Is Devin Booker a Franchise Player?

[bringinhinkie]

no one cares that he put up 24/5/5 on a 21 team..

You should care, considering he's 21 years old. There are only three other guys who put up 24-4-4 at the age of 21. MJ, LeBron and T-Mac.

I just told you, all these guys can put up numbers if the shots are there and the team isn't any good

it mean's absolutely nothing on a 40 win team.. it means even less on a 30 win team.. a 20 win team? .......

nba scoring guard/wing + high shot attempts/ability to handle the ball + bad team = numbers

philly used to stream wroten, mcconnell, and ish smith during trust the process.. the all put up numbers whehn the mpg/shots were there.. every single isiah thomas->mda knicks team had a guy putting up big numbers.. be it marbury, crawford, curry one year, zbo, david lee, al harrington (even lil nate had a monster run with d'antoni).. yet- the team was always 33-49

booker is an exceptional young player.. and he will improve because he is a hard worker/has a killer instinct

but no one should be talking franchise player when the guy can;t even lead his team to 30 wins, let alone 50.. franchise players win 50 games.. cp3 always wins(won.. alone) 50.. jordan always won 50.. lebron always won 50.. harden always wins 50.. ewing always won 50 .. . . . . .... . ... .

stats mean nothing void of wins .. he has free will to do whatever he wants on the court.. and it has translated to being THE WORST team in the nba the past 2 seasons

again, franchise players win 50 games and make the post season.. every.single.year .. they put roleplayers on their backs every.single.year

they look like this guy:



and this guy:



sometimes they are german:



they don't look like this:



in closing: i've seen booker's work ethic, he will be a monster of a player.. but he has much more rounding out/learning to do before the phrase "franchise player" should even be thought of (by fans.. he should be thinking it).. and this goes for 95% of young stars (KP, etc)

[contestedlayups]

I think it's too soon to determine the answer to this question. Booker has gone through some rough waters in terms of being coached well, as Jeff Hornacek has bombed wherever he's gone, and Earl Watson was overmatched from the day he took over for Hornacek. Not to mention the turmoil the team went through last season after Watson was fired and Bledsoe was traded. Igor Kokoskov at least offers a pedigree that is bankable, as his recent successes of coaching the Slovenian national team and the Jazz last season are reason to believe that Booker's arrow can be pointing straight up. Coaching does matter in the NBA when young players are still developing, and Booker is no exception to this rule. In one year's time, we'll know the answer to this question, and I think he will be consdered one by then.

I will give you the Slovenian national team, but you can't use coaching the Jazz as that's Quin Snyder's imprint all the way. Hornacek was a Jazz assistant as well before. Koskoskov is totally unproven in the NBA. We will see if he can thrive as a coach. Phoenix is an enigma of youth and talent.

Yes, Hornacek was a Jazz assistant under Ty Corbin. Ask Jazz fans how that was, as I'm sure they have pretty vivid memories of it being a terrible time for their franchise. Comparing Hornacek to Kokoskov in terms of actual coaching experience is ridiculous. Hornacek has been fired at two positions now and has only been coaching since 2011. The guy can't get his players to buy in to what he's selling and the in-fighting that has occurred with his teams is proof that he's in way over his head when it comes to being an NBA coach.

Kokoskov has 18 years of assistant coaching experience at an NBA level, along with as well as 22 years of international coaching experience. The guy took the Republic of Georgia to Eurobasket, which hadn't sniffed that tournament before him as their head coach. Give the man some credit, he has some decent coaching chops and is much more experienced than Hornacek or Watson were when they became the Head Coach of the Suns.

[kodo]

i went for hmmm no, because im not convinced yet. He got alot of hype for his 70pt game but hasnt really progressed since.

23 wins in 2016 24 in 2017 and 21 in 2018, you call that progress?? Franchise players bring wins not stats, and even those didnt really went up in 3 years.

I would debate if wins factor into the definition.

For the first two years, Kevin Durant won 20 & 23 games. But it was clear he was the franchise player for Seattle right away from the 1st season.

I have to factor that Booker is still only 21. At 21, Steph Curry won 26 games.

[SlowPaced]

no one cares that he put up 24/5/5 on a 21 team..

You should care, considering he's 21 years old. There are only three other guys who put up 24-4-4 at the age of 21. MJ, LeBron and T-Mac.

