Basketball FG% Calculator
Basketball FG% Calculator
The Basketball FG% Calculator computes a player's shooting efficiency from field goals made, field goals attempted, and three-pointers made. It reports both traditional Field Goal Percentage (FG%) and Effective Field Goal Percentage (eFG%), the stat that correctly credits three-pointers for being worth 50% more than twos.
FG% has been tracked since the early days of basketball, but analysts realized it undervalues elite three-point shooters. A player who goes 4-for-10 with all threes (40% FG) scores 12 points; a player 4-for-10 with all twos (also 40% FG) scores 8. eFG% fixes this by counting a three as 1.5 makes. Modern NBA analysis leans on eFG% (and True Shooting %) to compare players across eras and styles. The shift toward three-point shooting over the past decade has made eFG% the default lens for judging whether a player's shot diet is actually efficient, not just accurate.
The distinction matters off the court too. When a front office or fantasy manager evaluates a shooter, raw FG% can be misleading: a center who dunks at 65% looks "better" than a wing shooting 44% from deep, yet the wing may produce more points per shot once threes are weighted. Seeing both numbers side by side prevents the classic trap of overvaluing high-FG% low-volume bigs. It also helps younger players learn that a 35% three-point stroke is not "bad shooting" — it is 52.5% eFG, a perfectly useful NBA-level outcome.
This calculator is useful for coaches charting shot charts, fans debating efficiency, and players tracking their own development. Enter made, attempted, and threes made, and it returns FG%, eFG%, and the raw make/attempt line. It also exposes why two players with identical FG% can have very different offensive impact — the player attempting more threes generates more points per make, and eFG% is the stat that makes that visible.
Understanding shooting efficiency is increasingly important because the modern game has shifted dramatically toward the three-point line. A team that shoots 38% from three (57% eFG) effectively scores the same per shot as a team shooting 57% from two — but spreads the floor and forces the defense to cover more ground. Players who understand their own eFG% can choose better shot profiles; coaches who track it can build rotations around efficient scorers.
The break-even math is worth internalizing because it reframes what "a good percentage" means. A two-point shot is worth 2 points, so a 50% two-point shooter averages 1.0 point per attempt. A three-point shot is worth 3 points, so you only need to make 33.3% of your threes to match that same 1.0 point per attempt. In other words, a 34% three-point shooter is exactly as efficient as a 50% two-point shooter, even though 34% "looks" far worse on a traditional stat sheet. eFG% encodes this directly: 34% from three works out to 51% eFG, while 50% from two is 50% eFG. Once players and fans grasp that a "low" three-point percentage can beat a "high" mid-range percentage, shot selection debates become much clearer, and the calculator's side-by-side FG% and eFG% display is designed to make exactly that comparison obvious at a glance.
Enter field goals made, field goals attempted, and optionally three-pointers made. The calculator validates that makes cannot exceed attempts and that attempts are positive.
Example 1 — a balanced game. 8 made on 17 attempts, 3 of them threes. FG% = 8/17 = 47.1%. eFG% = (5 twos + 3×1.5 threes) / 17 = (5 + 4.5) / 17 = 55.9%. The gap shows the three-point boost. This player scored 19 points (5×2 + 3×3) on 17 shots — about 1.12 points per attempt.
Example 2 — pure inside scorer. 10 made on 14 attempts, 0 threes. FG% = 71.4%, eFG% = 71.4% (identical, since no threes). High efficiency but lower spacing value. This player scored 20 points on 14 shots (1.43 points per attempt) but occupies the paint, where help defenders collapse.
Example 3 — volume three-point shooter. 6 made on 20 attempts, 6 threes. FG% = 30.0%, but eFG% = (0 + 6×1.5)/20 = 45.0%. Traditional FG% looks poor; eFG% reveals league-average efficiency because all makes were threes. Though the FG% is low, the 18 points on 20 shots (0.90 points per attempt) plus floor spacing make this a viable modern role.
