This eFG calculator finds effective field goal percentage — basketball’s corrected shooting metric: eFG% = (FGM + 0.5 × 3PM) ÷ FGA, which repairs field goal percentage’s flaw of counting a made three the same as a made two.

–

The Shooting Stat That Counts to Three

Raw field goal percentage was designed for a two-point sport and never updated: it scores a 40%-from-three shooter (1.20 points per attempt) below a 50%-from-two shooter (1.00 points per attempt) while the scoreboard disagrees. Effective field goal percentage applies the minimal honest correction — each made three counts as 1.5 makes — and the defaults show the separation: 380 makes including 120 threes on 800 attempts prints FG% .475 but eFG% .550, because those 120 threes quietly produced 60 extra points, worth 60 phantom half-makes. The gap between a player’s two numbers is itself a scouting datum: it measures how much of his efficiency is arc-powered, and why a .500 eFG% from a rim-only center and a .500 eFG% from a pull-up shooter describe entirely different offensive gravity.

Benchmarks in the modern game: NBA teams live between .520 and .580, with the best offenses in history approaching .580+; individual guards and wings at .550+ are having excellent shooting seasons, while high-volume centers exceed .600 on shot selection alone (dunks are efficient). College and high-school marks run lower with the shorter line… and FIBA’s different line length shifts things again — compare within a league. eFG%’s deliberate blind spot is free throws: it prices only field-goal attempts, so foul-drawing scorers are undervalued by it — True Shooting Percentage (which folds in free throws at their possession cost) completes the picture, and the pair of them has effectively replaced FG% in serious analysis.

Worked Examples (Verified)

  • Defaults: (380 + 60) ÷ 800 = .550 eFG vs .475 raw.
  • Rim-only center: 400 FGM, 0 threes, 650 FGA → eFG .615 = raw FG% — no threes, no correction.
  • Volume shooter: 300 FGM incl. 150 threes, 750 FGA → (300 + 75)/750 = .500 eFG vs .400 raw — a full hundred points of hidden efficiency.

eFG Discipline

  • 3PM is INSIDE FGM in every standard box score — don’t add threes on top of total makes.
  • eFG% can exceed raw FG% but never exceeds 1.500 (all threes, all made) — a result above that is an input error.
  • It prices attempts, not possessions: turnovers and free throws live elsewhere (TS% and turnover rate complete the profile).
  • Team eFG% FOR and AGAINST is among the most predictive single numbers in basketball (the Four Factors’ headliner).
  • Era-check comparisons: league eFG% has climbed from ~.470 (1980s) to ~.550 as shot selection moved behind the arc and to the rim.

Related Tools

Frequently Asked Questions

How is eFG% calculated?

eFG% = (FGM + 0.5 × 3PM) ÷ FGA. The 0.5 credits each made three with the extra point it produces relative to a two, expressing shooting efficiency in points-per-attempt terms. Example: 380 field goals (120 of them threes) on 800 attempts → (380 + 60)/800 = .550. Enter makes, threes and attempts above for the instant result.

eFG% vs FG% — why does it matter?

Because FG% pretends all makes are worth two points. A 40% three-point shooter generates 1.20 points per shot; a 50% two-point shooter generates 1.00 — FG% ranks the second player higher while he scores less per attempt. eFG% repairs exactly this: both players’ true per-attempt value becomes comparable (the three-point shooter’s eFG is .600, the two-point shooter’s is .500). In the three-point era the correction is not a refinement; it’s the difference between the stat lying and not.

eFG% vs true shooting percentage?

eFG% covers field goals only; TS% covers all scoring attempts, adding free throws with their possession cost: TS% = points ÷ (2 × (FGA + 0.44 × FTA)). TS% is the complete efficiency measure; eFG% isolates shooting from the floor, which is what coaches usually want when diagramming shot selection. A foul-drawing slasher will shine in TS% relative to eFG%; a spot-up shooter shows the reverse pattern. Both calculators’ inputs come from the same box-score line.

What is a good eFG%?

NBA context: .550 is strong for a perimeter player, .600+ is elite territory (or a rim-running center), and team eFG% around .550 marks a good offense — the league’s best team marks approach .580. College: subtract roughly .020–.030. Historical: league-average eFG sat near .470–.490 for decades before the three-point revolution pushed it past .540 — any cross-era claim about shooters that ignores this is comparing different sports.

Can eFG% be over 100%?

In percentage terms it can exceed the raw FG ceiling in one scenario only: it maxes at 1.500 (150%) for a player who makes nothing but threes at 100%. Realistic ceilings: a line of all made twos caps at 1.000; Steph Curry’s career eFG sits around .580–.590. Any computed value above 1.500 signals an input error (most commonly 3PM entered larger than FGM — impossible, since threes are a subset of field goals made).

Who leads in eFG% historically?

The career leaderboard is a shot-selection exhibit: rim-finishing bigs (DeAndre Jordan, Rudy Gobert, Clint Capela — career eFG in the .640s) top it because nearly all their attempts are dunks and layups, while the greatest perimeter shooters (Curry ≈ .585) post lower marks on far harder attempts. eFG% measures efficiency of the shots TAKEN — pairing it with usage/volume tells you whether the efficiency would survive a bigger role.

Does eFG% work for team stats?

Yes — identically, from team totals, and it’s arguably more valuable there: Dean Oliver’s Four Factors (eFG%, turnover rate, offensive rebounding, free-throw rate) explain most of team winning, with eFG% — for and against — carrying the largest weight. A team’s eFG differential is one of the best single-number summaries of its quality over a season.

Is this eFG calculator free?

Yes — free, instant, no sign-up. Enter field goals made, three-pointers made and attempts for eFG% alongside raw FG%.