I just told you, all these guys can put up numbers if the shots are there and the team isn't any good

it mean's absolutely nothing on a 40 win team.. it means even less on a 30 win team.. a 20 win team? .......

nba scoring guard/wing + high shot attempts/ability to handle the ball + bad team = numbers

philly used to stream wroten, mcconnell, and ish smith during trust the process.. the all put up numbers whehn the mpg/shots were there.. every single isiah thomas->mda knicks team had a guy putting up big numbers.. be it marbury, crawford, curry one year, zbo, david lee, al harrington (even lil nate had a monster run with d'antoni).. yet- the team was always 33-49

booker is an exceptional young player.. and he will improve because he is a hard worker/has a killer instinct

but no one should be talking franchise player when the guy can;t even lead his team to 30 wins, let alone 50.. franchise players win 50 games.. cp3 always wins(won.. alone) 50.. jordan always won 50.. lebron always won 50.. harden always wins 50.. ewing always won 50 .. . . . . .... . ... .

stats mean nothing void of wins .. he has free will to do whatever he wants on the court.. and it has translated to being THE WORST team in the nba the past 2 seasons

again, franchise players win 50 games and make the post season.. every.single.year .. they put roleplayers on their backs every.single.year

they look like this guy:



and this guy:



sometimes they are german:



they don't look like this:



in closing: i've seen booker's work ethic, he will be a monster of a player.. but he has much more rounding out/learning to do before the phrase "franchise player" should even be thought of (by fans.. he should be thinking it).. and this goes for 95% of young stars (KP, etc)

You clearly don't realize franchise player means a player you can commit to as your leading player. Nobody is suggesting Devin Booker is a superstar RIGHT NOW. The argument is he's showing that you can commit to him as your long-term leader.

Also, you don't have to be an all-time great to be a franchise player. That's a ridiculously high standard.

[In2ition]

You should care, considering he's 21 years old. There are only three other guys who put up 24-4-4 at the age of 21. MJ, LeBron and T-Mac.

I just told you, all these guys can put up numbers if the shots are there and the team isn't any good

it mean's absolutely nothing on a 40 win team.. it means even less on a 30 win team.. a 20 win team? .......

nba scoring guard/wing + high shot attempts/ability to handle the ball + bad team = numbers

philly used to stream wroten, mcconnell, and ish smith during trust the process.. the all put up numbers whehn the mpg/shots were there.. every single isiah thomas->mda knicks team had a guy putting up big numbers.. be it marbury, crawford, curry one year, zbo, david lee, al harrington (even lil nate had a monster run with d'antoni).. yet- the team was always 33-49

booker is an exceptional young player.. and he will improve because he is a hard worker/has a killer instinct

but no one should be talking franchise player when the guy can;t even lead his team to 30 wins, let alone 50.. franchise players win 50 games.. cp3 always wins(won.. alone) 50.. jordan always won 50.. lebron always won 50.. harden always wins 50.. ewing always won 50 .. . . . . .... . ... .

stats mean nothing void of wins .. he has free will to do whatever he wants on the court.. and it has translated to being THE WORST team in the nba the past 2 seasons

again, franchise players win 50 games and make the post season.. every.single.year .. they put roleplayers on their backs every.single.year

they look like this guy:



and this guy:



sometimes they are german:



they don't look like this:



in closing: i've seen booker's work ethic, he will be a monster of a player.. but he has much more rounding out/learning to do before the phrase "franchise player" should even be thought of (by fans.. he should be thinking it).. and this goes for 95% of young stars (KP, etc)

You clearly don't realize franchise player means a player you can commit to as your leading player. Nobody is suggesting Devin Booker is a superstar RIGHT NOW. The argument is he's showing that you can commit to him as your long-term leader.

Also, you don't have to be an all-time great to be a franchise player. That's a ridiculously high standard.

Jordan only won 30 games when he was 21, and only another 30 when he was 22.

LeBron only won 35 games his rookie year with Boozer and 42 his second year.

Dirk won only 19 games when he was a rookie with Steve Nash, Michael Finley, Shawn Bradley, Cedric Ceballos, and A.C. Green.

Let me ask how good your team would be if the franchise was actively trying to undermine any attempt at winning at any type of clip to be even respectable?

I think we'll learn a lot more about Booker this year, as it at least doesn't look like they are going to be actively trying to tank this year.

