Raw field goal percentage treats every made basket identically. A pull-up two from the elbow counts the same as a corner three, even though the three produces 50 percent more points per make. Effective field goal percentage fixes that by weighting three-pointers at 1.5× their two-point value. The formula, per Basketball Reference's glossary, is:
eFG% = (FGM + 0.5 × 3PM) ÷ FGA
The 0.5 multiplier exists because a made three is worth 3 points versus 2, a 50 percent premium. Adding half the three-pointers made to total makes before dividing by attempts normalizes everything to a two-point baseline, letting you compare a rim-runner to a catch-and-shoot wing on equal footing. You can run any player's numbers through the effective field goal percentage calculator to see the gap between their raw FG% and eFG% in seconds.
How the Gap Between eFG% and Raw FG% Forms
The two metrics diverge in direct proportion to three-point volume. A player who never attempts a three will have identical raw FG% and eFG% — the 0.5 × 3PM term is zero, so nothing changes. As three-point attempts climb, eFG% rises above raw FG% for every shooter making threes at a rate that exceeds the break-even threshold, and falls below raw FG% for nobody — eFG% is always ≥ raw FG% when 3PM ≥ 0.
That asymmetry is where evaluation errors creep in.
When eFG% Overstates Inefficiency
eFG% can make a high-volume three-point shooter look worse than a mid-range specialist even when the three-point shooter generates more points per attempt. Consider a wing attempting 8 threes per game at 36 percent — a below-average-looking mark. Raw FG% is .360. eFG% is (0 two-pointers made, all threes) = (0 + 0.5 × 2.88) ÷ 8 = 2.88 + 1.44... wait, let's work a clean example.
Worked Example: Two Guards, One Misleading Leaderboard
Guard A (mid-range specialist): 7 FGM, 0 three-pointers made, 14 FGA
- Raw FG% = 7 ÷ 14 = .500
- eFG% = (7 + 0.5 × 0) ÷ 14 = .500
- Points from field goals: 14
Guard B (three-point volume shooter): 6 FGM, all 6 are three-pointers, 14 FGA
- Raw FG% = 6 ÷ 14 = .429
- eFG% = (6 + 0.5 × 6) ÷ 14 = 9 ÷ 14 = .643
- Points from field goals: 18
Guard A's raw FG% is 71 points higher than Guard B's. On a traditional box score, Guard A looks like the more efficient scorer. But Guard B produced 18 points on those 14 attempts versus Guard A's 14 — a 4-point gap on an identical attempt count. eFG% surfaces that reality; raw FG% buries it.
Now flip the scenario. A center who shoots 58 percent on two-point attempts near the rim carries a raw FG% of .580 and an identical eFG% of .580. A shooting guard who makes 40 percent of his threes on 10 attempts per game carries a raw FG% of .400 and an eFG% of .600. The center's raw FG% looks superior; eFG% correctly identifies the guard as the more efficient scorer per attempt.
When Raw FG% Still Tells You Something eFG% Doesn't
eFG% is not universally superior. Three contexts where raw FG% adds information:
1. Interior scoring evaluation. A center taking zero threes has identical raw FG% and eFG%. For that player, raw FG% is the only signal you need — eFG% adds no new information and using it exclusively can obscure how a paint-dominant offense compares to league averages on two-point efficiency alone.
2. Shot-quality context. A guard posting a .520 eFG% by launching high-volume, off-the-dribble threes at 34 percent is not the same offensive asset as one posting .520 eFG% on corner threes at 42 percent, even though the formula returns the same number. eFG% measures output per attempt; it doesn't tell you whether the attempts were good ones. Pairing eFG% with shot-location data or true shooting percentage — which also folds in free throws — gives a fuller picture.
3. Transition-era volume distortions. Modern NBA offenses deliberately manufacture three-point attempts because the math rewards it. A player with a .510 eFG% built on 12 three-point attempts per game is contributing differently to spacing and defensive attention than one with a .510 eFG% built on 4 threes and 8 mid-range twos. Both numbers are accurate; neither alone captures roster construction value.
The same kind of context problem appears in other sports — raw passing yards hide efficiency just as raw FG% hides shot type, a dynamic covered in detail in the guide on why yards per attempt matters more than passing yards for QB evaluation.
The Break-Even Three-Point Percentage
A three-pointer is worth attempting over a two-pointer when it produces equal or more expected points per attempt. At 50 percent two-point shooting, the equivalent three-point percentage is 33.3 percent — making one of every three threes produces the same 1.0 points per attempt as making half of all twos. This is why league-average three-point shooting (roughly 35–36 percent in recent NBA seasons) clears the break-even bar against average two-point shooting, and why eFG% systematically rewards teams that push three-point volume.
The implication: a player with a .450 raw FG% built on above-break-even three-point shooting is more valuable per attempt than a .480 raw FG% player working exclusively in the mid-range. eFG% captures that. Raw FG% inverts it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is eFG% the same as true shooting percentage?
No. True shooting percentage also accounts for free throw attempts, using the formula TS% = Points ÷ (2 × (FGA + 0.44 × FTA)). eFG% ignores free throws entirely. A player who draws fouls at a high rate will have a true shooting percentage meaningfully above their eFG%; a player who rarely gets to the line will see the two numbers converge.
What counts as a good eFG% in the NBA?
League-average eFG% has hovered in the .530–.545 range in recent NBA seasons, per Basketball Reference team and player logs. Starters posting above .560 are generally above average; marks above .600 are elite and typically indicate either high three-point accuracy, high-percentage rim finishing, or both.
Can eFG% be gamed by cherry-picking shots?
Yes, in the sense that a player who only shoots wide-open corner threes will post a high eFG% without shouldering shot-creation burden. Usage rate and assist dependency are the standard corrections — a .600 eFG% on 8 field goal attempts per game is a different contribution than .580 eFG% on 20 attempts.
Why does eFG% use 0.5 as the three-point multiplier instead of 1.5?
The formula adds 0.5 × 3PM to FGM before dividing, rather than multiplying three-point makes by 1.5 directly, to keep the output on a 0–1 scale comparable to traditional field goal percentage. The math is equivalent: crediting each three-pointer with an extra 0.5 makes raises the numerator by the same proportion as treating threes as 1.5 field goals.
Should eFG% replace raw FG% in box scores entirely?
eFG% is strictly more informative than raw FG% for any player who attempts threes, because it accounts for shot type without discarding two-point information. For players with zero three-point attempts the two metrics are identical. The main argument for keeping raw FG% visible is familiarity and its role as an input into other calculations — but for shot-efficiency comparisons across players, eFG% is the correct starting point.
Informational only, not professional advice.