Quote:
Originally Posted by BishopMVP
I'd rather talk the actual issues than people's feelings, but I do think "small sample size" is overused, and that was what triggered me to post some information. To use an extreme example, if a baseball player has 10 at bats and has either 2 or 3 hits, saying he'll hit .300 and be a Hall of Famer or .200 and be below replacement level based off those 10 at bats is ludicrous... but if a player hits 10 home runs in his first 10 at bats you can confidently say he has above average power despite it only being 10 at bats.
In this case, if you want to argue that Fultz still has higher potential or Tatum could suffer a gruesome career-altering injury while being negligently mismanaged by his coaching staff and organization I get it, but if your argument is that Tatum hasn't proven anything these past 25 games I strongly disagree. His proven floor is already higher than anyone (I think even including Ainge) thought on draft night.
|
It was comparative. Even if we accept Tatum's awesomeness off of seven weeks of play, Fultz could still come back from his injury, become a super stud and make the original point seem extremely premature. It's not so mucb about Tatum alone as it is Tatum versus Fultz--which is completely a question we can't answer now and maybe won't be able to fully answer for years.
And I wouldn't have brought up anyone's feelings if they weren't so clearly an issue. Your original response was perfect and I enjoyed it immensely, even if I still felt that the sample size was too small to be definitive and that it ignored rhe idea that what we were discussing required a comparispn of two players and not an absolute assessment of just one.