[The_Hater]

Nope. He doesn’t play defense.

Kobe, Lebron, TMac, etc. at Booker’s age were all plus defenders.

Don't think it's necessary for a player to play good defense to be considered as a franchise player.

Harden plays no defense.

While this is true to a degree, Booker has a long, long way to go before matching Harden’s offensive impact. One of them led a 65 win team with the number 1 ranked offense and the other led a 21 win team with the 30th ranked offense.

[In2ition]

Nope. He doesn’t play defense.

Kobe, Lebron, TMac, etc. at Booker’s age were all plus defenders.

Don't think it's necessary for a player to play good defense to be considered as a franchise player.

Harden plays no defense.

While this is true to a degree, Booker has a long, long way to go before matching Harden’s offensive impact. One of them led a 65 win team with the number 1 ranked offense and the other led a 21 win team with the 30th ranked offense.

Well, of course. There is a big difference in situations too. You can't compare Harden last season and his roster, coaching staff, and roster construction with Booker's. That's a little silly, don't you think?

[lilfishi22]

we not talking about the bucks and their health issues, Middleton and Parker were down all the time so it was just giannis. Plus you really want to compare giannis to booker? Booker will never make the same progress as Giannis because his was all about physical strength. Booker has to fine tune his game and get the best shooting % possible. Thats way harder then just gaining muscle and overpowering people with confidence and strength alone. When Giannis is also going to work on his shot, wich he probally is, he will be out of this world. So even

Let me stop you right here. So you're saying, one player cannot do it all by themselves? Were Middleton and Parker's injury replacement much worse than the starters the Suns trotted out?

We are getting a bit of topic, all i wanted to say in my original post was, that he hasnt really developed from our point of view, which isnt the point of view of a suns fan. Yeah his stats went up a bit but so does his usage, FGA and TO. So unless the suns stop tanking and we actually see what he can do we havent seen uptill now what he can do. Except chuck for losses which is the game plan. Remember people though MCW was good, well like barkley said he was a looter in an riot. I hope for suns fans and the NBA itself he will be an all star and franchise player. Its just hard to imagine that when they won less games in 3years then the 73-9 GSW team.

I'm not making any direct player comparison to Giannis. I'm just highlighting that one player alone cannot do it all, except for maybe Lebron. My point is this, if Giannis is a true Tier 1 superstar (I think he is as close as it gets) and his team only won 44 games and if Anthony Davis being the same level superstar the previous 2 seasons (2016, 2017) and his team only won 30 and 34 games while both teams are actively trying to be competitive, what does that say for Booker who isn't on that same level and also plays on a super young team that is trying to tank?

Why is that when you can bring up injuries or poor team mates for these two transcendent superstars winning 44 and 48 games respectively when they should be in that tier with KD's, Lebron's and Harden's but the Suns starters players that shouldn't even be a 7th or 8th man and trying to actively tank, why is it that the same reasons can't be afforded to Booker?

And again, I'm not saying Booker is on his way to being a tier 1 superstar like Davis and Giannis, I'm just trying to figure out why for some reason Booker isn't allowed to have the same concessions that true superstars have when external factors outside of the players do have a legitimate impact on team success. Booker has his flaws, I'm not taking any of that away from him but he's still young (22 to start the next season) and still working to improve his overall game.

Also FWIW in regards to Booker's increased usage, generally when that happens you see a decrease in inefficiency especially when you pair that with similarly poor team mates year in and year out, yet he's still able to increase his efficiency and that to me is improvement, even if it's just on his own game. If team success is a hyper critical part of distinguishing a good player from a great player (the same criteria seemingly being used to rule Booker out) then I'd argue Giannis isn't even there yet because 44 wins in a weak East with a solid team doesn't really cut the mustard. I totally agree that Booker needs to add team success under his belt for him to be considered a true star but with where the Suns are at in terms of rebuilding and the clusterF of a roster we've carried the past few seasons, no matter what he does, no matter how efficient and Harden-like he could have been, it's just not conducive to team success.

[lilfishi22]

23 wins in 2016 24 in 2017 and 21 in 2018, you call that progress?? Franchise players bring wins not stats, and even those didnt really went up in 3 years.

