion already) vs. Webber (never a champion after high school)
Competition: the current B1G is stronger than it's ever been (according to the most experienced B1G coaches).
To be fair though, the current team hasn't won anything yet; not the regular B1G title, the B1G tournament title, or the National title. To compare, the Fab Five made it to the NCAA Finals; the talent of each individual player was off the charts. But it's still a team game, and I personally don't count a trip to the Final Four as actually winning something (but I'm sure some do on here).
I think Burke is a winner; an overachiever. Webber--with all his insane talent (some NBA players have stated that he had the most God-given talent after Michael Jordan)--never proved a winner; he underachieved with regard to the teams he led. Assuming Burke wins at least one championship this year, I think this team gets the slight nod.
Every man at some point is gonna lose a battle. He's gonna fight and he's gonna lose. But what makes him a man, is that in the midst of that battle he does not lose himself. This game is not over, this battle is not over. So let's hear it .
February 2nd, 2013 at 1:09 AM |
Fab 5 versus 12-13
Fab 5 versus 12-13
As a fan that attended every game for the Fab 5, I hate to say it but they were abetter team and as others have mentioned, the talent pool was much higher in college with far fewer guys leaving early. However, and this is a HUGE advantage for this team, Beilein is 10x the coach that Fisher was. The fab 5 won inspire of Fisher and this team is awesome because of Beilein and amazing talent. Beilein + the fab 5 and you get the unc title game for sure and they don't fold in thee second half against Duke. To be clear though, I love this team.
Desmond Howard's Heisman and the Fab Five - Great time to be a Michigan Student. Wrote Punt-CounterPunt in 1993 Season.
February 2nd, 2013 at 1:44 PM |
I think Beilein is better
I think Beilein is better
I think Beilein is better than Fisher, but (from a purely basketball standpoint) the gap isn't that huge. He may have been way too trusting of his players off the court here at Michigan, but on the court Fisher is actually pretty good. He led us to three Final Fours and has also done well at SDSU - they've won 20 or more games seven straight years and made three straight tourney appearances (including a Sweet 16). It took him a few years to establish a program there, but they've been really good for a few years now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Fisher#Head_coaching_record
Now having said that, I don't think Beilein would have allowed the Ed Martin scandal to occur.
February 2nd, 2013 at 1:34 AM |
You have to look at the way
You have to look at the way
You have to look at the way this team controls games. With the Fab five they had tremendous talent ...especially CWebb. But games were much more uncertain back then. You have to admit that it's much easier to be confident in this team. With the Fab Five there were many more nail biters. A big part of it is coaching. Part of it is our point guard leadership. And finally this is a better team. The Fab five had better talent head to head for the top three players but this team has better talent across the board based on building a balanced 5 man Team. We'll see come tourney time.
...just one man's opinion.
February 2nd, 2013 at 5:07 AM |
Talent =/= better team
Talent =/= better team
I think I keep ending up responding to your posts not because you're totally wrong, but because you are so adamant about points that are very much debatable.
Yes, you're quite right, the Fab Five rarely ran away with a game, and they lost far more than they should have (thus their failure to win a B1G title). This had nothing to do with talent, little to do with point guard play, but yes, everything to do with coaching. And not even in-game coaching. The Fab Five were undisciplined and would lose focus for stretches of games. Usually their talent made up for that, sometimes it couldn't.
'Better talent across the board based on building a balanced 5 man team' is a totally meaningless phrase. You want to say this is a more cohesive team, fine (although cohesion wasn't really the FF's problem either). I think you also forget just how good Jimmy King was in college. Remember the UCLA game in 93? King won that game almost by himself. Stauskas is really really good, but I'm not ready to call him more talented than King yet. So that's 4 of the starting 5. I'm willing to give you Morgan (or McGary) over Jackson. But there's no math in which 1 out of 5 equals 'better talent across the board', and you'd have to demonstrate some serious bench superiority (which I don't think you can) to begin to make a case for overall team talent.
