Without context, even traditional field goal percentage can be a flawed way to evaluate a player's value. For example, Adrian Dantley's career field goal percentage was sky high. However, he did most of his scoring in iso plays where he'd hold the ball for 15 seconds of a possession. If he was able to find an advantage over the defender, he'd make a move and take a shot. If he didn't, he'd pass it to a teammate with three seconds left on the shot clock and force them to put up a low-percentage shot with little chance of going in. In other words, he shot well over 50% while simultaneously turning the people he played with into sub 40% shooters. This is one of the reasons the Pistons team field goal percentage went up once they traded him away, and why their overall offense was far more efficient without him. The same thing happened for the Jazz when they dealt Dantley. However, people retroactively look at Dantley's numbers and commend his efficiency when his overall playing STYLE was actually highly inefficient in the context of a team game.

I like digging into these stats, but I think you're overthinking this and it's blowing you off course a bit: -eFG is *points* per attempt on field goal attempts (it doesn't count free throws). It has nothing to do with field goals made or the possible maximum number of points on a possession (which is 4 on a single shot but infinite based on rebounding And-1s). -You're introducing something new with "effectiveness," but what is it? The reason eFG credits Bird with scoring more points than Parish on the same number of attempts is...because he did. That's why the stat was an "advancement" over basic FG%. -Your "Pure" eFG is actually regular eFG without continuation...but again, I'm not seeing why you'd eliminate continuation since those points count and the number of FGAs it takes to score those points is accurately counted too. Introducing free throws leads to something more than just FGAs: points per "scoring attempt" or "shooting possession," which is what True Shooting% captures. Cheers!

The stat just converts 3 point shots into 2 pointers. So it IS possible to have an above 100% efg. If Klay made the 20 FG (assuming they were all 2 pt. Shots) he would've scored 40, but he had 44 despite missing 3 attempts, which is actually above 100% efficiency is 3 pointers didn't exist. Maybe it's not perfectly executed but it has the right idea.

Sorry but this new pure points EFG % isn't any better. If Deandre Jordan has a game where he goes 10 for 10, without going to the free throw line or taking any 3s, then his pure points per shot is 2, and his PPEFG will be 67% even though his FG% is 100%? This whole take is terrible. The fact that your reason for wanting this new stat was just that you got upset when someone's EFG was over 100% for a game is stupid. The best formula would be closer to TS% and would include free throws and 3 pointers. Idk about anyone else but what I want from this kind of stat, is for it to tell me how many points the player scored for their team divided by how many times the player attempted a shot or finished a possession. And most importantly for this stat to resemble the most traditional efficiency metric in basketball, which is FG%. My formula would be: Total points scored - those from team free throws (3 second rule, hacking fouls etc.) / Total possessions ending in a FGA or a shooting foul Sure if a player scored 3 point and1s on every possession they would end a game with 200%, but this really isn't a big deal. It rarely ever happens and it should be treated as an incredibly efficient game if it ever does.

You are one of the only nba KZfaqr who actually make research before upload your vids. Keep it up 💯

Eh. It’s not suggesting that a player is perfect from the field, it’s just a relative measure of efficiency and production amongst the league. The higher the eFG the more points a player scores per shot taken.

You totally misexplained eFG.

