Calling the game in the first half last night, O'Neil said that he's been telling Buzz all year long to start Davante, and if he did, the big man would easily avg 20 points a game.
The comment stood out to me for a few different reasons: It's cool to see a former MU coach have such a close relationship with Buzz (is there anybody that Buzz doesn't know well?!?). Secondly, what kind of truth is there behind that statement?
Are we truly not maximizing Davante's contributions at MU? Is conditioning still the thing holding him back from playing more minutes (tend to disagree with this - Ox is dunking this year after all). Is having Otule on the jump ball that crucial? Is his defense still that much of a liability?
To have one of our most efficient, best passing, most crafty low post players in over a decade, rarely start a game in his four year career is a bit odd.
I would hate to go through four years of a player's eligibility, without squeezing out every ounce of potential/contribution.
How do you guys feel about this?
Idk about 20 ppg but it's asinine he doesn't play at least 32 minutes a game.
The guy will get to the line at least 10 times if he plays that much. At that point you expect then 8-10 at the line. 8 points.
Hes a highly efficient scorer and doesn't take a lot of shots usually 5-8 a game. Give him 32 and that extends to 11 or 11. That means AT LEAST 6 FGs or 7-9 on a good day.
So yeah that would be 20 I guess. But his FG attempts could vary by teams. Still will never understand why we don't play him vs Creighton. Their only weakness is a big man.
Two questions:
1. Davante did start a bunch of games, what did he average during that time?
2. Isn't the number of minutes important and not who starts?
Apparently this season, DG has averaged 26 minutes a game while CO has averaged 18. DG averages 15 points per game, CO averages 6. Together the center position averages 21 points per game as it is.
Are you saying that if DG was on the court at the time of the jump ball his average would be up 5 pts per game given the same minutes? I find that hard to believe.
If you are saying that he should be played more minutes, I defer to the coach and the game situation. More DG against DePaul would've been a disaster, for example. In a lot of cases, last night included, there is a lot of subbing offense for defense between CO and DG. I think the coach knows what he is doing there.
BTW, I missed the O'Neill comment even though I watched the game. I may have gotten up to grab a bite to eat or something when he said it.
If KO is saying playing more Gardner would lead to Gardner scoring more points. I would agree. However, that would probably lead to us getting fewer stops. It's a trade off the coach must make and I think the balance is probably about right right now.
My 2 cents.
He is getting starter's minutes now.
Quote from: tower912 on February 28, 2014, 05:48:39 AM
He is getting starter's minutes now.
20,26,20,23,23
Those are not starters minutes. Not on a normal teams.
Most teams play their best players 30 minutes a game at least.
Quote from: HaywardsHeroes32 on February 28, 2014, 06:07:34 AM
20,26,20,23,23
Those are not starters minutes. Not on a normal teams.
Most teams play their best players 30 minutes a game at least.
Ya except Gardner is subbed out on defense... For a reason.
Quote from: MarsupialMadness on February 28, 2014, 06:30:25 AM
Ya except Gardner is subbed out on defense... For a reason.
No there really isn't a reason. MattyV's stats prove it.
Our record proves it.
NEXT.
I want Gardner fresh and not in foul trouble the last 8 min of the game. This strategy ensures that.
mattyv's stats show that according to one matrix, Gardner is almost as good a defender as Otule.
Gardner gets tired, if he plays to many minutes, so he caanot play much more than he is playing now.
I think Gardner would get into foul trouble early every game if he had to play more defense.
Quote from: reinko on February 28, 2014, 06:54:54 AM
I want Gardner fresh and not in foul trouble the last 8 min of the game. This strategy ensures that.
I definitely see it both ways, but this makes the most sense to me. Especially with how he shoots free throws, I want him playing as much as possible at the end of the game.
Quote from: tower912 on February 28, 2014, 06:55:15 AM
mattyv's stats show that according to one matrix, Gardner is almost as good a defender as Otule.
And he is. Its incredible how overrated our "defensive team" is.
Again, your "eye test" watch ASU. Where the doors were blown off. Could score first half vs OSU. Start second half? BLOWOUT. Wisconsin? BLOWOUT.
The one and only run George Washington made against us? Starting the second half vs...yeah you know.
Chris is great at help defense but he gets abused if his man goes 1 on 1.
