Basketball Shooting Percentage
Calculate basketball shooting percentage by dividing shots made by shots attempted. Use it to evaluate scoring efficiency across players, positions, and game situations — the foundational shooting metric in basketball at every level from middle school to the NBA.
Last updated: May 2026
Compare with similar
About this calculator
The formula is: shooting percentage = (made ÷ attempted) × 100. The result tells you what fraction of shot attempts produced points, expressed as a percentage. Field goal percentage (FG%) is the most common variant, covering all 2-point and 3-point shots; specialized variants include 3-point percentage (3PT%, just 3-point shots), free throw percentage (FT%), effective field goal percentage (eFG%, weights 3-point makes 1.5× because they're worth 1.5× more points), and true shooting percentage (TS%, includes free throws weighted appropriately). Edge cases: zero attempts produces division by zero. Benchmark FG% varies by position and league. NBA player benchmarks: bigs (centers, power forwards) often shoot 55-65% from the field because most attempts are near-rim layups and dunks; wings shoot 45-50% from a mix of mid-range, drives, and corner threes; guards shoot 40-48% from longer ranges and contested shots. League-average FG% in the modern NBA is around 47%, 3PT% around 36%, FT% around 78%. eFG% rewards 3-point shooting: a player shooting 35% on threes has eFG% of 35 × 1.5 = 52.5%, equivalent to a 52.5% 2-point shooter in points-per-shot. TS% (true shooting) is the best overall efficiency metric because it accounts for the bonus value of three-pointers and free throws. NBA league-average TS% is around 56%; elite scorers (LeBron James, Kevin Durant, Stephen Curry) sustain 60-65% TS%; the all-time greats hit 65%+ TS% in peak seasons. For comparing players or evaluating shot selection, eFG% and TS% reveal more than raw FG%.
How to use
Example 1 — Individual game FG%. A player goes 8-for-16 in a game (8 makes, 16 attempts). Enter 8 for Made and 16 for Attempted. Result: 50.0%. Verify: (8 / 16) × 100 = 50.0. ✓ A 50% game from the field is solid — slightly above the NBA average of 47%. Whether it's "good" depends on shot location: 8-for-16 from inside the paint is below-average efficiency for a big man; 8-for-16 with several long jumpers and contested attempts is above-average shot creation for a guard. Example 2 — Season-long 3-point percentage. Over the season a shooter went 178-for-462 from beyond the arc. Enter 178 and 462. Result: 38.53%. Verify: (178 / 462) × 100 ≈ 38.53. ✓ A 38.5% 3PT shooter is excellent — well above the NBA league average of 36% and approaching the elite-shooter threshold of 40%. To convert to eFG% on threes: 38.53 × 1.5 = 57.8% — meaning the player's shooting efficiency on threes alone is equivalent to a 57.8% 2-point shooter, which is very high efficiency.
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between FG%, eFG%, and TS%?
FG% (field goal percentage) treats all field goals equally — a made 2-pointer counts the same as a made 3-pointer for the percentage. This understates 3-point shooting value. eFG% (effective field goal percentage) corrects this by multiplying 3-point makes by 1.5 (since they're worth 50% more points): eFG% = (FGM + 0.5 × 3PM) / FGA × 100. A player shooting 40% on threes has eFG% of 40 × 1.5 = 60%, equivalent to a 60% 2-point shooter in points-per-shot. TS% (true shooting percentage) goes further by including free throws in the calculation: TS% = points / (2 × (FGA + 0.44 × FTA)) × 100. The 0.44 multiplier accounts for the fact that not every free throw attempt is a separate possession (some come in pairs from shooting fouls, others single from technicals). TS% is the most comprehensive efficiency metric because it captures all three scoring methods. Use TS% for player comparison and shot-quality analysis; FG% remains the most common box-score stat.
What are good shooting percentages by position?
