Shooting Efficiency

Shooting Efficiency in basketball refers to the rate at which field goal attempts convert into points, measured through various metrics including field goal percentage, effective field goal percentage, true shooting percentage, and points per shot that account for shot value and free throws. This fundamental concept represents the core of offensive evaluation, distinguishing between high-volume low-efficiency scoring (many shots, few makes) and low-volume high-efficiency scoring (few shots, high conversion rate). Shooting efficiency has become central to modern basketball analytics as teams recognize that improving shot-making percentage and shot selection quality provides the most direct path to offensive improvement, making efficiency metrics essential for player evaluation, strategic optimization, and understanding offensive production. The basic measure of shooting efficiency is field goal percentage (FG percent), calculated as: (Field Goals Made / Field Goal Attempts) × 100 percent. A player making 9 of 20 shots shoots 45 percent. However, traditional field goal percentage suffers from a critical limitation: it treats all made field goals equally regardless of point value, undervaluing three-point shooting by failing to account for the extra point earned. This limitation drove development of more sophisticated efficiency metrics. Effective Field Goal Percentage (eFG percent) improves upon traditional field goal percentage by adjusting for three-point value, calculated as: (Field Goals Made + 0.5 × Three-Point Field Goals Made) / Field Goal Attempts. This formula effectively counts three-pointers as 1.5 made field goals, properly crediting the extra point value. A player making 5 twos and 4 threes on 20 attempts shows traditional FG percent of 45 percent (9/20) but eFG percent of 55 percent ((9 + 2)/20), more accurately reflecting offensive value. True Shooting Percentage (TS percent) represents the most comprehensive shooting efficiency metric by incorporating free throws alongside field goals, calculated as: Points Scored / (2 × (Field Goal Attempts + 0.44 × Free Throw Attempts)). The 0.44 coefficient approximates possessions used by free throw situations (some free throws are and-ones, others are two-shot fouls). TS percent provides the truest picture of overall scoring efficiency by valuing all point sources. Points Per Shot offers another shooting efficiency approach, directly measuring average points generated per field goal attempt: Total Points from Field Goals / Field Goal Attempts. This metric provides intuitive interpretation (average points per shot) and automatically accounts for three-point value. Points Per Shot closely relates to eFG percent through the formula: PPS = eFG percent × 2, making them mathematically equivalent with different scaling. League-average shooting efficiency provides crucial context for evaluation. Modern NBA league-average field goal percentage hovers around 46 percent, eFG percent around 53-54 percent, TS percent around 56-57 percent, and PPS around 1.08-1.10. Players and teams exceeding these benchmarks demonstrate above-average efficiency, while those falling short shoot inefficiently. Elite efficiency scorers exceed league average by 5+ percentage points, while poor efficiency scorers fall 5+ points below. Shot location dramatically affects shooting efficiency, with rim attempts succeeding at 60-75+ percent, corner threes at 38-39 percent, above-the-break threes at 35-36 percent, and mid-range at 38-42 percent. However, percentage alone doesn't indicate efficiency: rim attempts at 60 percent generate 1.20 PPS, corner threes at 38 percent generate 1.14 PPS, mid-range at 42 percent generates only 0.84 PPS. Point value multiplication makes percentage comparisons misleading without accounting for shot type. Volume effects on shooting efficiency reveal diminishing returns for most players. Low-usage players often show inflated efficiency through selective shot-taking and high-quality catch-and-shoot opportunities. As usage increases, efficiency typically declines: more shots mean more difficult contested attempts, defensive attention, and shot creation burden. Elite scorers maintain high efficiency despite high volume through exceptional skill, while volume scorers show efficiency drops as attempts increase. Shot creation method significantly impacts shooting efficiency. Catch-and-shoot attempts succeed at higher rates than pull-ups from similar locations due to set feet, better balance, and typically more open looks. Assisted shots convert more efficiently than unassisted shots. Transition attempts succeed more frequently than half-court attempts. Understanding how shot creation affects efficiency helps evaluate whether high efficiency results from shot-making skill versus favorable shot opportunities. Defender proximity powerfully affects shooting efficiency. Wide-open attempts (6+ feet from nearest defender) succeed at rates 10-15 percentage points higher than contested attempts (under 4 feet of separation). Creating open looks through ball movement, screening, and player movement substantially improves shooting efficiency compared to contested isolation attempts. Modern offenses emphasize creating defensive rotations and open looks rather than settling for contested shots. Age curves in shooting efficiency typically show improvement through mid-twenties as skills develop, peak efficiency in prime years (roughly 26-31), then gradual decline as athleticism fades. However, declining athleticism sometimes improves shot selection as players take fewer difficult athletic attempts, partially offsetting physical decline. Understanding typical aging patterns helps project future efficiency and evaluate whether current efficiency is sustainable. Shooting efficiency stability varies by efficiency component. Three-point percentage shows moderate year-to-year correlation around 0.40-0.50, indicating substantial variance from sample noise, hot/cold streaks, and role changes. Two-point percentage correlates more strongly at 0.60+ due to larger sample sizes and less variance. Multi-year averages provide more reliable efficiency estimates than single-season snapshots. Usage rate relationship with shooting efficiency shows general inverse correlation: higher usage typically reduces efficiency through shot