The truth is, he was awful and selfish when did play. Shot the ball nearly every time he touched it and was a bad decision maker. Perhaps a product of trying to do too much in limited time, but he never seemed to allow himself to mesh into the game. He wanted to make an immediate impact and sometimes it was at the expense of logic.
If you simply are going to subtract his points to determine where we'd be without him I can't argue with you.
There's much more to it than that. I'm no suggesting we would or wouldn't win, but to say wed have no shot without maymon is absurd. Stokes is whooping their whole front line by himself.
Well for starters, take away maymons fg attempts if you're saying he wouldn't play. They don't vanish so somebody else shoots them, so give them all to stokes and how many does he score?
Well for starters, take away maymons fg attempts if you're saying he wouldn't play. They don't vanish so somebody else shoots them, so give them all to stokes and how many does he score?
Exactly so to say that we'd be down x amount without maymon, simply because of his points is wrong.
They are each 4-7, so shooting the same, so give jarnell those 7 shots and if he shot like he was numbers say he'd also score 11 and the game would be the same score right now.
Point being, it's impossible to say how a team would play/react without a certain player, unless it actually happened.