For what it's worth, Hoopshype did a survey of NBA front offices in the offseason and had them rate publicly-available advanced stat metrics. There were four metrics that were used by one or more front offices as their primary go-to metric: RAPTOR, LEBRON, EPM, and, DPM. Tatum ranked 6th, 8th, 10th, and 11th in those four, respectively. However, DPM uses a lot of past performance in its ranking (which is probably why it's the most trusted in the NBA because it is less subject to the effects of small sample-size), but that means that it has Kawhi, who hasn't played this season and is likely out all year, ranks ahead of Tatum based on past performance. So of players who've seen at least one minute of action this year, Tatum was top-10 in all 4. There were 19 players in the top ten of at least one of these metrics (excluding the injured Kawhi), but Tatum was one of only 5 to make the top-10 in all four.
In other words, analytics would give a pretty resounding yes that Tatum is top-10, but probably not top 5.
Note: I used the per-minute values for all of these rankings at whatever default minutes a particular stat used. But Tatum has also played a ton of minutes, and scores even higher when you use a total wins version of these stats, rather than something which is minutes or possessions-adjusted. He's top 5 in the three stats (Raptor, LEBRON, and EPM) that offer this calculation.
I suspect that the vast majority of front offices don't use any of those crap metrics. 
“I don’t really use any,” said one executive, who is the president of basketball operations for a team in the Eastern Conference. “They are all pretty bad.”
Among the 29 individuals who participated in our survey, six said that EPM was their preferred catch-all metric. That was the second-most among all metrics. Eleven others said that they trust EPM as an all-in-one metric while only one said that they did not.
Among the 29 individuals who participated in our survey, eight (
said that DPM was their preferred catch-all metric. That was the most among all metrics. Ten (10) others said that they trust DPM as an all-in-one metric while only one (1) said that they did not.
Among the 29 individuals who participated in our survey, four said that LEBRON was their preferred catch-all metric. Fourteen others said that they trust LEBRON as an all-in-one metric while two said that they did not.
Among the 29 individuals who participated in our survey, six said that RAPTOR was their preferred catch-all metric, which made it the third-most-popular in that regard. Eight others said that they trust RAPTOR as an all-in-one metric but an additional seven said that they did not.
That’s 18 of 29 respondents who either prefer or trust DPM, EPM, and LEBRON, and 14 of 29 for RAPTOR. Only 1-2 respondents didn’t trust the first three. RAPTOR did less well in that regard, but still far from a “vast majority” (studies have shown it performs less well when sample sizes is limited by minutes).
Many of those respondents were media members, etc., without access to actually reliable metrics. And, if a member of a front office said that one of the listed metrics is their preferred publicly available, catch-all metric doesn't mean they actually use it substantially. If they do, they should be fired, because teams have access to all kinds of proprietary tracking data that is much, much more useful than a catch-all metric.
As noted:
If I could add a wrinkle to your story, it would be that all-in-one stats are overused – that the next phase of basketball analytics is all about context-dependent numbers,” said another front office member from the Western Conference. “That would be the most honest quote I could give.”
However, the most common feedback to the survey we received was that most teams focus on their own custom-developed systems when evaluating players.
Just so we're clear, the four stats I mentioned are to a degree "context-dependent". They consider the other players on the floor for both teams, how the team performs when the player is out, and a couple consider a "player-type" (for example, we expect bigs to have good shooting percentages near the basket for obvious reasons, whereas less-so for guards, and stats take this into account). And just because teams use and prefer their own metrics, it doesn't mean they're going to evaluate the best players in the game tremendously differently. All four of these metrics had Jokic, Embiid, and Giannis as the top 3 in the game, in some order. I'd be shocked if teams' proprietary metrics said anything markedly differently. It's clear to everyone who's watched basketball who the best players this season have been, and these metrics don't disagree. If you're trying to find a role player, sure, context matters, and I would say is critically important. Is that defensive part-timer for one team tailor-made to the role you're trying to fit on your roster? EPM isn't going to tell you that. But when you're trying to compare the top 10-20 guys in the league, these context-dependent stats simply matter less. In other words, all-in-one stats can be useful for players who do it all.
And to borrow another quote from the same executive you like:
The executive also added that “averaging across a few numbers you trust” ... is “probably the way to go” to get the best evaluation.
Again, Tatum is one of five players in the top 10 of all four of these stats. When several different sources are saying the same thing, you can probably believe that thing. And in this case, that thing is Tatum has elevated himself into the Top 10.
Topic: Has Tatum elevated into top 10 player in the NBA status? (Read 7438 times)