[Cracked Sidewalks] 2011 Net Points Contributions

[CrackedSidewalksSays]

2011 Net Points Contributions

Written by: noreply@blogger.com (Rob Lowe)

To help out with the summer doldrums, here is one way of looking at the relative contributions of each player on the team during 2010-2011.  We'll start with the initial breakdown and then go through additional details.

2011 Net Points Contributions




Net points is one way of looking at the contributions of each player on the team.  It is based on the idea that over the course of the season, a team wins by a number of points, and the credit for those points can be divided up among individual players.  In other words, it allows a way to determine which players were most responsible for MU's total margin of victory.  Note that this is a full-season view and not game by game (that would have been a lot more work).

The first three names on the list are not a surprise.  Nor is it a surprise that they comprise a significant percentage of the net points.  There is a common theory that the majority of a team's positive contributions come from 2-3 players.

It's also not a surprise that some players are negative.  What does it mean to be negative?  It means that, over the course of the season, their contributions on the court were an impediment to the winning margin.  Keep in mind that being considered a "net-negative" player does not mean that player is bad; just that other players were more responsible for success.  Not every player is a net positive contributor.  What is a surprise is some of the players that showed up as negative.  More on that in a bit.

Finally, net points are clearly an approximation.  Net points is just one way of trying to consider the impacts of each player.  If you're not comfortable with that, then stop reading now.  There are other ways to calculate a player's net value, or you may just prefer to avoid stats altogether.  Also, net points are not really helpful without some context, such as....

Usage and Net Points




This chart re-orders net points based on overall usage.  It helps highlight some of that additional context.   For example, Robert Frozena was about net-neutral, but his usage was effectively zero.  Jamail Jones and Reggie Smith were both not very effective in limited usage.

Davante Gardner and Joe Fulce were both net-positive players, but role players.  Joe was obviously limited by injuries and Gardner was limited by conditioning and/or defense.  There is also the question of the net-negative impact of players that had a higher usage, such as Buycks, Blue, Cadougan, and Otule.  Also, Butler was phenomenally productive in limited usage.

Offensive Rating and Net Points



Besides usage, Offensive Rating also helps highlight why some players are net positive or net negative.  Fulce and Gardner have great offensive ratings, which explains the net positive contributions in limited usage.  The offensive rating demonstrates the difference between Crowder's net points contributions in 14% usage vs DJO's net points contributions in 19% usage.

This also helps demonstrate why Cadougan and Blue show up as net-negative contributors.  Simply put, their offensive efficiencies were poor... well below the team average.  However, this chart does not explain why Cadougan has a higher offensive rating but a worse net points contribution than Vander.  To understand that, one needs to look at defensive rating.

Defensive Rating and Net Points




Defensive Rating is difficult to calculate. Most don't even bother, primarily because it's really just an approximation.  The box scores don't show the value of a player who limits their man from getting the ball.  They also do not show the times when a player guards an opponent and forces a missed shot.  What Defensive Rating does do is take the team's defensive efficiency and then adjusts for defensive stats such as steals, blocks, and defensive rebounds.  Personally, I don't mind doing the defensive rating because it helps fill in more of the picture, but one needs to be aware of the shortcomings.

In this view, Vander's defense is better than Cadougan's, and Otule's defense is better than Gardner's.  Both concepts pass the conventional wisdom test.  Vander is probably understated in his defensive rating, but his defense would need to be a rating of 86 to move to the net positive category.   (correspondingly, Gardner's defensive rating would need to be 128 for him to move to a net-negative contributor).  Crowder gets credit for defensive rebounds but not defensive positioning.  His rating is probably overstated a bit.

Summary




In conclusion, here's the entire collection put together in a summary, and sorted based on net points.  As previously stated, it's just one way of looking at the relative contributions, and shouldn't be taken as gospel.  Chances are, most people will cherry pick the data that reinforces their existing beliefs anyway.  If they've read this far, that is.

However, I largely think this summary passes the red faced test.  There is probably not much disputing the top three names on the list.   Usage helps explain some of the middle names, and offensive rating provides much of the additional context.  Where the complaints may come in is due to the defensive ratings and how those are sorted, and then implications on players that are rated as net-negative.  Yet, not every player can be a net-positive player.  If that were the case, MU would have lost far fewer than fifteen games last year.

