The truth about Vander Blue's complete game
Written by: Mark Strotman
There's more to a basketball game than putting the ball in the basket. This accurate, albeit obvious, statement easily can be overlooked at times, and nowhere is that seen more often than in the case of Vander Blue. Marquette's sophomore ... Continue reading → (http://painttouches.com/2012/01/10/the-truth-about-vander-blues-complete-game/)
(http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=painttouches.com&blog=28348875&post=1297&subd=painttouches&ref=&feed=1)
http://painttouches.com/2012/01/10/the-truth-about-vander-blues-complete-game/
+1.
QuotePrior to the season, both Derrick Wilson and Todd Mayo mentioned Blue by name as the one player who took both under his wing and showed them the way transitioning from the high school to collegiate level. Wilson said that Blue used his turbulent freshman season as a teaching tool for the underclassmen.
Surely a lesson on when to offer a slap of 5 was one of these tools.
Wow...that's more Blue-love than even I've given. Well done!
Vander has been very good this season. He pretty much led the charge against Cuse along with Junior. These two really seem to be the true leaders of this team. Wish the coaches could rid Vander of that flick motion on his shot and get a true follow through motion. Glad we have him.
Quote from: g0lden3agle on January 10, 2012, 12:29:14 PM
Surely a lesson on when to offer a slap of 5 was one of these tools.
Clearly Vander was just showing Wilson some tough love.
Very well written article. Nice job, Mark!
I sense the article will not sway his detractors. Logic and facts seem to escape them or their inability to get over their long cemented disgust towards Vander (as a player &\or as a person, I am afraid). That stated, it was a very well thought out, written and supported article.
Very well written article about Blue. Agree with the sentiment for Blue. I enjoy watching him play, but, can't help but think of Dean Memminger who was able to finish layups and shoot over 7 footers. Wish Vander could study film on how Dean played to help him improve his offensive game.
Well reasoned and written defense of our growing ballplayer.
Like with Junior when he is distributing the ball with five or more assists per game, when Vander scores, MU wins...in fact when Vander scores in double digits, MU wins to the tune of 13-1. The kid runs on momentum, and when he has it, MU rolls....when Van isn't feeling it, MU has inconsistent halves spent by having Buzz trying to find the mojo elsewhere.
To me, the good news is, in spurts, he is feeling it more against high major opponents. Still very inconsistent...but that is the story with underclassmen. Lots of parts of his offensive game to work on. He has talent to play point, but not the experience yet. You can see that in his approach as he initiates play not having a plan where he is going with the ball. Again, experience but a lot of pure talent there once he matures and understands what he can do best (and what he cannot).
Am I the only one here who thinks that this article did nothing to validate his "complete game"?
Rebound, assist, steal and free throw rate numbers and leadership intangibles. Seems complete.
Quote from: strotty on January 11, 2012, 10:09:21 AM
Rebound, assist, steal and free throw rate numbers and leadership intangibles. Seems complete.
PPG, FG%, FT%, 3PT%, AST/TO seems incomplete to me.
So what I got from the article is that he plays good D and can rebound well...
Bieber--why do you hate Vander so much?
Quote from: We R Final Four on January 11, 2012, 10:34:09 AM
Bieber--why do you hate Vander so much?
He got punched out in Qdoba.
Quote from: Bieberhole69 on January 11, 2012, 10:30:52 AM
PPG, FG%, FT%, 3PT%, AST/TO seems incomplete to me.
So what I got from the article is that he plays good D and can rebound well...
You didn't get that he can pass the ball and has filled in behind Cadougan as the backup PG, a position Marquette desperately needs?
You listed two categories of the game: shooting (points, FG, FT, 3PT) and turnovers.
He's very solid everywhere else.
Vander is far from having a "complete game." And I am sure he realizes that more than anyone.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 11, 2012, 10:39:52 AM
Vander is far from having a "complete game." And I am sure he realizes that more than anyone.
His multiple positives are overlooked by many because he "doesn't have a jumper" and makes a careless turnover now and again. Buzz has complimented Van on being able to contribute in so many areas, so we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
Quote from: strotty on January 11, 2012, 10:42:38 AM
His multiple positives are overlooked by many because he "doesn't have a jumper" and makes a careless turnover now and again. Buzz has complimented Van on being able to contribute in so many areas, so we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
I agree that many people ignore his contributions because of his terrible shot, but to sit here and applaud how "complete" his game is is a joke. If you want him to be a SG then he needs to shoot way better, if you want him to be a PG he needs to stop turning the ball over. There's a lot to be desired in his game and it's far from complete.
