2011 Net Points Contributions
Written by: noreply@blogger.com (Rob Lowe)
To help out with the summer doldrums, here is one way of looking at the relative contributions of each player on the team during 2010-2011. We'll start with the initial breakdown and then go through additional details.
2011 Net Points Contributions
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RiumIx8xbHk/TjamSg9LxSI/AAAAAAAAAuI/4JAGyuFfSvY/s200/2011%2BNet%2BPoints.png)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RiumIx8xbHk/TjamSg9LxSI/AAAAAAAAAuI/4JAGyuFfSvY/s1600/2011%2BNet%2BPoints.png)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-P-i2nVojWv4/TjYAPw4zj9I/AAAAAAAAAs4/1PwoEK1bBxU/s1600/2011%2BNet%2BPoints.png)Net points is one way of looking at the contributions of each player on the team. It is based on the idea that over the course of the season, a team wins by a number of points, and the credit for those points can be divided up among individual players. In other words, it allows a way to determine which players were most responsible for MU's total margin of victory. Note that this is a full-season view and not game by game (that would have been a lot more work).
The first three names on the list are not a surprise. Nor is it a surprise that they comprise a significant percentage of the net points. There is a common theory that the majority of a team's positive contributions come from 2-3 players.
It's also not a surprise that some players are negative. What does it mean to be negative? It means that, over the course of the season, their contributions on the court were an impediment to the winning margin. Keep in mind that being considered a "net-negative" player does not mean that player is bad; just that other players were more responsible for success. Not every player is a net positive contributor. What is a surprise is some of the players that showed up as negative. More on that in a bit.
Finally, net points are clearly an approximation. Net points is just one way of trying to consider the impacts of each player. If you're not comfortable with that, then stop reading now. There are other ways to calculate a player's net value, or you may just prefer to avoid stats altogether. Also, net points are not really helpful without some context, such as....
Usage and Net Points
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BWuaxOFK6mE/TjanxVfhXXI/AAAAAAAAAuQ/uWFNUW1Kf94/s200/2011%2BUsage.png)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BWuaxOFK6mE/TjanxVfhXXI/AAAAAAAAAuQ/uWFNUW1Kf94/s1600/2011%2BUsage.png)
This chart re-orders net points based on overall usage. It helps highlight some of that additional context. For example, Robert Frozena was about net-neutral, but his usage was effectively zero. Jamail Jones and Reggie Smith were both not very effective in limited usage.
Davante Gardner and Joe Fulce were both net-positive players, but role players. Joe was obviously limited by injuries and Gardner was limited by conditioning and/or defense. There is also the question of the net-negative impact of players that had a higher usage, such as Buycks, Blue, Cadougan, and Otule. Also, Butler was phenomenally productive in limited usage.
Offensive Rating and Net Points
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PjxjcWt4Wlw/TjaodInwIWI/AAAAAAAAAuY/GgzStVMDOqs/s200/2011%2BORtg.png)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PjxjcWt4Wlw/TjaodInwIWI/AAAAAAAAAuY/GgzStVMDOqs/s1600/2011%2BORtg.png)Besides usage, Offensive Rating also helps highlight why some players are net positive or net negative. Fulce and Gardner have great offensive ratings, which explains the net positive contributions in limited usage. The offensive rating demonstrates the difference between Crowder's net points contributions in 14% usage vs DJO's net points contributions in 19% usage.
This also helps demonstrate why Cadougan and Blue show up as net-negative contributors. Simply put, their offensive efficiencies were poor... well below the team average. However, this chart does not explain why Cadougan has a higher offensive rating but a worse net points contribution than Vander. To understand that, one needs to look at defensive rating.
Defensive Rating and Net Points
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5O7lS3XncLw/TjapY3X5VcI/AAAAAAAAAug/egNizNWHG00/s200/2011%2BDRtg.png)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5O7lS3XncLw/TjapY3X5VcI/AAAAAAAAAug/egNizNWHG00/s1600/2011%2BDRtg.png)
Defensive Rating is difficult to calculate. Most don't even bother, primarily because it's really just an approximation. The box scores don't show the value of a player who limits their man from getting the ball. They also do not show the times when a player guards an opponent and forces a missed shot. What Defensive Rating does do is take the team's defensive efficiency and then adjusts for defensive stats such as steals, blocks, and defensive rebounds. Personally, I don't mind doing the defensive rating because it helps fill in more of the picture, but one needs to be aware of the shortcomings.
In this view, Vander's defense is better than Cadougan's, and Otule's defense is better than Gardner's. Both concepts pass the conventional wisdom test. Vander is probably understated in his defensive rating, but his defense would need to be a rating of 86 to move to the net positive category. (correspondingly, Gardner's defensive rating would need to be 128 for him to move to a net-negative contributor). Crowder gets credit for defensive rebounds but not defensive positioning. His rating is probably overstated a bit.
Summary
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-aFc4BztcVJE/TjarRftg-nI/AAAAAAAAAuw/CYMy5I7TWcA/s320/2011%2BSummary.png)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-aFc4BztcVJE/TjarRftg-nI/AAAAAAAAAuw/CYMy5I7TWcA/s1600/2011%2BSummary.png)
In conclusion, here's the entire collection put together in a summary, and sorted based on net points. As previously stated, it's just one way of looking at the relative contributions, and shouldn't be taken as gospel. Chances are, most people will cherry pick the data that reinforces their existing beliefs anyway. If they've read this far, that is.
However, I largely think this summary passes the red faced test. There is probably not much disputing the top three names on the list. Usage helps explain some of the middle names, and offensive rating provides much of the additional context. Where the complaints may come in is due to the defensive ratings and how those are sorted, and then implications on players that are rated as net-negative. Yet, not every player can be a net-positive player. If that were the case, MU would have lost far fewer than fifteen games last year.
Moving on from this set of numbers, the real question is how well players are going to continue to grow this upcoming year. Who will fill JFB's void? How much with Junior and Vander improve? To what extent will DJO and Crowder improve their efficiency and usage, respectively? Can Gardner move from a solid role player to a more featured member? All questions we're looking forward to getting answered.
http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2011/08/2011-net-points-contributions.html
Henry .. does a net point negative value mean a player playing less would lead to more wins (if replaced by a player that had a better value..)???
Thanks for this very detailed analysis. Interesting for me to look at in a way that I normally wouldn't.
First thing that jumps out at me are the defensive ratings...which seem to confirm the oft-stated complaint that our starting guards didn't play defense worth a damn last year. In my view this was the overwhelming reason for our poor team defense. If you can't contain the other team's perimeter players there are so many ways they can break down the defense.
Since Vander was our best defensive guard and Otule our best defensive big guy, I guess that explains why each got the minutes they did.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on August 01, 2011, 08:53:21 AM
Henry .. does a net point negative value mean a player playing less would lead to more wins (if replaced by a player that had a better value..)???
Honestly, it's hard to say.
Point #1 - players tend to get more efficient with less time and less efficient with more time. i.e. - the more I shoot the less likely the ball goes in.
Point #2 - compared to what? What if Cadougan got less minutes in favor of Buycks? or Blue less minutes in favor of Buycks or DJO? See point #1.
Point #3 - this isn't really a "Wins Produced / Wins Credit / Wins Shared" type analysis. That could be done too.
As far as last year's minutes, really the only quibble I have is that Gardner should have been given more possessions. Butler was what he was. DJO already shot a bit too much. Jae had foul issues. Fulce had knee issues. After that, it's really just swapping out different net-negative players.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on August 01, 2011, 09:08:26 AM
Thanks for this very detailed analysis. Interesting for me to look at in a way that I normally wouldn't.
First thing that jumps out at me are the defensive ratings...which seem to confirm the oft-stated complaint that our starting guards didn't play defense worth a damn last year. In my view this was the overwhelming reason for our poor team defense. If you can't contain the other team's perimeter players there are so many ways they can break down the defense.
Since Vander was our best defensive guard and Otule our best defensive big guy, I guess that explains why each got the minutes they did.
Which was exactly Buzz's biggest mistake last year in that the significant negatives Otule and Vander brought to the offensive end were not offset by their defensive prowess...as best as we can tell.
