MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: NersEllenson on September 05, 2014, 03:52:21 PM
-
Heavy debate in the Haanif thread. Interesting to see how the board sees this question.
For anyone who argues that Davante Gardner wasn't offensively elite, that seems foolish. Gardner as a junior finished in The Top 100 players in all of college basketball in 9 different offensive categories. IN the Top 10 of ALL college basketball players in 2 offensive categories - FG percentage and Free Throw Rate (pretty important categories)
As Juniors, Gardner's O Rating was 62nd in the country. Blue as a Junior was 992. For context, Blue's best season (his junior year) he did not finish in the Top 100 players in ANY offensive category NOR Defensive categories. He was 539th in the country in steals.....did not block 1 shot, nor was he ever known as a guy who EVER would take a charge (a skill most elite defenders master.)
For the above reasons, that is why I vote Gardner a better college player.
http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=davante-gardner&davante-gardner=2012-2013&i=1&p1=vander-blue&vander-blue=2012-2013
-
This will end well.
-
I think Gardner was better but being his position and size he was unable to lead a team (not slim/athletic enough to play PF or SF) so while we could count that his numbers were always gonna be good he didn't better the team. Blue meanwhile was all over and played well in three different positions all the while leading a team to many victories and an elite 8. The difference between last year being great or bad was a player like Blue able to lead. Gardner was great as a player Blue did a lot of stuff beyond just be a player.
-
I think Gardner was better but being his position and size he was unable to lead a team (not slim/athletic enough to play PF or SF) so while we could count that his numbers were always gonna be good he didn't better the team. Blue meanwhile was all over and played well in three different positions all the while leading a team to many victories and an elite 8. The difference between last year being great or bad was a player like Blue able to lead. Gardner was great as a player Blue did a lot of stuff beyond just be a player.
One year.
-
One year.
The year he was looked to. Did you expect him to do it on Jimmy's team? DJO and Crowder's team? I certainly didn't, heck if he did do that stuff we'd all be upset that he was taking possessions from those leaders. He stepped up when it was his turn and unfortunately left before his turn was up.
-
I get Vander for 3 years in a guard position in which there are other guards that are close to as good, supply and demand.
or
I get DG for 4 years in a post position in which his replacement is more difficult to find at close to that level.
I take DG if I'm thinking big picture, multi-year impact. If it's for only one year, I think differently.
-
I saw Gardner as a one-trick pony. A phenomenally efficient low block scorer. Great hands, great feet. Poor defender. I still shudder thinking about him guarding the perimeter during the Oxtule experiment. Rebounding stats padded by rebounding his own misses. A decent passer who chose not to. Never got serious about his conditioning. Pouted visibly when he did not get the ball when he wanted it. Pouted visibly when he didn't get a foul call on the offensive end. Admitted that he hadn't been practicing hard as a senior.
I saw Blue as a very talented guard who got steadily better every year. Played both ends. Could create his own shot. Understood the defensive rotations. Leader when it was his turn. Wanted the ball at crunch time. I hate to speculate like this, but if his progression arc had continued, he probably would have seen several minutes per game at the point. According to posters on Dodd's board (right Buzzcrush?) his absence was cited by the team as one of the main reasons for the poor year. He was a jerk, but the kind of jerk the team followed.
-
"Vander, how does it feel to make the sweet 16?"
"I don't know. How does it feel not to?"
-
No contest.
Vander Blue.
Gardner was a good offensive college player, who often struggled on defense.
Vander was an outstanding offensive and defensive college player.
-
Vander was an outstanding offensive player.
Would never use outstanding to describe his offensive game. Agree to disagree.
-
What bugs me about Gardner is that if he'd really slimmed down taking conditioning and such seriously he could've been playing PF and absolutely demolishing people. But he didn't he was content. Maybe he has a thyroid thing We don't know about but it just seems like with a bit more serious in preparation he could've been playing athletically enough to lead a team that needed a leader.
-
The year he was looked to. Did you expect him to do it on Jimmy's team? DJO and Crowder's team? I certainly didn't, heck if he did do that stuff we'd all be upset that he was taking possessions from those leaders. He stepped up when it was his turn and unfortunately left before his turn was up.
Very nice point.
FWIW, I would take 4 years of Gardner over 3 years of Blue, but I would take the junior Vander with the game on the line.
-
I voted Gardner. You can base your argument on Blue's junior year, but Gardner was also on that team. My thoughts is that Gardner's senior year would have been much more successful with Blue at the two instead of Thomas. On the flip side what if Blue stayed and Gardner left? I do not think the team would have been any better in that case.
-
Very nice point.
FWIW, I would take 4 years of Gardner over 3 years of Blue, but I would take the junior Vander with the game on the line.
That's where I land
-
Devante played above expectations; Vander played below expectations.
Just my opinion.
-
Very nice point.
FWIW, I would take 4 years of Gardner over 3 years of Blue, but I would take the junior Vander with the game on the line.
From a point of view of someone who could lead a team and someone you could build a team around it is Vander by far. Vander could be successful without Gardner. Gardner needs someone to get him the ball and score as was shown last yr.
In relative comparison to position neither are on the all-MU team but Gardner would be on the all-decade team while Blue most likely would not. In the last ten yrs our power forwards/centers were Ox, Tule, Hayward, Butler, Jackson, Ousmane and Burke. In comparison to that list he is arguably our 3-4 best player. Blue light be top 15 as a guard.
Gardner appears better because our lack of front court makes him look better while our plethora of quality guards makes Blue looks worse.
I think college is a guards game so Blue without OX would be better than OX without Blue.
-
Gardner played better in college and over 4 years was great, so i voted for him. Now however Blue is and NBA border line player and is way better.
-
Devante played above expectations; Vander played below expectations.
Just my opinion.
I agree with this.
-
Team success, clutch gene, and leadership make this an easy decision for me. Vander Blue
-
Vander was an outstanding offensive and defensive college player.
[/quote]
... in 4 or 5 games.
which, admittedly were important games.
Gardner was limited by Buzz and could have been better. We got the best Vander will ever produce.
-
Well, I started this in the other thread so thanks to Ners for moving it to it's own thread.
Here's where I land on this: When I think of what makes a great basketball player -- athletic (can run and jump and cover large areas of the court with ease), good (and willing) defender, killer instinct/leadership -- Vander has more of these qualities than Davante. Davante was unique...he was very good at his best attribute, but frankly he kind of stunk at most everything else.
Davante was one of the most fun and by far the most frustrating to watch player at MU that I can remember. He could put it in the bucket like nobody else, but his body language was terrible and more often than not he looked less than interested. Vander was also frustrating to watch early in his career, but at least I never got the impression that he didn't care/wasn't trying his hardest to win.
-
Vander was also frustrating to watch early in his career, but at least I never got the impression that he didn't care/wasn't trying his hardest to win.
I think there were moments when people questioned that....refusing the high five's, the body language after a tough shooting night his freshman year, the Vander Orange incident with another student.
-
Vander was, spare a few games here and there, mediocre for 2/3rds of his college career. Vander's signature move his Freshman and Sophomore years was to drive the lane and put up a prayer that had zero chance of going in. Hell, he looked like he hadn't progressed at all the first month of his, later quite superlative Junior year.
Davante, no contest. He had a steady progression of being an out of shape foul machine to a solid junior and outstanding senior.
-
Blue's a better playa. Gardner was a waste of space. Havin' said that, both were disappointin', albeit, for different reasons.
-
What I like about Wojo's recruits is they say they know how to make good decisions. Blue often did not make good decisions, which drove me nutts.
-
Vander was an outstanding offensive and defensive college player.
... in 4 or 5 games.
which, admittedly were important games.
Gardner was limited by Buzz and could have been better. We got the best Vander will ever produce.
Gardner was not limited by in any way.
-
Vander, hands down. Pretty good defense, and made some huge shots that made that season what it was.
-
Heavy debate in the Haanif thread. Interesting to see how the board sees this question.
For anyone who argues that Davante Gardner wasn't offensively elite, that seems foolish. Gardner as a junior finished in The Top 100 players in all of college basketball in 9 different offensive categories. IN the Top 10 of ALL college basketball players in 2 offensive categories - FG percentage and Free Throw Rate (pretty important categories)
As Juniors, Gardner's O Rating was 62nd in the country. Blue as a Junior was 992. For context, Blue's best season (his junior year) he did not finish in the Top 100 players in ANY offensive category NOR Defensive categories. He was 539th in the country in steals.....did not block 1 shot, nor was he ever known as a guy who EVER would take a charge (a skill most elite defenders master.)
For the above reasons, that is why I vote Gardner a better college player.
http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=davante-gardner&davante-gardner=2012-2013&i=1&p1=vander-blue&vander-blue=2012-2013
I agree with you that Gardner was a better college player. He was tearing it up his sophomore year until he got injured. I believe if he wouldn't have hurt the knee that year we could have made the elite 8 or beyond. When ever Davante touched the ball I felt like he was a legitimate threat to score or make a solid pass to an open cutter. I think what he was able to achieve as a Senior with the handicap of Buzz coaching ,and all that entailed.was evidence of his ability.
Yes Vander did many good things his junior year. I was at the Garden when he made that last second shot and I can tell you that everyone in the building knew he was getting the ball and he still made a clutch shot. My issue with Vander was that he still had games where he didn't show up. Not a lot his junior , but just enough so that you couldn't count on him.
In life beyond college yes Vander is a better player and I would pick him over Davante. Davante was a prototype college star and also a very fun player to watch and I would pick him every time over Vander in college.
-
Yes Vander did many good things his junior year. I was at the Garden when he made that last second shot and I can tell you that everyone in the building knew he was getting the ball and he still made a clutch shot. My issue with Vander was that he still had games where he didn't show up. Not a lot his junior , but just enough so that you couldn't count on him.
In the last 32 games of his junior year, Vander only failed to score in double digits 6 times. That same year, Davante failed to score in double digits in 9 of his final 17 games, including three games in which he had 2 points each (and totaled 5 rebounds in those 3 games). So who didn't show up for what?
While Vander was scoring 123 points in our last 7 games, including the BE-winning finale against St. John's and the NCAA run, Davante was scoring 70.
Look, one can always find stats to make any argument.
I'll stand by what I said: I'll take Gardner's 4 years over Vander's 3 but I'll take Vander's clutch play as a junior.
-
Blue was decent his junior year in spurts. Gardner was a force for long stretches from sophomore year on.
I love these guys comparing Vander's defense to McNeal's. McNeal was a HORRENDOUS defender after his sophomore year and there is plenty of YouTube evidence to back me up. It tells me all these dopes claiming to see things on the court that others don't are just that...dopes. Kind of like people who claim they post all day at work because it helps them work.
Vander Blue, as a junior guard who had been starting for 3 years, averaged more turnovers than assists. That is bad. He was not a bust, he was not horrible. He was a serviceable guard who Had some nice moments. As far as his professional prospects, he has some size and athleticism. He can't shoot, is a poor ball handler and is questionable decision maker (not as bad as McNeal in that regard).
He was NOT the college player that Davante was and I really don't think it is even debatable.
-
Vander's junior year trumps, that said, I loved #54.
-
Vander, hands down. Pretty good defense, and made some huge shots that made that season what it was.
+1…not even close. One played both sides of the ball well.
-
I will just say it's pretty close in my mind. I'd like to see what Davante could've done with some good guards around him as a senior. I think some of you don't give Vander enough credit for improving as a person and player over his career at Marquette. He was a victim of expectations, especially in terms of trying to rip on Badger fans for chasing him away.
-
Nice debate on the topic. A few comments:
1) Generally guards are your go to players, and have the ball in their hands to create, take, and make shots. That is a core skill requirement of the position - which we completely lacked last season, Gardner's senior year. Big Men, such as Gardner, Shaq, and whomever else you want to look at - are dependent upon the guards getting them the ball -so by virtue of that, in and of itself it is hard for a big man to have some of the end of game moments Vander had as a junior (yet Vander had to, and did execute in those critical moments as a junior.)
2) There were numerous times in Gardner's career where the strategy was - get the ball to Gardner, and let him go to work..and he excelled in those times as a junior. Syracuse game rings a bell.
3) Gardner's "conditioning" is poked at, but there are also numerous games where he logged 30+ minutes and put up very good numbers. IN fact last season his O-Rating was higher in the games he logged 30. Buzz was a disaster last year, and his coaching greatly hampered Gardner. I've always said there is a reason why Gardner and Jamil did not mention/thank Buzz 1 time in their senior speeches, yet thanked every other person associated with the team.
4) Vander had a very good junior season, and was a critical player in helping us to victory. You cannot be good in basketball without good guards - last year of course was the height of evidence for that theory. Vander also greatly benefited playing with the best big man at Marquette since Damon Key.
5) Wojo is rocking. Future looking very bright. ;D
-
Is it possible to vote for both of them as disappointments?
If so, I do.
Vander was billed as a high-end prospect when he came to Marquette. We can debate where he belonged and whether he was four- or five-star, but clearly he was a "get." I remember watching him his freshman and sophomore years and thinking frequently, "son, you ain't in the WIAA anymore!"
He had a good year his junior year and, maybe like Reggie Jackson used to be, was best when the money was on the line. How good he could have been? I don't know. Something happened between him and the Hillbilly or he received bad advice about his skill set.
Davante had a one-inch vertical leap. He reminded me a lot of kids in high school who grew very fast and looked very good until they ran up against very good competition. Davante had some great games, but he was never going to be a Maurice Lucas, Bo Ellis or even Scott Merritt. He was a one dimensional player and he was great at that dimension, but he never grew. Teams tried a "Hack-a-Shak" defense on him and, to his credit, he learned to shoot free throws very well. Davante's scoring performance came at the free-throw line.
I'm probably harsh on Davante, but there is a standard of excellence at Marquette that he did not attain. He was good but maybe I expected more out of him that he could give.
-
I don't remember Davante ever doing well against athletic bigs. Maybe the Pitt game against Adams. He was a bust against Florida.
-
Vander and Davante made great contributions and major impact to MU basketball during their careers. But for all of the talents each brought, they both had major flaws in their games too, although Vander improved his more than Davante did.
That said, who cares anymore who was better between the two? I'm hoping Wojo doesn't bring in guys with all of the flaws that Buzz did. Yes, Buzz brought in talented players, but their downsides at times were so easy for good coaches and programs to expose.
There's so much positive to look forward to for this program, why dwell on this futile debate.
-
Devante played above expectations; Vander played below expectations.
Just my opinion.
That's because your expectations for Vander were out of whack.
-
Is it possible to vote for both of them as disappointments?
If so, I do.
Vander was billed as a high-end prospect when he came to Marquette. We can debate where he belonged and whether he was four- or five-star, but clearly he was a "get." I remember watching him his freshman and sophomore years and thinking frequently, "son, you ain't in the WIAA anymore!"
You were the same guy who labelled him as a "bust" a few weeks ago. As I said then, your outsized expectations for his play aren't his fault. They are your's.
-
Vander was, spare a few games here and there, mediocre for 2/3rds of his college career. Vander's signature move his Freshman and Sophomore years was to drive the lane and put up a prayer that had zero chance of going in. Hell, he looked like he hadn't progressed at all the first month of his, later quite superlative Junior year.
Davante, no contest. He had a steady progression of being an out of shape foul machine to a solid junior and outstanding senior.
You certainly have a different definition of "outstanding" than I do. Gardner was outstanding at one thing...low post scoring. He certainly improved the other aspects of his game, but in no way would I label him outstanding.
Another way to look at it....Garder was second team Big East in 2014. Blue was second team in 2013, when the conference was much stronger.
-
You certainly have a different definition of "outstanding" than I do. Gardner was outstanding at one thing...low post scoring. He certainly improved the other aspects of his game, but in no way would I label him outstanding.
So, if you're only (super) good at one thing, you can't be called outstanding? So Steve Novak, who wasn't a great defender, wasn't a slasher or low post-player, not a great ball handler either, but was a fantastic shooter 15+ feet out, he didn't have outstanding year(s)?
(I suppose one could add a superlative skill to Novak, as his FT shooting was excellent .. but Gardner was auto-matic. (admittedly he wasn't, hovered around 80%, but 10 points better than the rest of the team and league.)).
-
So, if you're only (super) good at one thing, you can't be called outstanding? So Steve Novak, who wasn't a great defender, wasn't a slasher or low post-player, not a great ball handler either, but was a fantastic shooter 15+ feet out, he didn't have outstanding year(s)?
No. I think if you are "outstanding" at one thing, but average or below average at others, you can't be considered "outstanding." Gardner was a servicable defender and rebounder. His conditioning was not very good either. Because of those deficiencies he was limited to 26 mpg as a senior.
Now don't get me wrong, I like Gardner. He improved tremendously from freshman to senior year. But at no point didn't I look at him and say "Now *there* is an outstanding college basketball player."
Honestly I never really said that about Vander until the second part of his junior year.
-
Vander had the elite explosiveness and picked up the scoring at will much later in his career.
Ox was just a consistent force but couldn't create for himself. FTs though were pretty much automatic which won favor in many a fan's eye since big men "weren''t supposed to make FTs."
