NBA by the Numbers: I Don't Want My P-E-R

I think NBA analyst John Hollinger is a brilliant guy.

Hollinger is arguably the flat-out smartest writer working for ESPN. He understands statistics in a way that normal people don't, and if he starred in the show Numb3rs, episodes wouldn't last past the second commercial break.

Bottom line: I respect Hollinger's intelligence, and I respect that he's doing something he loves.

However, to be a Hollingerian, you need to love his Player Efficiency Rating (PER).

And I don't.

I don't like it quite a bit, in fact.

If I were into hating things, I might even hate it.

The PER—explained here by the Honge himself—is meant to measure an NBA player's per-minute statistical production, the idea being that such a system allows you to compare players who don't play the same numbers of minutes, or play in systems that limit their statistical productivity.

An example: Shawn Marion might score more points than Rip Hamilton because his team gets more offensive possessions—but PER analysis should, in theory, allow for an objective comparison between them.

Hollinger will tell you that the PER isn't meant to be the final word on an NBA player's production, and he's always quick to point out the fact that the PER doesn't really measure defensive ability.

Those flaws aside, though, there are a few other problems I have with the system.

Hollinger has said that the strength of the PER is that it creates a unified number by which to compare players, since you can't just go to scoring or rebounding to tell the difference between Randy Foye and Chris Mihm.

However, that only makes sense if the PER is meant for people who know nothing about basketball.

Fans of the game understand the value (or lack thereof) of any type of statistic—and no matter how ardently supports defend Hollinger's system, the PER is just that: a statistic.

Strictly speaking, the PER doesn't really "unify" stats. The PER take a lot of stats into account...but then tosses in intangibles like "pace," filters the numbers through a formula, and ends up with a final result.

That result, of course, is still merely a number—and it doesn't clarify anything any more than any other compilation of stats.

What's more, Hollinger has said that the PER is used to make "comparisons between players who play differing minutes, or in different systems or whatnot—comparisons which, using conventional stats, are almost impossible."

Again, those comparisons are only impossible if you're not a basketball fan.

It's actually quite possible to compare players who differ in style or position or number of minutes played—by watching them play, taking into account their statistics, and using your brain and basketball knowledge to reach a conclusion.

You'll note that that system sounds remarkably similar to the PER, and indeed it is. The problem with the PER is that it takes the "use your brain" part out of it.

Perhaps that's the unintended point, sadly—perhaps people love the PER because it tells them what to think. And perhaps that's why I (almost) hate it.

As I've said, if stats are your only concern, the PER is as decent a number as any. But if you want the PER to tell you just how good an individual basketball player is, you're probably asking too much.

Here are some projections from the upcoming season's projected PER:

- Yao Ming will be the most productive player in the NBA.

As with all PER projections, this is largely based on Yao's stats compared to "similar players at a similar age," and where their statistics went the following year.

The problem is that Yao—along with LeBron, Shaq, Steve Nash, and Kevin Garnett, among others—is so vastly different from any player who's come before him that all comparisons are essentially moot.

- 12 players will be more productive than Tim Duncan.

I won't argue that Duncan's numbers will blow away the field this year...but again, this is why a stat like the PER doesn't work to measure how good a basketball player actually is.

- Steve Nash is ranked 19th, while Vince Carter, Shawn Marion, Allen Iverson, Luol Deng, Josh Howard, Jermaine O'Neal, Jason Kidd, and Rip Hamilton are all ranked below Atlanta's Josh Smith.

Enough said.

I know that some will argue that I just don't get the PER. On the contrary, I do indeed get it—I just don't see the need for it.

Perhaps it's because I'm not a numbers guy, or because I don't like being told what to think, or because I don't see the point of a list that ranks basketball players with phantom stats and places the best player at No. 4 (Kobe, as if it needed to be said), and one of the most accomplished at No. 13 (Duncan), and a two-time MVP at No. 19 (Nash). 

While I'm not closed on the issue, I don't see myself coming around on this one.

Again, Hollinger's a good man. He's often the first to point out when his formulas lead to wacky conclusions, or totally miss intangibles like Nash's ability to not age after turning 30.

Hollinger's also a very smart basketball analyst, as in evident every time he strays from mere numbers in his writings.

So no, I don't want to ditch John Hollinger. I just don't want his stat.