Quote from: Ners on August 01, 2011, 09:44:25 AM
Which was exactly Buzz's biggest mistake last year in that the significant negatives Otule and Vander brought to the offensive end were not offset by their defensive prowess...as best as we can tell.
Not everything that happens in a basketball game is captured neatly in a statistic you know.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on August 01, 2011, 11:13:57 AM
Not everything that happens in a basketball game is captured neatly in a statistic you know.
I'm fully aware of that ATL - but when the statistics are so blatantly skewed in one guys favor, to ignore the validity is naive at best.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on August 01, 2011, 11:13:57 AM
Not everything that happens in a basketball game is captured neatly in a statistic you know.
True, but unless you have a plausible explaination for why the stats didn't agree with what you think you saw you have to accept at least the possibility that you were mistaken. I wasn't surprised by Vander's poor numbers but was somewhat shocked that Junior's were worse. Guess his late in the season successes caused me to forget his earlier struggles.
Quote from: Ners on August 01, 2011, 01:53:08 PM
I'm fully aware of that ATL - but when the statistics are so blatantly skewed in one guys favor, to ignore the validity is naive at best.
Wow. Not just skewed but BLATANTLY skewed? That's a laugh.
But, let's go down the path and do a hypothetical "What if" and look at what would have happened had you received your wish and Gardner and Otule's roles been reversed last season:
- The probable increase in Gardner's minutes would likely have been marginal. Why? Conditioning and because he would have been sitting on the bench due to foul trouble. He can't defend due to being slow of foot so he picks up fouls on the defensive end. He's also a charge/offensive foul waiting to happen when he tries to back his defender down or when he hooks the defender with his elbow which he does nearly every time he tries to spin past him. He got away with this little move more than he should have...it's pretty obvious (at least on TV).
- Our team defense, which was pretty dismal to begin with, would likely have been worse. Why? No defensive presence in the lane. If Otule is not in the lane when our guards (none of which except Vander can play defense according to your beloved stats -- which is also abundantly obvious if you watch the game) let their guy blow right by them, it's a layup drill. Or worse, if somebody else collapses into the lane to stop the penetration, they leave their guy wide open for an uncontested layup or a 3. We have seen this far far too often over the last few years but it would likely be worse without Otule in there.
- Gardner's offensive efficiency would have declined over the course of the season. Why? As Sugar said, more time/usage leads to lower efficiency. Also, the more time he plays , the more opposing teams can scout him and gameplan for him. One of the reasons he was so effective last season is because nobody had any idea of who he was. I would not be surprised in the least if he really struggles offensively this season as teams now know him and what his tendencies are. The refs will also be more familiar with him as well. If he has developed a jumper out to about 15 feet, that obviously changes things a little bit.
This all sounds like I am very down on Gardner. I am not, I think he's very skilled and brings a lot to the team. He is not, however, some panacea at the 5 and he's not shown anything to me to indicate that he should start or get the majority of the minutes there.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on August 01, 2011, 02:19:07 PM
True, but unless you have a plausible explaination for why the stats didn't agree with what you think you saw you have to accept at least the possibility that you were mistaken. I wasn't surprised by Vander's poor numbers but was somewhat shocked that Junior's were worse. Guess his late in the season successes caused me to forget his earlier struggles.
It's not that the stats don't agree with what I saw. It's that the stats don't capture all the ways in which a player impacts a game. Not even close.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on August 01, 2011, 03:05:34 PM
Wow. Not just skewed but BLATANTLY skewed? That's a laugh.
But, let's go down the path and do a hypothetical "What if" and look at what would have happened had you received your wish and Gardner and Otule's roles been reversed last season:
- The probable increase in Gardner's minutes would likely have been marginal. Why? Conditioning and because he would have been sitting on the bench due to foul trouble. He can't defend due to being slow of foot so he picks up fouls on the defensive end. He's also a charge/offensive foul waiting to happen when he tries to back his defender down or when he hooks the defender with his elbow which he does nearly every time he tries to spin past him. He got away with this little move more than he should have...it's pretty obvious (at least on TV).
- Our team defense, which was pretty dismal to begin with, would likely have been worse. Why? No defensive presence in the lane. If Otule is not in the lane when our guards (none of which except Vander can play defense according to your beloved stats -- which is also abundantly obvious if you watch the game) let their guy blow right by them, it's a layup drill. Or worse, if somebody else collapses into the lane to stop the penetration, they leave their guy wide open for an uncontested layup or a 3. We have seen this far far too often over the last few years but it would likely be worse without Otule in there.
- Gardner's offensive efficiency would have declined over the course of the season. Why? As Sugar said, more time/usage leads to lower efficiency. Also, the more time he plays , the more opposing teams can scout him and gameplan for him. One of the reasons he was so effective last season is because nobody had any idea of who he was. I would not be surprised in the least if he really struggles offensively this season as teams now know him and what his tendencies are. The refs will also be more familiar with him as well. If he has developed a jumper out to about 15 feet, that obviously changes things a little bit.
This all sounds like I am very down on Gardner. I am not, I think he's very skilled and brings a lot to the team. He is not, however, some panacea at the 5 and he's not shown anything to me to indicate that he should start or get the majority of the minutes there.
Here's a comparison between Otule and Gardner. They foul at practically the same rate, turn the ball over at the same rate. Otule gets a 1 block per game benefit over Gardner. You have to double all of Gardner's numbers due to him getting 50% of the minutes of Chris. Gardner averages 20 points per 40 mintues, Otule 11. So, if 1 blocked shot more can somehow offset the 9 point per 40 minutes played benefit Gardner gives the team..then your Otule argument can stand. Gardner gets to the FT line with far greater frequency, shoots a better FT %, and shots a higher percentage from the Field. Gardner rebounds the ball at a slightly better rate than Otule per minute played.
Gardner got 15 games last season of more than 10 minutes. For those 15 games he averaged 13.8 minutes. He scored 137 points in those games - which translated into 9.1ppg. His performance didn't suffer due to stamina issues, he produced more, the more minutes he was given. Granted, he couldn't go for 35 minutes a game...but there was no reason he shouldn't have been utilized 15 minutes every game he was physically able to play in.
So all of your above points are practically irrelevant. Gardner didn't get called for charges as you say - he got away with them...but guess what..he doesn't foul with any greater frequency than Otule.
And FYI - Gardner's offensive efficiency remained largely the same over the entire season - some of his best games came in the last half of the season. To say teams had no idea who he was after he played very well against both Duke and Wisconsin, is naive in this day and age of scouting.
But this whole debate wasn't about Otule and Gardner, but rather Blue and Gardner...but upon closer examination it really revealed DG should have gotten Otule's minutes, and Otule gotten Gardner's minutes.
http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=chris-otule&p1=davante-gardner
Quote from: Ners on August 01, 2011, 03:46:55 PM
Here's a comparison between Otule and Gardner. They foul at practically the same rate, turn the ball over at the same rate. Otule gets a 1 block per game benefit over Gardner. You have to double all of Gardner's numbers due to him getting 50% of the minutes of Chris. Gardner averages 20 points per 40 mintues, Otule 11. So, if 1 blocked shot more can somehow offset the 9 point per 40 minutes played benefit Gardner gives the team..then your Otule argument can stand. Gardner gets to the FT line with far greater frequency, shoots a better FT %, and shots a higher percentage from the Field. Gardner rebounds the ball at a slightly better rate than Otule per minute played.
For starters, you have to throw that "double all of Gardner's numbers" crap out the window. That's the kind of mindset that got Jim McIlvaine signed to one of the most ludicrous contracts in NBA history. Seattle's thought process was "If he can average 2.1 blocks in 14.9 minutes, he'll average at least 5 blocks a game when we give him 35 minutes!" But he couldn't handle those kind of minutes, and when his minutes went up, his block numbers went down. I love Jimmy Mac, but anyone who knows anything about sports stats knows that trying to use a simple extrapolation of "If I give this guy more minutes/at bats/carries/shifts..." very rarely actually works in practice.
