Jayson Tatum was -36 (The worst by any player in a Finals game)

[Onlytimewilltel]

He also flopped on that fast break three pointer that he gave up to Curry.

[Pachinko_]

raw plus minus in small sample sizes means absolutely nothing other than a simple recording of the score when said player was in the game. Any evaluation of a player based on it is completely and utterly worthless.

Even in big sample sizes it's worthless.
Because you still have to write a whole thesis to explain why it was his fault that his team was that much +/- and not the fault of the other 9 to 20 players who were on the floor with him.

Best way to describe it: it's a troll stat.
Makes people have very lengthy and very useless discussions.

[whocurrz]

Dude was hitting contested shots and 3s and helped kill GSW runs before midway through the third. He was so far from a problem today, unless you’re the Warriors because he was great

[meekrab]

Single game +/- is meaningless. Tatum happened to be on the court when the Warriors were going on runs.

[Elnegron]

They trying to shove us Tatum down our throat. He isn't top 5 and he isn't a superstar. Superstars don't score 30 points yesterday and 10 points today every other night

[GeorgeMarcus]

It's too late for me to address this question with the proper depth/nuance but I'll give the nutshell version in response to Tatum's performance tonight:

+/- data reflects very well on him overall. To generate conclusions from a single game of +/- would be silly. And yet, the stat does relay factual information: the team was outscored by 36 points with Tatum on the floor tonight. That happened. It's up to us to use that information responsibly

[og15]

The Celtics were -36 in the minutes Tatum played. Tatum was not -36 himself. All the issues with single game +/-, etc seem to have been mentioned already.

[Big J]

He also flopped on that fast break three pointer that he gave up to Curry.

That was such a bad look. Guy acted like Curry trucked him.

[Tacoma]

But did he have a bad game?

28 PTS
6 REB
3 AST
8-19 FG
6-9 3PT

He was very solid.

Dig a little deeper & it may tell another story. Just on those stats, 6-9 from the 3 for 18 pts is good, but that's where good ends, because he needed the other 10 shots plus FTs to get his remaining 10 pts which is bad. Add in the -36 means he wasn't defending great either. Overall, his game was far from solid outside of his 3pt shooting.

[Onlytimewilltel]

He also flopped on that fast break three pointer that he gave up to Curry.

That was such a bad look. Guy acted like Curry trucked him.

Hah yes, also gave up an easy 3 points because of it.

[Apz]

He needs to get in shape

[DroseReturnChi]

he is a empty stat stuffer. what a horrible plus minus another historic performance.

[Arlo]

As noted, doesn't mean much in a single game.

Health and shot aelection seem to be the two things that could bring the Cs undone.

Too many guys willing to settle for average/poor shots.

[FreeThrowLine]

Game 3 Celtics should go with Stauskas instead of Tatum, he was +5!

[durden_tyler]

Kobeish performance.

[G35]

Single game +/- is meaningless. Tatum happened to be on the court when the Warriors were going on runs.

He was on the court seven more minutes than any other starter.

The eye test (which is disregarded as well on a game to game basis) would tell you that Tatum was losing the ball too much on drives in the paint and making some bad decisions passing.

The problem with dismissing certain "anomalies" in the playoffs is that you don't have time for long sample sizes.

This is the same issue I have with those that make the argument James Harden still gets similar amounts of FTA's from the RS to PS.

Yes, in the aggregate it looks similar but on a game to game basis Harden does not get the same production.

For example, if Harden gets 18 FTA's in G1, 8 FTA's in G2, 12 FTA's in G3, and 5 FTA's in G4. It will appear as if Harden still is receiving approximately 10 FTA's per game. But that is not the case on a game to game basis. In the playoffs consistency from your stars is the most important quality.

Consistency. Not the aggregate. If your production is "noisy" you cannot be counted on in a game to game basis. That is why that excuse is used dismissively. In a seven game series, if your star's production is below in four of the seven games, then your team is likely to lose that series.

In the playoffs, there is no one game sample size excuse. If your best player(s) have that bad a +/-, then it needs to be addressed.....

[meekrab]

Single game +/- is meaningless. Tatum happened to be on the court when the Warriors were going on runs.

He was on the court seven more minutes than any other starter.

The eye test (which is disregarded as well on a game to game basis) would tell you that Tatum was losing the ball too much on drives in the paint and making some bad decisions passing.

The problem with dismissing certain "anomalies" in the playoffs is that you don't have time for long sample sizes.

This is the same issue I have with those that make the argument James Harden still gets similar amounts of FTA's from the RS to PS.

Yes, in the aggregate it looks similar but on a game to game basis Harden does not get the same production.

For example, if Harden gets 18 FTA's in G1, 8 FTA's in G2, 12 FTA's in G3, and 5 FTA's in G4. It will appear as if Harden still is receiving approximately 10 FTA's per game. But that is not the case on a game to game basis. In the playoffs consistency from your stars is the most important quality.

Consistency. Not the aggregate. If your production is "noisy" you cannot be counted on in a game to game basis. That is why that excuse is used dismissively. In a seven game series, if your star's production is below in four of the seven games, then your team is likely to lose that series.

In the playoffs, there is no one game sample size excuse. If your best player(s) have that bad a +/-, then it needs to be addressed.....

