3. "... when used in a vacuum." In response to Reply # 2
Just like a ton of other stats: points, rebounds, ast/TO, PER, rings, etc. Use a single stat in a vacuum and you can extrapolate all kinds of stupid shit.
Basketball isn't baseball, which is a series of 1v1 battles all over the field. +/- is useful in evaluating the whole, just like all the other basketball stats.
4. "It's a dumb stat and there is nothing "advanced" about it" In response to Reply # 3
It's a very simple stat.
+/- has been a core, traditional stat in hockey for years but its formula is a bit more nuanced (it takes into account special teams situations; it's essentially an evaluation of your team's even-strength play while you are on the ice). Hockey has its own fancy stats crowd and they would laugh at the idea of +/- as "advanced." If anything the move has been toward much more detailed evaluations of defensive and two-way performance, with +/- being treated as a less telling, more antiquated means of determining how a player performs in a fluid, 200-foot game.
I think in hockey there is some value to +/- when looked at over time and in context, but there is so much more scoring in basketball and so much more of it comes in garbage time or otherwise less significant parts of games that it really doesn't mean much.
And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.
5. "You're arguing against a point I didn't make." In response to Reply # 4
I never said it's an advanced stat. It's a simple measurement, just like points. Players can have games with "empty" points (like scoring 20 on 25 shots), just like players can have games with "empty" +/- (like putting up 0 points with a +22).
It's flawed, but my point was looking at a single statistic to evaluate a player is a dumb premise, even for "advanced" stats like PER.
+/- is part of a whole, just like all the other basketball stats. No more, no less.
Like I said, using a single stat (advanced or not) to evaluate a player is dumb as hell. Until you refute that statement, you stay looking stupid for trying to hammer this point.
It's just as dumb as trying to evaluate Lonzo's entire productivity on Points.
edit: admittedly, early season rpm numbers are a little wonky, unless you think, AS I DO, that the fourth best player in the league is Robert Covington.
---- bshelly
"You (Fisher) could get fired, Les Snead could get fired, Kevin Demoff could get fired, but I will always be Eric Dickerson.” (c) The God
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
Okay Sports
