"This is the greatest M basketball team ever!"(?)
Given the 18-1 overall record and especially the 13-1 B1G record against superior opposition, it's difficult to not call this team the "GOAT" of M basketball. Certainly, we are beginning to hear that occasionally. And if it continues, the debate will really heat up. Myself, I've been following M basketball closely since arriving on campus in the Fall of 1963, so the entire period of M's best years and all but a few of the most decorated players.
Frankly, I hate to call out any one team because there have been quite a few "GOATs" during that period! There have been many rule changes, not the least of which are eligibility and transfer, plus game rule changes. So how fair is it to compare 2020-21 to any of the others?
I suppose it's a little like girlfriends and you especially like the first. So, though I love and appreciate the incredible excellence of this year's GOAT (and any of the others!), that 1964-65 team is hard for me to beat in my mind. Cazzie-Bill-and-Ollie were fantastic! So, I decided to check web references to see what others think. There is a site called sport-reference.com that helps. It is related to another website called stathead.com. It gives you a chance to rate the GOATs based on their statistics instead of the emotion that goes with the latest GOAT!
Here's what I found. They have a statistic called SRS (Simple Rating System) that they define as it "takes into account average point differential and strength of schedule. The rating is denominated in points above/below average when 0 is average. Non-Division 1 games are excluded." They also have a Strength of Schedule rating.
Rather than looking at all the teams of the past near 60 years, it seemed logical to look only at the ones that achieved the most: the seven Final 4 teams (1964-65, 75-76, 88-89, 91-92, 92-93, 2012-13, 17-18) plus 2020-21 (they have same stats on the current team). Here are their results:
SRS (in order): 88-89 27.63, this year 25.65, 92-93 22.03, 12-13 21.08, 17-18 19.03, 64-65 18.89, 91-92 18.75, 75-76 18.25; my guess is that this year's team will improve its rating if it gets to the Final Four.
Strength of Schedule: 91-92 12.25, 88-89 12.06, this year 12.02, 92-93 11.89, 12-13 10.05, 17-18 9.41, 75-76 8.97, 64-65 8.27; Again, you would think this year's team would improve here the longer it plays since they will likely play upper B1G teams in the conference tournament and the better teams in March madness.
The conclusion is obvious. According to the stats and not the emotion of the moment, the 88-89 National Champs are still the GOAT! 2021 is probably in second place and should pass 88-89 if it wins out the next 12 games (3 regular games, 3 in conference tournament, 6 in NCAA). Maybe even if it just gets to the Final 4. We will see, won't we? (Sorry, 64-65 guys! Those Yost games were fabulous!)
What do you think?
Beat Illinois
^^^^^^
This x 1000.
All of this speculation is frivolous drivel and totally irrelevant at this time.
Exactly. Dude should take it to a Michigan sports blog or something.
Yep.
There should be a moratorium on "Is 2020-2021 the best Michigan Men's Basketball team ever?" threads until the NCAAT is over.
Repost in April.
Win the NCAA Tournament then we can talk about GOAT. Until then, nothing to talk about.
I don’t agree that a single elimination tournament should be the decider in the GOAT talk. I’m not sure if I agree with this team being the best of all time, but it isn’t because they would have to win the tourney to get that distinction. Weird things can happen in a single elimination tournament. You will never convince me that the undefeated Kentucky team wasn’t better than the fighting Kaminsky’s, but on that day they were. With Karl-Anthony Towns, Willie Cauley-Stein, those two fucking Harrison brothers, and Devin Booker coming off the bench, that might be Kentucky’s best team ever and they didn’t win the tourney
Kind of like Hockey. Wasn't 1997 the best team Red ever had, yet 96 and 98 were the years he won the tournament...
Single-elimination hockey is like a random number generator. Put two high quality teams together, and the best team probably only wins 60-65% of the time max.
Single elimination basketball is random too, but not nearly as bad as hockey. Single-elimination baseball would probably be even worse than hockey because of starting pitching.
