Where are you all at?
You have no problem bashing him after a "bad" game. Well you sure as hell better give him some love after a great game today. Whenever Marquette dropped down 4 he got us back in almost immediately.
Without Vander we aren't even talking about the three at the end.
Did not see the game due to work but heard Homer giving big time praise on a drive late in the game. I hope for his sake and the team's season today was a start of something big for the kid.
Yup. None of the Vander haters will give him any love today. If he had put up numbers like JWilson did today, it would have been a 6 page thread. Blue totally stepped up during the last 25 minutes today.
Vander started slow, but he definitely turned it on at the half. Honestly, if not for Vander, MU would have been the team making the desperation three at the end of the game... and we still would have lost by 7-10 points.
If he shoots 100% we win. Plain and simple. I blame him and Mbakwe for the loss.
37 minutes today. Guy rarely sits too.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 19, 2012, 07:21:44 PM
37 minutes today. Guy rarely sits too.
Hard to take him off the floor in the 2nd half. He was a pleasure to watch, darting around the hoop.
He still makes me nervous when he drives sometimes (I always feel like he's going to draw a charge), but man... he had so much confidence in his game today. Really nice shooting, tough defense and that added factor of just getting gritty and doing it all to get the ball (2 real big instances during the game where he hounded the ball on a rebound situation and set up a score).
It's games like this that make me really excited.
Don't consider myself a Vander hater, but I am one of those who has knocked his offensive game. I said this in another thread, though:
+1 - Only saw the last 9 minutes because of work, but that was the best stretch I remember ever seeing from him.
Had some nice moves going left, which is encouraging.
He likes to shoot that floater, I don't know if that is good or bad.
I think the slower he players, the better he is. He's strong enough and explosive enough that he doesn't need to beat guys to the rim. He can absorb contact and elevate enough to get his shot off.
Oh, and if/when he makes 3's, it will create significant driving lanes for him.
van was awesome today, got some big boards and played tough. i wouldnt rely on him to make three's at that rate all season, but nice to see either way.
Blue took several bad shots. He did score some points at critical times and I have to admit I would have voted for him for SoG.
Quote from: bilsu on November 19, 2012, 07:39:50 PM
Blue took several bad shots. He did score some points at critical times and I have to admit I would have voted for him for SoG.
The first half was brutal for him (and everyone else).
If MU had won today VB would have been SoG.
I was thisclose to posting VB for SOTG until the last shot. Great game for Vander.
I have repeatedly said this board should offer investment advice, do the opposite and we can all be Dick Strongs.
So now about it Vander haters, should I buy or sell Apple?
Quote from: MUCam on November 19, 2012, 07:13:21 PM
If he shoots 100% we win. Plain and simple. I blame him and Mbakwe for the loss.
You blame a player that left MU like 5 years ago?
I felt Vander was the one player who wanted the ball today. He had my vote for SOG
I guess you can consider me a semi-vander hater but he was the man today. He ought to be because Butler doubled in the post every time and forced Cadougan and Blue to make plays which they did.
Also, not sure if anyone is paying attention but Texas may be joining us in the losers bracket tonight. Down by 15 to Chaminade with 11:35 to play.
Vander played very, very well. Took two awful shots in second half but more than made up for it with those five straight points. Very active on offense, unlike some of his teammates.
Okay -I'll oblige. First things first - definitely the best game of Vander's career - as it is his best game against a mid-high major team on a fairly large stage. Happy for Vander and hope it is a springboard to similar consistent performances.
I'm probably in the camp of a Vander hater - simply because I call his game as I've seen it - and for the most part - it hasn't been very noteworthy or good. The fact Vander scored 21 points on 50% shooting including 62% on 3 of 5 from the 3 is something to get excited about given his past performances. The fact he scored 21 and virtually all were in the half court game is a ray of hope for the future.
Nonetheless, the fact we have a thread of this variety - is kind of interesting. A 21 point performance on 50% shooting, isn't exactly an earth shattering amazing performance for a 3rd year starting player at the 2 guard. But, it is basically the first time in Vander's career those who have been his staunchest supporters, can actually support their argument. Don't hear anyone commenting on the fact he only had 3 rebounds today, 1 assist and no steals - yet talking about how he provides so many intangible things to the team in the way of defending, rebounding, hustling, steals, etc. And why was he not guarding Clarke all day? He should be defending the oppositions best player...
http://www.youtube.com/v/g04aCp3ej-I&fs=1&source=uds
It was a nice game for Vander. Like I have been saying, Vander needs to make a few shots and not force them, like he did in the first half. He has to keep playing like this every game,
I was more disappointed with Jamil and Trent. How did Trent average almost 14 a game last year? The Pac 10 must be awful soft, he played really soft in this game. I am sure Buzz
does not play mickey mouse D, but a box and one on Clarke would have stopped there forwards from getting easy lay-ups, inside will have to get much tougher. The team needs these
3 games, glad they are not playing NC, it might have been ugly. 2 wins would be good. Then Florida, do not see that as a W.
