The problem with +/- is it isn't an individual stat, but people try to use it like it is. It's highly dependent on the other four players who are on the court with you, as well as your five opponents. Anderson Varejao has a significantly better +/- (46 vs. 31) and a much better +/-/min (.237 vs. .135) than LeBron James. Who is the better player? Who contribute more to Cleveland's success? Ron Artest +/- = 64, +/-/min = 0.290 Kobe Bryant +/- = 32, +/-/min = 0.134 Is Ron Artest really more than twice as good as Kobe Bryant? I'm probably going to be told to fuck off for pointing out this obvious flaw, but tough shit. It's threads like this that propogate the incorrect interpretation of this stat. It's NOT an individual stat. Even with an infinitely large sample size, there will always be a dependancy on the other 9 players who are on the court. So, while it is possible to spot general trends using a large enough sample size, this stat is so universally mis-used that it's pretty much useless for discussing individual player performance (even if nine out of ten people involved in the discussion understand the proper interpretation of the +/- stat, the 10th one will screw up the discussion). BNM
In terms of raw data, when on the floor, Varajejo and Artest are part of units that are performing better than James or Bryant as an aggregate. This is indisputable. You really think so? Other than the OP, who is insulting people in this thread, I haven't seen a single poster return a "f**k you" for "pointing out this obvious flaw". Reading this, I have to assume that you view +/- as a useless statistic. I, on the other hand, think it does show which players are part of successful units. A sum is made of individual parts, so there can be some positives individually derived from this stat.
