Unless you’re looking at a big chunk of the season (say 50 games). I venture to say this fora variety of reason’s, and I’ll be using Zach Harper’s lineup to point out where I see the +20.

The way +/- is generally scored is how many points a team scores and gives up while a player is on the court. Let’s say Martin is on the court for 6 mins, and the Kings score 10 points while giving up 8 points. That’s how Martin would end up with +2.

If you look at Harper’s lineup data, you’ll notice that Mason in the starting lineup of Evans, Martin, Mason, Thompson and Hawes all had a +13 as a lineup in that particular game. (Not surprisingly, they were the best unit.)

By Harper’s count, there were 20 different lineup’s. Mason was in 8 different lineup’s. (I imagine this will be pretty common.)

As I pointed out above, the starting lineup posted a +13. The 17th different lineup used (Evans, Martin, Casspi, Thompson and Mason) posted a +5 in 2 1/2 mins. (Mason also finished out the game on the court and was on the court for a -2 in that time.)

He also was on the court with Udrih, Evans, Casspi and Thompson, and that lineup garnered a +4 in 2 different stints with about 3:20 of gametime registered.

That’s how he did it. I think it was a combination of playing with the team’s best players and having shooters on the floor who can complement him and not expose his lack of shooting.

That’s why you don’t look at plus/minus for one game. Because there will be plenty of games where it works the other way.

Anybody wearing the number 24 will have a +/- of at least 20. Since Kobe wears that number, opponents will think that the player wearing the number is actually Kobe, which in turn draws the defense toward that player.

It’s science.

Thus far, I feel like people use it to talk up players they like, and ignore it when it fails to show that a player they are fond of is worth a crap.

I would be interested to see what a player like Doug Christie’s +/- numbers looked like during his years in Sacramento. I can only assume they would be very complimentary, but even if they aren’t, well, that might indicate the meaningless of them. It seems like that stat would easily quantify the value of a player like him, who never gets a play called for him.

All Mason’s +/- score for the night shows is that the lineups he was in were more effective than the opposing lineups. It doesn’t necessarily say much about Mason, outside of the fact that the team as a whole played well when he was in. These stats only start to have meaning after a sizable chunk of games.

My question is whether on not this +/- statistics is completely biased

I fail to see how a count stat like +/- could be biased. Uninformative? Sure. Biased? Doubt it. You keep referring to yourself as a stats guy and researcher. Just out of curiosity, what are your qualifications?

If this were ‘Reke with a +20, everyone would be saying how amazing he is and how +/- makes lots of sense. When it is someone most of you don’t believe in, despite PW’s comments to the contrary, +/- doesn’t mean squat. Now, I will readily agree that one game’s +/- are virtually meaningless. But . . . why is there a +20? For this one game it is because mason was able to slow down their scoring while staying out of the way and letting our team score on offense. When he was off the floor, their team scored more and we scores less. That simple.

Remember, we don’t need five scorers on the floor. Especially when we have a back court capable of 45+ points a night, and a double double machine of a PF. Dislike Mason all you want (and believe me, I’m a huge Casspi fan), but Mason has been starting for a reason. PW has been around too long to just put a guy on the floor because he coached him in the past. He sees something that the numbers seem to be backing up.

As far as Christie, I’ll bet his +/- numbers were great too.

as shoe size is important in determining the beauty of a woman…not very.

Man hands, however…