Stats teacher here. It's a common misconception that percentages can't or shouldn't go over 100%. In finance for example, a six percent interest rate means that you end up with 106% of your original money. Since eFG is a percentage, I can see why you believe that 100% should mean perfect shooting, but 100% actually means 100% of the *effectiveness* of a player who takes only unfouled shots from 2 point range and scores them all. It is perfect, it's just not the perfect you wanted it to be. Why is this interpretation a more useful one than the one you use? Because what we're really interested in is how much does a player's shooting help the team win. Winning isn't just about production, it's also about resources used. A player who scores 60, but uses 130 shots to do so does not help your team win in the NBA. Threes and And 1s get you more points while using the same number of shot attempts, so they are more efficient in terms of resources used. Because these plays are more valuable than a simple 2 point shot while using the same amount of resources, they are more effective, hence the increase in eFG %. Think of it this way, who would you rather have on your team, Player 1, an 80% shooter who only shoots 2s and never gets fouled, or Player 2, a 60% shooter who only shoots 2s, always gets fouled on makes and always hits the free throw? That's a hard question for people who don't do much math to answer. The FG% of Player 1 is better, so you might think they're a better player. But Player 1 gets you 1.6 points per shot, while Player 2 gets you 1.8 points per shot, so you want the second player. And that's what eFG% tells you. The Pure eFG that you suggest falls short here, as it does not tell us which player will get us the most points, or put another way, it does not tell us which player is most effective.

Great content, but I think the video may be missing some examples of players at the end comparing their eFG to their pure eFG and showing why it's an improvement.

Use TS%.

all stats without context will always be somewhat flawed. stats are a great tool but they should just be a tool to help understand what is happening not as a replacement for actually watching and understanding what is happening

First video on your channel I don’t agree with. I don’t understand what’s your problem with eFG. A 3 point shot is worth 1,5 2 point shots, and so it counts 150%. And how is it too high? eFG is there to compare players and teams shooting and since it is the same for everyone it’s a good measurement imo. Although I think true shooting is a much measurement to compare a players effectiveness.

Is there any stathead out there who actually pays attention to eFG% anyway? Don't we all prefer TS%? Why would anyone pay attention to a shooting efficiency stat that doesn't incorporate free throws? Harden's free throws must be removed from the equation because they "embellish and inflate his points per shot average and aren't reflective of his actual effectiveness in terms of strictly shooting"? Are you high? Free throws are absolutely integral to determining a player's effectiveness and efficiency. Any stat that discards them and then pretends to be a shooting efficiency stat is a useless stat. A point is a point is a point. If you don't like his type of scoring tactics, petition the NBA board of governors for rule changes, don't invent a pseudo-efficiency stat that randomly discards certain types of scored points in order to try to diminish the perceived effectiveness of those types of players.

I usually like your videos because you have great and interesting analysis. I tried to give this one a chance but I have to disagree with your final conclusion: pure effective fg% >>>> effective fg%. You come to this conclusion by showing reasons why effective fg% is a misleading and bad stat, which is followed by why pure effective fg%. The mathematical truth is that the only difference between the two stats in question is that pure effective fg% does not count continuation makes and attempts while effective fg% does. I will try to prove two points in my rebuttal of your video: (1) pure effective fg% is essentially effective fg% that does not count continuation makes and attempts and (2) continuation makes and attempts lowers players pure fg% (whether 2pt or 3pt) by roughly the same amount (thus it would be like comparing the numbers 1 and 3 and then comparing the numbers after 2 has been added to both... in this case the first number (1, 1+2) will always be 2 greater than the second number (3. 3+2). (1) pure effective fg% is essentially effective fg% that does not count continuation makes and attempts (i.e. assumed zero continuation makes and attempts) a. I will use Harden's number from your given example at @6:28. In your example, assuming zero continuation makes and attempts, the pure effective fg% is 45.33% and the effective fg% is 68.00%. The two values are different but will always be related if the assumption holds true: true effective fg% will ALWAYS be 2/3 of effective fg%. The former evaluates the % based on all field goals being worth 3 points and the latter evaluates the % based on all field goals being worth 2 points. Therefore with my assumption made, there is not a big difference between the two values and the only difference is scalar. (2) continuation makes and attempts lowers players pure fg% (whether 2pt or 3pt) by roughly the same amount a. I will attempt to show that taking away (or adding) continuation makes and attempts is roughly uniform (at least for the top players). For 3pt%, b. For this portion, I will use the data shown @7:59. The average difference between 3pt% and pure 3pt% is 0.0042% with standard deviation (SD) of 0.0033%. All but Harden (+2.7 SD) and Gordon (-1.2 SD) have differences that are within 1 SD from the average. In other words, the difference is uniform among the top 3pt shooters other than Harden being an extreme high outlier and Gordon being a slightly low outlier. c. For this portion, I will use the data shown @8:05. The average difference between 2pt% and pure 2pt% is 0.0264% with standard deviation (SD) of 0.0047%. All but Dwight (+1.60 SD) and Warren (-1.58 SD) have differences that are within 1 SD from the average. In other words, the difference is uniform among the top 2pt shooters other than Dwight being an slightly high outlier and Warren being a slightly low outlier. d. Points 2b and 2c go to show that the continuation attempts subtracted from PPS to get true PPS is roughly uniform among the players. Therefore, it is really akin to subtracting an arbitrary number uniformly to all PPS to get true PPS. In other words, Player A with PPS = 1.5 and player B with PPS 1.2 will have true PPS's of 1.4 and 1.1, respectively, if 0.1 is subtracted from each. Regardless of evaluating both players' with PPS or true PPS, player A will score 0.3 points more per shot than player B. The takeaway is that all stats will have "problems" that will arise from bias; and thus each stat will have its own pros and cons, but that does not mean that eFG% is inherently worse than pure eFG%. Depending on the data set and what the analyst wants to learn from the data, there will be a stat that is best for that situation.

