MUScoop

I'm voting Davante Gardner...

I wrote in Chicos.

Really?

Is this Devante guy any relation to Davante?

If you're talking positive impact, it's Gardner and it's not even close.

The blue lovers on this board make me chuckle.

But we can agree that they both made a "big, positive impact" , right?

Quote from: esotericmindguy on July 28, 2011, 08:59:06 PM
The blue lovers on this board make me chuckle.

Blue played more games...more minutes...more points....and wasn't a defensive liability.  Blue got minutes in crunch time.  Gardner mostly didn't.

Those who think that DG had a "bigger impact" are only juding the two of them based on their incoming reputations.

Honestly, it makes me question the basketball IQ of the board if you chose Gardner.

Gardner was very good offensively at the end of the year. He struggled on defense all year. Vander on the other hand had a pretty good start to the year offensively. Mid year his offense slowly went down the tubes, and by the end of the season I don't think he even wanted the basketball. His defense was good throughout the season.

Overall, Vander provided more to the team during the entire season. I'm hoping both have a great sophomore season. Devante must be better on defense, and Vander has to have a consistent outside shot. If so, we will be very, very difficult to beat next season.

GO MU!

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on July 28, 2011, 09:18:08 PMBlue played more games...more minutes...more points....and wasn't a defensive liability.  Blue got minutes in crunch time.  Gardner mostly didn't.

Those who think that DG had a "bigger impact" are only juding the two of them based on their incoming reputations.

Honestly, it makes me question the basketball IQ of the board if you chose Gardner.

+1,000

This has to be one of the most ridiculous thread concepts and inane suggestions ever. Anyone voting for DG is clueless...I love DG, but I repeat, clueless.

Quote from: brewcity77 on July 28, 2011, 09:29:25 PM
+1,000

This has to be one of the most ridiculous thread concepts and inane suggestions ever. Anyone voting for DG is clueless...I love DG, but I repeat, clueless.

Not to mention that Davante's name is not spelled Devante...

Quote from: brewcity77 on July 28, 2011, 09:29:25 PM
+1,000

This has to be one of the most ridiculous thread concepts and inane suggestions ever. Anyone voting for DG is clueless...I love DG, but I repeat, clueless.

I'd vote Vander, but clueless for voting DG isn't fair to say imho.  We weren't exactly a big team last year, and there were a few games where I thought we would have been better without Vander, but would have struggled to win without a spark from DG.  As the season progressed, I questioned the reason as to why Vander was getting minutes, and his off-the-ball defense was poor.  With DG, even if his minutes weren't the best, just a big body to give fouls was valuable to a team as small as MU.  Looking back, I think it could be argued that we would have been fine with one less guard (Vander), but in a tough spot with one less big man (DG)...so I wouldn't say "clueless."

Looking at the Stud of the Game tally...anyone recall which 2 games Vander got it for and what game DG did?

Quote from: brewcity77 on July 28, 2011, 09:29:25 PM
+1,000

This has to be one of the most ridiculous thread concepts and inane suggestions ever. Anyone voting for DG is clueless...I love DG, but I repeat, clueless.

Come on Brew - seems like there is reasonable debate here with the present vote 16 to 14 in favor of Vander.  Voters were not allowed to vote more than once.

In my view, Gardner made a much bigger impact in the games that he played - the game definitely changed when he entered the game.  He altered Duke's defense, and UNC as I recall.  His presence was absolutely felt in the games.  Vander?  Umm...maybe a little defensively - but I certainly don't recall him getting a lot of steals/deflections, etc.  Gardner played his best against the best competition - Vander played his best against the worst competition.  Love em both..but to say voting for DG is clueless...is...clueless!

Quote from: Ners on July 28, 2011, 09:46:31 PM
Come on Brew - seems like there is reasonable debate here with the present vote 16 to 14 in favor of Vander.  Voters were not allowed to vote more than once.

In my view, Gardner made a much bigger impact in the games that he played - the game definitely changed when he entered the game.  He altered Duke's defense, and UNC as I recall.  His presence was absolutely felt in the games.  Vander?  Umm...maybe a little defensively - but I certainly don't recall him getting a lot of steals/deflections, etc.  Gardner played his best against the best competition - Vander played his best against the worst competition.  Love em both..but to say voting for DG is clueless...is...clueless!

He impacted the Duke game, sure, but didn't have the stamina to put us over the hump. And you mention UNC? Are you kidding me? That game was over at halftime. They could have played their five-walkon lineup the entire second half and still blown us out.

Vander's presence was felt in pretty much every game. DG had 14 games where he either didn't play or played 5 or less minutes. Vander had 1 such game (@ Louisville). He was out there as a defensive presence in every game. DG barely played in half our games and you'd seriously argue that he had a bigger impact than Vander? That's just silly.

The ONLY reason people are voting for DG is because of incredibly high expectations set for Vander and low expectations for Gardner. But if you block out the player names and just look at the numbers, it's not even close. And that's before you factor in Vander's defense.

Actually found a great site - and ironically both guys +/- was the same...Davante scored 35 less points for the season than Vander, and played 407 less minutes...the offensive stats/efficiency tilt significantly in Gardner's favor to no surprise..defense in Blues:

http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=davante-gardner&p1=vander-blue

+/- is such an overrated stat, it really shows very little for an individual player. It's not like hockey where goals are hard to come by. I go back to the UNC game...seriously, what impact did DG's second-half have on that? Maybe he had a great +/-, but the game was over.

And yes, DG was more offensively efficient, but the big number is he played 407 less minutes. That's 407 minutes he was having no impact on the game. That's over 10 mpg difference that he wasn't doing anything. I'm sorry, he just didn't play enough to have the impact Vander did. There's no logical debate here. It's like saying Kevin Maas is one of the greatest home run hitters of all time. The sample size just isn't big enough to support the argument.

Quote from: brewcity77 on July 28, 2011, 10:07:11 PM
+/- is such an overrated stat, it really shows very little for an individual player. It's not like hockey where goals are hard to come by. I go back to the UNC game...seriously, what impact did DG's second-half have on that? Maybe he had a great +/-, but the game was over.

And yes, DG was more offensively efficient, but the big number is he played 407 less minutes. That's 407 minutes he was having no impact on the game. That's over 10 mpg difference that he wasn't doing anything. I'm sorry, he just didn't play enough to have the impact Vander did. There's no logical debate here. It's like saying Kevin Maas is one of the greatest home run hitters of all time. The sample size just isn't big enough to support the argument.

Agree to disagree - Gardner's points per 40 minutes came to 20 points per 40...Vander..10 points per 40..for the very reason you mention above.  You and Sultan have argued Blue scored more points per game - big deal??  Gardner outscores him 2:1 per minute played.  Look to rebounds:  Vander averages 1 every 6.75 minutes played.  Gardner 1 every 4.05 minutes played.  Translates to Blue:  5.9 Rebs per 40 (certainly respectable), Gardner 9.8 Rebs per 40.  The offensive efficiency isn't even close.  Just because a guy plays more minutes by no means, means he has a bigger impact on the game.  Should be interesting to see how it plays out this upcoming season...

Quote from: Ners on July 28, 2011, 10:11:44 PM
Agree to disagree - Gardner's points per 40 minutes came to 20 points per 40...Vander..10 points per 40..for the very reason you mention above.  You and Sultan have argued Blue scored more points per game - big deal??  Gardner outscores him 2:1 per minute played.  Look to rebounds:  Vander averages 1 every 6.75 minutes played.  Gardner 1 every 4.05 minutes played.  Translates to Blue:  5.9 Rebs per 40 (certainly respectable), Gardner 9.8 Rebs per 40.  The offensive efficiency isn't even close.  Just because a guy plays more minutes by no means, means he has a bigger impact on the game.  Should be interesting to see how it plays out this upcoming season...

Last things first...that has no bearing on the argument.

Everything else...WHICH ONE ACTUALLY PLAYED THE MINUTES? It doesn't matter if you aren't on the court doing it, which DG wasn't. He simply didn't have the conditioning to equal Vander's impact. Maybe if he did, this would be a worthwhile argument. And maybe if I had invested all my money in Google I'd never have to work again. But I didn't, and Davante didn't, and thus both arguments are null and void.

By your logic, if Rob Frozena came in at the 39 minute mark of one game last season, hit 2 three-pointers, pulled down 2 rebounds, and managed an assist in that minute then took an injury and missed the rest of the season, he'd be our most valuable player because he'd have a value of 240 points, 80 rebounds, and 40 assists per 40 minutes.

You don't have a bigger impact by playing half the other guy's minutes. Sorry, logic simply doesn't follow.

Quote from: brewcity77 on July 28, 2011, 10:21:39 PM
Last things first...that has no bearing on the argument.

Everything else...WHICH ONE ACTUALLY PLAYED THE MINUTES? It doesn't matter if you aren't on the court doing it, which DG wasn't. He simply didn't have the conditioning to equal Vander's impact. Maybe if he did, this would be a worthwhile argument. And maybe if I had invested all my money in Google I'd never have to work again. But I didn't, and Davante didn't, and thus both arguments are null and void.

By your logic, if Rob Frozena came in at the 39 minute mark of one game last season, hit 2 three-pointers, pulled down 2 rebounds, and managed an assist in that minute then took an injury and missed the rest of the season, he'd be our most valuable player because he'd have a value of 240 points, 80 rebounds, and 40 assists per 40 minutes.

You don't have a bigger impact by playing half the other guy's minutes. Sorry, logic simply doesn't follow.

Another way of looking at it is like this:  There are people who show up to work every day but accomplish very little in an 8-hour day - as they surf the web, e-mail, Facebook, Scoop, text, etc.  There are others who go to work, and work - that are basically able to get the same amount of work done per day, in half the time of the surfer, e-mailer, and Facebooker.  Personally, I'm more concerned with the production in someone's minutes, than the fact they actually played minutes - much the same at work - don't care how long someone works, just that they get the job done.

Quote from: Ners on July 28, 2011, 10:32:36 PM
Another way of looking at it is like this:  There are people who show up to work every day but accomplish very little in an 8-hour day - as they surf the web, e-mail, Facebook, Scoop, text, etc.  There are others who go to work, and work - that are basically able to get the same amount of work done per day, in half the time of the surfer, e-mailer, and Facebooker.  Personally, I'm more concerned with the production in someone's minutes, than the fact they actually played minutes - much the same at work - don't care how long someone works, just that they get the job done.

Vander doesn't deserve this kind of treatment. Wow, what a slap in the face. So you're saying that Vander was doing the basketball equivalent of surfing the web? He was out there for his defense, and he kept getting minutes because Buzz apparently felt he was doing a good job. Meanwhile, while Gardner was scoring, he wasn't playing defense and wasn't getting minutes because Buzz apparently felt he wasn't doing a good enough job.

Blue most certainly had the bigger impact.  The problem with last season is people will remember it as one where they had high expectations for Vander, especially after the non-con season.  Then during the conference portion he had some bad games.

Gardner, on the other hand, was a complete suprise.  Plus we haven't had a legit low-post scorer in awhile.  When you mix that with Blue's high expectations people will remember Gardner's season more fondly.

That said, Blue's defense was key at certain points in the season, as was his passing and defensive rebounding.

Even though I voted for Blue, it will be interesting to see who has a bigger impact this upcoming season.  It could very well be Gardner.