Quote from: Ners on November 19, 2012, 11:01:18 PM
Nonetheless, the fact we have a thread of this variety - is kind of interesting. A 21 point performance on 50% shooting, isn't exactly an earth shattering amazing performance for a 3rd year starting player at the 2 guard.
For whatever reason, Vander is a polarizing figure.
Jamil Wilson is a year older than Vander, is a local kid, and was also highly rated in HS.
He had a TERRIBLE game.
There is no Jamil Wilson thread. Why not? (honestly, I don't know why).
The fact that there is a pro-Vander thread probably has more to do with the anti-vander threads than it does with people being super excited about him.
I think Vander is an above average player with a high ceiling. His biggest flaws (shooting and finishing) are usually items that get better with age/experience. I would guess most people agree, but we see the emotional roller coaster this board goes through with this kid.
Quote from: tower912 on November 19, 2012, 07:03:28 PM
Yup. None of the Vander haters will give him any love today. If he had put up numbers like JWilson did today, it would have been a 6 page thread. Blue totally stepped up during the last 25 minutes today.
Well, I will give him love, it's too bad that the team as a whole didn't perform well enough to allow him to be SOTG. I have doubted him, truthfully, but I'm the kind of guy who wants to be proven wrong when it's to the benefit of the team.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on November 19, 2012, 11:53:46 PM
For whatever reason, Vander is a polarizing figure.
Jamil Wilson is a year older than Vander, is a local kid, and was also highly rated in HS.
He had a TERRIBLE game.
There is no Jamil Wilson thread. Why not? (honestly, I don't know why).
The fact that there is a pro-Vander thread probably has more to do with the anti-vander threads than it does with people being super excited about him.
I think Vander is an above average player with a high ceiling. His biggest flaws (shooting and finishing) are usually items that get better with age/experience. I would guess most people agree, but we see the emotional roller coaster this board goes through with this kid.
Jamil, does not seem to have that killer instinct, might be to nice a kid. Crowder was physically strong, Jamil does not have that type of body nor does he seem the type that wants
to mix it up, did you see how weak he was on that last second tip-in, or giving up on the D end against Clarke. He must have had 5 or 6 open looks at the end and did even think about
taking a shot. He is really a senior, needs to show senior leadership, there were positives in this game, just need more from a few other players. Have to start making open shots.
Quote from: Ners on November 19, 2012, 11:01:18 PM
Okay -I'll oblige. First things first - definitely the best game of Vander's career - as it is his best game against a mid-high major team on a fairly large stage. Happy for Vander and hope it is a springboard to similar consistent performances.
I'm probably in the camp of a Vander hater - simply because I call his game as I've seen it - and for the most part - it hasn't been very noteworthy or good. The fact Vander scored 21 points on 50% shooting including 62% on 3 of 5 from the 3 is something to get excited about given his past performances. The fact he scored 21 and virtually all were in the half court game is a ray of hope for the future.
Nonetheless, the fact we have a thread of this variety - is kind of interesting. A 21 point performance on 50% shooting, isn't exactly an earth shattering amazing performance for a 3rd year starting player at the 2 guard. But, it is basically the first time in Vander's career those who have been his staunchest supporters, can actually support their argument. Don't hear anyone commenting on the fact he only had 3 rebounds today, 1 assist and no steals - yet talking about how he provides so many intangible things to the team in the way of defending, rebounding, hustling, steals, etc. And why was he not guarding Clarke all day? He should be defending the oppositions best player...
I agree, while he had a good game today, I think the fact this thread was made is more proof about how easy to please some people on this board are regarding Vander vs. how wrong the so called "Vander haters" are (which most are not as they are just pointing out the weakness in Vander's offensive game).
Quote from: statnik on November 19, 2012, 11:57:32 PM
Well, I will give him love, it's too bad that the team as a whole didn't perform well enough to allow him to be SOTG. I have doubted him, truthfully, but I'm the kind of guy who wants to be proven wrong when it's to the benefit of the team.
