The Devin Booker Thread

[Vanderbilt_Grad]

I remember what mrknowitall is talking about. There was a LOT of analysis about the spots that Marv did well shooting from during his Utah days, and how that potentially complemented Al really well. My take at the time though was that this was all hopeful talk, not a real expectation that it would be that way. And sure enough Cliff promptly did the reverse and put Marv on the wrong side of the court and didn't let him take his best shots since they weren't part of Cliff's pre-built sets.

[Flip Murray]

I remember what mrknowitall is talking about. There was a LOT of analysis about the spots that Marv did well shooting from during his Utah days, and how that potentially complemented Al really well. My take at the time though was that this was all hopeful talk, not a real expectation that it would be that way. And sure enough Cliff promptly did the reverse and put Marv on the wrong side of the court and didn't let him take his best shots since they weren't part of Cliff's pre-built sets.

yeah I think still if you polled the board they would've preferred mcroberts. all that talk came after mcbob was already gone so an element of it might have been wishful thinking

[yosemiteben]

The way people talk about Booker's bbiq reminds me of how people talked about Marv when we signed him and almost seems like it could be an excuse for not making plays and being aggressive. Makes the simple play, plays within himself, doesn't try to do too much, sticks to his role, etc.

I don't know. I think I vividly recall posters believing that replacing Josh McRoberts with Marvin Williams would open up the offense more. Many believed that Williams was a better overall offensive talent than McRoberts and could do more with the ball attacking the rim & creating his own shot.

That's not my recollection at all. I was one of the only people on here that was ok with the Marvin signing, and my point was that he would provide perimeter shooting (which he did) and Lance would pick up the playmaking. I don't recall anyone saying that Marvin would be a more dynamic playmaker than McRoberts.

Not that it matters and you may be right, I just don't remember it that way.

[mrknowitall215]

The way people talk about Booker's bbiq reminds me of how people talked about Marv when we signed him and almost seems like it could be an excuse for not making plays and being aggressive. Makes the simple play, plays within himself, doesn't try to do too much, sticks to his role, etc.

I don't know. I think I vividly recall posters believing that replacing Josh McRoberts with Marvin Williams would open up the offense more. Many believed that Williams was a better overall offensive talent than McRoberts and could do more with the ball attacking the rim & creating his own shot.

That's not my recollection at all. I was one of the only people on here that was ok with the Marvin signing, and my point was that he would provide perimeter shooting (which he did) and Lance would pick up the playmaking. I don't recall anyone saying that Marvin would be a more dynamic playmaker than McRoberts.

Not that it matters and you may be right, I just don't remember it that way.

Why, yes, it was you...I should've known

viewtopic.php?p=40680587#p40680587

Marvin can do more than just spot-up shooting, I dont like that we overpaid him tho, he only makes 2 million less than Lance lol

I don't want Marvin Williams trying to do anything more than just spot shooting at this point in his career. His footwork is rather disruptive to himself and he has a recurring sore Achilles tendon

I think he can do everything that McRoberts did, and he is an upgrade as an outside shooter. We weren't regularly relying on McRoberts to create off the dribble, and I don't think that's the role that Williams should have.

[yosemiteben]

Later quotes...

[H]onestly I didn't look at the advanced stats. Looking forward to doing a little research to learn the differences between them.

And then...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=1&p1=mcrobjo01&y1=2014&p2=willima02&y2=2014

If you look at the above player comparison via Basketball-Reference using advanced stats instead of raw numbers, McRoberts is the better 3-point shooter, the better rebounder, the better passer, and the better defender by a wide margin, while they are equal on almost every statistic that I haven't aforementioned in this sequence

Saying McRoberts is better by a wide margin in each of those categories isn't accurate based on what I found. I looked the player comparison link you posted, which is their career numbers, and also their numbers from last season.

Three point shooting:

Career and last year's stats - The advanced stats don't directly address three point shooting, and their 3PT% for their careers and for last year are a total of 0.2% apart. The argument could be made that Josh had a large number of wide open looks because of Al sucking up defenders, which helped bolster his 3PT% this season, and he's never taken a sufficient number of threes in any other season to be a good indicator of his ability - he probably only used to shoot them if they were wide open. Since I haven't watched Williams much, and he may also have taken a lot of uncontested 3s, I think it's probably best to call it a wash on their outside shooting.

Rebounding:

Career stats - the difference in their TRB% is 1.3% in favor of McBob, which is negligible. Out of 100 rebounds, McRoberts will grab one more. Rebounding is basically a wash.

