I read this article on Yahoo.com, and it raved about John Wall’s scoring abilities. It was so ebullient in its praise, I had to double check his statistics to make sure I hadn’t misread them. I thought he shot the ball poorly.
He did. He made 37% of his shots, and this was against Summer League defense, not Rajon Rondo. Oh, the article mentions he struggled with “his 3s”, which he certainly did, going 1 for 8. So he did well with his 2s then? Ah, only if this were Summer League 1953. Wall shot 40% on his 2s… that’s Jennings bad. In fact, if it weren’t for his uncharacteristically good free throw shooting, his vaunted scoring would have been nonexistent. As it was, it was noneffective. (That said, he does show a nice ability to penetrate and get to the free throw line).
Oh, but the article mentions he had trouble with turnovers. The article didn’t make it sound like a huge deal. After all, he’s only a point guard, its not as though he’s asked to handle the ball.
Then the article dogs out — rightly — Evan Turner for his poor shooting. But you know what? You put two more of Turner’s shots in the basket and he shot the ball better than Wall.
I’m not trying to get on Wall’s case. He’ll be a fine point guard.
I just don’t understand why people insist on making him out to be way, way, way more than he so far appears to be. Didn’t we learn an abject lesson about scoring point guards when we got our asses reamed at the 2004 Olympics mainly, no almost EXCLUSIVELY, because Allen Iverson and Stephon Marbury were somehow allowed to use nearly every possession for Team USA (and neither could throw the ball into the ocean)? Yet here we go again with another huge media man-crush on a gunning point.