Quote from: brewcity77 on July 28, 2011, 10:56:37 PM
Vander doesn't deserve this kind of treatment. Wow, what a slap in the face. So you're saying that Vander was doing the basketball equivalent of surfing the web? He was out there for his defense, and he kept getting minutes because Buzz apparently felt he was doing a good job. Meanwhile, while Gardner was scoring, he wasn't playing defense and wasn't getting minutes because Buzz apparently felt he wasn't doing a good enough job.

Brew - I've been called Fanboy on this board many times...I'm a huge MU fan..and always see the good in our players.  I like Vander, and thought he had a decent freshman year.  I didn't have huge expectations for him - I'd say he met my expectations (he is very young for his class and a huge step up from WI high school ball to the Big East).  I also agree with you that some here have piled on the kid, way too much - and I'll always have our players backs.

Perhaps my analogy wasn't the best example - I don't question that Vander played hard while on the court and gave it his best..and didn't mean to imply he was doing the basketball equivalent of surfing the web.  Simply was saying that the production in his minutes, compared to Gardner's wasn't as productive in virtually every measurable basketball category.  Your point is well taken that Gardner either didn't earn, or wasn't capable of playing more minutes due to conditioning - so +1 to Vander on those categories.  Just because I think Gardner made a bigger impact in the games he played, by no means does that mean I'm hating on Vander.  They both made solid contributions as freshman.

Blue last year, but I think the tables will be turned this year.  Gardner's offensive skills are above and beyond that of Otule and I see him getting bigtime minutes at the 5 spot if his defense improves.  Personal fouls will also play a big part, so we'll have to see.

Blue shot 39% from the field, including 4 for 25 from three point range (16%).  Yes, he is very quick, athletic and plays excellent defense, but he must improved that outside shot as a #2 or #3. 

As sophomores, they only have room to improve and that is a great situation for the future. 

Quote from: brewcity77 on July 28, 2011, 10:07:11 PM
+/- is such an overrated stat, it really shows very little for an individual player. It's not like hockey where goals are hard to come by. I go back to the UNC game...seriously, what impact did DG's second-half have on that? Maybe he had a great +/-, but the game was over.

And yes, DG was more offensively efficient, but the big number is he played 407 less minutes. That's 407 minutes he was having no impact on the game. That's over 10 mpg difference that he wasn't doing anything. I'm sorry, he just didn't play enough to have the impact Vander did. There's no logical debate here. It's like saying Kevin Maas is one of the greatest home run hitters of all time. The sample size just isn't big enough to support the argument.

Kevin Maas! Love it! Any chance the coeds in the student section will adopt "Davante Tops" every time he makes a basket?

Quote from: Ners on July 28, 2011, 11:48:19 PM
Brew - I've been called Fanboy on this board many times...I'm a huge MU fan..and always see the good in our players.  I like Vander, and thought he had a decent freshman year.  I didn't have huge expectations for him - I'd say he met my expectations (he is very young for his class and a huge step up from WI high school ball to the Big East).  I also agree with you that some here have piled on the kid, way too much - and I'll always have our players backs.

Perhaps my analogy wasn't the best example - I don't question that Vander played hard while on the court and gave it his best..and didn't mean to imply he was doing the basketball equivalent of surfing the web.  Simply was saying that the production in his minutes, compared to Gardner's wasn't as productive in virtually every measurable basketball category.  Your point is well taken that Gardner either didn't earn, or wasn't capable of playing more minutes due to conditioning - so +1 to Vander on those categories.  Just because I think Gardner made a bigger impact in the games he played, by no means does that mean I'm hating on Vander.  They both made solid contributions as freshman.

Simply asking the question is "hating" on Vander. Not to mention that the way the question is phrased ("bigger, positive impact") suggests that Vander had a bigger impact, but much of it was negative. Vander played 703 minutes for a Sweet 16 team, while Gardner played 296. If Blue's positive impact wasn't greater than Gardner's then Buzz should have been fired. Don't get me wrong, I think Gardner is going to be a stud for MU but to ask that question at this point is asinine.

A year from now, I hope we're having a similar discussion about who was more worthy of their first team All Big East selection: Blue or Gardner.

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on July 29, 2011, 08:00:11 AM
Simply asking the question is "hating" on Vander. Not to mention that the way the question is phrased ("bigger, positive impact") suggests that Vander had a bigger impact, but much of it was negative. Vander played 703 minutes for a Sweet 16 team, while Gardner played 296. If Blue's positive impact wasn't greater than Gardner's then Buzz should have been fired. Don't get me wrong, I think Gardner is going to be a stud for MU but to ask that question at this point is asinine.

A year from now, I hope we're having a similar discussion about who was more worthy of their first team All Big East selection: Blue or Gardner.

This is definitely a good point.  Ners- Your 8 hour workday isn't a fair assumption because in a basketball game you have to earn your minutes, whereas in a workday everyone has to show up and put in the same amount of time.  Vander didn't simply fall into those 703 minutes, he earned a majority of them.  While Gardner may well have earned more minutes in the eyes of some posters, isn't the fact that he visibly couldn't play those minutes he earned because he was so gassed say something about his impact?

I think Gardner played more explosive, exciting minutes than Blue did.  I was really impressed with his energy coming off of the bench last year.

I think that Blue was an unbelievable team player last year.  He let his offensive game play 3rd fiddle to guys like DJO, Crowder and Buycks while keeping his energy up and playing some awesome (and very consistent) D.

It's great to be having this conversation about which Freshman contributed more on a team that has seen very little Frosh PT.  In my opinion, Blue wins the contest hands down.  I don't think our team would have won as many games without Blue putting all of his energy into defense.  It's just tough to prove since there aren't nearly as many defensive stats out there as there are offensive.

Good on both of them, though! :D

I'd argue that Blue was the least valuable member of the squad last year.  I believe his overall contribution to the team was the largest net negative.

Blue had the worst offensive rating on the team, and still took a significant percentage of shots.  He was a boat anchor on offense.  There's no way Blue's defense was good enough to make up for how bad he was offensively. 

Just to remind everyone talking about Blue's defense, MU was not good defensively last year. 

Compared to being the least valuable member of the team, Gardner had a better impact on the team.

You have to consider the impact the player actually had on the team, which is hard to determine. The impact would be the player's value over the player or players that would have taken that player's minutes, if that player did not play during the season. Take Gardner off the team and somebody would have gotten Gardner's minutes. Take Blue off the team and somebody would have gotten Blue's minutes. In my opinion MU would  have more effectively replaced Blue's minutes than Gardner's minutes, therefore Gardner's impact was actually greater. Also, if you bring practices into the equation. I am sure the benefit of Otule having to practice against a big body far outweight any benefit MU got from Blue practicing with the team.

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on July 29, 2011, 08:00:11 AM
Simply asking the question is "hating" on Vander. Not to mention that the way the question is phrased ("bigger, positive impact") suggests that Vander had a bigger impact, but much of it was negative. Vander played 703 minutes for a Sweet 16 team, while Gardner played 296. If Blue's positive impact wasn't greater than Gardner's then Buzz should have been fired. Don't get me wrong, I think Gardner is going to be a stud for MU but to ask that question at this point is asinine.

A year from now, I hope we're having a similar discussion about who was more worthy of their first team All Big East selection: Blue or Gardner.

Surprised at your reaction here Merritt.  Seems you and Brew are overly defensive when it comes to evaluating Vander's play last year.  Asking this poll question is in NO WAY HATING on Vander - and I cannot for the life of me understand how phrasing a question:  bigger, positive impact "suggests that Vander had a bigger impact buy much of it was negative."    Nonetheless, I'll go remove the word "positive" from the poll question as it seems to be causing a problem as written. 

We don't win the USF or UConn games without Blue's contributions, meaning we don't make the NCAA's and don't make the S16. He hit a huge 3 against Bucknell during the comeback too. People act like all he did was drag the team down. McNeal's shot was butt ugly early on too, then at the end of his junior year it started to come around and he blew up senior year. Give the kid time, he was the age of a high school senior last year.

Quote from: Henry Sugar on July 29, 2011, 08:58:56 AM
I'd argue that Blue was the least valuable member of the squad last year.  I believe his overall contribution to the team was the largest net negative.

Blue had the worst offensive rating on the team, and still took a significant percentage of shots.  He was a boat anchor on offense.  There's no way Blue's defense was good enough to make up for how bad he was offensively. 

Just to remind everyone talking about Blue's defense, MU was not good defensively last year. 

Compared to being the least valuable member of the team, Gardner had a better impact on the team.

Your numbers confirm what I saw with my own eyes. Guess that means we (and lots of others) have "low basketball IQs".

Quote from: Jamailman on July 29, 2011, 09:59:15 AM
We don't win the USF or UConn games without Blue's contributions, meaning we don't make the NCAA's and don't make the S16. He hit a huge 3 against Bucknell during the comeback too. People act like all he did was drag the team down. McNeal's shot was butt ugly early on too, then at the end of his junior year it started to come around and he blew up senior year. Give the kid time, he was the age of a high school senior last year.

There were games we wouldn't have won without Vander. There were also games we lost that we might have won without him and games we won in spite of him. Offensively, he was the worst of anyone who got significant time - He was a poor 2point and free throw shooter. He was a really bad 3 point shooter. His ball handling wasn't great. I agree with you that he was a freshman and a young freshman at that. I agree that he has the potential to be a special player down the road. But last year he WAS a drag on the offense and no amount of sugarcoating can change that.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on July 29, 2011, 10:21:58 AM
There were games we wouldn't have won without Vander. There were also games we lost that we might have won without him and games we won in spite of him. Offensively, he was the worst of anyone who got significant time - He was a poor 2point and free throw shooter. He was a really bad 3 point shooter. His ball handling wasn't great. I agree with you that he was a freshman and a young freshman at that. I agree that he has the potential to be a special player down the road. But last year he WAS a drag on the offense and no amount of sugarcoating can change that.

Saying that he was a "young" freshman is kind of a moot point. (He's not going to be an "old" freshman this year) It's like saying "Oh, I missed that catch b/c the sun was in my eyes"...Sure, if that makes you feel better for missing it, so be it...but it doesnt take the run off the scoreboard.

That being said...Vander did not have a poor 3pt or FT percentage because he was a "young" freshman...moreso because his is a freshman. The "young" freshman stuff can maybe be assessed to his off-the-court issues...but on the court, he's the same age as everyone else in his class.

*Not making and example of Lenny - I have seen this "young freshman" thrown around a few times now....

And if Vander is working as hard as he claims he is (via tweet) then I think we have A LOT to be excited about.

In fact, I hope we're having a similar poll posted next year!

One of these players was had DJO & Buycks.  A very good player and a good college player, both of whom had played significant amount of minutes coming into the season.  That is without mentioning JR.
The other was behind Otule, a so-so college player who had logged hardly any minutes coming into the season.  

If we didn't' have Gardner then we would have been forced to go very small, very often.  If we didn't have Blue; DJO,  Buycks, and Cadougan would have had to play more.

Regardless of the stats it seems like losing Gardner would have been a bigger problem.  That said: "which would have been a more detrimental loss?" <> "who had a bigger impact?"  

Quote from: APieperFan3 on July 29, 2011, 11:34:13 AM
Saying that he was a "young" freshman is kind of a moot point. (He's not going to be an "old" freshman this year) It's like saying "Oh, I missed that catch b/c the sun was in my eyes"...Sure, if that makes you feel better for missing it, so be it...but it doesnt take the run off the scoreboard.

That being said...Vander did not have a poor 3pt or FT percentage because he was a "young" freshman...moreso because his is a freshman. The "young" freshman stuff can maybe be assessed to his off-the-court issues...but on the court, he's the same age as everyone else in his class.

