The 2012 Champions vs last years team
- Thread starter screwduke
- Start date
All the metrics put them really close, with a slight edge to last year's team. By the numbers, they're in the top 3 teams since '96, along with '09 UNC.
Anyone rational can recognize that they're really, really close.
Of course, many people are not rational, and will emotionally say that '12 would win comfortably because they "won when it counted", even though Wisconsin was way better than anybody '12 played in March and way better than both of the teams that beat '12. Wisconsin was not as good as '12 nor '15 UK, but was capable of beating both, and unfortunately, after being the clutchest team in the world all season, we had a bad last two minutes against the POY and his posse.
Reality is, it's a 5/5 series.
Anyone rational can recognize that they're really, really close.
Of course, many people are not rational, and will emotionally say that '12 would win comfortably because they "won when it counted", even though Wisconsin was way better than anybody '12 played in March and way better than both of the teams that beat '12. Wisconsin was not as good as '12 nor '15 UK, but was capable of beating both, and unfortunately, after being the clutchest team in the world all season, we had a bad last two minutes against the POY and his posse.
Reality is, it's a 5/5 series.
Reality is last years team would win a 7 game series 7/10 times. Maybe more. 15 had best defense of all time, more depth, higher point differential. Platoon system would wear 12 team down, that is if Poythress is healthy. IMO I think Last years team is the most talented team ever assembled for college basketball. It's definitely a top 5 team of all time and might even be better than the 96 Cats
Very close, IMO.
I think '96 would beat both '12 and '15 handily. Last year's team was amazing, but '96 is what would have happened if some of those players would have stayed another two years.
'12 is a testament to the "best player" theory. College basketball is a team sport in theory; in reality you see a lot of teams winning simply because they've got the best player on the court. See UCONN. Davis could negate so much for Kentucky, and as good as '15 was they didn't have a player who was that dominant--not even Towns. I looked out at Wisconsin that night and I think a case could be made that they had both the best player on the court and the second best on the court. '12 never ran into anything like that.
I think '96 would beat both '12 and '15 handily. Last year's team was amazing, but '96 is what would have happened if some of those players would have stayed another two years.
'12 is a testament to the "best player" theory. College basketball is a team sport in theory; in reality you see a lot of teams winning simply because they've got the best player on the court. See UCONN. Davis could negate so much for Kentucky, and as good as '15 was they didn't have a player who was that dominant--not even Towns. I looked out at Wisconsin that night and I think a case could be made that they had both the best player on the court and the second best on the court. '12 never ran into anything like that.
Hard to say in just a one game scenario, but, I will say that there is no way that the 2012 team would lose to Wisconsin.
Depends on when they played the game. If we are talking about November 11/12 v November 14/15 I say 14/15 wins going away but if we are talking March 2012 v March 2015 I say 2012.
I think 2015 played too long of a season and kinda ran out of gas at the end. They played all summer long and were great at the start of the season but it looked to me like they lost their killer instinct at some point in February. If you watch them in that game against KU it looked like they were on speed. They got to every ball, seemingly got every rebound and blocked everything in the paint but towards the end of the season it almost seemed like they were just going through the motions. I didn't see that same team play in the NCAAT.
2012 got stronger and stronger through the season. So I think it just depends on at what point in the season they would have played.
I think 2015 played too long of a season and kinda ran out of gas at the end. They played all summer long and were great at the start of the season but it looked to me like they lost their killer instinct at some point in February. If you watch them in that game against KU it looked like they were on speed. They got to every ball, seemingly got every rebound and blocked everything in the paint but towards the end of the season it almost seemed like they were just going through the motions. I didn't see that same team play in the NCAAT.
2012 got stronger and stronger through the season. So I think it just depends on at what point in the season they would have played.
depends on whether we consider Poythress fully healthy or not counted in the competition.
2012 would most likely win(-Poythress), utilizing stats on that team is silly. They had 3 freshmen starter that got better and better as season progressed. (Especially Davis). KAT made huge progress but not like Davis.
2012 would most likely win(-Poythress), utilizing stats on that team is silly. They had 3 freshmen starter that got better and better as season progressed. (Especially Davis). KAT made huge progress but not like Davis.
We had a debate about this during the season. I said 2012 then and nothing happened to change my mind.
I understand that 2015 was better statistically. My view was that 2012 was more short-handed, and thus Cal had a tendency to let the air out with that team.
Really, the only thing that could beat them was foul trouble. So it was in our best interest to minimize possessions once we built a lead, especially considering the tendency of officials to switch gears once the game's margin is in close proximity to the spread.
Imo, 2012 was better at every position on the floor.
AD was better than Towns.
MKG better than Lyles.
Teague a better floor general than Andrew.
Lamb a better shooter than Aaron.
TJ better all around player than WCS.
Darius off the bench provided experience that 2015 didn't have. This mattered more in April than December.
I realize some of these are debatable. Which is great. Two terrific teams that were fun to watch.
But my money is on 2012. I would say 4-2 in a best of 7.
I understand that 2015 was better statistically. My view was that 2012 was more short-handed, and thus Cal had a tendency to let the air out with that team.
Really, the only thing that could beat them was foul trouble. So it was in our best interest to minimize possessions once we built a lead, especially considering the tendency of officials to switch gears once the game's margin is in close proximity to the spread.
Imo, 2012 was better at every position on the floor.