One of the greatest basketball KZfaqrs is back! #Salute

It's not the stat that's wrong in this scenario, it's you. Regardless of where a shot comes from, a missed field goal attempt always carries the same value, as 1 missed opportunity. 1 opportunity, in basketball statistics, is generally worth 2 points, as that is the standard. However, being able to put up 3 points in one shot (opportunity), warrants extra credit. EFG% properly gives that extra credit whereas regular FG% doesn't.

Great content as always. Love your videos. Keep it up!

I love your videos keep churning them out!

The very best basketball channel on KZfaq. I would say make more videos but your quality is higher and more consistent than any other channel. #Salute

I can't believe I'm three days late! Been WAITING for your next vid!! Thank you!

At first I was like wth then it made sense. Amazing video as always

I got so excited, I forgot to wait til the end. Another excellent video, sir. Some of the best basketball content on KZfaq. Well done.

Thank you for coming back

Top notch quality content as always, keep it up man!

For those wondering, I used - www.nbaminer.com/four-point-plays-and-one/ - to obtain the "And-One Stats". Thanks for Watching!!! paypal.me/BasketballExamined

How exactly is removing free throws and continuation shot makes a more accurate representation of a players efficiency? Last time I checked those count as points for your team too. This would only work if all players in the league attempted the same amount of free throws/continuation shots since then removing these factors would effect everyone the same.But in reality this stat underestimates someone like Harden who scores a large chunk of his points through free throws, or Lebron who makes many continuation shots. This stat you outlined isnt any better than eFG.

Another banger.. great video

My favorite channel to watch basketball. Love the videos.

In the beginning of the video you aren’t doing EFG% you are doing expected points vs. actual points % or EPP%

Love your videos!

Had to stretch the vid to 10 minutes lol

I believe there IS value in free throws and with continuation shots. Players who are targets to get fouled while shooting (e.g., James Harden) show a higher value and bigger threat to defenses when they are attempting to score and as such, should be rewarded for that. Excellent video, as always. Keep up the great work.

Already loving this video

This was so good man, big subscribe from me

So pure eFG%=eFG% x 2/3 except you discard continuation shots? Doesn't seem like that more informative of a metric than what we already have.

Outstanding research, logic, and video

Thanks for your continuous education.