If it were as easy as you assert, then why didn't Buzz play Gardner more? Why didn't he play him 20+ minutes per game? Why didn't he play him 15 minutes per game? Did you ever once stop to think that maybe Buzz actually did know what he was doing? First of all, Gardner was injured for much of the season, which limited him. Second, some games I imagine Buzz knew he couldn't go that many minutes because the pace was too fast for him. And third, defense was more important to Buzz. We got points from DJO. We got points from Butler. We got points from Crowder. For much of the season, we were even getting points from Buycks and Blue. We didn't need to get points from the center position. We needed some defense. I don't think you even remotely understand how important Chris Otule's presence was to us on defense. When you have someone who is always a threat to block shots, he doesn't just nullify opponents by the shots he blocks, but also by the shots he alters. How many shots were missed because he was there to force a guy to change his angle to avoid the block, or because a guy had to shoot earlier than he wanted because he knew he couldn't get away with penetration?
Gardner didn't bring that. He was a virtual non-factor on help defense, which was Otule's biggest strength. He didn't have enough speed to adjust to the driving players and doesn't have the length and hops to be the shot-blocker CO is. And at the end of the day, we didn't need him to score. We were what, the second highest scoring team in the Big East? Points weren't the problem, it was defense.
Okay, to put into perspective what you are trying to say, consider this. You seem to like these "per 40 minutes" stats. Well, Chris Otule averaged 3.4 blocks per 40 minutes. Gardner averaged 0.7 blocks per 40 minutes. So per 40 minutes, that's 2.7 blocks more for Otule, which would equate to 5.4 points, not including the free throws that might have been earned or any threes that might have been taken. So without factoring in adjusted shots, Otule has already more than cut that point difference in half with his defense. Do you think that maybe Otule was able to adjust 2-3 shots per game that he didn't actually swat? I'd bet it's more than that, and if he did, that more than offsets the offensive point difference.
In addition, I think it's important to also look at how good Otule got at playing with fouls. The first time he fouled out was in probably his worst game of the year, the loss at Notre Dame. After that, Otule played brilliantly with fouls. He averaged 22 minutes per game and didn't foul out again until the NCAA tournament against Xavier. Suffice to say, if a guy has to foul out to help us get a win in the tourney, I'll take it. He fouled out again against Syracuse, but that was with 5 seconds left. Getting us to the Sweet 16, again, I'll take the foul out. Otule is a very good defender and as the season went on got more and more valuable to us. His defense more than offsets the offense DG provides, and that's the reason that CO will hopefully be seeing 22-25 mpg next year.
Listen, I hope to see Gardner's role increase, and I think he'll be good going forward, but right now hoping for 15-18 minutes is probably the best we can expect. Watching Gardner, even with his slimmed down physique, there's still plays he has to take off (literally...I've watched him chill for 2-3 consecutive defensive possessions under his offensive hoop to catch his breath) and I'd guess that he probably won't be good for more than 2 minutes at a time most of the year. I just hope he can start providing some help defense, if so, we'll really have a 2-headed monster to contend with at center.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on August 01, 2011, 03:14:07 PM
It's not that the stats don't agree with what I saw. It's that the stats don't capture all the ways in which a player impacts a game. Not even close.
I agree except for the not even close part.
Brew - pretty big assumptions to assume all blocked shots were going in, as well as the alters. And I gave the stats for the games Gardner did get double digit minutes - and he produced 9.1ppg where got more than 10 minutes..of those 15 games, in 7 he got over 15, with a high water mark of 18 minutes. So the 9.1ppg is a concrete figure...no ifs, and, buts about it. Buzz should have given him more minutes last year. Period.
I do agree that Otule definitely does give you a better back line presence and would alter more shots than Gardner, hands down no argument. Yet oddly enough the team had a bigger + scoring differential with Otule on the bench - which suggests that the gains made by the offense with Chris on the bench exceeded the gains made by the team defensively with Chris in the game. His -168 Roland Rating is concrete evidence of this fact. I would say that in your above post to say that for much of the season we were getting points from Blue is a big reach. Believe he made 18 baskets in the last 22 games of the season total.
Gardner earned his playing time on the defensive end. Many of his 3 minute games were due to the fact that he came in and simply could not guard even to the standards of last year's team. It was immediately evident and he never went back in. I anticipate this will not be the case next year.
Quote from: Ners on August 01, 2011, 06:14:10 PM
Brew - pretty big assumptions to assume all blocked shots were going in, as well as the alters. And I gave the stats for the games Gardner did get double digit minutes - and he produced 9.1ppg where got more than 10 minutes..of those 15 games, in 7 he got over 15, with a high water mark of 18 minutes. So the 9.1ppg is a concrete figure...no ifs, and, buts about it. Buzz should have given him more minutes last year. Period.
I do agree that Otule definitely does give you a better back line presence and would alter more shots than Gardner, hands down no argument. Yet oddly enough the team had a bigger + scoring differential with Otule on the bench - which suggests that the gains made by the offense with Chris on the bench exceeded the gains made by the team defensively with Chris in the game. His -168 Roland Rating is concrete evidence of this fact. I would say that in your above post to say that for much of the season we were getting points from Blue is a big reach. Believe he made 18 baskets in the last 22 games of the season total.
Okay, I really think this is the salient part: did you ever once stop to think Buzz might actually know what he was doing?
In many games, Gardner simply didn't have the speed to keep up or he was exposed as soon as he came in on defense. Buzz said constantly that defense was the driving factor behind guys playing. Gardner had some good offensive games, but his defense stunk. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. I trust Buzz knew what he was doing and when DG didn't play, it was either because he wasn't fit enough (he was injured), he wasn't fast enough, or he wasn't able enough on the defensive end.
As far as assumptions, they are no bigger than your assumption that Gardner's production would have stayed the same if he was getting those minutes every game. If he was being played for matchups, maybe he got big minutes in games where Buzz knew he could take advantage, and he wasn't getting minutes in games where Buzz knew he wouldn't be as effective. Again, did you ever once stop to think Buzz might actually know what he was doing?
Finally, you can throw out that Roland Rating in our discussions. I saw the numbers you put up, and as far as I'm concerned, it's garbage. The
only thing it got right was that JFB was our best player last year. Past that, it didn't have anything right. Useless stat that isn't worth the toilet paper it's printed on.
Quote from: Ners on August 01, 2011, 09:44:25 AM
Which was exactly Buzz's biggest mistake last year in that the significant negatives Otule and Vander brought to the offensive end were not offset by their defensive prowess...as best as we can tell.
There are two things wrong with this view. First of all, you have to develop young players. Second of all, the starters generally become less effective the more minutes they play. Why Vander's numbers may not be that great, they still might of been better than the starter he replaced, because the starter would not be getting the needed rest. My complaints about Blue has to do with him taking bad shots. There are plently of players that cannot shoot. As long as they play within their abilities and do not try to do too much, I do not have a problem with them. I suspect that, if Vander elimiated two bad shots a game his negative number would have been greatly decreased.
Ners, you are hysterical.
In one post you make a grand assumption that you should double ALL of Gardner's offensive stats because he's going to play twice as many minutes. In another post you criticize Brew for making the assumption that all of Otule's blocks erase points scored by the opposition.
I guess the assumptions are ok if they advance your argument, heh?
Quote from: brewcity77 on August 01, 2011, 06:50:51 PM
Okay, I really think this is the salient part: did you ever once stop to think Buzz might actually know what he was doing?
In many games, Gardner simply didn't have the speed to keep up or he was exposed as soon as he came in on defense. Buzz said constantly that defense was the driving factor behind guys playing. Gardner had some good offensive games, but his defense stunk. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. I trust Buzz knew what he was doing and when DG didn't play, it was either because he wasn't fit enough (he was injured), he wasn't fast enough, or he wasn't able enough on the defensive end.
When it comes to defense, I question often if Buzz knows what he's doing.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on August 01, 2011, 07:40:26 PM
Ners, you are hysterical.
In one post you make a grand assumption that you should double ALL of Gardner's offensive stats because he's going to play twice as many minutes. In another post you criticize Brew for making the assumption that all of Otule's blocks erase points scored by the opposition.
I guess the assumptions are ok if they advance your argument, heh?