*Not making and example of Lenny - I have seen this "young freshman" thrown around a few times now....

APiep 3 - While I agree that someone being a "young" freshman wouldn't affect a player's shooting ability - it definitely can impact their physical ability - which is on display when driving to the hoop, finishing through contact, limiting turnovers, being strong with the ball etc.  All of these attributes are valuable assets offensively, and as Vander gets older - with that will come additional strength/physicality which will benefit him.  To say Vander didn't struggle finishing on drives to the basket last year would be an outright lie.  I see this as an immediate area he will be better in in 2011-2012.

The NBA absolutely looks at players relative age when evaluating players to draft..as there are many people who don't fully fill out/stop growing, etc..until 23...and a guy like Jimmy Butler (also young for his class), can be looked at as having slightly more physical potential than a guy like Lazar...who left MU as solid 23 year old., 

The main improvement for Vander will come mentally. If he gets to the point where the game slows down for him, all aspects of his game will start to improve. It seemed he was playing hyper and in a rush a lot. A lot of times the change occurs between the first and second year. I'm hoping that will be the case with Vander.

Quote from: groove on July 29, 2011, 12:14:12 PM
The main improvement for Vander will come mentally. If he gets to the point where the game slows down for him, all aspects of his game will start to improve. It seemed he was playing hyper and in a rush a lot. A lot of times the change occurs between the first and second year. I'm hoping that will be the case with Vander.

Excellent point. Whether a quarterback in football or a guard in basketball, the adjustment to the speed of the game is difficult when moving up a level.

I think Blue will play up to expectations and have a big impact. Gardner was a surprise to me and I hope he surprises again. Honestly my bar was very low going into last season. Blue came in high expectations and did not meet most those expectations. Blue is too good of a talent not to be a big contributor this upcoming season.

Blue, and it isn't that close.   DG positively impacted some games that we lost, but far more often, he played for a couple of minutes, was an embarrassment on defense, and was never heard from again.   For a large part of the year, he couldn't move quickly enough laterally to continue to 3/4 front the post when the ball got reversed.   He would inevitably be pinned behind his man.  If he had been able to play defense, he would have played more, but he simply did not play adequate defense a lot of the time.   As the season went on,  Blue struggled with his shot and his decision making.    But he still impacted  more games than DG.
     Going forward, I still do not see DG being able to handle more than 15 minutes a night nor guard a mobile 4.    Best case scenario is that he and CO are able to combine for 40 minutes a night at the 5.   I see the split as around 25 CO / 15 DG.    And if DG doesn't guard and CO stays out of foul trouble, it could be 28-12.   DG's ability to defend will determine his minutes more than his ability to score.     

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on July 29, 2011, 08:00:11 AMSimply asking the question is "hating" on Vander. Not to mention that the way the question is phrased ("bigger, positive impact") suggests that Vander had a bigger impact, but much of it was negative. Vander played 703 minutes for a Sweet 16 team, while Gardner played 296. If Blue's positive impact wasn't greater than Gardner's then Buzz should have been fired. Don't get me wrong, I think Gardner is going to be a stud for MU but to ask that question at this point is asinine.

A year from now, I hope we're having a similar discussion about who was more worthy of their first team All Big East selection: Blue or Gardner.

Amen, Merritts. Absolutely spot on, everything you said there.

Quote from: Jamailman on July 29, 2011, 09:59:15 AMWe don't win the USF or UConn games without Blue's contributions, meaning we don't make the NCAA's and don't make the S16. He hit a huge 3 against Bucknell during the comeback too. People act like all he did was drag the team down. McNeal's shot was butt ugly early on too, then at the end of his junior year it started to come around and he blew up senior year. Give the kid time, he was the age of a high school senior last year.

Agreed with everything there (though not really bothered about the age issue) and especially the "anchor" effect so many are asserting Blue had. As was mentioned by Merritts, if Blue was such a negative, Buzz deserved to be fired. His minutes should have went to Jamail, or Reggie Smith (maybe he'd still be here), or DG, or Frozena. Our coach saw merit in playing him. And obviously a lot of merit to give a true freshman 19 mpg. Suffice to say, I trust Buzz's judgment on whether or not Blue was having an "impact" on the team more than all the people that seem to think he's the albatross tied to our collective leg.

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on July 28, 2011, 09:18:08 PM

Blue played more games...more minutes...more points....and wasn't a defensive liability.  Blue got minutes in crunch time.  Gardner mostly didn't.

Those who think that DG had a "bigger impact" are only juding the two of them based on their incoming reputations.

Honestly, it makes me question the basketball IQ of the board if you chose Gardner.

I'm not, Blue was awful vs. conference opponents and in the tournament. His stats were better because of early success but he was a huge liability on offense. It was like playing 4 on 5, off setting what he did on the defensive end. Gardner improved down the stretch and played way better in the tournament, which heavily outweighs what blue did early.

I think this is like comparing a platoon player in baseball to an everyday player.

A platoon player may have great splits, but that is because he is only playing in the match-ups where he is at his best.

An everyday player has to play against every pitcher, so it's tougher to keep great splits. He might not be great against lefties, but he has to play.

Gardner was only used when the matchups were good, or if he got off a to a good start. Vander played against the best all of the time, regardless of match-up.

Maybe you could compare Vander's best 300 minutes to Gardners best 300 minutes. Might be more of an apples to apples comparison.

How did Gardner play better in the tournament?  He got garbage time against X and UNC and sat the entire second half v Syracuse. Don't let the stats deceive you.

Quote from: Henry Sugar on July 29, 2011, 08:58:56 AM
I'd argue that Blue was the least valuable member of the squad last year.  I believe his overall contribution to the team was the largest net negative.

Blue had the worst offensive rating on the team, and still took a significant percentage of shots.  He was a boat anchor on offense.  There's no way Blue's defense was good enough to make up for how bad he was offensively. 

Just to remind everyone talking about Blue's defense, MU was not good defensively last year. 

Compared to being the least valuable member of the team, Gardner had a better impact on the team.

Thank you, Henry Sugar! Unless somebody proves to me otherwise, you cannot convince me that Blue's minutes were due to anything other than a commitment during recruitment. He absolutely did not belong on the floor for that number of minutes. Jones was more impressive than Blue for chrissakes!

Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on July 29, 2011, 04:05:25 PM
Jones was more impressive than Blue for chrissakes!

And your last sentence tells the board you're clueless, again.

Quote from: Henry Sugar on July 29, 2011, 08:58:56 AM
I'd argue that Blue was the least valuable member of the squad last year.  I believe his overall contribution to the team was the largest net negative.
Blue had the worst offensive rating on the team, and still took a significant percentage of shots.  He was a boat anchor on offense.  There's no way Blue's defense was good enough to make up for how bad he was offensively. 

Just to remind everyone talking about Blue's defense, MU was not good defensively last year. 

Compared to being the least valuable member of the team, Gardner had a better impact on the team.

This is so unbelievable I had to read it three times to make sure I wasn't in some sort of weird parallel universe  :o

Henry Sugar is one of the best stats guys on this board.  Blues offensive efficiency was ATROCIOUS, Gardner's was SUPERB.  Blue's defensive prowess rarely led to steals, dunks, or points in transition.  He played solid on ball defense, but that's about it - particularly come Big East time - where he as horrendous offensively.  Vander's got a ton of potential and upside...but some of you here are really dissing Gardner's contribution/performance...to try to make it seem hands down Vander had a bigger impact.  The poll results thus far suggest many MU fans feel it is certainly a debatable topic...and by no means the landslide Brew, Merritt and Tower have made it out to be..

Gardner battled several injuries during the season that relegated him to the bench - or he'd have gotten more minutes. 

At least we have a good basketball discussion going on..

Quote from: 2002MUalum on July 29, 2011, 03:48:39 PM
I think this is like comparing a platoon player in baseball to an everyday player.

A platoon player may have great splits, but that is because he is only playing in the match-ups where he is at his best.

An everyday player has to play against every pitcher, so it's tougher to keep great splits. He might not be great against lefties, but he has to play.

Gardner was only used when the matchups were good, or if he got off a to a good start. Vander played against the best all of the time, regardless of match-up.

Maybe you could compare Vander's best 300 minutes to Gardners best 300 minutes. Might be more of an apples to apples comparison.

Gardner had almost the same offensive numbers (.5pts and .6 rebs less) in less than half of Blue's minutes while shooting 16% better from the field and 14% better from the line. Your correct that you can't just double a guy stats who has 250 ABs and compare him with a guy with 500. But if the guy with 500 has only a couple of more hits than the guy with 250 that tells you something.

Quote from: Ners on July 29, 2011, 05:55:06 PM
Henry Sugar is one of the best stats guys on this board.  Blues offensive efficiency was ATROCIOUS, Gardner's was SUPERB.  Blue's defensive prowess rarely led to steals, dunks, or points in transition.  He played solid on ball defense, but that's about it - particularly come Big East time - where he as horrendous offensively.  Vander's got a ton of potential and upside...but some of you here are really dissing Gardner's contribution/performance...to try to make it seem hands down Vander had a bigger impact.  The poll results thus far suggest many MU fans feel it is certainly a debatable topic...and by no means the landslide Brew, Merritt and Tower have made it out to be..

Gardner battled several injuries during the season that relegated him to the bench - or he'd have gotten more minutes. 

At least we have a good basketball discussion going on..

Not dissing Gardner (or Sugar) at all.  Sugar's comment that Blue was the LEAST valuable member of the team is pretty out there, I don't care how he wants to run the numbers.  Gardner was fine on offense, his defense was putrid.  He couldn't have stopped me from scoring.  Despite the glut of guards on the team, the guard in this comparison played on average half the game.  Despite an almost total lack of good big guys, the big guy in the comparison played about 25% of the game on average.  That should tell you all you need to know.  If Gardner was so valuable, he'd get more minutes, end of story.  AND, if you really believe Gardner's positive impact was greater than Blue's you should be screaming for Buzz's head on a platter for not giving him more minutes, not defending him from every negative comment people make on here. 

This poll is unfair, of course a guy nicknamed "Ox" had a BIGGER impact.  duh.

Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on July 29, 2011, 06:33:44 PM
Not dissing Gardner (or Sugar) at all.  Sugar's comment that Blue was the LEAST valuable member of the team is pretty out there, I don't care how he wants to run the numbers.  Gardner was fine on offense, his defense was putrid.  He couldn't have stopped me from scoring.  Despite the glut of guards on the team, the guard in this comparison played on average half the game.  Despite an almost total lack of good big guys, the big guy in the comparison played about 25% of the game on average.  That should tell you all you need to know.  If Gardner was so valuable, he'd get more minutes, end of story.  AND, if you really believe Gardner's positive impact was greater than Blue's you should be screaming for Buzz's head on a platter for not giving him more minutes, not defending him from every negative comment people make on here. 

To assume all of Vander's minutes were merit based is making a big assumption.  How would Vander's ego have handled sitting on the bench all game?  Would he have wanted to transfer?  Would he have been a cancer to the team?  Were there PT promises made in the recruitment?  When you are a 5-star recruit, and think you have a chance at making the NBA (as chronicled by the story done on FoxSports Wisconsin discussing his friendship with Larry Sanders of the Bucks)...riding the bench for the entire conference season likely isn't going to rest well in Vander's mind/ego - or help his confidence.

