Lebron James the 2nd highest PER per season in all of NBA history..

[tgan3]

Right now his PER is 31.77. Highest is Wilt at 31.82 at the 1961-1962 season.

Here's the reference for Hollinger's PER rating:

A Year For the Ages: 35.0 << Unreachable IMO
Runaway MVP Candidate: 30.0
Strong MVP Candidate: 27.5
Weak MVP Candidate: 25.0
Bona fide All-Star: 22.5
Borderline All-Star: 20.0
Solid 2nd option: 18.0
3rd Banana: 16.5
Pretty good player: 15.0
In the rotation: 13.0
Scrounging for minutes: 11.0
Definitely renting: 9.0
The Next Stop: DLeague 5.0

Lebron James is playing phenomenal basketball right now.

[NumberSix]

Is PER actually considered a real stat?

[1987_Lakers]

I really hope they get rid of this "PER" crap soon.

[fpliii]

Right now his PER is 31.77. Highest is Wilt at 31.82 at the 1961-1962 season.

Here's the reference for Hollinger's PER rating:

A Year For the Ages: 35.0 << Unreachable IMO
Runaway MVP Candidate: 30.0
Strong MVP Candidate: 27.5
Weak MVP Candidate: 25.0
Bona fide All-Star: 22.5
Borderline All-Star: 20.0
Solid 2nd option: 18.0
3rd Banana: 16.5
Pretty good player: 15.0
In the rotation: 13.0
Scrounging for minutes: 11.0
Definitely renting: 9.0
The Next Stop: DLeague 5.0

Lebron James is playing phenomenal basketball right now.

That's funny, I thought you need turnovers, blocked shots, steals, offensive rebounds to calculate PER.

[pauk]

Is PER actually considered a real stat?

Its very real and very considered.... but its not a stat, its a rating... rating of STATS... PER simply just tells the obvious and that is who has the best overall stats, nothing more... but yes ofcourse naturally a guy having the best overall stats was kindof often the best player in the game aswell, hence also had the highest PER ofcourse, coincidence...

[Breezy]

I'm pretty sure that the Basketball-Reference listings for PER are unofficial. I believe Hollinger himself has said that any PER number before a certain year ( I wanna say sometime in the early 80's) is not counted.

If you look on ESPN's website under Hollinger official rankings Lebron's PER is at 30.96

I do think PER is a good tool for measuring a players value to a team but It needs to be one of several measures to get the whole picture.

[pauk]

That's funny, I thought you need turnovers, blocked shots, steals, offensive rebounds to calculate PER.

Dont need to, but even then i am not sure if Wilts stats would be rated any much higher by PER.... because PER considers per minute / possession productions.... and we all know that is not good for especially a guy who played in the 60s era, the league back then averaged almost double the amount of possessions per game compared to today and speaking of minutes Wilt at one point averaged 48-49 mpg... there was an article i saw where one of Lebrons seasons was calculated to have been an average of 45-15-15 with the league high possessions & minutes Wilt/Oscar had to work with.... and where Wilts best season for example was calculated to look something like 28-11-2 based on todays average possessions per game....

PER considers this, thats why Jordan/Lebron average the highest PER in NBA history.....

[cotdt]

Lebron James, the favorite amongst statistics whores. Cool.

Lebron James is only Jordan's equal if you only look at stats and not watch the actual games.

[pauk]

Lebron James, the favorite amongst statistics whores. Cool.

2nd favorite to Michael Jordan in this department actually (PER for example), Jordan had the best numbers per minute / per possession in NBA history..... its not a coincidence he averaged the highest PER in NBA history..

[Breezy]

Once again I think PER is a great tool and a fairly accurate measure of how good a player is but let's not pretend like it's the end all be all of a players skill and greatness.

Copied from the PER article on Wikipedia - Problems with PER
----------------------------------------------------------
PER largely measures offensive performance. Hollinger freely admits that two of the defensive statistics it incorporates -- blocks and steals (which was not tracked as an official stat till 1973) -- can produce a distorted picture of a player's value and that PER is not a reliable measure of a player's defensive acumen. For example, Bruce Bowen, widely regarded as one of the best defenders in the NBA (at least through the 2006-07 season), has routinely posted single-digit PERs.

"Bear in mind that this rating is not the final, once-and-for-all answer for a player's accomplishments during the season. This is especially true for players such as Bruce Bowen and Trenton Hassell who are defensive specialists but don't get many blocks or steals."

In addition, some have argued that PER gives undue weight to a player's contribution in limited minutes, or against a team's second unit, and it undervalues players who have enough diversity in their game to play starter's minutes.

Lastly, PER rewards inefficient shooting. To quote Dave Berri, the author of The Wages of Wins:

"Hollinger argues that each two point field goal made is worth about 1.65 points. A three point field goal made is worth 2.65 points. A missed field goal, though, costs a team 0.72 points. Given these values, with a bit of math we can show that a player will break even on his two point field goal attempts if he hits on 30.4% of these shots. On three pointers the break-even point is 21.4%. If a player exceeds these thresholds, and virtually every NBA player does so with respect to two-point shots, the more he shoots the higher his value in PERs. So a player can be an inefficient scorer and simply inflate his value by taking a large number of shots."

