Trevor Booker

[NbdyBeatsTheWiz]

^ Thats great stuff Nate.

[LyricalRico]

So according to nate's numbers, Booker is basically the PF version of Landry at C. Booker is one in shorter, but is faster and has a much longer standing reach. If Landry can play center, then Booker can play power forward IMO.

[nate33]

So according to nate's numbers, Booker is basically the PF version of Landry at C. Booker is one in shorter, but is faster and has a much longer standing reach. If Landry can play center, then Booker can play power forward IMO.

I don't think Landry played much center (82games.com has him playing 2% of his minutes there). Are you confusing Carl Landry with Chuck Hayes?

[LyricalRico]

So according to nate's numbers, Booker is basically the PF version of Landry at C. Booker is one in shorter, but is faster and has a much longer standing reach. If Landry can play center, then Booker can play power forward IMO.

I don't think Landry played much center (82games.com has him playing 2% of his minutes there). Are you confusing Carl Landry with Chuck Hayes?

Maybe. I just remember back when we were contemplating trades with the Rockets, folks wanting Landry and plugging him in at C in their lineup projections.

[nate33]

If you haven't already read it, here is the DX statistical analysis of the PF crop. Trevor Booker ranked in the middle of the pack in most things (FTA's, 3PA's, TS%, ORB/MIN, RB/MIN, Blocks) but where he really looked good was in the ball-handling/basketball IQ department. He leads all PF's in assists, steals and A/TO ratio and crushes everybody in Pure Point Rating. His overall PER ranks 5th among his peers.

I'm really starting to warm up to this pick. The kid won't be a scorer, but he looks like he'll be a solid role player - the kind of guy that does what he can to help, but doesn't do anything that hurts.

[nate33]

Did anybody around here watch many Clemson games? Any explanation as to why Booker dropped off so much in shooting this year.

In his junior year, Booker shot 41% from three and 71% from the line. In his senior year, he shot 26% from three and 59% from the line. Yuck. His rebounds, steals and blocks also dropped in his senior year.

[DCZards]

I'm really starting to warm up to this pick. The kid won't be a scorer, but he looks like he'll be a solid role player - the kind of guy that does what he can to help, but doesn't do anything that hurts.

That's my take on Booker as well. Even in college, while he was usually the best player on his team, Booker always seemed to play smart and within the team's system. He's the kind of player who knows that what's most important is "winning." I'm not surprised he ranks high on the b'ball IQ scale.

[CrankyTodd]

Code: Select all

Name            Year   Ht.       Wt.   Span      Reach    Fat
Carl Landry     2007   6' 8.5    248   6' 11     8' 6.5   7.5
Jason Maxiell   2005   6' 6.25   258   7' 3.25   8' 11    - 
Paul Millsap    2006   6' 7.25   258   7' 1.5    8' 9.5   9.7
Trevor Booker   2010   6' 7.5    236   6' 9.75   8' 10    7.3

Name            NS Vrt   Mx Vrt   Bnch   Agility   Sprint   Drafted
Carl Landry     31.5     36.5     21     11.35     3.29     31     
Jason Maxiell   -        -        -      -         -        26     
Paul Millsap    28.5     32.5     15     11.67     3.3      47     
Trevor Booker   31       36       22     11.15     3.1      17   

The big difference between Booker and other successful undersized PF's is the wingspan. Maxiell and Millsap in particular have freakish wingspans relative to their heights. (I'm not even sure if Maxiell is human.) Booker has a comparable standing reach though. And he compares favorably on the athletic skills.

The fact that his standing reach relative to his height is so good despite only having a decent wingspan suggests a combination of two potential factors. One, he's short necked. You can actually see this in his photos (he's basically the opposite of Party John Ramos). It means that his shoulder height (that is to say, his functional height) is greater than average for someone of his listed height. It would also suggest that his shoulders (or more accurately his frame) aren't incredibly broad.

[wake20]

Did anybody around here watch many Clemson games? Any explanation as to why Booker dropped off so much in shooting this year.

In his junior year, Booker shot 41% from three and 71% from the line. In his senior year, he shot 26% from three and 59% from the line. Yuck. His rebounds, steals and blocks also dropped in his senior year.

I went to Wake and watch more ACC games than anyone I know. I don't think I ever remember seeing SF skills when he played. He's tough, strong, rebounds well, and is a high motor/team player. He may try to expand his game, but I really don't remember seeing him as an outside threat.

