0.5%
0.4%
0.1%
1.5
FGM
5
FGM
0.5%
0.4%
0.1%
1.5
FGM
5
FGM
Effective Field Goal Percentage (eFG%) is a shooting efficiency metric that adjusts traditional field goal percentage to account for the additional value of three-point shots. In standard FG%, a made three-pointer counts exactly the same as a made two-pointer — both are simply one field goal made out of one field goal attempted. But this treatment is fundamentally misleading because a three-pointer is worth 50% more points than a two-pointer. eFG% corrects this disparity by giving three-pointers a 1.5× weight, reflecting their true scoring value.
The formula is straightforward: eFG% = (FGM + 0.5 × 3PM) / FGA. The 0.5 multiplier on three-pointers made adds half a made field goal for each three, which is mathematically equivalent to weighting three-pointers at 1.5× their face value. A player who goes 4-for-10 on all two-pointers has an eFG% of 40.0%, while a player who goes 4-for-10 on all three-pointers has an eFG% of 60.0% — accurately reflecting that the second player scored 12 points compared to only 8 for the first player on the same number of attempts.
The development of eFG% was part of the broader basketball analytics movement pioneered by Dean Oliver, John Hollinger, and others in the early 2000s. Oliver's landmark book 'Basketball on Paper' (2004) identified the 'Four Factors' of basketball success, with effective shooting being the most important factor on both offense and defense. eFG% quickly became the standard metric for evaluating team and player shooting efficiency, replacing raw FG% in most serious analytical discussions.
In the modern NBA, eFG% is particularly relevant because three-point shooting has become central to offensive strategy. Teams now attempt more than 35 three-pointers per game on average, compared to roughly 15 per game in the early 2000s. This dramatic shift means that traditional FG% increasingly understates the efficiency of three-point-heavy shooters and teams. A team shooting 44% from the field but making 15 three-pointers is far more efficient than one shooting 48% with only 5 three-pointers, and eFG% captures this distinction clearly.
The metric is widely used in NBA front offices for player evaluation and shot quality analysis. Teams analyze eFG% by shot zone, play type, and defender to identify the most and least efficient scoring patterns. For individual players, eFG% provides a cleaner picture of shooting efficiency than raw FG%, especially when comparing guards (who shoot many threes) with big men (who shoot few). Stephen Curry, for example, often has a modest-looking FG% around 47-48% but an exceptional eFG% above 58% because so many of his makes are three-pointers.
While eFG% is a significant improvement over traditional FG%, it still has limitations. Most notably, it does not account for free throws at all. A player who draws many fouls and scores from the free throw line gets no credit in eFG%. For a complete picture of scoring efficiency that includes free throws, True Shooting Percentage (TS%) is the preferred metric. However, eFG% remains valuable for isolating pure shooting efficiency from the free throw component and is the standard metric for evaluating team shooting and shot selection quality.
Our calculator also computes the Three-Point Bonus, which shows exactly how much the three-point adjustment adds to a player's shooting percentage. This bonus equals 0.5 × 3PM / FGA and represents the gap between eFG% and standard FG%. For a player who does not attempt any three-pointers, the bonus is zero and eFG% equals FG%. For a high-volume three-point shooter, the bonus can be 5-10 percentage points or more, dramatically changing the efficiency picture compared to raw FG%.
Effective Field Goal Percentage adjusts traditional FG% by weighting three-pointers at 1.5× to reflect their extra point value.
The core formula:
$$eFG\% = \frac{FGM + 0.5 \times 3PM}{FGA}$$
This can be decomposed into two components:
$$eFG\% = \underbrace{\frac{FGM}{FGA}}_{\text{Standard FG\%}} + \underbrace{\frac{0.5 \times 3PM}{FGA}}_{\text{Three-Point Bonus}}$$
To understand why the 0.5 multiplier works, consider the expected points per shot:
$$\text{Points per FGA} = \frac{2 \times 2PM + 3 \times 3PM}{FGA} = 2 \times \frac{FGM + 0.5 \times 3PM}{FGA} = 2 \times eFG\%$$
Thus, eFG% can be interpreted as the two-point FG% that would yield the same points per attempt. An eFG% of 55% means the player scores as many points per field goal attempt as if they were shooting 55% on all two-pointers.