I really like this but u don’t have to overthink it, if u only do point per shot and minus free throws then it’s perfect, subtracting continuation stats makes it too complicated and punished and-ones and drawing fouls

At the beginning of the video you made a mistake in calculating Bird's numbers. Because you focused on the maximum amount of point Bird could potentially score, based on both 3 point and 2 point attempts, you ended up calculating his field goal percentage as if 3-pointers missed are 50% more detrimental than 2 pointers missed. Which isn't the case. A missed 2 pointer eats up one possession, and a missed 3 pointer eats up one possession while having a higher potential for scoring points. The way you calculated it only works if 3 pointers took up 1.5 possessions instead of just 1. Otherwise you are simple penalizing Bird for attempting more 3's, for no real reason. A missed 3 and a missed 2 are still just one missed shot on a single possession. I guess you could calculate it based on 3's being the maximum per shot, like you did at first. Thus penalizing 2's as well as 3's the same amount. But essentially all you would be doing would be translating the 2 point fg% into all 3 point shot attempt language. While eFG% translates 3 point attempts into all 2 point shot attempts language. They are still the same in the end. If you took this new form of eFG% and multiplied it by 1.5, you would just get the old one. The stat you used in the end that removes continuations is kind of a separate thing altogether from effective field goal percentage. Continuation is actually a pretty useful tool, which increases your efficiency as well as the maximum number of total points you could get off of a particular shot. You can argue that it doesn't track how well they did shooting in particular as well as your stat, which is useful, but adding in that extra efficiency for players who are continuously able to make these sorts of highly efficient plays isn't really bad either. They really are just measuring different things at that point.

The purpose of effective field goal percentage is to show how efficient a player would have to be on 2-point field goals in order to match the production ("effectiveness") of a player who also shoots threes. So your Larry Bird example (which presupposes that a 3-point miss is 1.5 times as costly as a 2-point miss even though that is not the case) and Klay Thompson example (where the 110% is meant to illustrate the impossibility of getting 44 points from only 20 field goals) don't make much sense for this critique since you're deliberately criticizing something the stat does not pretend to measure. You may not find much utility in what the metric is measuring, but that is your preference and not an inherent flaw with the statistic.

I understand your notion that continuation shots favor the player being fouled but that’s part of the point. Although fouling is a part of the game, fouling isn’t necessarily encouraged by the rule books. So if you decide to foul a player, part of the consequence is the player being fouled isn’t penalized statistically.

Great breakdown. Got me waiting till the end like a marvel movie and no bonus foots. Maybe next vid.

Hi man happy to see you back at it again, i hope you'd have a quick look on what an other NBA related channel has shared about the Hoax of "scoring in the nba on 80 90's was harder" the tiltle of the video is "we were all lied to" and the channel is JxmyHighroller

You're the GOAT.

Bro the music and format of your videos are fire please never change them

I love Sunday videos!

The game needs you!

Its about time someone showed the flaw in some of these advanced statistics. While its always important to have numbers accurately gauge how effective a player is, the wrong interpretation and understanding of these stats leads to stupid decisions. You should make a video on players that are effective despite terrible box numbers. Glue guys get shafted under this system because they don't get credit for screens, pick and rolls, or box outs that allow the star players to shine. Harden is not able to get the numbers he's getting on other teams without the great play of the other players and the coaching schemes that allow him to flourish.