[NbdyBeatsTheWiz]

Code: Select all

Name            Year   Ht.       Wt.   Span      Reach    Fat
Carl Landry     2007   6' 8.5    248   6' 11     8' 6.5   7.5
Jason Maxiell   2005   6' 6.25   258   7' 3.25   8' 11    - 
Paul Millsap    2006   6' 7.25   258   7' 1.5    8' 9.5   9.7
Trevor Booker   2010   6' 7.5    236   6' 9.75   8' 10    7.3

Name            NS Vrt   Mx Vrt   Bnch   Agility   Sprint   Drafted
Carl Landry     31.5     36.5     21     11.35     3.29     31     
Jason Maxiell   -        -        -      -         -        26     
Paul Millsap    28.5     32.5     15     11.67     3.3      47     
Trevor Booker   31       36       22     11.15     3.1      17   

The big difference between Booker and other successful undersized PF's is the wingspan. Maxiell and Millsap in particular have freakish wingspans relative to their heights. (I'm not even sure if Maxiell is human.) Booker has a comparable standing reach though. And he compares favorably on the athletic skills.

The fact that his standing reach relative to his height is so good despite only having a decent wingspan suggests a combination of two potential factors. One, he's short necked. You can actually see this in his photos (he's basically the opposite of Party John Ramos). It means that his shoulder height (that is to say, his functional height) is greater than average for someone of his listed height. It would also suggest that his shoulders (or more accurately his frame) aren't incredibly broad.

Yeah, I can't remember what Bilas-like analyst said it, but they claimed if he had another inch on his neck he could have crept into the back end of the lottery.

[mhd]

DA on Booker: Said he talked to people who said he's like Blair/Maxiek. Will be a bench player. Physical.

[dobrojim]

another thing about the speed issue

if McGee's on the court with Gil, Wall and Booker, he's yet another
greyhound. Those 4 will change ends in a hurry.

[nate33]

another thing about the speed issue

if McGee's on the court with Gil, Wall and Booker, he's yet another
greyhound. Those 4 will change ends in a hurry.

Young can run too.

[Zonkerbl]

Maybe his shoulders are double jointed?

[WizKit]

You guys forget that one of the greatest PF (Charles Barkley) with strength and hops was only 6'6 and some say he wasn't even really that tall. I am not trying to compare Sir Charles to Sir Booker and saying he will be the next Hall of famer, but give the kid a chance to play before everyone judges him. I bet everyone on this board thought Kwame Brown will be the next David Robinson the day after we drafted him. Let's all chill and judge his play on the court.

[keynote]

Sounds like he could turn into a Corliss Williamson-type: an undersized but athletic banger who dominated in college, but who was force to develop a jumper and become a decent backup 3/4 at the next level.

[gesa2]

At the end of the first round, you either take a high risk pick that has a small chance of being great (like Tony Parker) or you try for someone who has a good chance of executing a defined role in the league. I think Booker is the latter. He's not likely to be Carl Landry, a dependable back to the basket scorer. What he will hopefully be is a bench 4 that plays with speed, aggression, and force. I can picture him being the 7th or 8th man on a championship team. If that's what he can be, that's good value.

[LyricalRico]

^ That's an interesting comparison, keynote. You can also put Clarence Weatherspoon into that bunch of tweener forwards who were very effective.

[WallToWall]

You guys forget that one of the greatest PF (Charles Barkley) with strength and hops was only 6'6 and some say he wasn't even really that tall. I am not trying to compare Sir Charles to Sir Booker and saying he will be the next Hall of famer, but give the kid a chance to play before everyone judges him. I bet everyone on this board thought Kwame Brown will be the next David Robinson the day after we drafted him. Let's all chill and judge his play on the court.

If Booker > 3/4 of Round Mound of Rebound then we made a good pick. Cant wait to see the dude play now.

[Illuminaire]

At the end of the first round, you either take a high risk pick that has a small chance of being great (like Tony Parker) or you try for someone who has a good chance of executing a defined role in the league. I think Booker is the latter. He's not likely to be Carl Landry, a dependable back to the basket scorer. What he will hopefully be is a bench 4 that plays with speed, aggression, and force. I can picture him being the 7th or 8th man on a championship team. If that's what he can be, that's good value.

+1

The chances of getting a productive player after the lottery are remarkably small. Any time you can take someone in the 20s and beyond and know that they will be at least a functional role player, that's a good pick.

It's more exciting when GMs swing for the fences, but most of the time that just means another wiff.