Points Per Shot

Points Per Shot (PPS) is a fundamental basketball efficiency metric that measures the average number of points scored per field goal attempt, calculated by dividing total points from field goals by total field goal attempts. This simple but powerful statistic provides a standardized measure of scoring efficiency that accounts for both two-point and three-point attempts, enabling fair comparison across players with different shot distributions. Points Per Shot has become essential for evaluating shooting efficiency, comparing offensive value across different play types and shot locations, optimizing shot selection strategy, and understanding offensive effectiveness in modern basketball analytics where three-point shooting has transformed scoring value calculations. The basic calculation of Points Per Shot follows the formula: PPS = Total Points from Field Goals / Total Field Goal Attempts. For example, a player who scores 20 points on 15 field goal attempts (regardless of two-point or three-point distribution) averages 1.33 points per shot. This metric automatically accounts for three-point attempts being worth more points: 10 made threes on 20 attempts (50 percent) yields 1.5 PPS, while 10 made twos on 20 attempts (also 50 percent shooting percentage) yields only 1.0 PPS. The conceptual advantage of Points Per Shot over field goal percentage lies in accurately valuing three-point attempts. Traditional field goal percentage treats all makes equally, suggesting a player shooting 50 percent on twos equals a player shooting 50 percent on threes. However, the three-point shooter generates 1.5 PPS (50 percent × 3 points) versus 1.0 PPS for the two-point shooter, creating 50 percent more value per attempt. Points Per Shot correctly captures this value difference, making it superior to field goal percentage for efficiency evaluation. Effective Field Goal Percentage (eFG percent) provides closely related information, adjusting field goal percentage to account for three-point value by counting threes as 1.5 field goals made. The relationship between eFG percent and PPS follows: PPS = eFG percent × 2. This mathematical equivalence means the metrics convey identical efficiency information with different scaling. Some analysts prefer PPS for its intuitive point value interpretation, while others prefer eFG percent for its percentage format familiar from traditional field goal percentage. Historically, Points Per Shot emerged alongside other efficiency metrics as basketball analytics matured in the 1990s and 2000s. Dean Oliver and other analytics pioneers recognized traditional shooting percentage limitations in the three-point era, developing metrics accounting for shot value differences. As three-point attempts increased league-wide from under 10 percent of attempts in the 1980s to over 40 percent currently, the importance of value-adjusted efficiency metrics like PPS increased correspondingly. League-average Points Per Shot provides important context for evaluating individual and team efficiency. In the modern NBA, league-average PPS typically ranges from 1.08 to 1.12, varying slightly by season based on overall shooting efficiency and three-point attempt frequency. Offenses generating 1.15+ PPS demonstrate elite efficiency, while those below 1.05 PPS struggle. Individual players shooting 1.20+ PPS show exceptional efficiency through combination of shot selection and shooting skill, while those under 1.00 PPS shoot very inefficiently. Shot location Points Per Shot analysis reveals expected value differences across court areas, driving modern shot selection strategy. Wide-open corner threes average approximately 1.50+ PPS for good shooters (50+ percent × 3 points). Uncontested layups/dunks average 1.40-1.50+ PPS (70-75+ percent × 2 points). Open above-the-break threes for capable shooters average 1.20-1.30 PPS (40-43 percent × 3 points). Contested mid-range jumpers average only 0.70-0.85 PPS (35-42 percent × 2 points). These PPS differences validate modern emphasis on threes and layups while avoiding mid-range. Play type Points Per Shot from tracking data reveals which offensive actions generate most efficient scoring. Transition possessions average 1.20-1.30+ PPS through fast break layups and early three-pointers. Spot-up catch-and-shoot possessions average 1.10-1.15 PPS. Pick-and-roll possessions average 0.95-1.05 PPS depending on personnel. Isolation possessions typically average 0.85-0.95 PPS, the least efficient common play type. These PPS differences inform offensive strategy emphasis: maximize high-PPS actions, minimize low-PPS actions. Catch-and-shoot Points Per Shot typically exceeds pull-up PPS significantly due to efficiency advantages of shooting off the pass versus off the dribble. Catch-and-shoot threes for capable shooters average 1.25-1.35+ PPS (42-45+ percent × 3 points), while pull-up threes average 1.05-1.15 PPS (35-38 percent × 3 points). This PPS gap drives modern offensive emphasis on ball movement creating catch-and-shoot opportunities rather than excessive isolation and pull-up attempts. Role players particularly benefit from emphasizing catch-and-shoot over pull-up attempts. Assisted versus unassisted Points Per Shot reveals the value of ball movement and shot creation quality. Assisted shots average significantly higher PPS than unassisted shots (often 0.15-0.25 PPS higher) because assists typically indicate open catch-and-shoot opportunities or layups from cuts, while unassisted shots often involve contested self-creation. Teams that generate high percentages of assisted field goals typically show better offensive efficiency through superior shot quality reflected in higher PPS. Defender proximity affects Points Per Shot dramatically, validating defensive emphasis on shot contesting. Wide-open shots (6+ feet of closest defender at release) average 1.20-1.30+ PPS. Open shots (4-6 feet) average 1.15-1.20 PPS. Contested shots (2-4 feet) drop to 0.95-1.05 PPS. Tightly contested shots (0-2 feet) average under 0.90 PPS. These PPS differences demonstrate defensive value of closeouts and contests: forcing contested over wide-open attempts reduces opponent PPS by 0.25-0.40 points, substantially improving defensive efficiency over many possessions. Shot clock Points Per Shot reveals efficiency deterioration under time pressure. Early clock shots (0-10 seconds) average 1.15-1.25 PPS through transition advantages and quick hitters. Middle clock (10-18 seconds) maintains 1.08-1.12 PPS through normal offensive execution. Late clock (18-24 seconds) drops to 0.90-1.00 PPS as teams resort to