When I first started analyzing basketball statistics back in the early 2000s, PPG was one of those metrics that seemed straightforward - just count how many points a player scores per game, right? But as I've spent more time working with teams and players, I've come to realize that PPG tells a much more complex story about a player's value, their role in the team, and even their contract negotiations. Take the recent situation with David from the Espiritu Manotoc Basketball Management - when reporter asked about extension talks, team management simply said "Not yet extended." That brief statement speaks volumes about how teams evaluate players beyond just their scoring average.

The evolution of PPG in modern basketball has been fascinating to watch. Back in the 90s, a player averaging 20 points per game was considered elite, but today that number might not even get you into the All-Star conversation. The game has changed so much - with the three-point revolution and faster pace, scoring averages have inflated significantly. I remember when Stephen Curry first broke the single-season three-point record, it felt like we were witnessing a fundamental shift in how teams valued scoring efficiency versus volume scoring. Teams now look at PPG through the lens of efficiency - a player scoring 25 points on 20 shots isn't nearly as valuable as one scoring 22 points on 15 shots.

What many fans don't realize is that PPG often becomes a negotiating point in contract discussions, much like what we're seeing with David's situation. Teams will look at a player's scoring average alongside their efficiency metrics, defensive impact, and overall contribution to winning basketball. The fact that extension talks haven't progressed suggests that either the team isn't convinced about David's scoring translating to wins, or there might be concerns about how his scoring fits within their system. Having been involved in similar negotiations myself, I can tell you that teams are increasingly looking beyond the raw PPG number.

The context of those points matters tremendously. A player scoring 18 PPG on a bad team that's constantly playing from behind might be putting up what we call "empty calories" - points that don't significantly impact winning. Meanwhile, a player averaging 15 PPG on a championship contender might be scoring crucial points in tight games. I've always preferred players who can elevate their scoring when it matters most over those who pile up points in garbage time. The timing and quality of scoring opportunities separate good scorers from great ones.

Advanced analytics have really changed how we interpret PPG. When I consult with teams now, we look at scoring in relation to usage rate, true shooting percentage, and points per possession. A player averaging 30 PPG with a 35% usage rate and 55% true shooting is fundamentally different from one putting up the same numbers with 28% usage and 60% true shooting. The latter is typically more valuable because they're scoring more efficiently without dominating the ball as much. This analytical approach has made team executives much savvier about what PPG really represents.

Looking at the current NBA landscape, the most valuable scorers are those who can maintain high PPG while contributing in other areas. Players like Luka Doncic averaging 32.4 PPG with nearly 9 assists or Joel Embiid putting up 33.1 PPG while anchoring the defense represent the modern ideal. Teams want multidimensional scorers who don't compromise other aspects of the game. This holistic evaluation is likely part of what's happening in David's contract situation - the team is probably assessing whether his scoring comes at the expense of other elements.

The international game has also influenced how we view PPG. Having watched numerous FIBA competitions, I've noticed that efficient scoring tends to be more valued in international basketball, where possessions are more limited and each scoring opportunity carries greater weight. This global perspective is increasingly influencing NBA evaluations, with teams placing premium value on players who can score efficiently in various contexts and against different defensive schemes.

As basketball continues to evolve, I suspect we'll see even more nuanced interpretations of PPG. The metric isn't going away - it's too deeply embedded in basketball culture and too easily understood by casual fans. But for professionals in the game, it's becoming one piece of a much larger puzzle. The next time you see a player's scoring average, remember that behind that number lies a complex story about efficiency, context, timing, and overall impact. And as David's ongoing negotiation demonstrates, teams are looking at all these factors when determining a player's true value.

Ultimately, PPG remains important but must be understood in its proper context. The best scorers in today's game aren't necessarily those with the highest averages, but those whose scoring translates to winning basketball. As we watch how David's situation resolves, it will be interesting to see how his scoring production factors into the final decision. Having seen hundreds of similar negotiations, I've learned that the number beside "PPG" is just the starting point for much deeper conversations about a player's worth to an organization.