Booker or Kaminsky

[Clyde Frazier]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Using booker's exact stats as the baseline parameters is the epitome of cherrypicking. Not to mention the hilariously small sample size.

[In2ition]

Using booker's exact stats as the baseline parameters is the epitome of cherrypicking. Not to mention the hilariously small sample size.

You're right it is a small sample, but it was about Booker being under 21 and he turned 21 yesterday. Also, there obviously haven't been a lot of games yet. Also, you are right as far as using his exact stats, but how else would you do it if you were to find those that match or exceed his output? The point is that Booker is a lot more than what the haters believe, and he's improving on his past perceived weaknesses.

[In2ition]

http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=21231844


Wow. We are all witnesses.

What are we all witnesses to? A elementary spin move is proof of something grand?

[Clyde Frazier]

Using booker's exact stats as the baseline parameters is the epitome of cherrypicking. Not to mention the hilariously small sample size.

You're right it is a small sample, but it was about Booker being under 21 and he turned 21 yesterday. Also, there obviously haven't been a lot of games yet. Also, you are right as far as using his exact stats, but how else would you do it if you were to find those that match or exceed his output? The point is that Booker is a lot more than what the haters believe, and he's improving on his past perceived weaknesses.

To preface, i’m a fan of booker. Not trying to belittle him here, although I think the player he could become is more important than the player he is right now. This guy is just reaching with these stats and sample size is always important when looking at any type of production / impact.

When you're setting parameters on basketball reference, it's more reasonable to lower them to at least round numbers, especially when you’re inputting multiple stats. I'd put them even a little lower than that personally. This allows for a larger pool of players in that range, and is more indicative of the company booker is in. Using his specific stats as a baseline typically would put him at the bottom of that player pool, where one can say “look at the elite company he’s in!” when the rest of those guys could have far better stats.

[In2ition]

Using booker's exact stats as the baseline parameters is the epitome of cherrypicking. Not to mention the hilariously small sample size.

You're right it is a small sample, but it was about Booker being under 21 and he turned 21 yesterday. Also, there obviously haven't been a lot of games yet. Also, you are right as far as using his exact stats, but how else would you do it if you were to find those that match or exceed his output? The point is that Booker is a lot more than what the haters believe, and he's improving on his past perceived weaknesses.

To preface, i’m a fan of booker. Not trying to belittle him here, although I think the player he could become is more important than the player he is right now. This guy is just reaching with these stats and sample size is always important when looking at any type of production / impact.

When you're setting parameters on basketball reference, it's more reasonable to lower them to at least round numbers, especially when you’re inputting multiple stats. I'd put them even a little lower than that personally. This allows for a larger pool of players in that range, and is more indicative of the company booker is in. Using his specific stats as a baseline typically would put him at the bottom of that player pool, where one can say “look at the elite company he’s in!” when the rest of those guys could have far better stats.

I agree, he got it to the point that he wasn't even the bottom of the pool, but the only one in the pool. It would have been interesting if he would have lowered the criteria that he was searching for a little to see the others at or near the production.

I realize that it's still very early in the season, some teams haven't gone on their extended road trips yet and others haven't faced the best teams either. If this thread is about Booker vs. Kaminsky, when is it going to be enough of a sample size to compare this season's stats to each other?

[Clyde Frazier]

You're right it is a small sample, but it was about Booker being under 21 and he turned 21 yesterday. Also, there obviously haven't been a lot of games yet. Also, you are right as far as using his exact stats, but how else would you do it if you were to find those that match or exceed his output? The point is that Booker is a lot more than what the haters believe, and he's improving on his past perceived weaknesses.

To preface, i’m a fan of booker. Not trying to belittle him here, although I think the player he could become is more important than the player he is right now. This guy is just reaching with these stats and sample size is always important when looking at any type of production / impact.

When you're setting parameters on basketball reference, it's more reasonable to lower them to at least round numbers, especially when you’re inputting multiple stats. I'd put them even a little lower than that personally. This allows for a larger pool of players in that range, and is more indicative of the company booker is in. Using his specific stats as a baseline typically would put him at the bottom of that player pool, where one can say “look at the elite company he’s in!” when the rest of those guys could have far better stats.