41 in 2015, 33 in 2016, 42 in 2017, 44 in 2018

Giannis went from an improving young player with a ton of potential in 2015 and 2016, to a legit star in 2017 and to a transcendent superstar in 2018.

In that time, the Bucks who weren't tanking, have been trying to make the playoffs and make noise there has improved by 3 games from when Giannis was just a guy with potential to a transcendent superstar. They've also been booted out of the 1st round of the playoffs 3 times. 44 wins for a team with Giannis averaging 27/10/5 on .598TS%

Compare that to Booker, who was barely 19 when his rookie season began, and the Suns continued to tank as part of the rebuild through each of the 3 seasons Booker had played and we've won exactly as many games as we were expecting to win.

IMO Booker doesn’t get a pass for stat padding on a losing team just cause the team was trying to lose. I agree the Bucks need more team success for Giannas to be a true top player, but at least he got his teams to the playoffs. I remember looking up the Suns win percentage in just the games Booker has played and it was really, really low.

What about Anthony Davis and the Pels winning 30 and 34 games the previous two seasons? It wasn't until they added Rondo and Cousins (that the trio worked was a surprise to me) that they finally made noise in the playoffs.

The Suns aren't good and Booker on his own hasn't been able to add wins. But have the Suns been trying to add wins during Booker's three seasons? Jeanie Buss was on Theo Von's podcast and she made a comment about how there's a power struggle between front office management and the coaching staff and if the front office doesn't want the coach to succeed (like in the Suns case) then it's real easy for the front office to put together a team that doesn't suit a system or can realistically win games.

[The_Hater]

Don't think it's necessary for a player to play good defense to be considered as a franchise player.

Harden plays no defense.

While this is true to a degree, Booker has a long, long way to go before matching Harden’s offensive impact. One of them led a 65 win team with the number 1 ranked offense and the other led a 21 win team with the 30th ranked offense.

Well, of course. There is a big difference in situations too. You can't compare Harden last season and his roster, coaching staff, and roster construction with Booker's. That's a little silly, don't you think?

Of course the situations are different, but I’m not sure that excuses Phoenix for having the worst offense in the entire league with Booker at the helm. Harden has never missed the playoffs nor led an offense outside the top 10 in Houston. Plus I’m not the one who brought up the Harden reference, I just expanded on it.

Don’t get me wrong, Booker is a good young player but I don’t think he has much chance to be the best player on a contender. I think he needs to be the next guy on a team of thst quality. That said, I look forward to seeing him prove me wrong.

[lilfishi22]

While this is true to a degree, Booker has a long, long way to go before matching Harden’s offensive impact. One of them led a 65 win team with the number 1 ranked offense and the other led a 21 win team with the 30th ranked offense.

Well, of course. There is a big difference in situations too. You can't compare Harden last season and his roster, coaching staff, and roster construction with Booker's. That's a little silly, don't you think?

Of course the situations are different, but I’m not sure that excuses Phoenix for having the worst offense in the entire league with Booker at the helm. Harden has never missed the playoffs nor led an offense outside the top 10 in Houston. Plus I’m not the one who brought up the Harden reference, I just expanded on it.

Don’t get me wrong, Booker is a good young player but I don’t think he has much chance to be the best player on a contender. I think he needs to be the next guy on a team of thst quality. That said, I look forward to seeing him prove me wrong.

Harden is really good. Like superstar tier good (even with poor defense) but Harden was already 23 when he was traded to the Rockets where he put up 26/5/6 on .600TS% with a good mix of young players with experience (avg age of players who played 1500+min was 25.4) who have been in the league for 3-5 seasons already. They had a so-so coach in McHale but still won a very solid 45 games in the West. Harden was further along in his development and impact than Booker when he joined the Rockets. But Harden also played with some of the best players in the world (Russ/KD) before he finally had his own team and could come out of his shell as the #1 option which he did so wit flying colours.

Contrast that to Booker who at 21 put up 25/5/5 on .561TS% with a tanking team on a roster that had 7 players playing over 1500+min with an average age of 21.8. But I just don't see how the Suns being a poorly put together team, who will see its 4 new coach in 3 years, having one of the youngest if not the youngest team over the past 3 seasons, have been actively tanking and somehow Booker isn't even a little bit excused for poor team success.

