Booker vs KJ

[durantbird]

Who is the greater Suns player as of now?

[The Master]

Kevin Johnson:

1989: 8th in MVP voting (2nd All-NBA Team)
1990: 2nd All-NBA Team
1991: 7th in MVP voting (2nd All-NBA Team)
1992: 15th in MVP voting (3rd All-NBA team)
1993: weak season individually, but NBA Finals
1994: 11th in MVP voting (2nd All-NBA Team)
1995: mediocre regular season, but 25-9 on 57 FG% in the playoffs with 28-9 on 66TS% against defending champion Rockets (pretty similar to Booker's last playoffs in my eyes in terms of offensive explosion in postseason)
1996: 19-9 in RS on +4.7 BPM (56 games)
1997: 20-9 in RS on +5.0 BPM (70 games)

Johnson as for 90s standards was a bit inconsistent, but this 9-year span is rather underrated from him either/both in RS/playoffs.

Booker in terms of individual accolades/team success at this point is worse (single All-NBA selection with decent spot in MVP voting: 2022), but he's 28yo, plenty of time to improve his stocks. But yeah, for now the answer is Kevin Johnson, and rather easily.

[Doctor MJ]

Who is the greater Suns player as of now?

KJ. People understandably think of him as a guy with longevity problems, but he won 11 playoff series with the Suns to Booker's 5. As a historical city sporting icon, they aren't really in the same tier yet.

[One_and_Done]

Who is the greater Suns player as of now?

KJ. People understandably think of him as a guy with longevity problems, but he won 11 playoff series with the Suns to Booker's 5. As a historical city sporting icon, they aren't really in the same tier yet.

And who would be better in today's league?

[Doctor MJ]

Who is the greater Suns player as of now?

KJ. People understandably think of him as a guy with longevity problems, but he won 11 playoff series with the Suns to Booker's 5. As a historical city sporting icon, they aren't really in the same tier yet.

And who would be better in today's league?

Probably KJ, but that's certainly debatable.

[One_and_Done]

Who would the modern archetype for KJ succeeding even be? A point guard without a 3pt shot. Logic says his impact would be substantially reduced, never mind what playing modern defence would do to his oft injured body. I doubt he'd hold up well given the toll it would take.

[Doctor MJ]

Who would the modern archetype for KJ succeeding even be? A point guard without a 3pt shot. Logic says his impact would be substantially reduced, never mind what playing modern defence would do to his oft injured body. I doubt he'd hold up well given the toll it would take.

I mean, KJ literally did shoot 3's in his career. I understand you're being hyperbolic and we can talk about some things, but we're not talking about a guy who was actually never taking 3's, never shooting them effectively, and never a good shooter from the deep midrange.

If there's a doubt, it has to be focused on KJ's shot putatively falling apart from the NBA 3-point line as it is, as opposed to the one in the shortened seasons and college. Please do elaborate on that if you'd like.

[One_and_Done]

As you concede above, KJ did not demonstrate reliable 3pt range. That being the case my assumption is he can't shoot the 3 reliably, because he never showed as much.

This brings me back to the question I asked you; who is the modern archetype for this player type succeedng as a star?

[Doctor MJ]

As you concede above, KJ did not demonstrate reliable 3pt range. That being the case my assumption is he can't shoot the 3 reliably, because he never showed as much.

This brings me back to the question I asked you; who is the modern archetype for this player type succeedng as a star?

Right but you're asking the question based on a false premise.

I'm not saying that KJ would probably be better than Booker if he absolutely could not shoot from 3 (I think that would be a major problem.)
I'm saying "probably" because I think he probably would be able to shoot 3's fine if that had been what he was encouraged to do.
I say this because I think most good shooters could, but I don't see it as a given.

And for that reason I welcome your shot analysis to explain your conclusion because that might sway me that a less optimistic outcome is more likely.

[One_and_Done]

If you don't draw that conclusion from his stats I don't know what more value my words would add. quod erat demonstrandum

[Doctor MJ]

If you don't draw that conclusion from his stats I don't know what more value my words would add. quod erat demonstrandum

You're essentially asserting that all of the players in the past who shot way less shots from 3 than today's players did so because they knew they were so much more incapable than these modern players that they personally should abstain from them even though it's a really good idea. This is not the reality.

