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.

 

[MTS]

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.