Bigger Impact Last Season: Vander Blue or Davante Gardner?

[NersEllenson]

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?

The discussion in this topic is based on the body of work for last season and each players impact.  I didn't realize we were looking at things on a game by game basis - but even if we were - the fact Vander had 2 more 5 point + games from start of Big East play to end of season, than did Gardner, doesn't make his impact more positive... 

Oh...and by the way...I missed Gardner's game total against Providence where he scored 9 points - which you failed to mention in your point a few posts back - so in reality, Vander had 1 more 5+ point game in Big East play than did Gardner.

I'm not surprised you didn't try to articulate an argument as to why you feel a player who plays 2 times as many minutes, yet scores 8 FGs less than another player, while shooting 28% worse from the field, who turns the ball over 2x more than the other player...has a more positive impact on a basketball team...because there is NO logical explanation to try to rationalize such an argument.

Lastly, please keep in mind it was you who was telling me how delusional my thinking was about Gardner even being in a discussion with Vander on team impact last year.  Believe Sultan chimed in with anyone who felt Gardner had a bigger impact than Vander had NO basketball IQ.  You've painted a picture that it was Vander in a landslide - yet digging deeper and deeper into the numbers reveals it is by no means a landslide in Vander's favor...and actually quite clear Gardner had the bigger impact in a landslide. 

[NersEllenson]

Thought I'd add some additional context to this discussion Here's a definition of what the Roland Rating is: The on court +/- number repesents the team's net points with the player on the floor per 40 minutes, while the off court number is the team's net with the player off the floor per 40 minutes. The Roland Rating is the difference between the two, with a positive number indicating the team has played better with the player than without.

This rating isn't an absolute measure of a player's ability, but it does represent how successful a player is with a given team. In general the player with the best Roland Rating on a team is the difference maker (exclude the guys who play a statistically insignificant number of minutes). When the top guy is on the floor the team performs at a much higher level. These ratings represent a player's value to a particular team and are not intended to be an accurate gauge of the ability and talent of the player away from the specific team.

For MU last year:
Jimmy Butler +198
Jae Crowder +142
Dwight Buycks +128
DJO +84
Davante Gardner -11
Vander Blue -58
Junior Cadougan -95
Chris Otule - 168

http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=junior-cadougan&p1=davante-gardner&p2=vander-blue&p3=jimmy-butler&p4=jae-crowder&p5=darius-johnson-odom

[brewcity77]

The discussion in this topic is based on the body of work for last season and each players impact.  I didn't realize we were looking at things on a game by game basis - but even if we were - the fact Vander had 2 more 5 point + games from start of Big East play to end of season, than did Gardner, doesn't make his impact more positive...

So helping us win more games isn't having a bigger impact? Umm...yeah.

Oh...and by the way...I missed Gardner's game total against Providence where he scored 9 points - which you failed to mention in your point a few posts back - so in reality, Vander had 1 more 5+ point game in Big East play than did Gardner.

Nope. That's postseason play, not Big East play. DG had 4 points in 8 minutes against Providence in Big East play.

I'm not surprised you didn't try to articulate an argument as to why you feel a player who plays 2 times as many minutes, yet scores 8 FGs less than another player, while shooting 28% worse from the field, who turns the ball over 2x more than the other player...has a more positive impact on a basketball team...because there is NO logical explanation to try to rationalize such an argument.

As a matter of fact, there is. First of all, Vander played defense. DG did not. Vander's defense earned him minutes. DG's did not. And at the end of the day, it's about winning games. Let's look at wins where it would be argued either player had a significant role played and see who was more valuable:

Prairie View: Blue had 7 points, 7 boards, 5 assists, 4 steals, and 3 blocks in 28 minutes. Gardner had 17 points, 5 boards, and 2 blocks in 13 minutes. Wash.

