Devin Booker or D'angelo russell

[Mystical Apples]

Hmm... this isn't true. His 53.5% TS was nearly league average. He's also listed at 6'6", 206 lbs and hasn't even turned 20 yet.

Well he's listed at 6'6" but is actually 6'4.5" with a 6'8" WS. Not the worst but hardly ideal. Even if we didn't know his measurements his limitations are obvious from both college and rookie performances. That + average athleticism gives him an uphill battle unless we completely ignore historic norms and instead say he's the next _______ cause shooting.

And shooting efficiency isn't the only metric unless we fall into the scoring trap. Even there, he wasn't meaningfully better than Russell. It's not like I completely dislike the kid....for a 13th pick he's going to be really good. But he's a poster child of overrating young players based on scoring while ignoring significant flaws that generally don't improve over time.

Personally, I'd take RHJ over Booker.

Not the worse? His measurements are perfectly fine for a SG. Among drafted SG's he's slightly taller than average (6'4.5 vs. 6'3.79 w/o shoes), has the exact average wingspan and a slightly superior standing reach (8'6.5 vs 8'4.5).

IMO he's going to be an elite shooter once he plays with other competent offensive players and isn't asked to be the first option at age 19.

Not sure what the assertion is here other than his measurements are in-line with drafted SG's, clearly a low bar. Most of those guys will not make a team, hit a rotation, or will be out of the league within 3-5 years. Yes, his length is "ok" relative to what amounts to be a middling bench SG but that's not our topic. Our discussion is if he'll add anything besides scoring, specifically compared to Russell.

BTW the average WS of the 597 players in the DX database between 6'3.5" and 6'5.5" (Booker measured in the middle) is a shade over 6'9." His length is OK-ish for an NBA SG but only because he's pigeon holed at SG partly because of his physical tools. To be additive except scoring he'll have to compete and switch high level 2/3 wings - who are anything besides average - or as a combo playmaker sticking larger 2's and fighting through screens against much quicker 1's.

[gaspar]

Russell for sure. He's more talented with superior versatility and is a legit PG with better length and instincts than Booker to handle 2 positions. It's not even a given Booker ends up being a measurably better shooter.

Getting past the hype Booker was extremely inefficient last season, which is fine for a rookie though he lacks prototypical length and athletidicm you'd want in a wing. I'd doubt he'll become an avergage defender and most certainly never a decent defensive rebounder for his position.

Hmm... this isn't true. His 53.5% TS was nearly league average. He's also listed at 6'6", 206 lbs and hasn't even turned 20 yet.

Actually Booker has grown from 6'6" to 6'7" since he was drafted and has a longer wingspan than Jimmy Butler, for example. Booker has a perfect size to play SG in the NBA and he's more athletic than people realize, especially in terms of quickness.

If Booker's 53.5% TS is "extremely inefficient", then what about Russell's 50.7% TS?

[Mystical Apples]

Russell for sure. He's more talented with superior versatility and is a legit PG with better length and instincts than Booker to handle 2 positions. It's not even a given Booker ends up being a measurably better shooter.

Getting past the hype Booker was extremely inefficient last season, which is fine for a rookie though he lacks prototypical length and athletidicm you'd want in a wing. I'd doubt he'll become an avergage defender and most certainly never a decent defensive rebounder for his position.

Hmm... this isn't true. His 53.5% TS was nearly league average. He's also listed at 6'6", 206 lbs and hasn't even turned 20 yet.

Actually Booker has grown from 6'6" to 6'7"since he was drafted

Neat trick considering he was 6'4.5"

If Booker's 53.5% TS is "extremely inefficient", then what about Russell's 50.7% TS?

Well, I'd say it was roughly 50.7% but I didn't bring up TS% someone else did. The problem is assuming "efficiency" is synonymous with personal scoring at the exclusion of non-shiny categories like, you know, defense and passing efficiency and stuff.

Last 10 years Booker's VORP was 142 out of 168 rookies with > 1000 minutes. His DREBs 148 / 168 (like a small pg)
http://bkref.com/pi/shareit/ipsNL

His passing TS% was 336 out of 368 players...incredibly only 5 of the 32 NBA players worse than him were guards.(yikes)
http://nyloncalculus.com/stats/true-usage/

[bondom34]

Last 10 years Booker's VORP was 142 out of 168 rookies with > 1000 minutes. His DREBs 148 / 168 (like a small pg)
http://bkref.com/pi/shareit/ipsNL

His passing TS% was 336 out of 368 players...incredibly only 5 of the 32 NBA players worse than him were guards.(yikes)
http://nyloncalculus.com/stats/true-usage/

If I'm reading it right, the passing TS isn't a measure of his efficiency, its his teammates efficiency off his passes from the definitions there.

Playmaking Effective Field Goal Percentage: eFG% of player’s teammates on shots assisted and potentially assisted by player.




Playmaking True Shooting Percentage: Estimate of “True Shooting Percentage” on playmaking chances including free throws and playmaking turnovers.

