Comparing '92-'93 bball to '12-'13
As you already know, the last time that the Michigan Wolverines were ranked #1 was during the 1992-1993 basketball season, when the fab five were in their second and final year of playing together. Other than the #1 ranking, there are actually a number of other similarities between that team and this year's team. Since it is snowing outside and I don't work on Fridays, I thought it would be interesting to compare the impact players from both teams. Chart? Chart.
| '92-'93 Impact Players | |||
| Player | 1992- 1993 stats (avg/game) | Draft Info | Other Notable Facts |
| Chris Webber | 19.2 pts, 10.2 rebs, 2.5 asst, 2.9 TO, 2.5 blk | #1 draft pick 1993 | 1993 1st Team All-American. In the range of #60-75 all-time NBA player. Ranked by ESPN as the #11 power forward of all-time. 5 time NBA all-star. |
| Jalen Rose | 15.4 pts, 4.2 rebs, 3.9 asst, 3.1 TO, 0.4 blk | #13 draft pick 1994 | 1994 Consensus 2nd team All-American, NBA All-Rookie Second Team |
| Juwan Howard | 14.6 pts, 7.4 rebs, 1.9 asst, 2.6 TO, 0.4 blk | #5 draft pick 1994 | NBA All-Rookie Second Team (1995), All-NBA Third Team (1996), NBA All-Star (1996) |
| Jimmy King | 10.8 pts, 4.4 rebs, 3.1 asst, 2.3 TO, 0.5 blk | #35 draft pick 1995 | |
| Ray Jackson | 9.0 pts, 4.1 rebs, 2.3 asst, 1.5 TO, 0.3 blk | undrafted | |
| Eric Riley | 5.6 pts, 4.8 rebs, 0.4 asst, 1.0 TO, 0.9 blk | #33 draft pick 1993 | |
| Rob Pelinka | 4.3 pts, 2.1 rebs, 1.0 asst, 0.5 TO, 0.0 blk | undrafted | |
| James Voskuil | 3.1 pts, 1.8 rebs, 0.5 asst, 0.7 TO, 0.2 blk | undrafted |
| '12-'13 Impact Players | |||
| Player | Season Stats (avg/game) | Anticipated Draft Status | Other Notable Facts and Projections |
| Trey Burke | 17.9 pts, 3.0 rebs, 7.1 asst, 1.9 TO, 0.4 blk | 2013 1st Round | Likely All-American, First Team All-Big Ten, Big Ten POY and candidate for National POY |
| Tim Hardaway Jr. | 15.5 pts, 5.0 rebs, 2.6 asst, 2.2 TO, 0.6 blk | 2014 Late 1st Round or Early 2nd Round | Candidate for All Big Ten this year, and should be a lock for Big Ten honors if he stays for his senior year. |
| Glen Robinson III | 12.1 pts, 5.8 rebs, 1.3 asst, 1.0 TO, 0.2 blk | 2014 1st Round | Could make a run at Big Ten POY next season if he stays. |
| Nik Stauskas | 12.6 pts, 3.0 rebs, 1.3 asst, 1.0 TO, 0.3 blk | 2015 1st Round | More than just a shooter. Canadian. |
| Jordan Morgan | 6.4 pts, 5.2 rebs, 0.4 asst, 1.2 TO, 0.2 blk | Undrafted | |
| Mitch McGary | 5.6 pts, 6.0 rebs, 0.4 asst, 1.0 TO, 0.7 blk | 2015 Late 1st Round or Early 2nd Round | Great motor. |
| Caris Levert | 3.0 pts, 0.9 rebs, 1.1 asst, 0.3 TO, 0.1 blk | Too hard to tell, could be drafted after Junior or Senior seaons. | |
| Jon Horford | 2.6 pts, 2.6 rebs, 0.3 asst, 0.4 TO, 0.6 blk | Unlikely that he will be drafted, but has potential | |
| Team | 78.0 pts, 37.0 rebs, 15.0 asst, 9.0 TO, 3.0 blk | Preseason #5 ranking, climbed to #1 in week 13 (ahead of Kansas and Indiana), anticipate a final top 5 ranking. Should finish either 1st or 2nd in the Big Ten Conference and make a strong NCAA Tournament run. 2-1 against currently ranked opponents. |
*Disclaimer: I am not an NBA scout, and I do not even play one on TV. My "anticipated draft status" is a combination of what I have read online, and my own untrained opinion. There is a very very good chance that both THJ and GRIII could enter the draft after this season. Draft Express only had them in their 2014 mock draft the last I saw, so that is where I have them for now.