Last year's stats - the difference in their TRB% is 4.1% in favor of Williams, still not a huge difference but cuts against the statement that McBob is the superior rebounder.

Passing:

Career and last year's stats: McRoberts is a far superior passer and has been throughout his career. No real debate there.

Defending:

Career stats - Williams has a career D rating of 109, to McBob's rating of 106. Williams also has far superior defensive win share numbers. I'm guessing that has something to do with McBob's usage in the past, but not sure. Their steal and block numbers are very close for their careers and for last season.

Last year's stats - Williams had a D rating of 110 and McBob had a D rating of 105. Conversely, McBob had higher defensive win share numbers. Not sure what that means, paging someone with superior advanced stat creds.

So at the end of the day, we got a Josh McRoberts double who just isn't as good at passing. Not the end of the world.

Facts - the difference between McRoberts and Marvin Williams in three point shooting, rebounding and defending are negligible. We essentially are paying a premium of $1.4M per year to have a worse passing McRoberts for two years instead of the better passing McRoberts for four. Given the addition of Lance, McRoberts's passing becomes less valuable. If our FO expects Vonleh and Zeller to be able to man the PF spot after two years (which is almost certainly the case), it makes some sense to go the Williams route.

I completely stand by that analysis.

Anyway, "Devin Booker" thread and let's move on.

[mrknowitall215]

Later quotes...

[H]onestly I didn't look at the advanced stats. Looking forward to doing a little research to learn the differences between them.

And then...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=1&p1=mcrobjo01&y1=2014&p2=willima02&y2=2014

If you look at the above player comparison via Basketball-Reference using advanced stats instead of raw numbers, McRoberts is the better 3-point shooter, the better rebounder, the better passer, and the better defender by a wide margin, while they are equal on almost every statistic that I haven't aforementioned in this sequence

Saying McRoberts is better by a wide margin in each of those categories isn't accurate based on what I found. I looked the player comparison link you posted, which is their career numbers, and also their numbers from last season.

Three point shooting:

Career and last year's stats - The advanced stats don't directly address three point shooting, and their 3PT% for their careers and for last year are a total of 0.2% apart. The argument could be made that Josh had a large number of wide open looks because of Al sucking up defenders, which helped bolster his 3PT% this season, and he's never taken a sufficient number of threes in any other season to be a good indicator of his ability - he probably only used to shoot them if they were wide open. Since I haven't watched Williams much, and he may also have taken a lot of uncontested 3s, I think it's probably best to call it a wash on their outside shooting.

Rebounding:

Career stats - the difference in their TRB% is 1.3% in favor of McBob, which is negligible. Out of 100 rebounds, McRoberts will grab one more. Rebounding is basically a wash.

Last year's stats - the difference in their TRB% is 4.1% in favor of Williams, still not a huge difference but cuts against the statement that McBob is the superior rebounder.

Passing:

Career and last year's stats: McRoberts is a far superior passer and has been throughout his career. No real debate there.

Defending:

Career stats - Williams has a career D rating of 109, to McBob's rating of 106. Williams also has far superior defensive win share numbers. I'm guessing that has something to do with McBob's usage in the past, but not sure. Their steal and block numbers are very close for their careers and for last season.

Last year's stats - Williams had a D rating of 110 and McBob had a D rating of 105. Conversely, McBob had higher defensive win share numbers. Not sure what that means, paging someone with superior advanced stat creds.

So at the end of the day, we got a Josh McRoberts double who just isn't as good at passing. Not the end of the world.

Facts - the difference between McRoberts and Marvin Williams in three point shooting, rebounding and defending are negligible. We essentially are paying a premium of $1.4M per year to have a worse passing McRoberts for two years instead of the better passing McRoberts for four. Given the addition of Lance, McRoberts's passing becomes less valuable. If our FO expects Vonleh and Zeller to be able to man the PF spot after two years (which is almost certainly the case), it makes some sense to go the Williams route.

I completely stand by that analysis.

Anyway, "Devin Booker" thread and let's move on.

Yes, I just remember going back & forth with someone that believed Williams could do just as much as McRoberts and give the offense a more viable threat. I couldn't remember quite exactly what was exchanged, but I know it went for quite a few pages

[yosemiteben]

I mean, I clearly said he was an inferior passer in those posts, but who cares, moving on.

[mrknowitall215]

Something about Devin Booker reminds me of John Jenkins (Atlanta Hawks). If I had the choice of drafting Booker at #9 or trading little to nothing for Jenkins, I would do the latter rather easily without much thought

Thoughts?

