Devin Booker

Post #241 » by **TASTIC** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 10:46 am

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHgoILBsTxQ[/youtube]

jcsunsfan · Post #242 » by **jcsunsfan** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:56 pm

TASTIC wrote:[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHgoILBsTxQ[/youtube]

So. I would be willing to give him a run at pg. What could it hurt? Booker would be great in a triangle offense.

AtheJ415 · Post #243 » by **AtheJ415** » Sat Jan 23, 2016 1:35 am

jcsunsfan wrote:
TASTIC wrote:[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHgoILBsTxQ[/youtube]

So. I would be willing to give him a run at pg. What could it hurt? Booker would be great in a triangle offense.

Gotta disagree here. You don't pull a youngster who is having this type of success out of his natural position. Besides, as our team is currently constructed, you'd rather him play the 2 and sit Knight than play the 1 and backup Bledsoe. Bledsoe's our best player, and therefore must be on the court when healthy.

Besides, he has everything you could possibly want out of a prototypical 2 guard. It's a great fit positionwise.

kennydorglas · Post #244 » by **kennydorglas** » Sat Jan 23, 2016 2:14 am

I'm glad eating crow right now. I hated him as a prospect (i'm too enamorated with defensive/high motor guys now).
He's being a blessing for us. Obviously he isnt Klay, but how good he can be with an average defense in the future? that's a crazy high ceiling.

It's early in his career but he's starting to look like this guys who cant take a bad shot anymore.
Every attempt is beautiful and has a great chance to hit.
Cant wait to see our crowd getting mad when he missesa 35-ft 3pt hahaha.

Can you forgive me, Booker?

JMac1 · Post #245 » by **JMac1** » Sat Jan 23, 2016 2:25 am

kennydorglas wrote:I'm glad eating crow right now. I hated him as a prospect (i'm too enamorated with defensive/high motor guys now).
He's being a blessing for us. Obviously he isnt Klay, but how good he can be with an average defense in the future? that's a crazy high ceiling.

It's early in his career but he's starting to look like this guys who cant take a bad shot anymore.
Every attempt is beautiful and has a great chance to hit.
Cant wait to see our crowd getting mad when he missesa 35-ft 3pt hahaha.

Can you forgive me, Booker?

Who was better at 19, Booker or Klay? I am tired of comparing him to Klay and automatically setting a limit on his potential as if he can't be a better player. He is Devin Booker and I am damn happy about what he is and can become, sky's the limit.

oddity · Post #246 » by **oddity** » Sat Jan 23, 2016 2:37 am

JMac1 wrote:
Who was better at 19, Booker or Klay? I am tired of comparing him to Klay and automatically setting a limit on his potential as if he can't be a better player. He is Devin Booker and I am damn happy about what he is and can become, sky's the limit.

The "Player X was better at Y age, therefor he's a better player" is a veeeery flawed argument, and a pet peeve of mine. I do agree that he isn't Klay - I've been saying he's more of a Gordon Hayward for a while now - and yea, sky's definitely the limit!

Post #247 » by **bwgood77** » Sat Jan 23, 2016 3:05 am

JMac1 wrote:
kennydorglas wrote:I'm glad eating crow right now. I hated him as a prospect (i'm too enamorated with defensive/high motor guys now).
He's being a blessing for us. Obviously he isnt Klay, but how good he can be with an average defense in the future? that's a crazy high ceiling.

It's early in his career but he's starting to look like this guys who cant take a bad shot anymore.
Every attempt is beautiful and has a great chance to hit.
Cant wait to see our crowd getting mad when he missesa 35-ft 3pt hahaha.

Can you forgive me, Booker?

Who was better at 19, Booker or Klay? I am tired of comparing him to Klay and automatically setting a limit on his potential as if he can't be a better player. He is Devin Booker and I am damn happy about what he is and can become, sky's the limit.

He's going to be better than Klay. I'd bet my life on it.

oddity · Post #248 » by **oddity** » Sat Jan 23, 2016 4:18 am

bwgood77 wrote:He's going to be better than Klay. I'd bet my life on it.

I think he's already showing why he might be better than Klay. His pick and roll stats are absolutely GODLY right now, among the best in the league in ppp and hovering around the 90th percentile. He's shown the ability to do more than take threes and straight line drive (Klay's bread and butter), showing off a few spins and step-backs. I also think Booker is an extremely underrated athlete. In the draft combine he had the best lane agility time SINCE 2001, and also the fastest shuttle run time of the class. Devin's vertical may not be spectacular, but his speed and quickness more than makes up for it. We see him use this to navigate screens so well, and I've spotted multiple occasions where he beat entire teams down the court. You're right; he's not Klay. He can most definitely be better (obviouslyminusthedefensepartbutletsbeoptimistichereriiiiiiiight..???)