This is a tough one.
I voted for Ox because he was the low post scorer and a pretty consistent front court presence during his four years.
But Vander's ability to create his own shot/scoring opportunity deserves praise except it didn't happen until later in his MU career (part soph/junior years).
Vander Career Stats: http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/vander-blue-1.html
Davante Career Stats: http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/davante-gardner-1.html
EDIT: Looking at Davante's last year with MU, he posted personal bests in almost every category despite playing 3 less games during a piss poor coaching season. DG with the nod.
-
I think Gardner's senior year was somewhat disappointing. A lot of it had to do with him no longer being teamed with Cadougan, who was very good at dumping the ball off to Gardner. That was a skill that Derrick lacked. The team probably would not have been a disaster last year, if Cadougan had redshirted as a freshmen. I would say that letting Cadougan come back for at the end of his freshmen year resulted in no extra wins that year and probably cost us at least 7 wins last year.
-
No. I think if you are "outstanding" at one thing, but average or below average at others, you can't be considered "outstanding." Gardner was a servicable defender and rebounder. His conditioning was not very good either. Because of those deficiencies he was limited to 26 mpg as a senior.
Now don't get me wrong, I like Gardner. He improved tremendously from freshman to senior year. But at no point didn't I look at him and say "Now *there* is an outstanding college basketball player."
Honestly I never really said that about Vander until the second part of his junior year.
I don't see how your comments invalidate my conjecture that you'd say Novak doesn't qualify as outstanding/having an outstanding year. Novak and Gardner had areas they were serviceable, and one+ area they were outstanding.
Not sure why you'd throw in conditioning as some form of "outstanding invalidator" but one could easily argue Gardner's lack of minutes was due to Buzz's rotations. He used Ox as a 6th man offensive machine, and Otule as a better defender.
We do 100% agree that few thought Vander was an outstanding player until the 2nd part of his junior year. That's why I find this thread so strange, as 2/3rds of Vander's career was just plain mediocre with fits of frustrating awfulness. How many times did we cover our eyes as you KNEW Vander was going to drive to the basket and flip an awful shot no where near the bucket... it was his signature move for two freaking years. (True, after his Freshman year, at least Ox gave up his move: fouling guys within 8 seconds of being in the game.)
-
Gardner was not limited by in any way.
Gardner was very limited
-
I don't see how your comments invalidate my conjecture that you'd say Novak doesn't qualify as outstanding/having an outstanding year. Novak and Gardner had areas they were serviceable, and one+ area they were outstanding.
Not sure why you'd throw in conditioning as some form of "outstanding invalidator" but one could easily argue Gardner's lack of minutes was due to Buzz's rotations. He used Ox as a 6th man offensive machine, and Otule as a better defender.
We do 100% agree that few thought Vander was an outstanding player until the 2nd part of his junior year. That's why I find this thread so strange, as 2/3rds of Vander's career was just plain mediocre with fits of frustrating awfulness. How many times did we cover our eyes as you KNEW Vander was going to drive to the basket and flip an awful shot no where near the bucket... it was his signature move for two freaking years. (True, after his Freshman year, at least Ox gave up his move: fouling guys within 8 seconds of being in the game.)
I didn't address your conjecture regarding Novak because he wasn't part of the original discussion. I don't think I would call Novak "outstanding" either though.
And I brought up conditioning and defense because I think both were major reasons why he didn't see the court more.
And I don't think 2/3 of Vander's career was mediocre at all. I thought he was very good as a sophomore - MU doesn't win @UW without him for instance - and it wasn't because of his offense. Offensively he wasn't great, but he was highly disruptive on the defensive end and rebounded extremely well for his position.
But 90% of what this board focuses on is offense so...
-
Vander had the elite explosiveness and picked up the scoring at will much later in his career.
Ox was just a consistent force but couldn't create for himself. FTs though were pretty much automatic which won favor in many a fan's eye since big men "weren''t supposed to make FTs."
This is a tough one.
I voted for Ox because he was the low post scorer and a pretty consistent front court presence during his four years.
But Vander's ability to create his own shot/scoring opportunity deserves praise except it didn't happen until later in his MU career (part soph/junior years).
Vander Career Stats: http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/vander-blue-1.html
Davante Career Stats: http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/davante-gardner-1.html
EDIT: Looking at Davante's last year with MU, he posted personal bests in almost every category despite playing 3 less games during a piss poor coaching season. DG with the nod.
Against weaker competition
-
I don't think I would call Novak "outstanding" either though.
Ah, well then you were extremely correct when you said "You certainly have a different definition of "outstanding" than I do. "
-
Against weaker competition
Which makes his junior year stats that much more amazing.
But he delivered. Maybe not with the same fanfare or success as previous years, but you can't pin that solely on him.
I think Gardner's senior year was somewhat disappointing. A lot of it had to do with him no longer being teamed with Cadougan, who was very good at dumping the ball off to Gardner. That was a skill that Derrick lacked. The team probably would not have been a disaster last year, if Cadougan had redshirted as a freshmen. I would say that letting Cadougan come back for at the end of his freshmen year resulted in no extra wins that year and probably cost us at least 7 wins last year.
Well, THE WHOLE SEASON Last year was more than somewhat disappointing.
But you're correct. The inability of the perimeter guards to score, penetrate, and threaten the defense, made the defense slack on Gardner. Despite that, he still posted darn good stats. Who cares if it was against weaker competition either? We SUCKED!
-
You were the same guy who labelled him as a "bust" a few weeks ago. As I said then, your outsized expectations for his play aren't his fault. They are your's.
Sultan, sorry dude. Appreciate your love of the team and the game, but my vision of expectations for a starting guard are that beginning in his sophomore year, he is a force to be reckoned with on a team headed for the Elite 8.
Vander had moments of glory but lacked consistency and compared to the great guards of MU's yesteryears, doesn't hold up.
-
Sultan, sorry dude. Appreciate your love of the team and the game, but my vision of expectations for a starting guard are that beginning in his sophomore year, he is a force to be reckoned with on a team headed for the Elite 8.
What are you saying here? That because he started as a sophomore he should have been a "force to be reckoned with?" And they made the Elite 8...largely because of him. So I guess I have no idea what your point is.
-
So, if you're only (super) good at one thing, you can't be called outstanding? So Steve Novak, who wasn't a great defender, wasn't a slasher or low post-player, not a great ball handler either, but was a fantastic shooter 15+ feet out, he didn't have outstanding year(s)?
(I suppose one could add a superlative skill to Novak, as his FT shooting was excellent .. but Gardner was auto-matic. (admittedly he wasn't, hovered around 80%, but 10 points better than the rest of the team and league.)).
I understand your point and agree with it to an extent. But Novak wasn't an outstanding shooter, he is one of the best pure shooters ever.
As for Gardner, he was an above average low post scorer, bordering on elite (at the college level), but nowhere near the skill level of Novak (comparatively…low post vs. shooter).
-
Is it possible to vote for both of them as disappointments?
If so, I do.
Oh, absolutely.
They were the most disappointing duo to play a key role in a S16-S16-E8 run in Marquette history. I wish they never even showed up on campus. Without them, I'm sure we would have had three Final Fours and at least one national title.
-
Oh, absolutely.
They were the most disappointing duo to play a key role in a S16-S16-E8 run in Marquette history. I wish they never even showed up on campus. Without them, I'm sure we would have had three Final Fours and at least one national title.
We all have the right to an opinion,but your right that guys an @!#hole
-
I understand your point and agree with it to an extent. But Novak wasn't an outstanding shooter, he is one of the best pure shooters ever.
As for Gardner, he was an above average low post scorer, bordering on elite (at the college level), but nowhere near the skill level of Novak (comparatively…low post vs. shooter).
I'd simply like to know in what realm Blue was even borderline Elite? He didn't finish in the Top 100 in any offensive or defensive categories. Gardner finished in Top 100 OF ALL DIVISION 1 players as a junior in 9 different offensive categories.
Gardner was very limited
+1000 - Garnder was very limited by Buzz's coaching last season. That max minute backcourt was a huge hinderance to what should have been a 20 and 9 type of campaign. And why Buzz limited Gardner's minutes - NO, IT WASN'T BECAUSE OF CONDITIONING - as Gardner posted higher O-Ratings on average in the games he played over 30, than under 30...is beyond me.
Blue had one solid year as a starting guard in the Big East - and he was given a starting position since Day 1 during his time at MU. Recruiting promise..Hmm. It's been widely rumored, there was a starting role promised to Blue as part of the recruitment.
Todd Mayo, last season, was the same player Blue was as a junior - yet some simply refuse to acknowledge the reality of the likeness of their stats as juniors - actually Mayo's stats last season as a junior were better than Vander's in many categories.
-
I'd simply like to know in what realm Blue was even borderline Elite? He didn't finish in the Top 100 in any offensive or defensive categories. Gardner finished in Top 100 OF ALL DIVISION 1 players as a junior in 9 different offensive categories.
+1000 - Garnder was very limited by Buzz's coaching last season. That max minute backcourt was a huge hinderance to what should have been a 20 and 9 type of campaign. And why Buzz limited Gardner's minutes - NO, IT WASN'T BECAUSE OF CONDITIONING - as Gardner posted higher O-Ratings on average in the games he played over 30, than under 30...is beyond me.
Blue had one solid year as a starting guard in the Big East - and he was given a starting position since Day 1 during his time at MU. Recruiting promise..Hmm. It's been widely rumored, there was a starting role promised to Blue as part of the recruitment.
Todd Mayo, last season, was the same player Blue was as a junior - yet some simply refuse to acknowledge the reality of the likeness of their stats as juniors - actually Mayo's stats last season as a junior were better than Vander's in many categories.
Blue wasn't elite at anything (although I would say he was elite in clutch situations). But he was very good at everything (3's just ok).
The problem with Gardner is he was bad on D. A bad defensive rebounder. He was borderline elite post up offense.
I would rather have very good all around then borderline elite at one thing.
-
I'd simply like to know in what realm Blue was even borderline Elite? He didn't finish in the Top 100 in any offensive or defensive categories. Gardner finished in Top 100 OF ALL DIVISION 1 players as a junior in 9 different offensive categories.
+1000 - Garnder was very limited by Buzz's coaching last season. That max minute backcourt was a huge hinderance to what should have been a 20 and 9 type of campaign. And why Buzz limited Gardner's minutes - NO, IT WASN'T BECAUSE OF CONDITIONING - as Gardner posted higher O-Ratings on average in the games he played over 30, than under 30...is beyond me.
Blue had one solid year as a starting guard in the Big East - and he was given a starting position since Day 1 during his time at MU. Recruiting promise..Hmm. It's been widely rumored, there was a starting role promised to Blue as part of the recruitment.
Todd Mayo, last season, was the same player Blue was as a junior - yet some simply refuse to acknowledge the reality of the likeness of their stats as juniors - actually Mayo's stats last season as a junior were better than Vander's in many categories.
Didn't Davante go from like 370 to 290?
-
Blue wasn't elite at anything (although I would say he was elite in clutch situations). But he was very good at everything (3's just ok).
The problem with Gardner is he was bad on D. A bad defensive rebounder. He was borderline elite post up offense.
I would rather have very good all around then borderline elite at one thing.
And thats why blue has played NBA ball.
-
I disagree with Sultan's definition of outstanding. But you cannot be outstanding if you are a net negative on defense. Gardner was a fantastic offensive player, I would argue that he was even worthy of being considered elite. But he was a liability on defense. And that is what keeps him off an NBA roster and why I think Blue is the better player.
-
Blue had one solid year as a starting guard in the Big East - and he was given a starting position since Day 1 during his time at MU. Recruiting promise..Hmm. It's been widely rumored, there was a starting role promised to Blue as part of the recruitment.
Todd Mayo, last season, was the same player Blue was as a junior - yet some simply refuse to acknowledge the reality of the likeness of their stats as juniors - actually Mayo's stats last season as a junior were better than Vander's in many categories.
Two things. Vander Blue was not handed a starting position. He only started 12 games a freshman.
Second, you can keep saying that Mayo was the same player as Blue as a junior, but that won't make it true. Offensively yes. Mayo was as good as Blue...but I would argue against weaker competition. Blue was the much better all around player. Blue was second team all Big East. Mayo didn't even receive honorable mention last year. Blue made the NBA last year. Mayo won't.
Seriously no one else thinks that 13-14 Mayo was as good as 12-13 Blue. You've had a thing against Blue since the whole "slap of hand" fiasco, and you continue to let it cloud your judgement.
-
Two things. Vander Blue was not handed a starting position. He only started 12 games a freshman.
Second, you can keep saying that Mayo was the same player as Blue as a junior, but that won't make it true. Offensively yes. Mayo was as good as Blue...but I would argue against weaker competition. Blue was the much better all around player. Blue was second team all Big East. Mayo didn't even receive honorable mention last year. Blue made the NBA last year. Mayo won't.
Seriously no one else thinks that 13-14 Mayo was as good as 12-13 Blue. You've had a thing against Blue since the whole "slap of hand" fiasco, and you continue to let it cloud your judgement.
Not to mention that Blue was reliable and Mayo was a d-bag.
-
Blue wasn't elite at anything (although I would say he was elite in clutch situations). But he was very good at everything (3's just ok).
The problem with Gardner is he was bad on D. A bad defensive rebounder. He was borderline elite post up offense.
I would rather have very good all around then borderline elite at one thing.
Bingo
-
MU had a year with no Blue but with Gardner. How'd that turn out?
-
OK, time to move on.
I hope Vander and Davante do well in the pros.
No news here… lets move on. I
-
+1000 - Garnder was very limited by Buzz's coaching last season. That max minute backcourt was a huge hinderance to what should have been a 20 and 9 type of campaign. And why Buzz limited Gardner's minutes - NO, IT WASN'T BECAUSE OF CONDITIONING - as Gardner posted higher O-Ratings on average in the games he played over 30, than under 30...
One could argue that Buzz's coaching was limited by Mayo and Gardner. Mayo never wanted to play in a system on offensive or defense. Hence way he only played 23Mins while Thomas played more. In his exit interview Mayo stated as much. Thomas was more reliable so he got minutes. Had Mayo been reliable he would have played. Since he didn't Buzz had to make a series of coaching decisions.
With the loss of Blue and Cadougan MU lost a good portion of their offense. Gardner was supposed to be the guy going into the season. Gardner stated he did not take the gym seriously his senior season. Due to his lack of stamina he might have played but also wasn't as effective. Gardner was also a one note back to the basket player. On occasion he would take the open 15ft from the free throw line or get the ball on a fast break but rarely did you see him take a baseline jumper. He would back his smaller defender down and get fouled.
Buzz tried to get more minutes for Gardner by putting him to the four. That experiment failed because OX couldn't guard faster players or shooters on the parameter.
Had Gardner expanded his game and got in shape the defense wouldn't need to deny the post up. Gardner was a solid and constant player but was the same player since his freshman year.
This is why I have constantly said MU had a bad team last yr and not just a bad point guard.
-
MU had a year with no Blue but with Gardner. How'd that turn out?
That year also included Bert being a horse's a$$
-
Alien vs. Predator?
-
60-40 Vander. The "ayes" have it
-
Best clutch player, best overall player, unquestioned leader and MVP of a Big East Championship and Elite 8 team versus a part time player who is a liability for half of the minutes he plays (defensive minutes). People's expectations for Vander were through the roof. For Davante they were nonexistent. And I understand that Big Sheesh was lovable, Blue not so much. But if we're talking about who was/is better at basketball it's no contest.
-
Best clutch player, best overall player, unquestioned leader and MVP of a Big East Championship and Elite 8 team versus a part time player who is a liability for half of the minutes he plays (defensive minutes). People's expectations for Vander were through the roof. For Davante they were nonexistent. And I understand that Big Sheesh was lovable, Blue not so much. But if we're talking about who was/is better at basketball it's no contest.
Well, it is a contest. 40% have responded that they feel Gardner was the better college player.
-
Well, it is a contest. 40% have responded that they feel Gardner was the better college player.
What percent of those votes are from current freshmen I or sophomores who never saw vander play? What percent of those are angry because he left early?
-
What percent of those votes are from current freshmen I or sophomores who never saw vander play? What percent of those are angry because he left early?
Not sure that is relevant...what is relevant is actual production
Here's the deal:
One guy - Gardner - Ranked in the Top 10 of ALL college basketball players in 2 offensive categories, and in 9 categories in the Top 100 of ALL college basketball players.
The other guy - Blue - Didn't rank in the Top 100 of ANY categories on the offensive or defensive end. Blue's highest rank in categories that hold any value (i.e. - not FG Attempts), was 122nd in FG's made and 164th in Points scored. On the defensive side of things, Blue wasn't even ranked in the Top 1000 players for Steal Percentage - Steals/Minutes played.
Meanwhile - Blue was awful as a freshman, serviceable as a sophomore, and evolved into a very good player as a Junior. Gardner, as has been said, by a few who voted against him "didn't improve a whole lot," - he did improve, yet he set a much higher standard of performance than did Blue as a freshman and sophomore.
