RealGM

Booker Take

http://www.nba.com/wizards/trevors-take-part-1

Hmmm. Fitzgerald.

Trevor Fitzgerald Booker

This cat is to cool. I hope he is on the team next year. Year 3 of Trevor should be a good year.

i like trevor but he isn't anything more than a spark off the bench

he will never be a starting caliber 4

FAH1223 wrote:i like trevor but he isn't anything more than a spark off the bench

he will never be a starting caliber 4

I don't know about that.

I thought the same thing by the end of last year but I wasn't anticipating Booker's dramatic improvement in shooting. His shooting percentage from 16-23 feet has improved from 18% last year to 34% this year (on triple the number of attempts per game). 34% is still somewhat mediocre, but if he continues to improve to the point where he's a deadly knock-down shooter from that range and gets to, say, 43%, then he will be a respectable starting caliber player.

I don't think it's possible for him to become an above average starter, but he can be a serviceable starter, better than merely a spark off the bench. It's not out of the realm of possibility that he can be roughly as good as Udonis Haslem or Paul Millsap.

What's the deal with Bookers injury?

what he said^

prognosis?

expected return?

edit - so I went back a few days on Wiz Insider and rfreshed my mem on
what his injury even was

hamstring

My thought - it's almost a 2 edge sword when a guy is a gym/work-out rat
and plays as hard as Book does. Hard to know when enough is enough.

edit 2 - Book's injuries seem to be more of the overuse variety. His physique
is high strung. That's part of what makes him a stud athlete in the realm of
professional athletes. But it's hard for people with that mindset, extremely hard worker,
to moderate enough to not be susceptible to nagging and sometimes chronic injuries.

encouraged that Book is reportedly going to play tonight

dobrojim wrote:encouraged that Book is reportedly going to play tonight

Welcome back Mr Booker 6-8 from the floor in in 17 minutes.

I'd rather have a short overachiever with a high motor than a tall athletic, underachiever. Booker sets a tone with his take-no-prisoners style. He, along with Seraphin, play physically tough, and that has been absent while we played with softies, Antawn, Brendan, Blatche, and JaVale.

So far this pre-season, Trevor Booker has played 39 minutes. During those 39 minutes, he has tabulated 34 points, 9 rebounds, 2 assists, 3 steals and just 1 turnover while shooting 64% from the field.

nate33 wrote:So far this pre-season, Trevor Booker has played 39 minutes. During those 39 minutes, he has tabulated 34 points, 9 rebounds, 2 assists, 3 steals and just 1 turnover while shooting 64% from the field.

I liked Booker when we drafted him -- thought it was a good trade up to get him -- although I might have picked Damion James to tell the truth.

Booker had an outstanding rookie season and a slightly better year 2. Injuries are the issue for him. If he can play 1500-2000 minutes this year, I expect it'll be his best. He's 24; should be ready to hit his stride.

Don't sleep on Damion James, btw -- I still think he'll be an effective starter in the league and expect a strong season from him this year, now that he's back from nagging injuries. I would have worked to get him this Summer.

I'm looking forward to seeing Booker in his match up against Bosh next week. Many speculate that the reason we may end up parting ways with Book is because of his height or lack there of, which possibly limits his upside. Bosh could be a good test. If he plays serviceable D it will be a good sign IMO.

REDardWIZskin wrote:I'm looking forward to seeing Booker in his match up against Bosh next week. Many speculate that the reason we may end up parting ways with Book is because of his height or lack there of, which possibly limits his upside. Bosh could be a good test. If he plays serviceable D it will be a good sign IMO.

That's a horrible match-up, Book doesn't have the length to guard taller/lanky players.

I'd rather have booker on LeBron, he's the only guy on our squad who could match LBJ's physicality in the post without giving up too much on speed and athleticism. Offensively he'd probably be shut down by LBJ, but if we have one guy who has any hope of slowing LBJ at all, it is probably Booker.

REDardWIZskin wrote:I'm looking forward to seeing Booker in his match up against Bosh next week. Many speculate that the reason we may end up parting ways with Book is because of his height or lack there of, which possibly limits his upside. Bosh could be a good test. If he plays serviceable D it will be a good sign IMO.