Bucknell: Blue had 8 points, 2 assists, and 2 steals in 26 minutes. Gardner had 11 points and 7 boards in 12 minutes. Both played well, but I give the edge to Gardner

Green Bay: Blue had 14 points, 3 boards, 2 assists, and 1 steal in 23 minutes. Gardner had 11 points, 3 boards, 2 assists, and 1 block in 11 minutes, but struggled with foul trouble. Edge to Vander

South Dakota: Blue had 7 points, 5 boards, 6 assists, and 1 steal in 32 minutes. Gardner had 0 points in 2 minutes. Edge to Vander

UW-Milwaukee: Blue had 7 points, 1 rebound, and 1 steal in 20 minutes. Gardner got a DNP. Edge to Vander

Longwood: Blue had 12 points and 2 assists in 25 minutes. Gardner got a DNP. Edge to Vander

TAMU-CC: Blue had 21 points, 5 boards, 4 assists, 2 steals, and 2 blocks in 29 minutes. Gardner had 10 points, 3 boards, 1 assist, and 1 steal in 15 minutes. Edge to Vander

Centenary: Blue had 16 points, 9 rebounds, and 5 assists in 31 minutes. Gardner had 1 rebound in 3 minutes. Edge to Vander

Mississippi Valley State: Blue had 15 points, 2 rebounds, 5 assists, 3 steals, and 2 blocks in 32 minutes. Gardner had 7 points and 3 boards in 12 minutes. Edge to Vander

West Virginia: Blue had 6 points, 5 rebounds, and 4 assists in 20 minutes. Gardner got a DNP. Edge to Vander

Rutgers: Blue had 6 points, 5 boards, and 1 steal in 30 minutes. Gardner had 1 point, 2 rebounds, and 1 board in 8 minutes. Edge to Vander

Notre Dame: Blue had 2 points, 3 rebounds, and 2 assists in 20 minutes. Gardner played 3 minutes. Edge to Vander

DePaul: Blue had 12 points, 2 rebounds, 2 assists, and 1 steal in 22 minutes. Gardner had 1 rebound in 4 minutes. Edge to Vander

Syracuse: Blue had 2 points and 1 rebound in 12 minutes. Gardner had 2 points in 8 minutes. Wash

South Florida: Blue had 2 points, 6 boards, and 2 assists in 21 minutes. Gardner had 2 fouls in 6 minutes. Despite a poor shooting percentage, the edge definitely goes to Vander

Seton Hall: Blue had 1 rebound and 1 assist in 6 minutes. Gardner had 7 points, 6 rebounds, and 2 assists in 11 minutes. Edge goes to Gardner for the first time in over 3 months

Connecticut: Blue had 7 points, 2 rebounds, and 1 steal in 20 minutes. Gardner had 1 rebound in 2 minutes. Edge goes to Vander

Providence: Blue had 1 rebound and 1 assist in 10 minutes. Gardner had 4 points and 1 rebound in 8 minutes. Edge goes to Gardner

Providence: Blue had 4 points and 7 rebounds in 16 minutes. Gardner had 9 points, 7 rebounds, and 1 assist in 17 minutes. Edge goes to Gardner

West Virginia: Blue had 4 rebounds and 1 steal in 15 minutes. Gardner had 10 points and 3 rebounds in 16 minutes. Edge goes to Gardner

Xavier: Blue had 2 rebounds in 8 minutes. Gardner had 4 points, 5 boards, and 1 assist in 15 minutes. Edge goes to Gardner

Syracuse: Blue had 1 rebound and 1 steal in 6 minutes. Gardner had 2 points and 2 rebounds in 6 minutes. Wash

You can't honestly look at all of our wins objectively and say that Gardner was the bigger impact player. The reason people are deluded into thinking that is because they are only remember the end of the season. Yes, Gardner played better during the last month of the season. But Blue was obviously the better player for the first 4 months of the season. The edge numbers go like this: Vander 13, Gardner 6, and 3 where it was a wash. If you live in the vacuum that the last month of the season is all that matters, sure, Gardner has the edge, but if you are talking about the entire season, it's not even close.