-
Not sure that is relevant...what is relevant is actual production
Here's the deal:
One guy - Gardner - Ranked in the Top 10 of ALL college basketball players in 2 offensive categories, and in 9 categories in the Top 100 of ALL college basketball players.
The other guy - Blue - Didn't rank in the Top 100 of ANY categories on the offensive or defensive end. Blue's highest rank in categories that hold any value (i.e. - not FG Attempts), was 122nd in FG's made and 164th in Points scored. On the defensive side of things, Blue wasn't even ranked in the Top 1000 players for Steal Percentage - Steals/Minutes played.
Meanwhile - Blue was awful as a freshman, serviceable as a sophomore, and evolved into a very good player as a Junior. Gardner, as has been said, by a few who voted against him "didn't improve a whole lot," - he did improve, yet he set a much higher standard of performance than did Blue as a freshman and sophomore.
Repeating the same things over and over...
Did Gardner develop a jump hook? Did he shoot many shots outside of 10 ft? Davante was a very solid contributor but his 2FG%, FT%, RPG all were constant so he did not show radical improvement. Gardner got to 14 PPG his senior year. Blue did that his junior year. Davante's freshman yr he only averaged 9 minutes and 4.6PPG. Blue played 19 minutes and averaged 5.1. Blue played meaningful minutes.
http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/player/marquette/davante-gardner
Blue improved his game yr over yr. His 2FG% and 3FG% went up every year meaning he was becoming a better jump shooter. His FT% got better every year and his minutes also went up higher.
http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/player/marquette/vander-blue
To say, "he did improve, yet he set a much higher standard of performance than did Blue as a freshman and sophomore."
is not true. Gardner barely played as a freshman and as sophomores had comparable stats but Blue was relied on more to play. Gardner got into better shape which allowed him to play more.
The fact is that Blue came in with a lot of fanfare while Gardner with little. When Blue didn't meet the lofty expectations people knocked him. When Gardner exceeded, everyone crowned him.
Freshman yr: Blue
Sophomore yr: Blue slight edge -- Ox was more efficient but he could only play 20 minutes a game. Blue played more and had almost as many rebounds and blocks. Similar point total. Blue played much better defense as well.
Junior Yr: Blue
-
Not sure that is relevant...what is relevant is actual production
Here's the deal:
One guy - Gardner - Ranked in the Top 10 of ALL college basketball players in 2 offensive categories, and in 9 categories in the Top 100 of ALL college basketball players.
The other guy - Blue - Didn't rank in the Top 100 of ANY categories on the offensive or defensive end. Blue's highest rank in categories that hold any value (i.e. - not FG Attempts), was 122nd in FG's made and 164th in Points scored. On the defensive side of things, Blue wasn't even ranked in the Top 1000 players for Steal Percentage - Steals/Minutes played.
Meanwhile - Blue was awful as a freshman, serviceable as a sophomore, and evolved into a very good player as a Junior. Gardner, as has been said, by a few who voted against him "didn't improve a whole lot," - he did improve, yet he set a much higher standard of performance than did Blue as a freshman and sophomore.
+10000000. People who voted Vander .. please read the above, over and over and over.
-
+10000000. People who voted Vander .. please read the above, over and over and over.
There is a 1000 point limit on +'s on the internet. Please check yourself before you wreck yourself, sir.
-
I live in the real world, where emotion and memories exist, that is what I care about. Not someones eFG% on 2pt shots, outside of 12 feet, but inside of 19 feet, or whatever you are spewing. Nothing against him, Gardner was a fine player, and was an important player on some great teams. But in 3, 5, 10 years, will you have one moment of DG, of like damn, remember when Davante Gardner (insert memory). I won't.
I will vividly remember these two things, have anything close for the big fella?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-nH5o--3dU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QygEB3AYu2g
-
MU had a successful stretch when Gardner was hurt his sophomore year but Blue was playing. MU had a lousy year with Gardner and without Blue. Yes, Jamil stepped up and did yeoman work at the 5 with CO and DG out. Which is my point. The team never missed a beat when Gardner wasn't on the floor. At any point during his entire career. But how did the team that was supposed to have Blue do without him?
Gardner= great low post scorer.
Blue= complete guard. Leader.
And when you say that the lack of guards hindered Gardner his senior year, you actually make the case for Blue.
-
+10000000. People who voted Vander .. please read the above, over and over and over.
Find whatever stats you want to try to prove that Gardner was "elite" -- whatever that means. He had great (maybe even "elite") hands and a big body. That combination allowed him to be a very effective low post scorer, unless he was matched up against an athletic big...then he had all kinds of trouble. He was also a very good (maybe even "elite") FT shooter, especially for a guy of his size.
Other than that, he was severely limited in every other facet of the game. He could barely get up and down the court. He couldn't rebound outside the area in which he happened to be standing at the time. His interior/help/team defense was just terrible because he couldn't move. He was weak mentally.
These things don't show up in the stats. They are still real.
Vander maybe wasn't "elite" at anything, but he was far better than Davante at almost everything.
-
Repeating the same things over and over...
Did Gardner develop a jump hook? Did he shoot many shots outside of 10 ft? Davante was a very solid contributor but his 2FG%, FT%, RPG all were constant so he did not show radical improvement. Gardner got to 14 PPG his senior year. Blue did that his junior year. Davante's freshman yr he only averaged 9 minutes and 4.6PPG. Blue played 19 minutes and averaged 5.1. Blue played meaningful minutes.
http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/player/marquette/davante-gardner
Blue improved his game yr over yr. His 2FG% and 3FG% went up every year meaning he was becoming a better jump shooter. His FT% got better every year and his minutes also went up higher.
http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/player/marquette/vander-blue
To say, "he did improve, yet he set a much higher standard of performance than did Blue as a freshman and sophomore."
is not true. Gardner barely played as a freshman and as sophomores had comparable stats but Blue was relied on more to play. Gardner got into better shape which allowed him to play more.
The fact is that Blue came in with a lot of fanfare while Gardner with little. When Blue didn't meet the lofty expectations people knocked him. When Gardner exceeded, everyone crowned him.
Freshman yr: Blue
Sophomore yr: Blue slight edge -- Ox was more efficient but he could only play 20 minutes a game. Blue played more and had almost as many rebounds and blocks. Similar point total. Blue played much better defense as well.
Junior Yr: Blue
Age of voters matters. If you asked me who was better between DJO and McNeal I'd pick DJO because he was astonishing for my first three years at MU meanwhile I only remember McNeal after deciding on MU my sr year of HS. But on paper McNeal was better thus yes age of voters matters.
We've all heard you talk about derrick being the problem with this team a million times. Well if vander was here and running point I'd venture to say we'd have been 2nd in the BE. Gardner couldn't carry a team he was unbelievably efficient but how many times did Gardner drive the hoop? Stutter step to throw the defender and pop out for a jumper? Etc. Gardner was always going to get his but it wasn't gonna be THE huge difference for the team. While vander was the huge difference on many many occasions.
-
I live in the real world, where emotion and memories exist, that is what I care about. Not someones eFG% on 2pt shots, outside of 12 feet, but inside of 19 feet, or whatever you are spewing. Nothing against him, Gardner was a fine player, and was an important player on some great teams. But in 3, 5, 10 years, will you have one moment of DG, of like damn, remember when Davante Gardner (insert memory). I won't.
I will vividly remember these two things, have anything close for the big fella?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-nH5o--3dU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QygEB3AYu2g
I love this point, which is spot-on.
I also love watching these videos whenever somebody links to them, especially the Davidson one. Gives me chills.
-
Age of voters matters. If you asked me who was better between DJO and McNeal I'd pick DJO because he was astonishing for my first three years at MU meanwhile I only remember McNeal after deciding on MU my sr year of HS. But on paper McNeal was better thus yes age of voters matters.
We've all heard you talk about derrick being the problem with this team a million times. Well if vander was here and running point I'd venture to say we'd have been 2nd in the BE. Gardner couldn't carry a team he was unbelievably efficient but how many times did Gardner drive the hoop? Stutter step to throw the defender and pop out for a jumper? Etc. Gardner was always going to get his but it wasn't gonna be THE huge difference for the team. While vander was the huge difference on many many occasions.
Why would age of voter matter when Gardner and Blue were in the same class?
-
Why would age of voter matter when Gardner and Blue were in the same class?
I told him how many of those votes were from current freshmen or sophomores who would obviously place a higher value on DG than Vander
-
I live in the real world, where emotion and memories exist, that is what I care about. Not someones eFG% on 2pt shots, outside of 12 feet, but inside of 19 feet, or whatever you are spewing. Nothing against him, Gardner was a fine player, and was an important player on some great teams. But in 3, 5, 10 years, will you have one moment of DG, of like damn, remember when Davante Gardner (insert memory). I won't.
I will vividly remember these two things, have anything close for the big fella?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-nH5o--3dU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QygEB3AYu2g
Watched these. Then I watched the 4 minute one with the entire comeback against Davidson. And there, with just less than a minute to go, is the reason why you can't vote for Gardner. Just an abysmal defensive move by Davante that leads to Davidson's last easy layup.
-
Watched these. Then I watched the 4 minute one with the entire comeback against Davidson. And there, with just less than a minute to go, is the reason why you can't vote for Gardner. Just an abysmal defensive move by Davante that leads to Davidson's last easy layup.
Just like how you get Vander's clutch layup along with his abysmal offensive performance against Florida, and generally his entire career until the 2nd half of his junior year.
-
I'm really surprised at how many people are voting for Vander.
Like Reinko pointed out, Vander had signature moments. The closest Gardner gets is the Syracuse game. But that's really just availability bias. Vander had half of a good season in his three years and some clutch shots in that stretch.
Gardner was consistently above average for four years.
Even in Blue's best season, I calculate Gardner as twice as valuable.
-
Find whatever stats you want to try to prove that Gardner was "elite" -- whatever that means. He had great (maybe even "elite") hands and a big body. That combination allowed him to be a very effective low post scorer, unless he was matched up against an athletic big...then he had all kinds of trouble. He was also a very good (maybe even "elite") FT shooter, especially for a guy of his size.
The question wasn't about who was elite or more elite. "Who was the better college basketball player?" was the poll question. Neither was elite.
I'll say it again for those who've missed it and missed it and missed it.
Gardner - Ranked in the Top 10 of ALL college basketball players in 2 offensive categories, and in 9 categories in the Top 100 of ALL college basketball players.
Blue - Didn't rank in the Top 100 of ANY categories on the offensive or defensive end.
If anyone cares about Pudner's "value add" stat:
Blue's rank: 1518, 500, 228
Gardner: 981, 298, 55, 148.
http://valueaddbasketball.com/ballall.html
-
The question wasn't about who was elite or more elite. "Who was the better college basketball player?" was the poll question. Neither was elite.
I'll say it again for those who've missed it and missed it and missed it.
Gardner - Ranked in the Top 10 of ALL college basketball players in 2 offensive categories, and in 9 categories in the Top 100 of ALL college basketball players.
Blue - Didn't rank in the Top 100 of ANY categories on the offensive or defensive end.
If anyone cares about Pudner's "value add" stat:
Blue's rank: 1518, 500, 228
Gardner: 981, 298, 55, 148.
http://valueaddbasketball.com/ballall.html
more numbers...yay!
All I am saying is that Vander is a better all-around basketball player than Davante...by a wide margin. Not even close IMO.
Maybe that's a separate/different question...
-
The question wasn't about who was elite or more elite. "Who was the better college basketball player?" was the poll question. Neither was elite.
I'll say it again for those who've missed it and missed it and missed it.
Gardner - Ranked in the Top 10 of ALL college basketball players in 2 offensive categories, and in 9 categories in the Top 100 of ALL college basketball players.
Blue - Didn't rank in the Top 100 of ANY categories on the offensive or defensive end.
If anyone cares about Pudner's "value add" stat:
Blue's rank: 1518, 500, 228
Gardner: 981, 298, 55, 148.
http://valueaddbasketball.com/ballall.html
It's a question of what fans value. I don't like highly specialized players who only play on one side of the court. I'd rather have a player who is average on both ends than a player who is great on one and terrible on the other.
-
Not arguing Vander had a better college career but people saying Vander only had a great second half of his junior year are overdoing it to fit their narrative. He had a great preseason tournament, was the only one who even bothered to show up in the game at Florida, and played great in the win against Wisconsin. We all know everyone played poorly against UWGB.
-
Not arguing Vander had a better college career but people saying Vander only had a great second half of his junior year are overdoing it to fit their narrative. He had a great preseason tournament, was the only one who even bothered to show up in the game at Florida, and played great in the win against Wisconsin. We all know everyone played poorly against UWGB.
Here's the "net points" tracker for Vander's junior year. Yes, there are a few good games, but it doesn't really take off until the middle of the season.
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee41/roblowe14/Blue2012-2013.png) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/roblowe14/media/Blue2012-2013.png.html)
-
2012-2013 Comparison
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee41/roblowe14/OxBlueJamil.png) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/roblowe14/media/OxBlueJamil.png.html)
-
Here's the "net points" tracker for Vander's junior year. Yes, there are a few good games, but it doesn't really take off until the middle of the season.
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee41/roblowe14/Blue2012-2013.png) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/roblowe14/media/Blue2012-2013.png.html)
I don't really care how he played against Colgate, etc, where we would have won no matter what he did. He played well in our biggest non-conference games.
Having said that, I'd take Gardner for 4 years over Blue for 3.
-
Vander had half of a good season in his three years and some clutch shots in that stretch.
So now we're down to half a good season. Beautiful. The very definition of selective memory.
Let's see, in the non-conference half of his junior year, Vander averaged a solid 13.4 points over 11 games and had his best games against the real opponents (21 against Butler, 20 against Florida, 17 against Wisconsin and 17 against LSU).
In the first half of the Big East season, he averaged 16.7 points in 9 games and was by far our best player.
In the second half of the Big East season, he had one three-game lull (7-6-6 vs Nova, Cuse and ND) but otherwise crushed it pretty damn good.
Won the St. John's game at the buzzer. Won the Davidson game at the buzzer. Put us on his back against Butler to carry us to the Sweet 16. All the while defending the opponent's best perimeter player.
Wow ... I mean, state your case for Davante all you want. (I have already said I'd take Davante's 4 years over Vander's 3 but that I'd take Vander's junior season.) But at least stick to the effen facts.
What next:
"Oh, it's Davante. Advanced stats say he had the best eFG in the history of mankind. Besides, I don't even count the 2 good games Vander played as a junior. Wait ... did I say 2? I meant to say one half of one good game."
-
We've all heard you talk about derrick being the problem with this team a million times. Well if vander was here and running point I'd venture to say we'd have been 2nd in the BE. Gardner couldn't carry a team he was unbelievably efficient but how many times did Gardner drive the hoop? Stutter step to throw the defender and pop out for a jumper? Etc. Gardner was always going to get his but it wasn't gonna be THE huge difference for the team. While vander was the huge difference on many many occasions.
I believe you meant to quote Ners on this. I have defended Wilson as not being the sole cause of of the bad yr. I am also Blue over Mayo and Blue over Gardner. Not because Gardner didn't do good things but because Blue is did and would take you further.
-
I believe you meant to quote Ners on this. I have defended Wilson as not being the sole cause of of the bad yr. I am also Blue over Mayo and Blue over Gardner. Not because Gardner didn't do good things but because Blue is did and would take you further.
Oops ya my bad :)
-
Gardner was the most efficient by far but he wasn't the better college player. The clip shows why Vander was better and the part of Gardner's game where he was exposed. Btw, Vander was a 17 year old freshman.
http://youtu.be/x-EdfwyLvZk
-
The question wasn't about who was elite or more elite. "Who was the better college basketball player?" was the poll question. Neither was elite.
I'll say it again for those who've missed it and missed it and missed it.
Gardner - Ranked in the Top 10 of ALL college basketball players in 2 offensive categories, and in 9 categories in the Top 100 of ALL college basketball players.
Blue - Didn't rank in the Top 100 of ANY categories on the offensive or defensive end.
But this is the problem with defensive stats...they are often very misleading in determining who is a good defensive basketball player. And Blue was very good on the defensive end. For all the bitching and moaning about Buzz's defense, Blue seemed to grasp exactly what Buzz wanted early on. He was in the right place at the right time in front of the right people.
For instance, MU does not win @UW in 2011 without Blue's defense. At different times during that game he was matched against Jordan Taylor (and got in his head), Ben Brust, and Mike Bruesewitz. He was phenominal on the defensive end that game.
There is absolutely no doubt that Gardner was better offensively and more efficient. But Vander Blue was the better player. I bet if you polled college basketball coaches on the same question, Blue wins in a landslide.
-
But this is the problem with defensive stats...they are often very misleading in determining who is a good defensive basketball player. And Blue was very good on the defensive end. For all the bitching and moaning about Buzz's defense, Blue seemed to grasp exactly what Buzz wanted early on. He was in the right place at the right time in front of the right people.
For instance, MU does not win @UW in 2011 without Blue's defense. At different times during that game he was matched against Jordan Taylor (and got in his head), Ben Brust, and Mike Bruesewitz. He was phenominal on the defensive end that game.