Moving on from this set of numbers, the real question is how well players are going to continue to grow this upcoming year.  Who will fill JFB's void?  How much with Junior and Vander improve?  To what extent will DJO and Crowder improve their efficiency and usage, respectively?  Can Gardner move from a solid role player to a more featured member?  All questions we're looking forward to getting answered.

http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2011/08/2011-net-points-contributions.html

[mu_hilltopper]

Henry  .. does a net point negative value mean a player playing less would lead to more wins (if replaced by a player that had a better value..)???

[ATL MU Warrior]

Thanks for this very detailed analysis.  Interesting for me to look at in a way that I normally wouldn't. 

First thing that jumps out at me are the defensive ratings...which seem to confirm the oft-stated complaint that our starting guards didn't play defense worth a damn last year.  In my view this was the overwhelming reason for our poor team defense.  If you can't contain the other team's perimeter players there are so many ways they can break down the defense. 

Since Vander was our best defensive guard and Otule our best defensive big guy, I guess that explains why each got the minutes they did. 

[Henry Sugar]

Henry  .. does a net point negative value mean a player playing less would lead to more wins (if replaced by a player that had a better value..)???

Honestly, it's hard to say.

Point #1 - players tend to get more efficient with less time and less efficient with more time. i.e. - the more I shoot the less likely the ball goes in.

Point #2 - compared to what?  What if Cadougan got less minutes in favor of Buycks?  or Blue less minutes in favor of Buycks or DJO?  See point #1.

Point #3 - this isn't really a "Wins Produced / Wins Credit / Wins Shared" type analysis.  That could be done too.

As far as last year's minutes, really the only quibble I have is that Gardner should have been given more possessions.  Butler was what he was.  DJO already shot a bit too much.  Jae had foul issues.  Fulce had knee issues.  After that, it's really just swapping out different net-negative players.

[NersEllenson]

Thanks for this very detailed analysis.  Interesting for me to look at in a way that I normally wouldn't. 

First thing that jumps out at me are the defensive ratings...which seem to confirm the oft-stated complaint that our starting guards didn't play defense worth a damn last year.  In my view this was the overwhelming reason for our poor team defense.  If you can't contain the other team's perimeter players there are so many ways they can break down the defense. 

Since Vander was our best defensive guard and Otule our best defensive big guy, I guess that explains why each got the minutes they did. 

Which was exactly Buzz's biggest mistake last year in that the significant negatives Otule and Vander brought to the offensive end were not offset by their defensive prowess...as best as we can tell.

[ATL MU Warrior]

Which was exactly Buzz's biggest mistake last year in that the significant negatives Otule and Vander brought to the offensive end were not offset by their defensive prowess...as best as we can tell.

Not everything that happens in a basketball game is captured neatly in a statistic you know. 

[NersEllenson]

Not everything that happens in a basketball game is captured neatly in a statistic you know. 

I'm fully aware of that ATL - but when the statistics are so blatantly skewed in one guys favor, to ignore the validity is naive at best.

[Lennys Tap]

Not everything that happens in a basketball game is captured neatly in a statistic you know. 

True, but unless you have a plausible explaination for why the stats didn't agree with what you think you saw you have to accept at least the possibility that you were mistaken. I wasn't surprised by Vander's poor numbers but was somewhat shocked that Junior's were worse. Guess his late in the season successes caused me to forget his earlier struggles.

[ATL MU Warrior]

I'm fully aware of that ATL - but when the statistics are so blatantly skewed in one guys favor, to ignore the validity is naive at best.

Wow.  Not just skewed but BLATANTLY skewed?  That's a laugh.

But, let's go down the path and do a hypothetical "What if" and look at what would have happened had you received your wish and Gardner and Otule's roles been reversed last season:

- The probable increase in Gardner's minutes would likely have been marginal.  Why?  Conditioning and because he would have been sitting on the bench due to foul trouble.  He can't defend due to being slow of foot so he picks up fouls on the defensive end.  He's also a charge/offensive foul waiting to happen when he tries to back his defender down or when he hooks the defender with his elbow which he does nearly every time he tries to spin past him.  He got away with this little move more than he should have...it's pretty obvious (at least on TV).  