AD was better than Towns.
MKG better than Lyles.
Teague a better floor general than Andrew.
Lamb a better shooter than Aaron.
TJ better all around player than WCS.
Darius off the bench provided experience that 2015 didn't have. This mattered more in April than December.
I realize some of these are debatable. Which is great. Two terrific teams that were fun to watch.
But my money is on 2012. I would say 4-2 in a best of 7.
You know the teams are very good when you squeak 10 games out of a 7 game series.
There's no chance. Davis would own his position. Lamb, unlike Booker, was as good the last night as he was the first.
The numbers aren't going to be consistent here becuSe it's two different teams in two different years. They played totally different teams.
2012 UK would probably go undefeated with that schedule if they made it out of OOC. I totally disagree.
2012 wins, in one game, because that's all they'd play.
JW put up your graphing calculator. It won't help you beat me in the actual sport!!
Last edited:
Not to mention, 2012 sailed pretty easily to a title. Why anyone wants to leave out that MASSIVE tidbit is beyond my thinking. 2015 had issues starting at the elite 8. I'm not sure 2015 UK would make it past the 2012 sweet 16 against a damn good Indiana team. Actually, I'm not sure they would have at all. It took 2012 playing flawless and scoring well over 100 to beat them.
Anyway, it's not worth discussing. One is a final four team, the other is a national champion. The results trump over-inflated mathmatics.
Last edited:
The one caveat, imo, is Poythress. Had he not gone down, I'm not sure anyone could have ever scored enough on us.
2015 with a healthy Alex is the ultimate in what might have been.
I would pay a Lot of money for a five game series... Could you imagine Davis vs Towns.
I trusted the 2012 team a lot more, that's for sure. Unlike the 2010 team and the 2015 team, (the two teams people argue were better) they came out and took care of business every night. They didn't have as many blowouts, but they would come out and win by an appropriate margin every single night. The other two teams had too many close games against teams that were nothing special for me to trust them to come out and play well consistently, especially against good teams. Last year we had a lot of players who you never knew what you were going to get from them on any given night. In 2010 we had very clear flaws as a group that could be exploited.
As for who would win in a game, I don't agree with the notion that "one team won the title and the other didn't and that's that". It's more complicated than that, especially depending on the parameters of the scenario. Are we talking about going back in a time machine and grabbing them as they were, or gathering them together now and playing? That obviously changes things.
As for who would win in a game, I don't agree with the notion that "one team won the title and the other didn't and that's that". It's more complicated than that, especially depending on the parameters of the scenario. Are we talking about going back in a time machine and grabbing them as they were, or gathering them together now and playing? That obviously changes things.
funny how for some it will remain 2010. that team had so much muscle it was ridiculous. i thought orton for instance was on his way to being a stud at uk. he actually had a very wide set of skills imo (outlet passing, fronting the post, shooting touch). he was a heady player and he knew how to create space. all that and he came off the bench. so yeah, add wall, bledsoe to that front line and yeah, that team could beat any uk team in history probably. i'll even say that that team may be the only one i'd consider that could beat the '96 team straight up. '96 team is my favorite ever, but how could they stop cousins? how could they press bledsoe and wall? yeah if they forced them to pass out of a trap, but how could you trap them in the open court? a 1-3-1 half court is one thing, but a 2-2-1 full court ain't stopping wall. in fact it'd just leave less bodies around the goal once he beats everyone there.
anyway '96 team was a team of destiny and had insane depth and versatility and experience, but i like the way the 2010 team matches up with them. pitino's system struggled against great guard play. that burned us against arizona, michigan, unc in the tournament. if guards could handle the sped up tempo and take the fouling, and finish, you get easy points against the press.
Last edited:
I'm bias to that team as well. Big Cuz, Wall,Bledsoe that team was my favorite plus the whole NIT thing pulse Billy Clide stuation was over.We were ****en back man, I mean back. From the basement apartment to the penthouse.
Until I'm very obviously proven wrong I will contend that 2010 is the greatest team in UK history. It took an absolute statistical nightmare for them to lose. Never has a team deserved a title as much as that one (well, maybe '66).
1978 would have handled all of them. Multiple defenses. Better shooting. Big. A lot tougher at all spots. Depth. Tried and true experience. Pure point guard.
Not arguing just asking a question. You said 2015 was the best defensive team of all time. Did you see the 96 team play. I mean really watch them play?
that team was very raw, but probably had the most talent in the starting 5. not as versatile a 5 as '96 or '12, but very very strong. they also didn't have the benefit of an epps, or miller. you know, a kentucky boy that already tournament experience, and wasn't going to let the team lose. if 2010 gets anything bad, it was the timing. it all happened at once, and those guys hadn't been through wars together. but you could argue their whole season was a war. like that game vs uconn, most teams would have lost that game. we were just extremely tough to beat.
Goose does not go for 41 vs MKG or Poythress.
Robey and Phillips do not out muscle AD, Jones, KAT, and WCS.
Macy would have hard time guarding Teague on drives.
And 78 was my favorite team until 1996.
Please...the 2012 was a machine when they put it together. While undefeated, you still saw chinks in 2015
You quoted the wrong guy.
I didn't make the statement.
But, yes, I saw every minute of that glorious season.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
The Ukraine war. (Yes, we'll mind our manners)- Latest: UKBrassowTipIN