Thanks. That's what I thought.
He isn't playing because he isn't good. Not the other way around.
If Allen can't shoot over 33% against the end of bench players of other teams, I'm sure he won't be shooting over 37% on threes out of necessity. And like I said, Korver is the clear better shooter at the moment. But what about three years from now? Will he still be in this league? And don't act like we only need Korver/Klay level shooters. This is a team that has to give Ricky Rubio over 4 attempts from threes every night. Do you know how many easy wide open threes we blew this year?
Do you know what sample size is?
If he played well against the end of bench players on other teams, I'd call it a small sample size. But he has performed underwhelmingly. It's like a math test. It usually takes multiple evaluations to see where you at. But if you can't even pass the entry level, you're done.
lol wut?
that's why he was done. In fact he was out of league for several months till a under-manned Nets picked him up, and he got better in time. It's like 99% of the players were out of the league that way and Dinwiddie was that 1% who got back from it. It's like calling math tests and college useless simply because Bill Gates dropped out of college. So I'm not sure the same thing can be said about Allen, who is also 2 full yrs older than Dinwiddie when he came in.
Grayson Allen needs get better and I think thats nuff said. Saying stuff like small sample size is just making excuses at this point. Spencer Dinwiddie was out of the league. And he will be out of the league if he doesn't play better. Spencer Dinwiddie got his second chance and I'm not sure if Grayson will.
Small sample size is a fact. Its not an excuse.
