luckyc1423
New member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 1,557
- Reaction score
- 0
WT, here is how the formula works. And you should know this. If a player can shoot 40% or more from 3, that player becomes a marginally positive asset. They are a marginally positive asset even if they can do absolutely nothing else and a total liability in every other area. Even in that case they deserve to be on the floor.
Proficiency in other areas would naturally increase the value of that asset. Based on Pledger's shooting accuracy as a junior, Kruger would naturally assume that he had a 40% shooter on his hands. If that was going to be the case, it would be perfectly logical for Kruger to accept Pledger's shortcomings and stick him out there. A marginal asset after all, is better than no asset.
Here is the problem. Getting 40% out of Pledger wasn't the norm or expectation. It was an aberration. A regression toward the mean was what his senior season was all about. My contention is that if Kruger had any way of knowing in advance what he going to get out of Pledger as a senior (which he didn't) he would have never inserted Pledger into the starting line up to start with. Anything less that 40% from a payer as deficient as Pledger turns him from a marginal asset into a marginal liability.
Kruger did have some other options. But, they were limited and they also came with some liabilities. I can't blame Kruger for making the choice that made based on the information that he had. But, in retrospect, I doubt that he would make the same choice again.
So your telling me by years end that kruger could not look at shooting percentages and bench pledger? Lol come on....You make adjustments as the season goes along....