[yosemiteben]

I think what bothers me about Booker is that just because his combine measurements are similar to Klay's and he's a shooter, the assumption is that they have a similar ceiling. I'm sure there have been a lot of guys with average combine measurements and perimeter shooting potential that flushed out of the league. Seems like people are more willing to adopt Klay as a best case scenario just because they look and measured so similar, and I worry that there is a real chance that he won't overcome those limitations and he'll be another average shooter with so-so defense and not much else to offer.

[mrknowitall215]

I think what bothers me about Booker is that just because his combine measurements are similar to Klay's and he's a shooter, the assumption is that they have a similar ceiling. I'm sure there have been a lot of guys with average combine measurements and perimeter shooting potential that flushed out of the league. Seems like people are more willing to adopt Klay as a best case scenario just because they look and measured so similar, and I worry that there is a real chance that he won't overcome those limitations and he'll be another average shooter with so-so defense and not much else to offer.

Exactly how close in measurables is Devin Booker to Klay Thompson? I'm curious because just based on the eye test it would appear that Klay is about 3 inches taller

[BeesWax]

I think what bothers me about Booker is that just because his combine measurements are similar to Klay's and he's a shooter, the assumption is that they have a similar ceiling. I'm sure there have been a lot of guys with average combine measurements and perimeter shooting potential that flushed out of the league. Seems like people are more willing to adopt Klay as a best case scenario just because they look and measured so similar, and I worry that there is a real chance that he won't overcome those limitations and he'll be another average shooter with so-so defense and not much else to offer.

Exactly how close in measurables is Devin Booker to Klay Thompson? I'm curious because just based on the eye test it would appear that Klay is about 3 inches taller

Standing reach within an inch and Booker tested as the better athlete. The reason I compare them is because Booker was a better player as a freshman than Klay despite being on a stacked team. Klay played with no future pros and was not as impactful. The flaws are similar as are the strengths but Booker is coming out as a freshman rather than a junior like Klay.

[yosemiteben]

Exactly how close in measurables is Devin Booker to Klay Thompson? I'm curious because just based on the eye test it would appear that Klay is about 3 inches taller

Checking on DE, looks like Thompson is 1.25" taller without shoes and the same weight. Thompson had slightly better wingspan and standing reach (an inch or less difference), Booker had better vert numbers (inch better standing vert, 3 inch better max).

[yosemiteben]

The reason I compare them is because Booker was a better player as a freshman than Klay despite being on a stacked team.

Klay stats as a fresh: 12.5 ppg, 42% FG, 41.2% 3PT (5.0 attempts per game), 4.2 boards, 1.9 assists, 2.1 to, 0.9 stl, 0.6 blk
Booker as a fresh: 10 ppg, 47% FG, 41.1% 3PT (3.7 attempts per game), 2.0 boards, 1.1 assists, 1.0 to, 0.4 stl, 0.1 blk

Not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that Booker was a better player. You could just as much argue that Booker's better efficiency (higher FG%, lower TOs) is because he was on a stacked team, and his high efficiency is pretty much the only thing he did better than Thompson.

I think having a limited role on a stacked team is a lot easier than having a more significant role on a less talented team.

[BeesWax]

The reason I compare them is because Booker was a better player as a freshman than Klay despite being on a stacked team.

Klay stats as a fresh: 12.5 ppg, 42% FG, 41.2% 3PT (5.0 attempts per game), 4.2 boards, 1.9 assists, 2.1 to, 0.9 stl, 0.6 blk
Booker as a fresh: 10 ppg, 47% FG, 41.1% 3PT (3.7 attempts per game), 2.0 boards, 1.1 assists, 1.0 to, 0.4 stl, 0.1 blk

Not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that Booker was a better player. You could just as much argue that Booker's better efficiency (higher FG%, lower TOs) is because he was on a stacked team, and his high efficiency is pretty much the only thing he did better than Thompson.

I think having a limited role on a stacked team is a lot easier than having a more significant role on a less talented team.

You forgot a very key stat which is mpg. Klay put those numbers up in 33 minutes on a team in need of a scorer whil Booker put his up in 21 on a team that had to many players who wanted the ball. I am not say Booker was far superior or anything but when you look at the numbers in relation to need and playing time Booker had the better year.y

Edit: I do see your point on need and pressure as well so who knows. It will be interesting and for the most part be about how much any of these guys is willing to work.