I agree, he got it to the point that he wasn't even the bottom of the pool, but the only one in the pool. It would have been interesting if he would have lowered the criteria that he was searching for a little to see the others at or near the production.

I realize that it's still very early in the season, some teams haven't gone on their extended road trips yet and others haven't faced the best teams either. If this thread is about Booker vs. Kaminsky, when is it going to be enough of a sample size to compare this season's stats to each other?

We can compare them all year lol

http://bkref.com/tiny/wB2q9

[NotReady]

We might as well just make this the Booker thread, because the actual comparison is silly.

Last year Booker was a chuck and while it was understandable, it seemed to me his career could end looking like a Ben Gordon type or something. And it still could. But he's really impressing me with his rebounds and assists thus far. He seems to have went from Timmy Hardaway Jr to baby Gary Harris but with more scoring. At least in these first two weeks.

[SlowPaced]

Booker is a terrible defender, but let's not go too far here. He's far too skilled to be worse than someone like Kaminsky.

[In2ition]

Booker is a terrible defender, but let's not go too far here. He's far too skilled to be worse than someone like Kaminsky.

Ah, but you haven't been paying attention this year. Booker has upped his defensive game this year too, and is improving almost on a daily basis on that side of the ball. He's not perfect on that end and still makes some mistakes, but is light years ahead of where he was last year. It's easy to parrot what everyone was saying last year. Need to see him now.

BTW, his ORtg and DRtg are going to look terrible as the Suns were almost outscored by 100 pts in 2 of their first 3 games.

[DRK]

Booker is a terrible defender, but let's not go too far here. He's far too skilled to be worse than someone like Kaminsky.

Someone hasnt watched Booker this season

[SlowPaced]

Booker is a terrible defender, but let's not go too far here. He's far too skilled to be worse than someone like Kaminsky.

Someone hasnt watched Booker this season

I admittedly only watched the first two games they played, in which his defense was terrible. But advanced stats don't seem to be portraying him any differently.

[In2ition]

Booker is a terrible defender, but let's not go too far here. He's far too skilled to be worse than someone like Kaminsky.

Someone hasnt watched Booker this season

I admittedly only watched the first two games they played, in which his defense was terrible. But advanced stats don't seem to be portraying him any differently.

You don't think those 2 atrocious games to start the season could be skewing the advanced stats a bit? I don't know how long it will last(hopefully it's permanent), but if you watch him, his defense is much much better.

[NotReady]

But advanced stats don't seem to be portraying him any differently.

That tends to happen when your team loses by 90 points combined in what is currently 25% of the games you've played this season.

[oaktownwarriors87]

well one of those guys lit my team up for SEVENTY POINTS and the other looks like he sucks, so this isn't hard for me.

Didn't he score 70 and lose?

[HeartBreakKid]

well one of those guys lit my team up for SEVENTY POINTS and the other looks like he sucks, so this isn't hard for me.

Didn't he score 70 and lose?

in a blow out.

[In2ition]

well one of those guys lit my team up for SEVENTY POINTS and the other looks like he sucks, so this isn't hard for me.

Didn't he score 70 and lose?

in a blow out.

Wasn't it a 6 point game with 2 minutes left?

[Ayt]

Didn't he score 70 and lose?

in a blow out.

Wasn't it a 6 point game with 2 minutes left?

You can see for yourself here.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/pbp/201703240BOS.html

The game was never within single digits after the middle of the first quarter when the score was 3-12. It was still a hell of a game for Booker.

[In2ition]

in a blow out.

Wasn't it a 6 point game with 2 minutes left?

You can see for yourself here.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/pbp/201703240BOS.html

The game was never within single digits after the middle of the first quarter when the score was 3-12. It was still a hell of a game for Booker.

Thanks. I guess coming back from 10 points with 1:05 left isn't out of the realm of possibility, but highly unlikely.

[31to6]

I've been watching the NBA for 30 years and never seen a guy score 70 points before, so it kind of made an impression on me.

[ATTL]

well one of those guys lit my team up for SEVENTY POINTS and the other looks like he sucks, so this isn't hard for me.

Didn't he score 70 and lose?

In NBA history, there have been 11 70 point games. 5 have come in losses.