There is absolutely no doubt that Gardner was better offensively and more efficient. But Vander Blue was the better player. I bet if you polled college basketball coaches on the same question, Blue wins in a landslide.
Am the only one that really did notice elite defence from Vander.
-
So now we're down to half a good season. Beautiful. The very definition of selective memory.
Let's see, in the non-conference half of his junior year, Vander averaged a solid 13.4 points over 11 games and had his best games against the real opponents (21 against Butler, 20 against Florida, 17 against Wisconsin and 17 against LSU).
In the first half of the Big East season, he averaged 16.7 points in 9 games and was by far our best player.
In the second half of the Big East season, he had one three-game lull (7-6-6 vs Nova, Cuse and ND) but otherwise crushed it pretty damn good.
Won the St. John's game at the buzzer. Won the Davidson game at the buzzer. Put us on his back against Butler to carry us to the Sweet 16. All the while defending the opponent's best perimeter player.
Wow ... I mean, state your case for Davante all you want. (I have already said I'd take Davante's 4 years over Vander's 3 but that I'd take Vander's junior season.) But at least stick to the effen facts.
Vander had an up and down non-conf season. You cannot cherry-pick only the good performances.
Colgate, 2-8 with 2 TOs
SE LA, 1-7 with 3 TOs
Against USC in the Maui final, 3-11
At UWGB, 2-10 with 2 TOs
In three of those games (not SE LA), he was the worst player on the team. Yes, he played well against FL, Miss State, and UW, but Vander had just as many terrible performances early as good ones.
Vander's season starts to take off with the North Carolina Central game (right before conference play). It was a very good half-season.
-
I will correct a previous statement. Vander also had a strong finish to the 2H of conference play his sophomore year. He was pretty bad before that though, having a long stretch (9 games) where he was negative in every game.
As a freshman, I would argue he was the worst player on the team. He was Jake Thomas bad as a freshman.
So if I'm being fair:
Freshman - Terrible. Arguably the worst player on the team. He was given too many minutes.
Sophomore - Good against cupcakes. Had a long stretch (16 games) of struggling against good teams. Finished the season strong.
Junior - Inconsistent non-conference. Some very good games. Some terrible games. Strong conference season and post-season.
-
Vander had an up and down non-conf season. You cannot cherry-pick only the good performances.
Colgate, 2-8 with 2 TOs
SE LA, 1-7 with 3 TOs
Against USC in the Maui final, 3-11
At UWGB, 2-10 with 2 TOs
In three of those games (not SE LA), he was the worst player on the team. Yes, he played well against FL, Miss State, and UW, but Vander had just as many terrible performances early as good ones.
Vander's season starts to take off with the North Carolina Central game (right before conference play). It was a very good half-season.
Meh,
Every player has off nights. Even the "offensively elite" Davante Gardner had a half dozen complete stinkers this past season. Does that invalidate his eliteness?
-
Just to remind some people of high-quality Gardner performances his junior year.
LSU, 5-6, 9-9 FT, 5 steals, 19 pts, 3 boards
UConn, 4-7, 10-10 FT, 6 rebounds, 3 blocks, 18 points
Seton Hall, 5-8, 7-8 FT, 5 rebounds, 17 points
at Cincy, 1-8, 13-15 FT, 11 rebounds, 3 TO, 15 points
Prov, 4-8, 5-5 FT, 5 rebounds, 13 points
at Seton Hall, 6-10, 6-7 FT, 5 rebounds, 18 points
Syracuse, 7-7, 12-13, 8 rebounds, 26 points
Gardner was both the punishing running back grabbing first downs to run out the clock, as well as the offensive line blocking for that RB. He was above average for four years.
Not to mention fans used to chant /for/ Gardner and he got t-shirts made about him.
-
So now we're down to half a good season. Beautiful. The very definition of selective memory.
Let's see, in the non-conference half of his junior year, Vander averaged a solid 13.4 points over 11 games and had his best games against the real opponents (21 against Butler, 20 against Florida, 17 against Wisconsin and 17 against LSU).
In the first half of the Big East season, he averaged 16.7 points in 9 games and was by far our best player.
In the second half of the Big East season, he had one three-game lull (7-6-6 vs Nova, Cuse and ND) but otherwise crushed it pretty damn good.
Won the St. John's game at the buzzer. Won the Davidson game at the buzzer. Put us on his back against Butler to carry us to the Sweet 16. All the while defending the opponent's best perimeter player.
Wow ... I mean, state your case for Davante all you want. (I have already said I'd take Davante's 4 years over Vander's 3 but that I'd take Vander's junior season.) But at least stick to the effen facts.
What next:
"Oh, it's Davante. Advanced stats say he had the best eFG in the history of mankind. Besides, I don't even count the 2 good games Vander played as a junior. Wait ... did I say 2? I meant to say one half of one good game."
I'll take Vander's senior year over Davante's freshman year.
-
Meh,
Every player has off nights. Even the "offensively elite" Davante Gardner had a half dozen complete stinkers this past season. Does that invalidate his eliteness?
Vander consistently had nights where he was the worst player on the team due to missed shots or turnovers. I count six his junior year alone (Colgate, USC, @UWGB, Providence, @Georgetown, ND).
That's not an off night. That's "the worst player on the team".
-
Vander consistently had nights where he was the worst player on the team due to missed shots or turnovers. I count six his junior year alone (Colgate, USC, @UWGB, Providence, @Georgetown, ND).
That's not an off night. That's "the worst player on the team".
Vander was never the worst
Player on the team.
-
Vander was never the worst
Player on the team.
Go look at the box scores for those games and then come back. While you're at it, check out the Nova and Syracuse games too.
-
Just to remind some people of high-quality Gardner performances his junior year.
LSU, 5-6, 9-9 FT, 5 steals, 19 pts, 3 boards
UConn, 4-7, 10-10 FT, 6 rebounds, 3 blocks, 18 points
Seton Hall, 5-8, 7-8 FT, 5 rebounds, 17 points
at Cincy, 1-8, 13-15 FT, 11 rebounds, 3 TO, 15 points
Prov, 4-8, 5-5 FT, 5 rebounds, 13 points
at Seton Hall, 6-10, 6-7 FT, 5 rebounds, 18 points
Syracuse, 7-7, 12-13, 8 rebounds, 26 points
Gardner was both the punishing running back grabbing first downs to run out the clock, as well as the offensive line blocking for that RB. He was above average for four years.
Not to mention fans used to chant /for/ Gardner and he got t-shirts made about him.
OK, are we really going to do this? Do I really have to cut down a player I actually liked and appreciated (Gardner) to counteract your cherry-picked stats? I guess, so here's a huge sampling of performances from Gardner's "punishing running back" of a junior year ...
Florida - 6 pts, 1 reb. Green Bay 7-2.
5-game stretch midway through BE season: 4 pts-2 pts-8 pts-13 pts-2 pts - total for the 5 games (USF-LV-USF-DeP-GT): 29 points, 9 turnovers, 14 rebounds.
Later in BE season, wrapped around his outstanding performance against Syracuse: Nova 2 pts, 1 reb; ND 5 pts, 2 reb; Rutgers 4pts, 3 reb.
In NCAAs: Davidson 9 pts, 2 reb, 4 fouls; Butler 8 pts, 4 reb, 3 TOs.
Oh, and he could barely play 5 or 6 straight minutes without needing a rest.
Vander had a very good junior season, with only 8 single-digit scoring games all year. He was by far our best perimeter defender and came up huge in the clutch. He averaged 34 minutes in BE play and could have played more because he was in extraordinary physical shape. He played all 80 minutes in the two NCAA games in D.C.
To say he was anything less than very good by focusing on a half-dozen of his worst games shows a general lack of understanding of basketball - not to mention what willie would call a "hate woody" regarding Vander.
You know, I voted for Gardner because he was around for a whole 'nother year. But now, after doing all this research to refute your flawed arguments, I'm starting to think that was a mistake.
-
Go look at the box scores for those games and then come back. While you're at it, check out the Nova and Syracuse games too.
Check the box scores for Derrick Wilson,Juan, Jamal ferguson, Steve Taylor in those games and comon back.
-
OK, are we really going to do this? Do I really have to cut down a player I actually liked and appreciated (Gardner) to counteract your cherry-picked stats? I guess, so here's a huge sampling of performances from Gardner's "punishing running back" of a junior year ...
Florida - 6 pts, 1 reb. Green Bay 7-2.
5-game stretch midway through BE season: 4 pts-2 pts-8 pts-13 pts-2 pts - total for the 5 games (USF-LV-USF-DeP-GT): 29 points, 9 turnovers, 14 rebounds.
Later in BE season, wrapped around his outstanding performance against Syracuse: Nova 2 pts, 1 reb; ND 5 pts, 2 reb; Rutgers 4pts, 3 reb.
In NCAAs: Davidson 9 pts, 2 reb, 4 fouls; Butler 8 pts, 4 reb, 3 TOs.
Oh, and he could barely play 5 or 6 straight minutes without needing a rest.
Vander had a very good junior season, with only 8 single-digit scoring games all year. He was by far our best perimeter defender and came up huge in the clutch. He averaged 34 minutes in BE play and could have played more because he was in extraordinary physical shape. He played all 80 minutes in the two NCAA games in D.C.
To say he was anything less than very good by focusing on a half-dozen of his worst games shows a general lack of understanding of basketball - not to mention what willie would call a "hate woody" regarding Vander.
You know, I voted for Gardner because he was around for a whole 'nother year. But now, after doing all this research to refute your flawed arguments, I'm starting to think that was a mistake.
I'm feeling the same. I love davante, but I wish I voted for blue.
-
I get a kick out of guys who try to discredit Gardner for not being a playmaker - he wasn't a freaking guard. Guards have the ball in their hands a hell of a lot more than a big/post player. Post players are ALWAYS dependent upon guards getting them the ball, to be able to then go to work. A guard can go to work anytime they want.
Gardner was a hell of a lot more reliable and consistent in his production at MU over his 4 years than was Blue. And I tend to value stats (so long as the sample size is relevant), to back up what my eyes tell me as well - Gardner was a better player than Blue. And, I suspect if you asked opposing coaches which player they game planned more for trying to take away - it was Davante Gardner without question.
-
I get a kick out of guys who try to discredit Gardner for not being a playmaker - he wasn't a freaking guard. Guards have the ball in their hands a hell of a lot more than a big/post player. Post players are ALWAYS dependent upon guards getting them the ball, to be able to then go to work. A guard can go to work anytime they want.
Gardner was a hell of a lot more reliable and consistent in his production at MU over his 4 years than was Blue. And I tend to value stats (so long as the sample size is relevant), to back up what my eyes tell me as well - Gardner was a better player than Blue. And, I suspect if you asked opposing coaches which player they game planned more for trying to take away - it was Davante Gardner without question.
Nobody is discrediting gardener, we're simply
Debating about them. The thread is called gander VS devante
Right?
-
Nobody is discrediting gardener, we're simply
Debating about them. The thread is called gander VS devante
Right?
I guess you can say that...if you want to split hairs - The reality is that in such a topic, both sides are making points to support their case...and in so doing, are discrediting the other person they didn't vote for.
The point of my post is that you can't say Gardner wasn't a playmaker, or expect him to have some of the signature moments that Blue had as a guard - such as against Davidson, St. Johns etc...by simple virtue of their positions. Rarely do any back to the basket players have game winning shots. I mean how many game winners did Shaq have? A guard is by function of their position SUPPOSED TO BE A PLAYMAKER.
It would be like me being critical of Blue for never developing a post game while at MU. Why didn't Vander ever command the ball on the block and go to work? You can't be critical of Gardner for rarely taking someone off the dribble, or doing much from the perimeter - as that isn't what a guy in his position does...or needs to do...when they already are the 10th best player in ALL of college basketball as far as True Shooting Percentage...
-
I get a kick out of guys who try to discredit Gardner for not being a playmaker - he wasn't a freaking guard.
And, I suspect if you asked opposing coaches which player they game planned more for trying to take away - it was Davante Gardner without question.
On the first sentence, I never once mentioned Gardner's playmaking. It would have been nice if that awesome force of a center grabbed a few more rebounds, though.
On the second, maybe you're right. And maybe the coaches at St. John's, Davidson and Butler wish they had spent a little more time game-planning to take away Vander, because he kicked their arses.
Against Butler, while Davante was going for 8 points (1-for-4), 4 rebs (0 defensive boards), 0 blocks and 3 TOs, Vander was carrying us to the Sweet 16 with 29 pts (9-15, including 3-4 from arc), and 4 steals. I guess the great Brad Stevens was focusing on Davante!
OK, I'm done here. This is a dopey argument. One guy was a center who needed guards to get him the ball and won nothing as a senior when he had lousy guards. The other guy was a guard who took 2+ years to find his stride but then became a very good player who came through in the clutch.
Both had strengths, both had flaws and their games were so different that comparing them is foolish. I'm already wishing I had the time back that I spent on this subject.
-
I get a kick out of guys who try to discredit Gardner for not being a playmaker - he wasn't a freaking guard. Guards have the ball in their hands a hell of a lot more than a big/post player. Post players are ALWAYS dependent upon guards getting them the ball, to be able to then go to work. A guard can go to work anytime they want.
Gardner was a hell of a lot more reliable and consistent in his production at MU over his 4 years than was Blue. And I tend to value stats (so long as the sample size is relevant), to back up what my eyes tell me as well - Gardner was a better player than Blue. And, I suspect if you asked opposing coaches which player they game planned more for trying to take away - it was Davante Gardner without question.
Couldn't you use this argument the other way…
I get a kick out of guys saying Vander was more inconsistent - he was a freaking guard - guards are required to have their hands on the ball all the time. In order to score they have to create for themselves. That leads to more room for error and an easier job to disrupt their game leading to more inconsistencies. Post players can rely on the guards creating opportunities for them, they just have to catch the ball and put it in the hoop.
That is much easier to be consistent with.
Also, if you want to know who the coaches game planned against. Two years ago it was Vander or at times Gardner. Last year, several high profile coaches have admitted, the one player they game planned against to make sure they didn't get any opportunities was Jake….game plans don't always reference the best player, rather often the easiest person to take out of their game to disrupt the overall offense.
-
Gardner will be hard to duplicate in Marquette's offensive efficiency record books...but I put up the Davidson tape because of his inability to play defense, not his playmaking ability. The big man couldn't even consistently crack the starting lineup.
For me, to be better, he wasn't close to a two way player, which is why he went undrafted. That and his lackluster senior year where he didn't grab the leadership reigns, Buzz be damned.
-
Couldn't you use this argument the other way…
I get a kick out of guys saying Vander was more inconsistent - he was a freaking guard - guards are required to have their hands on the ball all the time. In order to score they have to create for themselves. That leads to more room for error and an easier job to disrupt their game leading to more inconsistencies. Post players can rely on the guards creating opportunities for them, they just have to catch the ball and put it in the hoop.
That is much easier to be consistent with.
Also, if you want to know who the coaches game planned against. Two years ago it was Vander or at times Gardner. Last year, several high profile coaches have admitted, the one player they game planned against to make sure they didn't get any opportunities was Jake….game plans don't always reference the best player, rather often the easiest person to take out of their game to disrupt the overall offense.
Why has it been so difficult for MU to find a good post player for the last 30 years? They are a lot more rare than good guards...if its as simple as get some good guards...and dump off to a Dwight Burke for an easy dunk or layup...fine..I'd go along with your point. Regarding Blue - he wasn't a very good guard as far as being a playmaker for others...though the Mayo haters wanted to call Todd selfish...he assisted at a better rate than Vander Blue.
And I'll guarantee you Davante Gardner put a hell of a lot more fear into opposing coaches than Jake Thomas. Of course you know Jake is a 3point shooter..and you try to limit that...and that is a lot easier to limit, than a 295 bull that can bully his way to the basket and either make the shot, miss the shot and get his own rebound, or get fouled and then convert at 80% from the line.
And game plans generally do try to limit the best player on the other team. Period. You want to make the other role players beat you. Why? Because they aren't as damn good.
-
Why has it been so difficult for MU to find a good post player for the last 30 years? They are a lot more rare than good guards...if its as simple as get some good guards...and dump off to a Dwight Burke for an easy dunk or layup...fine..I'd go along with your point. Regarding Blue - he wasn't a very good guard as far as being a playmaker for others...though the Mayo haters wanted to call Todd selfish...he assisted at a better rate than Vander Blue.
And I'll guarantee you Davante Gardner put a hell of a lot more fear into opposing coaches than Jake Thomas. Of course you know Jake is a 3point shooter..and you try to limit that...and that is a lot easier to limit, than a 295 bull that can bully his way to the basket and either make the shot, miss the shot and get his own rebound, or get fouled and then convert at 80% from the line.
And game plans generally do try to limit the best player on the other team. Period. You want to make the other role players beat you. Why? Because they aren't as damn good.