WTF are you talking about?? I back my points up with raw data. Broke down the games Gardner got more than 10 minutes per game and in those 15 games (a relevant sample size) he was good for 9.1 ppg, which was roughly has 2x his ppg season average (4.6). Furthermore in those 15 games he averaged just 13.8 minutes which is NOT 2x his actuals season minutes average of 8.97 minutes per game. There's nothing assumptive about what I'm advancing my arugment with.
What is laughable is your continued snide remarks at my posts, and continued remarks that Vander's defense and Otule's defense were so great that they had a bigger impact on games than Gardner, yet have NO data to back up your claims - and quite a bit of evidence that suggests otherwise.
Why don't you rebut my arguments with some facts, but until then keep your smart ass remarks to yourself. I've been pretty patient with you and your last 5-8 snide posts...but enough is enough.
Quote from: Ners on August 01, 2011, 08:15:33 PM
WTF are you talking about?? I back my points up with raw data. Broke down the games Gardner got more than 10 minutes per game and in those 15 games (a relevant sample size) he was good for 9.1 ppg, which was roughly has 2x his ppg season average (4.6). Furthermore in those 15 games he averaged just 13.8 minutes which is NOT 2x his actuals season minutes average of 8.97 minutes per game. There's nothing assumptive about what I'm advancing my arugment with.
What is laughable is your continued snide remarks at my posts, and continued remarks that Vander's defense and Otule's defense were so great that they had a bigger impact on games than Gardner, yet have NO data to back up your claims - and quite a bit of evidence that suggests otherwise.
Why don't you rebut my arguments with some facts, but until then keep your smart ass remarks to yourself. I've been pretty patient with you and your last 5-8 snide posts...but enough is enough.
Maybe I misunderstood this:
Quote from: Ners on August 01, 2011, 03:46:55 PM
Here's a comparison between Otule and Gardner. They foul at practically the same rate, turn the ball over at the same rate. Otule gets a 1 block per game benefit over Gardner. You have to double all of Gardner's numbers due to him getting 50% of the minutes of Chris.
Enlighten me where I went wrong.
Oh, and by the way, what you are doing is anything but factual. You are playing make believe. IF Gardner got more minutes. Guess what, he didn't so anything you follow up with after that is 100% conjecture and make believe.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on August 01, 2011, 08:41:40 PMOh, and by the way, what you are doing is anything but factual. You are playing make believe. IF Gardner got more minutes. Guess what, he didn't so anything you follow up with after that is 100% conjecture and make believe.
That's my biggest issue with this. Ners' entire argument is based on "What if?" scenarios. What if Gardner had got as many minutes as Blue did? What if Gardner had starter minutes and Otule had backup minutes? Those aren't facts, those are assumptions.
Further, there's the assumption that Gardner would have produced the same in all types of games and against all types of opponents. That's where I trust the coach. I'm going to guess that the guy who Ners usually seems to have unwavering faith in has a better idea of when Gardner would and wouldn't be effective. Maybe the reason he was effective in those games when he got more minutes was because they suited his style of play. Is it coincidence that Gardner's season high in minutes (18) came against the team with the second-slowest tempo in all of D1?
As far as Buzz's defense...while there's room for improvement, we were also dealing with a unit last year that had little experience together. Otule, Crowder, Blue, and Buycks were all forced into much larger roles (or completely new roles). Hopefully with another year together and further defensive commitment from guys like Otule, DJO, and Gardner, we'll see improvement.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on August 01, 2011, 08:41:40 PM
Maybe I misunderstood this:Enlighten me where I went wrong.
Oh, and by the way, what you are doing is anything but factual. You are playing make believe. IF Gardner got more minutes. Guess what, he didn't so anything you follow up with after that is 100% conjecture and make believe.
It is pointless - you splice the rest of my post to exclude everything you just called me out for (all of the data supporting the fact that when given more than 10 minutes a game..Gardner doubles his season scoring average from 4.5 to 9.1 in the 15 game sample set) There is no assumption or what if or make believe in my data - give Gardner minutes and he produces at a rate far better than Otule or Blue. End of Story. Go find me some facts that support your argument that the team performed so much better with Blue and Otule on the floor instead of Gardner. Good luck.
It is absolutely amazing you went to Marquette and are really trying to make the argument that Blue and Otule were more productive than Gardner...why don't you go back and read the first post in this thread and look at every single graph included in it...how much evidence do you need? The only one playing make believe here is you - as there is no raw data, evidence or stats that support your position.
Quote from: brewcity77 on August 01, 2011, 09:22:48 PM
That's my biggest issue with this. Ners' entire argument is based on "What if?" scenarios. What if Gardner had got as many minutes as Blue did? What if Gardner had starter minutes and Otule had backup minutes? Those aren't facts, those are assumptions.
Further, there's the assumption that Gardner would have produced the same in all types of games and against all types of opponents. That's where I trust the coach. I'm going to guess that the guy who Ners usually seems to have unwavering faith in has a better idea of when Gardner would and wouldn't be effective. Maybe the reason he was effective in those games when he got more minutes was because they suited his style of play. Is it coincidence that Gardner's season high in minutes (18) came against the team with the second-slowest tempo in all of D1?
As far as Buzz's defense...while there's room for improvement, we were also dealing with a unit last year that had little experience together. Otule, Crowder, Blue, and Buycks were all forced into much larger roles (or completely new roles). Hopefully with another year together and further defensive commitment from guys like Otule, DJO, and Gardner, we'll see improvement.
What if Vander shot the ball better than 25% from the field in Big East play? What if Vander turned the ball over half as much as he did? What if Vander shot better than 60% from the Free Throw line? Here's an answer - he would have made a much better impact on the 2010-2011 team.
How am I playing what if when I isolate the 15 games Gardner got more than 10 minutes, and in those games his points per game average doubled to 9.1 from his season average of 4.6? Yet in those 15 games of double digit minutes, he only averaged 13.7 minutes per game - not 2x his season average of 8.9 minutes...and still not close to Blue's or Otule's average minutes per game. 15 is a relevant sample size in a 33 game sample set of games Gardner got minutes...
Quote from: Ners on August 01, 2011, 09:44:48 PM
\How am I playing what if when I isolate the 15 games Gardner got more than 10 minutes, and in those games his points per game average doubled to 9.1 from his season average of 4.6? Yet in those 15 games of double digit minutes, he only averaged 13.7 minutes per game - not 2x his season average of 8.9 minutes...and still not close to Blue's or Otule's average minutes per game. 15 is a relevant sample size in a 33 game sample set of games Gardner got minutes...
Which games were those 15/I'll do the work myself but just don't know where to find it. I'm not trying to jump in, I'm just legitimately curious.
Quote from: MUBurrow on August 02, 2011, 12:03:10 AM
Which games were those 15/I'll do the work myself but just don't know where to find it. I'm not trying to jump in, I'm just legitimately curious.
Here you go:
http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/player/marquette/davante-gardner/game_stats
Quote from: Ners on August 01, 2011, 09:44:48 PM
What if Vander shot the ball better than 25% from the field in Big East play? What if Vander turned the ball over half as much as he did? What if Vander shot better than 60% from the Free Throw line? Here's an answer - he would have made a much better impact on the 2010-2011 team.
How am I playing what if when I isolate the 15 games Gardner got more than 10 minutes, and in those games his points per game average doubled to 9.1 from his season average of 4.6? Yet in those 15 games of double digit minutes, he only averaged 13.7 minutes per game - not 2x his season average of 8.9 minutes...and still not close to Blue's or Otule's average minutes per game. 15 is a relevant sample size in a 33 game sample set of games Gardner got minutes...
Dude...do the math. His season average was 4.5 ppg. He played 33 games. So in roughly half those games, he doubled that? That means that in the other 18 games he basically didn't score, whether he had 2 minutes, 5 minutes, or 8. If nothing else supports when Buzz played him, this is it. Your "sample size" is half his season. It's pulling the low performances up.
Again, did you ever once stop to consider that Buzz might know what he's doing?