Lastly, please keep in mind it was you who was telling me how delusional my thinking was about Gardner even being in a discussion with Vander on team impact last year.  Believe Sultan chimed in with anyone who felt Gardner had a bigger impact than Vander had NO basketball IQ.  You've painted a picture that it was Vander in a landslide - yet digging deeper and deeper into the numbers reveals it is by no means a landslide in Vander's favor...and actually quite clear Gardner had the bigger impact in a landslide.

Yes, I have, and I think that I've made it clear that yes, it was Vander in a landslide. Gardner was in the discussion for the last month, which is what everyone remembers most clearly. Vander owned the discussion for the previous 4 months, which are easier to forget because they're further removed. The farcical poll means nothing. It's Blue, it's obvious, and it's delusional to assert otherwise.

[Henry Sugar]

Hey brew.  How many turnovers and missed shots did each player have in your comparison? 

[brewcity77]

Hey brew.  How many turnovers and missed shots did each player have in your comparison? 

Blue had a 1.2/1 A/T ratio. Not necessarily point guard good, but a fine ratio for an off-guard. And in the game he missed the most shots, against USF, there were people saying he should be the SOTG because of his second half energy.

It's easy to try to slant the numbers against Vander, and because of the last month of the season, it's popular, but it's also clearly false and I honestly don't get why people want to turn our fanbase against one of our own players.

And at the end of the day, the most important stat is that Gardner wasn't playing! He played less than half as many minutes as Blue. That's a clear indicator from Buzz as to which one he wanted out on the floor. I trust Buzz's intuition on this (as well as the obvious stats) more than I do you or Ners.

[NersEllenson]

Blue had a 1.2/1 A/T ratio. Not necessarily point guard good, but a fine ratio for an off-guard. And in the game he missed the most shots, against USF, there were people saying he should be the SOTG because of his second half energy.

It's easy to try to slant the numbers against Vander, and because of the last month of the season, it's popular, but it's also clearly false and I honestly don't get why people want to turn our fanbase against one of our own players.

And at the end of the day, the most important stat is that Gardner wasn't playing! He played less than half as many minutes as Blue. That's a clear indicator from Buzz as to which one he wanted out on the floor. I trust Buzz's intuition on this (as well as the obvious stats) more than I do you or Ners.

Brew - Let's just clarify that I'm by no means trying to turn our fanbase against Vander AT ALL.  He had an okay freshman year.  I just think Gardner had a better year. Clearly they were our best 2 freshman, and contributed more as freshman than any 2 freshman since Lazar/Big 3.

Gardner got DNP's due to some injuries..and some due to Buzz's choice not to use him (which was a big mistake Buzz made).  Gardner's defense was not that bad - but it is an easy thing to use in argument, because there really isn't anyway to quantify defensive performance...whereas with offense it is easy to quantify.  You've discounted +/-, and now you've discounted the Roland Ratings which once could argue indirectly take into account intangible defensive measurables - as it takes into consideration the +/- of a player playing, versus when they sit out.  If Vander's defense were so lock down, and led to so many steals and conversions to points...his +/- and Roland would be better...but it they aren't better than Gardners.

The Roland Ratings certainly seemed to put rank our players well last year...the one surprise to me was that Otule's rating was so poor.

[NersEllenson]

And Brew - why in your game by game break down, did you reference how many minutes Gardner had in each game, but never mentioned how many Blue got?  You want to award EDGE based on offensive output, rebounds, steals, etc...Gardner scores and rebounds at a 2:1 rate per minute played compared to Blue.  Yet Blue played more than a 2:1 ratio of minutes.

Seems that a guy who out produces a guy 2:1 per minute played has a greater impact.  Double Gardner's minutes and I'd propose Gardner would have statistically outplayed Blue in 85% of MU's games.

EDIT:  My bad - not sure why I didn't see you included minutes in MOST of the games for Blue...(Late night for me last night!)

[brewcity77]

Brew - Let's just clarify that I'm by no means trying to turn our fanbase against Vander AT ALL.  He had an okay freshman year.  I just think Gardner had a better year. Clearly they were our best 2 freshman, and contributed more as freshman than any 2 freshman since Lazar/Big 3.

