yardbarker

NCAA Wiretap Headlines

Trevor Booker

Moderators: LyricalRico, pineappleheadindc, WizStorm, nate33, miller31time

Post#631 Re: Trevor Booker
Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:15 pm by fishercob

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
fishercob
RealGM
User avatar
Posts: 11,882
And1: 595
Joined: Apr 24, 2002
Location: Tenleytown, DC
Top

Post#632 Re: Trevor Booker
Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:38 pm by tontoz

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
RealGM
User avatar
Posts: 13,043
And1: 444
Joined: Apr 10, 2005
Top

Post#633 Re: Trevor Booker
Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:05 pm by payitforward

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.
People say I'm mellowing with age. Nah.

It is still not possible to formulate a counter-argument -- even if I say... Is so!
payitforward
Veteran
Posts: 2,917
And1: 377
Joined: May 1, 2012
Top

Post#634 Re: Trevor Booker
Wed Oct 24, 2012 5:28 am by fishercob

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
fishercob
RealGM
User avatar
Posts: 11,882
And1: 595
Joined: Apr 24, 2002
Location: Tenleytown, DC
Top

Post#635 Re: Trevor Booker
Wed Oct 24, 2012 7:17 am by payitforward

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.
People say I'm mellowing with age. Nah.

It is still not possible to formulate a counter-argument -- even if I say... Is so!
payitforward
Veteran
Posts: 2,917
And1: 377
Joined: May 1, 2012
Top

Post#636 Re: Trevor Booker
Wed Oct 24, 2012 8:59 am by REDardWIZskin

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!! >:-)
REDardWIZskin
Senior
Posts: 715
And1: 2
Joined: Jul 21, 2009
Location: DC
Top

Post#637 Re: Trevor Booker
Wed Oct 24, 2012 9:13 am by Shorty

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?
Shorty
Ballboy
User avatar
Posts: 49
And1: 2
Joined: Oct 22, 2011
Top

Post#638 Re: Trevor Booker
Wed Oct 24, 2012 9:15 am by Ruzious

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
Ruzious
RealGM
Posts: 25,747
And1: 479
Joined: Jul 16, 2001
Top

Post#639 Re: Trevor Booker
Wed Oct 24, 2012 9:20 am by Dat2U

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
Dat2U




RealGM
Posts: 16,505
And1: 790
Joined: Jun 22, 2001
Location: Columbus, OH
Top

Post#640 Re: Trevor Booker
Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:11 am by fishercob

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
fishercob
RealGM
User avatar
Posts: 11,882
And1: 595
Joined: Apr 24, 2002
Location: Tenleytown, DC
Top

Post#641 Re: Trevor Booker
Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:40 am by Nivek

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.
Nivek





Head Coach
User avatar
Posts: 6,897
And1: 697
Joined: Sep 29, 2010
Top

Post#642 Re: Trevor Booker
Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:58 am by fishercob

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
fishercob
RealGM
User avatar
Posts: 11,882
And1: 595
Joined: Apr 24, 2002
Location: Tenleytown, DC
Top

Post#643 Re: Trevor Booker
Wed Oct 24, 2012 11:45 am by Nivek

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.
Nivek





Head Coach
User avatar
Posts: 6,897
And1: 697
Joined: Sep 29, 2010
Top

Post#644 Re: Trevor Booker
Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:31 pm by payitforward

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.
People say I'm mellowing with age. Nah.

It is still not possible to formulate a counter-argument -- even if I say... Is so!
payitforward
Veteran
Posts: 2,917
And1: 377
Joined: May 1, 2012
Top

Post#645 Re: Trevor Booker
Wed Oct 24, 2012 9:19 pm by payitforward

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.
People say I'm mellowing with age. Nah.

It is still not possible to formulate a counter-argument -- even if I say... Is so!
payitforward
Veteran
Posts: 2,917
And1: 377
Joined: May 1, 2012
Top

Post#646 Re: Trevor Booker
Mon Dec 3, 2012 9:15 am by sashae

Go Wizards medical staff. Trevor Booker "out 2-3 weeks" with knee injury.
otto porter is depressing.
sashae
Rookie
User avatar
Posts: 1,233
And1: 42
Joined: Dec 15, 2003
Location: nyc
Top

Post#647 Re: Trevor Booker
Mon Dec 3, 2012 9:32 am by closg00

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.
closg00
RealGM
User avatar
Posts: 14,888
And1: 197
Joined: Nov 21, 2004
Top

Post#648 Re: Trevor Booker
Mon Dec 3, 2012 1:46 pm by nuposse04

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.
nuposse04


Head Coach
Posts: 7,049
And1: 1,095
Joined: Jul 19, 2004
Location: on a rock
Top

Post#649 Re: Trevor Booker
Tue Jan 1, 2013 5:06 pm by closg00

Anyone have an update on Book?
Guys on a message board could do a better job managing the Wizards than Ernie Grunfeld.
closg00
RealGM
User avatar
Posts: 14,888
And1: 197
Joined: Nov 21, 2004
Top

Post#650 Re: Trevor Booker
Tue Jan 8, 2013 11:10 pm by Upper Decker

He tweeted he's coming back this saturday. Sadly I give him a week before he goes down again with another soft tissue injury.
Upper Decker
Rookie
Posts: 1,096
And1: 104
Joined: Apr 4, 2012
Location: On a podium reminding everyone how right my predictions were
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Washington Wizards


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: EasternHeretic