Buzz very well knows Vander is supremely talented, and perhaps didn't want to relegate him to the bench to avert a potential transfer, and/or growing a confidence/cancer problem.  Now I don't want to go all negative on Vander, because he played a solid role as a freshman, and was worthy of SOME minutes - I'm just not sure that his impact was better than Gardners...or that he truly "earned" more.

To assume that Blues minutes were other than merit based is a huge leap.  Do you really want to go there?    Look, using the criteria that to impact the game, you either have to play 10 minutes or score 5 points, starting with the Vandy game, DG had no impact in 18 of our last 26 games (couldn't find a box score for the BEast WVU game).   He had either more than 10 min or 5 points in 7.     Of those 7, we lost 4 and won the other 3 fairly large.    In other words, he never had a positive impact (using my criteria) in a tight game after the first of the year.     As a matter of fact, the only tight game that we won that he had a positive impact (more than 10 minutes or 5 points) was the Bucknell game.   
I think he has a great future.   Blue had more of an impact.   

Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on July 29, 2011, 06:33:44 PM
Not dissing Gardner (or Sugar) at all.  Sugar's comment that Blue was the LEAST valuable member of the team is pretty out there, I don't care how he wants to run the numbers.  Gardner was fine on offense, his defense was putrid.  He couldn't have stopped me from scoring.  Despite the glut of guards on the team, the guard in this comparison played on average half the game.  Despite an almost total lack of good big guys, the big guy in the comparison played about 25% of the game on average.  That should tell you all you need to know.  If Gardner was so valuable, he'd get more minutes, end of story.  AND, if you really believe Gardner's positive impact was greater than Blue's you should be screaming for Buzz's head on a platter for not giving him more minutes, not defending him from every negative comment people make on here. 

Blue's negative impact comes primarily from getting that many minutes.  If Jamail Jones had received that many minutes, then it'd be him.  Maybe EWill / Frozena / etc.  But it was Blue that was out there turning the ball over and shooting poorly and not doing well enough defensively to overcome those deficiencies.

As for why Blue got those minutes, there's some merit in letting a young, talented player grow.  I believe it was probably a combination of that, his defense, and his ranking.  I also believe Blue has a lot of upside.

Regarding Gardner, I did advocate for giving him more PT last year.  Of course, I never understood the griping about Gardner's defense.  The entire MU defense was bad, so I was fine with going for more offense and letting defense suffer.

That is basically the gist of my entire belief.  MU was really good offensively and poor defensively.  We won games with offense.  So why not play the guy that was good offensively and bad defensively more than the guy that was good defensively and bad offensively?  Would our defense really have been that much worse?

Quote from: Ners on July 29, 2011, 07:43:35 PM
To assume all of Vander's minutes were merit based is making a big assumption.  How would Vander's ego have handled sitting on the bench all game?  Would he have wanted to transfer?  Would he have been a cancer to the team?  Were there PT promises made in the recruitment?  When you are a 5-star recruit, and think you have a chance at making the NBA (as chronicled by the story done on FoxSports Wisconsin discussing his friendship with Larry Sanders of the Bucks)...riding the bench for the entire conference season likely isn't going to rest well in Vander's mind/ego - or help his confidence.

Buzz very well knows Vander is supremely talented, and perhaps didn't want to relegate him to the bench to avert a potential transfer, and/or growing a confidence/cancer problem.  Now I don't want to go all negative on Vander, because he played a solid role as a freshman, and was worthy of SOME minutes - I'm just not sure that his impact was better than Gardners...or that he truly "earned" more.

I don't understand this at all.  Don't you think Buzz should be fired immediately if he's playing somebody for any reason other than he thinks that player has the best chance of helping the team win?  Are you suggesting that he's willing to potentially lose games to keep Vander happy? 

Quote from: Henry Sugar on July 29, 2011, 09:24:28 PM
Blue's negative impact comes primarily from getting that many minutes.  If Jamail Jones had received that many minutes, then it'd be him.  Maybe EWill / Frozena / etc.  But it was Blue that was out there turning the ball over and shooting poorly and not doing well enough defensively to overcome those deficiencies.

As for why Blue got those minutes, there's some merit in letting a young, talented player grow.  I believe it was probably a combination of that, his defense, and his ranking.  I also believe Blue has a lot of upside.

Regarding Gardner, I did advocate for giving him more PT last year.  Of course, I never understood the griping about Gardner's defense.  The entire MU defense was bad, so I was fine with going for more offense and letting defense suffer.

That is basically the gist of my entire belief.  MU was really good offensively and poor defensively.  We won games with offense.  So why not play the guy that was good offensively and bad defensively more than the guy that was good defensively and bad offensively?  Would our defense really have been that much worse?

Thanks for this.  While I understand it, I don't agree with it, but that's o.k.  How do you quantify the bold part?

How much worse would we have been defensively without Otule?

Quote from: Lennys Tap on July 29, 2011, 06:21:59 PM
Gardner had almost the same offensive numbers (.5pts and .6 rebs less) in less than half of Blue's minutes while shooting 16% better from the field and 14% better from the line. Your correct that you can't just double a guy stats who has 250 ABs and compare him with a guy with 500. But if the guy with 500 has only a couple of more hits than the guy with 250 that tells you something.

Yea, but isn't that sort of like comparing batting averages instead of totals?
Player A bats .300 and hits 30 homers in 600 ABs

Player B bats .330 and hits 15 homers in 300 ABs

Player B is really only playing when the match-ups are favorable, thus the numbers are screwed and make him look pretty damn good. If you added another 300 ABs against tough match-ups, his average would probably go down dramatically and the HR production would not double.

I like DG (a lot), but he only played when the match-ups dictated. If Otule got hurt and DG had to play the bulk of the minutes, I think his shortcomings would be far more obvious, and in reality, his numbers might not climb as much as we assume.

These are just my guesses. All conjecture I suppose.

How about something as simple as this....Gardner had a bigger impact than predicted as a freshman and Blue had a lesser impact than predicted, but, overall, Blue had a more significant impact last season overall than Gardner.    Blue came in with such high (and perhaps overinflated given the overall quality of high school basketball in Wisconsin) expectations and rankings and Ox came in as a virtual wild card.  They both contributed but Gardner's game was completely unexpected.   Blue was pretty solid, frankly, as a true freshman and the fact he did not pour in 15 points a game should not be a concern.  The dude did his fair share...I really hope he progresses.   Gardner did more than expected but to think he had a bigger impact than Blue as an entire body of work last season is a bit skewed.   Of course, biases are why there are chat boards....

Quote from: Ners on July 29, 2011, 07:43:35 PM
To assume all of Vander's minutes were merit based is making a big assumption.  How would Vander's ego have handled sitting on the bench all game?  Would he have wanted to transfer?  Would he have been a cancer to the team?  Were there PT promises made in the recruitment?  When you are a 5-star recruit, and think you have a chance at making the NBA (as chronicled by the story done on FoxSports Wisconsin discussing his friendship with Larry Sanders of the Bucks)...riding the bench for the entire conference season likely isn't going to rest well in Vander's mind/ego - or help his confidence.

Buzz very well knows Vander is supremely talented, and perhaps didn't want to relegate him to the bench to avert a potential transfer, and/or growing a confidence/cancer problem.  Now I don't want to go all negative on Vander, because he played a solid role as a freshman, and was worthy of SOME minutes - I'm just not sure that his impact was better than Gardners...or that he truly "earned" more.

Two words disprove this entire post: Jeronne Maymon

Quote from: g0lden3agle on July 30, 2011, 01:07:25 AM
Two words disprove this entire post: Jeronne Maymon

Not sure I understand this post. I will say, in the short time Maymom was on the Warriors, he looked far better than Blue. I was very sorry to hear him ago before I heard about all the behind the scenes stuff.

I am seriously afraid that, in overplaying Blue last year, we've ruined him. If he gets off to a bad start this year, look out below. By the end of last season he was so shell shocked he could barely handle the ball in the open court.

Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on July 30, 2011, 06:35:22 AM
Not sure I understand this post. I will say, in the short time Maymom was on the Warriors, he looked far better than Blue. I was very sorry to hear him ago before I heard about all the behind the scenes stuff.

I am seriously afraid that, in overplaying Blue last year, we've ruined him. If he gets off to a bad start this year, look out below. By the end of last season he was so shell shocked he could barely handle the ball in the open court.

It's simple. Buzz doesn't hand out minutes based on recruiting rankings. Maymon didn't get heavy minutes despite being a highly regarded recruit and transferred. Had Blue not earned his minutes, Buzz would have sat him, end of story.

Anyone arguing for Gardner and not arguing for Buzz to be fired is off their rocker. If Buzz was deliberately playing lesser players and those actions would cause us to lose more games, why on earth would you want to retain him? What's next, the poll for "Should Buzz be fired for playing Vander over Gardner?"

Henry, usually I respect your stat analysis, but the idea of ignoring defense is absurd. I honestly don't really have any other good way to address that. Yes, let's play only the best offensive players because our defense is bad. Imagine how bad our defense might have been if we didn't get guys in there specifically for playing defense. We probably would have missed the tournament.

As was pointed out, Gardner did nothing in the tournament. The numbers against UNC were in garbage time. The only reason he looked good is because we played so poorly in the first half and there was so much garbage time to dole out.

For everyone going strictly off this offensive efficiency, I've got a stat for you. Vander Blue scored 187 points in 703 minutes, an average of 0.27 points per minute. Rob Frozena scored 8 points in 26 minutes, an average of 0.30 points per minute. So does that mean Frozena was also more deserving of minutes than Vander? He was scoring at a better rate, and obviously we shouldn't bother with playing any defense because we win with offense.

Quote from: brewcity77 on July 30, 2011, 07:27:11 AM
It's simple. Buzz doesn't hand out minutes based on recruiting rankings. Maymon didn't get heavy minutes despite being a highly regarded recruit and transferred. Had Blue not earned his minutes, Buzz would have sat him, end of story.

By all accounts, Jeronne was skipping classes and was far from a hard worker. Yet he was still in the regular rotation until he announced he was leaving. There is no doubt in my mind he was getting minutes based on recruiting promises.

Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on July 30, 2011, 12:30:09 PM
There is no doubt in my mind he was getting minutes based on recruiting promises.

This is quite a leap. Par for the sensationalism course, I suppose.

Looking at the statistics from that year and you will see a different story. The 2009-2010 team had no depth at the big positions. Lazar and Jimmy were the only regulars playing more than 20 minutes per game at the 4 and 5. Otule was injured, Mbao was disasterous, Fulce had knee problems that limited his numbers and Erik Williams never looked the part that freshman year. Oh, and by the way, Maymon put up better numbers per minute than just about each of those other options.

Maymon's numbers were as they should have: 16.3 min per game. There were no other options behind Lazar and Jimmy, who each played well over 30 minutes per game.

Let's try not to be so melodramatic.

To say that Maymon's minutes were solely based on recruiting promises, when the facts and circumstances suggest the contrary, is a bit reckless. Buy, hey....its a message board, so personal opinion rules the day...not facts.

Quote from: 2002MUalum on July 29, 2011, 10:30:22 PM
Yea, but isn't that sort of like comparing batting averages instead of totals?
Player A bats .300 and hits 30 homers in 600 ABs

Player B bats .330 and hits 15 homers in 300 ABs

Player B is really only playing when the match-ups are favorable, thus the numbers are screwed and make him look pretty damn good. If you added another 300 ABs against tough match-ups, his average would probably go down dramatically and the HR production would not double.

