Best team not to win it all?

[orange03]

That's a complicated road to go down, I don't think that was the OP's intent. If this thread is about who would win in a game between 1987 players and 2010 players, that to me is totally different than asked who the "best" team is. Historically, what we consider to be the "best" players or teams are judged based on how good they are relative to the opponents they face.

Would fat drunk Babe Ruth lead the league in home runs in the year 2012? No, but he's considered one of the very greatest baseball players ever because he dominated in his time.

He might have. Of all pro sports baseball is probably the only one where the physical growth of players wouldn't be so overwhelming to those of the early days. Also stadiums back then were much larger than what we have today.

 

[CaptainJ]

That's a complicated road to go down, I don't think that was the OP's intent. If this thread is about who would win in a game between 1987 players and 2010 players, that to me is totally different than asked who the "best" team is. Historically, what we consider to be the "best" players or teams are judged based on how good they are relative to the opponents they face.

Would fat drunk Babe Ruth lead the league in home runs in the year 2012? No, but he's considered one of the very greatest baseball players ever because he dominated in his time.

I agree with you on everything you've said, but with that logic 87 should slip past 89 being they were within about an inch of winning it all twice. But I see where you are coming from. If it is relative to the field, I can't remember being such a favorite any other season than in 2010. Dammit, that Babe Ruth think really threw me off track.

 

[realorange]

That's a complicated road to go down, I don't think that was the OP's intent. If this thread is about who would win in a game between 1987 players and 2010 players, that to me is totally different than asked who the "best" team is. Historically, what we consider to be the "best" players or teams are judged based on how good they are relative to the opponents they face.

Would fat drunk Babe Ruth lead the league in home runs in the year 2012? No, but he's considered one of the very greatest baseball players ever because he dominated in his time.

I hear you, but having said what you did, the 1989 team was the best against 1989 opponents or 2010 opponents. For anyone that saw them, I believe they would agree.

 

[orangenirvana]

He might have. Of all pro sports baseball is probably the only one where the physical growth of players wouldn't be so overwhelming to those of the early days. Also stadiums back then were much larger than what we have today.

Actually I think you're right. The Babe is probably a poor comparison.

 

[Marsh01]

Would fat drunk Babe Ruth lead the league in home runs in the year 2012? No, but he's considered one of the very greatest baseball players ever because he dominated in his time.

Seeing that the fences were like 30 feet farther for almost every stadium back then I would have to say hell yes he would have.

 

[skurey]

Making comparisons with all the dumb Yankees fans on here isn't going to work

 

[orangefog]

How fast did pitchers throw back in Babe's day?

 

[jekelish]

Actually, looking at the roster again, I changing my vote to the 1989 squad.

Sherman Douglas
Matt Roe
Stevie Thompson
Billy Owens
Derrick Coleman

You don't even have to go beyond that starting five. Three of them are among, probably, the six best players in SU history (along worth, of course, Bing, Melo and Pearl). Another is one of our all-time leading scorers.

In retrospect, it's really not close. That starting five would decimate most teams these days.

 

[pfister1]

Would fat drunk Babe Ruth lead the league in home runs in the year 2012? No, but he's considered one of the very greatest baseball players ever because he dominated in his time.

Well consider for a moment Prince Fielder, David Wells, David Ortiz, CC Sabbathia, Mo Vaughn, Tony Gwynn, Pablo Sandoval, Fernando Valuenzuela, John Kruk, Bartolo Colon, Cecil Fielder, Dmitri Young, Rich Garces, Bob Wickman... I think Babe Ruth may have been a relative Adonis compared to some of those guys.

Fat, drunk and stupid may be no way to go through life...that is unless you are a major league baseball player, then it may be just fine. Still the only sport where a bucket of KFC and a six pack of bud are an acceptable pre game meal, at least in Boston.

 

[HOFCeluck]

I feel like the 1989 squad was great "on paper" but didn't quite perform to that level. This is a team that went 30-8, didn't win the Big East regular season or tournament, and made it just short of the final four. Because of this I just can't put it above the 86-87 team.

But the 1989's starting five was just filthy.

 

[realorange]

I feel like the 1989 squad was great "on paper" but didn't quite perform to that level. This is a team that went 30-8, didn't win the Big East regular season or tournament, and made it just short of the final four. Because of this I just can't put it above the 86-87 team.

But the 1989's starting five was just filthy.

We're talking about the best SU team never to win the NC. Not about what it did during the regular season against better competition than most SU teams faced.

 

[orange03]

I feel like the 1989 squad was great "on paper" but didn't quite perform to that level. This is a team that went 30-8, didn't win the Big East regular season or tournament, and made it just short of the final four. Because of this I just can't put it above the 86-87 team.

But the 1989's starting five was just filthy.

I think that JB is a much better coach now than he was then. I'm guessing that if today's JB could coach that team the W/L record would be much better.

 

[BostonOrange]

I think that JB is a much better coach now than he was then. I'm guessing that if today's JB could coach that team the W/L record would be much better.

I think that is a good point. Also, I think 89 is the most talented team we've ever had, but 2010 had the best chance to win it all because it was such a down year. Even if 89 team beats Ill we still have to go through a really good Mich team and a good Seton Hall team (though we owned them)

 

[newmexicuse]

There really can be no debate on this topic. The '87 team was a DC FT or a long Keith Smart J from the title. You simply can't be any better than that wo actually winning the title. That team's success and closeness to a title was a factoid !!!