[Mystical Apples]

Last 10 years Booker's VORP was 142 out of 168 rookies with > 1000 minutes. His DREBs 148 / 168 (like a small pg)
http://bkref.com/pi/shareit/ipsNL

His passing TS% was 336 out of 368 players...incredibly only 5 of the 32 NBA players worse than him were guards.(yikes)
http://nyloncalculus.com/stats/true-usage/

If I'm reading it right, the passing TS isn't a measure of his efficiency, its his teammates efficiency off his passes from the definitions there.

Playmaking Effective Field Goal Percentage: eFG% of player’s teammates on shots assisted and potentially assisted by player.




Playmaking True Shooting Percentage: Estimate of “True Shooting Percentage” on playmaking chances including free throws and playmaking turnovers.

It's a combination of teammate TS% off a player's potential assists and playmaking turnovers. Obviously, teammate skill level varies for all 30 teams but that can be adjusted. The playmaker himself is very much a determining factor in those outcomes: turnovers, pass/shoot decisions, moving the defense for 3's vs 2's, not hanging your teammates out to dry on late clocks, setting up PnR , etc...It also indicates the gravitational pull of the passer himself or seeing over the defense to make a play.

After adjusting for overall team TS, playmakers you'd expect to be efficient generally are: Draymond, Lebron, Batum, Griffin, Pau, Rubio, and Paul all shine and do so with high passing usages.

The least efficient playmakers but with exceptionally low passing usages are defensive centers: Whiteside (historically gross), Asik, Drummond, Biyombo, Gobert. Or the "passing challenged" like Kanter, Vonleh, Gay, Lamb, and Wiggins.

Young players and rookies generally have the worst combo of above average playmaking usages with low efficiency: Hezonja, Booker, Lyles. Notable outliers are Gordon, Kaminsky and Jokic.

[gaspar]

Hmm... this isn't true. His 53.5% TS was nearly league average. He's also listed at 6'6", 206 lbs and hasn't even turned 20 yet.

Actually Booker has grown from 6'6" to 6'7"since he was drafted

Neat trick considering he was 6'4.5"

No, he was 6'6" and now is 6'7". Everyone in the NBA uses measurements with shoes and I don't know why you are so stubborn to use Booker's size without shoes. Looks like you are one of those posters who can't concede a point, even when they are blatantly wrong.

If Booker's 53.5% TS is "extremely inefficient", then what about Russell's 50.7% TS?

Well, I'd say it was roughly 50.7% but I didn't bring up TS% someone else did. The problem is assuming "efficiency" is synonymous with personal scoring at the exclusion of non-shiny categories like, you know, defense and passing efficiency and stuff.

Last 10 years Booker's VORP was 142 out of 168 rookies with > 1000 minutes. His DREBs 148 / 168 (like a small pg)
http://bkref.com/pi/shareit/ipsNL

His passing TS% was 336 out of 368 players...incredibly only 5 of the 32 NBA players worse than him were guards.(yikes)
http://nyloncalculus.com/stats/true-usage/

Well, you said that Booker was "extremely inefficient". I think most people assumed you were talking about scoring efficiency and the best stat to measure that is true shooting percentage.

Over-analyzing advanced stats for super-young rookies can lead to false conclusions. Especially for a player like Booker who, once Bledsoe, Knight and Warren got injured and Keef was traded, played with very little talent around him in a completely new role for him.

Read on Twitter

Considering the circumstance Booker's rookie season was a big success:
- 4th youngest player to reach 1,000 career points (following LeBron, Durant, Kobe),
- 3rd youngest player in NBA history to score 30 points (LeBron, Durant),
- 2nd teenager in NBA history with back-to-back 30+ point games (LeBron),
- 5th youngest player in NBA history to record a double-double (LeBron, Bynum, Giannis, MKG),
- 2nd youngest player in NBA history to record a points-assists double-double (LeBron),
- 2nd youngest player in NBA history with multiple points-assists double-doubles (LeBron),
- the youngest player in NBA history to make 6+ 3-pointers in a game,
- the youngest player to participate in a three-point contest, where he finished 3rd only behind Klay and Curry.

[Mystical Apples]

Yeah I've been trying to convey that players shouldn't be primarily evaluated on points and scoring. The post above is 100% points related, almost entirely raw points actually. I'm not a fan of either team or emotionally invested in these players so it seems a little counter-productive to continue down this rabbit hole.

[HeartBreakKid]

D'lo is a much better passer than Booker, and probably will maintain a superior handle through out their careers. I'd say Russell is also a better defensive player, but that could change.

[bondom34]

Last 10 years Booker's VORP was 142 out of 168 rookies with > 1000 minutes. His DREBs 148 / 168 (like a small pg)
http://bkref.com/pi/shareit/ipsNL

His passing TS% was 336 out of 368 players...incredibly only 5 of the 32 NBA players worse than him were guards.(yikes)
http://nyloncalculus.com/stats/true-usage/

If I'm reading it right, the passing TS isn't a measure of his efficiency, its his teammates efficiency off his passes from the definitions there.

Playmaking Effective Field Goal Percentage: eFG% of player’s teammates on shots assisted and potentially assisted by player.




