Should have included a couple of cheerleaders maybe? Edit: Or whatever they're called these days. Dance team I guess?
Well, unless TPE has a career year, we are now down to 4, and one of those, who did have a career year was at exactly 10.0 ppg. BNM
Yes, one is gone, leaving us with 6 at or near double-figures, with 11 ppg gone that will need to be re-distributed. The point was that it's silly to say that we will have a maximum of 4 players in doubles this year when basically the same team had 5 and nearly 7 last year.
I didn't say it was silly and I didn't say we'd only have four players in double figures. Of course, someone will get Crabbe's touches, but by the same logic, Nurk will get more touches than Plumlee. So, someone on the starting unit will get fewer shots. Of the four returning double digit scorers, one of them (Mo) averaged a career high 10.0 PPG. He could average double digits again or he could backslide slightly and be right back in single digit scoring territory. Of your two "near misses", Turner was a bad fit and even his best year in BOS he only averaged 10.5 ppg. He could also go either way. As could your other "near miss", Aminu at 8.7 PPG. His career best is only 10.2 PPG and he's only averaged double digit scoring once in seven NBA seasons. Like Mo and Turner, he's also right on the edge and could go either way. And that's the problem. Once you get past our top 3, there really isn't anyone on this roster you can actually count on to provide double digit scoring on a nightly basis. We have several guys right on the cusp of averaging double digit scoring, but none of them are a sure thing. Which is why I said in the Top 100 Players thread that we really need to upgrade our 4 - 8 spots. BNM
I think there's a disconnect between what you're arguing against and what I was actually saying (originally not even to you, but to @BonesJones). I've never said that anything is guaranteed or even expected. All I've been saying is that the possibility of 5-6 double-figure scorers is not unreasonable. Do you honestly think it is? I know the offseason has been long, but it seems like you're arguing just to argue.
Read what I wrote. I said I think it's just as likely we have four players average in double figures as seven. Meaning that we have so many players right on the cusp, any or all of them could go either way. BNM
Lovely. I'm glad we all agree that @BonesJones' statement that we'll have a maximum of 4 in doubles is more than a tad presumptuous.
No more presumptuous than assuming we won't have more than four players average in double figure. That's why I said it's just as likely we will have 4 double digit scorers as 7. Outside of Dame, C.J, and Nurk, no one on this roster is a lock to average in double digits. BNM
Yes, stating that we'll have a maximum of four is no more presumptuous than assuming we won't have more than four, because they're both the exact same statement. Again, I'm glad to see we're in agreement.
In the overal range of likely outcomes, you're taking the minimum outcome as the hard ceiling. That's presuming quite a bit about the bench.
Nope. I said Dame, C.J. and Nurk are a lock and no one else is a sure thing. I do think are least one of "the others" will step up. I'm just not sure which one(s). BNM
I don't have time to look it up right now, but I believe the last time we had 7 players average in double figures was the early 1990s when we had Ange and Uncle Cliffy coming off the bench. This team isn't nearly that deep/good. BNM