[fpliii]

Dont need to, but even then i am not sure if Wilts stats would be rated any much higher by PER.... because PER considers per minute / possession productions.... and we all know that is not good for especially a guy who played in the 60s era, the league back then averaged almost double the amount of possessions per game compared to today and speaking of minutes Wilt at one point averaged 48-49 mpg... there was an article i saw where one of Lebrons seasons was calculated to have been an average of 45-15-15 with the league high possessions & minutes Wilt/Oscar had to work with.... and where Wilts best season for example was calculated to look something like 28-11-2 based on todays average possessions per game....

PER considers this, thats why Jordan/Lebron average the highest PER in NBA history.....

I'm not suggesting his PER would be higher (the turnovers could very well bring it down), I'm just stating that PER does not exist before all those stats became official. basketball-reference.com APPROXIMATES PER using a method they've put together, but it's not actual PER. So there is no highest PER in NBA history, there is a highest PER since the 1977-78 season (instead, state that Jordan/LeBron average the highest approximated PER in NBA history and you'd be correct).

The problem with the bolded is that box score numbers don't scale proportionately to minutes played or increased pace, there are diminishing returns. 15 points in 30 minutes does not translate to 20 points in 40 minutes (same for any other statistic).

Anyhow, PER (as is the case with any other all-encompassing single metric) is highly flawed. It's too closely linked to USG%, it's too far removed from TS% (both using r^2 values); it doesn't adequately measure defense though it attempts to do so; the coefficients in the (linear) model are arbitrary, and not derived from any regression analysis. There are plenty of other numbers you can cite, please stay away from these single statistics computed from box score numbers.

[dunksby]

Once again I think PER is a great tool and a fairly accurate measure of how good a player is but let's not pretend like it's the end all be all of a players skill and greatness.

Copied from the PER article on Wikipedia - Problems with PER
----------------------------------------------------------
PER largely measures offensive performance. Hollinger freely admits that two of the defensive statistics it incorporates -- blocks and steals (which was not tracked as an official stat till 1973) -- can produce a distorted picture of a player's value and that PER is not a reliable measure of a player's defensive acumen. For example, Bruce Bowen, widely regarded as one of the best defenders in the NBA (at least through the 2006-07 season), has routinely posted single-digit PERs.

"Bear in mind that this rating is not the final, once-and-for-all answer for a player's accomplishments during the season. This is especially true for players such as Bruce Bowen and Trenton Hassell who are defensive specialists but don't get many blocks or steals."

In addition, some have argued that PER gives undue weight to a player's contribution in limited minutes, or against a team's second unit, and it undervalues players who have enough diversity in their game to play starter's minutes.

Lastly, PER rewards inefficient shooting. To quote Dave Berri, the author of The Wages of Wins:

"Hollinger argues that each two point field goal made is worth about 1.65 points. A three point field goal made is worth 2.65 points. A missed field goal, though, costs a team 0.72 points. Given these values, with a bit of math we can show that a player will break even on his two point field goal attempts if he hits on 30.4% of these shots. On three pointers the break-even point is 21.4%. If a player exceeds these thresholds, and virtually every NBA player does so with respect to two-point shots, the more he shoots the higher his value in PERs. So a player can be an inefficient scorer and simply inflate his value by taking a large number of shots."

But in LeBron's case who is a good defender and an efficient scorer, other than his FT shooting, PER's inaccuracies don't misdirect. PER is a useless stat to measure a great player like LBJ and others anyway IMO. I don't have to look up LeBron's PER to know how good he is.

[Breezy]

But in LeBron's case who is a good defender and an efficient scorer, other than his FT shooting, PER's inaccuracies don't misdirect. PER is a useless stat to measure a great player like LBJ and others anyway IMO. I don't have to look up LeBron's PER to know how good he is.

Yeah I'm with you. I just put that up to show that it is not a 1 to 1 ratio of greatness. Where I think it's useful is showing you the value of players who you aren't flashy and sometimes the over valuing of players who light it up but cost their teams in other ways... Iverson for example.

[pauk]

But in LeBron's case who is a good defender and an efficient scorer, other than his FT shooting, PER's inaccuracies don't misdirect. PER is a useless stat to measure a great player like LBJ and others anyway IMO. I don't have to look up LeBron's PER to know how good he is.

Exactly, thats why you/we need to just take PER for what it is... a rating of stats (per minute etc), its really nothing more...

[dunksby]

Yeah I'm with you. I just put that up to show that it is not a 1 to 1 ratio of greatness. Where I think it's useful is showing you the value of players who you aren't flashy and sometimes the over valuing of players who light it up but cost their teams in other ways... Iverson for example.

Yes I understand.

Exactly, but you need to just take PER for what it is... a rating of stats, its really nothing more...

That's precisely why PER is useless, why would you want to take in a collective rating of stats that is so personally constructed? I prefer looking at all those stats and then some others as well so I could judge them based on my own personal values. Still I would not be able to come at a comprehensive conclusion about that specific player unless I have watched enough of his games.