Gardner got DNP's due to some injuries..and some due to Buzz's choice not to use him (which was a big mistake Buzz made).  Gardner's defense was not that bad - but it is an easy thing to use in argument, because there really isn't anyway to quantify defensive performance...whereas with offense it is easy to quantify.  You've discounted +/-, and now you've discounted the Roland Ratings which once could argue indirectly take into account intangible defensive measurables - as it takes into consideration the +/- of a player playing, versus when they sit out.  If Vander's defense were so lock down, and led to so many steals and conversions to points...his +/- and Roland would be better...but it they aren't better than Gardners.

The Roland Ratings certainly seemed to put rank our players well last year...the one surprise to me was that Otule's rating was so poor.

This Roland Rating indicates that Dwight Buycks was a much, much, much more valuable player to us than Otule...do I really need any more conclusive evidence as to why I discounted them? And again, +/-...all I have to do is point at the UNC game to show why that number is deceptive.

And Brew - why in your game by game break down, did you reference how many minutes Gardner had in each game, but never mentioned how many Blue got?  You want to award EDGE based on offensive output, rebounds, steals, etc...Gardner scores and rebounds at a 2:1 rate per minute played compared to Blue.  Yet Blue played more than a 2:1 ratio of minutes.

Seems that a guy who out produces a guy 2:1 per minute played has a greater impact.  Double Gardner's minutes and I'd propose Gardner would have statistically outplayed Blue in 85% of MU's games.

EDIT:  My bad - not sure why I didn't see you included minutes in MOST of the games for Blue...(Late night for me last night!)

So basically, you're agreeing with me? Listen, if if's were fifths we'd all be drunk. But the bottom line is Gardner didn't get those minutes. And because of that, Gardner didn't statistically outplay Blue in 85% of MU's games. And none of this even quantifies how much better Blue clearly is as a defender. You aren't really going to try to assert that Gardner was somehow a good defender and Blue didn't pull his weight on the defensive end, are you? Even a blind man could see how much more valuable Blue was for us on the defensive end.

I'll say this, maybe if Gardner got double the minutes, he'd have been a more impactful player than Blue. But the simple truth is that he didn't, and thus, he wasn't. Thank you for that supporting argument

[ATL MU Warrior]

Hey brew.  How many turnovers and missed shots did each player have in your comparison? 

Still waiting for you to quantify this:

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.

Please demonstrate this if possible.  if not, then your argument doesn't hold water.

[4everwarriors]

This whole discussion doesn't hold water unless we know the deflection comparisons.

[NersEllenson]

This Roland Rating indicates that Dwight Buycks was a much, much, much more valuable player to us than Otule...do I really need any more conclusive evidence as to why I discounted them? And again, +/-...all I have to do is point at the UNC game to show why that number is deceptive.

So basically, you're agreeing with me? Listen, if if's were fifths we'd all be drunk. But the bottom line is Gardner didn't get those minutes. And because of that, Gardner didn't statistically outplay Blue in 85% of MU's games. And none of this even quantifies how much better Blue clearly is as a defender. You aren't really going to try to assert that Gardner was somehow a good defender and Blue didn't pull his weight on the defensive end, are you? Even a blind man could see how much more valuable Blue was for us on the defensive end.

I'll say this, maybe if Gardner got double the minutes, he'd have been a more impactful player than Blue. But the simple truth is that he didn't, and thus, he wasn't. Thank you for that supporting argument

Buycks got a bad rap from a lot of MU fans.  He was a solid player for MU last year.  He outperformed Vander Blue in every single statistical category, other than averaging 1/2 turnover more per game.  So as you diss Buycks, just realize his performance was SUBSTANTIALLY better than Blues.

And we can agree on this point:  Vander is a better defender than Gardner.  Having said that, I don't believe Vander's degree of being better defensively is so great that it offsets the huge disparity in his offensive performance when measured against Davante.  It was interesting to look at the game by game analysis you put together - in any game where Davante got roughly just 70% of Blues minutes....he greatly outperformed him.  The only games you gave the edge to Blue were games he had SIGNIFICANTLY more minutes than Gardner.  Hard to score, rebound, block shots, get assists if you aren't in the game.

