Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Askia Booker or Levi Knutson

Better Senior Guard

  • Total voters
    81
JRourk said:
Levi was a better leader and made players around him better. He was a true PG and very efficient shooter.

Ski is a scorer. Volume shooter, who scored significantly more than Levi.


However, more points scored does not equate to being a better player, just a better scorer. The original question was Ski or Levi. I would say, it depends on what you need. If you are in need of a scoring PG, Ski's your man. If you want a leader, head up PG who improves team play and is efficient, Levi no doubt. There are needs for both type of players
Click to expand...
This is so wrong in so many ways.
 
DiggerBuffs said:
The better question is Higgins or Ski? That would allow a better argument.
Click to expand...

As far as Higgins vs. Ski:
Ski played in 2 more games then Higgins in his career, he shot it 154 times more then Higgins did, Ski shot .38 percent from the floor, Higgins shot .47 percent from the floor, Higgins scored 261 more points in his career then Ski did on less attempts, while shooting a much higher percentage. Higgins shot .35 percent from 3, and .83 percent from the ft line, while Ski shot .32 percent from 3, and .79 percent from the ft line. Higgins is our all time leading scorer, and played on some awful, talent depleted teams his freshman and sophomore seasons, and was still able to be an efficient scorer.

Higgins turned it over 18 more times in 2 less games, Ski had 35 more assists in 2 more games. Higgins and Ski both benefited from having a better player paired with them, and won at a good clip with Spencer and Burks. I'm trying to figure out how in the world anybody could make an argument for Ski>Higgins? Maybe Ken Pom and one or two posters on here are it. Oh and the kid that writes for the local paper that claims Ski was the best 4 year player in CU history.

Higgins was a victim of highway robbery performed by the selection committee his senior year, and still went and played in the NIT, and pushed on to a meaningless title game. Ski on the other hand, decided that he didn't feel like playing in a "meaningless" tourney. Maybe Higgins should've bowed out and said he wanted to give Nate a chance to develop as the starting PG?

So, what exactly did Booker do better then Higgins? Comparing the 2 is undervaluing how great Higgins was during a time that if he wasn't great, the program would've fallen completely off the map.
 
blynch32 said:
As far as Higgins vs. Ski:
Ski played in 2 more games then Higgins in his career, he shot it 154 times more then Higgins did, Ski shot .38 percent from the floor, Higgins shot .47 percent from the floor, Higgins scored 261 more points in his career then Ski did on less attempts, while shooting a much higher percentage. Higgins shot .35 percent from 3, and .83 percent from the ft line, while Ski shot .32 percent from 3, and .79 percent from the ft line. Higgins is our all time leading scorer, and played on some awful, talent depleted teams his freshman and sophomore seasons, and was still able to be an efficient scorer.

Higgins turned it over 18 more times in 2 less games, Ski had 35 more assists in 2 more games. Higgins and Ski both benefited from having a better player paired with them, and won at a good clip with Spencer and Burks. I'm trying to figure out how in the world anybody could make an argument for Ski>Higgins? Maybe Ken Pom and one or two posters on here are it. Oh and the kid that writes for the local paper that claims Ski was the best 4 year player in CU history.

Higgins was a victim of highway robbery performed by the selection committee his senior year, and still went and played in the NIT, and pushed on to a meaningless title game. Ski on the other hand, decided that he didn't feel like playing in a "meaningless" tourney. Maybe Higgins should've bowed out and said he wanted to give Nate a chance to develop as the starting PG?

So, what exactly did Booker do better then Higgins? Comparing the 2 is undervaluing how great Higgins was during a time that if he wasn't great, the program would've fallen completely off the map.
Click to expand...
What are you going to do if Kenpom supports a position of yours? Look like an idiot for dissing it?
 
blynch32 said:
I won't agree with Ken Pom in any way, shape or form. I support Charles Barkley 110%.
Click to expand...

This is actually a fascinating dichotomy, SIr Charles hates advanced metrics but if you were to look at him they say very nice things about him, as in one of the top PF's ever to play the game nice. Since Charles likes people to talk about him, and to say nice things about him if he took a breather he might come around:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/...t-love-analytics-but-analytics-sure-love-him/
 
'Tini said:
Wow, if only KenPom used stats like that.
Click to expand...

Only Kenpomism can take true stats, and twist them around in such a manner that a player shooting 37pct from the floor can be considered to be having a good year by any standards. I've never been a fan. 37 pct is 37 pct, kind've like, "you are what your record says you are".

