Real +/- NBA ratings so far......

[tleikheen]

#34 Favors +3.04
#37 Hayward +2.85
#71 Gobert +1.29
#132 Booker +0.17
#162 Hood -0.24
#173 *Kanter* -0.45
#245 Neto -1.49
#260 Burks -1.64
#264 Burk -1.72
#355 Lyles -2.95

Threw Kanter in there to irritate the Kanter haters that he's well inside the top half in the Real +/- NBA ratings.Last year the Jazz had 3 players in the 400's (Burks,Burke ,Kanter),I guess Burks (#260) and Burke (264) are showing an improvement this year.

 

[Siro]

#34 Favors +3.04
#37 Hayward +2.85
#71 Gobert +1.29
#132 Booker +0.17
#162 Hood -0.24
#173 *Kanter* -0.45
#245 Neto -1.49
#260 Burks -1.64
#264 Burk -1.72
#355 Lyles -2.95

Threw Kanter in there to irritate the Kanter haters that he's well inside the top half in the Real +/- NBA ratings.Last year the Jazz had 3 players in the 400's (Burks,Burke ,Kanter),I guess Burks (#260) and Burke (264) are showing an improvement this year.

According to these worthless numbers, Kanter is worse than Booker. Not sure why that would irritate anyone...

 

[colton]

According to these worthless numbers, Kanter is worse than Booker. Not sure why that would irritate anyone...

They are not worthless, not sure why you would think they are. They don't tell the whole story, that's for sure. But they do have some value when analyzing players.

 

[Siro]

They are not worthless, not sure why you would think they are. They don't tell the whole story, that's for sure. But they do have some value when analyzing players.

What value? I have no idea what they are based on, and neither does anyone else. And looking at the numbers provided, Burke and Burks are killing the team, and are some of the worst players in the NBA. Booker however, is a top talent. The question is, what do YOU see in them?

 

[colton]

What value? I have no idea what they are based on, and neither does anyone else. And looking at the numbers provided, Burke and Burks are killing the team, and are some of the worst players in the NBA. Booker however, is a top talent. The question is, what do YOU see in them?

The OP identified them as real +/-. I had assumed the metric was simply scoring margin when the player is on the floor. But apparently maybe it's not: "Player's estimated on-court impact on team performance, measured in net point differential per 100 offensive and defensive possessions. RPM takes into account teammates, opponents and additional factors" (from https://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/RPM).

So maybe you're right that no one knows fully what they are based on.

But Booker at #132 in the NBA is not "a top talent" by any stretch.

What I take from them is that Hayward, Favors, and Gobert are by far the best players on the team. Anyone else should be fair game as trade bait. And as the OP pointed out, Kanter at #173 is pretty meh.

 

[Siro]

The OP identified them as real +/-. I had assumed the metric was simply scoring margin when the player is on the floor. But apparently maybe it's not: "Player's estimated on-court impact on team performance, measured in net point differential per 100 offensive and defensive possessions. RPM takes into account teammates, opponents and additional factors" (from https://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/RPM).

So maybe you're right that no one knows fully what they are based on.

But Booker at #132 in the NBA is not "a top talent" by any stretch.

What I take from them is that Hayward, Favors, and Gobert are by far the best players on the team. Anyone else should be fair game as trade bait. And as the OP pointed out, Kanter at #173 is pretty meh.

I was exaggerating about Booker, but 132nd is a solid starter, which he clearly is not (he's not even a good back up). And Burke and Burks are clearly not some of the worst players in the NBA. Yes it agrees with the eye test on the best three players, but the rest is suspect. So what value is a stat that gets more than half the players wrong? Since an average fan can do better just watching the games, I'd say next to nothing.

 

[MT Steve]

It's difficult to tell whether RPM is useful or not given that ESPN refuses to release their formula for it.

 

[vegas]

I was trying to find reasons to argue with Siro, but when you rank Booker as a better defender than Rudy its pretty hard to justify.

 

[Miggs]

I was exaggerating about Booker, but 132nd is a solid starter, which he clearly is not (he's not even a good back up). And Burke and Burks are clearly not some of the worst players in the NBA. Yes it agrees with the eye test on the best three players, but the rest is suspect. So what value is a stat that gets more than half the players wrong? Since an average fan can do better just watching the games, I'd say next to nothing.

How is 132nd a solid starter? There are only 150 starters in the league and considering some teams absolutely blow (Philly, LA, etc), yeah that wouldn't make him solid.

 

[Siro]

How is 132nd a solid starter? There are only 150 starters in the league and considering some teams absolutely blow (Philly, LA, etc), yeah that wouldn't make him solid.

But there are also plenty of starting caliber players who come off the bench. Let's not argue over the meaning of 'solid'. Those numbers don't do a good job reflecting reality from what I can tell.

