You are making up things again. I never said he was a streaky shooter. There is no such thing as a streaky shooter. I could explain that to you if you ever cared to learn something new.
What I have said is that when well defended. He is no kind of shooter at all.[/QUOTE]
What a dumb statement. He has been the focal point of Big 12 defenses all year. We have zero other guards that consistently hit from the outside (Neal barely sees the floor anymore) which makes it even more difficult to do what he has been doing. Pledger has hit big, contested shots his whole career. Did you watch the Kstate game on Saturday? Amazing what you will do to defend your early season predictions...
And I will bite, why can't a shooter be a streaky shooter....
K St is a fine example of what Pledger does well. St lois,Cincy, Missouri,Kansas, and on and on are examples of how ineffective he can be rendered. Sure, opposing defenses try to make Pledgers job hard. So what. Everyone has a hard job.
Pledger's job is to be the primary scorer. It certainly is not to play defense. It isn't to get the ball up court or anything else. There is only one thing he is capable of doing really well ,and that is his primary job, score. So, in trying to estimate Pledger's value to the team, the question is, how often can he do his job well even though it is hard. No one expects him to do his hard job well everytime.It would take a legit star to do that. My position is and continues to be that he deosn't do his hard job well often enough to warrent this cult like worship that he gets. Ecpecially considering the obvious fact that he is a liabiity in many other areas. That is my response and thank you for the considerate and respectful manner that you choose to disagree.
Now, the steak shooter question. I'm not at home so I can not access the book I neeed to cite the study. All I can do is report on the study.
A group of statistical economist conducted a 3 yr study of NBA players. The purpose of the study was either to prove or disprove the existence of the phenominam know as streak shooters.
The premise was that if streak shooters existed, then their shooting pct. relative to their season shooting pct would go up if the preceeding shot was a make. In other words for example's sake. Let's say we a player that is a 39% 3 pt shooter over the course of an entire season. If this player were a streak shooter, he would
make shots the that he took following a make at a slightly higher pct. than 39%. And the after 2 makes, all of his attempts would result in makes at a slightly higher pct. And on and on until the strak was broken. That is to say that a streak shooters previous make or makes increased the likelyhood of the next shot going in.But, that is not what the study found.
In the case of the 39% shooter, he would make shots following a make at the same 39% clip. After 2 makes, he would make all of those shots at the same 39% clip. An so on and so on. Nothing that happened in any preceeding sequence of shots ever had any impact on the success rate of the following group of shots.
If one were to toss a coin a 1000 times and record the results. There would probably be clumps of heads and tails scattered thru out the results. That is just randomness. It does not define the coin as streaky.