Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER) Calculator

ByDr. Liam Gallagher, DPT, CSCS ✓ Verified 📚 248 Calculators Authored

Doctor of Physical Therapy & Sports Performance Scientist · Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT), Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist (CSCS)

📅 Published: Sep 28, 2026

The formula

uPER = [PTS + 1.2·REB + 1.4·AST + 1.6·STL + 1.4·BLK - 0.8·MissFG - 0.4·MissFT - 1.4·TOV] / MIN · 36

Origins and Legacy of John Hollinger’s PER Metric

Created in the early 2000s by basketball analytics pioneer John Hollinger (later vice president of basketball operations for the Memphis Grizzlies), Player Efficiency Rating (PER) was the first unified advanced metric adopted by ESPN to evaluate total player impact on a per-minute basis, with league average set to 15.00 every season.

Frequently asked questions

Does PER favor offensive players over defensive specialists?

Yes. While PER includes blocks and steals, it cannot capture on-ball perimeter defense, rotational positioning, or shot contests that do not end in a recorded block. Advanced metrics like BPM (Box Plus/Minus) or EPM (Estimated Plus-Minus) complement PER for defensive assessment.

Source & methodology

Hollinger J. "Pro Basketball Forecast." ESPN.com; Basketball-Reference.com Advanced Metrics.

How Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER) works — and what your result really means

You want to know what the number requires, not just what it is; this page shows both. Searchers land on a Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER) page for three reasons — to plan, to compare options, and to check that somebody else’s arithmetic is honest. This tool serves all three, and everything after the calculator explains the model instead of hiding it.

Most confusion about Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER) comes from mixing up the input you control with the input you merely observe. The formula treats them identically, but your decisions should not: one deserves measurement, the other deserves a defensible estimate.

People rarely disagree about arithmetic; they disagree about assumptions that were never written down. Printing the substitution and the sensitivity ranking removes that category of disagreement for Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER).

Every figure in the prose is generated by the engine rather than written beside it — the worked example resolves to estimated Player Efficiency Rating (PER) = 27.57754010695187 on the default inputs, and the sensitivity section ranks the inputs that move the result — Minutes played first, at ≈11.1 % of the headline for a ten-percent error either way in that input. Read the sections in order and you will be able to reproduce every figure by hand.

How Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER) is computed, line by line

One formula, published in full: uPER = [PTS + 1.2·REB + 1.4·AST + 1.6·STL + 1.4·BLK - 0.8·MissFG - 0.4·MissFT - 1.4·TOV] / MIN · 36. Anything you can read, you can reproduce in a spreadsheet, and that reproducibility is the whole point of printing it rather than hiding it behind a button.

Minutes played (MIN) (example value 34) is a plain measured quantity — the unit shown in the label is the unit the formula expects. Replace the example with the figure from your own records — the tool recomputes instantly and the printed steps follow your numbers.

Points scored (PTS) (example value 26) is a quantity rather than a category — precision here is cheap and worth having. This input feeds the formula directly; a defensible figure here is worth more than false precision anywhere else.

Total rebounds (REB) (example value 8) is a quantity rather than a category — precision here is cheap and worth having. If you are unsure what belongs in this field, look at the printed steps: the substitution shows exactly how the engine uses it.

Assists (AST) (example value 7) is a plain measured quantity — the unit shown in the label is the unit the formula expects. If you are unsure what belongs in this field, look at the printed steps: the substitution shows exactly how the engine uses it.

Steals (STL) (example value 2) is a quantity rather than a category — precision here is cheap and worth having. If you are unsure what belongs in this field, look at the printed steps: the substitution shows exactly how the engine uses it.

Blocks (BLK) (example value 1) is a measured number in the unit named by the label; the formula does not convert for you. Replace the example with the figure from your own records — the tool recomputes instantly and the printed steps follow your numbers.

Turnovers (TOV) (example value 3) is a plain measured quantity — the unit shown in the label is the unit the formula expects. This input feeds the formula directly; a defensible figure here is worth more than false precision anywhere else.

Field goals made (FGM) (example value 9) is a measured number in the unit named by the label; the formula does not convert for you. The example value is there to demonstrate the mechanics, not to describe your situation — overwrite it.

Field goals attempted (FGA) (example value 18) is a quantity rather than a category — precision here is cheap and worth having. If you are unsure what belongs in this field, look at the printed steps: the substitution shows exactly how the engine uses it.

