[PaintTouches]The truth about Vander Blue's complete game

[GGGG]

Maybe the title is worded incorrectly then, but nowhere in the article did I say he was flawless. Rather, he has many positives for a player 16 games into his sophomore season and that outside of shooting and below average turnover rates (yes, both important facets of anyone's game) he does everything else fairly well.

Of course my story was pro-Blue and I focused on his positives (I did mention his weaker areas) but it was needed to balance out the constant bashing he receives on boards from fans who don't understand the game. Case in point would be high five-gate.

Hah.  I agree with the article...and until you mentioned it didn't put together that you wrote it.  Does the Tribune use copy editors for the headlines?  Or are you responsible for that?

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Before last year, the Buzz offense was never worse than the eleventh best team in the country at protecting the ball.

UNO - #11, 2009 - #11, 2010 - #7

Quite the opposite... I am used to Marquette not turning over the ball.

You're right. I can't argue with the stats.

I guess when I watch the game, I see guys doing anything they can to get into the lane (paint touches) using the dribble.

With that strategy, you are going to create a lot of contact and fouls on the other team (which we have seen), but you are also going going to turn the ball over/get blocked. (it's like strikeouts/homeruns)

09 10 might be the outliers, but obviously we need some more years of data.

[strotty]

Hah.  I agree with the article...and until you mentioned it didn't put together that you wrote it.  Does the Tribune use copy editors for the headlines?  Or are you responsible for that?

On the blog, it's me. And not as an excuse, but I write most of my stuff late at night and the title is the last thing to go up. I don't know. There's something about Blue's game as a whole that I think is outstanding. An NBA scout at the Vanderbilt game was talking pre-game and said if Blue entered the draft right now, he'd be a fringe guy (late second round to undrafted). His athleticism is off the charts. Just ask Abdul Gaddy. If he can hit a jumper with any consistency or Buzz turns him into a true point, he's really going to do some damage in the next two years.

[Benny B]

It depends on how you define "complete."

Steve Novak was one of the best 3-pt shooters in NCAA history and lights out at the line... for a 6-10 guy, does that make him a "complete" player?  Considering he didn't do a lot of the things that a 6-10 guy should do well (rebound, penetrate, post-up, etc.), one could certainly argue that he was more of a 2 in a 4's body than he was a complete player. But he was the glue guy for a few teams that didn't have a true center - just like Jimmy and Lazar - and helped lead the team to a few tournament appearances & wins.

I don't think anyone would argue that Jimmy and Lazar weren't complete players, so why not Steve?  To me, a complete player is someone who can play multiple positions, roles, etc., depending upon the need of the team and the opponent (a "switchable" in Buzz-words).  You don't have to be money from downtown, a beast on the boards, a disher or a steal machine... you simply have to be able to fill different roles on different nights.  Blue is that kind of guy, he might not be there just yet, but he is in the same category of broad talent as the aforementioned.

Some people are going to define a complete player as someone who is a league leader in every category, some will say that you can't be a complete player if any part of your game has a weakness.  Maybe someone will claim that if you can't make it in the NBA, you're not a complete player.  Too much emphasis is placed on PPG.... it's the sexy stat that objectively quantifies a person's contribution to the final score.  But to focus on that one stat alone would be tantamount to saying "you could have put four high school players on the Bulls with Michael Jordan, and they still would have at least three-peated."  Vander may not put up 20 PPG, but his contributions on the floor are indirectly responsible for at least that much, probably more. (Seussification not intended)

Bottom line is that the article is dead on when you look at Blue from the perspective that despite a perception of underachievement, he does bring a certain dimension to the team that a role-player does not.  Even though his statline may not tell such a story every night, he is certainly doing his share on the floor to help the team to succeed.  Is he a complete player?  No, at least not as of 11:20a CT on 1/11/12... but he's probably the most complete of anyone on the current roster.

[GGGG]

Novak isn't a complete player because he really can't defend or rebound.  The only reason he made the NBA is because he does one thing...very, very well.  And even then, he's been on the margins his entire career.  And you don't have to be a complete player to make an NBA roster.  There are all sorts of defensive specialists and the like that earn paychecks.

To me, a "complete player" is someone that does pretty much everything.  (Lazar and JFB are great examples...I can't think of one thing they did poorly at MU.)  

Kind of like a "5 tool player" in baseball.  Just because you lack multiple tools that doesn't mean you can't make a living focusing on one or two tools and doing it very well.  (left handed relief pitchers for example)

[MUMac]

Novak isn't a complete player because he really can't defend or rebound.  The only reason he made the NBA is because he does one thing...very, very well.  And even then, he's been on the margins his entire career.  And you don't have to be a complete player to make an NBA roster.  There are all sorts of defensive specialists and the like that earn paychecks.

