Bigger Impact Last Season: Vander Blue or Davante Gardner?

[ATL MU Warrior]

Henry Sugar is one of the best stats guys on this board.  Blues offensive efficiency was ATROCIOUS, Gardner's was SUPERB.  Blue's defensive prowess rarely led to steals, dunks, or points in transition.  He played solid on ball defense, but that's about it - particularly come Big East time - where he as horrendous offensively.  Vander's got a ton of potential and upside...but some of you here are really dissing Gardner's contribution/performance...to try to make it seem hands down Vander had a bigger impact.  The poll results thus far suggest many MU fans feel it is certainly a debatable topic...and by no means the landslide Brew, Merritt and Tower have made it out to be..

Gardner battled several injuries during the season that relegated him to the bench - or he'd have gotten more minutes. 

At least we have a good basketball discussion going on..

Not dissing Gardner (or Sugar) at all.  Sugar's comment that Blue was the LEAST valuable member of the team is pretty out there, I don't care how he wants to run the numbers.  Gardner was fine on offense, his defense was putrid.  He couldn't have stopped me from scoring.  Despite the glut of guards on the team, the guard in this comparison played on average half the game.  Despite an almost total lack of good big guys, the big guy in the comparison played about 25% of the game on average.  That should tell you all you need to know.  If Gardner was so valuable, he'd get more minutes, end of story.  AND, if you really believe Gardner's positive impact was greater than Blue's you should be screaming for Buzz's head on a platter for not giving him more minutes, not defending him from every negative comment people make on here. 

[rocky_warrior]

This poll is unfair, of course a guy nicknamed "Ox" had a BIGGER impact.  duh.

[NersEllenson]

Not dissing Gardner (or Sugar) at all.  Sugar's comment that Blue was the LEAST valuable member of the team is pretty out there, I don't care how he wants to run the numbers.  Gardner was fine on offense, his defense was putrid.  He couldn't have stopped me from scoring.  Despite the glut of guards on the team, the guard in this comparison played on average half the game.  Despite an almost total lack of good big guys, the big guy in the comparison played about 25% of the game on average.  That should tell you all you need to know.  If Gardner was so valuable, he'd get more minutes, end of story.  AND, if you really believe Gardner's positive impact was greater than Blue's you should be screaming for Buzz's head on a platter for not giving him more minutes, not defending him from every negative comment people make on here. 

To assume all of Vander's minutes were merit based is making a big assumption.  How would Vander's ego have handled sitting on the bench all game?  Would he have wanted to transfer?  Would he have been a cancer to the team?  Were there PT promises made in the recruitment?  When you are a 5-star recruit, and think you have a chance at making the NBA (as chronicled by the story done on FoxSports Wisconsin discussing his friendship with Larry Sanders of the Bucks)...riding the bench for the entire conference season likely isn't going to rest well in Vander's mind/ego - or help his confidence.

Buzz very well knows Vander is supremely talented, and perhaps didn't want to relegate him to the bench to avert a potential transfer, and/or growing a confidence/cancer problem.  Now I don't want to go all negative on Vander, because he played a solid role as a freshman, and was worthy of SOME minutes - I'm just not sure that his impact was better than Gardners...or that he truly "earned" more.

[tower912]

To assume that Blues minutes were other than merit based is a huge leap.  Do you really want to go there?    Look, using the criteria that to impact the game, you either have to play 10 minutes or score 5 points, starting with the Vandy game, DG had no impact in 18 of our last 26 games (couldn't find a box score for the BEast WVU game).   He had either more than 10 min or 5 points in 7.     Of those 7, we lost 4 and won the other 3 fairly large.    In other words, he never had a positive impact (using my criteria) in a tight game after the first of the year.     As a matter of fact, the only tight game that we won that he had a positive impact (more than 10 minutes or 5 points) was the Bucknell game.   
I think he has a great future.   Blue had more of an impact.   