In my dislike for KP and Ski, maybe it goes back to my dislike of volume scorers, and Allen Iverson. Or maybe its just ridiculous that the ball only goes in 37 pct of the time when you shoot it, and you're considered the teams best option to score from the perimeter. Either way, I'm good. I don't have any f_cks to give when it comes to usage rate, or efficiency percentages. Give me raw data from the fundamental categories, and I can draw my own conclusions.
 
blynch32 said:
Only Kenpomism can take true stats, and twist them around in such a manner that a player shooting 37pct from the floor can be considered to be having a good year by any standards. I've never been a fan. 37 pct is 37 pct, kind've like, "you are what your record says you are".

In my dislike for KP and Ski, maybe it goes back to my dislike of volume scorers, and Allen Iverson. Or maybe its just ridiculous that the ball only goes in 37 pct of the time when you shoot it, and you're considered the teams best option to score from the perimeter. Either way, I'm good. I don't have any f_cks to give when it comes to usage rate, or efficiency percentages. Give me raw data from the fundamental categories, and I can draw my own conclusions.
Click to expand...
:lol: So if he shoots 37%, but then gets a whole bunch of other shots at the free throw line, you just ignore those free throw points in evaluating the player?

This basically reads like you don't understand kenpom, so dismiss it out of hand.
 
'Tini said:
Now Ski stunted growth? :bang: I'll wait for the obligatory "he shoots it too damn much!"

Oh, and if you normalize the win shares to win shares/40 minutes, they are almost identical...1.53 vs 1.56
Click to expand...

Yes, Ski almost had as good of a win share as Levi but he had to take a higher % of his team's shots than any other P5 player to achieve that. If we're strictly talking senior years, Levi was elite in several categories. Ski was only elite in % of shots taken.
 
Blynch32 doesn't believe women have orgasms because he has never seen a woman have one.
 
This started out as Levi vs. Ski and moved to Higgins vs. Ski.

Higgins was good enough to be a fringe NBA player, something I doubt that Ski will do. I appreciate what Ski has done for us but Higgins was a better defender and a more efficient offensive player. You can argue that Ski was forced to do some things on offense that reduced his efficiency because he didn't have a lot of support after the Mayor got hurt. Still I put Higgins as a better player overall.

The Levi comparison on the other hand isn't very close. Levi was a hard worker and a good defender. In his senior season he came on as a solid outside shooter but he wasn't much of an offensive threat earlier in his career. Despite what somebody said earlier Levi was not a natural PG. With his attitude and work ethic and willingness to do what it takes I'd love to have another one of him but on a tourney type team it's hard to see him as anything more than a role playing bench contributor. Ski has his weaknesses but also brings some special things to the table.
 
1. Shooting 33.3% from 3pt range is equivalent to shooting 50.0% from 2pt range.

2. Players who earn trips to the FT line are more effective offensive players.

If you disagree with either of the above statements, please do everyone the courtesy of letting us know.
 
Darth Snow said:
:lol: So if he shoots 37%, but then gets a whole bunch of other shots at the free throw line, you just ignore those free throw points in evaluating the player?

This basically reads like you don't understand kenpom, so dismiss it out of hand.
Click to expand...


Kenpomism most likely promotes Iverson as the greatest of all time. No, I don't ignore the free throw attempts. Do you ignore the fact that the ball only goes in the hoop 37 percent of the time, and keeping in mind when he draws a foul that doesn't count as a fg attempt? The stats even themselves out without the almighty to come up with equations to clarify for people, and to draw a monthly fee for deciphering the data and making it his own. I do like Barkley's take on analytics. I understand the concept of kennypom, I just think some of it is ****ing silly.
 
BuffG said:
Yes, Ski almost had as good of a win share as Levi but he had to take a higher % of his team's shots than any other P5 player to achieve that. If we're strictly talking senior years, Levi was elite in several categories. Ski was only elite in % of shots taken.
Click to expand...

Levi also played with Burks, Dre, Higgins, Relphorde, Dufault, and Tomlinson his senior year.
 
Darth Snow said:
if you can't understand something because it is complicated, it is also automatically bull****.
Click to expand...

I understand it fine.....I don't agree with all of it. I've been looking at basketball stats on several different levels, and I've never seen a good argument for a guy that shoots 37 pct from the floor as being a great player.
 
blynch32 said:
Kenpomism most likely promotes Iverson as the greatest of all time. No, I don't ignore the free throw attempts. Do you ignore the fact that the ball only goes in the hoop 37 percent of the time, and keeping in mind when he draws a foul that doesn't count as a fg attempt? The stats even themselves out without the almighty to come up with equations to clarify for people, and to draw a monthly fee for deciphering the data and making it his own. I do like Barkley's take on analytics. I understand the concept of kennypom, I just think some of it is ****ing silly.
Click to expand...
You know, making up cute names for KP makes you look really silly.

And the stats even themselves out? so why do you look at stats at all?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top