Position-specific NBA benchmarks (current era). Centers / power forwards: FG% 55-65% (most shots are near-rim layups and dunks); 3PT% 33-38% if they shoot threes at all; FT% 70-80% (Shaq notably struggled here). Wings / small forwards: FG% 45-50%; 3PT% 35-42%; FT% 75-85%. Guards (point and shooting): FG% 42-48%; 3PT% 36-42%; FT% 80-88%. Elite scorers across positions often shoot 50%+ from the field with 38%+ from three and 85%+ from the line — Curry, Durant, LeBron, Tatum have all sustained these levels in peak seasons. Below-average shooters get 5-10 percentage points below these benchmarks. Volume matters: it's easier to shoot 55% on 10 attempts per game than 55% on 25 attempts per game because defensive attention scales with volume. Always interpret shooting percentages alongside volume — a 50% shooter taking 5 shots per game is different from a 50% shooter taking 20 shots per game.
How has the 3-point line changed basketball shooting analysis?
Dramatically. Before the 3-point line was added to the NBA in 1979 and college in 1986, FG% was the only shooting metric. The 3-pointer's introduction created a math advantage: shooting 33% on threes equals shooting 50% on twos in points-per-shot (both yield 1.0 PPS), so even a "low-percentage" 3-point shooter generates above-average expected scoring value compared to mid-range 2-point shooters. Modern analytics revolutionized the game by identifying this — corner threes (the highest-percentage 3-point shot at ~38-40% league-wide) became premium attempts; mid-range jumpers (the lowest-efficiency 2-point shot at ~40% for league average) fell out of favor. The shift produced today's pace-and-space offenses with heavy 3-point volume. Hall-of-Famer Steph Curry essentially redefined the value of perimeter shooting — his career 42% on threes with high volume produces ~1.26 points per 3-point attempt, equivalent to a 63% 2-point shooter (a top-tier center). For modern shot evaluation, eFG% and TS% are essential because raw FG% can't compare players who take different shot mixes.
What are the most common mistakes people make with shooting percentages?
The biggest is comparing FG% across players who take different shot mixes — a big man shooting 60% on layups is not "better" than a guard shooting 45% on threes; they're shooting different shots with different point values. Use eFG% or TS% for fair comparison. The second is judging individual game percentages without context; 4-for-12 (33%) might be an off night for an elite shooter or a great night for a role player. The third is celebrating high FT% as proof of "skill" — FT% is partly mental (free of defensive pressure) and somewhat genetic (hand-eye coordination); it doesn't fully translate to general shooting ability. The fourth is ignoring shot quality (open vs. contested, catch-and-shoot vs. pull-up, location) which dramatically affects expected percentage; advanced tracking data (Synergy, Second Spectrum) categorizes shots into 25+ types and benchmarks against them. The fifth is using small sample sizes (single games, short stretches) to draw conclusions; 100+ attempts is the minimum for stable percentages. Finally, defensive analytics matter — opponent FG% reveals defender skill, but it depends heavily on team scheme and the shots forced by defensive pressure.
When should I not use shooting percentage as the metric?
Skip it for evaluating overall offensive impact — a 55% shooter who creates 8 shots per game contributes less than a 45% shooter who creates 20 shots per game (and creates additional value via passing, drawing fouls, etc.). Use offensive rating, points per possession, or full advanced metrics (Box Plus-Minus, PER, EPM) for comprehensive evaluation. It is the wrong tool for comparing players in different roles — a primary scorer's percentage will be lower than a complementary spot-up shooter's by virtue of shot difficulty alone. Do not use it for evaluating defense; defensive impact requires tracking opponent shooting against the defender, contested-shot rate, and team-level defensive rating. For very small samples (1-3 games), shooting percentages are dominated by variance and should not drive strategic decisions. And for development and coaching purposes, focus on the underlying skills (mechanical consistency, decision-making, shot selection) rather than just the output percentage — improvement in skills eventually shows up in percentages, but percentages alone can lag actual skill growth by months or years.