I agree
-
Couldn't you use this argument the other way…
I get a kick out of guys saying Vander was more inconsistent - he was a freaking guard - guards are required to have their hands on the ball all the time. In order to score they have to create for themselves. That leads to more room for error and an easier job to disrupt their game leading to more inconsistencies. Post players can rely on the guards creating opportunities for them, they just have to catch the ball and put it in the hoop.
That is much easier to be consistent with.
Also, if you want to know who the coaches game planned against. Two years ago it was Vander or at times Gardner. Last year, several high profile coaches have admitted, the one player they game planned against to make sure they didn't get any opportunities was Jake….game plans don't always reference the best player, rather often the easiest person to take out of their game to disrupt the overall offense.
I'm just curious, who are these high profile coaches who admitted their game plan was to stop Jake?
-
I get a kick out of guys who try to discredit Gardner for not being a playmaker - he wasn't a freaking guard. Guards have the ball in their hands a hell of a lot more than a big/post player. Post players are ALWAYS dependent upon guards getting them the ball, to be able to then go to work. A guard can go to work anytime they want.
Gardner was a hell of a lot more reliable and consistent in his production at MU over his 4 years than was Blue. And I tend to value stats (so long as the sample size is relevant), to back up what my eyes tell me as well - Gardner was a better player than Blue. And, I suspect if you asked opposing coaches which player they game planned more for trying to take away - it was Davante Gardner without question.
I think this is the point many of us have been making for the last several pages. Davante was a good post player when Marquette has had zero post presence but he needed others to make him successful. He needed a Vander. Buzz made Gardner successful because he required paint touches and he was successful when there where players who could spread the floor. So if the question is who do you want on your team you have to take the guy who can carry you on his own and that is Vander. College is a guards game.
Davante was more consistent than blue but it was because he did his one thing very well. Blue would drive to the hoop, do a jump shot off the dribble and shoot the three. He was more versatile.
If I knew I had a Wade on the team then I would pick Gardner but if it was last years team plus/minus Blue or Gardner I would go with Blue. He could move to PG. He could replace Thomas.
Mayo is a pick up basketball player. Head down look to score and don't play in a system. And when the team stopped playing a system last yr Mayo had his best games down the stretch. However that is not sustainable in D1 and it showed last yr. one fact that hasn't been brought up is that mayo was a full yr older than Blue so when you compare yr to yr Mayo had as advantage of more time on earth playing.
-
Why has it been so difficult for MU to find a good post player for the last 30 years? They are a lot more rare than good guards...if its as simple as get some good guards...and dump off to a Dwight Burke for an easy dunk or layup...fine..I'd go along with your point. Regarding Blue - he wasn't a very good guard as far as being a playmaker for others...though the Mayo haters wanted to call Todd selfish...he assisted at a better rate than Vander Blue.
And I'll guarantee you Davante Gardner put a hell of a lot more fear into opposing coaches than Jake Thomas. Of course you know Jake is a 3point shooter..and you try to limit that...and that is a lot easier to limit, than a 295 bull that can bully his way to the basket and either make the shot, miss the shot and get his own rebound, or get fouled and then convert at 80% from the line.
And game plans generally do try to limit the best player on the other team. Period. You want to make the other role players beat you. Why? Because they aren't as damn good.
They also easily shut down Gardner by rotating a defender to help double. He was just as easy to game plan for. The difference was if a guy like Jake gets hot, the whole offense is dangerous and harder to stop. If Gardner gets his, no one else gets going. Better to stop the guard.
And also, by letting Gardner get his, you assure yourself that he is playing on the defensive end, where he will give many of them back.
Gardner was the best offensive big man that I can remember since Damon Key (who was a much better version of Gardner), but he was a poor defender and prone to getting easily frustrated/disrupted by big defenders.
As for the coaches, I remember for sure, George Thompson and Jay Wright. I know there were others but don't remember the precise games.
-
Vander consistently had nights where he was the worst player on the team due to missed shots or turnovers. I count six his junior year alone (Colgate, USC, @UWGB, Providence, @Georgetown, ND).
That's not an off night. That's "the worst player on the team".
Give me a effin break. That claim is just silly.
-
OK, are we really going to do this? Do I really have to cut down a player I actually liked and appreciated (Gardner) to counteract your cherry-picked stats? I guess, so here's a huge sampling of performances from Gardner's "punishing running back" of a junior year ...
Florida - 6 pts, 1 reb. Green Bay 7-2.
5-game stretch midway through BE season: 4 pts-2 pts-8 pts-13 pts-2 pts - total for the 5 games (USF-LV-USF-DeP-GT): 29 points, 9 turnovers, 14 rebounds.
Later in BE season, wrapped around his outstanding performance against Syracuse: Nova 2 pts, 1 reb; ND 5 pts, 2 reb; Rutgers 4pts, 3 reb.
In NCAAs: Davidson 9 pts, 2 reb, 4 fouls; Butler 8 pts, 4 reb, 3 TOs.
Oh, and he could barely play 5 or 6 straight minutes without needing a rest.
Vander had a very good junior season, with only 8 single-digit scoring games all year. He was by far our best perimeter defender and came up huge in the clutch. He averaged 34 minutes in BE play and could have played more because he was in extraordinary physical shape. He played all 80 minutes in the two NCAA games in D.C.
To say he was anything less than very good by focusing on a half-dozen of his worst games shows a general lack of understanding of basketball - not to mention what willie would call a "hate woody" regarding Vander.
You know, I voted for Gardner because he was around for a whole 'nother year. But now, after doing all this research to refute your flawed arguments, I'm starting to think that was a mistake.
thank you for pointing out the obvious. Davante had many games where he was a non-factor offensively, just as Vander did. Somehow, he gets a pass while Vander gets the ridicule as being the "worst player on the team"...pure garbage. It's hard to fathom...it really is.
-
Give me a effin break. That claim is just silly.
Excellent point. Missed shots and turnovers no longer matter, right?
-
OK, are we really going to do this? Do I really have to cut down a player I actually liked and appreciated (Gardner) to counteract your cherry-picked stats? I guess, so here's a huge sampling of performances from Gardner's "punishing running back" of a junior year ...
Florida - 6 pts, 1 reb. Green Bay 7-2.
5-game stretch midway through BE season: 4 pts-2 pts-8 pts-13 pts-2 pts - total for the 5 games (USF-LV-USF-DeP-GT): 29 points, 9 turnovers, 14 rebounds.
Later in BE season, wrapped around his outstanding performance against Syracuse: Nova 2 pts, 1 reb; ND 5 pts, 2 reb; Rutgers 4pts, 3 reb.
In NCAAs: Davidson 9 pts, 2 reb, 4 fouls; Butler 8 pts, 4 reb, 3 TOs.
Oh, and he could barely play 5 or 6 straight minutes without needing a rest.
Vander had a very good junior season, with only 8 single-digit scoring games all year. He was by far our best perimeter defender and came up huge in the clutch. He averaged 34 minutes in BE play and could have played more because he was in extraordinary physical shape. He played all 80 minutes in the two NCAA games in D.C.
To say he was anything less than very good by focusing on a half-dozen of his worst games shows a general lack of understanding of basketball - not to mention what willie would call a "hate woody" regarding Vander.
You know, I voted for Gardner because he was around for a whole 'nother year. But now, after doing all this research to refute your flawed arguments, I'm starting to think that was a mistake.
I was trying to be positive with that post. It's easy to point out the three game winners for Blue. People seemed to be forgetting the many times where Gardner was huge for the team.
Of course Gardner had bad games. Neither he nor Blue were good enough. He just didn't have as many, or at the level, of Blue.
What I find funny is that we both think Gardner was the better college player.
Here's my simplistic breakdown
Freshman year - Gardner was better
Sophomore year - Gardner was better
Junior year - Gardner was better (but I understand why people might say Blue was better)
Senior year - Gardner was better
-
Excellent point. Missed shots and turnovers no longer matter, right?
Sure, just like giving up easy baskets to the other team all night long no longer matters, right?
-
From Ken Pom in their last year for perspective as comparing stats between a guard and center are often not apples to apples.
Similar to Vander Blue: '09 Dwight Lewis (942), '11 Darius Johnson-Odom (919), '11 Ramone Moore (917), '12 Michael Snaer (911), '12 Mark Lyons (911)
Similar to Davante Gardner: '13 Romero Osby (904), '10 Quincy Pondexter (887), '10 Robin Smeulders (877), '12 Steven Idlet (875), '09 Anthony Vereen (870)
Who would you rather have? Very close...obviously all of us would rather have both...but I like Blue's comps better.
-
Sure, just like giving up easy baskets to the other team all night long no longer matters, right?
You can do better
Frankly, I blame Buzz's crappy defensive scheme more than anything for Gardner's defense. Paint Touches are bullcrap.
-
From Ken Pom in their last year for perspective as comparing stats between a guard and center are often not apples to apples.
Similar to Vander Blue: '09 Dwight Lewis (942), '11 Darius Johnson-Odom (919), '11 Ramone Moore (917), '12 Michael Snaer (911), '12 Mark Lyons (911)
Similar to Davante Gardner: '13 Romero Osby (904), '10 Quincy Pondexter (887), '10 Robin Smeulders (877), '12 Steven Idlet (875), '09 Anthony Vereen (870)
Who would you rather have? Very close...obviously all of us would rather have both...but I like Blue's comps better.
Doc, do you really take Vander's one season over four seasons from Gardner? If so, based on what objective criteria?
Also, I note that Gardner as a junior compares to '14 JayVaughn Pinkston (861) and '10 Matt Howard (858)
-
Doc, do you really take Vander's one season over four seasons from Gardner? If so, based on what objective criteria?
Also, I note that Gardner as a junior compares to '14 JayVaughn Pinkston (861) and '10 Matt Howard (858)
Together, the trio hit S16, S16 and E8. Apart, DG's senior year, nada. That is the part I cannot get by. The fact is, Vander's ability to crease the seam was something DG missed last year. Vander made everyone around him better...sometimes with heart, or times with ability, other times with both. He was a gamer...I will never that blow out in Florida...only guy on the team to show up, including the head coach.
Vander could stand alone on both ends of the floor, Gardner couldn't. Love them both, though as players.
-
You can do better
Frankly, I blame Buzz's crappy defensive scheme more than anything for Gardner's defense. Paint Touches are bullcrap.
Frankly, *you* can do better.
Gardner had a ton of trouble guarding either true centers or athletic power forwards. Most of this was because he is undersized, but there was a legitimate reason why Buzz subbed him out in defensive situations. He simply wasn't that good a defender.
-
In a game of HORSE I'd take Davante.
-
Together, the trio hit S16, S16 and E8. Apart, DG's senior year, nada. That is the part I cannot get by. The fact is, Vander's ability to crease the seam was something DG missed last year. Vander made everyone around him better...sometimes with heart, or times with ability, other times with both. He was a gamer...I will never that blow out in Florida...only guy on the team to show up, including the head coach.
Vander could stand alone on both ends of the floor, Gardner couldn't. Love them both, though as players.
The revolution of the stat nerd over the last decade has never found an appropriate way to account for the bolded. They've tried, and there are "metrics" I'm sure will be produced, but it will never stand the test that eyeballs have for decades previously.
-
Together, the trio hit S16, S16 and E8. Apart, DG's senior year, nada. That is the part I cannot get by. The fact is, Vander's ability to crease the seam was something DG missed last year. Vander made everyone around him better...sometimes with heart, or times with ability, other times with both. He was a gamer...I will never that blow out in Florida...only guy on the team to show up, including the head coach.
Vander could stand alone on both ends of the floor, Gardner couldn't. Love them both, though as players.
Fair enough, but I have a few points too. The first S16 team had DJO, Crowder, and JFB. The second S16 had Crowder and DJO too. The E8 run was fueled as much by Jamil's late season surge as it was Vander's late season surge. Gardner was a contributor on all those teams too. Let's not overstate Vander's or Gardner's impact on any of those.
As for the senior year, is that really Gardner's fault? I attribute it more to the complete lack of a viable back court.
-
The revolution of the stat nerd over the last decade has never found an appropriate way to account for the bolded. They've tried, and there are "metrics" I'm sure will be produced, but it will never stand the test that eyeballs have for decades previously.
Not just that, but you simply can't create a stat that adequately accounts for defense, a problem especially for those who guard on the perimeter.
-
Fair enough, but I have a few points too. The first S16 team had DJO, Crowder, and JFB. The second S16 had Crowder and DJO too. The E8 run was fueled as much by Jamil's late season surge as it was Vander's late season surge. Gardner was a contributor on all those teams too. Let's not overstate Vander's or Gardner's impact on any of those.
As for the senior year, is that really Gardner's fault? I attribute it more to the complete lack of a viable back court.
How dare you? Gardner and Jamil simply failed to step up and be "leaders." True leaders can overcome playing with guards who cannot shoot the ball from outside 2 feet (in once case) and inside 21 feet (in the other case.)
I'm still waiting for someone to make the case for how Blue was such an incredible defender? He doesn't take charges, doesn't block shots, doesn't have a steal percentage in the Top 1000 players of college basketball in his best year (junior), yet he's this elite, lockdown type of defender?
But hey, let's just ignore that 1 guy finished in the Top 100 of 9 offenseive categories, while the other player didn't finish in the Top 100 in ONE category...offensively or defensively.
Uh okay. Vander Blue was a better college player than Gardner. LOL.
-
Frankly, *you* can do better.
Gardner had a ton of trouble guarding either true centers or athletic power forwards. Most of this was because he is undersized, but there was a legitimate reason why Buzz subbed him out in defensive situations. He simply wasn't that good a defender.
Look, I agree that he wasn't that good defensively. I was annoyed with "easy" baskets "all night long". That's a gross exaggeration.
Buzz also subbed Gardner out in defensive situations because there was a better defensive option available to him.
Gardner was clearly so much better offensively, so the counter is "Vander played at both ends of the court".
So let's look at the defensive stats*:
Either there are no stats to show the defensive impact, or
Any stats that show defensive impact can be discredited.
So it becomes subjective. Or worse, people say, "don't show me stats. heart! toughness!"
They were both decent (not great) players that contributed to a great run in MU tournament history. Both players had flaws. I believe Gardner's consistently above average performances over four years make him the better college player.
*Nevermind that MU wasn't good defensively under Buzz and the one year they were was luck
-
Not just that, but you simply can't create a stat that adequately accounts for defense, a problem especially for those who guard on the perimeter.
LOL - NIce reach Sultan. How about we start with steals? Maybe charges taken? Perhaps blocked shots? I mean all players are playing the same game...if a guy is a really good defender, he should show up in these categories, right?
Yet I know you and some of the others dismissed Burton's defense last year, and suggested he should be on the bench due to his lack of "defense," yet they guy is a disruptive defender. It's like you'd choose AJ Hawk as your linebacker of choice over a Ray Lewis. One guy may be "assignment sure," the other guy is a force/disruptive and a playmaker. Blue was NOT a playmaker on defense. He was a solid on ball defender. That's it. Not great instincts. Nothing more.
Why did Buzz flip the hell out the one time Vander took a charge in his college career? Most "tough" guys are never afraid to take a charge, and most great defenders become very adept at it. Blue was never tough, nor a great defender. He was soft, yet tried* to act hard.
-
How dare you? Gardner and Jamil simply failed to step up and be "leaders." True leaders can overcome playing with guards who cannot shoot the ball from outside 2 feet (in once case) and inside 21 feet (in the other case.)
I'm still waiting for someone to make the case for how Blue was such an incredible defender? He doesn't take charges, doesn't block shots, doesn't have a steal percentage in the Top 1000 players of college basketball in his best year (junior), yet he's this elite, lockdown type of defender?
But hey, let's just ignore that 1 guy finished in the Top 100 of 9 offenseive categories, while the other player didn't finish in the Top 100 in ONE category...offensively or defensively.
Uh okay. Vander Blue was a better college player than Gardner. LOL.
Remove the word "college" from the original question. Who is better at the game of basketball? Simple question, obvious answer. That's all I am saying.
-
You can do better
Frankly, I blame Buzz's crappy defensive scheme more than anything for Gardner's defense. Paint Touches are bullcrap.
Now that I can wholeheartedly agree with, and I said as much during this past season.
-
Honestly, they were about equal IMHO. One was great on one side of the ball and terrible on the other. The other was above average on both. Some prefer offensive specialists, some prefer well rounded players.
I also didn't take the four vs. three years argument into account. I looked at it from who was the better basketball player period. College is a guard's game, I would take Blue every time. But I'd rather have both
-
Honestly, they were about equal IMHO. One was great on one side of the ball and terrible on the other. The other was above average on both. Some prefer offensive specialists, some prefer well rounded players.
I also didn't take the four vs. three years argument into account. I looked at it from who was the better basketball player period. College is a guard's game, I would take Blue every time. But I'd rather have both
Same here...better stated by you.
-
Not just that, but you simply can't create a stat that adequately accounts for defense, a problem especially for those who guard on the perimeter.
/wonkish
Defensive rating is done by taking the overall team performance and then adjusting the credit for that to various players based on the defensive stats in the box score (fouls, DRs, steals, blocks).
There are views out there that another metric is the "shot guarded". In other words, when you guard a player, do their shots go in or not? Obviously, this defensive metric is not available in the box score.