Post #249 » by **ATTL** » Sat Jan 23, 2016 4:36 am

Klay was also 21-22 as a rookie compared to Devin as a 19 year old.

JMac1 · Post #250 » by **JMac1** » Sat Jan 23, 2016 4:38 am

oddity wrote:
JMac1 wrote:
Who was better at 19, Booker or Klay? I am tired of comparing him to Klay and automatically setting a limit on his potential as if he can't be a better player. He is Devin Booker and I am damn happy about what he is and can become, sky's the limit.

The "Player X was better at Y age, therefor he's a better player" is a veeeery flawed argument, and a pet peeve of mine. I do agree that he isn't Klay - I've been saying he's more of a Gordon Hayward for a while now - and yea, sky's definitely the limit!

Its called a predictor. Doesn't mean it would definitely happen, but it should be used and it is reasonable, that makes it not very flawed. To assume one would be worse is flawed.....

JMac1 · Post #251 » by **JMac1** » Sat Jan 23, 2016 4:41 am

ATTL wrote:Klay was also 21-22 as a rookie compared to Devin as a 19 year old.

Booker is smoother than Klay now. He sees the game very well and as mentioned makes other players better. Dude has displayed every facet of a complete offensive game, at 19!?!

oddity · Post #252 » by **oddity** » Sat Jan 23, 2016 4:52 am

JMac1 wrote:
oddity wrote:
JMac1 wrote:
Who was better at 19, Booker or Klay? I am tired of comparing him to Klay and automatically setting a limit on his potential as if he can't be a better player. He is Devin Booker and I am damn happy about what he is and can become, sky's the limit.

The "Player X was better at Y age, therefor he's a better player" is a veeeery flawed argument, and a pet peeve of mine. I do agree that he isn't Klay - I've been saying he's more of a Gordon Hayward for a while now - and yea, sky's definitely the limit!

Its called a predictor. Doesn't mean it would definitely happen, but it should be used and it is reasonable, that makes it not very flawed. To assume one would be worse is flawed.....

No, the problem is assuming the 2 players go in a similar career path. You're assuming that Klay and Devin will improve at the exact same rate, when there are just way too many ex-factors to accurately predict that. Several different studies on the careers of NBA players have shown very sporadic answers, and the career trajectory for a player has been proven to be very hard to predict. You're a Suns fan, so you should know first hand how comparing players' ages to determine a career is flawed.

Look at Nash. Dragic. Gortat. All these players exploded late in their careers because they were eventually put in the right position to succeed and had the proper tools for the job. Likewise, there a bunch of players who simply flatlined after showing promising starts to their careers. Chandler Parsons comes to mind. Hell, Brandon Knight is only 24, but he's probably plateauing right now.

What I'm trying to say here is age means close to nothing in a player comparison because we don't know their career arcs. Perhaps Klay kept steadily improving while Booker hits a ceiling? Who knows? I'd rather argue that Booker ends up being better than Klay because of more valid arguments, like how they actually play basketball.

TL;DR: It's pseudo science.

Mulhollanddrive · Post #253 » by **Mulhollanddrive** » Sat Jan 23, 2016 5:11 am

I didn't know that about Booker's Sprint and Agility.

That's some combination of movement and shooting.

Klay looks a bit aesthetically better because he has long reach and higher lift, but pace with feet is just as important.

Gordon Hayward is a very good comparison too, but Booker is already much better a 3 point shooter than Hayward ever will, Hayward has more of an all round game but that's with 5 more years.

What I love about Booker, is that he's a smart, hard working and positive character, he loves to learn and get better, you can see him already working at his defence and passing and post ups and driving, some guys would just think they're talented enough to just shoot all day without any perspective of themselves and the bigger picture.

oddity · Post #254 » by **oddity** » Sat Jan 23, 2016 5:18 am

Mulhollanddrive wrote:I didn't know that about Booker's Sprint and Agility.

That's some combination of movement and shooting.

Klay looks a bit aesthetically better because he has long reach and higher lift, but pace with feet is just as important.

Yesss exactly! The way I look at it, Klay might always be a better shooter in traffic, but Booker has the quickness to get that half a step necessary for a great shooter to get his shot off.

JMac1 · Post #255 » by **JMac1** » Sat Jan 23, 2016 5:19 am

oddity wrote:
JMac1 wrote:
oddity wrote:
The "Player X was better at Y age, therefor he's a better player" is a veeeery flawed argument, and a pet peeve of mine. I do agree that he isn't Klay - I've been saying he's more of a Gordon Hayward for a while now - and yea, sky's definitely the limit!