Quote from: strotty on January 11, 2012, 10:42:38 AM
His multiple positives are overlooked by many because he "doesn't have a jumper" and makes a careless turnover now and again. Buzz has complimented Van on being able to contribute in so many areas, so we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
I like how you put that. A careless turnover now and again. Or it's a turnover rate of 22% (worse than average) and an Offensive Rating of 97 (again, worse than average). That offensive rating is trending downward against tougher competition, for the record.
Vander does make many contributions that go above and beyond his poor shooting, and I think you did a nice job laying those out in your article. However, those additional contributions essentially turn him back into an average player. Which is fine.
Don't oversell how good Vander is.
Quote from: strotty on January 11, 2012, 10:42:38 AM
His multiple positives are overlooked by many because he "doesn't have a jumper" and makes a careless turnover now and again. Buzz has complimented Van on being able to contribute in so many areas, so we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
How can you say that he has a "complete game" when he has a poor outside shot and has trouble finishing consistently? It goes against the very definition of "complete game."
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on January 11, 2012, 09:24:13 AM
Like with Junior when he is distributing the ball with five or more assists per game, when Vander scores, MU wins...in fact when Vander scores in double digits, MU wins to the tune of 13-1. The kid runs on momentum, and when he has it, MU rolls....when Van isn't feeling it, MU has inconsistent halves spent by having Buzz trying to find the mojo elsewhere.
True, albeit misleading.
Vander's double digit scoring games were...
UWGB (won by 20)
Longwood (won by 31)
Texas A&M-CC (won by 36)
Centenary (won by 29)
Miss Valley State (won by 25)
Vandy (lost by 1)
DePaul (won by 30)
Mount St. Mary's (won by 54)
Norfolk State (won by 31)
Winthrop (won by 22)
Ole Miss (won by 30)
Washington (won by 2)
UWGB (won by 18)
Northern Colorado (won by 21)
Only 2 of those games were even marginally competitive (they split those) and only 1 was a conference game. The rest were VB putting up points in blow-outs.
I've been one of the Vander defenders on this board so I don't want to give the impression that I'm trying to knock him. I'm just pointing out that Vander's scoring isn't a major influence on winning or losing key games.
I'm a Vander fan, but I wouldn't describe him as "complete" (few sophs are).
Maybe "hard to appreciate" is a better description. He does a lot of things that don't show up in the scoring column of the box score.
As far as turnovers, get used to it. Buzz has an aggressive dribble drive offense. Before Vander and DJO, it was DJO and Buycks. Before them, it was McNeal. If part of the strategy is to get the guards to drive hard into the lane, you have to live with them getting blocked or knock away sometimes.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 11, 2012, 11:02:12 AM
How can you say that he has a "complete game" when he has a poor outside shot and has trouble finishing consistently? It goes against the very definition of "complete game."
Maybe the title is worded incorrectly then, but nowhere in the article did I say he was flawless. Rather, he has many positives for a player 16 games into his sophomore season and that outside of shooting and below average turnover rates (yes, both important facets of anyone's game) he does everything else fairly well.
Of course my story was pro-Blue and I focused on his positives (I did mention his weaker areas) but it was needed to balance out the constant bashing he receives on boards from fans who don't understand the game. Case in point would be high five-gate.
Quote from: 2002MUalum on January 11, 2012, 11:03:56 AM
As far as turnovers, get used to it. Buzz has an aggressive dribble drive offense. Before Vander and DJO, it was DJO and Buycks. Before them, it was McNeal. If part of the strategy is to get the guards to drive hard into the lane, you have to live with them getting blocked or knock away sometimes.
Before last year, the Buzz offense was never worse than the eleventh best team in the country at protecting the ball.
UNO - #11, 2009 - #11, 2010 - #7
Quite the opposite... I am used to Marquette not turning over the ball.
Quote from: strotty on January 11, 2012, 11:07:59 AM
Maybe the title is worded incorrectly then, but nowhere in the article did I say he was flawless. Rather, he has many positives for a player 16 games into his sophomore season and that outside of shooting and below average turnover rates (yes, both important facets of anyone's game) he does everything else fairly well.
Of course my story was pro-Blue and I focused on his positives (I did mention his weaker areas) but it was needed to balance out the constant bashing he receives on boards from fans who don't understand the game. Case in point would be high five-gate.