Go to gtowns boards. Even they salivate at Gardner. It really is not hard to see
This already happened. Best sample to go from is the six game stretch from January 4 - January 25 where he started. He averaged 19.8 PPG, and played 37.8 MPG. We went 3-3. So pretty close, if "starting" also means playing 34-42 minutes. Not so sure that proves KO right.
Gardner can't effectively play more than 30 MPG.
In 35 minutes against George Washington, he shot 20%. He was destroyed defensively in the second half as George Washington forced him out to arch and made 3 3PA against him. GW also shot 50% in the paint in the second half.
In 35 minutes against DePaul, they scored 23% in the paint in the first half against Davante and 80% in the paint in the second half.
Seton Hall, @Georgetown, @Butler & Villanova all over 30 MPG, and opposing teams shot at least 10% better against him.
So wait, you mean if he plays more minutes, he'll score more points? Why didn't buzz think of that? Nevermind that it also means more fatigue, more fouls, more points for the other team, etc. of course that doesn't fit with the whiney bitch narrative.
As it is, he's averaging more than 26 minutes, so what are you complaining about, the fact that he doesn't actually start the game? Based on current averages, if he played 32 mpg, he would go from 15.1, to 18.3 PPG - assuming of course he maintains his effectiveness, which is not a safe assumption. Of course that increase will also necessarily come at the expense of someone else, so the net gain is not the full 3 points.
St easy to throw out some arbitrary number like 32 minutes, but the potential gains on offense could easily be offset by fatigue, fouls, etc.
Quote from: bilsu on February 28, 2014, 06:56:03 AM
Gardner gets tired, if he plays to many minutes, so he caanot play much more than he is playing now.
BS!!! Gardner has played multiple games this year where he has played 30 plus minutes and been very effective. Go back and look it up.
Quote from: PTM on February 28, 2014, 07:56:39 AM
Gardner can't effectively play more than 30 MPG.
In 35 minutes against George Washington, he shot 20%. He was destroyed defensively in the second half as George Washington forced him out to arch and made 3 3PA against him. GW also shot 50% in the paint in the second half.
In 35 minutes against DePaul, they scored 23% in the paint in the first half against Davante and 80% in the paint in the second half.
Seton Hall, @Georgetown, @Butler & Villanova all over 30 MPG, and opposing teams shot at least 10% better against him.
Great post. I suspected that was the case.
Quote from: PTM on February 28, 2014, 07:56:39 AM
Gardner can't effectively play more than 30 MPG.
In 35 minutes against George Washington, he shot 20%. He was destroyed defensively in the second half as George Washington forced him out to arch and made 3 3PA against him. GW also shot 50% in the paint in the second half.
In 35 minutes against DePaul, they scored 23% in the paint in the first half against Davante and 80% in the paint in the second half.
Seton Hall, @Georgetown, @Butler & Villanova all over 30 MPG, and opposing teams shot at least 10% better against him.
The eyeball test shows him getting gassed when he plays too many minutes, too. ;D
Quote from: willie warrior on February 28, 2014, 08:06:38 AM
BS!!! Gardner has played multiple games this year where he has played 30 plus minutes and been very effective. Go back and look it up.
Its your theory, you go prove it. People have posted evidence that your theory doesn't hold water, go find at least 3 games where Davante got more than 30 minutes and he performed better than games like last night
Quote from: tower912 on February 28, 2014, 08:07:54 AM
The eyeball test shows him getting gassed when he plays too many minutes, too. ;D
I do have to give Davante credit for ASU though, he played better overall on both ends.
Quote from: willie warrior on February 28, 2014, 08:06:38 AM
BS!!! Gardner has played multiple games this year where he has played 30 plus minutes and been very effective. Go back and look it up.
See two posts above yours. He loses effectiveness defensively and teams drag him out of the paint.
It may not be fatigue when he plays a lot of minutes. Davante can get disinterested. I think Buzz plays him a perfect amount of minutes.
It's almost impossible to come onto these boards when MU has a bad year or at least a below average year. Everybody is an expert and Buzz is some stupid hick schmo who shouldn't be coaching grade school ball, let alone a collegiate team. Get real people. I think he has proven over the course of his time here at MU that he is a pretty darn good coach and he by far and away has the best idea of how to manage this clearly dysfunctional team. He will not always make the right decisions but he has figured it out for the most part.
