Effective Field Goal Percentage (eFG%) Calculator
See how three point shooting changes scoring efficiency.
Why raw field goal percentage lies
A player who shoots 8 for 15 all on two pointers scores 16 points. A player who shoots 8 for 15 with three of those makes from deep scores 19 points. Raw field goal percentage calls them identical at 53.3 percent, which is nonsense for evaluating scoring. Effective field goal percentage fixes it by giving three pointers their proper extra credit.
This calculator takes field goals made, three pointers made, and attempts, then returns eFG%. It is the single fastest upgrade you can make to how you read a box score, and it explains why modern offenses hunt threes: the math rewards them.
How to use the eFG% calculator
Enter total field goals made, then how many of those were three pointers, then total attempts. The three pointer count cannot exceed total makes, and the tool will flag it if you mix that up. Hit calculate to see eFG% alongside raw FG% so the gap between them is obvious.
Use it on any line you are curious about: your own pickup stats, a college prospect, or an NBA rotation player. Comparing eFG% across players is far more honest than comparing raw percentages when their shot diets differ.
The formula and a worked example
Effective field goal percentage equals field goals made plus half of three pointers made, divided by field goal attempts, times 100. The 0.5 bonus exists because a three is worth 1.5 times a two, so each made three counts as 1.5 makes in the numerator.
Worked example: 8 makes, 3 of them threes, on 15 attempts. Numerator is 8 plus 1.5, which is 9.5. Divide by 15 to get 0.633, times 100 gives 63.3 percent. Raw FG% for the same line is only 53.3 percent, so the three point shooting added a full 10 percentage points of apparent efficiency. That gap is the entire modern spacing revolution in one number.
What counts as a good eFG%
In the NBA, league average eFG% hovers around 54 to 55 percent in recent seasons. Elite high volume scorers sit near 58 to 62 percent; big men who dunk everything can exceed 65 percent. Below 50 percent on meaningful volume is a problem unless the player creates enormous value in other ways.
Context matters by role. A spot up shooter living on catch and shoot threes should clear 58 percent or the role is not working. A primary creator taking tough late clock shots can survive at 52 to 54 percent because someone has to take those possessions. Judge the number against the job description.
eFG% versus true shooting percentage
Effective field goal percentage ignores free throws, which is both its strength and its limit. It isolates jump shooting and finishing, making it perfect for comparing shooters. True shooting percentage adds free throws into the mix for a complete scoring efficiency picture. Use eFG% to evaluate the jumper, TS% to evaluate the whole scoring package, and our true shooting calculator for the second half of that comparison.
Notice what eFG% cannot see: shot creation, offensive rebounding, or the gravity a great shooter creates for teammates. It measures the efficiency of the shots taken, not the difficulty of getting them. Pair it with volume and context before declaring anyone overrated or underrated.
How eFG% reshaped basketball strategy
Effective field goal percentage did more than describe the three point revolution; it helped cause it. Once analysts could show that a 35 percent three point shooter produces the same points per shot as a 52.5 percent two point shooter, the mid range jumper's reputation collapsed. Teams rebuilt their shot charts around the math: layups, free throws, and threes, with the long two treated as the worst shot in basketball.
The numbers tell the story. League wide three point attempt rates climbed every season for a decade as eFG% logic spread from front offices to coaching staffs to players. Big men who could not shoot became liabilities; guards who could not shoot threes became specialists. An entire generation of prospects grew up practicing the shots the formula rewards.
The counter revolution is already brewing. Defenses now sell out to take away threes and layups, which has quietly made the mid range jumper efficient again for elite practitioners who find it undefended. eFG% still rules the evaluation, but the smartest teams now ask which shots the defense is conceding, instead of which shots the formula likes. The stat remains essential; blind worship of it is optional.
Coaches at every level now teach shot selection through this lens. A practice drill that tracks eFG% instead of raw makes per attempt changes behavior within weeks: players stop settling for contested eighteen footers and start hunting paint touches and kick out threes. The stat works as a coaching language because the formula is simple enough to explain in one sentence and powerful enough to reshape an offense.
A Second Worked Example: The Big Man
Center shoots 6 for 10, all twos, zero threes. eFG%: (6 plus 0) divided by 10 is 60.0 percent, identical to raw FG%. No threes, no bonus, no gap. Compare the page's example: 8 for 15 with 3 threes gave 63.3 percent eFG against 53.3 raw. The big man's 60 percent on twos and the shooter's 63.3 on a mixed diet: the shooter was more efficient despite the lower raw percentage. This is the comparison raw FG% gets wrong every time.
