I'd rather a dead-eye 3pt shooter than a good 2pt shooter. DeMar DeRozan is a volume scorer who is streaky as hell from deep yet he still gets close to the max. Booker is a phenomenal talent and we can't let him walk by being cheap.
Saying a guy has poor shot selection, which is a fair statement with Booker, is very different than saying they're a poor shooter in general, which is a point you made repeatedly. Even the very first post YOU link, I am talking specifically about outside shooting and how he is good at it, you respond by telling me the argument is ridiculous... apparently because he isn't KD or Durant.
And I left you a very detailed list of Booker's shooting numbers vs several guys who developed into stars in the same age range. Sorry if you were too stressed to read.
Your argument is still bogus.
Cheers.
Also, for a guy who loves PER as a be all end all, to throw my opinion on Ingram in my face is pretty damn funny.
Double cheers.
And this "oh, I only meant he isn't a good 2 pt shooter" argument came about only after your original point went over as well as a wet fart.
Triple cheers.
*And by "not a good 2pt shooter" I think that's fairly self explanatory that I mean all 2pt shots, not just long ones.
"Not a good 2 point shooter" and "not a good all around shooter" are not even remotely similar statements. Expecting someone to "infer" specificity when you use the line "all around" is absolutely absurd.
And I gave you a long list of players, and no I won't put them in a spread sheet for you. Besides, I would need to make like 12 with how often you are warping your argument.
Booker is ranked 60th in PER by the way... 7th among guards, 18 is actually a GOOD PER... do you even understand your own stats?
This argument is an "all around" waste of air.
1. What part of he's not a good all around shooter is hard to understand:
- he's a good 3pt shooter
- he's a good FT shooter
- he's a bad 2pt shooter
He's 2 from 3 right there i.e. he's not 3 from 3 which meets my definition. Go look at Reggie Miller's Stats for a good "all around" shooter.
2. I can see why you're struggling - he ranks 361st for 2pt%; that's what I'm ranking, not PER.
3. Lol - you can't provide the stats because they don't exist. He's not outstanding for anything at this stage other than points scored, but we're not arguing that.
You use vague generalities when you're trying to be specific. If you mean he isn't a good 2 point shooter... say it. Saying a guy is "not good all around" means to... basically anyone with a comprehension of the meaning of "all around" that he struggles in a variety of ways... not one specific one.1. What part of he's not a good all around shooter is hard to understand:
- he's a good 3pt shooter
- he's a good FT shooter
- he's a bad 2pt shooter
He's 2 from 3 right there i.e. he's not 3 from 3 which meets my definition. Go look at Reggie Miller's Stats for a good "all around" shooter.
2. I can see why you're struggling - he ranks 361st for 2pt%; that's what I'm ranking, not PER.
3. Lol - you can't provide the stats because they don't exist. He's not outstanding for anything at this stage other than points scored, but we're not arguing that.
And if you want context in all of this, it's to do with his impending max. contract i.e. he's not an outright, outright slam dunk for one - that's reserved for the LBJ's and KD's of the league
Are you using PER 48 or PER 36? What about his role on the team vs others on that list? What about the systems each run? There are so many factors that prevent you simply from using PER as the be all end all. It's nothing more than an indicator. Just because it's the simplest way for you to draw a conclusion doesn't mean it's anything more than one of many indicators.
For example when Nash was playing his PER when playing off his position made his defensive PER look better. So did the defensive scheme no matter who he defended. We all knew what was happening on the court. We also knew when he was isolated with PG, the Suns defensive MO was to rotate another player to Nash's man to double or take the ball out of said players hand to help him. Sure that may have helped his defensive PER but it was not a good indicator of how bad he was at times.
It's ridiculous to draw an absolute conclusion based on PER. I use the stat to support my position often but I never just use PER as the primary driver. I know what I see when I watch him. When he is on and getting help, he is a much better player with much better shot selection. The problem is he has so little help on this team he is pressing and being asked to do more than he should.
You use vague generalities when you're trying to be specific. If you mean he isn't a good 2 point shooter... say it.