Excellent post. I believe in the kid...I think he has the makings to be very good if he works at it and I know he is a concientious player and wants to be coached and he knows what he has to work on to excel at a high level and get to where he wants to be.
I was encouraged by the shots through contact and the two and 1's he got. The 3 balls were good but I want to see him go straight up and down on his jumper and get rid of that leg kick...and get the elbow higher and extend the release and hold the follow through on the spot up shot...
Then we work on the in game ability to pull up and stop and pop from mid-range on a dime. The tools are there...I seen him do it in scrimmages and in Pro-AM and he probaly practices some of it...but now its gametime.
But the drives and the And1's I like. Drawing fouls and finishing the play and shooting through contact for a good foul shooter is key.
The officials are now respecting his drive because he is not playing timid and is being assertive making strong moves to the basket.
He is going up into the body or his defender and protectiing the ball well and then getting his shot off and on the rim and it is soft enough to roll in.
Quote from: bilsu on November 19, 2012, 07:39:50 PM
Blue took several bad shots. He did score some points at critical times and I have to admit I would have voted for him for SoG.
They were not "bad shots" they just happen to not go in...I don't think he took a bad shot per Se tonight.
There were a few open ones where his gather and elevation was not as fluid as it can be when he pushes his shot instead of loft and guide it, and then his legs come out from under here and his shot flatens out.
But it is a work in progress and I see strides.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on November 19, 2012, 11:53:46 PMHe had a TERRIBLE game.
There is no Jamil Wilson thread. Why not? (honestly, I don't know why).
The fact that there is a pro-Vander thread probably has more to do with the anti-vander threads than it does with people being super excited about him.
Because for some reason the people that hate Vander really get off on hating Vander. How many times is Vander dragged into a discussion about another player where his inclusion really has no place? There really isn't a need for this thread any more than there are all the anti-Vander threads. It's just that people are often too stupid to realize there are two sides to the court. Vander only gets respect when he performs at the offensive end, while getting none for being one of our most consistent on the defensive end. And I'm pretty sure Vander wasn't on Rotnei Clarke because it would have left no one for Junior to guard, and Junior did a darn good job on Clarke.
Quote from: MUHoopsFan2 on November 20, 2012, 04:09:16 AMThey were not "bad shots" they just happen to not go in...I don't think he took a bad shot per Se tonight.
No he didn't. I mentioned that in the chat room, his shots were in the rhythm of the offense and were just off the mark early on. Vander had good shot selection all night. In all honesty, some of his worst shot selection (and Junior's, for that matter) were on shots that happened to go in. But I guess when you're feeling it...
Quote from: spartan3186 on November 19, 2012, 09:54:03 PM
You blame a player that left MU like 5 years ago?
Maybe just maybe, he was kidding. I can't be 100% certain, but I am going to go with my gut on this one and say it was sarcasm.
Quote from: MU B2002 on November 20, 2012, 05:51:37 AM
Maybe just maybe, he was kidding. I can't be 100% certain, but I am going to go with my gut on this one and say it was sarcasm.
Oh, my dear child. I was dead serious on both accounts.
I guess I would consider myself a Vander "hater" and I'm just as a happy as all of you that he played well, but one game of 21-3-1 isn't going to erase the last two seasons and all of the other concerns I have about his game. Having said that, I hope he plays great again today and for the rest of the season.
Quote from: LAZER on November 20, 2012, 08:49:39 AM
I guess I would consider myself a Vander "hater" and I'm just as a happy as all of you that he played well, but one game of 21-3-1 isn't going to erase the last two seasons and all of the other concerns I have about his game. Having said that, I hope he plays great again today and for the rest of the season.
Not to pick on you specifically, but I don't think anybody has said Vander is "cured". He's not. We all know that.
I think for a lot of people (including me), the Pro-Vander posts are simple an effort to balance out some of the constant critiques of 1 particular player.
Again, Jamil has struggled at times. Junior has struggled at times. Otule is a starter and hardly played! Gardner is still braindead at times on defense.
Rarely do those players take any heat.
But, if Vander misses some lay-ups, you can bet your ass there will be a thread about it.
Quote from: LAZER on November 20, 2012, 08:49:39 AM
I guess I would consider myself a Vander "hater" and I'm just as a happy as all of you that he played well, but one game of 21-3-1 isn't going to erase the last two seasons and all of the other concerns I have about his game. Having said that, I hope he plays great again today and for the rest of the season.