Hah. I agree with the article...and until you mentioned it didn't put together that you wrote it. Does the Tribune use copy editors for the headlines? Or are you responsible for that?
Quote from: Henry Sugar on January 11, 2012, 11:10:19 AM
Before last year, the Buzz offense was never worse than the eleventh best team in the country at protecting the ball.
UNO - #11, 2009 - #11, 2010 - #7
Quite the opposite... I am used to Marquette not turning over the ball.
You're right. I can't argue with the stats.
I guess when I watch the game, I see guys doing anything they can to get into the lane (paint touches) using the dribble.
With that strategy, you are going to create a lot of contact and fouls on the other team (which we have seen), but you are also going going to turn the ball over/get blocked. (it's like strikeouts/homeruns)
09 10 might be the outliers, but obviously we need some more years of data.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 11, 2012, 11:13:53 AM
Hah. I agree with the article...and until you mentioned it didn't put together that you wrote it. Does the Tribune use copy editors for the headlines? Or are you responsible for that?
On the blog, it's me. And not as an excuse, but I write most of my stuff late at night and the title is the last thing to go up. I don't know. There's something about Blue's game as a whole that I think is outstanding. An NBA scout at the Vanderbilt game was talking pre-game and said if Blue entered the draft right now, he'd be a fringe guy (late second round to undrafted). His athleticism is off the charts. Just ask Abdul Gaddy. If he can hit a jumper with any consistency or Buzz turns him into a true point, he's really going to do some damage in the next two years.
It depends on how you define "complete."
Steve Novak was one of the best 3-pt shooters in NCAA history and lights out at the line... for a 6-10 guy, does that make him a "complete" player? Considering he didn't do a lot of the things that a 6-10 guy should do well (rebound, penetrate, post-up, etc.), one could certainly argue that he was more of a 2 in a 4's body than he was a complete player. But he was the glue guy for a few teams that didn't have a true center - just like Jimmy and Lazar - and helped lead the team to a few tournament appearances & wins.
I don't think anyone would argue that Jimmy and Lazar weren't complete players, so why not Steve? To me, a complete player is someone who can play multiple positions, roles, etc., depending upon the need of the team and the opponent (a "switchable" in Buzz-words). You don't have to be money from downtown, a beast on the boards, a disher or a steal machine... you simply have to be able to fill different roles on different nights. Blue is that kind of guy, he might not be there just yet, but he is in the same category of broad talent as the aforementioned.
Some people are going to define a complete player as someone who is a league leader in every category, some will say that you can't be a complete player if any part of your game has a weakness. Maybe someone will claim that if you can't make it in the NBA, you're not a complete player. Too much emphasis is placed on PPG.... it's the sexy stat that objectively quantifies a person's contribution to the final score. But to focus on that one stat alone would be tantamount to saying "you could have put four high school players on the Bulls with Michael Jordan, and they still would have at least three-peated." Vander may not put up 20 PPG, but his contributions on the floor are indirectly responsible for at least that much, probably more. (Seussification not intended)
Bottom line is that the article is dead on when you look at Blue from the perspective that despite a perception of underachievement, he does bring a certain dimension to the team that a role-player does not. Even though his statline may not tell such a story every night, he is certainly doing his share on the floor to help the team to succeed. Is he a complete player? No, at least not as of 11:20a CT on 1/11/12... but he's probably the most complete of anyone on the current roster.
Novak isn't a complete player because he really can't defend or rebound. The only reason he made the NBA is because he does one thing...very, very well. And even then, he's been on the margins his entire career. And you don't have to be a complete player to make an NBA roster. There are all sorts of defensive specialists and the like that earn paychecks.
To me, a "complete player" is someone that does pretty much everything. (Lazar and JFB are great examples...I can't think of one thing they did poorly at MU.)
Kind of like a "5 tool player" in baseball. Just because you lack multiple tools that doesn't mean you can't make a living focusing on one or two tools and doing it very well. (left handed relief pitchers for example)
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 11, 2012, 11:32:51 AM
Novak isn't a complete player because he really can't defend or rebound. The only reason he made the NBA is because he does one thing...very, very well. And even then, he's been on the margins his entire career. And you don't have to be a complete player to make an NBA roster. There are all sorts of defensive specialists and the like that earn paychecks.
To me, a "complete player" is someone that does pretty much everything. (Lazar and JFB are great examples...I can't think of one thing they did poorly at MU.)
Kind of like a "5 tool player" in baseball. Just because you lack multiple tools that doesn't mean you can't make a living focusing on one or two tools and doing it very well. (left handed relief pitchers for example)
Agree with your comments.