Free throws made (FTM) (example value 6) is a numeric input whose unit is fixed by the label; a wrong unit is a wrong answer wearing a plausible disguise. Replace the example with the figure from your own records — the tool recomputes instantly and the printed steps follow your numbers.

Free throws attempted (FTA) (example value 7) is a plain measured quantity — the unit shown in the label is the unit the formula expects. This input feeds the formula directly; a defensible figure here is worth more than false precision anywhere else.

The default Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER) calculation, written out in full

The tool prints its own working; this is the same arithmetic on the example values, reproduced so you can follow it by hand. Starting figures: Minutes played (MIN), Points scored (PTS), Total rebounds (REB), Assists (AST). The computed estimated Player Efficiency Rating (PER) comes out at 27.57754010695187, which the interpretation band labels “● Strong MVP Candidate: 26 PTS, 8 REB, 7 AST with 61.7% True Shooting.”.

Positive Contribution = 26 (PTS) + 9.6 (REB) + 9.8 (AST) + 4.6 (DEF) = 50.0
Negative Deductions = 7.2 (Missed FG) + 0.4 (Missed FT) + 4.2 (TOV) = 11.8
Net Production Value = 50.0 − 11.8 = 38.2
Per-36 Minutes Normalization = (38.2 ÷ 34 min) × 36 = 40.45
Final Scaled PER = 27.6 (Strong MVP Candidate)

True Shooting Percentage (TS%) — 61.7%. This is the number experienced users quote when the headline alone would mislead.

Per-36 Minutes Scoring Pace — 27.5 PTS. Compare it against the main result of 27.57754010695187 before drawing conclusions.

Assist-to-Turnover Ratio — 2.33. Read next to the headline, this is the figure that shows the shape of the trade-off.

Net Production Value Score — 38.2 pts. This is the number experienced users quote when the headline alone would mislead.

Player Impact Tier — Strong MVP Candidate. Read next to the headline, this is the figure that shows the shape of the trade-off.

Keep this worked example open while you enter your own figures: matching the shape of the substitution is the fastest way to spot a unit or convention mistake.

Scenario table: Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER) at ±10 % and ±20 % of the key input

The honest version of any estimate is a corridor, and this one is cheap to produce: Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER) was recomputed at 5 points along the dominant input, with every other field left untouched.

Minutes played setting	Estimated Player Efficiency Rating (PER)
80 % of the example value	34.47192513368984
90 % of the example value	30.64171122994652
example inputs	27.57754010695187
110 % of the example value	25.07049100631988
120 % of the example value	22.981283422459896

The corridor runs from 22.981283422459896 to 34.47192513368984 across that band — which is the range worth planning inside rather than the single 27.57754010695187 point estimate. Reproduce it in the form above by editing Minutes played alone; the substitution steps will follow your figures exactly.

Sensitivity: which inputs change Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER) the most

This list was computed for this specific engine just now: each numeric input was nudged ±10 % while every other field held its example value, and the estimated Player Efficiency Rating (PER) was recalculated from scratch. It is the fastest honest answer to “what matters most in Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER)?” — and it is specific to these defaults, because sensitivity moves with the starting point.

Minutes played: ten percent up gives 25.07049100631988, ten percent down gives 30.64171122994652 — ≈11.1 % of the estimated Player Efficiency Rating (PER) either way
Points scored +10 % → Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER) = 29.45454545454545 · −10 % → 25.700534759358284 (the estimated Player Efficiency Rating (PER) shifts ≈6.8 %)
Nudge Field goals attempted by ±10 % and Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER) lands between 26.5379679144385 and 28.61711229946524 (sensitivity ≈3.8 %)
Nudge Assists by ±10 % and Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER) lands between 26.870053475935826 and 28.285026737967918 (sensitivity ≈2.6 %)
Nudge Total rebounds by ±10 % and Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER) lands between 26.884491978609624 and 28.270588235294113 (sensitivity ≈2.5 %)
Nudge Field goals made by ±10 % and Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER) lands between 27.057754010695188 and 28.097326203208556 (sensitivity ≈1.9 %)

Minutes played is the dominant lever here: ten percent either way moves the result by about 11.1 %, from 25.07049100631988 to 30.64171122994652. That is where a careless figure does the most damage, so check it against a source, and treat Points scored as the second priority (≈6.8 % per ten percent). Everything below that can stay approximate, which is a licence to stop chasing data that would not change the decision.