EDIT: In the other 18 games, he averaged 4.9 mpg and averaged 0.8 ppg. If your thought process held up, he should have been averaging 3-4 ppg during that time. I think 18 is a relevant sample size as well, and it's not like he was getting only 1-2 minutes every game. 9 of those games were 5 minutes or more, with quite a few 7 and 8 minute shots in there, but he still wasn't contributing. Buzz played DG when it was to our advantage, and he didn't when he wasn't.
Quote from: brewcity77 on August 02, 2011, 05:21:53 AM
Dude...do the math. His season average was 4.5 ppg. He played 33 games. So in roughly half those games, he doubled that? That means that in the other 18 games he basically didn't score, whether he had 2 minutes, 5 minutes, or 8. If nothing else supports when Buzz played him, this is it. Your "sample size" is half his season. It's pulling the low performances up.
Again, did you ever once stop to consider that Buzz might know what he's doing?
EDIT: In the other 18 games, he averaged 4.9 mpg and averaged 0.8 ppg. If your thought process held up, he should have been averaging 3-4 ppg during that time. I think 18 is a relevant sample size as well, and it's not like he was getting only 1-2 minutes every game. 9 of those games were 5 minutes or more, with quite a few 7 and 8 minute shots in there, but he still wasn't contributing. Buzz played DG when it was to our advantage, and he didn't when he wasn't.
Continued Comedy trying to support your weak argument. So in 9 of Gardner's under 10 minute games he got less than 5 minutes?? Wow. Easy to put up stats in 4 minutes of play. You go on to say that there were 9 games where Gardner got roughly 7 and 8 minute shots but "still wasn't contributing?" What does that say about your boy Vander that in Big East play to the end of the season he got 21 games of double digit + minutes, which totaled 348 minutes or 16.57 minutes per game, and scored 54 points for an average of 2.5ppg? In the 6 games Vander did not get 10+ minutes (yet in those 6 games he got more than 5 minutes in every game - he scored exactly 2 points in 39 minutes of run or (.05ppg). And you want to keep arguing that he was so much more valuable than Gardner?? Ridiculous.
So Buzz playing Gardner against Wisconsin, Duke, UNC, Georgetown, West Virginia "extensively" by Gardner minute standards (+10) - where he faced Leuer, Plumlees, Zeller, etc were far more favorable matchups than Gardner getting less than 8 minutes scraps against the likes of Rutgers, Providence, USF, DePaul? Please. Why did Gardner get 16 minutes at the end of the year against WVU, but not 1 minute against them in the Big East opener? Did the matchups all of a sudden become so much more favorable 3 months later against the exact same WVU personnel?
As for wanting to say a guy should be averaging 3-4 ppg in less than 5 minutes of play - that is ridiculous - you are basically asking an ice cold guy to come in the game and score 2 baskets in roughly 2 of his teams 4 offensive possessions...given shot clocks of 35 seconds per possession.
So are we going by his per minute/per 40 stats, or are we waiting for DG to warm up? When he got double-digit points, did he score all of those after he had already played 8 minutes? If not, that argument falls apart. Maybe if he did something with the first 5 minutes he would've been given more to work with. And far more likely than your inane "he had to warm up" argument is that in those higher minute outings, he did produce early on which warranted him getting into the 10-15 range.
Pretty sure this thread was focusing on CO, but either way, the minutes Blue (and Otule) got were with defense in mind. If you don't value that, I guess that's your prerogative.
As for WVU, might DG still have been nursing an injury the first time? Or did Buzz maybe go back to tape and see something after the first game that he thought he could exploit in the rematch?
Quote from: brewcity77 on August 02, 2011, 12:10:37 PM
So are we going by his per minute/per 40 stats, or are we waiting for DG to warm up? When he got double-digit points, did he score all of those after he had already played 8 minutes? If not, that argument falls apart. Maybe if he did something with the first 5 minutes he would've been given more to work with. And far more likely than your inane "he had to warm up" argument is that in those higher minute outings, he did produce early on which warranted him getting into the 10-15 range.
Pretty sure this thread was focusing on CO, but either way, the minutes Blue (and Otule) got were with defense in mind. If you don't value that, I guess that's your prerogative.
As for WVU, might DG still have been nursing an injury the first time? Or did Buzz maybe go back to tape and see something after the first game that he thought he could exploit in the rematch?
Give it up already Brew...your arguments are an absolute joke on this topic of Vander/Gardner. Funny you chose not to address Blues performances where he got NO GAMES of less than 5 minutes, but even worse when he played 5-10 he averaged a paltry .05 of a point per game (2 points in 39 minutes), yet you want to crucify Gardner's performance in games he got less than 5 minutes??!! Give Gardner 10+ minutes and he's good for 9.1ppg over a 15 game sample set.
You want to say if Gardner had done something in his first 5 minutes, then maybe he'd have been given more to work with?? So why should Blue have gotten more minutes if he didn't produce in his first 4 minutes in a game? Pretty sure there were many games he didn't get a steal or a bucket in his first 4 minutes, much less an entire 20 minutes of game action? Perhaps if Blue had done something more in his time on the court - we wouldn't be having this ridiculous debate.
The ends you are willing to go to defend Blue are silly - calling him the MVP of the South Florida game where he goes 1-9 from the field, but his defense was so stifling and amazing that he single handedly shut down the entire USF 5-man roster..which made up for his putrid shooting? Give those shots to Jimmy, DJO, Jae, Gardner, Buycks, whoever....and likely at least 3-4 of the 9 are made. Doubt Blues defense that game kept 6-8 South Florida points off the board.
Buzz had way too short of leash with Gardner - and he would yank him after 1 possession he saw that he didn't like defensively - but the upside benefit gained defensively by putting Otule or Vander in the game was completely nullified due especially to Vander's terrible offensive performances, and to a lesser extent Otule.
Brew and Ners...think it's time to take it to PMs? ;) jk
Thanks for the analyses Suga!
Quote from: Ners on August 02, 2011, 02:43:41 PMGive it up already Brew...your arguments are an absolute joke on this topic of Vander/Gardner. Funny you chose not to address Blues performances where he got NO GAMES of less than 5 minutes, but even worse when he played 5-10 he averaged a paltry .05 of a point per game (2 points in 39 minutes), yet you want to crucify Gardner's performance in games he got less than 5 minutes??!! Give Gardner 10+ minutes and he's good for 9.1ppg over a 15 game sample set.
Regarding Blue, he was there to play defense. I guess that's not worth mentioning to you, because apparently you don't care about defense. And are you really saying that if Gardner had gotten an extra 2-3 minutes in those games he would have suddenly scored 9 points in that span? And you call my arguments a joke...
Quote from: Ners on August 02, 2011, 02:43:41 PMYou want to say if Gardner had done something in his first 5 minutes, then maybe he'd have been given more to work with?? So why should Blue have gotten more minutes if he didn't produce in his first 4 minutes in a game? Pretty sure there were many games he didn't get a steal or a bucket in his first 4 minutes, much less an entire 20 minutes of game action? Perhaps if Blue had done something more in his time on the court - we wouldn't be having this ridiculous debate.
Because he was there to play defense. Just because you can't quantify what he did doesn't nullify it.
Quote from: Ners on August 02, 2011, 02:43:41 PMThe ends you are willing to go to defend Blue are silly - calling him the MVP of the South Florida game where he goes 1-9 from the field, but his defense was so stifling and amazing that he single handedly shut down the entire USF 5-man roster..which made up for his putrid shooting? Give those shots to Jimmy, DJO, Jae, Gardner, Buycks, whoever....and likely at least 3-4 of the 9 are made. Doubt Blues defense that game kept 6-8 South Florida points off the board.
I didn't call him MVP of the South Florida game. But I did do the research and go back to threads from that game...
Quote from: MUBurrow on February 09, 2011, 08:44:21 PMunpopularly, I say Vander. I dont think this game is ever close enough for Jae's threes to be remembered without VB's energy in the beginning of the second half. i know he put up some questionable shots and forced the issue a bit, but he did so when no one else would. his energy alone carried us for awhile in the second half, and he was the only one with a jump in his step in the first half. I thought he responded extremely well to the extra PT tonight.
Quote from: 21Jumpstreet on February 09, 2011, 08:47:06 PMWell put, I am a big fan of Blue tonight. Poor shooting, yes, absolutely. Almost every other aspect of his game tonight was good. He definitely made a positive impact on the win.
