ImageImageImageImageImage

Trevor Booker

Moderators: LyricalRico, pineappleheadindc, nate33, WizStorm, miller31time

fishercob
RealGM
Posts: 13,104
And1: 1,109
Joined: Apr 25, 2002
Location: Tenleytown, DC

Re: Trevor Booker 

Post#631 » by fishercob » Tue Oct 23, 2012 10:15 pm

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.
"Some people have a way with words....some people....not have way."
— Steve Martin
User avatar
tontoz
RealGM
Posts: 14,280
And1: 902
Joined: Apr 11, 2005

Re: Trevor Booker 

Post#632 » by tontoz » Tue Oct 23, 2012 10:38 pm

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
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,940
And1: 628
Joined: May 02, 2012

Re: Trevor Booker 

Post#633 » by payitforward » Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:05 am

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.
Pay no attention to the remarks above.
fishercob
RealGM
Posts: 13,104
And1: 1,109
Joined: Apr 25, 2002
Location: Tenleytown, DC

Re: Trevor Booker 

Post#634 » by fishercob » Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:28 am

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.
"Some people have a way with words....some people....not have way."
— Steve Martin
payitforward
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,940
And1: 628
Joined: May 02, 2012

Re: Trevor Booker 

Post#635 » by payitforward » Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:17 pm

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.
Pay no attention to the remarks above.
REDardWIZskin
Senior
Posts: 715
And1: 2
Joined: Jul 21, 2009
Location: DC

Re: Trevor Booker 

Post#636 » by REDardWIZskin » Wed Oct 24, 2012 1:59 pm

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.


I'm confused as to what stance your taking, I still think Booker could be effective defensively in spite of his perceived lower ceiling because of his height.
I think you and Closg00 both misinterpreted the point of my post
Sit back and watch WALL WORK!! >:-)
User avatar
Shorty
Ballboy
Posts: 49
And1: 2
Joined: Oct 22, 2011

Re: Trevor Booker 

Post#637 » by Shorty » Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:13 pm

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.

...


A nitpick: steals are not as reliable a measure of effective play as the other stats you mentioned. Obviously, all other things being equal, we'd like more steals out of our players, and they are a marker for quickness, but the Ghost of Wizards' past tells us that they can be achieved at the expense of actual good defense.

Similarly for blocks, right, Pierre?
Ruzious
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 28,411
And1: 958
Joined: Jul 17, 2001
     

Re: Trevor Booker 

Post#638 » by Ruzious » Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:15 pm

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.

When you have Lebron and Wade (if healthy), you can try pretty much any concept and be successful. No other team has Lebron and Wade, so there's nothing to compare and contrast. So what if Miami uses it - it doesn't show anything except whether or not it hurts Miami.
"Morey plays three dimensional chess. EFG plays tic-tac-toe and can't seem to get the hang of it."
- Benjamin
User avatar
Dat2U
RealGM
Posts: 17,642
And1: 1,607
Joined: Jun 23, 2001
Location: Columbus, OH
       

Re: Trevor Booker 

Post#639 » by Dat2U » Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:20 pm

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.


Top 30% of 4s? Hmm, so if Hollinger lists a total of 85 PFs that played enough minutes to qualify and Booker was around the top 30% percentile, that would put him somewhere around 28th or so. That sounds about right, give or take a few. He's a fringe to below average starter but a very good backup. I think asking him to do more or expecting him to start will limit his effectiveness. He's going to struggle with length and rebounding against quality starters and get exposed. But as 20/24 minute high energy reserve, he can be a useful and remain reliable asset.
Sig bet w/ ibraheim718 - I guarantee less than 20 wins for Lakers this year
fishercob
RealGM
Posts: 13,104
And1: 1,109
Joined: Apr 25, 2002
Location: Tenleytown, DC

Re: Trevor Booker 

Post#640 » by fishercob » Wed Oct 24, 2012 3:11 pm

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.


I'm not questioning the efficacy of comparative analysis. I'm asking why we compare by "position" as opposed to comparing all players, or by height, etc. Such comparisons might lead us to the same results; I dont know.