[🏀]

This whole discussion doesn't hold water unless we know the deflection comparisons.

+1. Thank you.

[Henry Sugar]

Still waiting for you to quantify this:

Please demonstrate this if possible.  if not, then your argument doesn't hold water.

You'll just have to wait for the cracked sidewalks article.  Of course, if Blue had the worst offensive efficiency on the team (89), then his def rating would need to be lower than that.  Considering MU as a team allowed about 1.00 ppp, it isn't likely that Vander had exceptional defensive capabilities but MU was so mediocre.  It's much more plausible his defense was somewhat better than the team's, but not better than his offensive efficiency.

[avid1010]

Buycks got a bad rap from a lot of MU fans.  He was a solid player for MU last year.  He outperformed Vander Blue in every single statistical category, other than averaging 1/2 turnover more per game.  So as you diss Buycks, just realize his performance was SUBSTANTIALLY better than Blues.

It's funny how fast people forget, and how numbers don't always tell the full truth.  I remember a poster by the name of "nomorebuycks" that got blasted when DB was tearing it up for a while. 

[avid1010]

Also worth taking a look back at the WV game played in early March.  Thew way the seedings in the NCAA tourney went, it turns out MU may have needed that one to avoid the play-in game.

I have all the MU games on DVR and quickly ran through it today....I'm not sure we win that game without Gardner's 10pts and 3 boards.  I don't remember Vander playing that kind of an importance in any game for MU last year.  

[brewcity77]

I like Buycks. I thought he did much better last year than people gave him credit for. I was also one of the few people touting him as possibly having NBA talent down the line. That said, the notion that he was a much better player for us than DJO, and a much, much, much, much better player than Otule is simply asinine. The only thing that Roland Rating has right is JFB at the top. Once you get past #1, I don't think I'd agree with a single one of those. Doubt many MU fans would.

And avid, I really don't think we beat USF if not for Vander's play in the second half.

Finally...yes, Blue earned more minutes than Gardner. I simply cannot believe how many people are discounting that. Or is it that Blue had the physical capability to play more minutes? Either way, those minutes led to a greater impact. Don't blame me for Gardner either not being good enough or fit enough to play a more significant role. The bottom line is that he didn't play a more significant role, whatever the reason is, and your argument that he would've outperformed him if he did get the minutes only supports my argument that he didn't outperform him because he wasn't on the court.

Really, that's all there is to this argument. Davante didn't get out there enough to have the same impact Blue did. Maybe you like him better, maybe you think he deserved more minutes, but maybes aren't worth a crap in this argument. Bottom line, he didn't get out there and make that difference. All the maybes in the world won't change that.

[NersEllenson]

I like Buycks. I thought he did much better last year than people gave him credit for. I was also one of the few people touting him as possibly having NBA talent down the line. That said, the notion that he was a much better player for us than DJO, and a much, much, much, much better player than Otule is simply asinine. The only thing that Roland Rating has right is JFB at the top. Once you get past #1, I don't think I'd agree with a single one of those. Doubt many MU fans would.

And avid, I really don't think we beat USF if not for Vander's play in the second half.

Finally...yes, Blue earned more minutes than Gardner. I simply cannot believe how many people are discounting that. Or is it that Blue had the physical capability to play more minutes? Either way, those minutes led to a greater impact. Don't blame me for Gardner either not being good enough or fit enough to play a more significant role. The bottom line is that he didn't play a more significant role, whatever the reason is, and your argument that he would've outperformed him if he did get the minutes only supports my argument that he didn't outperform him because he wasn't on the court.

Really, that's all there is to this argument. Davante didn't get out there enough to have the same impact Blue did. Maybe you like him better, maybe you think he deserved more minutes, but maybes aren't worth a crap in this argument. Bottom line, he didn't get out there and make that difference. All the maybes in the world won't change that.