Comparing the two teams (I am just going to use present tense and assume that time travel already happened): Both teams have 4 players averaging double digits PPG and both teams do a good job controlling the boards. Both have similar win percentages against ranked teams, but of course the 2012-2013 team has a much smaller sample size at this point; the next couple of weeks will give us a better sample of what this year's team can do against elite competition. The '92-'93 team was elite at blocking shots, but also turned the ball over at a much higher rate. The '12-'13 team plays a slower pace, but takes better care of the ball and has a much better assist to turnover ratio. The '92-'93 team featured that year's #1 draft pick and a second rounder, as well as 2 future first rounders and a future second round pick. It remains to be seen what is in store for this year's team in upcoming drafts, but they probably have 2 players who could go in the first round this year if they chose to leave early and another who could probably go in the second round this year. In total, I expect that this year's roster will match the '92-'93 roster with eventually 5 drafted players, and could add a sixth or even a seventh (optimism!!).
Questions: Who is the better team? Who is the more fun team to watch? If both teams were in this year's NCAA Tournament, who would have a better chance to win the title? I will post the answer key after all tests have been submitted.
February 1st, 2013 at 4:06 PM ^
broke my computer.
February 1st, 2013 at 4:11 PM ^
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.
February 1st, 2013 at 4:28 PM ^
I agree that Webber is the best individual player on either team, but I would argue that Burke is the best at making other players around him better.
February 1st, 2013 at 7:23 PM ^
by putting back their misses
February 2nd, 2013 at 12:27 AM ^
has great hands and has a natural knack of finding open players. He has great vision and can really pass. He literally can do it all for Michigan. Post up, run and jump, find cutters & open players, and score.
February 2nd, 2013 at 8:46 AM ^
February 1st, 2013 at 4:12 PM ^
Its a little early to project McGary and Stauskas as first rounders.
February 1st, 2013 at 7:24 PM ^
only whiter
February 2nd, 2013 at 8:59 AM ^
February 1st, 2013 at 4:13 PM ^
February 1st, 2013 at 4:29 PM ^
February 1st, 2013 at 4:32 PM ^
If you want to argue whether or not my analysis of Stauskas is accurate, bring it on! As for the charts, yeah...I'll try to do better next time.
February 1st, 2013 at 4:42 PM ^
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!
February 1st, 2013 at 4:50 PM ^
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.
February 1st, 2013 at 7:27 PM ^
in today's environment
February 1st, 2013 at 4:48 PM ^
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.
February 1st, 2013 at 4:50 PM ^
February 1st, 2013 at 5:47 PM ^
burke might be difficult to handle one-on-one but webber would be lurking in the paint to swat any shot of his in the lane into the 3rd row. plus, burke would have just as much trouble trying to guard the taller jalen. the hi and low post game with howard and webber would be tough for our current crew to stop.
the one thing in the current team's favor is their big edge in 3 pt shooting. that's an equalizer. ask the 89-90 team against loyola marrymount (sp). if those guys are on, they could win. but i think the fab 5 wins at least 7 out of 10 times.
February 2nd, 2013 at 10:05 AM ^
would probably also bite on trying to get unnecessary blocks, With Webber in the air, Burke would dish it off to a big man, a cutting GRIII or THJ, or a poised Stauskas on the perimeter. The ball moves around much better with the current team.
Also, discipline was a weakness of the Fab Five. Discipline is a strength of the current team. Mental toughness is a strength of the '12-'13 team according to Jimmy King quoted in the freep today.
February 1st, 2013 at 4:51 PM ^
February 1st, 2013 at 5:03 PM ^
That's an awfully cavalier dismissal of Jalen Rose. OK, I can see an argument of Jalen was somewhere between a PG and an SG while Burke is a clear natural PG, but if you asked me to choose between them, that is a very tough call, and I'd probably end up taking Jalen.
Also, if these teams were actually to play each other, C-Webb and Juwan would make things very very difficult down low. No way McGary and Morgan could contain them.
You're definitely right on teh coach though. They came because Fisher would let them play their game and not get in their way, but they never reached their full potential arguably because Fisher let them play their game and never tried to get in their way when they might have needed it.
February 2nd, 2013 at 12:25 AM ^
February 1st, 2013 at 4:53 PM ^
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.
February 1st, 2013 at 4:58 PM ^
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.
February 1st, 2013 at 6:00 PM ^
that is one guy that kept improving each year. by the time he was done, he was a solid 3 pt shooter, when he didn't have his toe on the damn 3pt line. in contrast, jimmy king didn't seem to get any better from frosh to senior.
February 1st, 2013 at 5:31 PM ^
February 1st, 2013 at 5:51 PM ^
IDK about anybody on the '93 bench starting for the current team. Maybe Riley, but with the way this team likes to play... IDK. Riley would be right in the mix with Morgan, McGary and Horford, but not a major upgrade. Riley's skill level was sub-par but he did have NBA size.
February 1st, 2013 at 5:56 PM ^
he definitely had his problems early in his career holding on to the damn ball. but by the time his graduated he was pretty solid. he would easily strart on the current team as a senior. his turnaround 10 ft bank shot became almost automatic. plus, he would be our best shot blocker.
