[M T]

(I thought Plus-Minus is used as an absolute measure, where the players that play the most have the biggest numbers.  To me it is critical that this be normalized over playing time.)

Exactly the same thing ("difficult stat to trust") can be said about rebounding, shooting percentage, number of steals, turnovers, etc.  If their best defenders are out, then your offensive stats go up. If your point guard teammate goes out, your offensive stats go down.  If their best playmakers are out, then your defensive stats go up.  Or, as the previous poster said:

There are effects from:
a) who you play against
b) who you play with
c) where you play (some players play much more at home than the road, or vice versa)

So, do we simply say that anything except FT% is a difficult stat to trust?  What would the broadcasters do without stats to spout (along with things like how often a team wins on the road in a state that begins with T on nights that begin with T)?  What would fans argue about?  ;) (Sorry for channeling Brent Musberger for a moment.)

I absolutely agree that it is difficult to compare two players on different teams that played different schedules for any of the stats beyond FT%.  But within the PAC-10's round-robin schedule, you could start to compare because of the common opponents.

I intentionally didn't analyze the numbers above in order to allow others a chance to comment first.  Notice that Toni has almost the same rating as Nneka.  I don't think any one thinks Toni is as talented a BB player as Nneka.  I think this reflects the fact that Toni is a necessary part of the effectiveness of Stanford.  When she's out, there's no one else on the team that can do what she does.  I knew Toni had been quite effective, but I didn't realize she was this effective.

If you look at individual stats, in the Pac-12, Toni ranks #27 in scoring, #8 in assists (but #1 in A/TO ratio), #15 in 3PT.  That's it.  That doesn't sound like a player that is almost as effective for Stanford as consensus All-American Nneka.  So, what is it?  Is it that she shuts down the other team's offense better, does she disrupt their defense more by her cuts, etc.?  I feel this number integrates over all those other things a BB player does that helps the outcome.

Here is a caveat though...  While Toni's rating is only affected by what happens when she's in the game, comparing her to others is affected by the capabilities of her replacement.  So, Toni gets a 16.45 just from when she's in the game.  Nneka gets a 17.22 over her time.  But maybe Nneka would get a 20 when Toni was in and only a 10 when Amber is the point guard.  In effect, Toni's seemingly higher-than-expected team ranking of her rating may be due to her filling some necessary role that others can't.

I guess the next thing I'd want to put together are effectiveness of lineups.  What is the effectiveness of Nneka, Chiney, Toni, Lindy, Taylor versus the same group with Amber instead of Toni?  What is the effectiveness of that first group versus Nneka, Chiney, Toni, Joslyn, Bonnie?  etc.

[M T]

(I thought Plus-Minus is used as an absolute measure, where the players that play the most have the biggest numbers.  To me it is critical that this be normalized over playing time.)

Exactly the same thing ("difficult stat to trust") can be said about rebounding, shooting percentage, number of steals, turnovers, etc.  If their best defenders are out, then your offensive stats go up. If your point guard teammate goes out, your offensive stats go down.  If their best playmakers are out, then your defensive stats go up.  Or, as the previous poster said:

There are effects from:
a) who you play against
b) who you play with
c) where you play (some players play much more at home than the road, or vice versa)

So, do we simply say that anything except FT% is a difficult stat to trust?  What would the broadcasters do without stats to spout (along with things like how often a team wins on the road in a state that begins with T on nights that begin with T)?  What would fans argue about?  ;) (Sorry for channeling Brent Musberger for a moment.)

I absolutely agree that it is difficult to compare two players on different teams that played different schedules for any of the stats beyond FT%.  But within the PAC-10's round-robin schedule, you could start to compare because of the common opponents.

I intentionally didn't analyze the numbers above in order to allow others a chance to comment first.  Notice that Toni has almost the same rating as Nneka.  I don't think any one thinks Toni is as talented a BB player as Nneka.  I think this reflects the fact that Toni is a necessary part of the effectiveness of Stanford.  When she's out, there's no one else on the team that can do what she does.  I knew Toni had been quite effective, but I didn't realize she was this effective.

If you look at individual stats, in the Pac-12, Toni ranks #27 in scoring, #8 in assists (but #1 in A/TO ratio), #15 in 3PT.  That's it.  That doesn't sound like a player that is almost as effective for Stanford as consensus All-American Nneka.  So, what is it?  Is it that she shuts down the other team's offense better, does she disrupt their defense more by her cuts, etc.?  I feel this number integrates over all those other things a BB player does that helps the outcome.

Here is a caveat though...  While Toni's rating is only affected by what happens when she's in the game, comparing her to others is affected by the capabilities of her replacement.  So, Toni gets a 16.45 just from when she's in the game.  Nneka gets a 17.22 over her time.  But maybe Nneka would get a 20 when Toni was in and only a 10 when Amber is the point guard.  In effect, Toni's seemingly higher-than-expected team ranking of her rating may be due to her filling some necessary role that others can't.

I guess the next thing I'd want to put together are effectiveness of lineups.  What is the effectiveness of Nneka, Chiney, Toni, Lindy, Taylor versus the same group with Amber instead of Toni?  What is the effectiveness of that first group versus Nneka, Chiney, Toni, Joslyn, Bonnie?  etc.