Just to unfairly pick on WBCD here, I wanted to put a nail in the coffin of +/- small sample size analysis:
1) Everyone here who was watching on Monday agreed that Jaylen Brown had a bad game, some were even calling it borderline nightmarish. I personally thought it was merely bad, as perhaps did Mazzulla who to my eyes kept him out of a good chunk of his usual 2Q playtime, though he ended up playing most of the second half and finished 2nd in minutes with 39.
2) Jaylen Brown led the team in +/- at +17 in Monday's Game 4. Second was Horford at +15. Holiday was a +4 in a game we won by 14.
For every cherry picked example that can show that SSS +/- is silly to use as evidence for anything, there is an equally cherry picked data point available (surely!) that can say whatever happens to align with one's agenda. Which is exactly the point: data, sufficiently tortured, will confess to anything. For samples smaller than 10 games, but even really lower than 20-30, we might as well be arguing using astrology and the positions of celestial objects as an evidentiary basis. Please, for the love of God, stop being an otherwise intelligent poster here who resorts to using small sample +/- to bolster or quantify an argument. That's addressed to everyone, not just WBCD, and even to myself at times - I've been guilty too. But it's a nonsense way to argue anything, and we really need to bear that in mind before pulling that tool off (the very back of) the shelf.