This team is awesome, and it is fantastic that we're able to watch them and call them our own. But let's try and take a deep breath and take a step back before saying that they're clearly (and its the certainty with which you keep declaring this that's rubbing me wrong) better than the Fab Five.
We bringin' it home baby. I know you doubted us, but we bringin' it home. (Jimmy King '93)
February 2nd, 2013 at 9:58 AM |
You're entiltled...
You're entiltled...
...to your opinion. This is a blog.
There are many opinions on both sides.
But I agree with you that more talent (fabfive) does not necessarily make a better team (today's team)
...just one man's opinion.
February 2nd, 2013 at 1:57 AM |
Answer Key
Answer Key
Q1) '12-13
Q2) '92-93
Q3) '92-93
Thanks to everyone who participated, I will update the comparable stats after the season for another look at things. Go Blue, Beat IU!!
Doctor Wolverine
February 2nd, 2013 at 2:11 AM |
I'm sorry but no way it would
I'm sorry but no way it would
I'm sorry but no way it would be close. Webber would score 35 on this years team, easily. With anyone defending him. Howard would then add another double digit point total, and probably a double-double. You would have to put Stauskas or GRIII on the bench and have one or the other come in for Hardaway. Rose and Burke are a push talent wise, but Rose gets a slightly slightly bigger nod for his size. He could post Burke up. Too many mismatches for the current team on defense.
Anyone who truly believes this years team could keep up is sadly mistaken, and truly doesn't realize just how great that Fab Five team was. Webber wouldn't have any problem getting 35+15 and probably 5 blocks as well. Rose would be a lot for Burke to handle with his size. Howard is a better big than anyone Michigan has got on this team and he was the second best big man after Webber.
If you remove Webber then yeah this years team could win. But no way this years team stands a chance against Webber and the boys. No player on this team is even a top 5 pick, let alone top 10 probably this year. Webber was the best overall player in the entire country, easily too.
Webber ended his career 2000 points, 3000 rebounds, and a number of blocks ahead of everyone else. All while also being in the top 3 I believe for assists. He also had one of the best field goal percentages as well, while playing the most minutes and taking more shots. Dude was just on another level good and no on this current team, right now, can match that.
February 2nd, 2013 at 9:07 AM |
More talent =/= more wins.
More talent =/= more wins.
More talent =/= more wins. Just look at the Lakers this season. The fab five was much more talented, but as others have pointed out, they were not as well coached as this team. Don't forget they did not even win the Big Ten that year and lost five games. They were an incredible collection of talent, but they never reached their potential. This year's team has just as many future NBA players and a much better coach. They don't have Webber, but they are better than you are giving them credit for. I think it would be a very close game. Isn't it great to finally be able to compare our team to great teams of Michigan past? It's been too long!
Doctor Wolverine
February 2nd, 2013 at 5:08 PM |
The '92-'93 team went 15-3 in
The '92-'93 team went 15-3 in
The '92-'93 team went 15-3 in league play. Keep that in mind. Everyone chides them for not winning the Big Ten, but that's a record that almost always is good enough to win it. Last year that record would have won the league outright by two games.
The Fab Five had the bad luck that Indiana happened to go 17-1. We lost to them twice, each time by one point. Those games were coin flips that went against us. The one other game we lost was at Iowa immediately after Chris Street's death (as the BTN just featured in The Journey.)
February 2nd, 2013 at 6:05 PM |
Sad excuse for an example.
Sad excuse for an example.
Sad excuse for an example. You're comparing 40 year old men who should retire or stop chucking shots to college kids. The Lakers are a horrid example because they have no chemistry, injuries, Nash is over the hiil, Kobe is a shot chucker(though he is actually making efforts to pass now), and Ron is just crazy. Only people who see the names and don't actually watch think the Lakers have the best talent. They have an ex-great, an old man who can't play defense, an unhappy(but legit) All-Star(he's the only one), a crazy small forward who's playing the worst he has forever, and a guy who they don't know how to use right.
