Bigger Impact Last Season: Vander Blue or Davante Gardner?

[Skatastrophy]

+1

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

So who would you have in the game besides Blue? 

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

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

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

I believe that DGs numbers were inflated by the fact that he always came into a game near the end when the opposing big-man was already moving slowly because he was exhausted, so DG could have his way.

I'm speechless

[Skatastrophy]

I'm speechless

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

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

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

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

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

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

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

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

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

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

[NersEllenson]

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

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

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

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

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

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

To clarify:

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

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

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

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

[NersEllenson]

To clarify:

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

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

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

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

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

[Lennys Tap]

To clarify:

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

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

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

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

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