Hello Brooklyn wrote:ShootersShoot wrote:Hello Brooklyn wrote:
Lol so you get to use a 29 game sample?
Melo was clearly a better player at the time. Especially with scoring way up this year.
Maybe because the sample size of brunson without randle is not a large one? If the premise is that brunson was worse without randle than melo was as a knick..how else would you make the comparison? With whatever the available sample size is right? Some people man..
Or maybe its stupid to draw conclusions from a small sample size. Its not that hard to comprehend. Lol
I was responding to someone who said brunson without randle played worse than melo..not hard to comprehend..maybe it is for you.
I gave evidence to show it wasnt true. The point is that what he said was untrue, not that brunson is a better player than melo..you just lack the intelligence to understand that..sheesh
Based on the data available, can we conclude brunson without randle played worse than the knicks version of melo? Obviously no we cant..its that simple mate. Even the person i was discussing this with said fair enough...
Then he clarified he meant playoffs which is a much much smaller sample size. Why dont you give him crap about that?
And honestly, is 30 straight games not enough to make an educated guess about something? Like can we really not reasonably conclude that brunson is still an effective player without randle at this point? Is that a "stupid" conclusion?
Now with that said, melos tenure with the knicks spans multiple seasons, and if we are to compare him as a player vs another knick and want to answer the question of who was better overall, then yes, a higher sample size of multiple seasons is needed. I agree a 30 game sample would not be sufficient to determine which of the two was a better player for the franchise. But you have to understand that is not what me and the other guy was talking about.