Yes, a single elimination tournament introduces all sorts of variables but to be the GOAT, you need the ring to be the king.
Just ask the New England Patriots in Super Bowl XLII.
I agree 100!!! Just win!!! Then we could talk about best team ever.
CART BEFORE THE HORSE!!
I am guessing the 88-89 team gets the most points because they win it all? Because that team was not even the best team in its own conference!
There is no way that 'team' is better than this 'team'. If you look at individual players, they were better. But this team is better coached and plays more unselfish ball. Just all around better.
In a nuthsell, if you took both teams through the same amount of games, it would be no contest IMO, this team wins.
It depends. Body of work during regular season + resume or where you were to end the season did you bring home a championship? Body of work/resume you are 100% correct. But that Michigan team that cut down the nets at season end was THE absolute best team in the country at that time and the champs. Illinois gave us their best shot and lost. Champions are made in March/April not January.
Illinois took us to the woodshed 2 games (double digits both games, 29 point victory if my memory serves me right one of the games). Then in the tourney we scrape by them by 2.
Are you saying you would swap Illinois results with ours that season? The tournament gave us a semi final to decide who is the best and we won. Are you discounting your own teams championship? We dont have to decide who was better. Illinois was eliminated by Michigan and was sent home. Their resume looked better sure but are you trying to down play your own teams National Championship? Like whats really going on? Of course Illinois HAD the better team during the regular season, of course they ran us out of the gym. Until we ELIMINATED THEM and sent them home. Are you a Illinois fan?
Seems to me he's just a rational Michigan fan. Cripes.
He is very rational yes.
Your memory is a bit off. The largest margin of victory was 16 points for Illinois and that was the last game of the season with rumors swirling and the head coach on his way out the door. That Illinois team was great, but regular season games are regular season games.
If we use the same talent lens (HS, college and NBA) for that Illini team that I used below, I think it would show that the '88-89 Illini team was more talented than this year's M team, too.
Perhaps a bit more education on that team. This year's team is great and having a great run, but it's not hard to argue on behalf of the team that won it all. Talent isn't the only measure of a team, but the '88-89 was a more talented team. Whether your measure of talent is HS rankings, conference leader boards or NBA success, that team comes out on top.
HS ratings: That team had four Parade HS All-Americans which is roughly the equivalent of a top 40 player. This team has one; Hunter Dickinson was right around #40 inn his class. Even if you say that Franz was under-rated due to coming out of Europe, you're still looking at only 2 top 40 players. Even if you widen the net to top 100 players, '88-89 has a clear edge.
College success: Glen Rice was second team all-american, player of the year in the Big Ten, led the conference in scoring. Rumeal Robinson led the league in assists, Loy Vaught was 3rd in rebounding, led in FG% and Terry Mills led in blocks.
NBA: The '88-89 team put six players in the NBA, with 3 of them in the league for over a decade. This team has one clear NBA talent and two marginal NBA talents. The chances of this team getting 6 players on an NBA roster and having 3 players with decade plus careers is close to zero. In addition to lacking the volume of NBA players, I also don't see the current team equaling '88-89 at the top. I don't see anyone on this team coming close to Glen Rice's career. He was a 2 time All-NBA player. He averaged 21+ points 6 seasons. He started and played over 36 mpg on a team that won the NBA title.
As for the fact that they finished 3rd in the Big Ten that year, I think that's a bit too simplistic. Who's better; the team with the best record or the team that is playing the best at the end of the season? That team had some growing pains and was coached in the regular season by a coach who spent the year negotiating his next job. They still went 30-7 and the Big Ten that year was stacked, maybe even moreso than this year. Except for one loss to Illinois, all of the losses were by single digits and very close games. I think a strong case can be made that the losses were more about a team that occasionally took its eye off the ball than a team that was not elite. Once they were locked in, they took that elite talent and turned it into elite results.