Brew - Here is a definite for you.  Starting with the Big East season through end of season: Gardner scored 8 more FG's on 25 less shots than Blue, shot 16% better from the Free Throw line, turned the ball over half as much, and did all of that well playing roughly 45% of the minutes of Blue.  Impact is measured in results - and the most tangible results are points, rebounds, steals, assists, turnovers.  Based on production, Buzz was wrong for having played Blue and Otule more minutes than Gardner - Gardner should have had at minimum 12-15 minutes every game, as he was clearly capable of playing 12-15 minutes evidenced by the many games he did play more than 12 minutes.  I believe Buzz's gut told him the team would be better defensively with Otule in the game, than Gardner - yet to have a Roland rating of -168 really points to the fact that the team performed its worst with Otule in games.

On another note, you are correct in stating that you were a Buycks supporter through and through.  As for Vander's minutes - I think it is making a HUGE assumption that his minutes were 100% merit based.  Keeping Vander happy, and not running the risk of him wanting to transfer, and the potential fallout that would have taken place in Wisconsin had Vander left MU after 1 year after Maymon's departure would have been a BIG negative for Buzz to have to sell against in future WI recruiting battles.  Plus, Buzz knows Blue is a supremely talented kid...who has huge upside....and therefore you probably give him a little more run than might be merit based.

[brewcity77]

Brew - Here is a definite for you.  Starting with the Big East season through end of season: Gardner scored 8 more FG's on 25 less shots than Blue, shot 16% better from the Free Throw line, turned the ball over half as much, and did all of that well playing roughly 45% of the minutes of Blue.  Impact is measured in results - and the most tangible results are points, rebounds, steals, assists, turnovers.  Based on production, Buzz was wrong for having played Blue and Otule more minutes than Gardner - Gardner should have had at minimum 12-15 minutes every game, as he was clearly capable of playing 12-15 minutes evidenced by the many games he did play more than 12 minutes.  I believe Buzz's gut told him the team would be better defensively with Otule in the game, than Gardner - yet to have a Roland rating of -168 really points to the fact that the team performed its worst with Otule in games.

Okay, first of all, why do you only look at the start of the Big East season? Because it's convenient to ignore that Vander was killing it in the non-conference?

Second, all your argument seems to be based on is shoulds, maybes, and ifs. I don't care about what should have happened, what maybe would have been the case, and if X then Y, I care about what actually did happen. And what actually did happen was that over the course of the entire season, not just the part that's convenient for your argument, Blue was the more impactful player.

On another note, you are correct in stating that you were a Buycks supporter through and through.  As for Vander's minutes - I think it is making a HUGE assumption that his minutes were 100% merit based.  Keeping Vander happy, and not running the risk of him wanting to transfer, and the potential fallout that would have taken place in Wisconsin had Vander left MU after 1 year after Maymon's departure would have been a BIG negative for Buzz to have to sell against in future WI recruiting battles.  Plus, Buzz knows Blue is a supremely talented kid...who has huge upside....and therefore you probably give him a little more run than might be merit based.

I don't buy that Vander was going to play the minutes he did simply based on the hope that he'd stay happy. When his play declined, his minutes declined. Was he getting 5 minutes against Louisville because Buzz wanted to keep him happy? Was he getting single-digit minutes later in the year, even as DG's minutes were going up because Buzz wanted to keep him happy? He got big minutes for 75% of the season because he earned those minutes on the court. Because he was playing very, very well. Blue looked every bit the recruit he was supposed to be in November and December. He still looked pretty good in January. Then later in February, he started to decline, and didn't have a good March. But for 3 1/2 months, he was the better player. For maybe a month to a month and a half, DG was the better player.

Take the whole of the argument. Look at what Vander was doing early on, what he was earning, and look at the entirety of the season.

Listen, I understand that's it's very easy and convenient to only focus on what happened at the end of the year. We live in a "what have you done for me lately" society, and over the final games of the season, there's no doubt that Gardner did more for us while Blue did less. But over the course of the season, it's not even comparable. Blue clearly did more. And the only possible justification otherwise is to try selling more shoulds, maybes, and ifs, and frankly, I'm not buying.

[avid1010]

And avid, I really don't think we beat USF if not for Vander's play in the second half.

He was 1-9 for the game...