- Our team defense, which was pretty dismal to begin with, would likely have been worse.  Why?  No defensive presence in the lane.  If Otule is not in the lane when our guards (none of which except Vander can play defense according to your beloved stats -- which is also abundantly obvious if you watch the game) let their guy blow right by them, it's a layup drill.  Or worse, if somebody else collapses into the lane to stop the penetration, they leave their guy wide open for an uncontested layup or a 3.  We have seen this far far too often over the last few years but it would likely be worse without Otule in there.

- Gardner's offensive efficiency would have declined over the course of the season.  Why?  As Sugar said, more time/usage leads to lower efficiency.  Also, the more time he plays , the more opposing teams can scout him and gameplan for him.  One of the reasons he was so effective last season is because nobody had any idea of who he was.  I would not be surprised in the least if he really struggles offensively this season as teams now know him and what his tendencies are.  The refs will also be more familiar with him as well.  If he has developed a jumper out to about 15 feet, that obviously changes things a little bit.  

This all sounds like I am very down on Gardner.  I am not, I think he's very skilled and brings a lot to the team.  He is not, however, some panacea at the 5 and he's not shown anything to me to indicate that he should start or get the majority of the minutes there.  

[ATL MU Warrior]

True, but unless you have a plausible explaination for why the stats didn't agree with what you think you saw you have to accept at least the possibility that you were mistaken. I wasn't surprised by Vander's poor numbers but was somewhat shocked that Junior's were worse. Guess his late in the season successes caused me to forget his earlier struggles.

It's not that the stats don't agree with what I saw.  It's that the stats don't capture all the ways in which a player impacts a game. Not even close. 

[NersEllenson]

Wow.  Not just skewed but BLATANTLY skewed?  That's a laugh.

But, let's go down the path and do a hypothetical "What if" and look at what would have happened had you received your wish and Gardner and Otule's roles been reversed last season:

- The probable increase in Gardner's minutes would likely have been marginal.  Why?  Conditioning and because he would have been sitting on the bench due to foul trouble.  He can't defend due to being slow of foot so he picks up fouls on the defensive end.  He's also a charge/offensive foul waiting to happen when he tries to back his defender down or when he hooks the defender with his elbow which he does nearly every time he tries to spin past him.  He got away with this little move more than he should have...it's pretty obvious (at least on TV).  

- Our team defense, which was pretty dismal to begin with, would likely have been worse.  Why?  No defensive presence in the lane.  If Otule is not in the lane when our guards (none of which except Vander can play defense according to your beloved stats -- which is also abundantly obvious if you watch the game) let their guy blow right by them, it's a layup drill.  Or worse, if somebody else collapses into the lane to stop the penetration, they leave their guy wide open for an uncontested layup or a 3.  We have seen this far far too often over the last few years but it would likely be worse without Otule in there.

- Gardner's offensive efficiency would have declined over the course of the season.  Why?  As Sugar said, more time/usage leads to lower efficiency.  Also, the more time he plays , the more opposing teams can scout him and gameplan for him.  One of the reasons he was so effective last season is because nobody had any idea of who he was.  I would not be surprised in the least if he really struggles offensively this season as teams now know him and what his tendencies are.  The refs will also be more familiar with him as well.  If he has developed a jumper out to about 15 feet, that obviously changes things a little bit.  

This all sounds like I am very down on Gardner.  I am not, I think he's very skilled and brings a lot to the team.  He is not, however, some panacea at the 5 and he's not shown anything to me to indicate that he should start or get the majority of the minutes there.  

Here's a comparison between Otule and Gardner.  They foul at practically the same rate, turn the ball over at the same rate.  Otule gets a 1 block per game benefit over Gardner.  You have to double all of Gardner's numbers due to him getting 50% of the minutes of Chris.  Gardner averages 20 points per 40 mintues, Otule 11.  So, if 1 blocked shot more can somehow offset the 9 point per 40 minutes played benefit Gardner gives the team..then your Otule argument can stand.  Gardner gets to the FT line with far greater frequency, shoots a better FT %, and shots a higher percentage from the Field.  Gardner rebounds the ball at a slightly better rate than Otule per minute played.   