I really like your vids--just the other day I was thinking "man I wish there were a new basketball examined vid!"--but I gotta disagree with you here. My two main problems are (I) EFG% isn't really a percentage so I think the criticisms of it as a percentage are unjustified and (II) I know what EFG% is good for, but I'm sure what PEFG% is good for. Fundamentally, EFG% is just a number. In practice, we can typically think of it as "what percentage a player would have to shoot to score as many points as he did, if he only took twos (and if we excluded points from free throws)." Notice that this means there's no real-world percentage that this corresponds to, but it's not meant to. Now, as you note, things get wonky when a player has an EFG% above 100. Do we want to say that if a player had somehow managed to shoot 150% on five 2s that he would have scored 15 points? I say "sure why not." If you somehow do the impossible, you get impossible results. But if you disagree, then just say it doesn't correspond to even a possible percentage at that point. It's just a number. With all stats, the question is what are they good for? EFG% does two things. First, it allows us to compare the shooting efficiency of guards and bigs. Bigs almost always shoot a higher percentage because they take more of their shots near. Here's an artificial example: Steph shoots 5/10 from 2 and 10/20 from 3, while Embiid shoots 10/20 from 2 and 5/10 from 3. They've taken the same number of shots, have the same FG% and 3FG%, but Steph scored more efficiently since he turned his 30 shots into 40 points, while Embiid managed only 35. There's also a problem with comparing percentages that EFG% solves. Suppose that Game 1 Steph shoots 6/10 from 2 (60%) 4/10 from 3 (40%) 10/20 Overall (50%). Embiid shoots 10/17 from 2 (59%) 1/3 from 3 (33%) 11/20 overall (55%) Embiid shot worse than Steph in each category, but better overall. Weird. So which stat should we follow? Percentage in the individual categories, or overall percentage? Well, in this case, Steph had the better game (24 points on 20 shots compared to Embiid's 23 on 20). So, we might think we should ignore overall FG% and just pay attention to percentage from 2 and 3. However, suppose that Game 2 Steph 0/1 from 2 (0%) 5/10 from 3 (50%) 5/11 overall (45%) Embiid 1/10 from 2 (10%) 1/1 from 3 (100%) 2/11 overall (18%) Here, Embiid outshot Steph in each category but Steph had the better overall game. EFG% gets both of these right. Steph has a 60% EFG in game 1 and a 68% EFG in game 2, while Embiid had a 58% EFG in game 1 and a 23% EFG in game 2. Now, PEFG% probably gives similar results, but that doesn't make EFG% a bad stat. EFG% has the advantage of being quite easy to calculate (you just need a box score), whereas PEFG% isn't (it requires combing through play-by-play data). Second, I don't understand the inclusion of continuation misses, especially if we're removing points scored on free throws. That combination effectively punishes players for drawing fouls, since hopeless shots taken in order to draw a foul are counted against their percentage, while the points they gain by drawing the foul are not. Put the point this way: PEFG% treats missed shots on which a player is fouled as no different than missed shots on which he's not. But the former help your team, while the latter hurt it. We shouldn't treat them the same. For this reason, I'm inclined to think EFG% is the better stat.

Great video, I think the way we keep stats in general isn’t correct is part of the reason why the game of basketball has shifted to be more offence oriented. We don’t reward defence by actually evaluating it by counting: missed shots, steals and blocks properly.

The Rachel Nichols video was awesome. Thank you for that

I'd say that if you're bothered by the number going over 100%, that's because it's based on the possible points for two point shots. Instead, you could consider the maximum number of points possible and get the field goal percentage off of that. So it would be (3pts+0.66*2pts)/fga. But really, they're measuring the same thing. Just different perspectives.

I've wandered into deep basketball.

theres a big flaw with the pure field goal percentage too, and thats the denominator, or dividing by 3. By doing so, youre punishing players for any time they are not taking 3s, even when they have wide open lay-ups.

Like it before even watching

As long as the formula is the same for every player....it is a good stat in that case

Im not at all an expert at any of this so maybe I'm wrong and I do get your point on this topic but no stat should ever just be taken for face value. They work best when taking multiple other stats into account. It has it's flaws like how the less shots someone takes the less useful the stat is. Although I'm not sure how it is useful to people who are paid to use it; It still seems to me to work as intended. Even a 50 point game needs more stats to decide if the 50 points meant anything.

This is correct. It's basically expected value, which is how Las Vegad survives.

eFG% is not a percentage but a rating or score like PER. Therefore it is possible to over 1.0. Which does not mean they were better than perfect either.

The reason they use this effective field goal percentage metric is probably because it correlates with winning better than other metrics. The team with the higher eFG almost always wins?