What gets me is that the so called college basketball expert coaches on these boards will rip on Buzz when he plays too many players. Then they rip on him because he doesn't play enough players. He gets ripped on because so and so plays too little, yet gets ripped on when that same player plays too much. These same posters feel that our bench players are better than our starters, those that play limited minutes should play maximum minutes and incoming recruits are the saviors and are hands down better than the experienced players we have. And it goes on and on and on. God I wish we were forced to use our real names on these boards, it would eliminate a lot of stupidity.
Personally, I like the number of minutes everyone has been getting over the last 5-6 games of the year. Buzz has figured out how to best utilize this team and he IS playing the right players at the right time. That doesn't mean we are going to win every game or even make the NCAA tournament as we do have too many limitations but I do feel a whole lot better about this team now than I did a month ago.
Simple question: Who do you think is the MU player that concerns opposing coaches the most??
Gardner being on the court 30-33 minutes is best option - his presence alone creates opportunities for all the other guys. It is just beyond sad that his senior year coincides with the biggest deficiency we've had at PG in a long time...
Gardner is a willing passer, commands a ton of defensive attention - on a team that is offensively challenged, in that our coach says we play 4 on 5 offensively, and yet has for the most part continued to choose this option for 30.1 minutes per game.
Otule has won 23 of 27 opening tips this season. That means MU almost always has the chance for an extra possession, which can be the difference in the game.
Still want to start Davante?
He gets starters minutes, and Otule wins tips. This is a dumb argument.
What you have to realize is that HaywardsHeros is the biggest Otule hater ever.
Quote from: Ners on February 28, 2014, 10:13:37 AM
Simple question: Who do you think is the MU player that concerns opposing coaches the most??
Gardner being on the court 30-33 minutes is best option - his presence alone creates opportunities for all the other guys.
Well, wait a minute. By that logic he should play 40 minutes a game. Since you know better than the coach, why is your completely arbitrary 30-33 minutes the correct number?
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on February 28, 2014, 10:41:38 AM
Well, wait a minute. By that logic he should play 40 minutes a game. Since you know better than the coach, why is your completely arbitrary 30-33 minutes the correct number?
Care to answer the question I posed? Even if not, I'll answer yours: Law of Diminishing returns. Everyone can agree Davante's conditioning would be a weak point - yet he has gone 37 minutes in a game this year...and about 5 at the 30-33 mark. Think exceeding 33 for a man of his size, it would then be a net negative..so, target 30-33.
Quote from: mu03eng on February 28, 2014, 08:11:46 AM
Its your theory, you go prove it. People have posted evidence that your theory doesn't hold water, go find at least 3 games where Davante got more than 30 minutes and he performed better than games like last night
Well--you obviously were too lazy to go look it up, and of course to try to make yourself look good, you compared it to his performance last night, in which he had a near career game in about 23 minutes (in which you cherry picked by saying better than last night), but just to show that you do not know what you are talking about and too "prove my theory", put the following in your pipe and smoke it:
Gardner has played in 8 games this year in which he played 30 plus minutes, and here is his production:
Points Reb.
18 12
20 9
28 6
19 4
6 5
17 10
20 4
29 13
I only went back to this year, but last year he had about 28 and 6 in over 30 minutes against Syracuse.
So yeah-he is effective in 30 plus minute games. In the 9 games mentioned above, he averaged about 20.6 points a game and 7.67 rebounds per game.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on February 28, 2014, 10:22:18 AM
Otule has won 23 of 27 opening tips this season. That means MU almost always has the chance for an extra possession, which can be the difference in the game.
Still want to start Davante?
He gets starters minutes, and Otule wins tips. This is a dumb argument.
Don't know where you get the 23 of 27 from, but accepting that, "almost always has the chance" is sort of like saying that if you hang around Kate Upton's place, you almost always have the chance of meeting her and scoring. Getting the tip means the next possession decision goes to the other team.
Quote from: willie warrior on February 28, 2014, 10:53:07 AM
Well--you obviously were too lazy to go look it up, and of course to try to make yourself look good, you compared it to his performance last night, in which he had a near career game in about 23 minutes (in which you cherry picked by saying better than last night), but just to show that you do not know what you are talking about and too "prove my theory", put the following in your pipe and smoke it:
Gardner has played in 8 games this year in which he played 30 plus minutes, and here is his production:
Points Reb.