difficulty, defensive attention, and regression toward league mean from unsustainably high low-usage efficiency. However, elite scorers like Stephen Curry maintain elite efficiency despite high usage through exceptional skill. The efficiency-usage combination determines total offensive value: moderate efficiency at high usage can outscore high efficiency at minimal usage. Efficiency optimization strategies include shot selection improvement (hunting high-percentage locations, avoiding low-percentage areas), shot quality improvement (creating open looks through movement and passing versus contested isolation), shooting form refinement (mechanics coaching), and role optimization (finding usage levels maintaining efficiency). Most players can improve efficiency more readily through better selection than through skill development requiring years. Playoff shooting efficiency typically declines relative to regular season due to enhanced defensive attention, better opponent quality (only good teams reach playoffs), increased game planning, and pressure. Players showing minimal playoff efficiency drops demonstrate clutch ability and skill translating to high-stakes situations. Those showing large playoff efficiency declines may be regular season performers struggling against elite defenses. Context-adjusted shooting efficiency metrics account for shot difficulty, defensive quality, and other factors affecting efficiency. Expected shooting percentage based on shot locations, defender distance, and creation method provides baselines for evaluating whether efficiency results from skill versus opportunity quality. Players exceeding expected efficiency demonstrate genuine shooting skill, while those falling short need improved selection or skill development. Position affects appropriate shooting efficiency expectations. Centers typically show highest field goal percentage (55-60+ percent) through rim proximity but may show lower TS percent than guards if they're poor free throw shooters. Guards show lower FG percent (43-47 percent) through three-point volume but competitive TS percent through free throws and threes. Position-adjusted efficiency comparisons provide fairer evaluation than raw percentage comparisons. Shooting efficiency benchmarks for different roles help evaluation. Elite efficiency scorers exceed 60 percent TS percent and 1.20+ PPS through combination of shooting skill and shot selection. Quality starters range 55-60 percent TS and 1.10-1.20 PPS. Replacement-level players show 52-55 percent TS and 1.05-1.10 PPS. Players consistently below 50 percent TS and 1.00 PPS shoot too inefficiently for significant offensive roles. Free throw shooting substantially impacts overall efficiency. A 90 percent free throw shooter who gets to the line 6 times per game adds 5.4 expected points with minimal efficiency cost (0.44 × 6 = 2.64 possessions for 5.4 points = 2.05 points per possession). Poor free throw shooters who get to the line frequently actually hurt efficiency despite foul-drawing skill. Elite efficiency requires either good free throw shooting or avoiding free throw reliance. Efficiency-volume trade-offs require strategic optimization. Maximizing individual efficiency through low volume and selective shot-taking might not optimize team offense if it leaves possessions for less efficient teammates. Accepting some individual efficiency decline through increased volume might improve team offense. Optimal individual efficiency balances personal efficiency with team possession distribution. Shot clock timing affects shooting efficiency, with early clock attempts (0-10 seconds) showing highest efficiency through transition and quick hitters, middle clock maintaining solid efficiency through offensive execution, and late clock showing efficiency drops through forced difficult bailouts. This pattern validates early good shot philosophy: take high-quality early opportunities rather than extending possessions seeking marginally better shots while risking shot clock violations. Defensive scheme effects on opponent shooting efficiency provide measures of defensive success. Elite defenses reduce opponent eFG percent by 2-3+ percentage points below league average through contesting shots, forcing difficult locations, and limiting open looks. Poor defenses allow opponent efficiency several points above league average. Defensive efficiency correlates strongly with team success, making opponent shooting efficiency a crucial defensive metric. Shooting efficiency improvement tracking monitors player development. Young players often show efficiency improvements through better shot selection, strength gains improving finishing, and shooting form refinement. Development programs target specific efficiency improvements: higher rim conversion, better three-point percentage, improved shot selection. Year-over-year efficiency changes indicate development success or concerns. Limitations of shooting efficiency metrics include sample size variance creating noise in percentage estimates, inability to capture playmaking value creating shots for others, and missing defensive context about why efficiency is high or low. Small sample sizes create unreliable percentages requiring caution. Efficiency doesn't credit assist value. High efficiency might reflect easy system opportunities versus genuine skill. The future of shooting efficiency measurement will likely incorporate more sophisticated shot quality adjustments, luck-adjusted metrics removing random variance, and conditional efficiency based on defensive coverage and game context. Enhanced tracking data enables precise shot difficulty estimation. Machine learning models can identify subtle efficiency patterns and optimization opportunities. In contemporary basketball analytics, Shooting Efficiency represents the foundation for offensive evaluation, providing essential information about scoring productivity per opportunity consumed. Various efficiency metrics (FG percent, eFG percent, TS percent, PPS) offer different perspectives with increasing sophistication accounting for shot value and free throws. Teams use efficiency metrics for player evaluation, shot selection coaching, lineup optimization, and strategic planning. As basketball analytics advance, shooting efficiency will remain central to understanding and optimizing offensive production.