Vander Blue versus Davante Gardner

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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.

[BallBoy]

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. 

[NersEllenson]

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. 

[Johnny B]

Wow we've really brought this debate down to
A science.

[BallBoy]

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.

[Henry Sugar]

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.

[Henry Sugar]

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.

[BallBoy]

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?

[NersEllenson]

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.

[MU82]

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.

[ATL MU Warrior]

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?

[BM1090]

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.

[MU82]

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!

[Wojo'sMojo]

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.

[mu_hilltopper]

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.

[BM1090]

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.

[NersEllenson]

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.

[NersEllenson]

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.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

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.

[mu_hilltopper]

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.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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.

[BM1090]

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.

[Skatastrophy]

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.

[tower912]

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.