To me, a "complete player" is someone that does pretty much everything.  (Lazar and JFB are great examples...I can't think of one thing they did poorly at MU.)  

Kind of like a "5 tool player" in baseball.  Just because you lack multiple tools that doesn't mean you can't make a living focusing on one or two tools and doing it very well.  (left handed relief pitchers for example)

Agree with your comments.

It's interesting, I did not see the comments about "complete game" until now.  When I read the article, I took the title to mean the truth about all of Blue's game.  Not that he had a complete game - but trying to tie in his overall game as the full comparison, not sticking to the weaknesses as the definition of his play.  At no time did I think the intention was to argue he was a complete player. 

[jesmu84]

Before last year, the Buzz offense was never worse than the eleventh best team in the country at protecting the ball.

UNO - #11, 2009 - #11, 2010 - #7

Quite the opposite... I am used to Marquette not turning over the ball.

any particular reason behind this change? are the current MU players worse at protecting the ball? or is it some sort of change in offensive philosophy/strategy?

[goan]

Vander Blue will be a complete player by junior/senior year. He is only a sophomore and has a lot on his plate. School, practice, studies etc etc. He is already showing signs of his potential. Let us see him grow as a person and a student.

[Henry Sugar]

any particular reason behind this change? are the current MU players worse at protecting the ball? or is it some sort of change in offensive philosophy/strategy?

Good question, and the simple answer is I don't know.  Buzz has seemed to adapt his offensive approach every single year (notably in 2009-2010), but I am not certain if it's a change in strategy that is resulting in more turnovers.

And it's not as if MU is terrible at protecting the ball the last two years (#62 and #60 / 18%).  It's just that the team isn't exceptional.

It certainly doesn't help that the last few years have featured Junior (26%), Vander (22%), and Buycks (26%).  Most of the top guys are really solid at protecting the ball.  I'll chew on it a bit more and maybe get a CS post out of it.

[MerrittsMustache]

On the blog, it's me. And not as an excuse, but I write most of my stuff late at night and the title is the last thing to go up. I don't know. There's something about Blue's game as a whole that I think is outstanding. An NBA scout at the Vanderbilt game was talking pre-game and said if Blue entered the draft right now, he'd be a fringe guy (late second round to undrafted). His athleticism is off the charts. Just ask Abdul Gaddy. If he can hit a jumper with any consistency or Buzz turns him into a true point, he's really going to do some damage in the next two years.

How about both? 

[jesmu84]

Good question, and the simple answer is I don't know.  Buzz has seemed to adapt his offensive approach every single year (notably in 2009-2010), but I am not certain if it's a change in strategy that is resulting in more turnovers.

And it's not as if MU is terrible at protecting the ball the last two years (#62 and #60 / 18%).  It's just that the team isn't exceptional.

It certainly doesn't help that the last few years have featured Junior (26%), Vander (22%), and Buycks (26%).  Most of the top guys are really solid at protecting the ball.  I'll chew on it a bit more and maybe get a CS post out of it.

Thanks for the response. Looking forward to it.

[Dr. Blackheart]

True, albeit misleading.

Only 2 of those games were even marginally competitive (they split those) and only 1 was a conference game. The rest were VB putting up points in blow-outs.

I've been one of the Vander defenders on this board so I don't want to give the impression that I'm trying to knock him. I'm just pointing out that Vander's scoring isn't a major influence on winning or losing key games.

I also didn't want to rehash the obvious or already stated.  My point stands:  when Blue is feeling it (confident) on offense, MU wins.  More so, to your cupcake point, I added this below quote previously to indicate at times he is putting together spurts against higher level competition where he gets in a groove offensively.  Against Winthrop I was 10 yards from the kid...he runs all on mojo and just feeling it as seen in his beaming smile (vs. his moody non-high five).  And my other point is we are starting to see bits of this against high majors (WI, UW, 2nd half vs. Cuse).  Conversely, when he doesn't, MU struggles mightily, and Buzz scrambles to find an in-game answer.  If and when he becomes more consistent, MU will become more consistent in their wins.  The kid has weaknesses you can teach.  He has athleticism you cannot--and the NBA scouts know that.

To me, the good news is, in spurts, he is feeling it more against high major opponents. Still very inconsistent...but that is the story with underclassmen.  Lots of parts of his offensive game to work on.  He has talent to play point, but not the experience yet. You can see that in his approach as he initiates play not having a plan where he is going with the ball. Again, experience but a lot of pure talent there once he matures and understands what he can do best (and what he cannot).