I like DG (a lot), but he only played when the match-ups dictated. If Otule got hurt and DG had to play the bulk of the minutes, I think his shortcomings would be far more obvious, and in reality, his numbers might not climb as much as we assume.

These are just my guesses. All conjecture I suppose.

Based on their actual performance it would look more like this:

Player A 320 AB 8 HR (pts), 40 RBI (rbs) with a .220 BA (shooting %)

Player B 150 AB, 7HR, 35 RBI with a .310 BA.

That's a pretty close mathematical picture of Blue and Gardner's offensive performance in year one. Even granting that Gardner's numbers wouldn"t double if you more than doubled his playing time there's no way he wouldn't have had much better numbers than Vander with similar playing time.

Gardner, hands down.

BTW, was the subject line a backhanded slap at Davante's weight and Vander's less-than-major impact?
;)

As far as the discussion goes on the idea of minutes being promised in recruitments - in the cases of Maymon and Blue - who knows?  We do know that Maymon's departure/transfer had everything to do with the way he was being utilized and his crazy Dad - probably more to do with his crazy Dad than anything. 

As far as the idea Buzz should have been fired if he played a guy more minutes than he perhaps earned is absurd.  As he Buzz says he is the steward of the program and has a very good pulse on where his guys heads are, etc...and likely whats best short/long term.  Furthermore - imagine the PR nightmare in many ways it would have been to lose Maymon at the semester, and then Vander Blue after 1 year at MU.  Would not have reflected well for him in WI, Badger fans would have had a field day, it would be held against him in likely recruiting battles in the state, etc.

To think that a coach doesn't want to retain a player he values highly, by giving him a few more minutes than he possibly earns is not a leap.  There also is a psychological component to coaching, and if in Vander's case he was getting 20 minutes prior to Big East season, and then as his performance dropped off - he was only getting 5 - does that not send a message that could hurt already fragile confidence?  Vander did not play well for most of the Big East season - that is a fact, and to argue otherwise is not looking at things objectively.

. 

Quote from: Ners on July 30, 2011, 03:42:19 PMVander did not play well for most of the Big East season - that is a fact, and to argue otherwise is not looking at things objectively.

Oh yes, and of course Davante lit it up during the Big East season. Do you realize that he broke the 5 point barrier only twice in Big East play? 12 against Georgetown, 7 against Seton Hall at home. Honestly, give me the impact performances that you remember that justify putting DG ahead of Blue. What do you have? Garbage time minutes against North Carolina? Seriously, they no longer cared by the time DG started his work. The way he beat up on Green Bay, Prairie View, and Corpus Christie?

Davante had really meaningful impacts in three games: Bucknell (best game for him all year), Duke (loss), and Georgetown (fouled out, loss). That's it. That's the honor roll. Are there games I'm forgetting? Games that really mattered that his impact carried us to a win? Because unless you have some of those (which you don't, because other than Bucknell, they don't exist) this entire argument is moot.

I'm excited for his future. I think he can be a great player. But thinking that he was bigger in any way other than physical stature to our 2010-11 team is simply delusional.

Without actually looking at the stats, I am pretty sure that Gardner's stats during the Big East tournament and the NCAA tournament were better than Blue's. There is a long period of time during the season where Gardner appeared to be the missing man. In fact it appears that Gardner was the chief beneficiary of the closed door meeting after the Seton Hall loss. The amount of his playing time significantly increased after that. Perhaps in that meeting the players told Buzz to play Gardner or Buzz just got tired of playing some other players after the Seton hall loss. I also think the other beneficairy of that meeting was Cadougan, who also was much more effective from that time on. In the post season Gardner easily had more impact than Blue. Before that I would have to say Blue.

Quote from: brewcity77 on July 30, 2011, 06:19:09 PM
Oh yes, and of course Davante lit it up during the Big East season. Do you realize that he broke the 5 point barrier only twice in Big East play? 12 against Georgetown, 7 against Seton Hall at home. Honestly, give me the impact performances that you remember that justify putting DG ahead of Blue. What do you have? Garbage time minutes against North Carolina? Seriously, they no longer cared by the time DG started his work. The way he beat up on Green Bay, Prairie View, and Corpus Christie?

Davante had really meaningful impacts in three games: Bucknell (best game for him all year), Duke (loss), and Georgetown (fouled out, loss). That's it. That's the honor roll. Are there games I'm forgetting? Games that really mattered that his impact carried us to a win? Because unless you have some of those (which you don't, because other than Bucknell, they don't exist) this entire argument is moot.

I'm excited for his future. I think he can be a great player. But thinking that he was bigger in any way other than physical stature to our 2010-11 team is simply delusional.

Funny you don't mention Vander's Big East performances - yet want to call out Gardner for his.  You do realize Vander only broke the 5 point mark 2 times in Big Easy play as well:  12 against DE PAUL, and 7 against UCONN - desptie getting about 14 more minutes per game on average than Gardner.  Vander shot 18 for 72 from the field in Big East play - good for 25%.  Vander made exactly 8 FGs over his last 18 games of the season.

The only delusional thinking here is thinking that it is clear cut, hands down, no contest that Vander had a bigger impact on last year's team.  The poll results are 50/50...and the stat sheet doesn't lie...but in the future, before you rip Gardner's Big East contribution, just make sure you first compare it to the player you are telling us had so much more of an impact that its not even close..and that those of us who think otherwise are delusional....actually did perform better than the guy you are ripping...

And one last thing - Gardner went 25 for 47 from the field from Big East play through end of the season...I'd say 53% shooting is much better than 25%...and making 7 more FG's yet getting about 50% less PT than Vander makes you delusional for thinking Blue was a bigger impact player.

Quote from: Ners on July 30, 2011, 07:13:12 PMFunny you don't mention Vander's Big East performances - yet want to call out Gardner for his.  You do realize Vander only broke the 5 point mark 2 times in Big Easy play as well:  12 against DE PAUL, and 7 against UCONN - desptie getting about 14 more minutes per game on average than Gardner.

I guess the West Virginia and Rutgers games didn't happen in your reality?

Quote from: Ners on July 30, 2011, 07:13:12 PMVander shot 18 for 72 from the field in Big East play - good for 25%.  Vander made exactly 8 FGs over his last 18 games of the season.

Yeah, and he also pretty much stopped taking FGs when he knew his shot wasn't falling. Other than against USF (a game when we definitely needed his D) he was usually only taking 2-5 shots per game. He focused his efforts where he could be most effective, on the defensive end. Meanwhile, DG wasn't getting on the court.

Quote from: Ners on July 30, 2011, 07:13:12 PMThe only delusional thinking here is thinking that it is clear cut, hands down, no contest that Vander had a bigger impact on last year's team.  The poll results are 50/50...and the stat sheet doesn't lie...but in the future, before you rip Gardner's Big East contribution, just make sure you first compare it to the player you are telling us had so much more of an impact that its not even close..and that those of us who think otherwise are delusional....

Yeah, and fans still vote for the All-Star game. How many times have guys like Grant Hill and Allen Iverson been elected to All-Star games when they weren't even playing? Poll results in general don't tell you anything, other than that people will have an opinion even if it isn't grounded in facts. The minutes bear out, the stats you offered on Vander were false, and your level of delusion hasn't changed.

Honestly, this is like debating with M84 or Chicos. You ignore the logic, ignore the assertion that based on your logic Frozena deserved more minutes than Blue, and fail to produce any more games than my examples where DG had this major impact. Meanwhile, despite this belief that Buzz was giving too many minutes to a lesser player, something that would seem to lead to us losing more games and possibly missing the tournament, you aren't willing to dole out any blame. Through it all, you seem convinced that you are still "right" just because that's what you asserted in the first place and won't give up your position, come hell or high water. What, did you want to try the Bailbondsman's shoes on for size now that he's been banned?

Quote from: brewcity77 on July 30, 2011, 07:24:35 PM
I guess the West Virginia and Rutgers games didn't happen in your reality?

Yeah, and he also pretty much stopped taking FGs when he knew his shot wasn't falling. Other than against USF (a game when we definitely needed his D) he was usually only taking 2-5 shots per game. He focused his efforts where he could be most effective, on the defensive end. Meanwhile, DG wasn't getting on the court.

Yeah, and fans still vote for the All-Star game. How many times have guys like Grant Hill and Allen Iverson been elected to All-Star games when they weren't even playing? Poll results in general don't tell you anything, other than that people will have an opinion even if it isn't grounded in facts. The minutes bear out, the stats you offered on Vander were false, and your level of delusion hasn't changed.

Honestly, this is like debating with M84 or Chicos. You ignore the logic, ignore the assertion that based on your logic Frozena deserved more minutes than Blue, and fail to produce any more games than my examples where DG had this major impact. Meanwhile, despite this belief that Buzz was giving too many minutes to a lesser player, something that would seem to lead to us losing more games and possibly missing the tournament, you aren't willing to dole out any blame. Through it all, you seem convinced that you are still "right" just because that's what you asserted in the first place and won't give up your position, come hell or high water. What, did you want to try the Bailbondsman's shoes on for size now that he's been banned?

My bad on the oversight on the 6 point efforts in West Virginia and Rutgers.  I will criticize Buzz and say Gardner should have gotten more minutes than he did...though there were about 5 games Gardner got no minutes due to injury.

The fact you are comparing me to 84 or Chicos in this example is comical.  The irony is that you are trying to argue that a player who got roughly 2 times as many minutes (Vander) made 8 less FG's from start of Big East to end of the Season, and shot 28% worse from the field - is more of a positive impact on a team.  That my friend is delusional, and you are in denial - so very 84 and Chicos like.

If you would, could you present your case for why you think a player who shots 1/2 as good as another player %-wise, plays 2 times as many minutes, yet scores 8 less FG's has a more positive impact on a basketball team??

NERS, because basketball isn't all about scoring point and making buckets. Defense counts.

Quote from: Ners on July 30, 2011, 10:28:33 PM

If you would, could you present your case for why you think a player who shots 1/2 as good as another player %-wise, plays 2 times as many minutes, yet scores 8 less FG's has a more positive impact on a basketball team??

Because basketball isn't solely about scoring buckets. Defense matters too you know.

Quote from: pux90mex on July 31, 2011, 12:40:25 AM
NERS, because basketball isn't all about scoring point and making buckets. Defense counts.
Because basketball isn't solely about scoring buckets. Defense matters too you know.

You better be all-world defense to make up for shooting 25%...and Vander's turnover percentage was 2x's greater than Gardners...so, although his steals per game average of .892 was better than Gardner's .12 - there is no way one can argue Vander's defense was so amazing that it makes up for his poor offensive numbers.  Here is a link to a head to head comparison of Vander and Davante:

http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=davante-gardner&p1=vander-blue

Quote from: Ners on July 30, 2011, 10:28:33 PMIf you would, could you present your case for why you think a player who shots 1/2 as good as another player %-wise, plays 2 times as many minutes, yet scores 8 less FG's has a more positive impact on a basketball team??

I've presented my case, with evidence, what feels like about 7,000 times and ways. It's pretty obvious based on minutes that Buzz felt that way.

Now, very simply, what games other than the ones I mentioned were the ones that convince you DG was a bigger impact player than Blue?

Quote from: brewcity77 on July 31, 2011, 06:49:41 AM
I've presented my case, with evidence, what feels like about 7,000 times and ways. It's pretty obvious based on minutes that Buzz felt that way.

Now, very simply, what games other than the ones I mentioned were the ones that convince you DG was a bigger impact player than Blue?

