Iowa State Daily article about Prohm and LW

FinalFourCy

Well-Known Member
Mar 5, 2017
9,357
9,145
113
39
But Wigginton's draft stock was undoubtedly dropped as a result of the way he was played.


That’s wrong.
Like his playing time, his stock dropped as a result of how he played. The NBA guys don’t care about his per game numbers. He came back and slightly improved, but he was the same version of the Wigginton we saw last year.
 
Last edited:

KCClone1

Well-Known Member
Feb 28, 2010
1,097
1,851
113
Urbandale
I thought benching Lindell was a very bad decision. He showed a ton of grit last year, starting in every game on a last place and short handed team. Then he gets hurt in the first game and loses his starting spot due to injury. Maybe there was more behind the scenes. Winning big in Maui against bad competition may have actually been bad in the grand scheme of things. Oh well. Hindsight is 20/20.
 

Sigmapolis

Minister of Economy
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 10, 2011
24,994
37,024
113
Waukee
For an article by an undergraduate, this guy sounds like a dinosaur.

"Wigginton should have played more!"

He played more minutes than Horton-Tucker in the Big 12. He played a lot more minutes in Kansas City and the game in Tulsa. What more do you want?

THT was streaky as heck on the offensive end, but Prohm was quick about yanking him if he was not feeling it that night. Seeing what you have with your streakiest guy early on any given night is good information to have. THT at least tried to keep guys in front of him and could match up with bigger guys, though. Wigginton got blown by constantly.

The only statistical evidence on offer are volume metrics and scoring. Come on, KenPom is cheap, and Barttorvik has basically the same stuff for free. Do your homework.

Who goes to the bench in his stead?

Nick? ...your fifth-year senior and a very good college PG, when nobody else proved they could run the offense, especially Lindell? nope

NWB career ATR = 358/138 = 2.59
Wigginton career ATR = 141/141 = 1.00

Who do you want playing PG again?

Haliburton? ...your best shooter, best passer, and an excellent perimeter defender? nope... plus, bad idea to have three volume chuckers on the floor at once

Haliburton freshman ATR = 125/28 = 4.46
Morris freshman ATR = 134/28 = 4.79

Shayok? ...the guy was first-team all-Big 12 for a reason... if volume scoring is all you care about, Shayok had it, and he was more efficient than LW or THT... the guy had a very legitimate shot at conference player of the year if we did not have our slump in Feburary

Shayok and Wigginton both had a usage of 26.9%
Shayok had an offensive rating of 111.9, Wigginton was 107.2

Horton-Tucker? ...already been over this, Wigginton played more than him in the Big 12 by minutes, even if THT was a better defender but less consistent on offense... I know "starter" confers status, but Wigginton was ahead of him in the rotation by minutes

The idea that the lineup or rotations were grossly mismanaged this season somehow is laughable. Trying to have three volume wings out there at once would have been a bad idea, and Prohm made the smart decision of going with Shayok and one of Wigginton or Horton-Tucker, riding the hot hand on any given night. We lost because of flaws in the roster, the defensive slump/loss of team cohesiveness in February, and the simple randomness that can happen in college basketball, not because the wrong guys were on the court to any significant degree.

We had our best men out there on any given night.

I really hate this "Iowa's best player is always their backup QB" kind of stuff.
 
Last edited:

dahliaclone

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 4, 2007
13,725
20,314
113
Minneapolis
But Wigginton's draft stock as undoubtedly dropped as a result of the way he was played.


That’s wrong.
Like his playing time, his stock dropped as a result of how he played. The NBA guys don’t care about his per game numbers. He came back and slightly improved, but he was the same version of the Wigginton we saw last year.

This is where I'm at. This whole article just comes off really REALLY sloppy to me.
 

cstrunk

Well-Known Member
Mar 21, 2006
14,256
4,529
113
36
Longview, TX
Did this guy actually watch Wigginton play this season? Maybe he would have seen his (lack of) defense and his ability to turn something into a turnover.

I always appreciated that Wigginton played hard and gave it his all, but the guy was out of control more often than not this season, and you can't say that him playing more would have drastically changed the outcome for the team.
 

dahliaclone

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 4, 2007
13,725
20,314
113
Minneapolis

Right? I don't get that line of thought at all. What if that starter came back and during practices he was getting owned on defense or wasn't shooting well and clearly wasn't playing as well as others in his same position? Welp, doesn't matter, he was a starter and by God HE GETS TO START!

Makes zero sense
 

Sigmapolis

Minister of Economy
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 10, 2011
24,994
37,024
113
Waukee
Right? I don't get that line of thought at all. What if that starter came back and during practices he was getting owned on defense or wasn't shooting well and clearly wasn't playing as well as others in his same position? Welp, doesn't matter, he was a starter and by God HE GETS TO START!

Makes zero sense

Yeah. Should have benched this ******* back in 2001.

1014_FL-Tom-Brady-TAG-Heuer-03_1200x1615.jpg


#teamdrew

Man, I hate the Patriots.
 

WIB

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Oct 2, 2010
2,053
2,533
113
Ames
Great article... I see people in here saying he shouldn't have played more because he sometimes played suspect D or turned it over. Here's the thing... he turned it over going to the rim. This team relied heavily on jump shots and he was one of the few who could go to the rim. Also people are asking who he should have played over.... Uh Nick Babb and Haliburton for starters. Both of whom were offensive liabilities.
 

kingcy

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Sep 16, 2006
22,597
3,386
113
Menlo, Iowa
He played well at time and at times he played out of control. The staff made it public what they wanted him to work on and he struggled with getting better in those areas. Yes he was an elite scorer most of the time but his game has plenty of holes in it. Should he have started at the end of the season, yes. He was getting starter mins and playing at the end of most games. Prohm also probably knew he was gone after this season so he may have used him as an example to the rest of the team on how they need to play the right way or you may see you role limited a little. I also don't think there was a great way to handle the lineup situation.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: ProhmDate

CYphyllis

Well-Known Member
Jun 22, 2010
5,400
4,810
113
Wigginton didn't start because he had far too many holes in his game. Offensively he was out of control the majority of the time and his best skill was getting bailed out with fouls on threes. Defensively he was a wreck. Conference opponents learned very quickly that the best way to beat Lindell on D was to dribble in his damn direction.

People seem to think he should have been starter based on his recruiting profile, those people don't have a damn clue about the game of basketball.