[Henry Sugar]

Not dissing Gardner (or Sugar) at all.  Sugar's comment that Blue was the LEAST valuable member of the team is pretty out there, I don't care how he wants to run the numbers.  Gardner was fine on offense, his defense was putrid.  He couldn't have stopped me from scoring.  Despite the glut of guards on the team, the guard in this comparison played on average half the game.  Despite an almost total lack of good big guys, the big guy in the comparison played about 25% of the game on average.  That should tell you all you need to know.  If Gardner was so valuable, he'd get more minutes, end of story.  AND, if you really believe Gardner's positive impact was greater than Blue's you should be screaming for Buzz's head on a platter for not giving him more minutes, not defending him from every negative comment people make on here. 

Blue's negative impact comes primarily from getting that many minutes.  If Jamail Jones had received that many minutes, then it'd be him.  Maybe EWill / Frozena / etc.  But it was Blue that was out there turning the ball over and shooting poorly and not doing well enough defensively to overcome those deficiencies.

As for why Blue got those minutes, there's some merit in letting a young, talented player grow.  I believe it was probably a combination of that, his defense, and his ranking.  I also believe Blue has a lot of upside.

Regarding Gardner, I did advocate for giving him more PT last year.  Of course, I never understood the griping about Gardner's defense.  The entire MU defense was bad, so I was fine with going for more offense and letting defense suffer.

That is basically the gist of my entire belief.  MU was really good offensively and poor defensively.  We won games with offense.  So why not play the guy that was good offensively and bad defensively more than the guy that was good defensively and bad offensively?  Would our defense really have been that much worse?

[ATL MU Warrior]

To assume all of Vander's minutes were merit based is making a big assumption.  How would Vander's ego have handled sitting on the bench all game?  Would he have wanted to transfer?  Would he have been a cancer to the team?  Were there PT promises made in the recruitment?  When you are a 5-star recruit, and think you have a chance at making the NBA (as chronicled by the story done on FoxSports Wisconsin discussing his friendship with Larry Sanders of the Bucks)...riding the bench for the entire conference season likely isn't going to rest well in Vander's mind/ego - or help his confidence.

Buzz very well knows Vander is supremely talented, and perhaps didn't want to relegate him to the bench to avert a potential transfer, and/or growing a confidence/cancer problem.  Now I don't want to go all negative on Vander, because he played a solid role as a freshman, and was worthy of SOME minutes - I'm just not sure that his impact was better than Gardners...or that he truly "earned" more.

I don't understand this at all.  Don't you think Buzz should be fired immediately if he's playing somebody for any reason other than he thinks that player has the best chance of helping the team win?  Are you suggesting that he's willing to potentially lose games to keep Vander happy? 

[ATL MU Warrior]

Blue's negative impact comes primarily from getting that many minutes.  If Jamail Jones had received that many minutes, then it'd be him.  Maybe EWill / Frozena / etc.  But it was Blue that was out there turning the ball over and shooting poorly and not doing well enough defensively to overcome those deficiencies.

As for why Blue got those minutes, there's some merit in letting a young, talented player grow.  I believe it was probably a combination of that, his defense, and his ranking.  I also believe Blue has a lot of upside.

Regarding Gardner, I did advocate for giving him more PT last year.  Of course, I never understood the griping about Gardner's defense.  The entire MU defense was bad, so I was fine with going for more offense and letting defense suffer.

That is basically the gist of my entire belief.  MU was really good offensively and poor defensively.  We won games with offense.  So why not play the guy that was good offensively and bad defensively more than the guy that was good defensively and bad offensively?  Would our defense really have been that much worse?

Thanks for this.  While I understand it, I don't agree with it, but that's o.k.  How do you quantify the bold part?

How much worse would we have been defensively without Otule?

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Gardner had almost the same offensive numbers (.5pts and .6 rebs less) in less than half of Blue's minutes while shooting 16% better from the field and 14% better from the line. Your correct that you can't just double a guy stats who has 250 ABs and compare him with a guy with 500. But if the guy with 500 has only a couple of more hits than the guy with 250 that tells you something.

Yea, but isn't that sort of like comparing batting averages instead of totals?
Player A bats .300 and hits 30 homers in 600 ABs

Player B bats .330 and hits 15 homers in 300 ABs

Player B is really only playing when the match-ups are favorable, thus the numbers are screwed and make him look pretty damn good. If you added another 300 ABs against tough match-ups, his average would probably go down dramatically and the HR production would not double.