Quote from: tower912 on February 10, 2011, 07:21:39 AMGood: We won. We came back from 16 pts on the road. Blue was flying around during the second half. Not always productive, but the potential is there. 8 turnovers on the road. The press worked. Nice in-game adjustment, perhaps out of desperation, but it worked. Joe Fulce. Got defensive stops at the end.
Bad: Free throw shooting down the stretch. IMO, that is on the players, not the coach. The first half looked like a Crean team. Unproductive three man weave, no continuity, lots of useful clapping. DG is still not ready for athletic bigs. Buycks and DJO were really bad. I looked up and we had Cadougan, Blue, Fulce, Otule, and Butler on the floor.
Quote from: Jamil_toMU10 on February 09, 2011, 10:18:41 PMI missed the game live, but I'm watching a replay of the second half and so far I'm really impressed with the way we chipped at their lead and got back in. Vander's 1-9 is deceiving since he was making a difference on the court. A few mental lapses like the turnovers and some ill-advised shots down low, but he will learn more and improve on the offensive side (obviously).
See? You don't have to score a lot of points to have a positive impact on a win.
Quote from: Ners on August 02, 2011, 02:43:41 PMBuzz had way too short of leash with Gardner - and he would yank him after 1 possession he saw that he didn't like defensively - but the upside benefit gained defensively by putting Otule or Vander in the game was completely nullified due especially to Vander's terrible offensive performances, and to a lesser extent Otule.
The guy couldn't defend. He was out of shape. And when he was getting 7-8 minutes and not producing, which included 6 games and in which he averaged 1.5 ppg, a far cry from the 9.1 you assert he would have averaged in those games had he been given just an extra 2-3 minutes.
Your entire argument hinges on the belief that he would have consistently scored 7.6 ppg in that 2-3 minute stretch. And that he wouldn't have been a defensive liability while doing it. I guess the only positive to this is how amusing it is trying to watch you continuously dig yourself out of this hole when your only defense seems to be that defense doesn't matter.
Quote from: CrackedSidewalksSays on August 01, 2011, 08:45:06 AM
Vander is probably understated in his defensive rating, but his defense would need to be a rating of 86 to move to the net positive category. (correspondingly, Gardner's defensive rating would need to be 128 for him to move to a net-negative contributor).
Not to jump too much into the current slap-fight, but these are the numbers. Each player would require a near-astronomical jump to move from their net impact role. Gardner was a net-positive role player and Vander was a net-negative.
I feel much more comfortable about Gardner being able to step up his usage this year and remain net-positive than I do about Vander being able to improve his efficiency and become net-positive.
Remember that Gardner injured his shoulder, which resulted in less playing time for a few games. I suspect that, if Gardner had not got injured, he would of played in all 37 games and probably would of averaged close to 8 points a game.
Quote from: brewcity77 on August 02, 2011, 03:10:43 PM
I guess the only positive to this is how amusing it is trying to watch you continuously dig yourself out of this hole when your only defense seems to be that defense production doesn't matter.
Absolutely agree!! Pure comedy.
Quote from: Ners on August 02, 2011, 04:50:21 PM
Absolutely agree!! Pure comedy.
Love how you make a joke and ignore all the valid points, including all the other people that discussed how well Blue played that game despite his poor shooting performance. I've spent the bulk of the day analyzing Gardner's season, and feel like I have a pretty good handle on it, both as a freshman and the plan going forward.
When you look at how Buzz handled Gardner, I really think it makes sense. In the non-conference, Gardner had less than 10 mpg against only two cupcakes when he was healthy, South Dakota and Centenary. Both of those teams had adjusted tempo scores among the top 35 in the country. He did play against Mississippi Valley State (10th in tempo) but had his lowest point output of his 10+ mpg games of the non-conference with 7 points. I'm not sure why he didn't play more against Gonzaga, but it's possible he suffered his injury in that game, as he sat out the next two games against UW-Milwaukee and Longwood. The only other preseason game he failed to make 10 minutes was Vanderbilt, and I think Buzz used that as a Big East season tester.
Remember how things changed once we started the Big East season. Buzz predictably shortened the bench and relied a lot more on experience, especially early on. He gave heavy minutes to Otule, Butler, DJO, Cadougan, and Buycks, all of whom had experience in his system. The only newcomers getting heavy minutes were Blue and Crowder. I don't think anyone would disagree that Crowder earned his minutes and was our best option at the 4, while Blue had been our best freshman (10.2 ppg, 2.6 rpg, 2.9 apg, 1.8 spg, 0.5 bpg, 1.5/1 A/T ratio in 26.4 mpg, 68% FT, 49.5% FG) and most reliable guard defender in the non-conference. He rounded out the rotation with Fulce, who got double-digit minutes about half the time into March.
So he went to an 8-man rotation. He mostly used guys he trusted because they'd been here before and added in Blue and Crowder. And with his minutes understandably reduced (because of the higher level of play in the Big East) his production also fell off. He wasn't getting high minutes, but he did get 8 minutes 4 times into mid-February and only managed 1.3 ppg in those 4 outings. I know, it's not double-digits, but I think it's pretty clear that when Buzz shortened his bench to correspond with Big East play, Gardner didn't do much to assert that he was deserving.
In mid-February, he got his chance against Georgetown. Their slower pace (259 tempo) suited him and he got 12 points in 10 minutes, but also fouled out against the more skilled Georgetown front line. He only got 2 minutes in the next game (St. John's) but that was largely because Otule was having a great game, playing 28 minutes while chipping in 5 points, 8 boards, and 4 blocks. But Buzz did reward his G'town performance with another double-digit minute game against Seton Hall, and he responded with 7 points and 6 rebounds.
It became clear that Buzz was going to use Gardner more so in games where Otule wasn't needed. In the win at UConn, we needed Otule's presence inside. CO was killing it against Providence (16 points, 6 rebounds, 4 blocks). And against Cincy we needed his defense and rebounding (9 boards) on the front line. But Buzz still rewarded Gardner's previous work. In the Big East tournament, he played double-digit minutes in all three games as I am guessing Buzz knew he couldn't run CO out there for 28 minutes a night. He also played double-digit minutes in 2/3 NCAA games, and the one he didn't, he simply needed Otule's defense against Rick Jackson of Syracuse. Otule held him to 7 points and 4 rebounds in 40 minutes.
While you want to complain about the minutes Gardner got, I think when you slow down and consider that maybe Buzz actually knew what he was doing, it makes sense. He played him as he could in the preseason, usually giving him less minutes against faster-paced teams. He decreased his minutes at the beginning of the Big East season because he was shortening his bench with guys he knew and trusted. The only exceptions were the JUCO transfer Crowder and the multi-position defensive specialist Blue. Then Buzz picked his spots to give Gardner a chance, first against slow-paced Georgetown, then a couple times against Seton Hall in games that were rarely in doubt (both the win and the loss). In the post-season, he wanted to give Otule more time to rest, so he let Gardner get out there more, and he responded well. Seems like a good way to manage a promising freshman to me.
Looking ahead, Gardner will likely be able to get more minutes next year. He's probably lost 20 pounds and is noticeably quicker, sometimes to the point where he doesn't even seem to know how to handle his own body's speed. Despite that, he still gets winded. I'm guessing that for the bulk of the season, we'll see him and Otule as the only guys manning the center position. Over the last 13 games of 2010, Otule averaged 23 mpg. I'm guessing we'll see him getting 22-25 mpg next year, with Gardner picking up the other 15-18 mpg. From watching him numerous times this year, I don't think he'll be ready for more minutes than that. Honestly, my guess is that 15 will be about it. But still, it should address the call for more minutes while also maintaining Otule's defensive presence.
My guess is that was Buzz's hope all along. And my guess is also that he knows what he's doing. To me, it looks like a pretty good plan.