Definitely loved the video What about taking account all the metrics by providing coefficient on them ?

you should have given examples at the end their so we can see the difference

I imagine this has already been said in the comments...my understanding of eFG% was that it was to equate the 2pfg% needed to match the output of someone who is shooting threes. So if I shot 2/5 on only threes, I’d have 60% eFG% because an equivalent player who does not shoot threes would need to hit 60% of his two point shots to match the overall output. It would follow that eFG% could reach up to 150% because a perfect game from three point range could never be matched by any two point % and a perfect game from three is worth 150% of a perfect game from 2 - hence why the max is 150.

Did the ball go in the whole though?

I've essentially utilized [Points - FTM / FGA] as a measure of effective field goal shooting. I feel this shares the same pros of the traditional eFG% formula (calculable from traditional box scores, easily understood etc.), but more logical as you pointed out. For various reasons (including the eFG% pros I mentioned), I can't get behind removing continuation makes though. I also feel like you didn't adequately argue why there is a *problem* with eFG%. The pros outweigh the cons in my opinion. Your solution is certainly more of an 'advanced metric', but is it more useful? I'm not so sure. Nice food for thought though. Keep up your great work.

I'm glad you made this video. I always said that effective field goal percentage overweights the three ball. I'm glad someone proved it for me because I wasn't going to explain the math lol.

I mean there's always a flaw to be found with a statistic, I think eFG is reliable enough. I'm not sure how long the NBA has been keeping track of continuation FG%, but I'm sure it's pretty recent and this pure effective FG% will start to phase out older metric statistics, just takes time for people to get used to. Also I still think eFG has value with the continuation numbers considered, even with pure effective FG% being a statistic. If they're able to constantly create fouls and opportunities through continuation to inflate their numbers I think it's nothing but a good sign and should accordingly affect their eFG%. I'm sure Shaq is one of the most affected players by this and sure he's only shooting 50% but if the man can draw 10 fouls every game I'll take it. I think of eFG like how good is your shot selection is, and if you miss a shot and draw 2 FT's from it and a foul to the other team, it's a good shot.

TS% is the best evaluator for a player's shooting

I prefer (Total Points - FTM not related to shooting) / FGA to evaluate shooting efficiency. FTM not related to shooting including technical fouls, flagrant fouls, or time-stopping-fouls at the end of game. Let's consider following 3 different centers: A center who can always score near the bucket, you can't even stop him with a foul; if you foul him, he gives you 3-points-play. A center who can always score near the bucket, however you can stop him with a foul and hope him misses a free throw, which rarely happens. A center who can always score near the bucket, however you can stop him with a foul and his free throw sucks. I don't think those 3 centers are the same efficient.

Why do we take out free throws again? Punishing players for drawing fouls? If you draw free throws on a shot then that is part of the shot, you just have to add the continuation shots number.

Obviously you can be above 100%. It just means that your output was higher than the basevalue. In this case 2 points. And 100% doesnt automaticly mean that you were perfect.

They should just tweak the stat (multiply it by 2) and call it Average Pts per FG attempt to make it clearer

I haven’t even paid attention to stats in so long; I just watch basketball.

Math nerds who never played obsessed with the 3>2 mind set have too much influence on the game now

This is the best nba basketball channel on KZfaq! Wish you uploaded more often.

If you made the music, can I have an mp3 as it's awesome.

