There are just so many ways you can slice statistics with such a small sample size. I think we all agree on that. Heading into the playoffs, Romeo had played 653 total minutes in his career, over two disappointing, injury-plagued seasons.
On May 16, he had his career high of 34 minutes played, against the Knicks. That one game accounts for roughly 5 percent of the total number of regular season minutes he’s ever played. In it, he had 14 points on 5 for 11 shooting (0 for 1 on 3P and 4 for 6 from the line), and had 4 rebounds, 1 assist, and 2 turnovers.
Two weeks later, in a playoff series against a very good team, he turns in what is probably his best game ever. He plays 38 minutes, has 17 points on 7 for 12 shooting (3 for 7 from 3P, 0 FT attempts), 1 rebound, 2 assists, and 0 turnovers. He also turns in one of the team's better defensive efforts. Again, this one game would represent about 5 percent of the total number of regular season minutes he’s played.
It is certainly reasonable to dismiss these more recent performances as variance within a ridiculously small sample size—and it must be pointed out that there were some less-than-stellar games in between them. But it is just as reasonable to see them as signs of a talented player who is getting better—in fits and starts, as young players often do. However one chooses to look at it, though, it is not obvious to me that 619 minutes spread across a player's first two seasons in the league should be regarded as any more predictive than 72 minutes spread across two games in his two most recent weeks.
There have been valid critiques that this poll would have benefited from an option in between "no second contract" and "productive rotation player." In retrospect, I agree. But what’s clear to me now is that the real omission was an option for “Sure-Fire Hall of Famer.”
I’m kidding.
Sort of.
I can’t help it. I love this kid and I want him to succeed.