 

[Kyoto]

#34 Favors +3.04
#37 Hayward +2.85
#71 Gobert +1.29
#132 Booker +0.17
#162 Hood -0.24
#173 *Kanter* -0.45
#245 Neto -1.49
#260 Burks -1.64
#264 Burk -1.72
#355 Lyles -2.95

Threw Kanter in there to irritate the Kanter haters that he's well inside the top half in the Real +/- NBA ratings.Last year the Jazz had 3 players in the 400's (Burks,Burke ,Kanter),I guess Burks (#260) and Burke (264) are showing an improvement this year.

I fail to see your point. Are you saying that #173 is good? I'm sure it's not bad, but is it really good? Is it worth making your franchise roll the dice on the guy by paying him more than what most players make in the NBA? Kanter is a solid player, he is good on offense, but terrible on defense, so a solid, mediocre player. #173? I don't know what you are trying to say.

 

[Kyoto]

But there are also plenty of starting caliber players who come off the bench. Let's not argue over the meaning of 'solid'. Those numbers don't do a good job reflecting reality from what I can tell.

Kanter is a solid mediocre player. He is worth having on most teams in the NBA, and they would gladly have him, but he is not nearly worth what his contract says he is. OKC just dug their own grave with that toxic contract.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

#34 Favors +3.04 #56
#37 Hayward +2.85 #30
#71 Gobert +1.29 #326
#132 Booker +0.17 #149
#162 Hood -0.24 #307
#173 *Kanter* -0.45 #19
#245 Neto -1.49 #375
#260 Burks -1.64 #76
#264 Burk -1.72 #230
#355 Lyles -2.95 #251

Threw Kanter in there to irritate the Kanter haters that he's well inside the top half in the Real +/- NBA ratings.Last year the Jazz had 3 players in the 400's (Burks,Burke ,Kanter),I guess Burks (#260) and Burke (264) are showing an improvement this year.

I noticed you forgot to put in each player's salary ranking. I helped you out by adding that to the right. Now, what were you trying to tell us about Kanter?

P.S. Kanter's salary rank exceeds his RPM by a multiple of nine. Wow!!! I wonder if there's another player in the league with as large a disparity. Did you point out this list because you hate Kanter or something? No need to throw fuel on the fire, dude, we already know he is worth nowhere near what he's getting paid.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

^Dug a little deeper. Kanter is not the worst in the NBA in this rankings comparison. Kobe Bryant ranks #1 in salary and #370 in RPM. Holy ****. Obviously, unlike Kanter, he's sort of being paid for past performance, but wow is he ever being paid.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

^Dug deeper still. Joe Johnson is the #2 paid player in the league and #294 in RPM. He is not being paid for past performances. In other words, he makes Kanter look like a bargain!

 

[The Blue Elephant]

Kanter by far has the best RPM on the OKC bench with the exception of Nick Collison who kanter still has better RPM but only barely. Your RPM is very dependent on who you play with. Considering Kanter is 2 or even 3 points better in RPM compared to who he usually plays with. Too much talk about Kanter and not enough about Trey Lyles....

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Kanter by far has the best RPM on the OKC bench with the exception of Nick Collison who kanter still has better RPM but only barely. Your RPM is very dependent on who you play with. Considering Kanter is 2 or even 3 points better in RPM compared to who he usually plays with. Too much talk about Kanter and not enough about Trey Lyles....

Presumably adjusting for that stuff is the whole point of RPM. It's supposed to eliminate the need to factor in who they're playing with. Whether it works or not is a different story.

 

[The Blue Elephant]

GSW have 5 players who are top 5 RPM in their position. I have a sneaking suspicion it doesn't adjust enough.

 

[zman1527]

I was exaggerating about Booker, but 132nd is a solid starter, which he clearly is not (he's not even a good back up). And Burke and Burks are clearly not some of the worst players in the NBA. Yes it agrees with the eye test on the best three players, but the rest is suspect. So what value is a stat that gets more than half the players wrong? Since an average fan can do better just watching the games, I'd say next to nothing.

That's why you use stats, cause your eyeballs will miss things quite easily. You are saying the average fan is really astute at measuring NBA talent by watching a few games? Not so much.

 

[vegas]

That's why you use stats, cause your eyeballs will miss things quite easily. You are saying the average fan is really astute at measuring NBA talent by watching a few games? Not so much.

I don't disagree, but at some point things are a bit absurd. RPM gets some things right and a lot of things wrong.

Explain to me how Trevor Booker has a better defensive rating than Rudy per this measure. Better yet, would you rather have KG in his 20th season, because by this measure he is ranked #11 DRPM. Rudy is #36.

One thing that I think it severely lacks is rating who the player is playing against. Another thing that it doesn't account for is chemistry between players.