The discussion in this topic is based on the body of work for last season and each players impact.  I didn't realize we were looking at things on a game by game basis - but even if we were - the fact Vander had 2 more 5 point + games from start of Big East play to end of season, than did Gardner, doesn't make his impact more positive... 

Oh...and by the way...I missed Gardner's game total against Providence where he scored 9 points - which you failed to mention in your point a few posts back - so in reality, Vander had 1 more 5+ point game in Big East play than did Gardner.

I'm not surprised you didn't try to articulate an argument as to why you feel a player who plays 2 times as many minutes, yet scores 8 FGs less than another player, while shooting 28% worse from the field, who turns the ball over 2x more than the other player...has a more positive impact on a basketball team...because there is NO logical explanation to try to rationalize such an argument.

Lastly, please keep in mind it was you who was telling me how delusional my thinking was about Gardner even being in a discussion with Vander on team impact last year.  Believe Sultan chimed in with anyone who felt Gardner had a bigger impact than Vander had NO basketball IQ.  You've painted a picture that it was Vander in a landslide - yet digging deeper and deeper into the numbers reveals it is by no means a landslide in Vander's favor...and actually quite clear Gardner had the bigger impact in a landslide. 

Thought I'd add some additional context to this discussion Here's a definition of what the Roland Rating is: The on court +/- number repesents the team's net points with the player on the floor per 40 minutes, while the off court number is the team's net with the player off the floor per 40 minutes. The Roland Rating is the difference between the two, with a positive number indicating the team has played better with the player than without.

This rating isn't an absolute measure of a player's ability, but it does represent how successful a player is with a given team. In general the player with the best Roland Rating on a team is the difference maker (exclude the guys who play a statistically insignificant number of minutes). When the top guy is on the floor the team performs at a much higher level. These ratings represent a player's value to a particular team and are not intended to be an accurate gauge of the ability and talent of the player away from the specific team.

For MU last year:
Jimmy Butler +198
Jae Crowder +142
Dwight Buycks +128
DJO +84
Davante Gardner -11
Vander Blue -58
Junior Cadougan -95
Chris Otule - 168

http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=junior-cadougan&p1=davante-gardner&p2=vander-blue&p3=jimmy-butler&p4=jae-crowder&p5=darius-johnson-odom

Quote from: Ners on July 31, 2011, 10:13:04 AMThe discussion in this topic is based on the body of work for last season and each players impact.  I didn't realize we were looking at things on a game by game basis - but even if we were - the fact Vander had 2 more 5 point + games from start of Big East play to end of season, than did Gardner, doesn't make his impact more positive...

So helping us win more games isn't having a bigger impact? Umm...yeah.

Quote from: Ners on July 31, 2011, 10:13:04 AMOh...and by the way...I missed Gardner's game total against Providence where he scored 9 points - which you failed to mention in your point a few posts back - so in reality, Vander had 1 more 5+ point game in Big East play than did Gardner.

Nope. That's postseason play, not Big East play. DG had 4 points in 8 minutes against Providence in Big East play.

Quote from: Ners on July 31, 2011, 10:13:04 AMI'm not surprised you didn't try to articulate an argument as to why you feel a player who plays 2 times as many minutes, yet scores 8 FGs less than another player, while shooting 28% worse from the field, who turns the ball over 2x more than the other player...has a more positive impact on a basketball team...because there is NO logical explanation to try to rationalize such an argument.

As a matter of fact, there is. First of all, Vander played defense. DG did not. Vander's defense earned him minutes. DG's did not. And at the end of the day, it's about winning games. Let's look at wins where it would be argued either player had a significant role played and see who was more valuable:

Prairie View: Blue had 7 points, 7 boards, 5 assists, 4 steals, and 3 blocks in 28 minutes. Gardner had 17 points, 5 boards, and 2 blocks in 13 minutes. Wash.

Bucknell: Blue had 8 points, 2 assists, and 2 steals in 26 minutes. Gardner had 11 points and 7 boards in 12 minutes. Both played well, but I give the edge to Gardner

Green Bay: Blue had 14 points, 3 boards, 2 assists, and 1 steal in 23 minutes. Gardner had 11 points, 3 boards, 2 assists, and 1 block in 11 minutes, but struggled with foul trouble. Edge to Vander

South Dakota: Blue had 7 points, 5 boards, 6 assists, and 1 steal in 32 minutes. Gardner had 0 points in 2 minutes. Edge to Vander

UW-Milwaukee: Blue had 7 points, 1 rebound, and 1 steal in 20 minutes. Gardner got a DNP. Edge to Vander

Longwood: Blue had 12 points and 2 assists in 25 minutes. Gardner got a DNP. Edge to Vander

TAMU-CC: Blue had 21 points, 5 boards, 4 assists, 2 steals, and 2 blocks in 29 minutes. Gardner had 10 points, 3 boards, 1 assist, and 1 steal in 15 minutes. Edge to Vander

Centenary: Blue had 16 points, 9 rebounds, and 5 assists in 31 minutes. Gardner had 1 rebound in 3 minutes. Edge to Vander

Mississippi Valley State: Blue had 15 points, 2 rebounds, 5 assists, 3 steals, and 2 blocks in 32 minutes. Gardner had 7 points and 3 boards in 12 minutes. Edge to Vander

West Virginia: Blue had 6 points, 5 rebounds, and 4 assists in 20 minutes. Gardner got a DNP. Edge to Vander

Rutgers: Blue had 6 points, 5 boards, and 1 steal in 30 minutes. Gardner had 1 point, 2 rebounds, and 1 board in 8 minutes. Edge to Vander

Notre Dame: Blue had 2 points, 3 rebounds, and 2 assists in 20 minutes. Gardner played 3 minutes. Edge to Vander

DePaul: Blue had 12 points, 2 rebounds, 2 assists, and 1 steal in 22 minutes. Gardner had 1 rebound in 4 minutes. Edge to Vander

Syracuse: Blue had 2 points and 1 rebound in 12 minutes. Gardner had 2 points in 8 minutes. Wash

South Florida: Blue had 2 points, 6 boards, and 2 assists in 21 minutes. Gardner had 2 fouls in 6 minutes. Despite a poor shooting percentage, the edge definitely goes to Vander

Seton Hall: Blue had 1 rebound and 1 assist in 6 minutes. Gardner had 7 points, 6 rebounds, and 2 assists in 11 minutes. Edge goes to Gardner for the first time in over 3 months

Connecticut: Blue had 7 points, 2 rebounds, and 1 steal in 20 minutes. Gardner had 1 rebound in 2 minutes. Edge goes to Vander

Providence: Blue had 1 rebound and 1 assist in 10 minutes. Gardner had 4 points and 1 rebound in 8 minutes. Edge goes to Gardner

Providence: Blue had 4 points and 7 rebounds in 16 minutes. Gardner had 9 points, 7 rebounds, and 1 assist in 17 minutes. Edge goes to Gardner

West Virginia: Blue had 4 rebounds and 1 steal in 15 minutes. Gardner had 10 points and 3 rebounds in 16 minutes. Edge goes to Gardner

Xavier: Blue had 2 rebounds in 8 minutes. Gardner had 4 points, 5 boards, and 1 assist in 15 minutes. Edge goes to Gardner

Syracuse: Blue had 1 rebound and 1 steal in 6 minutes. Gardner had 2 points and 2 rebounds in 6 minutes. Wash

You can't honestly look at all of our wins objectively and say that Gardner was the bigger impact player. The reason people are deluded into thinking that is because they are only remember the end of the season. Yes, Gardner played better during the last month of the season. But Blue was obviously the better player for the first 4 months of the season. The edge numbers go like this: Vander 13, Gardner 6, and 3 where it was a wash. If you live in the vacuum that the last month of the season is all that matters, sure, Gardner has the edge, but if you are talking about the entire season, it's not even close.

Quote from: Ners on July 31, 2011, 10:13:04 AMLastly, please keep in mind it was you who was telling me how delusional my thinking was about Gardner even being in a discussion with Vander on team impact last year.  Believe Sultan chimed in with anyone who felt Gardner had a bigger impact than Vander had NO basketball IQ.  You've painted a picture that it was Vander in a landslide - yet digging deeper and deeper into the numbers reveals it is by no means a landslide in Vander's favor...and actually quite clear Gardner had the bigger impact in a landslide.

Yes, I have, and I think that I've made it clear that yes, it was Vander in a landslide. Gardner was in the discussion for the last month, which is what everyone remembers most clearly. Vander owned the discussion for the previous 4 months, which are easier to forget because they're further removed. The farcical poll means nothing. It's Blue, it's obvious, and it's delusional to assert otherwise.

Hey brew.  How many turnovers and missed shots did each player have in your comparison?  :)

Quote from: Henry Sugar on July 31, 2011, 12:20:08 PM
Hey brew.  How many turnovers and missed shots did each player have in your comparison?  :)

Blue had a 1.2/1 A/T ratio. Not necessarily point guard good, but a fine ratio for an off-guard. And in the game he missed the most shots, against USF, there were people saying he should be the SOTG because of his second half energy.

It's easy to try to slant the numbers against Vander, and because of the last month of the season, it's popular, but it's also clearly false and I honestly don't get why people want to turn our fanbase against one of our own players.

And at the end of the day, the most important stat is that Gardner wasn't playing! He played less than half as many minutes as Blue. That's a clear indicator from Buzz as to which one he wanted out on the floor. I trust Buzz's intuition on this (as well as the obvious stats) more than I do you or Ners.

Quote from: brewcity77 on July 31, 2011, 12:32:10 PM
Blue had a 1.2/1 A/T ratio. Not necessarily point guard good, but a fine ratio for an off-guard. And in the game he missed the most shots, against USF, there were people saying he should be the SOTG because of his second half energy.

It's easy to try to slant the numbers against Vander, and because of the last month of the season, it's popular, but it's also clearly false and I honestly don't get why people want to turn our fanbase against one of our own players.

And at the end of the day, the most important stat is that Gardner wasn't playing! He played less than half as many minutes as Blue. That's a clear indicator from Buzz as to which one he wanted out on the floor. I trust Buzz's intuition on this (as well as the obvious stats) more than I do you or Ners.

Brew - Let's just clarify that I'm by no means trying to turn our fanbase against Vander AT ALL.  He had an okay freshman year.  I just think Gardner had a better year. Clearly they were our best 2 freshman, and contributed more as freshman than any 2 freshman since Lazar/Big 3.

Gardner got DNP's due to some injuries..and some due to Buzz's choice not to use him (which was a big mistake Buzz made).  Gardner's defense was not that bad - but it is an easy thing to use in argument, because there really isn't anyway to quantify defensive performance...whereas with offense it is easy to quantify.  You've discounted +/-, and now you've discounted the Roland Ratings which once could argue indirectly take into account intangible defensive measurables - as it takes into consideration the +/- of a player playing, versus when they sit out.  If Vander's defense were so lock down, and led to so many steals and conversions to points...his +/- and Roland would be better...but it they aren't better than Gardners.

The Roland Ratings certainly seemed to put rank our players well last year...the one surprise to me was that Otule's rating was so poor.

And Brew - why in your game by game break down, did you reference how many minutes Gardner had in each game, but never mentioned how many Blue got?  You want to award EDGE based on offensive output, rebounds, steals, etc...Gardner scores and rebounds at a 2:1 rate per minute played compared to Blue.  Yet Blue played more than a 2:1 ratio of minutes.

