Basketball research guide

True Shooting Percentage vs. Effective Field Goal Percentage: A Plain-English Guide

By Richard Colby

You are reading the full article.

Two basketball players can make the same share of their shots and still produce very different amounts of scoring. Three-pointers are worth more than two-pointers, and free throws add points without being counted as ordinary field-goal attempts.

Effective field goal percentage, usually shortened to eFG%, adjusts for the extra value of three-pointers. True shooting percentage, or TS%, also brings free throws into the scoring picture.

You do not need to memorize a formula to understand the difference. Start with the question you want answered: how productive was the shooting from the floor, or how productive was the scoring across shots and free throws?

Start with ordinary field goal percentage

Field goal percentage counts made baskets divided by attempted shots from the floor. If a player makes eight of 20 attempts, the field goal percentage is 40%.

A made three-pointer counts as one made shot in that calculation, just like a made two-pointer. But it puts an extra point on the scoreboard. That is why field goal percentage alone can hide something important.

Consider two fictional players:

Player	Made field goals	Attempts	Made three-pointers	Points from the floor
Player A	8	20	4	20
Player B	10	20	0	20

Player A shot 40%, while Player B shot 50%. Yet both produced 20 points from the same 20 field-goal attempts. The first player’s four three-pointers explain the difference.

Effective field goal percentage gives threes their extra credit

The eFG% calculation adds half a make for each made three-pointer before dividing by field-goal attempts. A three is worth half as much again as a two, which is where that adjustment comes from.

Written out, the calculation is: made field goals plus half the made three-pointers, divided by attempted field goals, multiplied by 100.

For Player A, that becomes eight plus two, divided by 20. The result is 50%. Player B also has an eFG% of 50%: ten makes and no three-point adjustment, divided by 20.

The two players now have the same percentage because their shots from the floor produced the same points per attempt. TCL’s effective-field-goal-percentage guide provides more examples of this calculation.

True shooting adds the free-throw part

Now give Player A eight made free throws from ten attempts. Keep Player B at zero free throws. Player A’s total rises to 28 points, while Player B remains at 20.

Their eFG% is still the same because that measure leaves free throws out. True shooting accounts for the additional points and estimates the shooting opportunities used to earn them.

The standard calculation is total points divided by twice the sum of field-goal attempts and 0.44 times free-throw attempts, multiplied by 100. The NBA’s published formula uses that 0.44 adjustment.

For Player A, ten free-throw attempts contribute 4.4 to the calculation. Add that to the 20 field-goal attempts, double the result, and divide 28 points by 48.8. The true shooting percentage is about 57.4%.

Player B has no free-throw attempts, so the calculation is 20 points divided by 40. That gives 50%.

Player	eFG%	TS% after including the example’s free throws
Player A	50.0%	About 57.4%
Player B	50.0%	50.0%

This is the practical difference: the players were equally productive from the floor, but Player A added efficient scoring at the line in this example.

What does the 0.44 mean?

It is an estimate used to connect free-throw attempts with shooting opportunities. A free throw is not always half of a normal two-shot trip. Some follow a made basket, some belong to a three-shot foul, and some come from technical fouls.

The familiar formula uses one adjustment instead of reconstructing every trip from play-by-play. That makes it convenient, but it also means the estimate should not be mistaken for an exact count of possessions in every short stretch.

For most readers, the useful takeaway is simpler than the arithmetic: TS% includes free throws, while eFG% focuses on field goals.

Neither number is the chance the next shot goes in

A 60% true shooting percentage does not mean the player will make 60% of the next ten field-goal attempts. It summarizes scoring efficiency, not the probability of a particular shot falling.

These measures can even rise above 100% in unusual small samples. A player who makes one three-pointer on one attempt and takes no free throws has 150% by both formulas. The player scored three points on an attempt for which the calculations use a two-point reference.

That is another reason to read the label instead of treating every basketball percentage like ordinary shooting accuracy.

Add playing time, shot volume, and context

A player can score efficiently on a small number of attempts and still produce fewer points than a less efficient player with a much larger role. Minutes, shot attempts, free-throw opportunities, and the opponent all help explain what the percentage leaves out.

Use the same time period when comparing players or teams. A hot three-game stretch and a full-season average answer different questions. Also look at how much information sits behind the percentage: two made threes can move a tiny sample far more than a large one.

Neither eFG% nor TS% measures the whole player. Turnovers, rebounding, passing, and defense can change a game without appearing in either shooting percentage.

Make the numbers easier to use with TCL

The Cold Line connects basketball explanations with the questions readers ask while researching a matchup. Its basketball pace guide explains how often teams get opportunities, while the shooting guides explain what they do with those opportunities.

Use those lessons alongside TCL’s NBA research page. Start with role and opportunity, then compare scoring efficiency over a suitable sample. That gives a clearer picture than selecting one attractive percentage and stopping there.

TCL’s value is helping you understand what a number says and what it leaves unanswered. These lessons are available to read for free; access to other research features depends on the feature and plan. Better context makes the research more useful without turning a past statistic into a promise about the next game.