but I ask again, what is that stat telling you. It is saying limited time Ryan Anderson has played well on the offensive end. But I can look at his pts per game, rebounding numbers and field goal percentage and come to the same conclusion. I just think its an overrated tool in measuring players.

I mean, do I really need to know Lebron has a per of 32.8 to know he is a good player? Of course the best players have the best PERs, but does that mean its better than win score (Dave Berry) or any of the other new stats introduced into basketball.

I also think the ESPN guys have come to rely on PER too much. Hollinger routinely makes claims that simply don’t pan out because of his projections. PER overrates rebounding, screws up the usage rate, and doesn’t even attempt to account for defense. So a guy like Carl Landry can lead the rookie class in PER the entire year, and if you just looked at that stat, you wouldn’t know he is a below average defender or a part time player. Another PER star includes the loveable and so cuddly Michael Sweetney. PER has a way overrating inside players who can score. But instead of making my case, I’ll leave it to someone who argued it far better than I -

“Without knowing a whole lot more about a player’s statline, just glancing at their PER will often be completely useless. But isn’t the whole point of the number to boil a player’s statistical contributions down to one easy-to-reference number? By consolidating stats into more complex measures, you gain the ability to compare across players, but you lose explanatory power … if given the choice between knowing a player’s field goal percentage or his field goals made and field goals attempted, I’d take the former because it allows for clearer comparisons across players. PER simply takes that kind of thinking to the extreme. What is sacrificed by this metric is rarely worth what is gained.”

http://westcoastbasketball.blogspot.com/2007/09/fraction-of-sum.html

PER as a number alone, tells you almost nothing about a player. When you are evaluating a mid-level player, someone whose PER hovers around average, whether that guy has a PER of 16 or a per of 18 tells you nothing about whether that is a guy you want on your team. Its a tool, yes, but it is a mostly unnecessary tool that hides important details. If I want to know if Gordon will play better with Rose than Hinrich, should I check their PER’s or their shooting percentage? If I want to know who is the better offensive rebounder, Noah or Thomas, should I look at their PER or their offensive rebound rate? Looking at PER says nothing but that is a very good offensive player, that is a good offensive player, and that is a mediocre offensive player. It tells you nothing about what they actually bring the table.

But, please, educate me about statistics, all knowing one.

and underrates “intangibles” such as directing an offense, chemistry and playing defense, so you gets guys like Carl Landry leading in PER for an entire year because they play 20 minutes a game and grab 6 boards every time they are out there. Plus Hollinger and other ESPN writers have started to use per too broadly and in essence, use it to justify everything. Therefore Hollinger keeps picking the Rockets to do something because they are the all PER team.
.
i also people like you lean on statistics because you can’t follow what is happening in the game. Narf!