The thing with Van is that you can't judge his game strictly on that first number of 21. He's not going to have a lot of days like that. If he gives us great defense, solid rebounding, reliable free throw shooting, and takes what the defense gives him, he'll be great for us. Because it will likely only lead to 10-13 ppg over the next two years there are people that will constantly berate him, but I think it's safe to say that's not the true strength of his game.
Didn't get a chance to watch the game, caught the last 3 minutes. I suppose I'm labeled as a hater...even though I'm not. When I saw the box score I was very encouraged, I hope he continues to produce offensively, team needs it. That said, I'll always admit when I'm wrong, hope that's the case.
Wilson and Lockett have been a major disappointment for me so far this year, I was hoping they'd be the leaders. And Otule has another game with 1 rebound? Dude is 6'11, that's an issue as well.
One more thing...one game from Van where the shots fall doesn't make him a 20 ppg scorer any more than two games where the shots don't fall make him a 6 ppg scorer.
And it's hard to fault Otule when he wasn't on the floor. Dude only played 12 minutes.
Quote from: brewcity77 on November 20, 2012, 09:05:59 AM
One more thing...one game from Van where the shots fall doesn't make him a 20 ppg scorer any more than two games where the shots don't fall make him a 6 ppg scorer.
And it's hard to fault Otule when he wasn't on the floor. Dude only played 12 minutes.
1 Rebound in 12 minutes for a 6'11 player is still ridiculous....and probably the main reason why he only played 12 minutes.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on November 19, 2012, 11:53:46 PM
For whatever reason, Vander is a polarizing figure.
Jamil Wilson is a year older than Vander, is a local kid, and was also highly rated in HS.
He had a TERRIBLE game.
There is no Jamil Wilson thread. Why not? (honestly, I don't know why).
Probably because Jamil doesn't have the body of work that Vander has. No different than watching some of your favorite sports teams (pro, college) and certain players one starts to get frustrated with based on repeated results. If Jamil has a string of many games like this you might see similar type of threads. The expectations of the two players was much different coming in as well. That's my guess at the responses.
Vander also has had some off the court issues that I am sure weigh into some feelings for some posters.
Why couldn't the title of the thread be "Great Game by Vander"? Maybe it's more fun to turn everything into a negative and be confrontational.
Anyway, I love Vander but I have been critical of his game when he has been bad - mostly in his freshman year. Yesterday he had his best game at Marquette and was easily our best player. Any criticism of the way he played is nitpicking. Not enough steals? Please. I would also point out that in a game where we had 5 guys with 3 or more fouls, he had zero fouls in 37 minutes. Cadougan had only 1 foul in 32 minutes. Some of our guys need to learn how to defend and get position without reaching in and bumping.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 20, 2012, 09:08:24 AM
Vander also has had some off the court issues that I am sure weigh into some feelings for some posters.
They need to let that crap go...it was two years ago.
Will say it again, hopefully this is the start of something big for Vander. Not easy always having great potential and being 3-5 option on the court. He has shown glimpses of being special and that was why I have stuck with him 100%. Not many guys ever show glimpses of being special and I think that maybe worked against him in some fans eyes. Off court stuff behind him and hopefully sky is the limit.
Quote from: frozena pizza on November 20, 2012, 09:21:47 AM
Why couldn't the title of the thread be "Great Game by Vander"? Maybe it's more fun to turn everything into a negative and be confrontational.
Anyway, I love Vander but I have been critical of his game when he has been bad - mostly in his freshman year. Yesterday he had his best game at Marquette and was easily our best player. Any criticism of the way he played is nitpicking. Not enough steals? Please. I would also point out that in a game where we had 5 guys with 3 or more fouls, he had zero fouls in 37 minutes. Cadougan had only 1 foul in 32 minutes. Some of our guys need to learn how to defend and get position without reaching in and bumping.
Great post...I referenced his steals/rebounds in a prior post in this thread...simply because for the first time in a big/tight game, Vander had an extended, tangible impact on the game. In the past...all those who championed how big of contributor Vander has been were harping on his rebounds, steals, defense, intangibles etc....yet we hear almost nothing about those after this game....why? Because we FINALLY have something positive to talk about with regard to him TRULY* impacting a game...and because he didn't have many rebounds or steals this game!