On that line, here's a look at other MU freshmen during Buzz's tenure in terms of minutes per game in non-conference play versus minutes per game in Big East and postseason play:
Otule, 2008-09: 12.5 mpg OOC, 5 mpg BE
Cadougan, 2009-10 DNP OOC, 3.9 mpg BE
Williams, 2009-10: 9.8 mpg OOC, 3.9 mpg BE
Mbao, 2009-10: 8.3 mpg OOC, 3.3 mpg BE
Jones, 2010-11: 8.4 mpg OOC, 4.3 mpg
Smith, 2010-11: 9.9 mpg OOC, DNP BE
Blue, 2010-11: 26.6 mpg OOC, 14.9 mpg
Gardner, 2010-11: 10.1 mpg OOC, 8.4 mpg BE
Based on that, most freshmen can expect to have their minutes cut in half or worse once conference play starts. The only guys not to have their minutes cut in half were Jones, Blue, and Gardner, with Gardner seeing the lowest percentage reduction of any freshman during Buzz's tenure.
Further, while the results are incomplete, I have to imagine that Cadougan probably would have played more than 3.9 mpg in the OOC schedule if he'd been healthy as a freshman, and I'm confident Reggie Smith's minutes would have dropped well below 9.9 mpg if he'd finished out his freshman year.
So based on the numbers there, Gardner had his numbers reduced by the lowest percentage of any freshman during Buzz's tenure in going from OOC play to Big East and postseason play. Gardner also played more minutes in Big East and postseason play than any freshman under Buzz except for Vander Blue.
Quote from: brewcity77 on August 02, 2011, 07:33:13 PM
Love how you make a joke and ignore all the valid points, including all the other people that discussed how well Blue played that game despite his poor shooting performance. I've spent the bulk of the day analyzing Gardner's season, and feel like I have a pretty good handle on it, both as a freshman and the plan going forward.
When you look at how Buzz handled Gardner, I really think it makes sense. In the non-conference, Gardner had less than 10 mpg against only two cupcakes when he was healthy, South Dakota and Centenary. Both of those teams had adjusted tempo scores among the top 35 in the country. He did play against Mississippi Valley State (10th in tempo) but had his lowest point output of his 10+ mpg games of the non-conference with 7 points. I'm not sure why he didn't play more against Gonzaga, but it's possible he suffered his injury in that game, as he sat out the next two games against UW-Milwaukee and Longwood. The only other preseason game he failed to make 10 minutes was Vanderbilt, and I think Buzz used that as a Big East season tester.
Remember how things changed once we started the Big East season. Buzz predictably shortened the bench and relied a lot more on experience, especially early on. He gave heavy minutes to Otule, Butler, DJO, Cadougan, and Buycks, all of whom had experience in his system. The only newcomers getting heavy minutes were Blue and Crowder. I don't think anyone would disagree that Crowder earned his minutes and was our best option at the 4, while Blue had been our best freshman (10.2 ppg, 2.6 rpg, 2.9 apg, 0.5 bpg, 1.5/1 A/T ratio in 26.4 mpg, 68% FT, 49.5% FG) and most reliable guard defender in the non-conference. He rounded out the rotation with Fulce, who got double-digit minutes about half the time into March.
So he went to an 8-man rotation. He mostly used guys he trusted because they'd been here before and added in Blue and Crowder. And with his minutes understandably reduced (because of the higher level of play in the Big East) his production also fell off. He wasn't getting high minutes, but he did get 8 minutes 4 times into mid-February and only managed 1.3 ppg in those 4 outings. I know, it's not double-digits, but I think it's pretty clear that when Buzz shortened his bench to correspond with Big East play, Gardner didn't do much to assert that he was deserving.
In mid-February, he got his chance against Georgetown. Their slower pace (259 tempo) suited him and he got 12 points in 10 minutes, but also fouled out against the more skilled Georgetown front line. He only got 2 minutes in the next game (St. John's) but that was largely because Otule was having a great game, playing 28 minutes while chipping in 5 points, 8 boards, and 4 blocks. But Buzz did reward his G'town performance with another double-digit minute game against Seton Hall, and he responded with 7 points and 6 rebounds.
It became clear that Buzz was going to use Gardner more so in games where Otule wasn't needed. In the win at UConn, we needed Otule's presence inside. CO was killing it against Providence (16 points, 6 rebounds, 4 blocks). And against Cincy we needed his defense and rebounding (9 boards) on the front line. But Buzz still rewarded Gardner's previous work. In the Big East tournament, he played double-digit minutes in all three games as I am guessing Buzz knew he couldn't run CO out there for 28 minutes a night. He also played double-digit minutes in 2/3 NCAA games, and the one he didn't, he simply needed Otule's defense against Rick Jackson of Syracuse. Otule held him to 7 points and 4 rebounds in 40 minutes.
While you want to complain about the minutes Gardner got, I think when you slow down and consider that maybe Buzz actually knew what he was doing, it makes sense. He played him as he could in the preseason, usually giving him less minutes against faster-paced teams. He decreased his minutes at the beginning of the Big East season because he was shortening his bench with guys he knew and trusted. The only exceptions were the JUCO transfer Crowder and the multi-position defensive specialist Blue. Then Buzz picked his spots to give Gardner a chance, first against slow-paced Georgetown, then a couple times against Seton Hall in games that were rarely in doubt (both the win and the loss). In the post-season, he wanted to give Otule more time to rest, so he let Gardner get out there more, and he responded well. Seems like a good way to manage a promising freshman to me.
Looking ahead, Gardner will likely be able to get more minutes next year. He's probably lost 20 pounds and is noticeably quicker, sometimes to the point where he doesn't even seem to know how to handle his own body's speed. Despite that, he still gets winded. I'm guessing that for the bulk of the season, we'll see him and Otule as the only guys manning the center position. Over the last 13 games of 2010, Otule averaged 23 mpg. I'm guessing we'll see him getting 22-25 mpg next year, with Gardner picking up the other 15-18 mpg. From watching him numerous times this year, I don't think he'll be ready for more minutes than that. Honestly, my guess is that 15 will be about it. But still, it should address the call for more minutes while also maintaining Otule's defensive presence.
My guess is that was Buzz's hope all along. And my guess is also that he knows what he's doing. To me, it looks like a pretty good plan.
This is probably the most thoroughly researched and intelligent post I have ever seen on here. Well done.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on August 02, 2011, 09:33:38 PM
This is probably the most thoroughly researched and intelligent post I have ever seen on here. Well done.
I can agree with this. Good work on your post Brew. Informative, well thought out, and plausible. Good debate over the last week. And though you got under my skin the last few days ATL MU Warrior - like Brew - I tend to agree with most of your content, thought process, etc. Cheers.
Quote from: Ners on August 01, 2011, 03:46:55 PM
You have to double all of Gardner's numbers due to him getting 50% of the minutes of Chris. Gardner averages 20 points per 40 mintues, Otule 11. So, if 1 blocked shot more can somehow offset the 9 point per 40 minutes played benefit Gardner gives the team..then your Otule argument can stand. Gardner gets to the FT line with far greater frequency, shoots a better FT %, and shots a higher percentage from the Field. Gardner rebounds the ball at a slightly better rate than Otule per minute played.
Gardner got 15 games last season of more than 10 minutes. For those 15 games he averaged 13.8 minutes. He scored 137 points in those games - which translated into 9.1ppg. His performance didn't suffer due to stamina issues, he produced more, the more minutes he was given. Granted, he couldn't go for 35 minutes a game...but there was no reason he shouldn't have been utilized 15 minutes every game he was physically able to play in.
http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=chris-otule&p1=davante-gardner
Oh wow, I'm on client travel a couple of days and miss a whole great discussion on statistical values! Terrible timing for me.
OK, there are so many great and accurate comments from several perspectives in this strand, but let me focus on this one.
Brewcity is right that you cannot say "you have to double Gardner's numbers" since he played half of Otule's minutes. But except for disagreeing with that one sentence from Ners, the rest of his insights are very good.
There is a law of dimishing returns, so that the more possessions a player has the lower his rating drops, and that is why you can't double. I always refer to page 238 of Basketball on Paper, where Dean Oliver studied how the great players offensive efficiency drops the more possessions they are called on in a given game. To site his numbers for Kobe:
1.25 ORtg at 15% of possessions
1.2 at 25%
1.05 at 32%
0.75 at 37%
So to back up BrewCity's point, you can't say you have to double Gardner's points if he plays half as many minutes, because if we watched kobe compile a 1.25 ORtg when handling the ball 15% of trips and said, "gosh if he only took the ball two and a half times as much he would put up two and a half times as many numbers - which is not true because Kobe is TERRIBLE when he uses 37% of possessions.
