Bigger Impact Last Season: Vander Blue or Davante Gardner?

[NersEllenson]

I'm voting Davante Gardner...

[4everwarriors]

I wrote in Chicos.

[brewcity77]

Really?

[Jay Bee]

Is this Devante guy any relation to Davante?

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

If you're talking positive impact, it's Gardner and it's not even close.

[esotericmindguy]

The blue lovers on this board make me chuckle.

[APieperFan3]

But we can agree that they both made a "big, positive impact" , right?

[GGGG]

The blue lovers on this board make me chuckle.

Blue played more games...more minutes...more points....and wasn't a defensive liability.  Blue got minutes in crunch time.  Gardner mostly didn't.

Those who think that DG had a "bigger impact" are only juding the two of them based on their incoming reputations.

Honestly, it makes me question the basketball IQ of the board if you chose Gardner.

[hoops12]

Gardner was very good offensively at the end of the year. He struggled on defense all year. Vander on the other hand had a pretty good start to the year offensively. Mid year his offense slowly went down the tubes, and by the end of the season I don't think he even wanted the basketball. His defense was good throughout the season.

Overall, Vander provided more to the team during the entire season. I'm hoping both have a great sophomore season. Devante must be better on defense, and Vander has to have a consistent outside shot. If so, we will be very, very difficult to beat next season.

GO MU!

[brewcity77]

Blue played more games...more minutes...more points....and wasn't a defensive liability.  Blue got minutes in crunch time.  Gardner mostly didn't.

Those who think that DG had a "bigger impact" are only juding the two of them based on their incoming reputations.

Honestly, it makes me question the basketball IQ of the board if you chose Gardner.

+1,000

This has to be one of the most ridiculous thread concepts and inane suggestions ever. Anyone voting for DG is clueless...I love DG, but I repeat, clueless.

[Marqus Howard]

+1,000

This has to be one of the most ridiculous thread concepts and inane suggestions ever. Anyone voting for DG is clueless...I love DG, but I repeat, clueless.

Not to mention that Davante's name is not spelled Devante...

[avid1010]

+1,000

This has to be one of the most ridiculous thread concepts and inane suggestions ever. Anyone voting for DG is clueless...I love DG, but I repeat, clueless.

I'd vote Vander, but clueless for voting DG isn't fair to say imho.  We weren't exactly a big team last year, and there were a few games where I thought we would have been better without Vander, but would have struggled to win without a spark from DG.  As the season progressed, I questioned the reason as to why Vander was getting minutes, and his off-the-ball defense was poor.  With DG, even if his minutes weren't the best, just a big body to give fouls was valuable to a team as small as MU.  Looking back, I think it could be argued that we would have been fine with one less guard (Vander), but in a tough spot with one less big man (DG)...so I wouldn't say "clueless."

Looking at the Stud of the Game tally...anyone recall which 2 games Vander got it for and what game DG did?

[NersEllenson]

+1,000

This has to be one of the most ridiculous thread concepts and inane suggestions ever. Anyone voting for DG is clueless...I love DG, but I repeat, clueless.

Come on Brew - seems like there is reasonable debate here with the present vote 16 to 14 in favor of Vander.  Voters were not allowed to vote more than once.

In my view, Gardner made a much bigger impact in the games that he played - the game definitely changed when he entered the game.  He altered Duke's defense, and UNC as I recall.  His presence was absolutely felt in the games.  Vander?  Umm...maybe a little defensively - but I certainly don't recall him getting a lot of steals/deflections, etc.  Gardner played his best against the best competition - Vander played his best against the worst competition.  Love em both..but to say voting for DG is clueless...is...clueless!

[brewcity77]

Come on Brew - seems like there is reasonable debate here with the present vote 16 to 14 in favor of Vander.  Voters were not allowed to vote more than once.

In my view, Gardner made a much bigger impact in the games that he played - the game definitely changed when he entered the game.  He altered Duke's defense, and UNC as I recall.  His presence was absolutely felt in the games.  Vander?  Umm...maybe a little defensively - but I certainly don't recall him getting a lot of steals/deflections, etc.  Gardner played his best against the best competition - Vander played his best against the worst competition.  Love em both..but to say voting for DG is clueless...is...clueless!

He impacted the Duke game, sure, but didn't have the stamina to put us over the hump. And you mention UNC? Are you kidding me? That game was over at halftime. They could have played their five-walkon lineup the entire second half and still blown us out.

Vander's presence was felt in pretty much every game. DG had 14 games where he either didn't play or played 5 or less minutes. Vander had 1 such game (@ Louisville). He was out there as a defensive presence in every game. DG barely played in half our games and you'd seriously argue that he had a bigger impact than Vander? That's just silly.

The ONLY reason people are voting for DG is because of incredibly high expectations set for Vander and low expectations for Gardner. But if you block out the player names and just look at the numbers, it's not even close. And that's before you factor in Vander's defense.