[NersEllenson]

Brew - So now you want to look at the pre-conference season when you previously ridiculed Gardner's performances against the likes of Prairie View, Green Bay, TX AM CC, etc?  That's fine.

I'm done with this debate because you aren't going to change my mind, and I'm not going to change yours!  The poll results are amazingly equal too - which simply means both your position and my position have merit.

I rest my argument on the fact that Gardner got 42% of the minutes of Blue for the season, yet scored only 35 points less, shot 18% better on FGs for the season, and made 1 more Free Throw for the season.  The points per 40 minutes played stat says Gardner is good for 20.5 and Blue 10.6 - so Davante basically outscores Vander 2:1 for every minute played.  Based on all of the above, and considering the huge drop off in Roland rating from Buycks and DJO to the 3rd guard Vander - MU would have been much better off giving Blues minutes to Davante Gardner, and going with just a 2 guard lineup as much as possible.  As many have said, MU was practically playing 4 on 5 on the offensive end when Blue was in the game during Big East play.   Why not roll with Buycks, DJO, Jimmy, Crowder and Gardner.  Ironically, once Buzz started playing DG more..MU got better down the stretch..

[brewcity77]

He was 1-9 for the game...

And you obviously don't remember that game, you look at a statline and think that's all there is to it. Go back to the conversations on this board. There were people saying Vander should be SOTG after his performance despite the woeful shooting, and the same people saying it were acknowledging his bad shooting. He was one of the driving forces behind us beating USF, along with Crowder.

And Ners, in those games when Gardner had good performances, Blue's were still better. And as I said, these poll results prove nothing. Was Grant Hill worthy of being an All-Star starter the year he didn't play a game? Allen Iverson? All the poll results show is that you're not the only person who's being myopic about the last month of the season.

Finally, you have provided nothing but more ifs, maybes, and shoulds. You rest your argument on what might have been. Well, it wasn't. Would have been, why not, none of that changes what actually happened.

[avid1010]

And you obviously don't remember that game

You are correct about that.

I also looked at roster and figured when MU only has one player (other than Gardner) over 6'6", and Otule was foul prone, Gardner becomes pretty valuable....if for nothing more than fouls and a few rebounds while Chris needed a rest or to preserve personal fouls.  I would have rather played the season without Vander than I would without Gardner. 

[ATL MU Warrior]

Brew - Here is a definite for you.  Starting with the Big East season through end of season: Gardner scored 8 more FG's on 25 less shots than Blue, shot 16% better from the Free Throw line, turned the ball over half as much, and did all of that well playing roughly 45% of the minutes of Blue.  Impact is measured in results - and the most tangible results are points, rebounds, steals, assists, turnovers.  Based on production, Buzz was wrong for having played Blue and Otule more minutes than Gardner - Gardner should have had at minimum 12-15 minutes every game, as he was clearly capable of playing 12-15 minutes evidenced by the many games he did play more than 12 minutes.  I believe Buzz's gut told him the team would be better defensively with Otule in the game, than Gardner - yet to have a Roland rating of -168 really points to the fact that the team performed its worst with Otule in games.
On another note, you are correct in stating that you were a Buycks supporter through and through.  As for Vander's minutes - I think it is making a HUGE assumption that his minutes were 100% merit based.  Keeping Vander happy, and not running the risk of him wanting to transfer, and the potential fallout that would have taken place in Wisconsin had Vander left MU after 1 year after Maymon's departure would have been a BIG negative for Buzz to have

What planet do you live on that you think the team played it's worst with Otule in the game.  That's so stupid it's beyond comprehension.

[NersEllenson]

What planet do you live on that you think the team played it's worst with Otule in the game.  That's so stupid it's beyond comprehension.

I guess the planet called actual game results...did you even bother to read what a Roland Rating is?  When Chris was in the games, combined with what happened when he was out of games points toward Otule bringing down MU's overall team performance - statistically speaking.  I'm not entirely sure I agree...but numbers don't often lie in sports, even if what we feel we see with our eyes tells us differently.

[CTWarrior]

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

+1

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