I think you're missing the point of eFG as a stat. eFG is meant to be taken as a stat relative to other players in the league, not as anything else. If a player has an eFG over 100 it doesn't entail that they've shot more than perfectly (obviously). This stat isn't meant to show the ratio of shots a player is making relative to his misses (thats what fg% is for), its a way of determining how efficient a player is given the amount of points they can produce for the number of shots. Whether or not you like the number that represents this quantity or you think it can be misleading, all the stat is doing is giving this measurement -- which imo is much more useful than a raw fg%. Also, the only difference between efg and the pure efg that you referenced was the consideration taken for continuation points. To me, that only confuses things, as you then have to start taking into account the free throws made as a result of possessions when a player is fouled and receives no credit for any points scored on that possession. By taking continuation points out of the equation, you're covering up a disparity that you recognized but you're creating another one, that's probably even larger. It's better to use the efg stat as it is, with continuation points included, as it is probably more accurate in determining a player's effectiveness than a stat that doesn't account for these continuation points, or the free throws made as a result of them. Using the graphic that you showed in the video, the difference in percentages of raw shooting percentages as opposed to efg was fairly negligible, and all followed in a similar trend, meaning that they can be used accurately as a relative measure. Plus, the inflated numbers probably are closer to the truth anyway, because on those continuation possessions, the player is typically going to knock down both free throws anyway. Use this as an example: A player shoots 2/4, shooting all 2s giving them 4 points. Another player shoots 1/2, scoring and and one and getting to the free throw line on 2 other possessions. This player shoots 4/5 from the free throw line that game (a fairly normal ft%), giving him a total of 6 points for the game. The second player in this example is converting 6 points in the same number of possessions that it took the first player to score 4, making him logically more effective. However, the pure efg stat will account for all of the first player's states, while accounting for none of the points score by the second player. This will give the first player a very respectable pure efg, while giving the second player a pure efg that shows he essentially did nothing all game. Overall, efg is an extremely useful stat, and is in no way inaccurate or horribly flawed. The stat just has to be interpreted the right way, which is not a given, especially because some people misinterpret the stat, wanting it to represent a ratio of shots made to missed on a scale that reaches 100% as a limit(as evidenced by this video). Think about it this way: a 100% fg means a player is making shots 100% of the time, just as a 50% fg means they're making shots 50% of the time. eFG is a completely different measurement, 50% doesn't convert to 50% of shots being made, it's saying that with 3 pointers accounted for, a player is scoring at a rate that someone shooting a 50% fg% off of only 2s would be shooting. A 33.3% fg off of only 3s would be adjusted to a 50% eFG%, meaning its equivalent to a 50% fg% if the player only shot 2s (in terms of effectiveness at least). Hope this clarifies!

Effective FG% is how effective player is compared to a player who shoots the same amount and makes 100% but all from 2 pointers, that's it(or otherwise relative measurement of points per shot). It's a good metric, because some players only take two pointers and their FG% is high which make them look like more efficient than someone who takes a lot of 3 pointers. Don't look at it as 100% meaning perfect. We could have if otherwise, so comparing effectiveness to someone who takes only 3's and makes all of them, that way everyone would have less than 100%, but the problem would be that two pointer would count as 2/3 and that's an irrational number, unlike 3/2. Of course the name is misleading, but that doesn't mean it's not good measure if you understand actually what it means.

I think the stat just has a bad name. eFG% is really just quantifying how many points a player walks away with per shot attempt. If Klay makes 3 - 6 threes, and Wiggins makes 3 - 6 twos, then they each have the same FG%... but Klay, on average, was walking away with more points per shot attempt. eFG% is just a way to convey that, although Klay and Wiggins made the same percentage of shots, Klay was walking away with more points per shot on average than Wiggins. This is a valuable stat.

The background music >>>>>>>

I think its unfair to take away free throw points from the palyers. Every time a player goes to the line , a FGA was denied fro him. So we could add to the stat by adding a 2pt field goal attempt for 2 free throws and 3pt attempt for three. In cases of no extra field goal should be added and those points should be subtracted. You reward good ft shooters that way

no stat is flawed, only the interpretation of stats can be flawed

I don't understand why you're taking issue with eFG%s exceeding 100%. The only reason you think that's wrong is because you're putting arbitrary constraints on eFG%. Think of it as a percentage that correlates with number of points per shot taken, with 2 points/shot = 100% FG. By arguing that less than perfect shooting can get you more than 100% eFG is to misunderstand that a eFG% is not used to rate shooting on a 0-100% scale.

I'm not even gonna lie I'm confused as shit, but hey it is what it is.