Players didn't take these shots primarily because that wasn't the norm at the time. The changing of norms based around the pace & space movement has been the most important thing we've ever witnessed in our lives as basketball fans, and I think we need to take care not looking to ignore than when trying to consider what was actually different about players' fundamental capacities back then.

[DirtyDez]

Who is the greater Suns player as of now?

KJ. People understandably think of him as a guy with longevity problems, but he won 11 playoff series with the Suns to Booker's 5. As a historical city sporting icon, they aren't really in the same tier yet.

As far as the city icon part Booker is the 2nd greatest Sun ever behind Nash. If we’re talking pure peak it’s Barkley but he only played here 4 years and he packed it sooner than that. KJ was great and probably underrated in the grand scheme but there was always something a little bit off with him besides injuries. There were always rumors of personal stuff going on and wasn’t really embraced by his teammates. Ironically he was the perfect #2 for Chuck but they never seemed to play their best at the same time and had chemistry issues. It’s crazy looking back losing to inferior Houston teams in b2b years.

[Doctor MJ]

Who is the greater Suns player as of now?

KJ. People understandably think of him as a guy with longevity problems, but he won 11 playoff series with the Suns to Booker's 5. As a historical city sporting icon, they aren't really in the same tier yet.

As far as the city icon part Booker is the 2nd greatest Sun ever behind Nash. If we’re talking pure peak it’s Barkley but he only played here 4 years and he packed it sooner than that. KJ was great and probably underrated in the grand scheme but there was always something a little bit off with him besides injuries. There were always rumors of personal stuff going on and wasn’t really embraced by his teammates. Ironically he was the perfect #2 for Chuck but they never seemed to play their best at the same time and had chemistry issues. It’s crazy looking back losing to inferior Houston teams in b2b years.

I appreciate the response. I defer to your local expertise on the specific off-puttingness of KJ.

In terms of Booker being the 2nd greatest city icon by the Suns, I have to push back there. Booker wasn't anywhere on the historical list until 2021, and we only just got to 2024, which means his icon status is still very much in its adolescence. People are surely over the moon about him right now, but in terms of the shadow that will be his legacy, it is still in the process of being cast.

Perhaps what you're saying is that you've personally lived through the entirety of the Suns' history from a local gaze, and you've never seen a player so prominently featured across the city except for Nash. If so, that's definitely a worthwhile thing to notice and communicate, and it suggest the possibility of him becoming a historical icon considerably greater than KJ.

[sp6r=underrated]

Who would the modern archetype for KJ succeeding even be? A point guard without a 3pt shot. Logic says his impact would be substantially reduced, never mind what playing modern defence would do to his oft injured body. I doubt he'd hold up well given the toll it would take.

Kevin Johnson was a career 84% ft shooter. If he was born in 1998 he almost assuredly would be a solid 3 pt shooter given how much more players practice 3s today in junior high and HS.

[One_and_Done]

Who would the modern archetype for KJ succeeding even be? A point guard without a 3pt shot. Logic says his impact would be substantially reduced, never mind what playing modern defence would do to his oft injured body. I doubt he'd hold up well given the toll it would take.

Kevin Johnson was a career 84% ft shooter. If he was born in 1998 he almost assuredly would be a solid 3 pt shooter given how much more players practice 3s today in junior high and HS.

It's too speculative. Demar is a great midrange & FT shooter; and he still can't hit 3s.

[sp6r=underrated]

Who would the modern archetype for KJ succeeding even be? A point guard without a 3pt shot. Logic says his impact would be substantially reduced, never mind what playing modern defence would do to his oft injured body. I doubt he'd hold up well given the toll it would take.

Kevin Johnson was a career 84% ft shooter. If he was born in 1998 he almost assuredly would be a solid 3 pt shooter given how much more players practice 3s today in junior high and HS.

It's too speculative. Demar is a great midrange & FT shooter; and he still can't hit 3s.

I agree it is specuation but when you are doing cross era comparisons you need speculation about how players would perform in a different era.

As an example, Giannis dribble is illegal throughout most of NBA's history. I don't think for a moment he would have been whistled for traveling violations on every play if he had been born in 1955 because he would have developed a legal dribble and used that.

