Who has more value Devin Booker or Jayson Tatum?

[bondom34]

Rapm doesn't ue BPM. And Tatum is still vastly better. He's also younger and plays defense and is more than a volume scorer. As players right now it's kinda close bit Tatum is ahead. He's alone younger so that makes it a larger gap as prospects.

[azizx]

OK I won't edit my previous comment lest it add confusion, but I meant plus-minus derived from the boxscore not BPM (box plus-minus).
APM (adjusted plus-minus) includes that plus-minus. RAPM (regularized adjusted plus-minus) is ridge regression applied to APM.
Maybe we should take this discussion to the Stats forum, but doesn't RPM (real plus-minus) come from RAPM?
Note: There is a difference between raw plus-minus and real plus-minus.

[bondom34]

Ah,alright don't think anyone uses raw plus minus as a way to look at a player, at least not here. I've never seen anyone do that.

[r0drig0lac]

Booker easily

[azizx]

Ah,alright don't think anyone uses raw plus minus as a way to look at a player, at least not here. I've never seen anyone do that.

That's not what I was doing but that may as well have been what @iggymcfrack was doing.
Spitting out RPM as evidence is insufficient as I'm fairly sure RPM does in fact include plus-minus. I may as well say the eye test says xyz.

[bondom34]

Ah,alright don't think anyone uses raw plus minus as a way to look at a player, at least not here. I've never seen anyone do that.

That's not what I was doing but that may as well have been what @iggymcfrack was doing.
Spitting out RPM as evidence is insufficient as I'm fairly sure RPM does in fact include plus-minus. I may as well say the eye test says xyz.

It is adjusted though. It basically rapm with a BPM prior. Plus extra prior.

[bondom34]

Ah,alright don't think anyone uses raw plus minus as a way to look at a player, at least not here. I've never seen anyone do that.

That's not what I was doing but that may as well have been what @iggymcfrack was doing.
Spitting out RPM as evidence is insufficient as I'm fairly sure RPM does in fact include plus-minus. I may as well say the eye test says xyz.

It is adjusted though. It basically rapm with a BPM prior. Plus extra prior.

[azizx]

Ah,alright don't think anyone uses raw plus minus as a way to look at a player, at least not here. I've never seen anyone do that.

That's not what I was doing but that may as well have been what @iggymcfrack was doing.
Spitting out RPM as evidence is insufficient as I'm fairly sure RPM does in fact include plus-minus. I may as well say the eye test says xyz.

It is adjusted though. It basically rapm with a BPM prior. Plus extra prior.

I understand that RPM is a further-adjusted RAPM as I stated previously

Bonus is that I think RPM uses historical performance as an initial adjustment

However, all of this inherently includes the most basic form of plus-minus and it's not possible to entirely cancel this out. In fact, don't these various derivations of plus-minus stats encapsulate the original basic one?

[bondom34]

That's not what I was doing but that may as well have been what @iggymcfrack was doing.
Spitting out RPM as evidence is insufficient as I'm fairly sure RPM does in fact include plus-minus. I may as well say the eye test says xyz.

It is adjusted though. It basically rapm with a BPM prior. Plus extra prior.

I understand that RPM is a further-adjusted RAPM as I stated previously

Bonus is that I think RPM uses historical performance as an initial adjustment

However, all of this inherently includes the most basic form of plus-minus and it's not possible to entirely cancel this out. In fact, don't these various derivations of plus-minus stats encapsulate the original basic one?

Sort of but not really. It's basic idea is that the point of the game is to win. Not put up individual numbers. There are plenty of great players on poor teams who look excellent via apm.

https://cornerthreehoops.wordpress.com/2014/04/17/explaining-espns-real-plus-minus/

[azizx]

It is adjusted though. It basically rapm with a BPM prior. Plus extra prior.

I understand that RPM is a further-adjusted RAPM as I stated previously

Bonus is that I think RPM uses historical performance as an initial adjustment

However, all of this inherently includes the most basic form of plus-minus and it's not possible to entirely cancel this out. In fact, don't these various derivations of plus-minus stats encapsulate the original basic one?

Sort of but not really. It's basic idea is that the point of the game is to win. Not put up individual numbers. There are plenty of great players on poor teams who look excellent via apm.

https://cornerthreehoops.wordpress.com/2014/04/17/explaining-espns-real-plus-minus/

So...what are you saying with that last sentence? I think Booker puts up individual numbers and helps his team win when possible.
By saying "sort of but not really" doesn't really exclude it. It's mathematical so yes or no suffices. I've already come across the article you linked and thankfully it points out many limitations regarding these advanced stats. Here's another one if you're looking for wider reading.

https://squared2020.com/2017/09/18/deep-dive-on-regularized-adjusted-plus-minus-i-introductory-example/

I feel like you're not really arguing a different point to me.