Is he the absolute bees knees? No but let's hold our horses before forever branding him just an empty stat padder (not aimed at you directly)

[The_Hater]

Well, of course. There is a big difference in situations too. You can't compare Harden last season and his roster, coaching staff, and roster construction with Booker's. That's a little silly, don't you think?

Of course the situations are different, but I’m not sure that excuses Phoenix for having the worst offense in the entire league with Booker at the helm. Harden has never missed the playoffs nor led an offense outside the top 10 in Houston. Plus I’m not the one who brought up the Harden reference, I just expanded on it.

Don’t get me wrong, Booker is a good young player but I don’t think he has much chance to be the best player on a contender. I think he needs to be the next guy on a team of thst quality. That said, I look forward to seeing him prove me wrong.

Harden is really good. Like superstar tier good (even with poor defense) but Harden was already 23 when he was traded to the Rockets where he put up 26/5/6 on .600TS% with a good mix of young players with experience (avg age of players who played 1500+min was 25.4) who have been in the league for 3-5 seasons already. They had a so-so coach in McHale but still won a very solid 45 games in the West. Harden was further along in his development and impact than Booker when he joined the Rockets. But Harden also played with some of the best players in the world (Russ/KD) before he finally had his own team and could come out of his shell as the #1 option which he did so wit flying colours.

Contrast that to Booker who at 21 put up 25/5/5 on .561TS% with a tanking team on a roster that had 7 players playing over 1500+min with an average age of 21.8. But I just don't see how the Suns being a poorly put together team, who will see its 4 new coach in 3 years, having one of the youngest if not the youngest team over the past 3 seasons, have been actively tanking and somehow Booker isn't even a little bit excused for poor team success.

Is he the absolute bees knees? No but let's hold our horses before forever branding him just an empty stat padder (not aimed at you directly)

I never called him a stat padder so I’m not sure where that came from.

But posting big offensive numbers with a 21 win team is not the same thing as doing that with a playoff team or a contender. That doesn’t mean that all big scorers on bad teams are overrated, but until they help translate those numbers to wins on the floor that thought is still going to be in the corner of many people’s mind. And yes, Booker could obviously use more help but that also shouldn’t be used as a blanket excuse for the team’s best player.
.

[lilfishi22]

Of course the situations are different, but I’m not sure that excuses Phoenix for having the worst offense in the entire league with Booker at the helm. Harden has never missed the playoffs nor led an offense outside the top 10 in Houston. Plus I’m not the one who brought up the Harden reference, I just expanded on it.

Don’t get me wrong, Booker is a good young player but I don’t think he has much chance to be the best player on a contender. I think he needs to be the next guy on a team of thst quality. That said, I look forward to seeing him prove me wrong.

Harden is really good. Like superstar tier good (even with poor defense) but Harden was already 23 when he was traded to the Rockets where he put up 26/5/6 on .600TS% with a good mix of young players with experience (avg age of players who played 1500+min was 25.4) who have been in the league for 3-5 seasons already. They had a so-so coach in McHale but still won a very solid 45 games in the West. Harden was further along in his development and impact than Booker when he joined the Rockets. But Harden also played with some of the best players in the world (Russ/KD) before he finally had his own team and could come out of his shell as the #1 option which he did so wit flying colours.

Contrast that to Booker who at 21 put up 25/5/5 on .561TS% with a tanking team on a roster that had 7 players playing over 1500+min with an average age of 21.8. But I just don't see how the Suns being a poorly put together team, who will see its 4 new coach in 3 years, having one of the youngest if not the youngest team over the past 3 seasons, have been actively tanking and somehow Booker isn't even a little bit excused for poor team success.

Is he the absolute bees knees? No but let's hold our horses before forever branding him just an empty stat padder (not aimed at you directly)

I never called him a stat padder so I’m not sure where that came from.

But posting big offensive numbers with a 21 win team is not the same thing as doing that with a playoff team or a contender. That doesn’t mean that all big scorers on bad teams are overrated, but until they help translate those numbers to wins on the floor that thought is still going to be in the corner of many people’s mind. And yes, Booker could obviously use more help but that also shouldn’t be used as a blanket excuse for the team’s best player.
.

That's why I said the comment wasn't aimed at your directly

Of course there's a difference. But is Harden's team still a 45 win team if he was in Booker's place? How much of team success is reliant on a single player being an absolute superstar and how much of it is based off having an experienced team with aligned goals from the front office down to the coaching?