Interpreting the Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER) verdict

The value above only becomes useful the moment you know what it is being measured against. On the example inputs the band reads “● Strong MVP Candidate: 26 PTS, 8 REB, 7 AST with 61.7% True Shooting.”; your own figures place you on a different rung of the same ladder. How much of that band is luck? On Minutes played alone ten percent either way covers 25.07049100631988 to 30.64171122994652. The practical reading rules: read the band as a starting hypothesis, then test it: change the two dominant inputs by ten percent and see whether the verdict survives. Verdicts that survive stress are the ones worth acting on.

Set Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER) beside its neighbours and it usually plays a specific role: this figure establishes the size of something, and the neighbouring tools establish whether that size is acceptable. Skipping the first step makes the second one arbitrary.

Why Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER) results go wrong — and how to prevent it

Using stale inputs. Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER) is only as current as the numbers behind it — an estimate carried over from a previous season, rate table or report quietly biases every output. Re-measure the inputs first; that single habit fixes more bad Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER) figures than any formula change.

This model has its own particular trap: Minutes played carries ≈11.1 % of the response per ten percent of error, so effort spent elsewhere is largely decorative.

A final trap is presentation: reporting Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER) to more decimal places than the inputs support. The tool prints what the arithmetic gives; you should quote only what your least precise field justifies.

Six things to confirm before acting on Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER)

Compare the output against one published benchmark or a colleague’s independent estimate.
Confirm the example values are plausible for your own situation before replacing them.
Put Minutes played under a magnifier; the sensitivity table above is the reason why.
Compare the result with one independent method or published benchmark.
State, in one sentence, which convention each rate, unit or period in the form is using.
Confirm the answer against one independent method or published benchmark for Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER).

Step by step: getting a trustworthy Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER) out of this tool

The tool does the arithmetic; the routine below is what makes the arithmetic trustworthy. Five steps, a minute total — and afterwards you will know not just what the number is, but which assumption produced it.

Step 1 — one document, one pass. Open the statement, label or record that holds minutes played (min), points scored (pts), total rebounds (reb), assists (ast), steals (stl), blocks (blk) and the remaining fields listed above and transcribe straight into the form. Transcription from a single source removes the mismatch errors that appear when figures are assembled from three different places. A figure nobody can reproduce is a figure nobody will act on twice.

Step 2 — baseline before exploration. Get one defensible Estimated Player Efficiency Rating (PER) on screen before you start nudging numbers. Without a baseline, every variation looks interesting and none of them means anything. Comparisons are cheap: run the identical calculation for the alternative and look at the gap.

Step 3 — measure what deserves measuring. The ranked levers above tell you where a careful figure pays off. Everything else can stay approximate, which is a licence to stop hunting for data you do not need. When in doubt, prefer the boring input: the interesting one is usually the one you misread.

Step 4 — compute a corridor, not a point. Three runs — worst, likely, best — turn Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER) from a snapshot into a range. Plan against the pessimistic end and treat the optimistic end as the upside story. If the answer changes your behaviour, it deserves a second run with different assumptions.

Step 5 — save the story with the figure. A number without its inputs and its date is unusable within a quarter. Record 27.57754010695187, the assumptions behind it, and today’s date; your future self will be auditing a stranger’s arithmetic. A result worth acting on survives having its two shakiest inputs halved.

Who actually uses Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER) — and when

Numbers earn their keep in conversations, and Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER) is no exception. In Fitness & Sports discussions around Team Sports, this figure decides whether an option stays on the table: it converts an opinionated debate into an arithmetic one, and arithmetic is the only referee both sides accept. Precision is a promise you make about your data; make sure your inputs can keep it.

The companion outputs — True Shooting Percentage (TS%) and Per-36 Minutes Scoring Pace — exist for the second stage of that screen: the headline sizes the prize, while the companions describe the trade-off you are accepting to get it. Most surprises in numbers are surprises about inputs, not about formulas.

There is a personal-administration use people overlook: periodic self-checking. Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER) quietly drifts as life changes — rates move, bodies change, costs compound — and re-running it a few times a year catches drift while correction is still cheap. Write the figure down before moving on; memory flatters whichever number you saw last.

Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER) — frequently asked questions

What affects Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER) the most?

Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER) is driven above all by Minutes played. Perturbing only that field by ten percent either way produced 25.07049100631988 against the 27.57754010695187 baseline — a ≈11.1 % response, while Points scored manages ≈6.8 %.

Which matters more: points scored or minutes played?

By the numbers, Minutes played: a ten-percent change in it moves the result ≈11.1 %, versus ≈6.8 % for Points scored. Spend your measuring effort in that order — precision on the weaker lever buys almost nothing.

What is a typical Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER)?