Example 4 — a season tally. Over a 10-game stretch a player is 55-for-120 with 30 threes. FG% = 45.8%, eFG% = (25 + 45)/120 = 58.3%. The 30 threes lift eFG% more than 12 points above FG%, confirming a stretch-four profile worth building around.
Example 5 — two guards, same points, different efficiency. Guard A goes 9-for-22 with 2 threes; guard B goes 8-for-15 with 4 threes. Both scored 20 points (A: 7×2 + 2×3 = 20; B: 4×2 + 4×3 = 20). But guard A's eFG% = (7 + 2×1.5)/22 = 10/22 = 45.5%, while guard B's eFG% = (4 + 4×1.5)/15 = 10/15 = 66.7%. Identical scoreboard output, yet guard B needed seven fewer shots to get there — leaving those possessions for teammates. This is the single clearest illustration of why coaches prize efficiency: points per shot, not raw points, is what wins the possession battle over a full game.
Edge cases. Zero attempts returns no result (division by zero). Makes greater than attempts is rejected as invalid. Leaving threes blank is treated as 0. Entering more threes than total makes is also rejected, since you cannot make more threes than total field goals. When aggregating a season, be sure your three-pointers-made figure counts only made threes, not attempted threes; mixing the two inflates eFG% and produces a number that overstates the player's real efficiency.
Field Goal Percentage:
Effective Field Goal Percentage weights threes at 1.5:
where 2PM = FGM − 3PM. Equivalently, eFG% = (FGM + 0.5 × 3PM) / FGA × 100.
Manual check. 8 FGM, 17 FGA, 3 threes: 2PM = 5. eFG = (5 + 4.5) / 17 = 9.5 / 17 = 0.5588 = 55.9%. Matches the calculator.
FG% and eFG% for common shooting lines (assuming all makes are twos unless noted):
| FGM / FGA | FG% | eFG% (if 3 threes) |
|---|---|---|
| 5 / 10 | 50.0% | 65.0% |
| 8 / 17 | 47.1% | 55.9% |
| 10 / 20 | 50.0% | 57.5% (5 threes) |
| 12 / 25 | 48.0% | 54.0% (4 threes) |
| 15 / 30 | 50.0% | 55.0% (3 threes) |
The eFG% column assumes the noted number of threes; more threes at the same FG% always raises eFG%. The table makes the central lesson concrete: a player shooting 50% FG with a third of makes from three jumps from 50% to 60% eFG — a ten-point swing that changes how coaches should value them.
A second view: eFG% by three-point rate at 50% FG:
| 3PM rate | eFG% |
|---|---|
| 0% | 50.0% |
| 25% | 56.3% |
| 40% | 60.0% |
| 50% | 62.5% |
A third view contrasts points per shot, which is what eFG% really measures:
| Shot profile | FG% | eFG% | Points per 100 shots |
|---|---|---|---|
| All twos, 50% | 50.0% | 50.0% | 100 |
| 50% twos / 50% threes, 45% FG | 45.0% | 60.0% | 120 |
| All threes, 40% | 40.0% | 60.0% | 120 |
Because eFG% multiplies threes by 1.5, any line with 60% eFG produces 120 points per 100 shots regardless of whether those shots are twos, threes, or a mix — the stat correctly collapses shot value to a single comparable number.
- Track eFG%, not just FG%. It is the fairer efficiency measure in the three-point era.
- Pair with volume. A 60% eFG on 2 attempts means little; look at attempts per game.
- Use for shot charts. Log makes/attempts by location to find your true efficient zones.
- Compare eras fairly. Pre-2010 players shot few threes; eFG% normalizes the comparison somewhat.
- Set goals by role. Stretch shooters target 55%+ eFG; rim runners target 65%+.
- Don't ignore free throws. eFG% excludes FTs; add True Shooting % for complete efficiency.
- Watch the long two. A 40% long-two shooter has just 40% eFG — worse than a 27% three-point shooter (40.5% eFG). Shot selection, not just makes, drives efficiency.