Gardner got 15 games last season of more than 10 minutes.  For those 15 games he averaged 13.8 minutes.  He scored 137 points in those games - which translated into 9.1ppg.  His performance didn't suffer due to stamina issues, he produced more, the more minutes he was given. Granted, he couldn't go for 35 minutes a game...but there was no reason he shouldn't have been utilized 15 minutes every game he was physically able to play in.

So all of your above points are practically irrelevant.  Gardner didn't get called for charges as you say - he got away with them...but guess what..he doesn't foul with any greater frequency than Otule.

And FYI - Gardner's offensive efficiency remained largely the same over the entire season - some of his best games came in the last half of the season.  To say teams had no idea who he was after he played very well against both Duke and Wisconsin, is naive in this day and age of scouting. 

But this whole debate wasn't about Otule and Gardner, but rather Blue and Gardner...but upon closer examination it really revealed DG should have gotten Otule's minutes, and Otule gotten Gardner's minutes.

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

[brewcity77]

Here's a comparison between Otule and Gardner.  They foul at practically the same rate, turn the ball over at the same rate.  Otule gets a 1 block per game benefit over Gardner.  You have to double all of Gardner's numbers due to him getting 50% of the minutes of Chris.  Gardner averages 20 points per 40 mintues, Otule 11.  So, if 1 blocked shot more can somehow offset the 9 point per 40 minutes played benefit Gardner gives the team..then your Otule argument can stand.  Gardner gets to the FT line with far greater frequency, shoots a better FT %, and shots a higher percentage from the Field.  Gardner rebounds the ball at a slightly better rate than Otule per minute played.

For starters, you have to throw that "double all of Gardner's numbers" crap out the window. That's the kind of mindset that got Jim McIlvaine signed to one of the most ludicrous contracts in NBA history. Seattle's thought process was "If he can average 2.1 blocks in 14.9 minutes, he'll average at least 5 blocks a game when we give him 35 minutes!" But he couldn't handle those kind of minutes, and when his minutes went up, his block numbers went down. I love Jimmy Mac, but anyone who knows anything about sports stats knows that trying to use a simple extrapolation of "If I give this guy more minutes/at bats/carries/shifts..." very rarely actually works in practice.

If it were as easy as you assert, then why didn't Buzz play Gardner more? Why didn't he play him 20+ minutes per game? Why didn't he play him 15 minutes per game? Did you ever once stop to think that maybe Buzz actually did know what he was doing? First of all, Gardner was injured for much of the season, which limited him. Second, some games I imagine Buzz knew he couldn't go that many minutes because the pace was too fast for him. And third, defense was more important to Buzz. We got points from DJO. We got points from Butler. We got points from Crowder. For much of the season, we were even getting points from Buycks and Blue. We didn't need to get points from the center position. We needed some defense. I don't think you even remotely understand how important Chris Otule's presence was to us on defense. When you have someone who is always a threat to block shots, he doesn't just nullify opponents by the shots he blocks, but also by the shots he alters. How many shots were missed because he was there to force a guy to change his angle to avoid the block, or because a guy had to shoot earlier than he wanted because he knew he couldn't get away with penetration?

Gardner didn't bring that. He was a virtual non-factor on help defense, which was Otule's biggest strength. He didn't have enough speed to adjust to the driving players and doesn't have the length and hops to be the shot-blocker CO is. And at the end of the day, we didn't need him to score. We were what, the second highest scoring team in the Big East? Points weren't the problem, it was defense.

Okay, to put into perspective what you are trying to say, consider this. You seem to like these "per 40 minutes" stats. Well, Chris Otule averaged 3.4 blocks per 40 minutes. Gardner averaged 0.7 blocks per 40 minutes. So per 40 minutes, that's 2.7 blocks more for Otule, which would equate to 5.4 points, not including the free throws that might have been earned or any threes that might have been taken. So without factoring in adjusted shots, Otule has already more than cut that point difference in half with his defense. Do you think that maybe Otule was able to adjust 2-3 shots per game that he didn't actually swat? I'd bet it's more than that, and if he did, that more than offsets the offensive point difference.

