How to analyze Advanced Field Goal Percentage for Basketball Players

Its no longer a stretch for basketball players to work on their efficiency in terms of field goal percentage… Here is insight on how improving as a player can work in your favor.


How much detail every coach wants to know about their players” FG%’s varies widely.  To venture to say that at the NBA level there is much intricate detail and in general, as one goes down the ladder from the NBA international basketball to college or HS, there is likely to be a sliding scale of detail ’cause of a lack of time and possibly budgeting.  Again, if the head coach can’t tag possessions post-game, the work needs to be done by an assistant of some kind who is dedicated, that has know how and can be trusted.

Definitely of all the analytics tools that can be made use of the assist coaches the know how of where a player’s shots come from as well as what type of shots they take in corresponding FG% is critical on offense, to me as a consultant it reinforces the principles of improving shot selection taught.

To break things down say, a player was a real NCAA D1 standout this last season.  He shot .449 overall on 179 FGM’s of 399 FGA’s and from the arc, he was 97-235, so he was exactly at .500 on two point attempts with 82-164.

Let’s break those down into categories:

  • Layups (Transition, Drives, Put-backs etc.) 36-60- .600 (A number of these would be contested).
  • Runners, Floaters going right- 20-40- .500 (Most players don’t try this going to their weak hand).
  • Pullup J’s Going Right: 20-44 .455
  • Pullup J’s Going Left: 6-20 .333

Now comes the interesting portion of the analysis.  Since this player shot .413 on 3pt FGA’s, his effective overall FG% on those attempts was .626.  The real question for a coach becomes why would such a player take any other shots except triples and layups (.600)?   This type of way of thought is becoming more the norm at all levels and has helped fuel the decline of the mid-range shot overall.  On all other attempts besides triples and layups, the player that shot .442, which is obviously vastly inferior to his numbers from the arc and at the rim.   Of course, the coach might rightfully defend his 104 mid-range shots by saying either that “he took what the defense gave him” or that those attempts “made the defense honest”.  The bottom line, however, is whatever side of that argument you want to take, you can only take it if you know your players’ FG%’s from all areas of the court.

There are other factors of knowing these stats too. In individual player meetings, one can utilize the numbers as proof that certain shots are considerably less efficient than others or a coach can create more drill work on mid-range J’s and runners.

The charting and analysis of this player’s two point FGA’s is important, but the analysis of his 3pt attempts is considerably more important because quite simply that 61% (271 of 435) of his points off FG’s came off triples. Since he is just a prolific producer from beyond the arc, we need to have great detail to help him maximize this talent.  (Keep in mind that his free throw numbers were also created inside or outside the arc and we can roll those numbers in also).

So, first we might analyze his 3pt FG% by area of the floor.  One can divide the floor into fifths so essentially we would have two “corners”, two “wings” and a top of the key.  Hypothetically, let’s say this Player shot:

  • 24-48 (.500) Left Corner
  • 27-62 (.436) Left Wing
  • 7-21 (.333) Top
  • 19-50 (.380) Right Wing
  • 20-54 (.370) Right Corner

These stats tell us, among other things, that:

  • This player prefers the left side of the floor.
  • Maybe we should create some additional action for him on that side.
  • Running a special play for him in a special situation on that side increases his odds of knocking in the shot.
  • This player should spend more time practicing from the right side of the floor.

Lastly, we might analyze the player’s shots by category:

  • Pure and Catch and Shoot-  60-120 (.500)
  • Ball Fake, Bounce or Two Right- 14-34 (.412)
  • Ball Fake, Bounce or Two Left- 7-32 (.219)
  • Step-back- 13-30 (.433)
  • Forced or Desperation- 3-19 (.158)

As important as in-season/in game FG% analysis is, perhaps charting shots in 5 on 5 competitive practice as early as the first week of pre-season practice is even more valuable.  Let’s say, for instance, that in the first week of practice there might be 5- twenty minute periods of 5 on 5.  That sample size alone is large enough for a coaching staff to use the data to illustrate to players various teaching points (“inside the arc, you were 12-18; outside the arc, you were 1-9.  1-9 doesn’t win games!”  Sooner or later, even the most stubborn players will recognize that the numbers don’t lie.  Or, the staff can focus on deficiencies in practice as early as the first week based on real statistical analysis rather than hunches and guesswork.  One can continue to use FG% analysis by category the entire pre-season so that when you get to the actual games, you’ve laid a lot of valuable groundwork.

Whether one uses type of shot and area on the floor FG% analysis in practice and/or games, the coach who does so will have a better handle on his players’ shooting tendencies and while the process might be a bit tedious, the payback might be the competitive edge necessary to notch two or three more victories.  Small edges can make a difference.  By way of anecdote, a current NBA agent was recently quoted on the topic of analytics, “…it’s like painting by numbers.  And you can’t paint a masterpiece by the numbers.”  To which I would argue, “you don’t have to paint a masterpiece, all you have to do is win by one point.”


Liked it? Take a second to support Advance Pro Basketball on Patreon!