[NersEllenson]

Actually found a great site - and ironically both guys +/- was the same...Davante scored 35 less points for the season than Vander, and played 407 less minutes...the offensive stats/efficiency tilt significantly in Gardner's favor to no surprise..defense in Blues:

http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=davante-gardner&p1=vander-blue

[brewcity77]

+/- is such an overrated stat, it really shows very little for an individual player. It's not like hockey where goals are hard to come by. I go back to the UNC game...seriously, what impact did DG's second-half have on that? Maybe he had a great +/-, but the game was over.

And yes, DG was more offensively efficient, but the big number is he played 407 less minutes. That's 407 minutes he was having no impact on the game. That's over 10 mpg difference that he wasn't doing anything. I'm sorry, he just didn't play enough to have the impact Vander did. There's no logical debate here. It's like saying Kevin Maas is one of the greatest home run hitters of all time. The sample size just isn't big enough to support the argument.

[NersEllenson]

+/- is such an overrated stat, it really shows very little for an individual player. It's not like hockey where goals are hard to come by. I go back to the UNC game...seriously, what impact did DG's second-half have on that? Maybe he had a great +/-, but the game was over.

And yes, DG was more offensively efficient, but the big number is he played 407 less minutes. That's 407 minutes he was having no impact on the game. That's over 10 mpg difference that he wasn't doing anything. I'm sorry, he just didn't play enough to have the impact Vander did. There's no logical debate here. It's like saying Kevin Maas is one of the greatest home run hitters of all time. The sample size just isn't big enough to support the argument.

Agree to disagree - Gardner's points per 40 minutes came to 20 points per 40...Vander..10 points per 40..for the very reason you mention above.  You and Sultan have argued Blue scored more points per game - big deal??  Gardner outscores him 2:1 per minute played.  Look to rebounds:  Vander averages 1 every 6.75 minutes played.  Gardner 1 every 4.05 minutes played.  Translates to Blue:  5.9 Rebs per 40 (certainly respectable), Gardner 9.8 Rebs per 40.  The offensive efficiency isn't even close.  Just because a guy plays more minutes by no means, means he has a bigger impact on the game.  Should be interesting to see how it plays out this upcoming season...

[brewcity77]

Agree to disagree - Gardner's points per 40 minutes came to 20 points per 40...Vander..10 points per 40..for the very reason you mention above.  You and Sultan have argued Blue scored more points per game - big deal??  Gardner outscores him 2:1 per minute played.  Look to rebounds:  Vander averages 1 every 6.75 minutes played.  Gardner 1 every 4.05 minutes played.  Translates to Blue:  5.9 Rebs per 40 (certainly respectable), Gardner 9.8 Rebs per 40.  The offensive efficiency isn't even close.  Just because a guy plays more minutes by no means, means he has a bigger impact on the game.  Should be interesting to see how it plays out this upcoming season...

Last things first...that has no bearing on the argument.

Everything else...WHICH ONE ACTUALLY PLAYED THE MINUTES? It doesn't matter if you aren't on the court doing it, which DG wasn't. He simply didn't have the conditioning to equal Vander's impact. Maybe if he did, this would be a worthwhile argument. And maybe if I had invested all my money in Google I'd never have to work again. But I didn't, and Davante didn't, and thus both arguments are null and void.

By your logic, if Rob Frozena came in at the 39 minute mark of one game last season, hit 2 three-pointers, pulled down 2 rebounds, and managed an assist in that minute then took an injury and missed the rest of the season, he'd be our most valuable player because he'd have a value of 240 points, 80 rebounds, and 40 assists per 40 minutes.

You don't have a bigger impact by playing half the other guy's minutes. Sorry, logic simply doesn't follow.

[NersEllenson]

Last things first...that has no bearing on the argument.

Everything else...WHICH ONE ACTUALLY PLAYED THE MINUTES? It doesn't matter if you aren't on the court doing it, which DG wasn't. He simply didn't have the conditioning to equal Vander's impact. Maybe if he did, this would be a worthwhile argument. And maybe if I had invested all my money in Google I'd never have to work again. But I didn't, and Davante didn't, and thus both arguments are null and void.

By your logic, if Rob Frozena came in at the 39 minute mark of one game last season, hit 2 three-pointers, pulled down 2 rebounds, and managed an assist in that minute then took an injury and missed the rest of the season, he'd be our most valuable player because he'd have a value of 240 points, 80 rebounds, and 40 assists per 40 minutes.

You don't have a bigger impact by playing half the other guy's minutes. Sorry, logic simply doesn't follow.

Another way of looking at it is like this:  There are people who show up to work every day but accomplish very little in an 8-hour day - as they surf the web, e-mail, Facebook, Scoop, text, etc.  There are others who go to work, and work - that are basically able to get the same amount of work done per day, in half the time of the surfer, e-mailer, and Facebooker.  Personally, I'm more concerned with the production in someone's minutes, than the fact they actually played minutes - much the same at work - don't care how long someone works, just that they get the job done.

[brewcity77]

Another way of looking at it is like this:  There are people who show up to work every day but accomplish very little in an 8-hour day - as they surf the web, e-mail, Facebook, Scoop, text, etc.  There are others who go to work, and work - that are basically able to get the same amount of work done per day, in half the time of the surfer, e-mailer, and Facebooker.  Personally, I'm more concerned with the production in someone's minutes, than the fact they actually played minutes - much the same at work - don't care how long someone works, just that they get the job done.