In addition, I think it's important to also look at how good Otule got at playing with fouls. The first time he fouled out was in probably his worst game of the year, the loss at Notre Dame. After that, Otule played brilliantly with fouls. He averaged 22 minutes per game and didn't foul out again until the NCAA tournament against Xavier. Suffice to say, if a guy has to foul out to help us get a win in the tourney, I'll take it. He fouled out again against Syracuse, but that was with 5 seconds left. Getting us to the Sweet 16, again, I'll take the foul out. Otule is a very good defender and as the season went on got more and more valuable to us. His defense more than offsets the offense DG provides, and that's the reason that CO will hopefully be seeing 22-25 mpg next year.

Listen, I hope to see Gardner's role increase, and I think he'll be good going forward, but right now hoping for 15-18 minutes is probably the best we can expect. Watching Gardner, even with his slimmed down physique, there's still plays he has to take off (literally...I've watched him chill for 2-3 consecutive defensive possessions under his offensive hoop to catch his breath) and I'd guess that he probably won't be good for more than 2 minutes at a time most of the year. I just hope he can start providing some help defense, if so, we'll really have a 2-headed monster to contend with at center.

[Lennys Tap]

It's not that the stats don't agree with what I saw.  It's that the stats don't capture all the ways in which a player impacts a game. Not even close. 

I agree except for the not even close part.

[NersEllenson]

Brew - pretty big assumptions to assume all blocked shots were going in, as well as the alters.  And I gave the stats for the games Gardner did get double digit minutes - and he produced 9.1ppg where got more than 10 minutes..of those 15 games, in 7 he got over 15, with a high water mark of 18 minutes.  So the 9.1ppg is a concrete figure...no ifs, and, buts about it.  Buzz should have given him more minutes last year.  Period.

I do agree that Otule definitely does give you a better back line presence and would alter more shots than Gardner, hands down no argument.  Yet oddly enough the team had a bigger + scoring differential with Otule on the bench - which suggests that the gains made by the offense with Chris on the bench exceeded the gains made by the team defensively with Chris in the game.  His -168 Roland Rating is concrete evidence of this fact.  I would say that in your above post to say that for much of the season we were getting points from Blue is a big reach.  Believe he made 18 baskets in the last 22 games of the season total.

[tower912]

Gardner earned his playing time on the defensive end.    Many of his 3 minute games were due to the fact that he came in and simply could not guard even to the standards of last year's team.    It was immediately evident and he never went back in.    I anticipate this will not be the case next year.   

[brewcity77]

Brew - pretty big assumptions to assume all blocked shots were going in, as well as the alters.  And I gave the stats for the games Gardner did get double digit minutes - and he produced 9.1ppg where got more than 10 minutes..of those 15 games, in 7 he got over 15, with a high water mark of 18 minutes.  So the 9.1ppg is a concrete figure...no ifs, and, buts about it.  Buzz should have given him more minutes last year.  Period.

I do agree that Otule definitely does give you a better back line presence and would alter more shots than Gardner, hands down no argument.  Yet oddly enough the team had a bigger + scoring differential with Otule on the bench - which suggests that the gains made by the offense with Chris on the bench exceeded the gains made by the team defensively with Chris in the game.  His -168 Roland Rating is concrete evidence of this fact.  I would say that in your above post to say that for much of the season we were getting points from Blue is a big reach.  Believe he made 18 baskets in the last 22 games of the season total.

Okay, I really think this is the salient part: did you ever once stop to think Buzz might actually know what he was doing?

In many games, Gardner simply didn't have the speed to keep up or he was exposed as soon as he came in on defense. Buzz said constantly that defense was the driving factor behind guys playing. Gardner had some good offensive games, but his defense stunk. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. I trust Buzz knew what he was doing and when DG didn't play, it was either because he wasn't fit enough (he was injured), he wasn't fast enough, or he wasn't able enough on the defensive end.

As far as assumptions, they are no bigger than your assumption that Gardner's production would have stayed the same if he was getting those minutes every game. If he was being played for matchups, maybe he got big minutes in games where Buzz knew he could take advantage, and he wasn't getting minutes in games where Buzz knew he wouldn't be as effective. Again, did you ever once stop to think Buzz might actually know what he was doing?

Finally, you can throw out that Roland Rating in our discussions. I saw the numbers you put up, and as far as I'm concerned, it's garbage. The only thing it got right was that JFB was our best player last year. Past that, it didn't have anything right. Useless stat that isn't worth the toilet paper it's printed on.

