that is a pretty big sample size. i dont know why he is shooting so poorly. i had a REALLY good 4 on a national championship d2 triangle team a long time ago - but of all those great d2 teams, i might have only had one. he was like your guy, but maybe 80/70 ath/spd or something, with about the 70 lp/per. he was really efficient but so much has changed in the game. i find per (and if you have per, bh) to be useful in bigs, but again, i still get the sense you need superior ath and lp to really be good enough to make use of the per/bh. i dont think you really need a ton of speed to go with it, although traditionally spd and per complement each other. think the - setting might help your 2 pt %, because really, the spd probably DOES hurt your long range jumpers. for the sake of learning (and he sucks now anyway, cant really hurt anything), id put him at -1 and see how it goes.
wow... i didnt realize you had that soft a schedule. thats WAY low, very surprising. hows your passing? hmm, not so hot. 73/48 on your starters, ouch, that kind of sucks. that pass is pretty important in triangle, id definitely pay more attention to that in the future. its not enough to justify the extent of the badness of that player - but its a start. your team really is not playing that well offensively, 48% is solid but not so much on a poor schedule, thats really not very good, and 31% 3s is pretty bad.
actually, now that i really look at your offensive ratings, i have a theory. the bad triangle IQ is bringing you down a little. but your offensive ratings, your lp/per, are really not very good at all. there definitely seems to be some concept in the game of primary scorers, where the defense seems to target certain players more, or something. it happens in real life, i never thought it would in the game, but so many times you see things like the senior slump, or consistently players slightly worse on a team seem to outperform guys slightly better - my theory is the game is basically having the defense put more effort on guarding better players. my low scoring guys seem to do really well, with decent ratings - 55% and better is normal, for a guy not shooting much (putbacks probably contribute some to that, but still). i wonder if denny is getting targeted, and because hes just not that good, hes struggling? if you had some better offensive players, he might be doing considerably better. id consider that -1, too.