Its called a predictor. Doesn't mean it would definitely happen, but it should be used and it is reasonable, that makes it not very flawed. To assume one would be worse is flawed.....

No, the problem is assuming the 2 players go in a similar career path. You're assuming that Klay and Devin will improve at the exact same rate, when there are just way too many ex-factors to accurately predict that. Several different studies on the careers of NBA players have shown very sporadic answers, and the career trajectory for a player has been proven to be very hard to predict. You're a Suns fan, so you should know first hand how comparing players' ages to determine a career is flawed. Look at Nash. Dragic. Gortat. All these players exploded late in their careers because they were eventually put in the right position to succeed and had the proper tools for the job. Likewise, there a bunch of players who simply flatlined after showing promising starts to their careers. Chandler Parsons comes to mind.
What I'm trying to say here is age means close to nothing in a player comparison because we don't know their career arcs. Perhaps Klay kept steadily improving while Booker hits a ceiling? Who knows? I'd rather argue that Booker ends up being better than Klay because of more valid arguments, like how they actually play basketball.

TL;DR: It's pseudo science.

Did you just post without reading my post?

Me:

Its called a predictor. Doesn't mean it would definitely happen, but it should be used and it is reasonable,

You:

No, the problem is assuming the 2 players go in a similar career path. You're assuming that Klay and Devin will improve at the exact same rate, when there are just way too many ex-factors to accurately predict that.

When did I assume all of that? I just said comparing two athlete's age is a predictor. Age is also a variable. The process you tried to explain to me, variables: Age, team, diet, offense, teammates, dedication to the game, changing of rules, injury, et al. But as they say "when all things are relative...... Looking at the age is pretty much a universally acceptance of prediction of an athlete trajectory. If you disagree, go ahead, but saying that is flawed logic is absolutely ridiculous, actually very flawed. If you want to reject age, just say "yea, that could be so, but also........." Not that is flawed :nonono:

Noun 1. predictor variable - a variable that can be used to predict the value of another variable (as in statistical regression)

If age isn't a variable and all of the things you mentioned are :roll:

JMac1 · Post #256 » by **JMac1** » Sat Jan 23, 2016 5:22 am

Mulhollanddrive wrote:I didn't know that about Booker's Sprint and Agility.

That's some combination of movement and shooting.

Klay looks a bit aesthetically better because he has long reach and higher lift, but pace with feet is just as important.

Gordon Hayward is a very good comparison too, but Booker is already much better a 3 point shooter than Hayward ever will, Hayward has more of an all round game but that's with 5 more years.

What I love about Booker, is that he's a smart, hard working and positive character, he loves to learn and get better, you can see him already working at his defence and passing and post ups and driving, some guys would just think they're talented enough to just shoot all day without any perspective of themselves and the bigger picture.

Ah ah ah..don't use age as a predictor :lol:

I know he could get bigger, stronger, smarter, and develop his game even more because he is so young and physically immature, but :wink:

He could get hit by a bus too.

DirtyDez · Post #257 » by **DirtyDez** » Sat Jan 23, 2016 5:31 am

JMac1 wrote:
kennydorglas wrote:I'm glad eating crow right now. I hated him as a prospect (i'm too enamorated with defensive/high motor guys now).
He's being a blessing for us. Obviously he isnt Klay, but how good he can be with an average defense in the future? that's a crazy high ceiling.

It's early in his career but he's starting to look like this guys who cant take a bad shot anymore.
Every attempt is beautiful and has a great chance to hit.
Cant wait to see our crowd getting mad when he missesa 35-ft 3pt hahaha.

Can you forgive me, Booker?

Who was better at 19, Booker or Klay? I am tired of comparing him to Klay and automatically setting a limit on his potential as if he can't be a better player. He is Devin Booker and I am damn happy about what he is and can become, sky's the limit.

Who was better at 19, Booker or Jordan?

oddity · Post #258 » by **oddity** » Sat Jan 23, 2016 5:40 am

JMac1 wrote:
oddity wrote:
JMac1 wrote:
Its called a predictor. Doesn't mean it would definitely happen, but it should be used and it is reasonable, that makes it not very flawed. To assume one would be worse is flawed.....

No, the problem is assuming the 2 players go in a similar career path. You're assuming that Klay and Devin will improve at the exact same rate, when there are just way too many ex-factors to accurately predict that. Several different studies on the careers of NBA players have shown very sporadic answers, and the career trajectory for a player has been proven to be very hard to predict. You're a Suns fan, so you should know first hand how comparing players' ages to determine a career is flawed. Look at Nash. Dragic. Gortat. All these players exploded late in their careers because they were eventually put in the right position to succeed and had the proper tools for the job. Likewise, there a bunch of players who simply flatlined after showing promising starts to their careers. Chandler Parsons comes to mind.
What I'm trying to say here is age means close to nothing in a player comparison because we don't know their career arcs. Perhaps Klay kept steadily improving while Booker hits a ceiling? Who knows? I'd rather argue that Booker ends up being better than Klay because of more valid arguments, like how they actually play basketball.