I like DG (a lot), but he only played when the match-ups dictated. If Otule got hurt and DG had to play the bulk of the minutes, I think his shortcomings would be far more obvious, and in reality, his numbers might not climb as much as we assume.

These are just my guesses. All conjecture I suppose.

[Da 'Lanche]

How about something as simple as this....Gardner had a bigger impact than predicted as a freshman and Blue had a lesser impact than predicted, but, overall, Blue had a more significant impact last season overall than Gardner.    Blue came in with such high (and perhaps overinflated given the overall quality of high school basketball in Wisconsin) expectations and rankings and Ox came in as a virtual wild card.  They both contributed but Gardner's game was completely unexpected.   Blue was pretty solid, frankly, as a true freshman and the fact he did not pour in 15 points a game should not be a concern.  The dude did his fair share...I really hope he progresses.   Gardner did more than expected but to think he had a bigger impact than Blue as an entire body of work last season is a bit skewed.   Of course, biases are why there are chat boards....

[g0lden3agle]

To assume all of Vander's minutes were merit based is making a big assumption.  How would Vander's ego have handled sitting on the bench all game?  Would he have wanted to transfer?  Would he have been a cancer to the team?  Were there PT promises made in the recruitment?  When you are a 5-star recruit, and think you have a chance at making the NBA (as chronicled by the story done on FoxSports Wisconsin discussing his friendship with Larry Sanders of the Bucks)...riding the bench for the entire conference season likely isn't going to rest well in Vander's mind/ego - or help his confidence.

Buzz very well knows Vander is supremely talented, and perhaps didn't want to relegate him to the bench to avert a potential transfer, and/or growing a confidence/cancer problem.  Now I don't want to go all negative on Vander, because he played a solid role as a freshman, and was worthy of SOME minutes - I'm just not sure that his impact was better than Gardners...or that he truly "earned" more.

Two words disprove this entire post: Jeronne Maymon

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

Two words disprove this entire post: Jeronne Maymon

Not sure I understand this post. I will say, in the short time Maymom was on the Warriors, he looked far better than Blue. I was very sorry to hear him ago before I heard about all the behind the scenes stuff.

I am seriously afraid that, in overplaying Blue last year, we've ruined him. If he gets off to a bad start this year, look out below. By the end of last season he was so shell shocked he could barely handle the ball in the open court.

[brewcity77]

Not sure I understand this post. I will say, in the short time Maymom was on the Warriors, he looked far better than Blue. I was very sorry to hear him ago before I heard about all the behind the scenes stuff.

I am seriously afraid that, in overplaying Blue last year, we've ruined him. If he gets off to a bad start this year, look out below. By the end of last season he was so shell shocked he could barely handle the ball in the open court.

It's simple. Buzz doesn't hand out minutes based on recruiting rankings. Maymon didn't get heavy minutes despite being a highly regarded recruit and transferred. Had Blue not earned his minutes, Buzz would have sat him, end of story.

Anyone arguing for Gardner and not arguing for Buzz to be fired is off their rocker. If Buzz was deliberately playing lesser players and those actions would cause us to lose more games, why on earth would you want to retain him? What's next, the poll for "Should Buzz be fired for playing Vander over Gardner?"

Henry, usually I respect your stat analysis, but the idea of ignoring defense is absurd. I honestly don't really have any other good way to address that. Yes, let's play only the best offensive players because our defense is bad. Imagine how bad our defense might have been if we didn't get guys in there specifically for playing defense. We probably would have missed the tournament.

As was pointed out, Gardner did nothing in the tournament. The numbers against UNC were in garbage time. The only reason he looked good is because we played so poorly in the first half and there was so much garbage time to dole out.

For everyone going strictly off this offensive efficiency, I've got a stat for you. Vander Blue scored 187 points in 703 minutes, an average of 0.27 points per minute. Rob Frozena scored 8 points in 26 minutes, an average of 0.30 points per minute. So does that mean Frozena was also more deserving of minutes than Vander? He was scoring at a better rate, and obviously we shouldn't bother with playing any defense because we win with offense.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

It's simple. Buzz doesn't hand out minutes based on recruiting rankings. Maymon didn't get heavy minutes despite being a highly regarded recruit and transferred. Had Blue not earned his minutes, Buzz would have sat him, end of story.