Bruh check out the Celtics players +/- from Game 1. Tatum +16 Brown +22 Derrick White +25 PAYTON PRITCHARD +14 in 15 minutes.

"no one game sample size excuse" means Payton Pritchard is the best player in the NBA.

Un-post your joke essay.

[G35]

Single game +/- is meaningless. Tatum happened to be on the court when the Warriors were going on runs.

He was on the court seven more minutes than any other starter.

The eye test (which is disregarded as well on a game to game basis) would tell you that Tatum was losing the ball too much on drives in the paint and making some bad decisions passing.

The problem with dismissing certain "anomalies" in the playoffs is that you don't have time for long sample sizes.

This is the same issue I have with those that make the argument James Harden still gets similar amounts of FTA's from the RS to PS.

Yes, in the aggregate it looks similar but on a game to game basis Harden does not get the same production.

For example, if Harden gets 18 FTA's in G1, 8 FTA's in G2, 12 FTA's in G3, and 5 FTA's in G4. It will appear as if Harden still is receiving approximately 10 FTA's per game. But that is not the case on a game to game basis. In the playoffs consistency from your stars is the most important quality.

Consistency. Not the aggregate. If your production is "noisy" you cannot be counted on in a game to game basis. That is why that excuse is used dismissively. In a seven game series, if your star's production is below in four of the seven games, then your team is likely to lose that series.

In the playoffs, there is no one game sample size excuse. If your best player(s) have that bad a +/-, then it needs to be addressed.....

Bruh check out the Celtics players +/- from Game 1. Tatum +16 Brown +22 Derrick White +25 PAYTON PRITCHARD +14 in 15 minutes.

"no one game sample size excuse" means Payton Pritchard is the best player in the NBA.

Un-post your joke essay.

First, role players production on a game to game basis should not be counted on. Role players production always fluctuates, in the RS, and even more in the playoffs.

We are talking about Jason Tatum, don't get distracted by shiny things.....

[meekrab]

He was on the court seven more minutes than any other starter.

The eye test (which is disregarded as well on a game to game basis) would tell you that Tatum was losing the ball too much on drives in the paint and making some bad decisions passing.

The problem with dismissing certain "anomalies" in the playoffs is that you don't have time for long sample sizes.

This is the same issue I have with those that make the argument James Harden still gets similar amounts of FTA's from the RS to PS.

Yes, in the aggregate it looks similar but on a game to game basis Harden does not get the same production.

For example, if Harden gets 18 FTA's in G1, 8 FTA's in G2, 12 FTA's in G3, and 5 FTA's in G4. It will appear as if Harden still is receiving approximately 10 FTA's per game. But that is not the case on a game to game basis. In the playoffs consistency from your stars is the most important quality.

Consistency. Not the aggregate. If your production is "noisy" you cannot be counted on in a game to game basis. That is why that excuse is used dismissively. In a seven game series, if your star's production is below in four of the seven games, then your team is likely to lose that series.

In the playoffs, there is no one game sample size excuse. If your best player(s) have that bad a +/-, then it needs to be addressed.....

Bruh check out the Celtics players +/- from Game 1. Tatum +16 Brown +22 Derrick White +25 PAYTON PRITCHARD +14 in 15 minutes.

"no one game sample size excuse" means Payton Pritchard is the best player in the NBA.

Un-post your joke essay.

First, role players production on a game to game basis should not be counted on. Role players production always fluctuates, in the RS, and even more in the playoffs.

We are talking about Jason Tatum, don't get distracted by shiny things.....

Whole lotta caveats to all your sayings.

[CIN-C-STAR]

Single game +/- is meaningless. Tatum happened to be on the court when the Warriors were going on runs.

He was on the court seven more minutes than any other starter.

The eye test (which is disregarded as well on a game to game basis) would tell you that Tatum was losing the ball too much on drives in the paint and making some bad decisions passing.

The problem with dismissing certain "anomalies" in the playoffs is that you don't have time for long sample sizes.

This is the same issue I have with those that make the argument James Harden still gets similar amounts of FTA's from the RS to PS.

Yes, in the aggregate it looks similar but on a game to game basis Harden does not get the same production.

For example, if Harden gets 18 FTA's in G1, 8 FTA's in G2, 12 FTA's in G3, and 5 FTA's in G4. It will appear as if Harden still is receiving approximately 10 FTA's per game. But that is not the case on a game to game basis. In the playoffs consistency from your stars is the most important quality.

Consistency. Not the aggregate. If your production is "noisy" you cannot be counted on in a game to game basis. That is why that excuse is used dismissively. In a seven game series, if your star's production is below in four of the seven games, then your team is likely to lose that series.

In the playoffs, there is no one game sample size excuse. If your best player(s) have that bad a +/-, then it needs to be addressed.....

Bruh check out the Celtics players +/- from Game 1. Tatum +16 Brown +22 Derrick White +25 PAYTON PRITCHARD +14 in 15 minutes.

"no one game sample size excuse" means Payton Pritchard is the best player in the NBA.

Un-post your joke essay.

+/- can be noisy for sure, but Derrick White and Payton Pritchard were great in game 1 relative to their role and expectations.
Just because a certain player isn't "supposed" to be the one to impact a game in a major way doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.