[mrknowitall215]

Exactly how close in measurables is Devin Booker to Klay Thompson? I'm curious because just based on the eye test it would appear that Klay is about 3 inches taller

Checking on DE, looks like Thompson is 1.25" taller without shoes and the same weight. Thompson had slightly better wingspan and standing reach (an inch or less difference), Booker had better vert numbers (inch better standing vert, 3 inch better max).

Okay, that would make sense since TV add extremities like make a person appear 10 pounds heavier and a inch appear to be more. I just knew they weren't the same height. I'm actually surprised that Booker is that tall. Something about watching him in a Kentucky uniform made me think he was 6'4"-6'5" instead of 6'6". Maybe it was all of the other tall players on his team

[BeesWax]

Exactly how close in measurables is Devin Booker to Klay Thompson? I'm curious because just based on the eye test it would appear that Klay is about 3 inches taller

Checking on DE, looks like Thompson is 1.25" taller without shoes and the same weight. Thompson had slightly better wingspan and standing reach (an inch or less difference), Booker had better vert numbers (inch better standing vert, 3 inch better max).

Okay, that would make sense since TV add extremities like make a person appear 10 pounds heavier and a inch appear to be more. I just knew they weren't the same height. I'm actually surprised that Booker is that tall. Something about watching him in a Kentucky uniform made me think he was 6'4"-6'5" instead of 6'6". Maybe it was all of the other tall players on his team

Yeah the starting PG being 6'5" and starting three PF/C made every appear smaller than they were.

[yosemiteben]

You forgot a very key stat which is mpg. Klay put those numbers up in 33 minutes on a team in need of a scorer whil Booker put his up in 21 on a team that had to many players who wanted the ball. I am not say Booker was far superior or anything but when you look at the numbers in relation to need and playing time Booker had the better year.y

Edit: I do see your point on need and pressure as well so who knows. It will be interesting and for the most part be about how much any of these guys is willing to work.

Yeah, I tried to pull per 40 numbers for Klay but the site I use for advanced college stats (www.sportsreference.com) doesn't have those for his freshman year.

I do think the potential is there for Booker to have a Thompson-esque impact so I don't have a real problem with people championing him. As I've thought about it just seems kind of funny because I feel like we give Booker a pass more readily on his weakness because there is another player that had similar weaknesses and overcame them, but that's not a courtesy that we typically extend to other prospects.

[BuzzCat]

Exactly how close in measurables is Devin Booker to Klay Thompson? I'm curious because just based on the eye test it would appear that Klay is about 3 inches taller

Checking on DE, looks like Thompson is 1.25" taller without shoes and the same weight. Thompson had slightly better wingspan and standing reach (an inch or less difference), Booker had better vert numbers (inch better standing vert, 3 inch better max).

Okay, that would make sense since TV add extremities like make a person appear 10 pounds heavier and a inch appear to be more. I just knew they weren't the same height. I'm actually surprised that Booker is that tall. Something about watching him in a Kentucky uniform made me think he was 6'4"-6'5" instead of 6'6". Maybe it was all of the other tall players on his team

I used to think the same thing when watching Kentucky games. Booker looked nowhere near 6'6 during their games, I was extremely surprised when I found out he was that tall. Always thought his body might have been shaped differently lol but the taller players on his team makes a lot more sense

[BeesWax]

You forgot a very key stat which is mpg. Klay put those numbers up in 33 minutes on a team in need of a scorer whil Booker put his up in 21 on a team that had to many players who wanted the ball. I am not say Booker was far superior or anything but when you look at the numbers in relation to need and playing time Booker had the better year.y

Edit: I do see your point on need and pressure as well so who knows. It will be interesting and for the most part be about how much any of these guys is willing to work.

Yeah, I tried to pull per 40 numbers for Klay but the site I use for advanced college stats (www.sportsreference.com) doesn't have those for his freshman year.

I do think the potential is there for Booker to have a Thompson-esque impact so I don't have a real problem with people championing him. As I've thought about it just seems kind of funny because I feel like we give Booker a pass more readily on his weakness because there is another player that had similar weaknesses and overcame them, but that's not a courtesy that we typically extend to other prospects.

I think we choose to overlook weaknesses when players fit every year. People are doing it with a lot of people this season because so many guys are grouped together. They all have flaws it is really dependent on how hard these guys will work once they get there IMO. That's why I like Booker because he wants to be here and is friends with MKG.

[DY_nasty]

Booker and Klay play nothing alike wtf

They're both light skinned SGs with beautiful shots. That's where likeness ends. This is worse than people comparing every white 7 footer with range to Dirk. Booker is like Eric Gordon if the Monstars jacked his skills.