By all accounts, Jeronne was skipping classes and was far from a hard worker. Yet he was still in the regular rotation until he announced he was leaving. There is no doubt in my mind he was getting minutes based on recruiting promises.

[MUCam]

There is no doubt in my mind he was getting minutes based on recruiting promises.

This is quite a leap. Par for the sensationalism course, I suppose.

Looking at the statistics from that year and you will see a different story. The 2009-2010 team had no depth at the big positions. Lazar and Jimmy were the only regulars playing more than 20 minutes per game at the 4 and 5. Otule was injured, Mbao was disasterous, Fulce had knee problems that limited his numbers and Erik Williams never looked the part that freshman year. Oh, and by the way, Maymon put up better numbers per minute than just about each of those other options.

Maymon's numbers were as they should have: 16.3 min per game. There were no other options behind Lazar and Jimmy, who each played well over 30 minutes per game.

Let's try not to be so melodramatic.

To say that Maymon's minutes were solely based on recruiting promises, when the facts and circumstances suggest the contrary, is a bit reckless. Buy, hey....its a message board, so personal opinion rules the day...not facts.

[Lennys Tap]

Yea, but isn't that sort of like comparing batting averages instead of totals?
Player A bats .300 and hits 30 homers in 600 ABs

Player B bats .330 and hits 15 homers in 300 ABs

Player B is really only playing when the match-ups are favorable, thus the numbers are screwed and make him look pretty damn good. If you added another 300 ABs against tough match-ups, his average would probably go down dramatically and the HR production would not double.

I like DG (a lot), but he only played when the match-ups dictated. If Otule got hurt and DG had to play the bulk of the minutes, I think his shortcomings would be far more obvious, and in reality, his numbers might not climb as much as we assume.

These are just my guesses. All conjecture I suppose.

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.

[77ncaachamps]

Gardner, hands down.

BTW, was the subject line a backhanded slap at Davante's weight and Vander's less-than-major impact?

[NersEllenson]

As far as the discussion goes on the idea of minutes being promised in recruitments - in the cases of Maymon and Blue - who knows?  We do know that Maymon's departure/transfer had everything to do with the way he was being utilized and his crazy Dad - probably more to do with his crazy Dad than anything. 

As far as the idea Buzz should have been fired if he played a guy more minutes than he perhaps earned is absurd.  As he Buzz says he is the steward of the program and has a very good pulse on where his guys heads are, etc...and likely whats best short/long term.  Furthermore - imagine the PR nightmare in many ways it would have been to lose Maymon at the semester, and then Vander Blue after 1 year at MU.  Would not have reflected well for him in WI, Badger fans would have had a field day, it would be held against him in likely recruiting battles in the state, etc.

To think that a coach doesn't want to retain a player he values highly, by giving him a few more minutes than he possibly earns is not a leap.  There also is a psychological component to coaching, and if in Vander's case he was getting 20 minutes prior to Big East season, and then as his performance dropped off - he was only getting 5 - does that not send a message that could hurt already fragile confidence?  Vander did not play well for most of the Big East season - that is a fact, and to argue otherwise is not looking at things objectively.

. 

[brewcity77]

Vander did not play well for most of the Big East season - that is a fact, and to argue otherwise is not looking at things objectively.

Oh yes, and of course Davante lit it up during the Big East season. Do you realize that he broke the 5 point barrier only twice in Big East play? 12 against Georgetown, 7 against Seton Hall at home. Honestly, give me the impact performances that you remember that justify putting DG ahead of Blue. What do you have? Garbage time minutes against North Carolina? Seriously, they no longer cared by the time DG started his work. The way he beat up on Green Bay, Prairie View, and Corpus Christie?