[bilsu]

Which was exactly Buzz's biggest mistake last year in that the significant negatives Otule and Vander brought to the offensive end were not offset by their defensive prowess...as best as we can tell.

There are two things wrong with this view. First of all, you have to develop young players. Second of all, the starters generally become less effective the more minutes they play. Why Vander's numbers may not be that great, they still might of been better than the starter he replaced, because the starter would  not be getting the needed rest. My complaints about Blue has to do with him taking bad shots. There are plently of players that cannot shoot. As long as they play within their abilities and do not try to do too much, I do not have a problem with them. I suspect that, if Vander elimiated two bad shots a game his negative number would have been greatly decreased.

[ATL MU Warrior]

Ners, you are hysterical. 

In one post you make a grand assumption that you should double ALL of Gardner's offensive stats because he's going to play twice as many minutes.  In another post you criticize Brew for making the assumption that all of Otule's blocks erase points scored by the opposition. 

I guess the assumptions are ok if they advance your argument, heh? 

[Henry Sugar]

Okay, I really think this is the salient part: did you ever once stop to think Buzz might actually know what he was doing?

In many games, Gardner simply didn't have the speed to keep up or he was exposed as soon as he came in on defense. Buzz said constantly that defense was the driving factor behind guys playing. Gardner had some good offensive games, but his defense stunk. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. I trust Buzz knew what he was doing and when DG didn't play, it was either because he wasn't fit enough (he was injured), he wasn't fast enough, or he wasn't able enough on the defensive end.

When it comes to defense, I question often if Buzz knows what he's doing.

[NersEllenson]

Ners, you are hysterical. 

In one post you make a grand assumption that you should double ALL of Gardner's offensive stats because he's going to play twice as many minutes.  In another post you criticize Brew for making the assumption that all of Otule's blocks erase points scored by the opposition. 

I guess the assumptions are ok if they advance your argument, heh? 

WTF are you talking about??  I back my points up with raw data.  Broke down the games Gardner got more than 10 minutes per game and in those 15 games (a relevant sample size) he was good for 9.1 ppg, which was roughly has 2x his ppg season average (4.6).  Furthermore in those 15 games he averaged just 13.8 minutes which is NOT 2x his actuals season minutes average of 8.97 minutes per game.  There's nothing assumptive about what I'm advancing my arugment with.

What is laughable is your continued snide remarks at my posts, and continued remarks that Vander's defense and Otule's defense were so great that they had a bigger impact on games than Gardner, yet have NO data to back up your claims - and quite a bit of evidence that suggests otherwise.

Why don't you rebut my arguments with some facts, but until then keep your smart ass remarks to yourself.  I've been pretty patient with you and your last 5-8 snide posts...but enough is enough. 

[ATL MU Warrior]

WTF are you talking about??  I back my points up with raw data.  Broke down the games Gardner got more than 10 minutes per game and in those 15 games (a relevant sample size) he was good for 9.1 ppg, which was roughly has 2x his ppg season average (4.6).  Furthermore in those 15 games he averaged just 13.8 minutes which is NOT 2x his actuals season minutes average of 8.97 minutes per game.  There's nothing assumptive about what I'm advancing my arugment with.

What is laughable is your continued snide remarks at my posts, and continued remarks that Vander's defense and Otule's defense were so great that they had a bigger impact on games than Gardner, yet have NO data to back up your claims - and quite a bit of evidence that suggests otherwise.

Why don't you rebut my arguments with some facts, but until then keep your smart ass remarks to yourself.  I've been pretty patient with you and your last 5-8 snide posts...but enough is enough. 

Maybe I misunderstood this:

Here's a comparison between Otule and Gardner.  They foul at practically the same rate, turn the ball over at the same rate.  Otule gets a 1 block per game benefit over Gardner.  You have to double all of Gardner's numbers due to him getting 50% of the minutes of Chris.

Enlighten me where I went wrong.

Oh, and by the way, what you are doing is anything but factual.  You are playing make believe.   IF Gardner got more minutes.  Guess what, he didn't so anything you follow up with after that is 100% conjecture and make believe.

[brewcity77]

Oh, and by the way, what you are doing is anything but factual.  You are playing make believe.   IF Gardner got more minutes.  Guess what, he didn't so anything you follow up with after that is 100% conjecture and make believe.