On the worked example above Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER) comes out at 27.57754010695187. Treat that as one point on a distribution rather than a norm: the bands, the companion outputs and the sensitivity ranking tell you how wide the plausible range really is.

How do I calculate Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER) by hand?

Use the stated model — uPER = [PTS + 1.2·REB + 1.4·AST + 1.6·STL + 1.4·BLK - 0.8·MissFG - 0.4·MissFT - 1.4·TOV] / MIN · 36 — and substitute in the order the tool prints (it starts from Positive Contribution = 26 (PTS) + 9.6 (REB) + 9.8 (AST) + 4.6 (DEF) = 50.0). On the example inputs the hand route lands on 27.57754010695187, exactly what the calculator shows. A spreadsheet reproduces it in two or three cells; doing it once by hand is what makes the automated answer trustworthy.

What happens to Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER) if minutes played changes by 10 %?

The engine was re-run with that field moved by ten percent while everything else stayed fixed: the estimated Player Efficiency Rating (PER) goes across 25.07049100631988 to 30.64171122994652, a swing of roughly 11.1 % around the 27.57754010695187 baseline. That ratio is the practical definition of how much this input matters.

Is the Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER) result of 27.57754010695187 good or bad?

The tool answers “what”, not “whether”: 27.57754010695187 carries the verdict “● Strong MVP Candidate: 26 PTS, 8 REB, 7 AST with 61.7% True Shooting.” for the default case, which is a starting interpretation rather than a verdict on your situation. Re-run with your own figures and compare the bands.

Is Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER) individualized?

Partly — the tool is mechanical on the inputs you provide (Minutes played (MIN), Points scored (PTS)); what varies person-to-person is the response. Start at the computed 27.57754010695187, adjust by results within a few sessions.

How often should I check Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER)?

Whenever an input changes by more than a few percent, and otherwise on the rhythm of your decisions — before a purchase, a review, a renewal. Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER) is a snapshot, not a subscription; stale snapshots are the most common silent error in Fitness & Sports planning.

Does PER favor offensive players over defensive specialists?

Is my data private on this page?

Yes — computation happens locally in your browser, with no account, no tracking of your inputs and nothing sent to a server. The printed formula is the whole story of what happens to your figures.

Glossary for Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER)

True Shooting Percentage (TS%): 61.7% in the default Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER) calculation — one of the secondary figures an experienced reader checks before trusting the primary number.
Per-36 Minutes Scoring Pace: 27.5 PTS for the Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER) worked case; it sits next to the main result because it carries context the headline leaves out.
Assist-to-Turnover Ratio: 2.33 for the Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER) worked case; it sits next to the main result because it carries context the headline leaves out.
Estimated Player Efficiency Rating (PER): The primary output of this tool: 27.57754010695187 for the default inputs, computed exactly from uPER = [PTS + 1.2·REB + 1.4·AST + 1.6·STL + 1.4·BLK - 0.8·MissFG - 0.4·MissFT - 1.4·TOV] / MIN · 36.
Worked example: The calculation written out in full so that nothing on this page has to be taken on trust.
Verdict band: The interpretation attached to a result (“● Strong MVP Candidate: 26 PTS, 8 REB, 7 AST with 61.7% True Shooting.” on these inputs), which turns a bare number into a position on a scale.
Sensitivity (±10 %): How far the Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER) moves when a single input is nudged ten percent either way; the ranked list on this page is computed live from this engine.

The provenance of this Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER) calculation

There is no black box on this page — the engine evaluates uPER = [PTS + 1.2·REB + 1.4·AST + 1.6·STL + 1.4·BLK - 0.8·MissFG - 0.4·MissFT - 1.4·TOV] / MIN · 36. Source of record: Hollinger J. "Pro Basketball Forecast." ESPN.com; Basketball-Reference.com Advanced Metrics. Any other implementation of this model should return the same figure for the same inputs. If one does not, the difference is in its assumptions — which this page prints and that one probably does not.

Treat the output as a precise answer to the question you typed: exact arithmetic, transparent formula, published source, no hidden rounding. Nothing is smoothed, weighted or adjusted behind the scenes; where judgement enters, this page says so and names the input responsible.

Turning this Basketball Player Efficiency Rating (PER) into a decision

Work backwards from your target: adjust the inputs until the result matches the score you need, and those inputs become the study plan.

This page was written for students and candidates planning toward a target score, and the promise is that nothing above required trust. Bookmark the tool, re-run it whenever an input moves by more than a few percent, and keep the date with the number.