It's interesting, I did not see the comments about "complete game" until now. When I read the article, I took the title to mean the truth about all of Blue's game. Not that he had a complete game - but trying to tie in his overall game as the full comparison, not sticking to the weaknesses as the definition of his play. At no time did I think the intention was to argue he was a complete player.
Quote from: Henry Sugar on January 11, 2012, 11:10:19 AM
Before last year, the Buzz offense was never worse than the eleventh best team in the country at protecting the ball.
UNO - #11, 2009 - #11, 2010 - #7
Quite the opposite... I am used to Marquette not turning over the ball.
any particular reason behind this change? are the current MU players worse at protecting the ball? or is it some sort of change in offensive philosophy/strategy?
Vander Blue will be a complete player by junior/senior year. He is only a sophomore and has a lot on his plate. School, practice, studies etc etc. He is already showing signs of his potential. Let us see him grow as a person and a student.
Quote from: socrplar125 on January 11, 2012, 11:43:24 AM
any particular reason behind this change? are the current MU players worse at protecting the ball? or is it some sort of change in offensive philosophy/strategy?
Good question, and the simple answer is I don't know. Buzz has seemed to adapt his offensive approach every single year (notably in 2009-2010), but I am not certain if it's a change in strategy that is resulting in more turnovers.
And it's not as if MU is terrible at protecting the ball the last two years (#62 and #60 / 18%). It's just that the team isn't exceptional.
It certainly doesn't help that the last few years have featured Junior (26%), Vander (22%), and Buycks (26%). Most of the top guys are really solid at protecting the ball. I'll chew on it a bit more and maybe get a CS post out of it.
Quote from: strotty on January 11, 2012, 11:19:17 AM
On the blog, it's me. And not as an excuse, but I write most of my stuff late at night and the title is the last thing to go up. I don't know. There's something about Blue's game as a whole that I think is outstanding. An NBA scout at the Vanderbilt game was talking pre-game and said if Blue entered the draft right now, he'd be a fringe guy (late second round to undrafted). His athleticism is off the charts. Just ask Abdul Gaddy. If he can hit a jumper with any consistency or Buzz turns him into a true point, he's really going to do some damage in the next two years.
How about both? ;)
Quote from: Henry Sugar on January 11, 2012, 12:34:31 PM
Good question, and the simple answer is I don't know. Buzz has seemed to adapt his offensive approach every single year (notably in 2009-2010), but I am not certain if it's a change in strategy that is resulting in more turnovers.
And it's not as if MU is terrible at protecting the ball the last two years (#62 and #60 / 18%). It's just that the team isn't exceptional.
It certainly doesn't help that the last few years have featured Junior (26%), Vander (22%), and Buycks (26%). Most of the top guys are really solid at protecting the ball. I'll chew on it a bit more and maybe get a CS post out of it.
Thanks for the response. Looking forward to it.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on January 11, 2012, 11:02:19 AM
True, albeit misleading.
Only 2 of those games were even marginally competitive (they split those) and only 1 was a conference game. The rest were VB putting up points in blow-outs.
I've been one of the Vander defenders on this board so I don't want to give the impression that I'm trying to knock him. I'm just pointing out that Vander's scoring isn't a major influence on winning or losing key games.
I also didn't want to rehash the obvious or already stated. My point stands: when Blue is feeling it (confident) on offense, MU wins. More so, to your cupcake point, I added this below quote previously to indicate at times he is putting together spurts against higher level competition where he gets in a groove offensively. Against Winthrop I was 10 yards from the kid...he runs all on mojo and just feeling it as seen in his beaming smile (vs. his moody non-high five). And my other point is we are starting to see bits of this against high majors (WI, UW, 2nd half vs. Cuse). Conversely, when he doesn't, MU struggles mightily, and Buzz scrambles to find an in-game answer. If and when he becomes more consistent, MU will become more consistent in their wins. The kid has weaknesses you can teach. He has athleticism you cannot--and the NBA scouts know that.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on January 11, 2012, 09:24:13 AM
To me, the good news is, in spurts, he is feeling it more against high major opponents. Still very inconsistent...but that is the story with underclassmen. Lots of parts of his offensive game to work on. He has talent to play point, but not the experience yet. You can see that in his approach as he initiates play not having a plan where he is going with the ball. Again, experience but a lot of pure talent there once he matures and understands what he can do best (and what he cannot).