These advanced stats alone should not give reason to prefer one player over another, especially when they're so apparently close, yet in such different situations.

[bondom34]

I understand that RPM is a further-adjusted RAPM as I stated previously

However, all of this inherently includes the most basic form of plus-minus and it's not possible to entirely cancel this out. In fact, don't these various derivations of plus-minus stats encapsulate the original basic one?

Sort of but not really. It's basic idea is that the point of the game is to win. Not put up individual numbers. There are plenty of great players on poor teams who look excellent via apm.

https://cornerthreehoops.wordpress.com/2014/04/17/explaining-espns-real-plus-minus/

So...what are you saying with that last sentence? I think Booker puts up individual numbers and helps his team win when it's possible.

I think he does on offense, but isn't there defensively yet and Tatum can play on both ends at an overall higher level.

Booker is a very good player, Tatum is however to this point better.

[azizx]

Sort of but not really. It's basic idea is that the point of the game is to win. Not put up individual numbers. There are plenty of great players on poor teams who look excellent via apm.

https://cornerthreehoops.wordpress.com/2014/04/17/explaining-espns-real-plus-minus/

So...what are you saying with that last sentence? I think Booker puts up individual numbers and helps his team win when it's possible.

I think he does on offense, but isn't there defensively yet and Tatum can play on both ends at an overall higher level.

Booker is a very good player, Tatum is however to this point better.

Not an unreasonable take.
I was just irked by the fact that advanced stats are inserted so casually into a discussion that could have been validated by referring to the eye test alone.
It would've been simple to say Booker had defensive deficiencies while providing more offensive output. Tape tells that story well enough.

[bondom34]

So...what are you saying with that last sentence? I think Booker puts up individual numbers and helps his team win when it's possible.

I think he does on offense, but isn't there defensively yet and Tatum can play on both ends at an overall higher level.

Booker is a very good player, Tatum is however to this point better.

Not an unreasonable take.
I was just irked by the fact that advanced stats are inserted so casually into a discussion that could have been validated by referring to the eye test alone.

Don't think anyone here goes by either alone.

[azizx]

I think he does on offense, but isn't there defensively yet and Tatum can play on both ends at an overall higher level.

Booker is a very good player, Tatum is however to this point better.

Not an unreasonable take.
I was just irked by the fact that advanced stats are inserted so casually into a discussion that could have been validated by referring to the eye test alone.

Don't think anyone here goes by either alone.

Guess we can leave it at that.

[bondom34]

Not an unreasonable take.
I was just irked by the fact that advanced stats are inserted so casually into a discussion that could have been validated by referring to the eye test alone.

Don't think anyone here goes by either alone.

Guess we can leave it at that.

Sounds good.

[Johnny Firpo]

Tatum, and not really because, or just because the playoffs. He is just a higher ceiling prospect, and Booker still hasn't showed me that he could become an elite player. He is a good, albeit not great scorer yet. I do think he can jump a level next year though, and he will need to.

[Oscar9992]

Stevens make players look better than they really are. Some certain coaches had this... Popovich, D'Antoni etc.

[ztejas]

81 to 40 in favor of Tatum. Absolutely unreal. What Kool Aid are y'all sipping on because I want some of it.

Devin Booker is a 21 year old 25/5/5 player. Unless someone has a gun to your head or Anthony Davis ready to board a plane at the airport you do not trade that man. He could put up 30 points a game next season. He's the best pure scorer at that age that we've seen since Kevin Durant.

Why are we voting for Tatum? Because he's on a good team and Booker is part of a dumpster fire in the middle of the desert? Booker would have led that Boston team in scoring by double digits in the playoffs.

Unbelievable.

Edit: Man this gets better the more I read. Are y'all actually using RPM to compare a rookie to a 21 year old playing on a 20 win team? It's amazing how much the limitations of metrics like that get ignored on here. There's so much noise I'm not even going to look up what their RPMs are.

[r0drig0lac]

Stevens make players look better than they really are. Some certain coaches had this... Popovich, D'Antoni etc.

no
well..maybe the paper players, the stars would actually "look" much better with coaches who let them put pretty numbers around
if you think these coaches make stars and superstars better than they really are, you're completely wrong.

[CodeBreaker]

I'd put Booker as my SG, and Tatum as my SF, done.