Dream Game: Who Wins?
It's Final Four Week, so lets play a game of hypothetical 'Who Wins' between a pair of great Michigan Basketball teams.
Who wins in a game between the 1989 Michigan and 1993 Michigan teams?
I guess the first question is whether or not Chris Webber is on the take or not for the game?
Audience, calm down. That was just a joke......besides, I watched a replay of the '93 Finals yesterday and have discovered a new found respect for his play in that game.....maybe he is just a guy who lost his mind for a second and not a fixer afterall.
The real key is who gets Rob Pelinka on their side?
Anyway.....chime in on this Michigan dream matchup.
Who wins and why?
I would say '93 just because of Rose and Webber. Who on '89 will stop those 2?
What? You dont think T-Mills could check C-Web?
He might get a 30/20 if Mills had to go one on one with him all day.
I do think the 1989 team had some big bodies like Mark Hughes and Loy Vaught, so it would not be that much a cakewalk for Webber inside. Those guys did a lot of work that Webber did as far as on the offensive glass and second chance points.
Would '89 Fisher try and match Rose up with Mike Griffin, defensive stopper extraordinaire?
I will say that the 1989 Michigan team might have been more explosive offensively than the Fab Five teams.....who guards Rice on that team? I dont think anybody on the 1993 can keep Rumeal more driving.
And, what if Sean Higgins shows up?
I'm taking the OVER on the game, thats for sure.
IMeO, the weakness of the '93 team was King and, to a lesser extent, Ray Jackson. Jackson, IIRC, played some pretty good defense. The outside shooting of the '93 team doesn't have someone like Rice that could consistently make outside shots.
On the '89 team, Mills was decent, and Vaught could be an force inside. The problem was, that team never knew if Higgins was going to show up or not. If he did, he could shoot and drive a little. Mark Hughes really didn't have to be defended much.
So, ultimately Jamie Mac, the game to me would come down to who guards Rice for the '93 team, pretty much as you said.
Howard is not mobile enough, so its probably Ray Jackson (for quickness, they could put Rose or King, but then you have a more difficult match up in trying to guard Rumeal and Higgins; so Jackson has to guard Rice). As a sophmore (like the rest of the fab 5), Jackson was not near as effective as when he was a junior an senior, when I though he became a pretty damn good player. But Jackson as a sophmore gets eaten up by Glen Rice.
Both Rose and Higgins were tall for guards, with Rose being taller. Higgins was not a huge threat to drive, and I think Rose shuts down Higgins jumper.
King would have a problem with Robinson's drive, but so would Rose. But King would also have a problem trying to stop Higgins jumper, so I would play the guards this way.
I loved the way he would drive to the hoop from along the baseline. Looked like he had no space and then he was dunking. Sweetness
I changed my mind.
'89 wins because The Fab Five never existed.
Webber did not lose his mind, watch the tape again and look for Michael Talley motioning and yelling time out...he panicked and called time out game over.
It's a good question, the common belief now as the years fade away is that the fab 5 we're this rim rattling high flying high scoring circus. The reality is that they were a horrible shooting team that played great defense and they passed the ball very well and played a great team game to get where they were. The Semifinal game against Kentucky was theri best game and the fab 5 at their best as they smothered Travis Ford and stifled Kentucky on their way to a huge upset win.
Tough call I take Rice and 89
Ditka.
But da hurricane, is Hurricane Ditka.
question, Ditka is god.
I tend to think 1989.
'93 has a front court edge.
'89 has a back court edge.
But, I think the back court edge is greater for the 1989 team, than the front court edge for the 93 team. Vaught and Higgins would do enough on the glass to hold their own.
The 93 team may have snuffed out a decent college guard like Travis Ford, but they would not have enough defensive or offensive answers for the 1989 team's perimeter team.
Plus, the 93 team was not great at the line. You have to think that would come into play.
All good responses everybody....hopefully we get some more talk going on this one throughout the day.
And Zif...yeah, I know about Talley. That's been the story/excuse ever since the TO happened. You say Webber panicked. Most people who panic are losing their mind.
89 team wins on a free throw by Rumeal Robinson after Webber gets a technical for calling a timeout that they don't have...
While I loved the '93 team, I think the '89 team would win. Sure, Webber and Rose would be hard to stop, but Mills and Vaught could probably match up decently with Webber and Howard up front, and Robinson and Rose would cancel each other out given how both teams played. But while the '93 team was full of young athletes who played incredibly hard, that '89 team was led by Rice and a bunch of other upperclassmen, and that experience cannot be overlooked.
Nobody on that '93 team could match point-for-point with Rice, and that '89 team led the nation in FG% at 56.6, 45.8 from 3-pt. By comparison, that '93 team shot 49.9% from the field, 35% from 3-pt. Both played statistically-similar defenses (opponent FG%, 3-pt%, and rebounds were about the same), so unless the '93 team could take Rice out of the game, I just don't see the '93 team being able to match the '89 team shot-for-shot at the same wore on. It would be a a fun game to watch, though.
BTW - Love the mgoblue stat archives.
The '93 team would win because they have baggy shorts and black shoes with black socks (two of the coolest things brought to hoops since the 3 point line). Even though they never won a title they did more for basketball than any team in the history of basketball. They should all get rings for getting rid of those God awalful short shorts...
1966 Texas Western would disagree.
And, any of Alcindor or Walton's UCLA teams; the George Mason team in 2006; IU's 1976 team; and the Houston Phi Slamma Jamm's all would enter the argument. And, do so successfully.
All those teams are culturally as significant as the Fab Five and all of them, IMO, did more for basketball than the Fab Five.
Shorts and socks? Those are fashion statements, not hoops.
Did you really think I was being serious when I said that? I must apologize because I was joking. What I was getting at was my hatred of the old school short shorts and as a tall white dude with long legs, I thank the Fab Five before everytime I step into a gym wearing shorts below my knees...
But, a lot of people actually have said the Fab Five are among the most historically significant teams out there....and, i disagree....i really did think you were promoting that line.....sorry about that, but, hey, at least I was civil in my mistake.....my problem is I have such a love/hate relationship with that era of UM hoops, that I am pretty quick to tear it down when people are idealistic about it. Regardless, even if you did think that, I would still be glad you chipped in your e-pinion on the thread.
about the shorts....espn classic has been running every title game all week. Man, those old shorts from the 1980s are fantastic in just how awful they were.