I'll admit the guy who existed in the first post is a strawman (especially because I neglected to look up the statistics), but Tatum legitimately has the potential to be the second guy if he abandons threes like he did today (he had 7 points, 4 assists, and 4 rebounds, which is why I mentioned those numbers. If he had played the entire game like the last few minutes, he would have had a great game).
I just didn't think that McRae was ready during the playing time he was given, and he hasn't been given any playing time since, so I somewhat have to stick by my earlier thoughts there even if the idea that he will commit turnovers more than Tatum is unfounded. I agree with you that he has potential and is talented, and I'd like to see him play in a prominent role next year when he has a better understanding of the game (regardless of where he is now, he should be more aware next year).
and about Pearl: Yes. He's been getting like 4 points, 4 rebounds, 1.6 steals, and 1.3 assists in the last three games, as well as drawing fouls on some unimportant players (after he makes bad decisions). I don't think we win against Vanderbilt without playing him. I'd say he's effective in 10-15 minutes. At the very least, he's better than our options at the 5 (aside from Williams).
More like 3.3 rebounds for Pearl (and 0 in 8 minutes the game before that). I would never call him "effective", but I'll agree that he's maxed out his production the last few games. The point I would come back to is, however, that if Kenny Hall, Woolridge or Maymon were getting those minutes all year, with the kind of encouragement Steven has received all year, they would be maxing out as well by now and the productivity would be twice what Steven brings. (Purely speculative, of course, but I'm convinced this is true.) Yes, the coach does have to coach Kenny out of committing bad fouls and Woolridge and Maymon out of taking bad shots, but it can only come about with playing time.
All of those guys (and McRae) play a couple of minutes, make a mistake and get yanked from the game. But, as John Wooden said: "If you're not making mistakes, then you're not doing anything. I'm positive that a doer makes mistakes." If those guys really are outplaying the starters in practice, then one of them should have been getting Stevie's minutes all year. Investment early on usually turns into production later.
Bruce has simply treated those guys differently from Steven. He's been singing Steven's praises for a year and a half now, even after games in which Steven had no production and made a couple of the bone-headedest plays I've ever seen a major college player make.
I'll go a step further. Any one of those guys could have been told: "Look, we want you to do what Steven does...don't take any shot that's not a layup; when you get the ball, get rid of it quickly, defend hard (in fact, go ahead and shove your man 25 feet from the basket), check out and rebound." ANY of those guys would be better defenders for not having to think about offense, and ANY of them would average more than twice the rebounds (and probably more like three times the rebounds) as Pearl does.
You can milk great things from talented players. That's what a great coach does.
Anyhow, I don't really disagree about McRae, except to say that we don't really have any evidence one way or the other. No, he didn't dazzle in the very few minutes he's played, but 2 minutes here and there doesn't tell us yay or nay about it. He did lay bricks in the Belmont game (1 of 7 in 19 minutes), but he also had 4 rebounds and 3 blocks.