Seems that a guy who out produces a guy 2:1 per minute played has a greater impact.  Double Gardner's minutes and I'd propose Gardner would have statistically outplayed Blue in 85% of MU's games.

EDIT:  My bad - not sure why I didn't see you included minutes in MOST of the games for Blue...(Late night for me last night!)

Quote from: Ners on July 31, 2011, 12:52:22 PM
Brew - Let's just clarify that I'm by no means trying to turn our fanbase against Vander AT ALL.  He had an okay freshman year.  I just think Gardner had a better year. Clearly they were our best 2 freshman, and contributed more as freshman than any 2 freshman since Lazar/Big 3.

Gardner got DNP's due to some injuries..and some due to Buzz's choice not to use him (which was a big mistake Buzz made).  Gardner's defense was not that bad - but it is an easy thing to use in argument, because there really isn't anyway to quantify defensive performance...whereas with offense it is easy to quantify.  You've discounted +/-, and now you've discounted the Roland Ratings which once could argue indirectly take into account intangible defensive measurables - as it takes into consideration the +/- of a player playing, versus when they sit out.  If Vander's defense were so lock down, and led to so many steals and conversions to points...his +/- and Roland would be better...but it they aren't better than Gardners.

The Roland Ratings certainly seemed to put rank our players well last year...the one surprise to me was that Otule's rating was so poor.

This Roland Rating indicates that Dwight Buycks was a much, much, much more valuable player to us than Otule...do I really need any more conclusive evidence as to why I discounted them? And again, +/-...all I have to do is point at the UNC game to show why that number is deceptive.

Quote from: Ners on July 31, 2011, 12:57:54 PMAnd Brew - why in your game by game break down, did you reference how many minutes Gardner had in each game, but never mentioned how many Blue got?  You want to award EDGE based on offensive output, rebounds, steals, etc...Gardner scores and rebounds at a 2:1 rate per minute played compared to Blue.  Yet Blue played more than a 2:1 ratio of minutes.

Seems that a guy who out produces a guy 2:1 per minute played has a greater impact.  Double Gardner's minutes and I'd propose Gardner would have statistically outplayed Blue in 85% of MU's games.

EDIT:  My bad - not sure why I didn't see you included minutes in MOST of the games for Blue...(Late night for me last night!)

So basically, you're agreeing with me? Listen, if if's were fifths we'd all be drunk. But the bottom line is Gardner didn't get those minutes. And because of that, Gardner didn't statistically outplay Blue in 85% of MU's games. And none of this even quantifies how much better Blue clearly is as a defender. You aren't really going to try to assert that Gardner was somehow a good defender and Blue didn't pull his weight on the defensive end, are you? Even a blind man could see how much more valuable Blue was for us on the defensive end.

I'll say this, maybe if Gardner got double the minutes, he'd have been a more impactful player than Blue. But the simple truth is that he didn't, and thus, he wasn't. Thank you for that supporting argument :)

Quote from: Henry Sugar on July 31, 2011, 12:20:08 PM
Hey brew.  How many turnovers and missed shots did each player have in your comparison?  :)

Still waiting for you to quantify this:

Quote from: Henry Sugar on July 29, 2011, 09:24:28 PM
Blue's negative impact comes primarily from getting that many minutes.  If Jamail Jones had received that many minutes, then it'd be him.  Maybe EWill / Frozena / etc.  But it was Blue that was out there turning the ball over and shooting poorly and not doing well enough defensively to overcome those deficiencies.

Please demonstrate this if possible.  if not, then your argument doesn't hold water.

This whole discussion doesn't hold water unless we know the deflection comparisons.

Quote from: brewcity77 on July 31, 2011, 02:59:44 PM
This Roland Rating indicates that Dwight Buycks was a much, much, much more valuable player to us than Otule...do I really need any more conclusive evidence as to why I discounted them? And again, +/-...all I have to do is point at the UNC game to show why that number is deceptive.

So basically, you're agreeing with me? Listen, if if's were fifths we'd all be drunk. But the bottom line is Gardner didn't get those minutes. And because of that, Gardner didn't statistically outplay Blue in 85% of MU's games. And none of this even quantifies how much better Blue clearly is as a defender. You aren't really going to try to assert that Gardner was somehow a good defender and Blue didn't pull his weight on the defensive end, are you? Even a blind man could see how much more valuable Blue was for us on the defensive end.

I'll say this, maybe if Gardner got double the minutes, he'd have been a more impactful player than Blue. But the simple truth is that he didn't, and thus, he wasn't. Thank you for that supporting argument :)

Buycks got a bad rap from a lot of MU fans.  He was a solid player for MU last year.  He outperformed Vander Blue in every single statistical category, other than averaging 1/2 turnover more per game.  So as you diss Buycks, just realize his performance was SUBSTANTIALLY better than Blues.

And we can agree on this point:  Vander is a better defender than Gardner.  Having said that, I don't believe Vander's degree of being better defensively is so great that it offsets the huge disparity in his offensive performance when measured against Davante.  It was interesting to look at the game by game analysis you put together - in any game where Davante got roughly just 70% of Blues minutes....he greatly outperformed him.  The only games you gave the edge to Blue were games he had SIGNIFICANTLY more minutes than Gardner.  Hard to score, rebound, block shots, get assists if you aren't in the game.

Quote from: 4everwarriors on July 31, 2011, 04:00:58 PM
This whole discussion doesn't hold water unless we know the deflection comparisons.

+1. Thank you.

Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on July 31, 2011, 03:04:47 PM
Still waiting for you to quantify this:

Please demonstrate this if possible.  if not, then your argument doesn't hold water.

You'll just have to wait for the cracked sidewalks article.  Of course, if Blue had the worst offensive efficiency on the team (89), then his def rating would need to be lower than that.  Considering MU as a team allowed about 1.00 ppp, it isn't likely that Vander had exceptional defensive capabilities but MU was so mediocre.  It's much more plausible his defense was somewhat better than the team's, but not better than his offensive efficiency.

Quote from: Ners on July 31, 2011, 04:15:37 PM
Buycks got a bad rap from a lot of MU fans.  He was a solid player for MU last year.  He outperformed Vander Blue in every single statistical category, other than averaging 1/2 turnover more per game.  So as you diss Buycks, just realize his performance was SUBSTANTIALLY better than Blues.

It's funny how fast people forget, and how numbers don't always tell the full truth.  I remember a poster by the name of "nomorebuycks" that got blasted when DB was tearing it up for a while. 

Also worth taking a look back at the WV game played in early March.  Thew way the seedings in the NCAA tourney went, it turns out MU may have needed that one to avoid the play-in game.

I have all the MU games on DVR and quickly ran through it today....I'm not sure we win that game without Gardner's 10pts and 3 boards.  I don't remember Vander playing that kind of an importance in any game for MU last year.  

I like Buycks. I thought he did much better last year than people gave him credit for. I was also one of the few people touting him as possibly having NBA talent down the line. That said, the notion that he was a much better player for us than DJO, and a much, much, much, much better player than Otule is simply asinine. The only thing that Roland Rating has right is JFB at the top. Once you get past #1, I don't think I'd agree with a single one of those. Doubt many MU fans would.

And avid, I really don't think we beat USF if not for Vander's play in the second half.

Finally...yes, Blue earned more minutes than Gardner. I simply cannot believe how many people are discounting that. Or is it that Blue had the physical capability to play more minutes? Either way, those minutes led to a greater impact. Don't blame me for Gardner either not being good enough or fit enough to play a more significant role. The bottom line is that he didn't play a more significant role, whatever the reason is, and your argument that he would've outperformed him if he did get the minutes only supports my argument that he didn't outperform him because he wasn't on the court.

Really, that's all there is to this argument. Davante didn't get out there enough to have the same impact Blue did. Maybe you like him better, maybe you think he deserved more minutes, but maybes aren't worth a crap in this argument. Bottom line, he didn't get out there and make that difference. All the maybes in the world won't change that.

Quote from: brewcity77 on July 31, 2011, 06:44:08 PM
I like Buycks. I thought he did much better last year than people gave him credit for. I was also one of the few people touting him as possibly having NBA talent down the line. That said, the notion that he was a much better player for us than DJO, and a much, much, much, much better player than Otule is simply asinine. The only thing that Roland Rating has right is JFB at the top. Once you get past #1, I don't think I'd agree with a single one of those. Doubt many MU fans would.

And avid, I really don't think we beat USF if not for Vander's play in the second half.

Finally...yes, Blue earned more minutes than Gardner. I simply cannot believe how many people are discounting that. Or is it that Blue had the physical capability to play more minutes? Either way, those minutes led to a greater impact. Don't blame me for Gardner either not being good enough or fit enough to play a more significant role. The bottom line is that he didn't play a more significant role, whatever the reason is, and your argument that he would've outperformed him if he did get the minutes only supports my argument that he didn't outperform him because he wasn't on the court.

Really, that's all there is to this argument. Davante didn't get out there enough to have the same impact Blue did. Maybe you like him better, maybe you think he deserved more minutes, but maybes aren't worth a crap in this argument. Bottom line, he didn't get out there and make that difference. All the maybes in the world won't change that.

Brew - Here is a definite for you.  Starting with the Big East season through end of season: Gardner scored 8 more FG's on 25 less shots than Blue, shot 16% better from the Free Throw line, turned the ball over half as much, and did all of that well playing roughly 45% of the minutes of Blue.  Impact is measured in results - and the most tangible results are points, rebounds, steals, assists, turnovers.  Based on production, Buzz was wrong for having played Blue and Otule more minutes than Gardner - Gardner should have had at minimum 12-15 minutes every game, as he was clearly capable of playing 12-15 minutes evidenced by the many games he did play more than 12 minutes.  I believe Buzz's gut told him the team would be better defensively with Otule in the game, than Gardner - yet to have a Roland rating of -168 really points to the fact that the team performed its worst with Otule in games.

On another note, you are correct in stating that you were a Buycks supporter through and through.  As for Vander's minutes - I think it is making a HUGE assumption that his minutes were 100% merit based.  Keeping Vander happy, and not running the risk of him wanting to transfer, and the potential fallout that would have taken place in Wisconsin had Vander left MU after 1 year after Maymon's departure would have been a BIG negative for Buzz to have to sell against in future WI recruiting battles.  Plus, Buzz knows Blue is a supremely talented kid...who has huge upside....and therefore you probably give him a little more run than might be merit based.

Quote from: Ners on July 31, 2011, 07:01:12 PMBrew - Here is a definite for you.  Starting with the Big East season through end of season: Gardner scored 8 more FG's on 25 less shots than Blue, shot 16% better from the Free Throw line, turned the ball over half as much, and did all of that well playing roughly 45% of the minutes of Blue.  Impact is measured in results - and the most tangible results are points, rebounds, steals, assists, turnovers.  Based on production, Buzz was wrong for having played Blue and Otule more minutes than Gardner - Gardner should have had at minimum 12-15 minutes every game, as he was clearly capable of playing 12-15 minutes evidenced by the many games he did play more than 12 minutes.  I believe Buzz's gut told him the team would be better defensively with Otule in the game, than Gardner - yet to have a Roland rating of -168 really points to the fact that the team performed its worst with Otule in games.

Okay, first of all, why do you only look at the start of the Big East season? Because it's convenient to ignore that Vander was killing it in the non-conference?

Second, all your argument seems to be based on is shoulds, maybes, and ifs. I don't care about what should have happened, what maybe would have been the case, and if X then Y, I care about what actually did happen. And what actually did happen was that over the course of the entire season, not just the part that's convenient for your argument, Blue was the more impactful player.