I'll be happy to eat sh$t all season long about my skepticism of him as a player, if he keeps this up. The team needs it. I do feel this game could do wonders for his confidence, and that alone could help him take a big step up...although it shouldn't be that difficult to take a big step up over what has been his first 2 years at MU.
Ners
I completely believe your hopes for Vander stepping it up. It is time that we are not just talking rebounds or tough D from VB.
I was finally sick of Vander's offensive woes until he went nuts yesterday. Hopefully it's a sign of things to come. His hustle and defensive prowess was excellent the entire game.
Quote from: Goose on November 20, 2012, 09:39:04 AM
Ners
I completely believe your hopes for Vander stepping it up. It is time that we are not just talking rebounds or tough D from VB.
Perfectly said...and I completely agree...let's have some expectations for the kid..
Ners
My expectations are that he will be our next NBA player. Time for him to deliver.
Quote from: Goose on November 20, 2012, 09:49:11 AM
Ners
My expectations are that he will be our next NBA player. Time for him to deliver.
Hope you are right...though I don't see it happening...I'll be ecstatic if he can put up 17ppg as a senior and 7 rebounds per game...which if he can do that and show a half court game...that could get him drafted.
Quote from: esotericmindguy on November 20, 2012, 09:07:31 AM
1 Rebound in 12 minutes for a 6'11 player is still ridiculous....and probably the main reason why he only played 12 minutes.
No, it's not. As tower said recently, Chris shouldn't be judged on the number of rebounds he pulls down, but rather the number of rebounds the guy he is guarding pulls down.
Quote from: Ners on November 20, 2012, 09:35:03 AM...simply because for the first time in a big/tight game, Vander had an extended, tangible impact on the game.
Really? Even for you that's a ridiculous statement.
I said it on a different board. But the point stands. Witness the no-look fastball that Vander threw at Otule yesterday. Chris had no chance. Because of lack of depth perception, he is simply never going to be able to get the rebound that changes directions or the unexpected pass from close range. So I judge Chris by how many rebounds the guy he is guarding gets, not the rebounds that he gets.
Quote from: tower912 on November 20, 2012, 10:33:55 AM
I said it on a different board. But the point stands. Witness the no-look fastball that Vander threw at Otule yesterday. Chris had no chance. Because of lack of depth perception, he is simply never going to be able to get the rebound that changes directions or the unexpected pass from close range. So I judge Chris by how many rebounds the guy he is guarding gets, not the rebounds that he gets.
He should be judged on how many rebounds he gets. Depth perception or not, he's our center, he needs to rebound.
Quote from: LAZER on November 20, 2012, 10:38:55 AM
He should be judged on how many rebounds he gets. Depth perception or not, he's our center, he needs to rebound.
I will need to pay closer attention to Otule next game, but I seem to think that Otule's main job on the class is to eat up space, block out the other team's bigs, and let our athletic wings grab the rebounds in the space he creates. To that end, he does not necessarily need to grab rebounds if he is doing his job and creating opportunity for other MU players to get the rebounds and therefore judging him on how many rebounds he gets may not tell the whole story.
But what do I know...
Quote from: brewcity77 on November 20, 2012, 10:13:55 AM
Really? Even for you that's a ridiculous statement.
LOL - Perhaps - but what big(ger) stage game(s) do you feel Vander has had an extended, tangible impact on a tight/big game? If you mention making 4 Free Throws down the stretch at Villanova - that was clutch in a short moment...but not an extended impact over a game. Big Difference. Vander was the man for the entire 2nd half yesterday. No doubting that. But there is also no doubting, Vander's never been the man in a big game for MU prior to yesterday. And that's not me hating on the kid....it is simply the truth. Not sure why you continue to deny as much?!!
Vander took charge out there when no one else would, and that's what impressed me the most.
Quote from: LAZER on November 20, 2012, 10:38:55 AM
He should be judged on how many rebounds he gets. Depth perception or not, he's our center, he needs to rebound.
You can, but you will always be disappointed. It is not possible for him, with only one eye, to be able to track in all 3 dimensions a ball that changes direction rapidly near him. Watch him receive passes. When he posts up, expects the ball, and gets it up high, he had good hands. When someone throws an unexpected pass, he simply can't catch it. The best he can do rebounding is to tie up as many opponents as possible and let a teammate get the rebound.