There is nothing of which I am familiar that looks at denying a player the ball or proper rotations. This is the Dominic James senior year approach to defense and where we criticize Gardner's defense. I'm sure something exists.
I believe defensive contributions can be broken down to box score stats (available) + shots guarded (not available) + ball denial/rotations (not available)
====
The one approach that is available via the box score over-emphasizes on-ball defenders and post players. Unless a perimeter player gets steals or blocks, they are under-emphasized. However, the available approach also fairly gives credit to a player like Gardner for doing things like getting defensive rebounds, steals, and blocks. As maligned as his defense may be, he did still do those things on the court.
For his career, Vander's Offensive Rating was below average (96) and his box score defensive stats are marginal. Considering he may be under-emphasized with defensive stats, Vander still would have to have been exceptional at either guarding shots or denying touches to account for being sub-par offensively.
On the counter, Gardner was above average offensively (120) for his career. Considering his box score defense was more properly accounted for, his off-ball defense would have to have been awful to outweigh his offensive contributions and box score defense.
In summary, I find it implausible that the unavailable defensive stats would show both Blue exceptional enough to overcome his offensive limitations/box score defense and Gardner deficient enough to outweigh his offensive contributions/box score defense.
-
LOL - NIce reach Sultan. How about we start with steals? Maybe charges taken? Perhaps blocked shots? I mean all players are playing the same game...if a guy is a really good defender, he should show up in these categories, right?
Yet I know you and some of the others dismissed Burton's defense last year, and suggested he should be on the bench due to his lack of "defense," yet they guy is a disruptive defender. It's like you'd choose AJ Hawk as your linebacker of choice over a Ray Lewis. One guy may be "assignment sure," the other guy is a force/disruptive and a playmaker. Blue was NOT a playmaker on defense. He was a solid on ball defender. That's it. Not great instincts. Nothing more.
Why did Buzz flip the hell out the one time Vander took a charge in his college career? Most "tough" guys are never afraid to take a charge, and most great defenders become very adept at it. Blue was never tough, nor a great defender. He was soft, yet tried* to act hard.
There are a few things to parse out of this...
First, steals and blocks are inadequate to judge someone's defense. Hollinger even admits in his PER ratings that steals and blocks are not a great way to judge defense because it gives a greater weight to those who take chances on the perimeter and rim protecting defenders. There are all sorts of basketball people who don't put any weight at all in steals and blocks to determine someone's defensive abilities. Gregg Popovich, who knows a thing or two about defense, doesn't care much for either. Bruce Bowen, who everyone acknowledges was a great defender, didn't put up gaudy stats at all on the defensive end.
Second, no one uses "charges taken" to judge a players defense. We all know what you did here. You knew that Blue didn't take a lot of them so you threw it in there to bolster your argument.
And finally, your eye test is a complete failure if you think that Blue wasn't tough, didn't have great instincts and wasn't a playmaker. He was actually all those things, and that's what made him a very good defender.
(And your MLB comparison is silly. No one would chose Hawk over Lewis.)
-
(And your MLB NFL comparison is silly. No one would chose Hawk over Lewis.)
FIFY
And actually I would. But that's because of the whole off the field stabbing thing.
-
/wonkish
Defensive rating is done by taking the overall team performance and then adjusting the credit for that to various players based on the defensive stats in the box score (fouls, DRs, steals, blocks).
There are views out there that another metric is the "shot guarded". In other words, when you guard a player, do their shots go in or not? Obviously, this defensive metric is not available in the box score.
There is nothing of which I am familiar that looks at denying a player the ball or proper rotations. This is the Dominic James senior year approach to defense and where we criticize Gardner's defense. I'm sure something exists.
I believe defensive contributions can be broken down to box score stats (available) + shots guarded (not available) + ball denial/rotations (not available)
====
The one approach that is available via the box score over-emphasizes on-ball defenders and post players. Unless a perimeter player gets steals or blocks, they are under-emphasized. However, the available approach also fairly gives credit to a player like Gardner for doing things like getting defensive rebounds, steals, and blocks. As maligned as his defense may be, he did still do those things on the court.
For his career, Vander's Offensive Rating was below average (96) and his box score defensive stats are marginal. Considering he may be under-emphasized with defensive stats, Vander still would have to have been exceptional at either guarding shots or denying touches to account for being sub-par offensively.
On the counter, Gardner was above average offensively (120) for his career. Considering his box score defense was more properly accounted for, his off-ball defense would have to have been awful to outweigh his offensive contributions and box score defense.
In summary, I find it implausible that the unavailable defensive stats would show both Blue exceptional enough to overcome his offensive limitations/box score defense and Gardner deficient enough to outweigh his offensive contributions/box score defense.
OK now that is a reasonable response. And I get what you are saying.
I started out in this subject saying that it is very difficult to judge who is better because you are judging two players, who played two different positions, and whose strengths and weaknesses are opposite of one another. And I think this thread has proven that.
-
FIFY
And actually I would. But that's because of the whole off the field stabbing thing.
MLB...middle linebacker.
-
/wonkish
Defensive rating is done by taking the overall team performance and then adjusting the credit for that to various players based on the defensive stats in the box score (fouls, DRs, steals, blocks).
There are views out there that another metric is the "shot guarded". In other words, when you guard a player, do their shots go in or not? Obviously, this defensive metric is not available in the box score.
There is nothing of which I am familiar that looks at denying a player the ball or proper rotations. This is the Dominic James senior year approach to defense and where we criticize Gardner's defense. I'm sure something exists.
I believe defensive contributions can be broken down to box score stats (available) + shots guarded (not available) + ball denial/rotations (not available)
====
The one approach that is available via the box score over-emphasizes on-ball defenders and post players. Unless a perimeter player gets steals or blocks, they are under-emphasized. However, the available approach also fairly gives credit to a player like Gardner for doing things like getting defensive rebounds, steals, and blocks. As maligned as his defense may be, he did still do those things on the court.
For his career, Vander's Offensive Rating was below average (96) and his box score defensive stats are marginal. Considering he may be under-emphasized with defensive stats, Vander still would have to have been exceptional at either guarding shots or denying touches to account for being sub-par offensively.
On the counter, Gardner was above average offensively (120) for his career. Considering his box score defense was more properly accounted for, his off-ball defense would have to have been awful to outweigh his offensive contributions and box score defense.
In summary, I find it implausible that the unavailable defensive stats would show both Blue exceptional enough to overcome his offensive limitations/box score defense and Gardner deficient enough to outweigh his offensive contributions/box score defense.
So how would one go about comparing the box score defensive stats for the two players in question (sorry I don't get very deep into the stats so I don't know) and what would be the best way to compare the two players apples to apples?
-
So how would one go about comparing the box score defensive stats for the two players in question (sorry I don't get very deep into the stats so I don't know) and what would be the best way to compare the two players apples to apples?
The defensive rating formula is all kinds of complex. It takes the team defense and then adjusts based on how many box score stats a player collects.
As Juniors
Gardner ORtg 123.0 / DRtg 93.6
Blue ORtg 106.7 / DRtg 98.1
As Sophs
Gardner ORtg 119.5 / DRtg 91.7
Blue ORtg 99.3 / DRtg 93.9
Again, Gardner's defensive impact is probably over-stated and Blue's defensive impact is probably under-stated. Even then, the gap between Gardner's offense and defense is so much larger than the gap between Blue's. I just don't see how unavailable defensive stats would move the advantage towards Blue.
As for the best way to compare apples to apples, well, that's the $10K question. Pudner invented "Value Add" to answer that question. PAWS40 (position adjusted win score / 40 minutes) is another metric that compares relative contribution against similar positions.
-
I'm just curious, who are these high profile coaches who admitted their game plan was to stop Jake?
Nobody
-
In a game of HORSE I'd take Davante.
Not if dunks were allowed!!!!!!
-
The defensive rating formula is all kinds of complex. It takes the team defense and then adjusts based on how many box score stats a player collects.
As Juniors
Gardner ORtg 123.0 / DRtg 93.6
Blue ORtg 106.7 / DRtg 98.1
As Sophs
Gardner ORtg 119.5 / DRtg 91.7
Blue ORtg 99.3 / DRtg 93.9
Again, Gardner's defensive impact is probably over-stated and Blue's defensive impact is probably under-stated. Even then, the gap between Gardner's offense and defense is so much larger than the gap between Blue's. I just don't see how unavailable defensive stats would move the advantage towards Blue.
As for the best way to compare apples to apples, well, that's the $10K question. Pudner invented "Value Add" to answer that question. PAWS40 (position adjusted win score / 40 minutes) is another metric that compares relative contribution against similar positions.
Thank you. This stuff is extremely interesting but I just can't get myself to devote the time to study it and truly understand it all.
That being said, I would still pick Vander!
-
I reject your reality, and substitute my own!
-
I reject your admittedly incomplete version of reality, and substitute my own!
FIFY
-
MLB...middle linebacker.
Gotcha, I always use ILB
-
FIFY
Ha, delicious edit. I reject your reality, and substitute my own! Again!
-
There are a few things to parse out of this...
First, steals and blocks are inadequate to judge someone's defense. Hollinger even admits in his PER ratings that steals and blocks are not a great way to judge defense because it gives a greater weight to those who take chances on the perimeter and rim protecting defenders. There are all sorts of basketball people who don't put any weight at all in steals and blocks to determine someone's defensive abilities. Gregg Popovich, who knows a thing or two about defense, doesn't care much for either. Bruce Bowen, who everyone acknowledges was a great defender, didn't put up gaudy stats at all on the defensive end.
Second, no one uses "charges taken" to judge a players defense. We all know what you did here. You knew that Blue didn't take a lot of them so you threw it in there to bolster your argument.
And finally, your eye test is a complete failure if you think that Blue wasn't tough, didn't have great instincts and wasn't a playmaker. He was actually all those things, and that's what made him a very good defender.
(And your MLB comparison is silly. No one would chose Hawk over Lewis.)
LOL - Except a guy like you...who values all the "hidden" value that never shows up in a box score...i.e. - Vander's defense, Derrick at PG last season, Jake Thomas, etc.
And FYI - A guy with good defensive instincts is in the Top 1000 of ALL college basketball players in Steal Percentage. Burton has GREAT defensive instincts - that's what shows up - and why he shows up in the box score. Good defenders take chances - using football again - Charles Woodson...any premier cornerback or safety...they have instincts that allow them to think one step ahead of the opposition, and that leads to interceptions (forced turnovers/steals in basketball.)
And please Blue was not a play maker. Todd Mayo was a better playmaker than Vander Blue...Todd assisted at a higher rate, and also hit a ton of clutch shots. Sadly Todd was only able to get on the floor for 23 minutes per game as a junior...Vander got 33.
-
A guy with good defensive instincts is in the Top 1000 of ALL college basketball players in Steal Percentage. Burton has GREAT defensive instincts - that's what shows up - and why he shows up in the box score. Good defenders take chances - using football again - Charles Woodson...any premier cornerback or safety...they have instincts that allow them to think one step ahead of the opposition, and that leads to interceptions (forced turnovers/steals in basketball.)
Serious question, Ners: Do you think Burton was a better defensive player last year than Blue was?
-
Blue didn't play much defense at all last year
-
Everyone has their individual opinion. But the public opinion is in favor of Blue. Case closed.
-
Serious question, Ners: Do you think Burton was a better defensive player last year than Blue was?
I think Burton will be a better basketball player than Blue ever was at Marquette, and that we will see that as soon as this year.
To answer your question specifically - Blue was a better one on one defender, and slightly* less foul prone than Burton. Burton was a much better defender with regard to being disruptive (blocks/steals)defensively. Burton stole the ball at the 5th highest rate of ALL players in college basketball last season. That is elite level. As a freshman Blue's steal percentage was 2.7% - Burton, 5.2% - that essentially tells me he is twice as disruptive, and through those steals limits the opposition to even get off a shot in that possession.
The whole point of all of this anyway was that Blue doesn't show up in any defensive categories as being elite - yet some here want to give him that label, even though in categories that can measure defensive value...Blue is largely middle of the road at best.
-
I think Burton will be a better basketball player than Blue ever was at Marquette, and that we will see that as soon as this year.
To answer your question specifically - Blue was a better one on one defender, and slightly* less foul prone than Burton. Burton was a much better defender with regard to being disruptive (blocks/steals)defensively. Burton stole the ball at the 5th highest rate of ALL players in college basketball last season. That is elite level. As a freshman Blue's steal percentage was 2.7% - Burton, 5.2% - that essentially tells me he is twice as disruptive, and through those steals limits the opposition to even get off a shot in that possession.
The whole point of all of this anyway was that Blue doesn't show up in any defensive categories as being elite - yet some here want to give him that label, even though in categories that can measure defensive value...Blue is largely middle of the road at best.
I saw the same things in both Burton and JJJ. An ability to anticipate defensively and create steals. That is something that takes special talent. i cant wait to see both of them on the floor together for extended minutes.
I thought Vander worked hard on his D and gave it full effort. That puts him ahead of a lot of players but doesn't necessarily make him a game changer. For example he wasn't anywhere near as disruptive as DJO was .
-
I think Burton will be a better basketball player than Blue ever was at Marquette, and that we will see that as soon as this year.
To answer your question specifically - Blue was a better one on one defender, and slightly* less foul prone than Burton. Burton was a much better defender with regard to being disruptive (blocks/steals)defensively. Burton stole the ball at the 5th highest rate of ALL players in college basketball last season. That is elite level. As a freshman Blue's steal percentage was 2.7% - Burton, 5.2% - that essentially tells me he is twice as disruptive, and through those steals limits the opposition to even get off a shot in that possession.
The whole point of all of this anyway was that Blue doesn't show up in any defensive categories as being elite - yet some here want to give him that label, even though in categories that can measure defensive value...Blue is largely middle of the road at best.
Thanks for the answer. I agree that Burton can be disruptive. He was last year in limited minutes, and those were just about the only easy buckets we got all season. We missed those tremendously from previous years.
Some others might say Blue was an "elite" defender. All I've said is that he was a good defender and easily our best perimeter defender. He was much better at staying in front of his man and denying his man than Burton was as a freshman, and that is disruptive in its own way. I think you lean on stats too much, especially given that stats do a terrible job of measuring good on-ball D.
I hope that we can put a lot of pressure on opposing guards with Duane, Burton and JJJ, because we will desperately need those easy points - not to mention we will desperately need to keep opponents from feeding the post.
-
This is a great thread...end of the day, MU will miss them both. I really wish Vander stayed one more year to mature. Rare athletic ability. In the end, it was hard to take Vander off the floor, while for DG, that was not true. You cannot be "better" starting and sitting on the bench.
-
Thanks for the answer. I agree that Burton can be disruptive. He was last year in limited minutes, and those were just about the only easy buckets we got all season. We missed those tremendously from previous years.
Some others might say Blue was an "elite" defender. All I've said is that he was a good defender and easily our best perimeter defender. He was much better at staying in front of his man and denying his man than Burton was as a freshman, and that is disruptive in its own way. I think you lean on stats too much, especially given that stats do a terrible job of measuring good on-ball D.
I hope that we can put a lot of pressure on opposing guards with Duane, Burton and JJJ, because we will desperately need those easy points - not to mention we will desperately need to keep opponents from feeding the post.
Here are the number of defense rebs per game for both in the years they were together.
Blue
2010-2011 1.973
2011-2012 2.829
2012-2013 2.647
Gardner
2010-2011 1.2
2011-2012 2.7
2012-2013 2.8
Blue was a good defense rebounding guard. Blue out rebounded Gardner on the defensive end on a per game basis in 2 of his three years. Gardner should have gotten more rebounds on the defensive end. Gardner did get more offensive rebounds per game but that is to be expected. Blue did play 10MPG more than DG his first year and 6 MPG more his second year. Based on who we had I would expect more minutes to be available for OX but he didn't get the same minutes as Blue which tells me Blue earned his PT.
Henry S. - What measure are you using to say DG had a better freshman year when he only played nine minutes. Blue played more so he had to have more of an impact.
I will also add that Blue outscored Ox by 171pts in the three years they were together.
-
LOL - Except a guy like you...
Except I wouldn't take Hawk over Lewis, so your assumptions about me and my thought process are obviously off.
-
--goes off topic--
Don't get me wrong, #BANE is the most exciting player Marquette has this year and very well might be its best, but let's cool those Burton v Blue defensive comparisons.
As a freshman, Van gave up 127 points in 160 possessions defensively per Synergy for a .794 ppp, a mark in the 67% and one deemed Very Good.
Bane, in just over half the possessions Blue faced, gave up .977 ppp (84 points in 86 possessions). This was in the 21st percentile and deemed Below Average. In other words, he was significantly worse, in significantly fewer time.
Blue played 19.0 mpg despite his offense. Bane played 12.6 mpg despite his defense. They were completely inverse of each other.
And as for the whole disruptive factor, Blue had 33 steals to Bane's 35. I realize Blue played a lot more minutes (thus the steal rate discrepancy), but at the end of the day, Blue was head and shoulders the better defender. It's not even debatable.