Playmaking True Shooting Percentage: Estimate of “True Shooting Percentage” on playmaking chances including free throws and playmaking turnovers.

It's a combination of teammate TS% off a player's potential assists and playmaking turnovers. Obviously, teammate skill level varies for all 30 teams but that can be adjusted. The playmaker himself is very much a determining factor in those outcomes: turnovers, pass/shoot decisions, moving the defense for 3's vs 2's, not hanging your teammates out to dry on late clocks, setting up PnR , etc...It also indicates the gravitational pull of the passer himself or seeing over the defense to make a play.

After adjusting for overall team TS, playmakers you'd expect to be efficient generally are: Draymond, Lebron, Batum, Griffin, Pau, Rubio, and Paul all shine and do so with high passing usages.

The least efficient playmakers but with exceptionally low passing usages are defensive centers: Whiteside (historically gross), Asik, Drummond, Biyombo, Gobert. Or the "passing challenged" like Kanter, Vonleh, Gay, Lamb, and Wiggins.

Young players and rookies generally have the worst combo of above average playmaking usages with low efficiency: Hezonja, Booker, Lyles. Notable outliers are Gordon, Kaminsky and Jokic.

Given most of Booker's minutes were off the bench, I'd venture to guess his teammates TS was low because they aren't very good shooters. Not because of Booker. And D Lo's playmaking TS wasn't much better at all (48.9 percent).

[Zombiesonics]

Thought I might give this a bump 2 years later; Russell on the cusp of an All-Star birth with his team in the playoff hunt while booker is sort of wasting away in Phoenix despite the counting stats.

It’s going to be interesting to see how much bookers game changes as he continues being a legit point guard. I still like Russell game more right now.

[E-Balla]

Thought I might give this a bump 2 years later; Russell on the cusp of an All-Star birth with his team in the playoff hunt while booker is sort of wasting away in Phoenix despite the counting stats.

It’s going to be interesting to see how much bookers game changes as he continues being a legit point guard. I still like Russell game more right now.

I picked Russell back then but now it's pretty close. Booker is a horrid defender but offensively he's the clear winner.

Can't blame him for them sucking when the team is that terrible and unlike DLo he doesn't have another PG on the roster to cover for him when he's off (he has to play through it). Still he's averaging 25/4/7 on 56 TS%. DLo is averaging 19/4/6 on 54 TS% but has games like the Houston game and Boston game where he's just terrible.

Overall I'd probably take Booker right now but DLo going forward. Russell's passing is amazing and while it hasn't translated to the NBA yet at some point I feel like his mind is going to catch up and it will.

[Prokorov]

I'd take Dlo..... for me its like this. neither is probably the #1 guy on a contending/championship team.

But i think Russell fits in better as a second or 3rd option on a contender. I think he can initiate offense without needing shots. I think he can give you floor spacing off the ball and i think he is less eratic. Alot of that may be coaching though, so who knows.

To me Booker is the classic "this guy needs the ball to be at this best, but if he is your #1 you probably arent great" category. like monte ellis.

[E-Balla]

I'd take Dlo..... for me its like this. neither is probably the #1 guy on a contending/championship team.

But i think Russell fits in better as a second or 3rd option on a contender. I think he can initiate offense without needing shots. I think he can give you floor spacing off the ball and i think he is less eratic. Alot of that may be coaching though, so who knows.

To me Booker is the classic "this guy needs the ball to be at this best, but if he is your #1 you probably arent great" category. like monte ellis.

Booker was 100% off ball in college and was great. I think it's easy to forget because he's never had a PG next to him but he'd be great as an off ball G on catch and shoots. He's 37% on catch and shoot 3s this year (in his worst career shooting season). For his career Booker is 39% on catch and shoot 3s. DLo on the other hand has that passing that'll make him deadly on ball in a few years.

[Prokorov]

I'd take Dlo..... for me its like this. neither is probably the #1 guy on a contending/championship team.

But i think Russell fits in better as a second or 3rd option on a contender. I think he can initiate offense without needing shots. I think he can give you floor spacing off the ball and i think he is less eratic. Alot of that may be coaching though, so who knows.

To me Booker is the classic "this guy needs the ball to be at this best, but if he is your #1 you probably arent great" category. like monte ellis.

Booker was 100% off ball in college and was great. I think it's easy to forget because he's never had a PG next to him but he'd be great as an off ball G on catch and shoots. He's 37% on catch and shoot 3s this year (in his worst career shooting season). For his career Booker is 39% on catch and shoot 3s. DLo on the other hand has that passing that'll make him deadly on ball in a few years.

I think Booker can play off the ball, i just think you are really nuetering him turning him into reddick or joe harris. I think he needs shots to be the best he can be. i dont think the same is true for russell.

[bondom34]

Think I'd actually revise myself on this one. Russell seems to have developed quite a bit offensively to get close enough there that the defensive gap more than makes up for it. At this point I'd probably rather Russell, though I'd like to see more before I felt good either way and wouldn't feel great if either were my best player.