Quote from: Ners on July 31, 2011, 07:01:12 PMOn another note, you are correct in stating that you were a Buycks supporter through and through.  As for Vander's minutes - I think it is making a HUGE assumption that his minutes were 100% merit based.  Keeping Vander happy, and not running the risk of him wanting to transfer, and the potential fallout that would have taken place in Wisconsin had Vander left MU after 1 year after Maymon's departure would have been a BIG negative for Buzz to have to sell against in future WI recruiting battles.  Plus, Buzz knows Blue is a supremely talented kid...who has huge upside....and therefore you probably give him a little more run than might be merit based.

I don't buy that Vander was going to play the minutes he did simply based on the hope that he'd stay happy. When his play declined, his minutes declined. Was he getting 5 minutes against Louisville because Buzz wanted to keep him happy? Was he getting single-digit minutes later in the year, even as DG's minutes were going up because Buzz wanted to keep him happy? He got big minutes for 75% of the season because he earned those minutes on the court. Because he was playing very, very well. Blue looked every bit the recruit he was supposed to be in November and December. He still looked pretty good in January. Then later in February, he started to decline, and didn't have a good March. But for 3 1/2 months, he was the better player. For maybe a month to a month and a half, DG was the better player.

Take the whole of the argument. Look at what Vander was doing early on, what he was earning, and look at the entirety of the season.

Listen, I understand that's it's very easy and convenient to only focus on what happened at the end of the year. We live in a "what have you done for me lately" society, and over the final games of the season, there's no doubt that Gardner did more for us while Blue did less. But over the course of the season, it's not even comparable. Blue clearly did more. And the only possible justification otherwise is to try selling more shoulds, maybes, and ifs, and frankly, I'm not buying.

Quote from: brewcity77 on July 31, 2011, 06:44:08 PM

And avid, I really don't think we beat USF if not for Vander's play in the second half.

He was 1-9 for the game...

Brew - So now you want to look at the pre-conference season when you previously ridiculed Gardner's performances against the likes of Prairie View, Green Bay, TX AM CC, etc?  That's fine.

I'm done with this debate because you aren't going to change my mind, and I'm not going to change yours!  The poll results are amazingly equal too - which simply means both your position and my position have merit.

I rest my argument on the fact that Gardner got 42% of the minutes of Blue for the season, yet scored only 35 points less, shot 18% better on FGs for the season, and made 1 more Free Throw for the season.  The points per 40 minutes played stat says Gardner is good for 20.5 and Blue 10.6 - so Davante basically outscores Vander 2:1 for every minute played.  Based on all of the above, and considering the huge drop off in Roland rating from Buycks and DJO to the 3rd guard Vander - MU would have been much better off giving Blues minutes to Davante Gardner, and going with just a 2 guard lineup as much as possible.  As many have said, MU was practically playing 4 on 5 on the offensive end when Blue was in the game during Big East play.   Why not roll with Buycks, DJO, Jimmy, Crowder and Gardner.  Ironically, once Buzz started playing DG more..MU got better down the stretch..

Quote from: avid1010 on July 31, 2011, 07:31:55 PMHe was 1-9 for the game...

And you obviously don't remember that game, you look at a statline and think that's all there is to it. Go back to the conversations on this board. There were people saying Vander should be SOTG after his performance despite the woeful shooting, and the same people saying it were acknowledging his bad shooting. He was one of the driving forces behind us beating USF, along with Crowder.

And Ners, in those games when Gardner had good performances, Blue's were still better. And as I said, these poll results prove nothing. Was Grant Hill worthy of being an All-Star starter the year he didn't play a game? Allen Iverson? All the poll results show is that you're not the only person who's being myopic about the last month of the season.

Finally, you have provided nothing but more ifs, maybes, and shoulds. You rest your argument on what might have been. Well, it wasn't. Would have been, why not, none of that changes what actually happened.

Quote from: brewcity77 on July 31, 2011, 07:59:49 PM
And you obviously don't remember that game

You are correct about that.

I also looked at roster and figured when MU only has one player (other than Gardner) over 6'6", and Otule was foul prone, Gardner becomes pretty valuable....if for nothing more than fouls and a few rebounds while Chris needed a rest or to preserve personal fouls.  I would have rather played the season without Vander than I would without Gardner. 

Quote from: Ners on July 31, 2011, 07:01:12 PM
Brew - Here is a definite for you.  Starting with the Big East season through end of season: Gardner scored 8 more FG's on 25 less shots than Blue, shot 16% better from the Free Throw line, turned the ball over half as much, and did all of that well playing roughly 45% of the minutes of Blue.  Impact is measured in results - and the most tangible results are points, rebounds, steals, assists, turnovers.  Based on production, Buzz was wrong for having played Blue and Otule more minutes than Gardner - Gardner should have had at minimum 12-15 minutes every game, as he was clearly capable of playing 12-15 minutes evidenced by the many games he did play more than 12 minutes.  I believe Buzz's gut told him the team would be better defensively with Otule in the game, than Gardner - yet to have a Roland rating of -168 really points to the fact that the team performed its worst with Otule in games.
On another note, you are correct in stating that you were a Buycks supporter through and through.  As for Vander's minutes - I think it is making a HUGE assumption that his minutes were 100% merit based.  Keeping Vander happy, and not running the risk of him wanting to transfer, and the potential fallout that would have taken place in Wisconsin had Vander left MU after 1 year after Maymon's departure would have been a BIG negative for Buzz to have

What planet do you live on that you think the team played it's worst with Otule in the game.  That's so stupid it's beyond comprehension.

Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on July 31, 2011, 09:25:55 PM
What planet do you live on that you think the team played it's worst with Otule in the game.  That's so stupid it's beyond comprehension.

I guess the planet called actual game results...did you even bother to read what a Roland Rating is?  When Chris was in the games, combined with what happened when he was out of games points toward Otule bringing down MU's overall team performance - statistically speaking.  I'm not entirely sure I agree...but numbers don't often lie in sports, even if what we feel we see with our eyes tells us differently.

Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on July 28, 2011, 08:54:22 PM
If you're talking positive impact, it's Gardner and it's not even close.

+1

In terms of pure impact, I think the true answer is Blue, but his impact was decidedly negative.

Quote from: CTWarrior on August 01, 2011, 07:42:59 AM
+1

In terms of pure impact, I think the true answer is Blue, but his impact was decidedly negative.

So who would you have in the game besides Blue? 

DG had Otule in front of him.  We need Otule to play because DG can't play defense.  In addition, I believe that DGs numbers were inflated by the fact that he always came into a game near the end when the opposing big-man was already moving slowly because he was exhausted, so DG could have his way.

Blue played yeoman's minutes out of necessity.  DG played energy off the bench minutes.  They were really asked to do completely different things.

Quote from: Skatastrophy on August 01, 2011, 09:45:47 AM
I believe that DGs numbers were inflated by the fact that he always came into a game near the end when the opposing big-man was already moving slowly because he was exhausted, so DG could have his way.

I'm speechless

Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on August 01, 2011, 10:28:14 AM
I'm speechless

It's the truth, especially during the 1st half of the season.  Otule would wear the defenders down and then DG would come in to take advantage.

I'm a big fan of DG, but you've got to give Otule (and Buzz) credit for putting DG in a position where his conditioning and strength wouldn't be such a hinderance.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on July 30, 2011, 02:32:02 PM
Based on their actual performance it would look more like this:

Player A 320 AB 8 HR (pts), 40 RBI (rbs) with a .220 BA (shooting %)

Player B 150 AB, 7HR, 35 RBI with a .310 BA.

That's a pretty close mathematical picture of Blue and Gardner's offensive performance in year one. Even granting that Gardner's numbers wouldn"t double if you more than doubled his playing time there's no way he wouldn't have had much better numbers than Vander with similar playing time.

Fair enough. I don't think the baseball comparison has clarified the picture that much, and I guess we can slice the numbers up a lot of different ways.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

My bottom line:
I love DG's potential, but I just think his numbers are greatly inflated because he only plays when the match-ups were in his favor.

Quote from: 2002MUalum on August 01, 2011, 10:39:47 AM

My bottom line:
I love DG's potential, but I just think his numbers are greatly inflated because he only plays when the match-ups were in his favor.

If we want to use this line of logic in the Blue/Gardner comparison, then we can also say that Vander (as a sub and not a starter) was either:  A) Facing worn down starters, or B) Facing 2nd string opposition.

Not sure that it is fair to DG to say his numbers were only due to playing tired or 2nd string opposition, when the same could be said for Blue.

Quote from: Ners on August 01, 2011, 11:55:48 AM
If we want to use this line of logic in the Blue/Gardner comparison, then we can also say that Vander (as a sub and not a starter) was either:  A) Facing worn down starters, or B) Facing 2nd string opposition.

Not sure that it is fair to DG to say his numbers were only due to playing tired or 2nd string opposition, when the same could be said for Blue.

To clarify:

It's not that Gardner was facing second stringers or tired players and Blue wasn't. (somebody else stated that, not me).

I'm saying Buzz used Gardner in a very specific manner when the match-ups dictated he could be successful. That doesn't necessarily mean second string, or in blow outs. It just means specific situations and match-ups where Buzz saw an opportunity for DG skills to be maximized.

Blue, in my opinion, was used far more out of necessity rather than match-up like DG.

At certain points Blue received some favorable match-ups as well, and I think he played well at those times, but those are mixed in with a lot of minutes where he was over-matched.

Quote from: 2002MUalum on August 01, 2011, 12:22:34 PM
To clarify:

It's not that Gardner was facing second stringers or tired players and Blue wasn't. (somebody else stated that, not me).

I'm saying Buzz used Gardner in a very specific manner when the match-ups dictated he could be successful. That doesn't necessarily mean second string, or in blow outs. It just means specific situations and match-ups where Buzz saw an opportunity for DG skills to be maximized.

Blue, in my opinion, was used far more out of necessity rather than match-up like DG.

At certain points Blue received some favorable match-ups as well, and I think he played well at those times, but those are mixed in with a lot of minutes where he was over-matched.

Agree with your analysis...and I know it was Skat who mentioned the match up/facing 2nd stringers - but just chose to quote your post, and add additional context to the debate Skat started...

Quote from: 2002MUalum on August 01, 2011, 12:22:34 PM
To clarify:

It's not that Gardner was facing second stringers or tired players and Blue wasn't. (somebody else stated that, not me).

I'm saying Buzz used Gardner in a very specific manner when the match-ups dictated he could be successful. That doesn't necessarily mean second string, or in blow outs. It just means specific situations and match-ups where Buzz saw an opportunity for DG skills to be maximized.

Blue, in my opinion, was used far more out of necessity rather than match-up like DG.

At certain points Blue received some favorable match-ups as well, and I think he played well at those times, but those are mixed in with a lot of minutes where he was over-matched.

I'm sure Buzz (like all coaches) played the "match up" game to his favor as much as possible and that it benefitted Gardner (as kind of an "offensive specialist") more than Blue, but going just off my recollection weren't 3 of his best games against Duke, Bucknell and UNC? IIRC he carried us to a come from behind win vs Bucknell's starters, frustrated one or both of the Plumlee's vs Duke and played well against UNC's regulars (though I'll readily agree the game was essentially over very early on). He's a skilled if unorthodox offensive player who presents match up difficulties to all but the elite defensive centers. Problem is that all but the most challenged offensive centers also poses a problem for him.