--end--
-
--goes off topic--
Don't get me wrong, #BANE is the most exciting player Marquette has this year and very well might be its best, but let's cool those Burton v Blue defensive comparisons.
As a freshman, Van gave up 127 points in 160 possessions defensively per Synergy for a .794 ppp, a mark in the 67% and one deemed Very Good.
Bane, in just over half the possessions Blue faced, gave up .977 ppp (84 points in 86 possessions). This was in the 21st percentile and deemed Below Average. In other words, he was significantly worse, in significantly fewer time.
Blue played 19.0 mpg despite his offense. Bane played 12.6 mpg despite his defense. They were completely inverse of each other.
And as for the whole disruptive factor, Blue had 33 steals to Bane's 35. I realize Blue played a lot more minutes (thus the steal rate discrepancy), but at the end of the day, Blue was head and shoulders the better defender. It's not even debatable.
--end--
Would love to see these same numbers for Vander and Davante...
-
Here are the number of defense rebs per game for both in the years they were together.
Blue
2010-2011 1.973 (defensive rebounding rate of 11.8%)
2011-2012 2.829 (dr% of 11.7%)
2012-2013 2.647 (dr% of 9.3%)
Gardner
2010-2011 1.2 (defensive rebounding rate of 14.6%)
2011-2012 2.7 (dr% of 15.1%)
2012-2013 2.8 (dr% of 14.9%)
Blue was a good defense rebounding guard. Blue out rebounded Gardner on the defensive end on a per game basis in 2 of his three years. Gardner should have gotten more rebounds on the defensive end. Gardner did get more offensive rebounds per game but that is to be expected. Blue did play 10MPG more than DG his first year and 6 MPG more his second year. Based on who we had I would expect more minutes to be available for OX but he didn't get the same minutes as Blue which tells me Blue earned his PT.
I added the per-minute defensive rebounding stats. Yes, Blue was a good defensive rebounding guard. On a per-minute basis, Gardner was a better overall defensive rebounder. As he should be.
Henry S. - What measure are you using to say DG had a better freshman year when he only played nine minutes. Blue played more so he had to have more of an impact.
Gardner played 9 minutes per game. Blue played more minutes, but his overall impact was largely negative. He was inefficient and turned the ball over a ton.
I will also add that Blue outscored Ox by 171pts in the three years they were together.
Scorers are overvalued.
-
--goes off topic--
Don't get me wrong, #BANE is the most exciting player Marquette has this year and very well might be its best, but let's cool those Burton v Blue defensive comparisons.
As a freshman, Van gave up 127 points in 160 possessions defensively per Synergy for a .794 ppp, a mark in the 67% and one deemed Very Good.
Bane, in just over half the possessions Blue faced, gave up .977 ppp (84 points in 86 possessions). This was in the 21st percentile and deemed Below Average. In other words, he was significantly worse, in significantly fewer time.
Blue played 19.0 mpg despite his offense. Bane played 12.6 mpg despite his defense. They were completely inverse of each other.
And as for the whole disruptive factor, Blue had 33 steals to Bane's 35. I realize Blue played a lot more minutes (thus the steal rate discrepancy), but at the end of the day, Blue was head and shoulders the better defender. It's not even debatable.
--end--
A. If only I had access to Synergy. /sigh
B. I'm assuming steals are counted in the defensive ppp. Meaning in 86 possessions, 33 of them ended in a steal. 38% of the time he stole the ball? Which means that in the remaining 53 possessions, opponents scored 1.58 ppp. That's not good. That means pretty much either Bane stole the ball or the opponent scored. Can that be right?
C. The same comparison says Blue stole the ball in 21% of defensive possessions while he was on the court, resulting in opponents scoring 1.02 ppp on remaining possessions. Again, is that right?
Would love to see these same numbers for Vander and Davante...
Agreed
-
Except I wouldn't take Hawk over Lewis, so your assumptions about me and my thought process are obviously off.
Sorry, your posting history on this topic and our PG and SG position last season suggest the opposite.
-
--goes off topic--
Don't get me wrong, #BANE is the most exciting player Marquette has this year and very well might be its best, but let's cool those Burton v Blue defensive comparisons.
As a freshman, Van gave up 127 points in 160 possessions defensively per Synergy for a .794 ppp, a mark in the 67% and one deemed Very Good.
Bane, in just over half the possessions Blue faced, gave up .977 ppp (84 points in 86 possessions). This was in the 21st percentile and deemed Below Average. In other words, he was significantly worse, in significantly fewer time.
Blue played 19.0 mpg despite his offense. Bane played 12.6 mpg despite his defense. They were completely inverse of each other.
And as for the whole disruptive factor, Blue had 33 steals to Bane's 35. I realize Blue played a lot more minutes (thus the steal rate discrepancy), but at the end of the day, Blue was head and shoulders the better defender. It's not even debatable.
--end--
Can you provide the same numbers for Derrick Wilson and John Dawson from last season? As I recall they were 1 and 2 on the team in PPP rating - and felt they were both below .794
But back on topic, as juniors:
Gardner: Top 100 in 9 offensive categories, 0 in defensive categories
Blue: Top 100 in 0 offensive categories, 0 defensive categories.
;D
And PS. Having a legitimate threat in the post, that Gardner was....makes life as a guard a hell of a lot easier. Gardner was one of the most efficient big men in the country, and effective, in all of his years at MU. And as we know last season, his O Rating was higher in games he played 30+ minutes, than those he played less than 30. Buzz, for whatever reason, simply never wanted to give him 30-35 minutes.
-
B. I'm assuming steals are counted in the defensive ppp. Meaning in 86 possessions, 33 of them ended in a steal. 38% of the time he stole the ball? Which means that in the remaining 53 possessions, opponents scored 1.58 ppp. That's not good. That means pretty much either Bane stole the ball or the opponent scored. Can that be right?
C. The same comparison says Blue stole the ball in 21% of defensive possessions while he was on the court, resulting in opponents scoring 1.02 ppp on remaining possessions. Again, is that right?
I'll try to do the full synergy comparison later tonight of Blue v. Gardner.
As to these questions, it's not quite that cut and dry. The Synergy people are very literal about defensive possessions, so they would only count it as a turnover during a possession if it was a strip of the attacking you are currently guarding. If you jump into a passing lane (or even take a charge), it wouldn't be a defensive possession. Without going through every possession, I wouldn't be able to give you the exact details. I know Bane was weak, there is no way he gave up 1.58 ppp.
-
Gardner played 9 minutes per game. Blue played more minutes, but his overall impact was largely negative. He was inefficient and turned the ball over a ton.
Define a ton. Blue turned the ball over 1.4 times a game as a freshman.
Wade turned it over 3 times a game in his "freshman" year. His TO per minute is higher than Blue's
Cadougan turned it over 1.6 times his first full year in similar minutes
McNeal turned it over 3.8 times. His turnover per minute is higher than Blue's
Wesley Matthews was 2.3 times. His turnover per minute is higher than Blue's
Dwight Buycks was 1.7 times. His turnover per minute was similar to Blue's
John Dawson was .7 but his turnovers per minute is higher than Blue's
Both Crowder and Butler had spectacular turnover rates. So by a ton you mean less than some of the better players at Marq?
-
Define a ton.
Blue's turnover rate as a freshman was 22%. Average is about 18.5%. By comparison, Gardner's TO rate as a frosh was 16.4%.
-
Blue's turnover rate as a freshman was 22%. Average is about 18.5%. By comparison, Gardner's TO rate as a frosh was 16.4%.
But guards of course are expected to turn the ball over than a post player.
-
B. I'm assuming steals are counted in the defensive ppp. Meaning in 86 possessions, 33 of them ended in a steal. 38% of the time he stole the ball? Which means that in the remaining 53 possessions, opponents scored 1.58 ppp. That's not good. That means pretty much either Bane stole the ball or the opponent scored. Can that be right?
1.58 does seem too high. But that is pretty much how I remember it. If Burton didn't get the steal, his opponent was getting an easy bucket.
-
Blue's turnover rate as a freshman was 22%. Average is about 18.5%. By comparison, Gardner's TO rate as a frosh was 16.4%.
A guard has the ball in his hands more than a post player so he should have a higher TO rate. When comparing players in the same position at MU, Blue had less so wouldn't that say for a 1/2/3 at MU, Blue didn't turn the ball over a ton.
Or should we assume that Gardner had a better freshman yr than Wade since Wade turned it over more than a ton.
The number don't support Gardner having a better freshman year. He only played 9 minutes in 3 minutes stretches. You can't even evaluate a player with that type of run.
-
A guard has the ball in his hands more than a post player so he should have a higher TO rate. When comparing players in the same position at MU, Blue had less so wouldn't that say for a 1/2/3 at MU, Blue didn't turn the ball over a ton.
Or should we assume that Gardner had a better freshman yr than Wade since Wade turned it over more than a ton.
The number don't support Gardner having a better freshman year. He only played 9 minutes in 3 minutes stretches. You can't even evaluate a player with that type of run.
I agree a guard has the ball in their hands more...and is in far more control of their stats and outcomes than is a post - who is dependent on a guard to get them the ball. That's the simple way basketball works. It is also why Blue, as a guard, should have had signature moments of beating people of the dribble, getting to the rack, etc, that gave us some great memories. That is basic par for the course for a guard to be able to execute. It's also why I don't think he was better than Gardner at his position...or a better player. Gardner played his position much better than Blue.
Blue turned the ball over a lot as a freshman, but it is true that as a guard he handles the ball more than does a guy like Gardner. What doesn't count as a turnover though, but was virtually the same - was Blue's feeble attempts going to the basket as a freshman that rarely drew iron. I cringed every time I saw him going to the hoop - it was a lot like Juan last season.
-
Wow we've really brought this debate down to
A science.
-
I agree a guard has the ball in their hands more...and is in far more control of their stats and outcomes than is a post - who is dependent on a guard to get them the ball. That's the simple way basketball works. It is also why Blue, as a guard, should have had signature moments of beating people of the dribble, getting to the rack, etc, that gave us some great memories. That is basic par for the course for a guard to be able to execute. It's also why I don't think he was better than Gardner at his position...or a better player. Gardner played his position much better than Blue.
By definition of this argument, a guard is more impactful on a game than a post player. Gardner needs a Blue but a Blue doesn't need a Gardner. So again, if you are going to have similar talent on your team you need to take Blue. Gardner with Thomas = Bad. Blue with Otule = Good.
Gardner was more efficient at his position than Blue but that has to do with the nature of their play. Gardner was consistent but couldn't lead a team his baskets came within 5ft and was fouled regularly. If you look at the stats Blue got significantly better year over year. Gardner was also our only positive post presence in a decade but that doesn't make him an elite post player.
Blue turned the ball over a lot as a freshman, but it is true that as a guard he handles the ball more than does a guy like Gardner. What doesn't count as a turnover though, but was virtually the same - was Blue's feeble attempts going to the basket as a freshman that rarely drew iron. I cringed every time I saw him going to the hoop - it was a lot like Juan last season.
Numbers show that Blue turned it over less than McNeal, Wade, Matthews, etc. and against some of the best talent. Even with all of those feeble attempts Blue still shot 39% as a freshman which is a decent % for a shooting guard and he got better up to 45%. Blue nearly doubled his 3PG% from freshman to Junior with significantly more attempts as a junior (25 to 132). Gardner was in the mid-50s throughout but that is expected for a back to the basket post players.
All of this tells me is that Blue wasn't was bad as you and Sugar are trying to make him out and Gardner isn't a great as you two are trying to make him as well.
Blue had more of an impact his freshman and junior years and both good seasons. Relying on Gardner offense stats, which is your only argument, is meaningless. In other words, when someone could get Gardner the ball within the 5ft, he was effective.
-
But guards of course are expected to turn the ball over than a post player.
Are they?
I'm reasonably certain the data does not support that statement. I can pretty easily find guards with high and low turnover rates, and post players with high and low turnover rates.
-
To BallBoy, no offense, but it seems like the fundamental disconnect is that you don't quite get the tempo free stats concept.
I'd like to take the time to write out a thoughtful explanation in response. Unfortunately, I'm traveling the next few days and won't have time. Even if I did write that out, it's unlikely you will change your mind.
-
To BallBoy, no offense, but it seems like the fundamental disconnect is that you don't quite get the tempo free stats concept.
I'd like to take the time to write out a thoughtful explanation in response. Unfortunately, I'm traveling the next few days and won't have time. Even if I did write that out, it's unlikely you will change your mind.
None taken because you would be wrong on that as well. Please note the TO% is what I used to determine Blue turned it over less. You can do this very quickly by going to
http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/player/marquette/vander-blue?tempo_neutral=1&game_type=1&chart1=points_avg&chart2=minutes_avg&chart3=fg_pct
I will put them here:
Blue: 22.6
McNeal: 29.5
Matthews: 23.7
Acker (just because I clicked on him by mistake): 25.6
Wade: 18.3
Cadougan:25.0
Tempo free is based on taking the number of possessions into account. Slower teams have fewer possessions and faster teams have more possession. If a player on each team has 3TOs then the faster paced team would be considered better since he turned if over less with "the ball in his hands". I saved you the write-up.
Wouldn't the above statistics show that if Blue "turned it over a ton" then McNeal, Matthews, Acker, and Cadougan all "turned it over more than a ton"
So why is Blue perceived as turning it over a ton, could it be because Crowder, Butler, and even DJO rarely turned the ball over that year?
-
By definition of this argument, a guard is more impactful on a game than a post player. Gardner needs a Blue but a Blue doesn't need a Gardner. So again, if you are going to have similar talent on your team you need to take Blue. Gardner with Thomas = Bad. Blue with Otule = Good.
Gardner was more efficient at his position than Blue but that has to do with the nature of their play. Gardner was consistent but couldn't lead a team his baskets came within 5ft and was fouled regularly. If you look at the stats Blue got significantly better year over year. Gardner was also our only positive post presence in a decade but that doesn't make him an elite post player.
Numbers show that Blue turned it over less than McNeal, Wade, Matthews, etc. and against some of the best talent. Even with all of those feeble attempts Blue still shot 39% as a freshman which is a decent % for a shooting guard and he got better up to 45%. Blue nearly doubled his 3PG% from freshman to Junior with significantly more attempts as a junior (25 to 132). Gardner was in the mid-50s throughout but that is expected for a back to the basket post players.
All of this tells me is that Blue wasn't was bad as you and Sugar are trying to make him out and Gardner isn't a great as you two are trying to make him as well.
Blue had more of an impact his freshman and junior years and both good seasons. Relying on Gardner offense stats, which is your only argument, is meaningless. In other words, when someone could get Gardner the ball within the 5ft, he was effective.
Couple things:
Blue was always surrounded with great talent while at MU. Blue got the benefit of playing with guys like Jae, Jimmy, DJO, and Gardner (our best post player since Damon Key). Garnder of course benefitted similarly - and we saw what happened last year when the talent around Gardner deteriorated - his performance didn't climb like many thought it would.
Regarding the bolded points: Even with as much improvement as Blue showed offensively while at MU (I don't dispute this - his Junior year he improved a ton, and beyond what I thought possible for him) - Blue still couldn't sniff Gardner's jock in the way of Offensive ability.
Like I said - Blue wasn't Top 100 in 1 freaking offensive metric - Gardner 9. Just because Blue started off so awfully at MU, that doesn't give him more value/weight with regard to how the better player was based on improvement year over year. Gardner flat out performed every year at MU at a high level of efficiency. And if it is so easy to find a big guy who can average 14ppg while shooting 50+% from the Field and 75+% from the FT line - why hasn't MU had one for 20-30 years?
Blue was a good shooting guard at this level as a junior. Perhaps you could say very good. Nothing more, nothing less. Gardner was an elite offensive player his entire career at MU, and evolved into a servicable defender as a junior and senior.
-
Blue was always surrounded with great talent while at MU. Blue got the benefit of playing with guys like Jae, Jimmy, DJO, and Gardner (our best post player since Damon Key). Garnder of course benefitted similarly - and we saw what happened last year when the talent around Gardner deteriorated - his performance didn't climb like many thought it would.
Gardner averaged 14.9 points and 5.7 rebounds as a senior, shooting well from the floor and the line. His scoring average went up 30% from when he was a junior.
In other words, his performance climbed about the way a reasonable person should have expected.
I mean, did you expect him to average 20 and 10? You like throwing the word "elite" around when referring to Davante, but Jae Crowder actually WAS an elite college player as a senior, which is why he was drafted and now gets a nice payday - and he only averaged 17.5 and 8.4.
In fact, one could make a pretty good argument that there were more touches out there for Davante because Vander was no longer around. Had Vander returned, he would have been the focal point of the entire attack.
Davante and Jamil were the only players to attempt 300+ FGs last season - no one else was close. Vander attempted 400 as a junior and probably would have attempted 500-plus had he returned for his senior season.
Gardner was who he was - a very good college low-post offensive player who was a surprisingly ineffective defensive rebounder and a sub-mediocre defender. 15 and 6 seems just about right.
