Devin Booker future extension

[Praxis]

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.

 

[3rdside]

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.

1. I explained why I used KD and LBJ initially although I agree they're not fair comparisons; I should have removed their names from this argument earlier.


2. "Booker is not a good 2pt shooter" is not bogus - how else do you explain how a guy scores 25pts per game but has a PER of only 18.0, and he ranks 361st out of all 525 NBA players this season which is not good, period.


3. PER is the best measure of a players effectiveness - it's not perfect, we all know that - but it's the best there is, so I will hardly apologise for seeing value in it.

And using PER to grade a Sophomore is naive - as is your view on Ingram - it's not perfect for 3rd year players either but it certainly carries more weight than it does for a Sophomore.


4. I may have been a little unclear at the start referring to FG% and then TS% but the explanation for why these were both 'a little below average' was always the 2pt%. If you couldn't infer that then that's on you and the 7 subsequent, clear, statements should have been enough for clarification.


When you use statements such as:


"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"


I'm still asking you to prove it (hint: use an Excel spreadsheet to actually show me the numbers).

 

[3rdside]

*And by "not a good 2pt shooter" I think that's fairly self explanatory that I mean all 2pt shots, not just long ones.

 

[Phrazbit]

*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.

 

[3rdside]

"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.

 

[3rdside]

*he's a decent 3pt shooter; there's 80 players who attempt >1.5 3pt shots per game that have a higher % than Booker (.383%) including Kristaps Porzingis (.393%) who shoots nearly 5 per game.

 

[3rdside]

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.

 

[Covert Rain]

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.

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.

 

[Phrazbit]

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.

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.

And yes, Reggie Miller. Arguably the greatest shooter in history... and a guy who was still in college at Booker's age, that is now the bar. Kinda like how Booker isn't worth a max because he isn't putting up LeBron or Durant's PER.

2. I can see why you're struggling - he ranks 361st for 2pt%; that's what I'm ranking, not PER.

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.

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.

I gave you a list of specific players and the stats he is besting at the same age/experience, it's here, in this thread. No, I didn't put it into an excel sheet. Your request that I do is especially funny after you attacked a poster for writing "war and peace" in each post... because he had the gall to write 3 paragraphs.

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.

 

[Phrazbit]

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

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.

 

[3rdside]

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.

$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.

 

[3rdside]

You use vague generalities when you're trying to be specific. If you mean he isn't a good 2 point shooter... say it.

In the seven links I provided earlier:


http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/fo...r-future-extension.255350/page-7#post-3664262

"if he's going to take 2 point shots and miss them - lots of them - you can't just ignore these"

http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/fo...r-future-extension.255350/page-8#post-3664884

"This is not about his 3pt shooting, it's about his 2pt shooting (which is what it's always been about)".

http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/fo...r-future-extension.255350/page-9#post-3664892

"Again, his flatlined 2pt% just can't be ignored".

http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/fo...r-future-extension.255350/page-9#post-3664894

"Is it just that he has bad team mates and a bad PG (but KD and Durant also did and they improved their 2pt% year on year) or is he just not physically gifted enough to find easier ones?"

http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/fo...r-future-extension.255350/page-9#post-3665190

"Sigh, no I wasn't. I said he isn't a great all around shooter (2pt, 3pt and FT's) because he's not; his 2pt% is bad enough that it drags him into the bottom half of all players playing > 500 minutes for TS%".

http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/fo...-future-extension.255350/page-10#post-3665463

"Booker is not a great All around shooter in current format because of his not great 2pt shooting %".

http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/fo...-future-extension.255350/page-10#post-3665764

"What part of not-great 2pt% but good otherwise don't you understand"?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AzStevenCal]

I've said this before but I think perhaps it was overlooked. Booker was having a strong year, shooting percentage wise, until he returned from injury and Triano started using him heavily as a point guard. Since then, he's shot quite poorly from the field. Because of this, anyone that just looks at numbers is only going to see a high volume mediocre shooter. Anyone that regularly watched the games knows otherwise. I'm not aiming this comment at anyone here, rather at the national voices that keep putting Booker down. They are clearly relying almost solely on stats.

 

[3rdside]

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.

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.

Seriously... you rip a guy because you cannot be bothered to read 3 paragraphs

I've read every post on here.

then demand someone else create an excel spreadsheet for you

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.

... I mean, seriously... it is a level of hypocrisy that is astounding.

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

 

[3rdside]

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.

I've posted this already but here you go:

https://www.theringer.com/nba/2018/2/5/16972634/trouble-nba-max-contracts

 

[Mainstreet]

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.

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.

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.”

It can't get much clearer.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/spo...input-suns-decisions-going-forward/988705001/

 

[3rdside]

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/

He deserves the max - just don't shoot me for kicking the tyres before offering the contract!

 

[Covert Rain]

$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.

 

[3rdside]

Uh OK.

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...)

 

[Phrazbit]

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

Lol, your first sentence of this post is a perfect example of how "clear" some of your sentences are.

You ask for an excel sheet when you're too lazy to read 3 paragraphs.

And I DID provide a list of players and the stats where Booker bests them, sorry if you were too lazy to read that too.

And really, what is the point? I'm debating someone who thinks you need to be LeBron or Durant to get a max deal, who expects Booker to put up Reggie Miller stats to be a "good shooter".

You are living in your own little universe, I'm sorry for joining it for a moment.

 

[3rdside]

Okay bro, I’m happy to call it a draw - save us both from each other.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Covert Rain]

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...)

Actually my questions were more rhetorical. I realize you want to place more emphasis on an indicator.

 

[Mainstreet]

He deserves the max - just don't shoot me for kicking the tyres before offering the contract!

It's always good to kick the tires.

Just not too much. You might smudge it.

 

[3rdside]

Actually my questions were more rhetorical. I realize you want to place more emphasis on an indicator.

I like the whole picture - did my 1000 word explanation not convey that or something?!

See Ingram, Brandon who I’ve mentioned a few times in this thread for evidence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CardsSunsDbacks]

There are a few things that need to be considered when discussing Booker's efficiency numbers and ultimately "kicking the tires" on giving him a max deal.

1. He plays on a very bad team that has very little spacing and very little other scoring threats to take pressure off Booker when he has the ball. This will without a doubt make it more difficult for him to get his shot off and will lead to an overall more difficult shot selection. Thus his shooting numbers are going to suffer and so is his PER. Most guys that were well ahead of him in their 3rd season had a much better supporting cast.

2. It has to be considered how old he is and not just the fact that he is in his 3rd season. Sure there are quite a few great players that were more efficient than Booker in their 3rd season, but a lot of them were guys that spent multiple years in college and thus they were closer to 23 or 24 in their 3rd NBA season as opposed to Booker who was just 21.

3. Lastly we need to understand that this isn't the MAX max if you will. Is Booker worth the veteran max that is like $35m/year? I can pretty confidently say that I don't think he is (yet at least). Booker will be getting the "mini max" that will be around $25-26m/year and you will start to see a lot of players with contracts at or above that. The main reason there aren't more contracts like that currently is because the cap has recently risen over the last few years and a lot of players were locked in to their "mini max" when the cap was lower. The cap has risen from $63m just 4 years ago to about $100m this season.

With all of those things in mind I don't think I would even question whether Booker should get the max. He is simply too good of a player for the front office to mess around with whatsoever and IMO they should have a max extension ready for him the moment they are eligible to offer it.