- Benchmark opponents. Compute eFG% for the other team's top scorers to decide who to force into contested twos versus open threes.
FG% and eFG% say nothing about shot difficulty, location, or free throws. A contested long two and an open layup count identically in FG%. They also ignore assists and turnovers. Use alongside turnover rate and shot-quality data for full evaluation. A player can post a gaudy eFG% on a tiny sample of corner threes while being a net-negative defender; these stats describe shooting only, never total contribution. For that fuller picture, pair eFG% with usage rate and true shooting, which folds in free throws.
One more caveat: eFG% treats every three equally, whether a wide-open corner three or a contested stepback. Two players with the same eFG% may have very different underlying shot quality, so the number is a result, not a process. Track it with context — who is creating the looks, and how contested are they — rather than as a standalone verdict.
What is a good FG% in basketball?
Guards typically shoot 42–46%, forwards 45–50%, centers 52–58%. Rim-protecting bigs often lead; high-volume three-point guards trail.
Why does eFG% matter more than FG%?
Because a three is worth 1.5 twos. eFG% credits that, so a 40% three-point shooter (60% eFG) is more valuable than FG% alone suggests.
Is 50% FG good?
Yes for most positions — it is roughly league average to above. Centers near the rim often exceed 60%.
What if I only know FG%, not threes?
Enter threes as 0; the calculator returns FG% = eFG%. You can still compare raw makes.
Does this work for a whole team?
Yes — sum the team's made and attempted shots and enter the totals. It aggregates perfectly.
Can makes exceed attempts?
No. The calculator rejects that as invalid input, since you cannot make more than you attempt.
What about free throws?
FG% excludes them. For a stat that includes FTs, use True Shooting % (points / (2 × (FGA + 0.44 × FTA))).
How do I improve my eFG%?
Take more efficient shots (rim, open threes) and reduce contested long twos, the lowest-eFG shot in basketball.
Is eFG% used in the NBA?
Heavily. It is a core metric in player evaluation, lineup analysis, and broadcast graphics.
Does the calculator round?
It shows one decimal of a percent (e.g., 55.9%). Internal math is full precision.
Why is a long two the worst shot?
At 45% it yields only 45% eFG, worse than a 30% three-point shot (45% eFG) and worth far less than a layup. Shot selection, not make rate, drives efficiency.
Can I use this for a single game?
Yes, but small samples are noisy. A 2-for-3 night (66% eFG) says little; judge over a 10–20 game stretch for stability.
What three-point percentage equals a 50% two-point shooter?
Exactly 33.3%. A made three is worth 1.5 twos, so making one-third of your threes produces the same 1.0 point per attempt as making half of your twos. Any three-point percentage above 33.3% is more efficient per shot than a league-average two-point shooter, which is the core reason offenses have migrated toward the arc.
How is eFG% different from True Shooting Percentage?
eFG% only counts field goals and weights threes at 1.5. True Shooting Percentage (TS%) also folds in free throws, using the formula points / (2 × (FGA + 0.44 × FTA)). A player who draws many fouls and shoots well from the line will have a TS% noticeably higher than their eFG%. Use eFG% to judge pure shooting and TS% to judge total scoring efficiency including the foul line.
Does eFG% work for high school or college stats?
Yes, the formula is identical at every level because the three-pointer is worth 1.5 times a two-pointer regardless of the league. The only thing that changes is the context for what counts as "good" — college and high school eFG% benchmarks run a little lower than the NBA's because of shorter lines, different defenses, and shooting development.
Why can a team's eFG% predict wins better than points scored?
Points scored depends on pace — a fast team takes more shots and scores more without being more efficient. eFG% strips pace out by measuring value per shot, so it isolates how good the offense actually is at converting attempts. Combined with turnover rate, offensive rebounding, and free-throw rate (the "four factors"), eFG% is the single most predictive of the group.
Last updated: July 19, 2026
UnByte — Independent Software Engineering
Every calculator references authoritative sources — Editorial policy