Vander doesn't deserve this kind of treatment. Wow, what a slap in the face. So you're saying that Vander was doing the basketball equivalent of surfing the web? He was out there for his defense, and he kept getting minutes because Buzz apparently felt he was doing a good job. Meanwhile, while Gardner was scoring, he wasn't playing defense and wasn't getting minutes because Buzz apparently felt he wasn't doing a good enough job.

[MarquetteDano]

Blue most certainly had the bigger impact.  The problem with last season is people will remember it as one where they had high expectations for Vander, especially after the non-con season.  Then during the conference portion he had some bad games.

Gardner, on the other hand, was a complete suprise.  Plus we haven't had a legit low-post scorer in awhile.  When you mix that with Blue's high expectations people will remember Gardner's season more fondly.

That said, Blue's defense was key at certain points in the season, as was his passing and defensive rebounding.

Even though I voted for Blue, it will be interesting to see who has a bigger impact this upcoming season.  It could very well be Gardner.

[NersEllenson]

Vander doesn't deserve this kind of treatment. Wow, what a slap in the face. So you're saying that Vander was doing the basketball equivalent of surfing the web? He was out there for his defense, and he kept getting minutes because Buzz apparently felt he was doing a good job. Meanwhile, while Gardner was scoring, he wasn't playing defense and wasn't getting minutes because Buzz apparently felt he wasn't doing a good enough job.

Brew - I've been called Fanboy on this board many times...I'm a huge MU fan..and always see the good in our players.  I like Vander, and thought he had a decent freshman year.  I didn't have huge expectations for him - I'd say he met my expectations (he is very young for his class and a huge step up from WI high school ball to the Big East).  I also agree with you that some here have piled on the kid, way too much - and I'll always have our players backs.

Perhaps my analogy wasn't the best example - I don't question that Vander played hard while on the court and gave it his best..and didn't mean to imply he was doing the basketball equivalent of surfing the web.  Simply was saying that the production in his minutes, compared to Gardner's wasn't as productive in virtually every measurable basketball category.  Your point is well taken that Gardner either didn't earn, or wasn't capable of playing more minutes due to conditioning - so +1 to Vander on those categories.  Just because I think Gardner made a bigger impact in the games he played, by no means does that mean I'm hating on Vander.  They both made solid contributions as freshman.

[nyg]

Blue last year, but I think the tables will be turned this year.  Gardner's offensive skills are above and beyond that of Otule and I see him getting bigtime minutes at the 5 spot if his defense improves.  Personal fouls will also play a big part, so we'll have to see.

Blue shot 39% from the field, including 4 for 25 from three point range (16%).  Yes, he is very quick, athletic and plays excellent defense, but he must improved that outside shot as a #2 or #3. 

As sophomores, they only have room to improve and that is a great situation for the future. 

[MerrittsMustache]

+/- is such an overrated stat, it really shows very little for an individual player. It's not like hockey where goals are hard to come by. I go back to the UNC game...seriously, what impact did DG's second-half have on that? Maybe he had a great +/-, but the game was over.

And yes, DG was more offensively efficient, but the big number is he played 407 less minutes. That's 407 minutes he was having no impact on the game. That's over 10 mpg difference that he wasn't doing anything. I'm sorry, he just didn't play enough to have the impact Vander did. There's no logical debate here. It's like saying Kevin Maas is one of the greatest home run hitters of all time. The sample size just isn't big enough to support the argument.

Kevin Maas! Love it! Any chance the coeds in the student section will adopt "Davante Tops" every time he makes a basket?

[MerrittsMustache]

Brew - I've been called Fanboy on this board many times...I'm a huge MU fan..and always see the good in our players.  I like Vander, and thought he had a decent freshman year.  I didn't have huge expectations for him - I'd say he met my expectations (he is very young for his class and a huge step up from WI high school ball to the Big East).  I also agree with you that some here have piled on the kid, way too much - and I'll always have our players backs.

Perhaps my analogy wasn't the best example - I don't question that Vander played hard while on the court and gave it his best..and didn't mean to imply he was doing the basketball equivalent of surfing the web.  Simply was saying that the production in his minutes, compared to Gardner's wasn't as productive in virtually every measurable basketball category.  Your point is well taken that Gardner either didn't earn, or wasn't capable of playing more minutes due to conditioning - so +1 to Vander on those categories.  Just because I think Gardner made a bigger impact in the games he played, by no means does that mean I'm hating on Vander.  They both made solid contributions as freshman.

Simply asking the question is "hating" on Vander. Not to mention that the way the question is phrased ("bigger, positive impact") suggests that Vander had a bigger impact, but much of it was negative. Vander played 703 minutes for a Sweet 16 team, while Gardner played 296. If Blue's positive impact wasn't greater than Gardner's then Buzz should have been fired. Don't get me wrong, I think Gardner is going to be a stud for MU but to ask that question at this point is asinine.

A year from now, I hope we're having a similar discussion about who was more worthy of their first team All Big East selection: Blue or Gardner.