Sam
New member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2008
- Messages
- 6,081
- Reaction score
- 0
Frank Booker vs Juwan Parker is going to be an interesting subplot over the next couple years.
The University of Georgia goes into Oklahoma, signs a 6'4 SG.
The University of Oklahoma goes into Georgia, signs a 6'4 SG.
(adds line about drinking or an exgirlfriend or something and I have the start of a promising country music song, where's Toby Keith?)
One noticeable difference in the two is that Parker was an early bloomer, while from what I've read Booker was a late bloomer.
Parker got on the radar early; starter on back to back state titles teams his first two seasons, playing for Athlete's First his sophomore year, older brother was a standout at Tulsa, etc. I don't know Booker's backstory near as well but I can only assume his high school career didn't start near as nice.
It's a lot easier to get on the radar the younger the prospect is. People hear about a freshman or a sophomore playing well and it sticks with them because they're young.
"Oh, number #15 is only a sophomore? He's nice, I'll remember him."
So even if they don't develop a lot more, the idea that Player X is a prospect, a talent, sticks. It can make recruiting a self fulfilling prophecy, look at Kyle Hardrick.
Players that get on the radar early are more likely to be recruited by elite schools, sure there are exceptions like Otto Porter. But look at how most of the major prospects make their college decisions, or at least have the big schools locked in on them before they start their senior year or before they even go into the July evaluation period before their senior seasons.
If a late bloomer actually lands a high major offer, it means one of two things to me. The school is either despearte for a need, or the player is one heck of a prospect. Because they had to cut through the static of every late bloomer to get noticed, while also overcoming any preconceived notions if they had already made a bad impression on a school that had previously viewed them.
As far as comparing the two on the court, I think I'm ill equipped to do so as I lack any first hand information on Booker. I've poured through some highlight videos, and a few scouting reports but as a person that has done both (humblebrag!), I know the limitations and flaws of both methods as an evaluating tool. At best, a highlight video can paint a rough outline, like completing the edge of a puzzle, of a player's ceiling. A highlight tape has no regard to what a player's floor is (it's easy to make a video of a shooter, just get the 3 or 4 games he goes 4-7 and put them together, pay no mind to the how many 2-7 games he had).
With that disclaimer I'd hazard a guess that Booker is a better off the ball shooter with deeper range than Parker (I also view Parker as more of a midrange shooter/is at his best with the ball in his hands using jab-steps and other moves to set up his shot). Other than that, any other comparisons would be even less educated guesses based on assumptions on Booker and what knowledge I have of Parker.
Since that's all I know, I'll let the rest play out on the court.
The University of Georgia goes into Oklahoma, signs a 6'4 SG.
The University of Oklahoma goes into Georgia, signs a 6'4 SG.
(adds line about drinking or an exgirlfriend or something and I have the start of a promising country music song, where's Toby Keith?)
One noticeable difference in the two is that Parker was an early bloomer, while from what I've read Booker was a late bloomer.
Parker got on the radar early; starter on back to back state titles teams his first two seasons, playing for Athlete's First his sophomore year, older brother was a standout at Tulsa, etc. I don't know Booker's backstory near as well but I can only assume his high school career didn't start near as nice.
It's a lot easier to get on the radar the younger the prospect is. People hear about a freshman or a sophomore playing well and it sticks with them because they're young.
"Oh, number #15 is only a sophomore? He's nice, I'll remember him."
So even if they don't develop a lot more, the idea that Player X is a prospect, a talent, sticks. It can make recruiting a self fulfilling prophecy, look at Kyle Hardrick.
Players that get on the radar early are more likely to be recruited by elite schools, sure there are exceptions like Otto Porter. But look at how most of the major prospects make their college decisions, or at least have the big schools locked in on them before they start their senior year or before they even go into the July evaluation period before their senior seasons.
If a late bloomer actually lands a high major offer, it means one of two things to me. The school is either despearte for a need, or the player is one heck of a prospect. Because they had to cut through the static of every late bloomer to get noticed, while also overcoming any preconceived notions if they had already made a bad impression on a school that had previously viewed them.
As far as comparing the two on the court, I think I'm ill equipped to do so as I lack any first hand information on Booker. I've poured through some highlight videos, and a few scouting reports but as a person that has done both (humblebrag!), I know the limitations and flaws of both methods as an evaluating tool. At best, a highlight video can paint a rough outline, like completing the edge of a puzzle, of a player's ceiling. A highlight tape has no regard to what a player's floor is (it's easy to make a video of a shooter, just get the 3 or 4 games he goes 4-7 and put them together, pay no mind to the how many 2-7 games he had).
With that disclaimer I'd hazard a guess that Booker is a better off the ball shooter with deeper range than Parker (I also view Parker as more of a midrange shooter/is at his best with the ball in his hands using jab-steps and other moves to set up his shot). Other than that, any other comparisons would be even less educated guesses based on assumptions on Booker and what knowledge I have of Parker.
Since that's all I know, I'll let the rest play out on the court.