Davante had really meaningful impacts in three games: Bucknell (best game for him all year), Duke (loss), and Georgetown (fouled out, loss). That's it. That's the honor roll. Are there games I'm forgetting? Games that really mattered that his impact carried us to a win? Because unless you have some of those (which you don't, because other than Bucknell, they don't exist) this entire argument is moot.

I'm excited for his future. I think he can be a great player. But thinking that he was bigger in any way other than physical stature to our 2010-11 team is simply delusional.

[bilsu]

Without actually looking at the stats, I am pretty sure that Gardner's stats during the Big East tournament and the NCAA tournament were better than Blue's. There is a long period of time during the season where Gardner appeared to be the missing man. In fact it appears that Gardner was the chief beneficiary of the closed door meeting after the Seton Hall loss. The amount of his playing time significantly increased after that. Perhaps in that meeting the players told Buzz to play Gardner or Buzz just got tired of playing some other players after the Seton hall loss. I also think the other beneficairy of that meeting was Cadougan, who also was much more effective from that time on. In the post season Gardner easily had more impact than Blue. Before that I would have to say Blue.

[NersEllenson]

Oh yes, and of course Davante lit it up during the Big East season. Do you realize that he broke the 5 point barrier only twice in Big East play? 12 against Georgetown, 7 against Seton Hall at home. Honestly, give me the impact performances that you remember that justify putting DG ahead of Blue. What do you have? Garbage time minutes against North Carolina? Seriously, they no longer cared by the time DG started his work. The way he beat up on Green Bay, Prairie View, and Corpus Christie?

Davante had really meaningful impacts in three games: Bucknell (best game for him all year), Duke (loss), and Georgetown (fouled out, loss). That's it. That's the honor roll. Are there games I'm forgetting? Games that really mattered that his impact carried us to a win? Because unless you have some of those (which you don't, because other than Bucknell, they don't exist) this entire argument is moot.

I'm excited for his future. I think he can be a great player. But thinking that he was bigger in any way other than physical stature to our 2010-11 team is simply delusional.

Funny you don't mention Vander's Big East performances - yet want to call out Gardner for his.  You do realize Vander only broke the 5 point mark 2 times in Big Easy play as well:  12 against DE PAUL, and 7 against UCONN - desptie getting about 14 more minutes per game on average than Gardner.  Vander shot 18 for 72 from the field in Big East play - good for 25%.  Vander made exactly 8 FGs over his last 18 games of the season.

The only delusional thinking here is thinking that it is clear cut, hands down, no contest that Vander had a bigger impact on last year's team.  The poll results are 50/50...and the stat sheet doesn't lie...but in the future, before you rip Gardner's Big East contribution, just make sure you first compare it to the player you are telling us had so much more of an impact that its not even close..and that those of us who think otherwise are delusional....actually did perform better than the guy you are ripping...

And one last thing - Gardner went 25 for 47 from the field from Big East play through end of the season...I'd say 53% shooting is much better than 25%...and making 7 more FG's yet getting about 50% less PT than Vander makes you delusional for thinking Blue was a bigger impact player.

[brewcity77]

Funny you don't mention Vander's Big East performances - yet want to call out Gardner for his.  You do realize Vander only broke the 5 point mark 2 times in Big Easy play as well:  12 against DE PAUL, and 7 against UCONN - desptie getting about 14 more minutes per game on average than Gardner.

I guess the West Virginia and Rutgers games didn't happen in your reality?

Vander shot 18 for 72 from the field in Big East play - good for 25%.  Vander made exactly 8 FGs over his last 18 games of the season.

Yeah, and he also pretty much stopped taking FGs when he knew his shot wasn't falling. Other than against USF (a game when we definitely needed his D) he was usually only taking 2-5 shots per game. He focused his efforts where he could be most effective, on the defensive end. Meanwhile, DG wasn't getting on the court.

The only delusional thinking here is thinking that it is clear cut, hands down, no contest that Vander had a bigger impact on last year's team.  The poll results are 50/50...and the stat sheet doesn't lie...but in the future, before you rip Gardner's Big East contribution, just make sure you first compare it to the player you are telling us had so much more of an impact that its not even close..and that those of us who think otherwise are delusional....