I just ask because, for instance, Landry Fields is a guy that you are higher on than most here -- including a few who use lots of statistics to evaluate players. It seems that a lot of what you like about Fields is what he does well for his position. Are there thinsg he does not do well for his position? Are the things he does well for his position also things he excels at versus other positions? What about the areas he's less proficient?

I am asking, not challenging. Your way may make more sense and be more illuminating that others'. It all feeds into the main question -- which type of analysis leads you to players who actually help you win?
"Some people have a way with words....some people....not have way."
— Steve Martin
User avatar
Nivek
Head Coach
Posts: 7,406
And1: 956
Joined: Sep 29, 2010
Contact:
         

Re: Trevor Booker 

Post#641 » by Nivek » Wed Oct 24, 2012 3:40 pm

I think comparing players at the same position is a worthwhile activity, but in my rating system, I compare all players to league average -- not to players at their position. I do this in part because "position" is ill-defined and highly flexible for many players. I also do it because the value of a particular stat doesn't change because guys play different positions.

I've mentioned this before, but I think the position adjustment is a significant flaw in Berri's Wins Produced formulation. Berri's position adjustment asserts that each position has equal value. While there's a certain logic to that assertion -- a team needs 5 guys on the floor -- I haven't seen the empirical justification for his adjustment. To the contrary, his own regressions would seem to suggest that centers and PFs are significantly more productive than wings and point guards. I think that's actually useful information. And, it connects well with the not so earth-shaking notion that a good big is more valuable than a good little. (I have raised this issue with Berri privately, but haven't persuaded him to change it. C'est la vie.)

That said, I have other issues with Wins Produced, which I believe I properly address in my rating system. Specifically, I think WP still over-values rebounds, and sets too high a bar on shooting efficiency. PER is more widely accepted, and that has its issues too. The biggest being that it massively undervalues shooting efficiency.
"A lot of what we call talent is the desire to practice."
-- Malcolm Gladwell

Check out my blog about the Wizards, movies, writing, music, TV, sports, and whatever else comes to mind.
fishercob
RealGM
Posts: 13,104
And1: 1,109
Joined: Apr 25, 2002
Location: Tenleytown, DC

Re: Trevor Booker 

Post#642 » by fishercob » Wed Oct 24, 2012 3:58 pm

Nivek wrote:I think comparing players at the same position is a worthwhile activity, but in my rating system, I compare all players to league average -- not to players at their position. I do this in part because "position" is ill-defined and highly flexible for many players. I also do it because the value of a particular stat doesn't change because guys play different positions.

I've mentioned this before, but I think the position adjustment is a significant flaw in Berri's Wins Produced formulation. Berri's position adjustment asserts that each position has equal value. While there's a certain logic to that assertion -- a team needs 5 guys on the floor -- I haven't seen the empirical justification for his adjustment. To the contrary, his own regressions would seem to suggest that centers and PFs are significantly more productive than wings and point guards. I think that's actually useful information. And, it connects well with the not so earth-shaking notion that a good big is more valuable than a good little. (I have raised this issue with Berri privately, but haven't persuaded him to change it. C'est la vie.)

That said, I have other issues with Wins Produced, which I believe I properly address in my rating system. Specifically, I think WP still over-values rebounds, and sets too high a bar on shooting efficiency. PER is more widely accepted, and that has its issues too. The biggest being that it massively undervalues shooting efficiency.


Out of curiosity, how do you assess Trevor Booker and Landry Fields in your system?
"Some people have a way with words....some people....not have way."
— Steve Martin
User avatar
Nivek
Head Coach
Posts: 7,406
And1: 956
Joined: Sep 29, 2010
Contact:
         

Re: Trevor Booker 

Post#643 » by Nivek » Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:45 pm

Where 100 = average and higher is better, last season Fields scored an 87. Booker: 110.

For the previous season (each guy's rookie year), Fields: 112; Booker: 110.
"A lot of what we call talent is the desire to practice."
-- Malcolm Gladwell

Check out my blog about the Wizards, movies, writing, music, TV, sports, and whatever else comes to mind.
payitforward
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,940
And1: 628
Joined: May 02, 2012

Re: Trevor Booker 

Post#644 » by payitforward » Wed Oct 24, 2012 9:31 pm

REDardWIZskin wrote:
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.