You're the one who threw your PER stat into that point, then immediately followed his PER number with his league ranking... apparently jumping back to the original stat of 2pt shooting. And, as stated, you rip his PER when it is actually GOOD.
Seriously... you rip a guy because you cannot be bothered to read 3 paragraphs
then demand someone else create an excel spreadsheet for you
... I mean, seriously... it is a level of hypocrisy that is astounding.
Yes, he is a slam dunk for one, and no, max contracts are not reserved for the league's 2 best players.
Really... I am the fool here for continuing to debate with someone so shockingly out of touch with the current reality of the NBA.
And if you want context in all of this, it's to do with his impending max. contract i.e. he's not an outright, outright slam dunk for one - that's reserved for the LBJ's and KD's of the league - because of his low PER relative to how many points he scores, which is largely a function of his poor 2pt% and only decent 3pt%.
But I'm not saying he doesn't deserve one; he totally does, but with an amount of caution tacked on.
Look at Andrew Wiggins for example who had a better PER than Booker currently does when he got one and at first sight of another alpha dog in Butler he fades.
General Manager Ryan McDonough said Thursday that Booker will have a voice in all of the organization’s major decisions going forward, including the search for a new coach, free agency and the draft.
“With his emergence and importance to not only what we’re doing in the short term but hopefully in the next decade-plus, I think it’s important to make him a partner in the process,” McDonough said.
“Kind of show him the blueprint and vision we have not only for the rest of this season, but for the summers of 2018, 2019, 2020, etc.,” McDonough said. “In terms of what he thinks are important characteristics for a head coach to have, what’s important to us as an organization and how we build over a number of years.”
Booker is going to get the max.
This is not a stat argument per se. He is the best player the Suns have... the building block and he will be payed accordingly.
It can't get much clearer.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/spo...input-suns-decisions-going-forward/988705001/
$aver: Do you think he's a max guy?
Metrics Mcd: Every thing on the surface suggests he should be; he won the 3pt contest, he hits tough shots, he has the right attitude, people talk about him as a dark horse super star so I'd say yeah he should be, but the weirdest thing is his stats don't back him up.
Bad and declining 2pt%, only a decent 3pt % - all contributing to a mediocre PER in view of how many points he scores i.e. he's a relatively inefficient player - and our teams suck; how many super stars in the making played three seasons in their rookie contracts and their teams got worse every year? The last one's not entirely on Booker of course, but it's still a bit strange.
$aver: So you're saying he isn't worth it?
Metrics McD: No, I'm saying it's not an outright slam dunk.
$aver: So would you give it to him?
Metrics McD: We pretty much have to based on potential and considering where we are as a franchise - and we'd probably get lynched in the streets if we didn't as fans tend to take a one eyed view on their players - but it's not without it's risks. Still, with a decent PG and a stronger supporting cast it's a risk worth taking.
$aver: You better be right.
Metrics McD: Outside of the Morris Bros, Knight, Dragic, IT, Bledsoe, no 3pt shooting on the team when it's the most valuable asset in the league, drafting and trading for centres when the league has moved away from traditional centres, every player bad mouthing the team on their way out the door and 5 straight seasons of declining performance fiascoes...I'm always right.
Uh OK.
Don't blame me for mis-reading what is a very clear sentence - and his PER is decent, but in view of how many points he scores and assists he makes it's surprisingly low.
I've read every post on here.
I didn't demand anything, I asked you to statistically back up your talk:
"not only is he a good shooter but he is HISTORICALLY good"
"he still puts up crazy numbers, and at an efficiency that is historic for a player his age"
You don't have to but then you're chicken for either not doing it or not admitting you're wrong - lack of evidence is proof enough for me that you're wrong.
Maybe a touch but I’d like to think you would have recognised a fairly clear difference in style between poop head and me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Apologies for trying to explain the whole picture for the 10,000th time in this thread in one, single, post.
(And I won't mention the PER 36 or 48 question...)
He deserves the max - just don't shoot me for kicking the tyres before offering the contract!
Actually my questions were more rhetorical. I realize you want to place more emphasis on an indicator.