February 1st, 2013 at 11:09 PM ^
February 1st, 2013 at 6:54 PM ^
Yeah, I think the bench was a little bit better than some people who did not follow the team closely back then realize. The Talley/Pelinka/Voskuil/Riley group played major minutes early in the 91-92 season and all except Pelinka were starters on the 90-91 Demetrius Calip led NIT team that was sandwiched between the Mills/Vaught/Robinson/Griffin/Higgins group and the Fab Five. Those guys were very experienced and pretty solid.
I think '93 Riley would start over '13 Morgan but the difference is pretty marginal. I am guessing that by next year McGary will be a more complete player than either one of those two.
February 1st, 2013 at 5:36 PM ^
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.
February 1st, 2013 at 5:42 PM ^
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.
Michigan: |
|
| vs Costal Carolina | W84-53 |
| vs UCLA | W 86-84 OT |
| vs George Washington | W72-64 |
| vs Temple | W 77-72 |
| vs Kentucky | W 81-78 OT |
| vs North Carolina | L 71-77 |
Kentucky: |
|
| vs Rider | W 96-52 |
| vs Utah | W 83-62 |
| vs Wake Forest | W 103-69 |
| vs Florida State | W 106-81 |
| vs Michigan | L 78-81 OT |
So after a trip down memory lane, I will have to say the Fab Five would beat the current Michigan Wolverines in OT.
February 1st, 2013 at 5:57 PM ^
We were drunk and delirious, standing on the steps of the Union after the game, watching the beautiful chaos below. Good times.
Two days later, not so much.
February 1st, 2013 at 11:15 PM ^
February 2nd, 2013 at 10:37 AM ^
that was the best game i've ever been to in person.
such a great memory, until...
February 1st, 2013 at 7:06 PM ^
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):
| 92-93 Final | 12-13 (Est.) | |
| FG% | 49.90% | 51.00% |
| 3FG% | 35.00% | 40.80% |
| FT% | 65.30% | 70.50% |
| Off. Rebounds | 566 | 297 |
| Def. Rebounds | 928 | 817 |
| Assists | 590 | 514 |
| Personal Fouls | 671 | 390 |
| Turnovers | 564 | 310 |
| Steals | 242 | 185 |
| Blocks | 191 | 95 |
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.
February 1st, 2013 at 7:00 PM ^
February 1st, 2013 at 7:13 PM ^
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.
February 1st, 2013 at 7:21 PM ^
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
February 1st, 2013 at 10:47 PM ^
It wouldn't be more than "slight edge to Stauskas"
Also, you'd have to put Morgan and McGary on Webber and GRIII on Howard.
Chris Webber would eat GRIII in the post.
Really your best bet defensively would be putting Morgan/McGary on Webber and Horford/McGary on Howard.
You'd just lose too much offensive with GRIII on the bench.
February 1st, 2013 at 11:27 PM ^
February 1st, 2013 at 8:38 PM ^
92-93 4 timeouts
12-13 3 timeouts
EDGE: 92-93.
February 1st, 2013 at 11:21 PM ^
February 2nd, 2013 at 8:41 AM ^
Meh, I like Womens basketball more. Where I can't find much of a history for UM.
February 2nd, 2013 at 1:49 PM ^
There's a reason that the ONLY fans that prefer women's basketball to men's are fans of schools that have elite women's teams and average-at-best men's programs. Otherwise, it's like preferring Arena League football to the NFL.
February 1st, 2013 at 8:41 PM ^
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.
February 1st, 2013 at 11:27 PM ^
February 2nd, 2013 at 1:15 AM ^
Voskuil hit 23 three pointers all season. Yeah he shot 47%, but he didn't get nearly enough shots. Looking at the numbers, he just didn't get enough playing time. He was only out there for 11 minutes a game. So maybe the Fab 5 DID have a great shooter on the team and Fisher just blew it and never let him play.
I still say that if you put a guy like Stauskas (shooting 54-109 from 3) on that Fab 5 team (and assume the coach actually plays him and they give him the ball) they would have been unstoppable. There is no way to collapse on Webber and Howard AND guard the perimeter. Most teams just gave those Fab 5 teams the perimeter because they weren't that great at shooting and leaving Webber and Howard in single coverage was suicide.
February 1st, 2013 at 9:45 PM ^
On the other hand, this year's team has a distinct advantage in Canadians.
February 2nd, 2013 at 12:33 PM ^
I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from that one play. Webber did not normally bring the ball up for that team. It just happened that all of his teammates except Rose ran upcourt after the rebound (a brain fart on their part, especially King's) and Rose was closely guarded, so Webber decided to bring it up himself. He did not usually have to do that.
But in any event, the Webber/Morgan comparison isn't very good, because Webber was a far more skilled ballhandler and could bring it up if absolutely necessary.