18 12
20 9
28 6
19 4
6 5
17 10
20 4
29 13
I only went back to this year, but last year he had about 28 and 6 in over 30 minutes against Syracuse.
So yeah-he is effective in 30 plus minute games. In the 9 games mentioned above, he averaged about 20.6 points a game and 7.67 rebounds per game.
GO READ MY POST. Great using those numbers, which mean nothing.
Quote from: willie warrior on February 28, 2014, 10:58:09 AM
Dont't know where you get the 23 of 27 from, but accepting that, "almost always has the chance" is sort of like saying that if you hang around Kate Upton's place, you almost always have the chance of meeting her and scoring.
Actually, it isn't like saying that at all.
Quote from: PTM on February 28, 2014, 11:10:43 AM
GO READ MY POST. Great using those numbers, which mean nothing.
If you haven't figured it out by now, the whiny bitch brigade of which Willie is a leader, generally only sees one side of the court.
I just want Kevin to bring out the 2nd Great Midwest Conference championship trophy and banner so we can properly display it at the Al. This is where it belongs, not in his imagination.
Quote from: PTM on February 28, 2014, 11:10:43 AM
GO READ MY POST. Great using those numbers, which mean nothing.
Sure they do--you have been owned!!!!
Quote from: willie warrior on February 28, 2014, 11:41:01 AM
Sure they do--you have been owned!!!!
Just stupid. Bottom line, if he did play an additional +/- 6 minutes a game, of course his average would go up, and he likely would average 20 PPG, or close to it. So, what? That's good for Gardner, but what is the net impact on the team? The numbers you posted do mean absolutely nothing. The question isn't really would his average go up? it would. The correct question is, should it be done?
You have to subtract whatever scoring is coming from the guy(s) current'y getting those minutes. Tough to do, but I think its safe to assume a point or two, so the 4 points you are gaining is down to maybe 2 or 3. What's the impact in the defensive end? Again, tough to say, but I am comfortable assuming it would ultimately be negative. So if the overall net impact, is neutral or negative, what's the point?
What some of you whiners refuse or are incapable of recognizing, whether its Gardner, Dawson, Thomas, etc., is that he's one of five having to play both ends of the floor for a forty minute game.
In the 8 games he played 30+ this year, his production was up. The team was 4-4. In the games he didn't play 30+ they are 13-7, so while his production may be up, it certainly hasn't translated to more wins.
A normal distribution for a guy playing 26 minutes per game would be 13 minutes on offense and 13 minutes on defense. The way Buzz subs offense for defense, Davante's 26 minutes are probably more like 15 on offense and 11 on defense, so he's already the equivalent of a 30 minute per game player offensively. So what's the fuss about?
Quote from: reinko on February 28, 2014, 06:54:54 AM
I want Gardner fresh and not in foul trouble the last 8 min of the game. This strategy ensures that.
+1
At 300 pounds... ahem, 270, I mean.... he would never last playing 35 minutes a game.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on February 28, 2014, 12:10:21 PM
A normal distribution for a guy playing 26 minutes per game would be 13 minutes on offense and 13 minutes on defense. The way Buzz subs offense for defense, Davante's 26 minutes are probably more like 15 on offense and 11 on defense, so he's already the equivalent of a 30 minute per game player offensively. So what's the fuss about?
This is a good point, although your time estimates are just WAGs. It bothered me last night that Buzz switched to the defensive lineup late and Georgetown came down and quickly fired up and made a three, and we had to waste a timeout to get Gardner back in. Can't complain too much, though, as Buzz saves his timeouts so he can do that when he needs to and we still had TOs left at the end of the game.
The thing is, Gardner is better than Otule, but I like Otule as a player and he has some good things to offer. Too bad they can't co-exist on the floor. In the end, this particular team needs Gardner's offense more than it needs Otule's defense.
I think Buzz handles their minutes just about right.
Quote from: PTM on February 28, 2014, 11:10:43 AM
GO READ MY POST. Great using those numbers, which mean nothing.
How do they mean nothing? Glad I saw willie posted this because I was just about to.