Anyways, I'm not here to argue about the Lakers. The fact that you want to even semi compare this though shows the lack of basketball knowledge to me. No offense, but we're talking about a dominant Chris Webber, not the Fab Five now versus the team. The coach, John B, is not much better. I hate to break it to some people, who hate Steve F, but he is a good coach. As good as John? Heck no, but is it THAT drastically different? No, sorry it's not. Definitely not enough to make up for Webber being a beast.
As far as losing games, you think Michigan won't lose five games this year? You also think they do better than 15-3 in Big Ten play? Everyone talks about how this is a great Big Ten conference and blah, blah, blah but it was great back then too. Possibly even better. You had Purdue with Gene Keady, Indiana with Bobby, among others.
This years team has NBA players, but none like that years. Webber was a number one pick. Howard a top five right? Rose was 13th. Best case scenario for Burke is probably 10-15. GRIII could go 5-10. So your two best players likely in the same range as Rose, with two other guys ahead of him. I only see Burke and GRIII doing big things in the NBA. The Fab Five had 3 guys.
I still don't think people understand how bad Howard+Webber would beat these guys. The team this year just doesn't have the guys to stop two legit big men who were top 5 picks for a reason.
February 2nd, 2013 at 11:16 AM |
Coach Norman Dale says
Coach Norman Dale says
"Hold it (stops his team's passing drill). Let's be clear about what we're after here . . . Five players on the floor functioning as one single unit: team, team, team - no one more important than the other."
The Fab Five had better and more talented individual players. Coaching matters too though. I think history will suggest that the '12-'13--if it wins a championship--was a better team.
I also think the '89 team was a better team than the Fab Five, because it won at least one championship. The cause may be because the '89 team had upperclassman. Still, despite five freshmen starting, the Fab Five had better individual talent and players.
Every man at some point is gonna lose a battle. He's gonna fight and he's gonna lose. But what makes him a man, is that in the midst of that battle he does not lose himself. This game is not over, this battle is not over. So let's hear it .
February 2nd, 2013 at 5:23 PM |
Disagree
Disagree
So much of winning a national title comes down to the draw. In a single-elimination tournament, you can face unusual matchups.
The '93 team was a #1 seed that played two #1 seeds in the Final Four, beating the first and losing to the second in a heartbreaker. Over the course of that season, Michigan actually beat all three of the other Final Four teams (Kentucky, Kansas, UNC), but unfortunately we lost the rematch against UNC.
The '89 team was a #3 seed and played only only #1 seed along the way to the title. In the final we beat another #3 seed (Seton Hall) in overtime.
Swap tourney paths and I definitely think the '93 team wins it all, but I'm not sure the '89 team would have.
February 2nd, 2013 at 5:16 PM |
There seems to be some
There seems to be some
There seems to be some misremembering here on the part of a lot of people. People are confusing the Fab Five's freshman and sophomore years.
The freshman year, they were up and down, went 20-8 in the regular season, and got a #6 seed before catching fire in the tourney. They got better as the year went on but still, it was a shock when they made the Final Four, and not really that shocking when an absolutely loaded Duke team blew them out in the final.
Their sophomore year was another story. They were the preseason #1 and played like a top 5 team all year. They went 26-4 in the regular season and 15-3 in Big Ten play. There were a lot of people in the media (Bill Walton was one) who kept attacking their style of play and claiming that they were somehow "underachievers," but they won almost 90% of their games against a very tough schedule. We won a Hawaii tournament that year, beating Kansas and UNC (two Final Four teams) along the way. 1992-93 was a great team and lived up to the hype. It won 31 games and had the ball down two in the final minute of the national title game . . . how is that underachievement?
Webber would poop all over our defense...
And rose was as good as burke.
And don't get me started on Howard's advantage.
I don't think it's even close. Like people have said: the game was different then.
We are the dead.