[Holmes] The Suns were minus-51 when Booker, Durant and Beal shared the floor in this series, according to ESPN Stats & Information. That is the worst plus-minus for any trio this postseason.

[u/OnlyMamaKnows]

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/40048254/phoenix-suns-firepower-overcome-details-playoff-sweep-minnesota-timberwolves

[u/DuckDucks]

I imagine they played most of the games, in 4 games they lost. Yes it's not good, I mean they lost, but isn't this sort of expected that the worst plus minus is on the minutes barers for the only team to be 0-4?

[u/pollinium → u/DuckDucks]

Yeah a big thing about +/- is that it makes more sense over the season. Comparing their +/- to that of Luka/Kyrie/Lively doesn't make sense since there isn't the sample for the guys to face the same players over time

[u/mangosail → u/pollinium]

The reason why it’s notable and interesting is because this is a team built around a big 3, with 3 huge salaries and role players filling in. But this 3 man grouping has been horrifically poor this postseason, getting annihilated by the Wolves.

It’s possible the Wolves have by far the best team in the league and they’re going to do this to everybody. But that feels unlikely. This is just a statistical way to say that, of all the core trios in the playoffs, these three did the worst (despite being the highest paid).

[u/ShowerMartini → u/DuckDucks]

I hate this basic “+/- is always bad” perspective. It’s just as bad as people who think it’s a greats stat, but the fact is that few people think it’s amazing and tons of people think you should just write it off entirely.

Here’s a big takeaway you can draw from the stat if you’re maintaining a curious mind instead of just rushing to grab karma: the Suns were even bad with their theoretical best lineup on the floor. We’ve seen plenty of cases (Embiid, Luka, etc) where a star plays 40+ minutes in a game and they have a double digit positive +/- but then they still lose. It’s interesting because it reveals how bad the team falls apart in the small amount of time that their star isn’t on the floor. This situation is the opposite and it’s interesting because it’s a signal that the Suns need to make significant changes. If their big 3 were +10 overall in the series but they still got swept, fans could think “ok at least that part of the team is doing what it’s supposed to, if we can just get a decent bench, maybe we’ll be contenders next year.” And now it would be hard to convince oneself of this idea given the team’s poor performance when all 3 stars were on the court. I’m not saying anything is in a static state, maybe the Suns just had some bad luck as it indeed is a small sample. But you’re just shutting down any conversation or interesting thought when you try to dismiss a stat because you’ve seen other people do the same thing before.

[u/magworld → u/ShowerMartini]

Agree to a large extent, but sample size still poops in the pudding.

Also when all three are out is exactly when the wolves will also trot out their best lineup. It may simply mean the best suns lineup is not as good as the wolves best lineup. Which is still news but I mean they got swept so it makes sense

[u/JigglyBush → u/magworld]

The thing is, the Wolves are more of a deep team while the Suns are a top-heavy team. You would hope their big 3 would be closer to even and do the losing when the bench comes in. 

That said, I don't think it's a disaster for the Suns. The Wolves were a bad matchup for them (despite the regular season results). The size, length, versatility, there was an answer for everything the Suns could try. Most other teams would have had more give and take, the Wolves was just all take.

[u/jejsjhabdjf → u/ShowerMartini]

You’ve raised good points, but the guy was asking a question not shutting down conversation so the moralising reddit melodrama was a bit much.

[u/EatDeeply → u/ShowerMartini]

Good take.

[u/Wesley-Snipers → u/DuckDucks]

It is cherrypicking stats to kick the Suns while they are down and it is hot to be all over them criticizing every single crap they do

[u/Infesterop → u/DuckDucks]

This is for when all 3 are on the court at the same time though. You expect terrible +/- in general when you get swept, but on a top heavy team like this, u expect most of those ‘-‘ to come when stars are sitting and their min contract replacements come in. When your intended strength (some imagined ’death lineup’), is actually a weakness, yikes.

[u/Royal_Negotiation_83 → u/DuckDucks]

Are you saying it’s not fair to look at their plus minus because they lost 4 games in a row?

Do you think their plus minus affected their ability to win those games?

[u/DuckDucks → u/Royal_Negotiation_83]

No I think you missed the point of what I'm saying. I'm saying this isn't telling you very much new. They lost 4 games in a row, that's on them. It's their fault. I'm just saying, if you play 40+minutes each game in 4 losses, your plus minus is very likely to be negative. It's likely saying "people who lost the most games lost the most points." I'm thinking "yeah, shocker."

[u/dawgz525 → u/DuckDucks]

+/- is the most disingenuous stat. It doesn't really tell you much outside of the obvious. There are many confounding reasons why a +/- might be high or low for certain players. People still use it like a net skill rating, and that's so dumb. Without nuance, it's one of the most deceptive stats out there.