difficult forced attempts. This PPS decline validates offensive priorities emphasizing quick quality shots over extended possessions ending in rushed attempts. Home versus road Points Per Shot differences occasionally appear due to familiarity, travel fatigue, or officiating variance, though modern professional basketball shows relatively small home/road effects. Teams typically show 0.02-0.05 higher PPS at home than road. Significant home/road PPS gaps might indicate teams particularly affected by crowd energy, travel, or officials. Accounting for venue when evaluating PPS provides appropriate context. Regular season versus playoff Points Per Shot typically declines in playoffs due to increased defensive intensity, superior opponent quality (only good teams make playoffs), and enhanced game planning. Teams and players often show 0.05-0.10 PPS decreases in playoffs compared to regular season. Elite playoff performers minimize PPS declines or even improve through better shot selection and clutch play. Historical playoff PPS provides evidence about ability to maintain efficiency under playoff pressure. Clutch Points Per Shot (last 5 minutes of close games) reveals efficiency under pressure. Some players maintain or improve PPS in clutch situations through composure and decision-making, while others see significant declines. Elite closers like Stephen Curry and Kevin Durant maintain PPS above 1.20 in clutch situations, demonstrating ability to create quality shots under pressure. Teams want high clutch PPS players handling late-game possessions. Lineup Points Per Shot identifies which player combinations generate efficient offense. Lineups with complementary skills (playmaking, shooting, spacing) typically achieve higher PPS through better shot quality. Lineups lacking shooting or creation struggle to generate quality shots, showing low PPS. Comparing lineup PPS reveals optimal combinations maximizing offensive efficiency through shot quality and selection. Opponent-adjusted Points Per Shot accounts for defensive quality faced, revealing whether efficiency results from player/team skill or weak opposition. Players facing elite defenses who maintain high PPS demonstrate genuine offensive ability. Those whose PPS inflates against poor defenses but drops against quality opponents benefit from favorable scheduling or matchups rather than elite skill. Multi-season opponent-adjusted PPS provides fairer efficiency evaluation. Age curves in Points Per Shot reveal career trajectories. Young players often show improving PPS through skill development, better shot selection, and role optimization. Prime players (typically ages 26-30) show peak PPS through optimal physical ability and skill maturity. Aging players generally show declining PPS as athleticism fades, though some maintain efficiency through improved shot selection compensating for physical decline. Understanding typical PPS aging patterns helps project future performance. Three-point attempt frequency correlates strongly with team Points Per Shot, as three-point shooting efficiency multiplies PPS impact through higher point value. Teams with high three-point attempt frequency (45+ percent of attempts from three) typically achieve higher PPS if they shoot reasonable percentages (35+ percent from three). The modern NBA strategic revolution toward increased three-point shooting stems partly from PPS optimization: three-point shooting at league-average percentage (roughly 36 percent, yielding 1.08 PPS) equals quite efficient two-point shooting (54 percent, yielding 1.08 PPS), making threes valuable even at seemingly modest percentages. Points Per Shot benchmarks for different player types reveal efficiency expectations by role. Elite efficiency scorers (Durant, Curry) average 1.25-1.30+ PPS through exceptional shooting and shot selection. Quality starters average 1.10-1.18 PPS. Replacement-level players show 1.00-1.08 PPS. Players consistently below 1.00 PPS shoot very inefficiently and typically shouldn't have significant offensive roles unless they contribute substantially in other areas (playmaking, defense, rebounding). Points Per Shot as a true talent indicator shows moderate season-to-season stability, with correlation around 0.50-0.60 for players with sufficient sample sizes. Some PPS variation reflects sample noise and shooting luck, while genuine skill changes, role changes, and age effects create real PPS changes. Multi-season PPS averages provide more stable talent estimates than single-season snapshots. Regression to the mean affects extreme single-season PPS values. Shot quality models can estimate expected Points Per Shot based on shot characteristics (location, defender distance, shot type, etc.), enabling evaluation of whether players exceed or fall short of expected PPS given shot difficulty. Players consistently exceeding expected PPS demonstrate superior shooting skill. Those falling short need better shot selection or skill development. This expected PPS framework separates shot-making ability from shot creation and selection. Limitations of Points Per Shot include missing free throw value, inability to capture playmaking contributions creating shots for others, and no accounting for turnover costs. True Shooting Percentage addresses the free throw limitation by including free throws in efficiency calculation. Offensive Rating and other comprehensive metrics account for assists and turnovers. PPS best serves as focused shooting efficiency metric rather than comprehensive offensive evaluation. The future of Points Per Shot analysis will likely incorporate more sophisticated conditional PPS accounting for game context, defensive coverage, lineup composition, and sequential play patterns. Real-time PPS tracking could enable in-game tactical adjustments based on observed efficiency. Integration with shot quality models will continue refining understanding of how shot selection versus shot-making drives PPS outcomes. In contemporary basketball analytics, Points Per Shot provides essential information about shooting efficiency that properly values three-point attempts, enabling fair comparison across players and teams with different shot distributions. Its intuitive interpretation (average points generated per attempt) makes it accessible while remaining analytically rigorous. PPS drives shot selection optimization, player evaluation, tactical strategy, and understanding modern basketball's evolution toward three-point emphasis. As basketball analytics continue advancing, Points Per Shot will remain fundamental for measuring and optimizing scoring efficiency.