The Efficiency Rating provides a qualitative assessment:
eFG% benchmarks for NBA players (modern era):
The Three-Point Bonus reveals how much value a player's three-point shooting adds beyond raw FG%. For the average NBA player, this bonus is approximately 3-5 percentage points. For elite three-point shooters like Stephen Curry or Klay Thompson, it can exceed 8 percentage points, meaning their true shooting value is dramatically underrepresented by traditional FG%.
For team-level analysis, eFG% is the single most predictive Four Factor for winning games. Teams with the highest eFG% in a given season almost always rank among the best offenses in the league.
Inputs
Results
9 FGM on 18 FGA with 5 three-pointers made. Standard FG% = 9/18 = 50.0%, which looks merely average. But eFG% = (9 + 0.5 × 5) / 18 = 11.5/18 = 63.9%, which is elite. The three-point bonus of 13.9 percentage points reveals the massive value of those 5 made threes. This player scored 23 points (4 × 2 + 5 × 3) on 18 shots — far more efficient than 50% FG% suggests.
Inputs
Results
8 FGM on 14 FGA with zero three-pointers. Here, eFG% equals standard FG% at 57.1% because there is no three-point bonus. This player scored 16 points on 14 shots — efficient shooting from inside the arc. The 57.1% eFG% is good (rating 4), reflecting a big man or slasher who takes high-percentage shots near the basket. Compare this to the first example to see how three-point shooting amplifies eFG% beyond raw FG%.
Regular FG% treats all made field goals equally: FGM / FGA. This means a made three-pointer (worth 3 points) counts the same as a made two-pointer (worth 2 points). eFG% corrects this by adding 0.5 × 3PM to the numerator, effectively weighting three-pointers at 1.5× their face value. The difference between eFG% and FG% is the 'three-point bonus' — for a player who never shoots threes, the two metrics are identical. For a heavy three-point shooter, eFG% can be 5-15 percentage points higher than FG%.
The 0.5 multiplier represents the extra half-field-goal that a three-pointer is worth compared to a two-pointer. A three-pointer is worth 3 points, while a two-pointer is worth 2 points — so a three is worth 1.5× a two. By adding 0.5 per three-pointer made to the FGM count, we treat each three as if it were 1.5 made field goals, which is mathematically equivalent to valuing it at 1.5× a two-pointer. This ensures that eFG% = points / (2 × FGA), making it directly proportional to scoring output per attempt.
Yes, theoretically. If a player makes every field goal attempt and they are all three-pointers, their eFG% would be (FGA + 0.5 × FGA) / FGA = 150%. In practice, this would require shooting 100% from three-point range over a meaningful sample, which is essentially impossible. However, in small samples — for example, a player who goes 3-for-3 from three in a single game — eFG% of 150% is achievable. Any value above 100% indicates the player is averaging more than 2 points per field goal attempt.
TS% is generally considered the more complete metric because it accounts for free throws in addition to two-pointers and three-pointers. eFG% only measures field goal shooting efficiency and ignores free throw scoring entirely. However, eFG% is still valuable in specific contexts: analyzing shot selection quality (since free throws result from fouls, not shot selection), evaluating team shooting independent of foul-drawing ability, and comparing players in situations where free throw opportunities are controlled for. Many analysts use both metrics together.
In the modern NBA, league-average team eFG% is approximately 53-54%. Top offenses typically post eFG% above 55%, while the best shooting teams can reach 57-58%. Dean Oliver's research identified eFG% as the most important of his Four Factors of basketball success, with team eFG% explaining more variance in winning percentage than turnovers, rebounding, or free throw rate. A team that leads the league in eFG% is almost always a top-5 offense, and teams with eFG% below 50% invariably struggle to win games regardless of their other strengths.
Three-point volume amplifies the gap between eFG% and standard FG%. A player shooting 35% from three has an expected three-point eFG% contribution of 52.5% (because 35% × 1.5 = 52.5%), which is roughly league average. So even a below-average three-point shooter can maintain a respectable eFG% through volume, as long as their three-point percentage stays above approximately 33%. This is why analytics-driven teams encourage three-point shooting even from average shooters — the mathematical bonus from the extra point makes threes more efficient than mid-range twos at lower shooting percentages.
Roboculator Team
The Roboculator Team explains calculations, planning tools, and practical formulas in clear language for real-life situations.
How helpful was this calculator?
Be the first to rate!