That's my biggest issue with this. Ners' entire argument is based on "What if?" scenarios. What if Gardner had got as many minutes as Blue did? What if Gardner had starter minutes and Otule had backup minutes? Those aren't facts, those are assumptions.

Further, there's the assumption that Gardner would have produced the same in all types of games and against all types of opponents. That's where I trust the coach. I'm going to guess that the guy who Ners usually seems to have unwavering faith in has a better idea of when Gardner would and wouldn't be effective. Maybe the reason he was effective in those games when he got more minutes was because they suited his style of play. Is it coincidence that Gardner's season high in minutes (18) came against the team with the second-slowest tempo in all of D1?

As far as Buzz's defense...while there's room for improvement, we were also dealing with a unit last year that had little experience together. Otule, Crowder, Blue, and Buycks were all forced into much larger roles (or completely new roles). Hopefully with another year together and further defensive commitment from guys like Otule, DJO, and Gardner, we'll see improvement.

[NersEllenson]

Maybe I misunderstood this:Enlighten me where I went wrong.

Oh, and by the way, what you are doing is anything but factual.  You are playing make believe.   IF Gardner got more minutes.  Guess what, he didn't so anything you follow up with after that is 100% conjecture and make believe.

It is pointless - you splice the rest of my post to exclude everything you just called me out for (all of the data supporting the fact that when given more than 10 minutes a game..Gardner doubles his season scoring average from 4.5 to 9.1 in the 15 game sample set)  There is no assumption or what if or make believe in my data - give Gardner minutes and he produces at a rate far better than Otule or Blue.  End of Story.  Go find me some facts that support your argument that the team performed so much better with Blue and Otule on the floor instead of Gardner.  Good luck.

It is absolutely amazing you went to Marquette and are really trying to make the argument that Blue and Otule were more productive than Gardner...why don't you go back and read the first post in this thread and look at every single graph included in it...how much evidence do you need?  The only one playing make believe here is you - as there is no raw data, evidence or stats that support your position.

[NersEllenson]

That's my biggest issue with this. Ners' entire argument is based on "What if?" scenarios. What if Gardner had got as many minutes as Blue did? What if Gardner had starter minutes and Otule had backup minutes? Those aren't facts, those are assumptions.

Further, there's the assumption that Gardner would have produced the same in all types of games and against all types of opponents. That's where I trust the coach. I'm going to guess that the guy who Ners usually seems to have unwavering faith in has a better idea of when Gardner would and wouldn't be effective. Maybe the reason he was effective in those games when he got more minutes was because they suited his style of play. Is it coincidence that Gardner's season high in minutes (18) came against the team with the second-slowest tempo in all of D1?

As far as Buzz's defense...while there's room for improvement, we were also dealing with a unit last year that had little experience together. Otule, Crowder, Blue, and Buycks were all forced into much larger roles (or completely new roles). Hopefully with another year together and further defensive commitment from guys like Otule, DJO, and Gardner, we'll see improvement.

What if Vander shot the ball better than 25% from the field in Big East play?  What if Vander turned the ball over half as much as he did?  What if Vander shot better than 60% from the Free Throw line?  Here's an answer - he would have made a much better impact on the 2010-2011 team.

How am I playing what if when I isolate the 15 games Gardner got more than 10 minutes, and in those games his points per game average doubled to 9.1 from his season average of 4.6?  Yet in those 15 games of double digit minutes, he only averaged 13.7 minutes per game - not 2x his season average of 8.9 minutes...and still not close to Blue's or Otule's average minutes per game.  15 is a relevant sample size in a 33 game sample set of games Gardner got minutes...

[MUBurrow]

\How am I playing what if when I isolate the 15 games Gardner got more than 10 minutes, and in those games his points per game average doubled to 9.1 from his season average of 4.6?  Yet in those 15 games of double digit minutes, he only averaged 13.7 minutes per game - not 2x his season average of 8.9 minutes...and still not close to Blue's or Otule's average minutes per game.  15 is a relevant sample size in a 33 game sample set of games Gardner got minutes...

Which games were those 15/I'll do the work myself but just don't know where to find it. I'm not trying to jump in, I'm just legitimately curious.