Of course it would be good if Booker -- with all his other qualities -- were an inch taller. Duh. Even better 2 inches taller. Hey, how about if he were 7'2".

Other than the above, there is nothing whatever to issue of his height. If you list the 4s in the league from tallest to shortest, your list will have no statistically meaningful correlation with another list of 4s, this time from best to worst.

closg00 wrote:That's a horrible match-up, Book doesn't have the length to guard taller/lanky players.

I'm not really sure who a good match up against Bosh is. You need a collection of solid defensive players working in unison to stop him or the Heat in general, or you just hope they fall asleep because they're tired of winning.

The one thing that keeps Booker at just "good" as opposed to "indispensable" is his defensive rebounding.

Look at him last year versus newly-minted $12M man Kris Humphries:

http://bkref.com/tiny/FH2nQ
http://bkref.com/tiny/At9k9

Not to say that Hump deserves all of that $12M, but the one area where he's markedly better is on the defensive boards.

fishercob wrote:The one thing that keeps Booker at just "good" as opposed to "indispensable" is his defensive rebounding.

Look at him last year versus newly-minted $12M man Kris Humphries:

http://bkref.com/tiny/FH2nQ
http://bkref.com/tiny/At9k9

Not to say that Hump deserves all of that $12M, but the one area where he's markedly better is on the defensive boards.

Yeah there is no reason for Booker not to be a strong rebounder. He is never going to be a big scorer so if he wants a long, successful career he needs to really step it up on the boards.

Booker's standing reach is only .5" less than Humphries.

tontoz wrote:

fishercob wrote:The one thing that keeps Booker at just "good" as opposed to "indispensable" is his defensive rebounding.

Look at him last year versus newly-minted $12M man Kris Humphries:

http://bkref.com/tiny/FH2nQ
http://bkref.com/tiny/At9k9

Not to say that Hump deserves all of that $12M, but the one area where he's markedly better is on the defensive boards.

Yeah there is no reason for Booker not to be a strong rebounder. He is never going to be a big scorer so if he wants a long, successful career he needs to really step it up on the boards.

Booker's standing reach is only .5" less than Humphries.

It'd be great if Book was a better rebounder, but he can have a long successful career in the NBA doing just what he's doing right now. He's pretty clearly in the top 30% of 4s in the league. His only problem is staying on the court. Injuries.

payitforward wrote:

tontoz wrote:

fishercob wrote:The one thing that keeps Booker at just "good" as opposed to "indispensable" is his defensive rebounding.

Look at him last year versus newly-minted $12M man Kris Humphries:

http://bkref.com/tiny/FH2nQ
http://bkref.com/tiny/At9k9

Not to say that Hump deserves all of that $12M, but the one area where he's markedly better is on the defensive boards.

Yeah there is no reason for Booker not to be a strong rebounder. He is never going to be a big scorer so if he wants a long, successful career he needs to really step it up on the boards.

Booker's standing reach is only .5" less than Humphries.

It'd be great if Book was a better rebounder, but he can have a long successful career in the NBA doing just what he's doing right now. He's pretty clearly in the top 30% of 4s in the league. His only problem is staying on the court. Injuries.

PIF, it seems as if much of your analysis of players is based on how they compare to others at their position. I am curious as to what informs this -- I.e. a particular book or study -- particularly in light of the Heat's attempt to move to "positionless" basketball.

fishercob wrote:

payitforward wrote:It'd be great if Book was a better rebounder, but he can have a long successful career in the NBA doing just what he's doing right now. He's pretty clearly in the top 30% of 4s in the league. His only problem is staying on the court. Injuries.

PIF, it seems as if much of your analysis of players is based on how they compare to others at their position. I am curious as to what informs this -- I.e. a particular book or study -- particularly in light of the Heat's attempt to move to "positionless" basketball.

I don't know how else you would know a player was good except in relation to other players.

Nothing complicated at all in how I think about it -- look at their numbers for what I think are the key stats: TS%, rebounding rate, steals and turnovers. Then compare to others at their position. If I'm comparing at a single position, I can use an overall measure like WS40, but obviously you want to look at the component numbers as well.

"Positionless basketball" is a concept. Somebody's bringing the ball up, and they ain't counting on that guy to lead them in rebounds. LeBron is a superstar. mega superstar. Add Wade, etc. -- that's why they're good.