Here's the thing with +/-. People say it's a bogus stat - that's false. No stat is bogus unless it's made up. What's bogus (potentially) is the interpretation of the stat. So it's legitimate to point out that while Davis was on the floor the team was outscored by 36 points in 19 minutes. It's illegitimate to blame all that on him just by looking at the stat.
With a small sample size, it is indeed possible that someone with that bad a +/- was unlucky, even if it's worse than EVERYONE ELSE. It could be mere coincidence that other players played worse alongside Ed than otherwise. More likely it was a bad matchup - he was being used to guard someone he couldn't guard and this matchup was exploited. What's sad is that players like Ed are usually +/- stars even if they're not stat-stuffers, because they're supposed to do the things like boxing out and setting picks that we don't record stats for.
Sure Ed and Meyers started out okay. Meyers scored 6 points by the time Utah's whole team had. So at that point his +/- was in the black. So it went massively to shit after that. Again, if you watched the game and thought "Meyers is playing well" but then looked and saw he was massively in the red, it would be a sign that the stat is misleading in this case. I didn't have that happen here. And actually I did think that Connaughton's hustle was contagious while he was in, and wasn't surprised to see him in the positive, as he was last game as well. (Could it be we're actually finally getting some use out of him?)