-
Couple things:
Blue was always surrounded with great talent while at MU. Blue got the benefit of playing with guys like Jae, Jimmy, DJO, and Gardner (our best post player since Damon Key). Garnder of course benefitted similarly - and we saw what happened last year when the talent around Gardner deteriorated - his performance didn't climb like many thought it would.
Regarding the bolded points: Even with as much improvement as Blue showed offensively while at MU (I don't dispute this - his Junior year he improved a ton, and beyond what I thought possible for him) - Blue still couldn't sniff Gardner's jock in the way of Offensive ability.
Like I said - Blue wasn't Top 100 in 1 freaking offensive metric - Gardner 9. Just because Blue started off so awfully at MU, that doesn't give him more value/weight with regard to how the better player was based on improvement year over year. Gardner flat out performed every year at MU at a high level of efficiency. And if it is so easy to find a big guy who can average 14ppg while shooting 50+% from the Field and 75+% from the FT line - why hasn't MU had one for 20-30 years?
Blue was a good shooting guard at this level as a junior. Perhaps you could say very good. Nothing more, nothing less. Gardner was an elite offensive player his entire career at MU, and evolved into a servicable defender as a junior and senior.
What are the nine offensive metrics in which Davante was top 100? And those rankings are found where, statsheet.com?
-
I know this is comparing college careers. But one player had a stint in the NBA last year and a shot at a long NBA career. One has no shot at an NBA career. It's pretty clear who is the better basketball player.
-
I know this is comparing college careers. But one player had a stint in the NBA last year and a shot at a long NBA career. One has no shot at an NBA career. It's pretty clear who is the better basketball player.
What are you saying? NBA and other pro scouts know more about basketball than Ners?
Please!
-
I know this is comparing college careers. But one player had a stint in the NBA last year and a shot at a long NBA career. One has no shot at an NBA career. It's pretty clear who is the better basketball player.
What does the NBA have to do with who was a better college basketball player? The NBA is all about potential, that is why a vast majority of the players are raw underclassmen when drafted. The scouts try to project what these players will be years down the road. I see this having no bearing on who was the better college player.
-
What does the NBA have to do with who was a better college basketball player? The NBA is all about potential, that is why a vast majority of the players are raw underclassmen when drafted. The scouts try to project what these players will be years down the road. I see this having no bearing on who was the better college player.
Winner.
-
What does the NBA have to do with who was a better college basketball player? The NBA is all about potential, that is why a vast majority of the players are raw underclassmen when drafted. The scouts try to project what these players will be years down the road. I see this having no bearing on who was the better college player.
Which is why I prefaced my comment by saying "I know this is comparing college careers". It's obvious who the better basketball player is. Which player was better in college is a bit more murky, but I'd still side with Vander.
-
Gardner averaged 14.9 points and 5.7 rebounds as a senior, shooting well from the floor and the line. His scoring average went up 30% from when he was a junior.
In other words, his performance climbed about the way a reasonable person should have expected.
I mean, did you expect him to average 20 and 10? You like throwing the word "elite" around when referring to Davante, but Jae Crowder actually WAS an elite college player as a senior, which is why he was drafted and now gets a nice payday - and he only averaged 17.5 and 8.4.
In fact, one could make a pretty good argument that there were more touches out there for Davante because Vander was no longer around. Had Vander returned, he would have been the focal point of the entire attack.
Davante and Jamil were the only players to attempt 300+ FGs last season - no one else was close. Vander attempted 400 as a junior and probably would have attempted 500-plus had he returned for his senior season.
Gardner was who he was - a very good college low-post offensive player who was a surprisingly ineffective defensive rebounder and a sub-mediocre defender. 15 and 6 seems just about right.
I sure hope Jamil and Gardner were taking most of our shots last season considering who Buzz played more minutes than other players. And we both know there weren't more touches for Gardner last year (without Blue around), because Davante had to deal with constant double teams...and a PG whose defender sagged 5' off of him and onto Davante which made it virtually impossible for him to be feed by our PG. It's actually remarkable DG was able to show slight improvement over his Junior year. With a good PG and solid SG (Mayo), Gardner would have gone for 18.5ppg without question last season.
Gardner almost always commanded a help defender in his career. Blue never commanded any double teams, teams never trapped Blue - teams didn't try to get the ball out of Blue's hands. They were content to let Blue beat MU. Teams did everything they could to deny Gardner, and slow him down. He was far more unstoppable and a force to be reckoned with than was VAnder Blue. Let's also realize that Gardner always drawing a help defender opens up much better 3 point looks for perimeter guys, as the defenders of the guards were almost always placed into a help/recover defensive concept if Gardner got the ball on the block.
If Gardner kicks the ball out of those situation - guard either has a good look - or can put ball on the floor and easily dribble into a one/two dribble pull up mid range shot - Blue did that a ton, and did that very well. Yet those looks were largely due to Gardner's impact - and Blue (or the other perimeter) players defender racing back out to 3 point line to try to close out on a potential 3...which made it very easy to then dribble 1-2 times into a mid range shot.
-
What are the nine offensive metrics in which Davante was top 100? And those rankings are found where, statsheet.com?
Yes...Here you knock yourself out with a side by side comparison. You will also see Blue doesn't show up as a very elite defender in the defensive categories measured. Hell Gardner and Blue basically stole the ball at the same rate per minute played - Steal Percentage was 2.0 for Blue, 1.9 for Gardner.
http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=davante-gardner&davante-gardner=2012-2013&i=1&p1=vander-blue
And last nugget - Looking at O-Rating - Blue finished 930 players behind Gardner in ranking. That's a pretty damn big difference.
-
I am borderline shocked that people believe Vander Blue had a better career at Marquette than Gardner. I don't even think it's very close.
I am no Ners fan, but he's 100 percent correct on this.
-
I am borderline shocked that people believe Vander Blue had a better career at Marquette than Gardner. I don't even think it's very close.
I am no Ners fan, but he's 100 percent correct on this.
Agree here. Perplexed. The theory is that the Davidson and Butler games strongly influence people's beliefs, over the many comparisons (statistical and otherwise) that confirm Gardner's superior play.
-
Agree here. Perplexed. The theory is that the Davidson and Butler games strongly influence people's beliefs, over the many comparisons (statistical and otherwise) that confirm Gardner's superior play.
My theory is that some people are still bitter that Vander left early and partially blame him for last year's abysmal campaign.
To me, Gardner's defense was so terrible that it negates any offensive advantage he had over Vander. Davante was an offensive low post specialist, Vander was a complete player. To me it was no contest. If this was football where you didn't have to play both sides of the court, I would pick Gardner without a moment's hesitation.
-
My theory is that some people are still bitter that Vander left early and partially blame him for last year's abysmal campaign.
To me, Gardner's defense was so terrible that it negates any offensive advantage he had over Vander. Davante was an offensive low post specialist, Vander was a complete player. To me it was no contest. If this was football where you didn't have to play both sides of the court, I would pick Gardner without a moment's hesitation.
My opinion as well. Gardner was absolutely putrid on the defensive end but people are choosing to ignore that and focus solely on offense. There's a reason he was constantly subbed off for Otule on that end. He was so bad that he wasn't even left in on defense during close games.
-
Agree here. Perplexed. The theory is that the Davidson and Butler games strongly influence people's beliefs, over the many comparisons (statistical and otherwise) that confirm Gardner's superior play.
But there are no good defensive stats.
-
Which one would I pick to:
1. Get a basket down low: Gardner
2. Get a rebound: Blue
3. Play good defense on any of the 5 positions: Blue
4. Find an open teammate: Blue
5. Make a play at crunch time: Blue
6. Be a leader/example for his teammates in practice and games: Blue
7. Give maximum effort: Blue
8. Run a set that Buzz called: Blue
9. Make a big free throw: Gardner. But not by much.
I don't remember yelling at the TV for Buzz to get Blue out of there nearly as often as I yelled at the TV for Buzz to get Otule in the game because Gardner's defense was so bad.
-
I am borderline shocked that people believe Vander Blue had a better career at Marquette than Gardner. I don't even think it's very close.
I am no Ners fan, but he's 100 percent correct on this.
Agree, and it also is around replacement value. Coming up with someone close to Vander for 3 years for an MU is easier than coming up with someone close to DG for four years. We've had a hell of a time finding bigs that are productive for the last 30 years, where there are many guards that are solid players that MU has landed.
-
It's actually remarkable DG was able to show slight improvement over his Junior year. With a good PG and solid SG (Mayo), Gardner would have gone for 18.5ppg without question last season.
First, Davante didn't show slight improvement from his junior to senior seasons. He improved his scoring average 30%. That is significant improvement, and he is to be commended.
Second, state your facts whenever you please, but don't try to pass off complete conjecture as fact "without question." You do this all the time. This is one of your favorite "tricks," Ners, and it's quite annoying.
Nobody can know if Gardner would have scored 3.6 more points per game with Blue on the court. Not even you.
-
Agree, and it also is around replacement value. Coming up with someone close to Vander for 3 years for an MU is easier than coming up with someone close to DG for four years. We've had a hell of a time finding bigs that are productive for the last 30 years, where there are many guards that are solid players that MU has landed.
First point made in 9 pages that actually made me contemplate changing my opinion. Hats off to you.
-
First point made in 9 pages that actually made me contemplate changing my opinion. Hats off to you.
I actually made that point earlier in the thread. :D
-
Are these some of the same people who think Matthews had a better career than McNeal?
He didn't.
-
I am borderline shocked that people believe Vander Blue had a better career at Marquette than Gardner. I don't even think it's very close.
I am no Ners fan, but he's 100 percent correct on this.
I was approaching it from a different perspective which is who is the better all-around basketball player. Do I need to start another poll for that to become the topic? Probably not worth it, cause anyone with any sense would pick Vander.
-
My theory is that some people are still bitter that Vander left early and partially blame him for last year's abysmal campaign.
To me, Gardner's defense was so terrible that it negates any offensive advantage he had over Vander. Davante was an offensive low post specialist, Vander was a complete player. To me it was no contest. If this was football where you didn't have to play both sides of the court, I would pick Gardner without a moment's hesitation.
That certainly doesn't apply to me. I know exactly why we were so abysmal last year and it wasn't because Vander Blue was gone. ;D
-
I was approaching it from a different perspective which is who is the better all-around basketball player. Do I need to start another poll for that to become the topic? Probably not worth it, cause anyone with any sense would pick Vander.
I don't think its so cut and dried. You are basing your point off of the fact Blue is a guard, and the ball is by virtue of position in his hands a lot more than a Gardner. Gardner isn't going to lead a fast break, fill a lane on a fast break (other than trailer), score off of driving....because none of those things are what a guy that plays his position does. You have to look at these guys and say - who played their position better? In my view - Gardner.
Blue - Better defender? Yes
Gardner - Better Shooter? Yes. Better FT shooter? Yes Better passer? Yes. Less turnover prone? Yes. Commands Double teams? Yes. Top 100 player in 9 offensive categories? Yes.
-
There certainly are some vocal DG proponents, but 59% of the masses vote blue.
-
I don't think its so cut and dried. You are basing your point off of the fact Blue is a guard, and the ball is by virtue of position in his hands a lot more than a Gardner. Gardner isn't going to lead a fast break, fill a lane on a fast break (other than trailer), score off of driving....because none of those things are what a guy that plays his position does. You have to look at these guys and say - who played their position better? In my view - Gardner.
Blue - Better defender? Yes
Gardner - Better Shooter? Yes. Better FT shooter? Yes Better passer? Yes. Less turnover prone? Yes. Commands Double teams? Yes. Top 100 player in 9 offensive categories? Yes.
So I pulled up the stats on team impact which calculates a players % of the teams statistics. So if the team scored 100pts over the season on one player scored 10pts their impact was 10%. You can compare these against all statistics.
I labelled each player as 1 or 2 so it could be blind and then I put next to each stat the one with the better impact. If there was a negative stat, like TO, then the lower percentage is better.
| STAT | Player 1 | Player 2 | W | Player 1 | Player 2 | W | Player 1 | Player 2 | W |
| Games Played | 100 | 89.1 | 1 | 100 | 77.1 | 1 | 97.1 | 100 | 2 |
| Games Started | 32.4 | 0 | 1 | 97.1 | 34.2 | 1 | 97.1 | 0 | 1 |
| Minutes | 9.4 | 3.9 | 1 | 12.8 | 7.3 | 1 | 15.8 | 10.5 | 1 |
| FG Made | 7 | 5.4 | 1 | 10.8 | 9.5 | 1 | 21.7 | 15 | 1 |
| FG Att | 8.3 | 4.3 | 1 | 11.9 | 7.7 | 1 | 21.8 | 11.7 | 1 |
| FT Made | 6.9 | 7.1 | 2 | 14.1 | 13.3 | 1 | 17.4 | 26.6 | 2 |
| FT Att | 7.9 | 6.5 | 1 | 14.4 | 12.7 | 1 | 16.8 | 23.3 | 2 |
| 3pt FG | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3.9 | 0 | 1 | 27.2 | 0.6 | 1 |
| 3pt FG Att | 4.5 | 0 | 1 | 5.2 | 0.3 | 1 | 26.5 | 1 | 1 |
| Points | 6.7 | 5.4 | 1 | 11.1 | 9.7 | 1 | 21 | 16.8 | 1 |
| Rebounds | 7.8 | 5.4 | 1 | 12.3 | 11 | 1 | 8.8 | 13.5 | 2 |
| Off Rebs | 6.7 | 7.6 | 2 | 14 | 17.1 | 2 | 4.7 | 17 | 2 |
| Def Rebs | 8.3 | 4.3 | 1 | 11.5 | 8.5 | 1 | 10.9 | 11.7 | 2 |
| Assists | 10.2 | 1.7 | 1 | 15.6 | 3.2 | 1 | 12.8 | 6.4 | 1 |
| Steals | 12.4 | 1.5 | 1 | 13.1 | 6.9 | 1 | 15.5 | 9.9 | 1 |
| Turnovers | 11.2 | 4.4 | 2 | 16.9 | 7.1 | 2 | 16.8 | 11.7 | 2 |
| Blocks | 5.9 | 3.7 | 1 | 5.7 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 16.2 | 2 |
| Fouls | 10.6 | 7.2 | 2 | 9.3 | 11.1 | 1 | 10.1 | 12.2 | 1 |
| Foul Outs | 0 | 14.2 | 1 | 0 | 20 | 1 | 16.6 | 0 | 1 |
Which player had a bigger impact on the team?
-
This is getting ridiculous. They both were great players and i wish them luck. This thread needs to end.
-
I don't think its so cut and dried. You are basing your point off of the fact Blue is a guard, and the ball is by virtue of position in his hands a lot more than a Gardner. Gardner isn't going to lead a fast break, fill a lane on a fast break (other than trailer), score off of driving....because none of those things are what a guy that plays his position does. You have to look at these guys and say - who played their position better? In my view - Gardner.
Blue - Better defender? Yes
Gardner - Better Shooter? Yes. Better FT shooter? Yes Better passer? Yes. Less turnover prone? Yes. Commands Double teams? Yes. Top 100 player in 9 offensive categories? Yes.
You will never give up, I guess I have to give you credit for that.
Answer me this.
How is it that a guy who was "just another guard" according to some here, in a game where it is supposedly far easier to find guards because there are more of them, how is it that this "just another guard" guy is an NBA player. How is it that the other guy, a post player that, you know, are supposedly SO hard to find, won't sniff the NBA (despite his being a top 100 player in 9 offensive categories) because he can't make it up and down the court fast enough and he can't guard the basket stanchion?
How can that possibly be?
And you are telling me that Davante is the better all around player. ?-(
-
You will never give up, I guess I have to give you credit for that.
Answer me this.
How is it that a guy who was "just another guard" according to some here, in a game where it is supposedly far easier to find guards because there are more of them, how is it that this "just another guard" guy is an NBA player. How is it that the other guy, a post player that, you know, are supposedly SO hard to find, won't sniff the NBA (despite his being a top 100 player in 9 offensive categories) because he can't make it up and down the court fast enough and he can't guard the basket stanchion?
How can that possibly be?
And you are telling me that Davante is the better all around player. ?-(
Blue wasn't drafted. He made the NBDL and a Summer League team...bounced all over hell. Brad Stevens perhaps had a distorted sense of him as a player, as Blue played the best game of his MU career against Stevens in the tourney. Blue didn't stick. I applaud the 10 day contract. I genuinely will be happy for Vander if he can make into the NBA on any type of consistent basis just as I am for all MU guys.
With regard to Gardner - well, he too didn't get drafted. Made a summer league roster. Played limited minutes, yet in his minutes it was more of the same - scored the ball at a high rate. If Davante can keep his weight under control and in good shape - it would not surprise me to see him earn a 10 day contract at some point.
The bigger issue is that one guy at least showed up in the Top 100 players in the country in 9 different O categories, while the other guy didn't. Nor did he show up in any Defensive categories.
I'm sorry, I just can't ignore a guy who produced at the level and efficiency Gardner did while at MU, and dismiss him as a worse player than Blue.
-
BRinging it back to prove a point! ;p
-
BRinging it back to prove a point! ;p
Nice job of Hoopaloop'n