Quote from: tower912 on November 20, 2012, 11:14:36 AM
You can, but you will always be disappointed. It is not possible for him, with only one eye, to be able to track in all 3 dimensions a ball that changes direction rapidly near him. Watch him receive passes. When he posts up, expects the ball, and gets it up high, he had good hands. When someone throws an unexpected pass, he simply can't catch it. The best he can do rebounding is to tie up as many opponents as possible and let a teammate get the rebound.
I understand that he has vision problems, but he should be judged like all big men in college basketball and how he stacks up next to them. I think it's kind of dumb to switch around the the criteria in which you judge Centers just because MU's Center isn't particularly good at arguably the most important part of a Center's game.
I don't want to come off as condescending/combative by saying it's dumb, but at a certain point if you're saying his strenth is to "tie up as many opponents" isn't that sort of an indictment of his game?
Quote from: Ners on November 20, 2012, 10:59:02 AM
LOL - Perhaps - but what big(ger) stage game(s) do you feel Vander has had an extended, tangible impact on a tight/big game?
Last year: Washington, @ Syracuse, Seton Hall
Freshman year: @ Vanderbilt, @ USF
And I know his shooting percentage sucked against USF, but he got SOTG votes for his defense and aggressiveness that game. The difference is that in the past two years, no one really had to be the man because we had JFB, Jae, and DJO. Those guys accounted for 29/49 SOTG awards in that timespan. But just because Vander wasn't our go-to guy when he was on the court with up to three other future NBA players doesn't mean he wasn't playing well in close games.
Of course, that doesn't really fit the narrative...
Quote from: brewcity77 on November 20, 2012, 12:10:37 PM
Last year: Washington, @ Syracuse, Seton Hall
Freshman year: @ Vanderbilt, @ USF
And I know his shooting percentage sucked against USF, but he got SOTG votes for his defense and aggressiveness that game. The difference is that in the past two years, no one really had to be the man because we had JFB, Jae, and DJO. Those guys accounted for 29/49 SOTG awards in that timespan. But just because Vander wasn't our go-to guy when he was on the court with up to three other future NBA players doesn't mean he wasn't playing well in close games.
Of course, that doesn't really fit the narrative...
Talk about grasping for straws to try to fit the narrative! Come on Brew. Really - 5 questionable games in 2 years...and the fact Vander gets SOTG votes for South Florida game on 1-9 shooting is more proof some try to fit the narrative that he positively impacts games defensively - while only having 1 steal in the game.
Are you really going to deny that yesterday's game wasn't a stark contrast to Vander's overall career at MU? Do you not agree that it was CLEARLY the best game Vander has played while at MU?
Please, please, please....Ners for all that is holy....STOP equating steals stats for defensive play. Steals are fine. But Jerel McNeal should show you that having a lot of steals doesn't necessarily make you a quality defender.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 20, 2012, 01:16:37 PM
Please, please, please....Ners for all that is holy....STOP equating steals stats for defensive play. Steals are fine. But Jerel McNeal should show you that having a lot of steals doesn't necessarily make you a quality defender.
Not surprisingly we disagree....I'd argue O'Neal was a better and more instinctive defender than Vander. Get the old deflection charts out from Tom Crean. Saw Vander get beat off the dribble forcing help about 3 times during Southeast Louisiana game... He's a solid defender, but not spectacular - seems people are trying to make him into a Bruce Bowen, or lockdown defender...he's not. Combine that with not getting many steals...would be interesting to see Blue's +/- over the years..
+/- is also a poor stat to measure defense BTW.
If you want to think that O'Neal was a better defender than Vander...well, not much more I can say.
Vander is much better defender that McNeal. I love watching VB play D.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 20, 2012, 01:44:41 PM
+/- is also a poor stat to measure defense BTW.
If you want to think that O'Neal was a better defender than Vander...well, not much more I can say.
Who is O'Neal? Did I miss something?
Quote from: LAZER on November 20, 2012, 11:46:53 AM
I understand that he has vision problems, but he should be judged like all big men in college basketball and how he stacks up next to them. I think it's kind of dumb to switch around the the criteria in which you judge Centers just because MU's Center isn't particularly good at arguably the most important part of a Center's game.
I don't want to come off as condescending/combative by saying it's dumb, but at a certain point if you're saying his strenth is to "tie up as many opponents" isn't that sort of an indictment of his game?
It is an acknowledgement of his limitations. Just like I don't judge Gardner by his dunking ability under the basket.
Vander runs on momentum. Kid just wants to win. MU did a great job against the zone today, finding threes and seams.