NBA fans love their stats, and for good reason. In a game dominated by a small number of players and defined by high-impact moments, data helps separate perception from reality.
The problem is that not all stats carry the same weight. Some are misleading, others are misused, and many are presented without the context needed to properly evaluate them. As advanced metrics continue to evolve, several traditional numbers have lost much of their value in serious analysis.
You can find arguments online both for and against nearly every stat in use today. Here, we’ll focus on three that, in my view, receive greater attention than their analytical value justifies. The common thread? Volume and context rarely align.
Rebounds Per Game
When discussing centers around the league, rebounds per game is almost always part of the conversation. Big men are expected to control the glass and secure possessions, and their value is frequently tied to that production.
So why is rebounds per game overrated? Two main reasons: artificial inflation and varying degrees of difficulty.
Artificial inflation starts with how rebounds are recorded. Any missed shot secured by a player counts the same, regardless of how it happens. That creates opportunities for inflated numbers. Some players, intentionally or not, boost their totals through inefficient scoring around the rim paired with strong rebounding ability.
Andre Drummond is a good example. During his time in Detroit, he consistently ranked among the league’s top rebounders, driven in large part by offensive boards. But many of those came from his own misses, with multiple tip-ins on a single possession padding the stat sheet.
Difficulty is the other factor. Not all rebounds are created equal. Russell Westbrook has long been an elite rebounding guard, but many of his boards came uncontested. His teams often schemed for it, allowing him to grab the rebound and immediately push in transition.
That distinction matters. Total Rebound Percentage (TRB%) offers a fuller view, accounting for playing time, available rebounds, and overall opportunity. It provides a better measure of how effective a player actually is on the glass.
Total Turnovers / Turnovers Per Game
Raw turnover totals are frequently used to criticize players, but they offer a narrow and often misleading view of ball security. At the most basic level, turnovers are tied directly to opportunity. Players who handle the ball more are naturally going to commit more turnovers.
That’s especially true for primary ball-handlers. Point guards and high-usage creators are responsible for initiating offense, which inherently increases their turnover totals.
Usage rate reinforces this. The players with the highest usage almost always lead in turnovers, not because they are careless, but because they are constantly involved. Look at recent leaders like Luka Dončić and LeBron James. Including either in a discussion of the league’s most turnover-prone players ignores the context of how much responsibility they carry.
There are better ways to evaluate ball security. Turnover Percentage measures how frequently a player turns the ball over relative to their possessions, providing a clearer picture of efficiency. Assist-to-Turnover Ratio adds another layer, balancing mistakes against playmaking value, similar to touchdown-to-interception ratio in football.
Both metrics provide a clearer picture than raw totals. Used together, they offer a far stronger evaluation of a player’s decision-making with the ball.
Points Per Game
The mac daddy of all miscontextualized stats, points per game has defined player reputations for as long as the NBA has existed.
To be fair, the emphasis is understandable. The team that scores the most points wins, so having one of the league’s top scorers should, in theory, translate to success.
In practice, it rarely works that way. Since 2000, only one scoring champion has won the NBA title in the same season, Shai Gilgeous-Alexander last year. Scoring volume alone isn’t enough. It has to be paired with efficiency and sound shot selection to truly impact winning.
Jerry Stackhouse’s 2000–01 season is a perfect example. He averaged 29.8 points per game, six points higher than any other season in his career. But his efficiency dipped, with declines in both overall and effective field goal percentage, and a significant drop in two-point shooting. The result? A 32–50 Pistons team despite having the league’s No. 2 scorer.
As advanced metrics have taken a larger role in NBA analysis, efficiency and shot profile have become far more important than raw scoring totals. If you want a clearer picture of offensive impact, look at effective field goal percentage (eFG%), true shooting percentage (TS%), or per-36 scoring metrics. Those numbers provide a fully complete view of how and how well a player scores.
If this was your kind of read, you’ll like what’s next. Get The Sandman Ticket, our free, weekly newsletter with picks, insights, and a little bit of everything we love about sports.