Yeah, and fans still vote for the All-Star game. How many times have guys like Grant Hill and Allen Iverson been elected to All-Star games when they weren't even playing? Poll results in general don't tell you anything, other than that people will have an opinion even if it isn't grounded in facts. The minutes bear out, the stats you offered on Vander were false, and your level of delusion hasn't changed.

Honestly, this is like debating with M84 or Chicos. You ignore the logic, ignore the assertion that based on your logic Frozena deserved more minutes than Blue, and fail to produce any more games than my examples where DG had this major impact. Meanwhile, despite this belief that Buzz was giving too many minutes to a lesser player, something that would seem to lead to us losing more games and possibly missing the tournament, you aren't willing to dole out any blame. Through it all, you seem convinced that you are still "right" just because that's what you asserted in the first place and won't give up your position, come hell or high water. What, did you want to try the Bailbondsman's shoes on for size now that he's been banned?

[NersEllenson]

I guess the West Virginia and Rutgers games didn't happen in your reality?

Yeah, and he also pretty much stopped taking FGs when he knew his shot wasn't falling. Other than against USF (a game when we definitely needed his D) he was usually only taking 2-5 shots per game. He focused his efforts where he could be most effective, on the defensive end. Meanwhile, DG wasn't getting on the court.

Yeah, and fans still vote for the All-Star game. How many times have guys like Grant Hill and Allen Iverson been elected to All-Star games when they weren't even playing? Poll results in general don't tell you anything, other than that people will have an opinion even if it isn't grounded in facts. The minutes bear out, the stats you offered on Vander were false, and your level of delusion hasn't changed.

Honestly, this is like debating with M84 or Chicos. You ignore the logic, ignore the assertion that based on your logic Frozena deserved more minutes than Blue, and fail to produce any more games than my examples where DG had this major impact. Meanwhile, despite this belief that Buzz was giving too many minutes to a lesser player, something that would seem to lead to us losing more games and possibly missing the tournament, you aren't willing to dole out any blame. Through it all, you seem convinced that you are still "right" just because that's what you asserted in the first place and won't give up your position, come hell or high water. What, did you want to try the Bailbondsman's shoes on for size now that he's been banned?

My bad on the oversight on the 6 point efforts in West Virginia and Rutgers.  I will criticize Buzz and say Gardner should have gotten more minutes than he did...though there were about 5 games Gardner got no minutes due to injury.

The fact you are comparing me to 84 or Chicos in this example is comical.  The irony is that you are trying to argue that a player who got roughly 2 times as many minutes (Vander) made 8 less FG's from start of Big East to end of the Season, and shot 28% worse from the field - is more of a positive impact on a team.  That my friend is delusional, and you are in denial - so very 84 and Chicos like.

If you would, could you present your case for why you think a player who shots 1/2 as good as another player %-wise, plays 2 times as many minutes, yet scores 8 less FG's has a more positive impact on a basketball team??

[PaintTouches]

NERS, because basketball isn't all about scoring point and making buckets. Defense counts.

If you would, could you present your case for why you think a player who shots 1/2 as good as another player %-wise, plays 2 times as many minutes, yet scores 8 less FG's has a more positive impact on a basketball team??

Because basketball isn't solely about scoring buckets. Defense matters too you know.

[NersEllenson]

NERS, because basketball isn't all about scoring point and making buckets. Defense counts.
Because basketball isn't solely about scoring buckets. Defense matters too you know.

You better be all-world defense to make up for shooting 25%...and Vander's turnover percentage was 2x's greater than Gardners...so, although his steals per game average of .892 was better than Gardner's .12 - there is no way one can argue Vander's defense was so amazing that it makes up for his poor offensive numbers.  Here is a link to a head to head comparison of Vander and Davante:

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

[brewcity77]

If you would, could you present your case for why you think a player who shots 1/2 as good as another player %-wise, plays 2 times as many minutes, yet scores 8 less FG's has a more positive impact on a basketball team??

I've presented my case, with evidence, what feels like about 7,000 times and ways. It's pretty obvious based on minutes that Buzz felt that way.

Now, very simply, what games other than the ones I mentioned were the ones that convince you DG was a bigger impact player than Blue?