There’s a different formula that makes it so you can’t go above 100%

Only video you’ve done I thought was kind of overdone It’s all about realitiooooookoô

wow new vid !!! never clicked faster

I dont think you get it. Effectiveness is not what wins you a game. Efficiency is. There is nothing wrong with efg.... can be over 100 percent.....

Your math is off. efg is used to compare the value of the shot u take to 2 points per shot. It's OK you modifiy the algorithm to 3 points per shot. Then each 2 points count only 2/3 (0.667)value. Both methods work. Hence,there is nothing wrong with efg. Maybe u should consider change the title to let people know this video is wrong.

1:41 - 2:05 . . Wrong logic. The most effective shot isn't the 3 point shot. It's actually the dunk. You simply get more value for your shot if you make 3s ( which is what he stated earlier ). 2:06 - 2:29 . . CORRECT LOGIC! I like the way he did this. eFG% should be calculated based on your shot selection, and the amount of points you could've possibly made. Hopefully, the rest of the video will give clear examples of this. ( starting video again )

ts% does everything in a long stretch..

Not very accurate, if a stat have values higher than 100% that can be correct depending on the context (like when a company says profit increase 300% for example), it makes sense for the eFG% to have a maximum theoretical value of 150% since is adjusted to the 2 points as the theoretical 100%, so, an eFG% of 50% means that, on average, a player makes 1 point per attempt, an eFG% of 100% means that, on average, a player makes 2 points per attempt, an eFG% of 150% means that, on average, a player makes 3 points per attempt, guess what? the only way to end a game with an eFG% of 150% is... yes! only shoot three pointers and make them all!!! and that's why you should judge players shooting several times a game cause if a guy from the bench who plays 3 minutes shoot once but make a 3 pointer he is gonna have an eFG% of 150%. Klay's 110% eFG% just means that that night, on average, the score 2.2 points per attempt, is that simple. In other words, even thou Klay miss some shots, his eFG% says that he scored even more than a guy who had attempted 20 two-pointers and make them all. In addition, the formula of the eFG% counts FGA, Field Goal Mades, and how many field goals were 3 pointers, the free throws stuff is not there,. On the other hand, if you don't like the continuation points, you just can remove them from the eFG% formula, just calculate the standard eFG% not counting the continuation points...easy...

Wouldn’t this naturally favor shooters

the advanced statistics is flawed..really...but the science and math in this will continue to advance. And there will come a time where all things that happen on the court will be quantified correctly with the correct context. Including those things people call stuff that dont show on the stat sheet will eventually show on the stat sheet. But understanding the advanced stat sheet will be complicated thats why we will always resort to the old way of seeing stats. One thing i am certain, the advaced stat is a tool..and a very useful tool and wont always be perfect unless we will be able to come up with the perfect basketball simulation. We should not have a problem with this stat, we should strive to understand how this works (mainly for the stat guys, LoL). If the stat does not show what happens on the court, its because we misinterpreted it.

I think FG% should be removed. 2 pointers and 3 pointers should always be counted separately. Furthermore, 2 pointers should also be broken into two parts instead of counting a 2 point attempt as just that. A direct example of that is when a player dunks, lays up, or shoots the ball from within a very short distance. Those should be counted altogether seperate than Midrange shots attempted within a certain distance. Shots today are measured that way today but its done so unofficially. It should be made official and publicly displayed as such. Everything is generalized and the difficulty of a shot isnt shown fairly.

Never cared much about shit like this, but great u got this information out there

I swear this guy needs a job in the NBA 😅.. I’d hire you if I had a team lol !

It’s better than true shooting

You're ignoring the fact that 3 pointers make your possessions worth more points - comparing points made with points possible through shot selection gives no impact to the three pointer effectively giving a team more possessions per game.

I appreciate that you took the time to make the video, but I think you missed the mark. Your hangup with eFG% being able to be above 100% is strange. It doesn't matter that it goes above 100% - all that matters is it's an effective way to relatively compare performance, which it is.