Man-for-man, I also think this team matches up well against the current team. The only advantage I think this team has is coaching. That is a big advantage. With Juwan coaching both teams, I think the edge goes to '88-89.
Well done!
Win the NC and then I'll say yes. Until then....No
Did the OP seriously think this was going to go over well? Stats or no stats, this is not a worthy board question at the given time.
Additionally I haven't heard anyone say this the best MBB in history. Not once, not ever. Using quotes also seems like the OP is implying this has been said by someone of importance. It hasn't and this thread would be probably be deleted by Juwan Howard himself.
EDIT: I appreciate the positivity and historical context around this post but come on, man. Any sort of GOAT debate should be asked after the season, right?
I know right...Bad Juju.
88/89 is correct. For so many reasons. People love the Cazzie days and Im sure they were glorious. But take the most amazing game we have seen from a UM player in the last decade. Rice did that 6 games in a row to lead us to a championship. Just amazing!
I get that all that matter is winning it all. I get that from an individual talent perspective, that team was fairly amazing.
But if 12-6 in our own conference is the best team we have ever had - than our program kinda fucking sucks.
Im taking Fab five soph and this team over our national championship team. Im taking 30+ games as the body of work, and not 6 games.
Im not sure what you mean. If this years team loses in the sweet 16 this is the last time we will have this discussion about this squad being the best ever. Freider had that team all screwed up and Bo got him out of there. Winning IS everything. You want resume there is a whole line of 3 loss teams that nobody remembers that lost in the tourney. Ill take a champion every time. That tournament team was a juggernaut and our resume was solid but underwhelming for sure.
You say winning is everything? Then this team is better is what your REALLY saying. They only lost once this entire year. They lost 1 conference game. The 88/89 team lost 6 conference games!
You can't possibly say that playing is Assembly Hall with no fans is the same as playing with fans. Road games are not remotely the same as any other year, literally, ever. This team is excellent. It has a shot, but I'm not making any declarations until we see how they fare in the tournament. Even then, it will be different. Having to travel the short distance to Indiana is not the same as going and playing in Seattle or New Orleans or wherever.
I think you are reading my posts wrong. Im saying UM 88/89 is better than Illinois 88/89 because they eliminated them and won the championship. I admitted they didnt hold a candle to them in the regular season and also their resume wasnt close. We can discuss all day long but you wont asterisk away that championship team. This team isnt part of my comparison because it is incomplete. If we win it all i would say itll be a tough choice. National Championships get you in the conversation. Bowing out early gets ya an atta boy. Sorry not my rules. It is just difficult to wrap my brain around a UM fan say that the National Championship isnt as good as the team they sent home. This may go around in circles forever.
Ok, Your right. Buster Douglas is indeed better than Mike Tyson. They fought and he won it all.
Again, Michigan won the championship that year and deserves a shit ton of credit for doing so. It does NOT mean it was the best Michigan team.
I watched or listened on AM radio to every second of Michigan basketball in 88/89. I know how they struggled and how Freider limited RIce's shots when he shot 50% from 3. I watched Illinois destroy a team that had people that shot over 50% from all over. I watched when Freider was let go and Fisher said get him the damn ball. I watched them become, and then beat what WAS the best team in the nation. It was an emotional ride but that team played basketball at the end like nothing I had seen or will see again those last few weeks. Nobody was going to beat them. THEY were the best. They beat them all! They over came and finished as our National Champs. Now its time to watch these guys do the same. I love this team! Some day when after they (hopefully) cut down the nets I will be defending them as well. Huge fan of Brooks and Livers and what they have done. Very familiar territory here. GET LIVERS SHOTS!
Lets enjoy the ride! We are lucky to have these teams! Its a win win my friend!
Let's not do this. Best Ever is a thing you claim looking back at it, not during.
Every time it happens , I think abt that 2005 USC FB team ESPN was putting among the Top 10 teams of all time...and then Vince Young happened.