After '87, it is hard to not like the AO team if no injury or this year's team w Fab, or the '89 team wo injury in any order(though personally I would go with the AO team). Nonetheless, it is all arguable and speculative about what might have been with those squads. The '87 teams seperates itself by being sooooooo close & actually having gotten to the penultimate play.

 

[UnderHisOwnPower]

The 90-91 Vegas squad

Phi Slamma Jamma - no way should the Wolf Pack have even been in that game

 

[Eric15]

How fast did pitchers throw back in Babe's day?

"We'll put an asterisk next to Barry Bonds' name, sure, as soon as we put one next to Babe Ruth's name. Getting to break records before black people were allowed to play? Excuse me, where is that asterisk? Why don't people talk about that? How many homers do you think Babe Ruth would of hit if CC was throwing 92 mph sliders across the plate?" -Daniel Tosh

 

[moqui]

Seeing that the fences were like 30 feet farther for almost every stadium back then I would have to say hell yes he would have.

plus, you can argue that if you took today's pampered millionaires back to an era where they had no modern training aids, had to do all their travel by train, and made very little money, many would fail to maintain their current levels

you can only judge athletes and teams by what they did in their era . . . if they were great in their time, then they were great, period.

 

[orange2win]

You seem to be placing emphasis on least number of loses in a season. This is influenced by the number of games played, so percent winning record is better than using loses. Here are the best teams based on this measure:

1. 2011-12 team. Record 34-3 (91.8%) - Joseph, Fair, Melo, Waiters, Triche, Jardine, Southerland. Got to E8 in NCAA (was a #1 seed)
2. 1976-77 team. Record 26-4 (86.7%) - Bouie, Shackleford, Byrnes, Williams, Kelley, Kindel, Orr. Got to S16 in NCAA
2. 1978-79 team. Record 26-4 (86.7%) - Bouie, Shackleford, Headd, Orr, Cohen, Moss, Harmon. Got to S16 in NCAA
2. 1979-80 team. Record 26-4 (86.7%) - Bouie, Orr, Headd, Moss, Santifer, Payton, Schayes. Got to S16 in NCAA (was a #1 seed)
3. 2009-10 team. Record 30-5 (85.7%) - Johnson, Rautins, Joseph, Jackson, Jardine, Triche, Onuaku. Got to S16 in NCAA

 

[albanycuse]

Nice thread, i started the exact same one like six months ago.

 

[HOFCeluck]

I know. Good job!

 

[ORRange]

Any of the late 80's teams from 86-90 were better than the two current teams '10 and '12. Guys like Sherm,DC and Billy would be one and dones now. And they stayed for at least 3 years. Big difference. Hate to say it but some of the stars on the '10 and '12 might not have gotten 20 minutes a game......AO, Andy, Brandon, Rick, KJ, Scoop...probably only Wes and definitely Dion would have played quality minutes. Anyone that thinks Dion isn't ready for the NBA is a poor judge of talent. Tough to judge teams from different eras but I'll go with the team that lost to the Hoosiers even though I don't think they were the most talented. There were a few teams that followed them that were really talented. JMO. '87. That team should have been champs and they came the closest.

 

[ORRange]

Nice thread, i started the exact same one like six months ago.

I guess you need to grow longer arms to pat yourself on the back. Just saying. lol. It's a nice debate and has a place to be brought up twice a year with a Corona.

 

[pfister1]

I have to wonder why you have the 87-88 (Rhode Island) and 90-91 teams (Richmond) there and not the 88-89 Elite 8 squad that is one of only 5 in school history to notch 30 wins . . . I would even put the 89-90 team ahead of those two; that team was so deep and talented it was able to win the BE regular season, advance to the BET finals and the Sweet 16 with Mikey Edwards and Stevie Thompson playing point guard (oh, if only Earl Duncan hadn't transferred . . .)

One other addition I would make to your list is the 79-80 team; that year is mostly remembered for John Thompson officially closing Manley Field House, but my dad went to his grave believing they were just some really bad officiating away from beating Iowa and probably heading to the Final Four.

I have the 88-89 first. Was torn on the 89-90 team. I did not include them because I felt like they were fatally flawed no matter what they accomplished, also didn't want my list to be entirely composed of Derrick Coleman teams. While I recall the 79-80 season very vaguely, it was too early for me to really have a sense for what the team was about.

 

[OttoMets]

SU 1989 - powerhouse team. If DC doesn't get injured in the season finale (even though he returned banged up for the Sweet 16 games) that team wins it all.

Four of five starters shot better than 50% from the field for the year. The fifth (Matt Roe, the shooting guard) only managed to hit 49.2% of his field goal attempts.

Loaded. They didn't have the same heart that the 2010 and 2012 teams had, but it was a tremendous team.

 

[ORRange]

I have the 88-89 first. Was torn on the 89-90 team. I did not include them because I felt like they were fatally flawed no matter what they accomplished, also didn't want my list to be entirely composed of Derrick Coleman teams. While I recall the 79-80 season very vaguely, it was too early for me to really have a sense for what the team was about.

The 79-80 was unreal. When Rosie picked up his 5th foul the referee actually said "Bouie that's your 5th , you're out of here". The ref is not suppose to know how many fouls each player has on him and Moqui's dad was correct...but I try not to whine. That game hurt every bit as the last few. AO, FAB. I think we will love next years edition. LGO.