I'm confused as to what stance your taking, I still think Booker could be effective defensively in spite of his perceived lower ceiling because of his height.
I think you and Closg00 both misinterpreted the point of my post

I think Booker is one of the best players on the team -- right behind Nene, in fact. I'd like to see him starting at the 4, and I'd like to see him get 2500+ minutes this year. I don't think his height is an issue at all.

My preferred starting 5 would have Nene at C and Book at the 4.
Pay no attention to the remarks above.
payitforward
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,940
And1: 628
Joined: May 02, 2012

Re: Trevor Booker 

Post#645 » by payitforward » Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:19 am

fishercob wrote:I'm not questioning the efficacy of comparative analysis. I'm asking why we compare by "position" as opposed to comparing all players, or by height, etc. Such comparisons might lead us to the same results; I dont know.

I just ask because, for instance, Landry Fields is a guy that you are higher on than most here -- including a few who use lots of statistics to evaluate players. It seems that a lot of what you like about Fields is what he does well for his position. Are there thinsg he does not do well for his position? Are the things he does well for his position also things he excels at versus other positions? What about the areas he's less proficient?

I am asking, not challenging. Your way may make more sense and be more illuminating that others'. It all feeds into the main question -- which type of analysis leads you to players who actually help you win?

I compare by position because I want to know, e.g. how good a point guard John Wall is. I can't get a fix on that by comparing him to power forwards; I have to compare him to other point guards.

Of course there are times when you need to compare players across positions -- in a trade situation for example. WoW is designed to let you compare across positions. Using Kevin's system (if you had access to it), which makes no adjustments for position, would get you different results (typically more and more different from WoW as you went from Center down the positions to the guards).

In Fields' case, he had an outstanding rookie year -- I don't care what metric you use, he was terrific. He fell off his second year. Kevin, who measures him against all players (including 4s and 5s) with no position adjustment, drops him lower than WoW does. If you look at his year 2 numbers measured against 2 guards, his drop off still left him among the better 2 guards in the league. His year two TS% was below average, but his rebounding, steals and low # of fouls more than made up for that. I think he's a terrific young player.
Pay no attention to the remarks above.
User avatar
sashae
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,285
And1: 53
Joined: Dec 15, 2003
Location: nyc

Re: Trevor Booker 

Post#646 » by sashae » Mon Dec 3, 2012 2:15 pm

Go Wizards medical staff. Trevor Booker "out 2-3 weeks" with knee injury.
the wizards are good?!??
User avatar
closg00
RealGM
Posts: 16,262
And1: 399
Joined: Nov 21, 2004

Re: Trevor Booker 

Post#647 » by closg00 » Mon Dec 3, 2012 2:32 pm

Trade-him if we can, we are already on the hook for Nene and we need to strengthen our front-court because Nene is a PT player.
Guys on a message board could do a better job managing the Wizards than Ernie Grunfeld.
nuposse04
General Manager
Posts: 8,798
And1: 1,610
Joined: Jul 20, 2004
Location: on a rock
   

Re: Trevor Booker 

Post#648 » by nuposse04 » Mon Dec 3, 2012 6:46 pm

His game is sadly mostly predicated on his athleticism, if he continues to be injured I'm not so sure he's going to last very long in the league, which is disheartening cause he really tries out there. Even with role players, this team can't catch a break.
User avatar
closg00
RealGM
Posts: 16,262
And1: 399
Joined: Nov 21, 2004

Re: Trevor Booker 

Post#649 » by closg00 » Tue Jan 1, 2013 10:06 pm

Anyone have an update on Book?
Guys on a message board could do a better job managing the Wizards than Ernie Grunfeld.
Upper Decker
Rookie
Posts: 1,108
And1: 110
Joined: Apr 05, 2012

Re: Trevor Booker 

Post#650 » by Upper Decker » Wed Jan 9, 2013 4:10 am

He tweeted he's coming back this saturday. Sadly I give him a week before he goes down again with another soft tissue injury.

Return to Washington Wizards