Not saying that this is the best team ever. Hence, the ? in the title. But I have definitely heard it discussed and insinuated, so thought it interesting to compare it at the current point to other Greats that achieved to the Final 4. If this team doesn't get there, it would obviously fall out of the discussion! Beat Illinois!
Not sure if a statistical rating can capture Glen Rice’s performance in the 89 tournament.
I hope the players on the current team don't pay attention to this kind of hyperbole. I know Howard doesn't.
Let’s beat Illinois first
No.
Beat IL.
Beat Staee.
I said it a few weeks ago, that Howard is gonna go down as our greatest coach.... notice the games how they are all effective blowouts... nothing really close except maybe one. One can try to say that this is on heels of Beilein's work.. but when you consider three new players Howard has brought in in Dickinson, Smith, and Brown are such key contributors in year one, I will venture to say he will go down as our best coach... won't have the longetivity of Beilein, however, but best coaching/recruiting.
Um....no OP. Not yet at least. Win a national championship or at least make the finals and then we can have that discussion but for me right now they would be about sixth in my rankings and i really struggled putting them ahead of the freshman version of the Fab Five.
1. 1992-93 (Yes I know they lost to NC - still best team I've seen)
2. 1988-89 (Did it all and had best player in college basketball)
3. 2012-13 (The block was clean AND they had the NPOY)
4. 1975-76 (Rickey Green + Phil Hubbard = lethal)
5. 1965-66 (Cassie still the bar when discussing greatest M player ever)
6. 2020-21 (Work in progress)
7. 1991-92 (Once they realized how good they really were they took off)
5. 1965-66 (CAZZIE still the bar when discussing greatest M player ever)
FIFY
Thanks. FWIW the autocorrect "feature" on my computer does not like "Cazzie" and much prefers "Cassie" so even when I went to fix it just now it kept insisting I had it wrong so I just left it in my original, incorrect spelling of his name to keep my Microsoft overlords happy.
Auto-correct, the gift that keeps on giving.....
Yes, No. 4. I have a soft spot in my heart for that team. Don't forget Steve Grote who has an award named after him and Wayman Britt the first 6'1" power forward. I'm always ashamed that I can never remember the 5th starter.
John Robinson. Averaged around 11 points a game with 6 rebounds. Solid player, didnt do anything terribly flashy but also didnt make any big mistakes. Was an excellent defender and was usually matched up with the other team's best scorer in the front court.
His sub Alan Hardy is probably who you do remember though cause that dude could literally jump high enough to touch the top of the backboard and yes, I actually saw him do that with my own eyes one practice when he was senior.
It's amazing how often Michigan has faced elite-level teams in its trips to the championship game. If they play anybody other than the 32-0 Indiana juggernaut in '76, Johnny Orr gets his first NC.
Delete this thread now please. Hurry!
Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. This team is a ton of fun to watch and is certainly looking as good or better as any Michigan team in my lifetime (not that old). But let's wait until the tourney is over before we rank this against all-time UM teams.
I was a senior in ‘89, thus partial to that team.
HOWEVA
...’88-89 team finished 4th in B1G, getting crushed by Illinois 2x. They were nowhere near as consistent as our current team has been. They weren’t as good at so many different things.
Today’s team will shut you down AND light you up.
As others have said here, let’s talk again in April. But to my eye right now...this is the best I’ve seen. I’ve never seen a Michigan team dominate the conference like this
I was a freshman/sophomore that title year, and saw the Illini game live at the end of the season.. they were good... that team came together as a true team, after Bo canned Frieder, and then proceeded to rip the entire team in the locker room, especially Sean Higgins, who he threw transfer papers at... Bo forged the players together out of fear, and the rest is history.... Juwan seems to have forged this team together to the same effect, at least that is what I see AGAIN. I wanna bet on them to win national title but cannot find better odds than 4.25
Eyeball test...
89 team was loaded. Pros on that team—Rice, Robinson, Mills, Vaught, Higgins, Calip. Mark Hughes was a fringe pro.
Fab Five would have been better if they had better coaching.
This team is TBD.