TL;DR: It's pseudo science.

Did you just post without reading my post?

Me:
Its called a predictor. Doesn't mean it would definitely happen, but it should be used and it is reasonable,

You:
No, the problem is assuming the 2 players go in a similar career path. You're assuming that Klay and Devin will improve at the exact same rate, when there are just way too many ex-factors to accurately predict that.

When did I assume all of that? I just said comparing two athlete's age is a predictor. Age is also a variable. The process you tried to explain to me, variables: Age, team, diet, offense, teammates, dedication to the game, changing of rules, injury, et al. But as they say "when all things are relative...... Looking at the age is pretty much a universally acceptance of prediction of an athlete trajectory. If you disagree, go ahead, but saying that is flawed logic is absolutely ridiculous, actually very flawed. If you want to reject age, just say "yea, that could be so, but also........." Not that is flawed

Noun 1. predictor variable - a variable that can be used to predict the value of another variable (as in statistical regression)

If age isn't a variable and all of the things you mentioned are

No, I'm not saying it doesn't matter, but I'm saying that it doesn't help predict the CEILING a player will reach. What you asserted before was that Booker would wind up having a higher ceiling because he was better at a younger starting point. That is absolute total nonsense. I would love for you to tell that to Hassan Whiteside, who came into the league at age 27, and is STILL IMPROVING. Age is definitely a factor, but it doesn't have much of an effect on the height of the ceiling of a player. The biggest catalyst for growth in a player's career is not age, but actually the amount of experience (among many, MANY other things, but it's a bigger difference-maker than age. If age was such a factor to a player's ceiling, more and more modern NBA players would disproportionately be as skilled as all-time greats, who on average came into the NBA later than nowadays. ). So if a player starts at 19 and takes 4 years to begin to plateau, he'll be in same place at age 26 as a guy who came into the league at 21 and had a similar career arc. In that respect, the argument of "Booker's younger than Klay when he entered the league so he'll probably be better" is completely bogus. These arguments distract from the meat of a conversation. It has nothing to do with the actual game of the players you're talking about, and winds up being empty rosterbation with no fact to back any of it.

If you said that "Booker's game at 19 is mature, but still shows room to improve. This, that and the other are ways he can improve in significant ways over the way he is now, as to avoid flatlining at an early age.", then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

garrick · Post #259 » by **garrick** » Sat Jan 23, 2016 5:43 am

If his defence never improves he could become the next Michael Redd, a great shooter who was a bad defender.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums mobile app

Post #260 » by **bwgood77** » Sat Jan 23, 2016 5:52 am

oddity wrote:
JMac1 wrote:
oddity wrote:
The "Player X was better at Y age, therefor he's a better player" is a veeeery flawed argument, and a pet peeve of mine. I do agree that he isn't Klay - I've been saying he's more of a Gordon Hayward for a while now - and yea, sky's definitely the limit!

Its called a predictor. Doesn't mean it would definitely happen, but it should be used and it is reasonable, that makes it not very flawed. To assume one would be worse is flawed.....

No, the problem is assuming the 2 players go in a similar career path. You're assuming that Klay and Devin will improve at the exact same rate, when there are just way too many ex-factors to accurately predict that. Several different studies on the careers of NBA players have shown very sporadic answers, and the career trajectory for a player has been proven to be very hard to predict. You're a Suns fan, so you should know first hand how comparing players' ages to determine a career is flawed.

Look at Nash. Dragic. Gortat. All these players exploded late in their careers because they were eventually put in the right position to succeed and had the proper tools for the job. Likewise, there a bunch of players who simply flatlined after showing promising starts to their careers. Chandler Parsons comes to mind. Hell, Brandon Knight is only 24, but he's probably plateauing right now.

What I'm trying to say here is age means close to nothing in a player comparison because we don't know their career arcs. Perhaps Klay kept steadily improving while Booker hits a ceiling? Who knows? I'd rather argue that Booker ends up being better than Klay because of more valid arguments, like how they actually play basketball.

TL;DR: It's pseudo science.

There was an article I posted earlier that Klay isn't nearly as productive when Curry is off court because Curry demands so much attention. Klay benefits in a HUGE way from playing with Curry.

When will Booker hit 8,000 career points?