What Does PPG Mean in Basketball and How Is It Calculated?

When I first started analyzing basketball statistics as a young coach, I remember being overwhelmed by all the acronyms floating around - FG%, PER, TS%, and of course, PPG. What does PPG mean in basketball? It's a question I've answered countless times over my twenty-year career, both to rookie players and curious fans. Simply put, PPG stands for Points Per Game, and it's arguably the most fundamental offensive statistic in basketball. It represents the average number of points a player scores across all games they've played in a season or career. Now, you might think that's straightforward enough, but there's more nuance to PPG than meets the eye, especially when you consider how it impacts player contracts and team negotiations.

I was recently reminded of this while reading about the contract situation between Alaska management and player Abu David. The team's coach, Jeff Cariaso, mentioned that talks were "not yet extended" when asked about negotiations with David's camp, represented by Marvin Espiritu of the Espiritu Manotoc Basketball Management. This got me thinking about how crucial PPG and other statistics become during these delicate negotiation periods. Teams look at a player's scoring average as one of the primary indicators of their offensive contribution, but they also dig deeper into how efficient those points are coming. A player averaging 15 PPG on 45% shooting tells a different story than someone putting up the same number on 35% shooting.

Let me break down exactly how PPG is calculated because I've seen many fans get this wrong. It's not as simple as adding up points from a few games and dividing. The official calculation takes the total points scored across all games in a season and divides that by the total number of games played. If a player scores 25 points in their first game, 30 in their second, and 35 in their third, their PPG would be (25+30+35) ÷ 3 = 30.0 PPG. What many people don't realize is that this includes every single game the player appeared in, even if they only played for two minutes due to injury. This is why context matters tremendously when evaluating PPG - you need to consider minutes per game, the team's offensive system, and the player's role within that system.

Throughout my career working with both collegiate and professional teams, I've developed what some might call a love-hate relationship with PPG. Don't get me wrong - it's an incredibly valuable metric that gives you a quick snapshot of a player's scoring ability. Michael Jordan's career 30.12 PPG or LeBron James' consistent 27+ PPG across multiple seasons tell you something remarkable about their scoring longevity. But here's where I differ from some traditional analysts: I believe we overemphasize PPG at the expense of more meaningful efficiency metrics. A player who scores 20 points on 15 shots is fundamentally more valuable than one who scores 22 points on 22 shots, yet the latter might command more attention based purely on that slightly higher PPG.

The business side of basketball, as we see in the David contract negotiations, often still heavily weights traditional statistics like PPG when determining player value. Teams negotiating with agents like Marvin Espiritu need concrete numbers to justify contract offers, and PPG provides that easily digestible figure. However, the smarter front offices now complement PPG with advanced analytics like true shooting percentage, points per possession, and offensive rating. I've sat in war rooms where we debated whether to offer a player $8 million or $12 million annually, and these days, the conversation has evolved beyond basic PPG to how those points contribute to winning basketball.

Let me share an example from my early coaching days that changed my perspective on scoring averages. We had a player averaging 18.7 PPG who believed he deserved a max contract extension based largely on that number. Meanwhile, we had another player putting up just 14.2 PPG who I argued was actually more valuable offensively. The first player required 17 shot attempts per game to get his points, while the second was scoring more efficiently within the flow of our offense and creating better opportunities for teammates. This is the danger of taking PPG at face value - it doesn't account for shooting efficiency, shot selection, or offensive system fit.

When I look at today's game, the evolution of how we interpret PPG fascinates me. The 2015-16 season saw Stephen Curry become the first unanimous MVP while averaging "only" 30.1 PPG - a number that would have placed him seventh in scoring during Michael Jordan's legendary 1986-87 season where he averaged 37.1 PPG. The game has changed, pace has increased, and yet we're having more sophisticated conversations about what scoring averages truly mean. The best analysts now contextualize PPG with pace adjustments - a player averaging 25 PPG on a team that plays at 95 possessions per game is actually more efficient than one scoring the same on a team with 105 possessions.

Returning to the contract negotiation I mentioned earlier, situations like Abu David's demonstrate why understanding the nuances of PPG matters. A player might be averaging 12.5 PPG, which doesn't sound spectacular until you realize they're doing it in only 24 minutes per game off the bench. When projected to 36 minutes, that becomes approximately 18.8 PPG - suddenly the player's scoring impact looks entirely different. This is exactly the kind of analysis that happens behind closed doors between management and representatives like Espiritu Manotoc Basketball Management. They're not just looking at the raw number but asking important questions about context, efficiency, and projected development.

What many fans don't realize is that PPG can be significantly influenced by factors beyond a player's control. The team's offensive system, the quality of teammates, coaching philosophy, and even the pace of play all affect scoring averages. I've seen talented scorers stuck in slow-paced systems that suppressed their PPG, only to blossom elsewhere. This is why the most sophisticated NBA teams now use adjusted PPG metrics that account for these external factors. They're trying to answer the question: "How would this player's scoring translate to our specific system and pace?"

As I reflect on two decades in basketball, my perspective on PPG has certainly evolved. I still believe it's a valuable starting point for evaluating offensive players, but it's just that - a starting point. The future of basketball analytics lies in more comprehensive metrics that capture scoring efficiency, offensive impact, and contribution to winning. The next time you see a contract negotiation like the one involving Abu David, remember that the PPG you see on the stat sheet is just the tip of the iceberg. The real conversation is happening beneath the surface, where context, efficiency, and projection meet to determine a player's true value. And that's a calculation far more complex than simple points divided by games played.