When I look at KJ I saw a player with a strong shooting form. It was consistent and reliable. He also was a strong FT shooter and regularly shot long mid range jumpers. That makes me think he would have a 3 point shot if he was born in 1996.

[One_and_Done]

Yeh I just disagree with both your approach and conclusions.

[sp6r=underrated]

Yeh I just disagree with both your approach and conclusions.

Fair enough.

[sp6r=underrated]

You're essentially asserting that all of the players in the past who shot way less shots from 3 than today's players did so because they knew they were so much more incapable than these modern players that they personally should abstain from them even though it's a really good idea. This is not the reality.

Players didn't take these shots primarily because that wasn't the norm at the time. The changing of norms based around the pace & space movement has been the most important thing we've ever witnessed in our lives as basketball fans, and I think we need to take care not looking to ignore than when trying to consider what was actually different about players' fundamental capacities back then.

I'd split the difference between you two. One and Done is asserting players shot 3s less because they knew they were incapable of shooting them at an acceptable rate. I think he's mainly right about that with some important exemptions. As a Knicks fan I wish in retrospect Riley encouraged hubert davis to shoot alot more 3s. But that isn't the case for most of em. They wouldn't have hit at an acceptable clip.

But where he errs is not recognizing that 3 point shooting is a learnable skill with shot coaching and repetition. And when you're comparing players from previous eras you need to at least attempt to determine which players could learn to shoot 3s and which couldn't.

If you don't attempt to figure out how players would perform if they were born in 1996 you're just doing the time machine method of player evaluation. If you time machined a great 19th Century historian to the present any HS student would kill him because they'd use wikipedia and the internet. And fair enough if that is your method no old player is worthy of consideration once enough time passes.

If you reject the time machine method, as I do, you need to try to gauge how well a player would learn modern 3 point shooting. I like to use ft shooting, video footage of their shooting form and what range they shot from for their era to gauge how confident I am in their ability to learn the shot. And I do think KJ could have an adaquete 3 point shot.

Others can attempt different tools but that's my method

[Doctor MJ]

You're essentially asserting that all of the players in the past who shot way less shots from 3 than today's players did so because they knew they were so much more incapable than these modern players that they personally should abstain from them even though it's a really good idea. This is not the reality.

Players didn't take these shots primarily because that wasn't the norm at the time. The changing of norms based around the pace & space movement has been the most important thing we've ever witnessed in our lives as basketball fans, and I think we need to take care not looking to ignore than when trying to consider what was actually different about players' fundamental capacities back then.

I'd split the difference between you two. One and Done is asserting players shot 3s less because they knew they were incapable of shooting them at an acceptable rate. I think he's mainly right about that with some important exemptions. As a Knicks fan I wish in retrospect Riley encouraged hubert davis to shoot alot more 3s. But that isn't the case for most of em. They wouldn't have hit at an acceptable clip.

But where he errs is not recognizing that 3 point shooting is a learnable skill with shot coaching and repetition. And when you're comparing players from previous eras you need to at least attempt to determine which players could learn to shoot 3s and which couldn't.

If you don't attempt to figure out how players would perform if they were born in 1996 you're just doing the time machine method of player evaluation. If you time machined a great 19th Century historian to the present any HS student would kill him because they'd use wikipedia and the internet. And fair enough if that is your method no old player is worthy of consideration once enough time passes.

If you reject the time machine method, as I do, you need to try to gauge how well a player would learn modern 3 point shooting. I like to use ft shooting, video footage of their shooting form and what range they shot from for their era to gauge how confident I am in their ability to learn the shot. And I do think KJ could have an adaquete 3 point shot.

Others can attempt different tools but that's my method

I appreciate you looking to split the difference, and the stuff you said while throwing me a bone I absolutely support. I think you have a solid approach here.

But I would still chafe at the idea of "they knew they were incapable of shooting them" because it implies that the players had an accurate idea of what was possible, and what was optimal given what was possible, when I think it's crystal clear they neither they nor their coaches remotely understood these things.

Had the players understood it, then the coaches certainly would have.
Had the coaches understood it, then at the very least they'd have been pushing their players to practice 3's like crazy during the off-season...but they didn't do that.