However, that is the scale based on possessions where it is almost a straight slope down - the more you have the ball the more your Offensive production goes down per touch.
What Ners has pointed out is that this same slope down did not appear to be the case when Gardner's MINUTES rather than POSSESSIONS doubled. While a players ORtg clearly drops way off when they have to play over 30 minutes, there is certainly the possibility that a player is actually looser and better player 15 minutes rather than 5 - that the slope down doesn't start until a given player hits 20 minutes perhaps, and then really starts to drop off at 30 minutes, and then he is dead terrible when he has to play 35 minutes, etc.
So while i would edit out Ners one sentence on doubling Gardner's numbers for comparison purposes, I do believe he is making a very good case that Gardner showed every indication that he could have been a very productive player going 15 minutes a game, and that he really should have been in there 15 minutes in a lot of games (and Ners acknowledges he couldn't have gone 35 a game). Even accepting that his defense was bad, it would have been really, really hard for his defense to be so bad that it offset his offense in light of the fact that his offensive rating was even better than Kemba Walker's.
Certainly BrewCity is right to note that some of Gardner's big numbers were against lesser competition, but in light of how well he played even in obvious pain against Duke and then again at the end of the season against UNC, i would have liked to see him play more, and clearly he will this year. The fact that the slimmed down Gardner gives us the option this year of going big with Otule at the 5, Gardner at the 4 and Crowder at the 3 has me very excited. Not saying how much we should go to that option, but if we are getting pushed around like a couple of years ago it is really nice that this is at least an option.
Anyway, great post and everyone is making fantastic points in follow-up.
I actually have a you-tube going up tomorrow where I hit on Gardner being even better than Kemba on offense when he was on the floors.
As for the upcoming season - can't wait.
Quote from: Ners on August 02, 2011, 10:43:01 PMI can agree with this. Good work on your post Brew. Informative, well thought out, and plausible. Good debate over the last week. And though you got under my skin the last few days ATL MU Warrior - like Brew - I tend to agree with most of your content, thought process, etc. Cheers.
Cheers :)
It has been a good debate and it's nice being able to throw some monstrous posts out there and actually know they're being read. Good research, and honestly, I think that if nothing else you have definitely made an excellent case for DG getting more minutes going forward. I can't wait to see a Marquette team that actually has two good bug men in rotation.
Now if we can just get that athletic face-up four...
Quote from: Ners on August 02, 2011, 10:43:01 PM
I can agree with this. Good work on your post Brew. Informative, well thought out, and plausible. Good debate over the last week. And though you got under my skin the last few days ATL MU Warrior - like Brew - I tend to agree with most of your content, thought process, etc. Cheers.
I agree with most of what you have to say as well Ners. Didn't really mean to get under your skin...ok, well, maybe I did. ;)
Maybe I miss Chicos :o
Is looking at Gardner's production, when he played a higher number of minutes a true indication of how he would of done if his minutes would have doubled? I think you have to factor in that Buzz would play Gardner more, if he was effective in the first few minutes. Buzz would not play him as much, if Gardner was not producing. I think it is safe to assume that some of the games that he did not play much, he was not playing effectively in Buzz's eyes and if you doubled his minutes in those games you would not get the same production he got in games he was playing well. However, the most important thing in basketball is to out score your opponent. Otule might hold his opposing center to less points than Gardner would, but he still could be significantly worse than Gardner, because he scored 4 points why holding his opponent to 5 points, but Gardner would have scored 10 points while holding his opponent to 9 points. The factor in Otule's favor is that I think he has a greater chance of covering another player's defenesive mistake. His defense helps the team more. I suspect Gardner would beat Otule in a one and one game, but he would not help the team defense as much as Otule could. I think Buzz has to change his defense so Otule is not out on top trying to steel the ball from a guard. Otule should not be chasing the ball all over the floor.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on August 03, 2011, 06:37:40 AM
I agree with most of what you have to say as well Ners. Didn't really mean to get under your skin...ok, well, maybe I did. ;)
Maybe I miss Chicos :o
Nice! No worries.
Quote from: bamamarquettefan on August 02, 2011, 11:04:17 PM
Oh wow, I'm on client travel a couple of days and miss a whole great discussion on statistical values! Terrible timing for me.
OK, there are so many great and accurate comments from several perspectives in this strand, but let me focus on this one.
Brewcity is right that you cannot say "you have to double Gardner's numbers" since he played half of Otule's minutes. But except for disagreeing with that one sentence from Ners, the rest of his insights are very good.
There is a law of dimishing returns, so that the more possessions a player has the lower his rating drops, and that is why you can't double. I always refer to page 238 of Basketball on Paper, where Dean Oliver studied how the great players offensive efficiency drops the more possessions they are called on in a given game. To site his numbers for Kobe:
1.25 ORtg at 15% of possessions
1.2 at 25%
1.05 at 32%
0.75 at 37%
So to back up BrewCity's point, you can't say you have to double Gardner's points if he plays half as many minutes, because if we watched kobe compile a 1.25 ORtg when handling the ball 15% of trips and said, "gosh if he only took the ball two and a half times as much he would put up two and a half times as many numbers - which is not true because Kobe is TERRIBLE when he uses 37% of possessions.
However, that is the scale based on possessions where it is almost a straight slope down - the more you have the ball the more your Offensive production goes down per touch.
What Ners has pointed out is that this same slope down did not appear to be the case when Gardner's MINUTES rather than POSSESSIONS doubled. While a players ORtg clearly drops way off when they have to play over 30 minutes, there is certainly the possibility that a player is actually looser and better player 15 minutes rather than 5 - that the slope down doesn't start until a given player hits 20 minutes perhaps, and then really starts to drop off at 30 minutes, and then he is dead terrible when he has to play 35 minutes, etc.
So while i would edit out Ners one sentence on doubling Gardner's numbers for comparison purposes, I do believe he is making a very good case that Gardner showed every indication that he could have been a very productive player going 15 minutes a game, and that he really should have been in there 15 minutes in a lot of games (and Ners acknowledges he couldn't have gone 35 a game). Even accepting that his defense was bad, it would have been really, really hard for his defense to be so bad that it offset his offense in light of the fact that his offensive rating was even better than Kemba Walker's.
Certainly BrewCity is right to note that some of Gardner's big numbers were against lesser competition, but in light of how well he played even in obvious pain against Duke and then again at the end of the season against UNC, i would have liked to see him play more, and clearly he will this year. The fact that the slimmed down Gardner gives us the option this year of going big with Otule at the 5, Gardner at the 4 and Crowder at the 3 has me very excited. Not saying how much we should go to that option, but if we are getting pushed around like a couple of years ago it is really nice that this is at least an option.
Anyway, great post and everyone is making fantastic points in follow-up.
I actually have a you-tube going up tomorrow where I hit on Gardner being even better than Kemba on offense when he was on the floors.
As for the upcoming season - can't wait.
Good stuff Bama - I very much enjoy reading your analysis that you post. Always interesting content - and by no means am I a numbers/stats expert - and value your expertise in this area. I look forward to the YouTube on Gardner (but by no means from the perspective of it potentially supporting my argument - just for the analsyis itself).
Quote from: bilsu on August 03, 2011, 08:32:17 AM
I think you have to factor in that Buzz would play Gardner more, if he was effective in the first few minutes. Buzz would not play him as much, if Gardner was not producing.
I think this is a huge point, and something I was trying to get at earlier.
I don't think Buzz really allowed Gardner to have a bad game. If he was playing poorly, or the match-up wasn't good, Buzz went another direction.
Honestly, I think Gardner and Otule are a pretty good combo a center, but my expectations for Gardner this season are still pretty modest. I don't know if he has the stamina or ability to consistently perform at both ends of the floor for more than 15min./game. However, he can be very effective for the 10-15min. he plays.