The lesson for roster construction: a 35 percent three-point shooter (eFG 52.5%) outscores a 45 percent mid-range shooter (eFG 45%) per attempt. Shot diet beats shot making at the margins, which is why offenses keep hunting the arc.
eFG% and Shot Selection
The math that reshaped basketball: a three pointer is worth 1.5 twos, so 33 percent from deep equals 50 percent from mid-range in expected points (0.33 times 1.5 is 0.495). League-wide, corner threes and layups are the efficiency kings; long twos are the worst shot in the sport, worth the same two points at a much lower make rate. Modern offenses are built on this arithmetic, not on aesthetics.
eFG% is the stat that made the revolution visible. When analysts showed that mid-range-heavy offenses were leaving points on the floor, the shot charts changed within a decade. The calculator lets you run the same analysis on any player: split their makes, apply the 1.5 weight, and see what the raw percentage hides.
Common eFG% Mistakes
First: including free throws. eFG% covers field goals only; free throws live in true shooting percentage. Mixing them corrupts both stats. Second: tiny samples. Five games of hot three-point shooting is noise; eFG% needs dozens of attempts before it describes the player.
Third: the position blind spot. Comparing a center's eFG% to a guard's ignores that their shot diets differ by design; compare within roles. Fourth: ignoring volume. A 60 percent eFG% on 5 attempts a game is a role player; on 20 attempts it is a superstar. Efficiency without volume is a footnote. Fifth: the defense assumption. eFG% measures results, not difficulty; a contested-mid-range 50 percent eFG% is more impressive than an open-corner one, and the stat cannot see the difference.
Why the Three-Point Revolution Made eFG% Mandatory
Before 2015, raw field goal percentage punished the exact shot the math favors. A player shooting 40 percent on threes scores 1.2 points per shot; a player shooting 50 percent on twos scores 1.0. The raw percentage says the second player is better; eFG% says the first player generates 20 percent more points per attempt, which is what wins games. This is the entire logic of the modern NBA shot chart: threes and layups up, mid-range jumpers down. When a front office says a player is "efficient," this is the number they mean, and now you know why the eye test kept disagreeing with the box score.
What eFG% Leaves Out
Effective field goal percentage ignores free throws entirely, which is why true shooting percentage exists as its bigger sibling. A player who draws fouls and shoots 85 percent from the line adds real points eFG% never sees. Use eFG% to judge shot selection and true shooting to judge total scoring efficiency. The two numbers answer different questions, and quoting one as if it were the other is the most common analytics mistake in bar arguments.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is effective field goal percentage?
Effective field goal percentage adjusts raw shooting percentage to credit three pointers properly. The formula is (field goals made plus half of three pointers made) divided by attempts. Because a three is worth 1.5 times a two, eFG% lets you fairly compare a dunk specialist with a perimeter sniper.
What is a good eFG% in basketball?
NBA league average sits around 54 to 55 percent. High volume stars generally need 55 percent or better, elite shooters and finishers reach 58 to 62 percent, and rim running big men can top 65 percent. In college and high school, anything above 50 percent on real volume is solid.
How is eFG% different from true shooting?
eFG% covers only field goals and ignores free throws, while true shooting percentage folds free throw attempts into the formula. Use eFG% when you want to isolate jump shooting and finishing; use TS% for total scoring efficiency including trips to the line.
Why do three pointers get a 0.5 bonus?
A made three pointer produces 1.5 times the points of a made two, so the formula counts each three as 1.5 makes. The extra 0.5 is the bonus beyond the 1.0 every made field goal already gets. Without it, a 40 percent three point shooter would look worse than a 45 percent mid range shooter despite scoring more.
Can eFG% be higher than 100%?
No. The numerator maxes out at attempts plus half the threes, and since threes cannot exceed attempts, eFG% caps at 150 percent mathematically only in absurd cases; in practice every make counts once plus the bonus, so realistic values stay well under 100. If you see something impossible, check that threes made does not exceed total makes.
Who has the highest eFG% in NBA history?
Single season leaders are typically high efficiency centers: players like DeAndre Jordan and Rudy Gobert have posted seasons above 70 percent on dunks and lobs. Among perimeter stars, the best seasons from elite shooters sit in the low to mid 60s, which is remarkable given their shot difficulty.
Does eFG% account for shot difficulty?
No, and that is its main limitation. A 55 percent eFG% on wide open catch and shoot threes means something different from 55 percent on contested pull ups late in the clock. Always pair efficiency with shot diet and volume: who takes the hard shots matters as much as who makes them.
Should youth coaches track eFG%?
It is a useful teaching stat because it shows young players the value of shot selection without needing advanced math. A team that understands eFG% quickly learns why open threes and layups beat contested long twos. Just keep the emphasis on good shots, not on hunting threes beyond their range.
How does pace affect eFG%?
Pace itself does not change the formula, but faster teams get more transition chances, which are high efficiency shots that lift team eFG%. That is why comparing raw eFG% across eras or systems needs context: a running team and a half court grinder face different shot distributions.
Is a 50% eFG% bad?
It depends on role and level. For an NBA high usage creator taking difficult shots, 50 to 52 percent can be acceptable. For a low usage finisher or spot up shooter, 50 percent signals a problem. At lower levels of play, 50 percent eFG% is generally a respectable mark.