It was stated "how do we know he would remain effective with over 30 minutes"
Well...
there is your answer.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on February 28, 2014, 11:59:08 AM
In the 8 games he played 30+ this year, his production was up. The team was 4-4. In the games he didn't play 30+ they are 13-7, so while his production may be up, it certainly hasn't translated to more wins.
As Chicos would say - you're comparing apples to oranges. Of course the team record is going to be worse when his playing time is up.
They are playing better teams!!!! It's not like he's going to play 35 minutes against Grambling.
Quote from: brandx on February 28, 2014, 12:17:50 PM
As Chicos would say - you're comparing apples to oranges. Of course the team record is going to be worse when his playing time is up.
They are playing better teams!!!! It's not like he's going to play 35 minutes against Grambling.
Understood. Unlike those saying his playing more would necessarily make the team better as opposed to just raising his average, I completely acknowledge the somewhat faulty logic in which i am engaging. Fact is, its tough to quantify. Difference is some try to state this stuff as fact, I don't.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on February 28, 2014, 12:22:08 PM
Understood. Unlike those saying his playing more would necessarily make the team better as opposed to just raising his average, I completely acknowledge the somewhat faulty logic in which i am engaging. Fact is, its tough to quantify. Difference is some try to state this stuff as fact, I don't.
I agree with what you were saying, though. I think it would hurt the team if DG played 35 a game. At 25 to 30, he is pretty fresh at the end of the game. A couple times when he played more, he didn't have the energy at the end.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on February 28, 2014, 11:27:35 AM
If you haven't figured it out by now, the whiny bitch brigade of which Willie is a leader, generally only sees one side of the court.
hank you name caller, except I do see both sides of the court. Sorry that you do not agree with my observations, which is of course why you throw out the insults.
Quote from: HaywardsHeroes32 on February 28, 2014, 12:17:37 PM
How do they mean nothing? Glad I saw willie posted this because I was just about to.
It was stated "how do we know he would remain effective with over 30 minutes"
Well...
there is your answer.
Did you not read it? His defense sucks even worse in the 2nd half than the 1st half. His shooting percentage is also down in the 2nd half from the 1st half in those games over 30 minutes. Except for ASU.
How is this so hard? Davante has immense fatigue issues. He plays the amount of minutes he can play while maintaining effectiveness.
Quote from: PTM on February 28, 2014, 01:33:03 PM
Did you not read it? His defense sucks even worse in the 2nd half than the 1st half. His shooting percentage is also down in the 2nd half from the 1st half in those games over 30 minutes. Except for ASU.
How is this so hard? Davante has immense fatigue issues. He plays the amount of minutes he can play while maintaining effectiveness.
+1
Quote from: willie warrior on February 28, 2014, 10:58:09 AM
Don't know where you get the 23 of 27 from, but accepting that, "almost always has the chance" is sort of like saying that if you hang around Kate Upton's place, you almost always have the chance of meeting her and scoring. Getting the tip means the next possession decision goes to the other team.
Yeah, and therefore in about half of the games where Otule wins the tip, MU gets an extra possession.
I got the number from last night's broadcast. The announcers mentioned it.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 28, 2014, 11:28:50 AM
I just want Kevin to bring out the 2nd Great Midwest Conference championship trophy and banner so we can properly display it at the Al. This is where it belongs, not in his imagination.
LOL. I wondered about that last night when he said it. I thought to myself "I know I was drunk a lot in the 90's but I can't believe I forgot about a league title?"
There's a reason KO sits behind a microphone now and not on the sideline.
Quote from: brandx on February 28, 2014, 12:14:08 PM
+1
At 300 pounds... ahem, 270, I mean.... he would never last playing 35 minutes a game.
It's more like, how many games would he pick up 2 quick fouls and have to sit most of the half anyway. In addition if he is gassed in the second half he is far more likely to pick up frustration fouls and be out of the game early.
Quote from: MarquetteDano on February 28, 2014, 03:48:55 PM
LOL. I wondered about that last night when he said it. I thought to myself "I know I was drunk a lot in the 90's but I can't believe I forgot about a league title?"
What made me crack up is that he never won a conference title anywhere else....Tennessee, Northwestern, USC, Arizona...hell, he never even got close after that championship (4th place was his best finish, everything else was 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 11th, 12th) so I don't know what he was possibly confusing the back to backs with. He never won a 2nd one anywhere.