Re: Trevor Booker
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:22 pm
encouraged that Book is reportedly going to play tonight
Sports is our Business
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=1023304
dobrojim wrote:encouraged that Book is reportedly going to play tonight
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.
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.
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.
closg00 wrote:That's a horrible match-up, Book doesn't have the length to guard taller/lanky players.
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.
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.
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.
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.
payitforward wrote: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.
payitforward wrote:fishercob wrote: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.
...
payitforward wrote: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.
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.
payitforward wrote: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.