True shooting percentage: the number that replaced field goal percentage

The formula is exact: points scored divided by twice the sum of field-goal attempts plus 0.44 times free-throw attempts. A traditional box score separates two-pointers, three-pointers, and trips to the foul line into distinct columns. True shooting percentage combines all three scoring paths into a single measurement of overall efficiency. The metric is used to estimate overall scoring efficiency rather than a standard shot-making percentage. A made shot from beyond the arc and a pair of converted foul shots both produce points, but traditional field-goal percentage ignores the foul line entirely. By folding free throws directly into the denominator alongside attempts from the floor, the statistic changes how scoring output is evaluated.

How the TS% formula calculates scoring efficiency

True shooting percentage explained mathematically requires three basic box-score inputs: points scored (PTS), field-goal attempts (FGA), and free-throw attempts (FTA). Wikipedia documents the calculation as:

TS% = PTS / (2 (FGA + 0.44 FTA))

The equation captures scoring efficiency across two-point field goals, three-point field goals, and free throws in one number.

The multiplier of two in the denominator scales the final result down so that it resembles a traditional shooting percentage. Without that factor, a player who scores two points on a single two-point field-goal attempt would register an efficiency mark of 2.0. Multiplying the denominator by two brings a standard two-point conversion to 1.0, or 100 percent. The result does not count physical shots that pass through the net. Instead, it measures points produced per scoring attempt.

Why free throws require the 0.44 multiplier

Free-throw attempts cannot simply be added directly to field-goal attempts. Most trips to the free-throw line award two shots for a single possession. Treating every individual free-throw attempt as a full field-goal attempt would penalize players who draw fouls.

According to NBAAnalytic, the 0.44 coefficient converts free-throw attempts into possession-equivalents. The publication explains that 0.44 reflects the long-run average cost of free throws in possession terms across the league. While the standard shooting foul yields two free throws, other events alter the possession math. Some trips to the line involve three-shot fouls on perimeter attempts. Others involve and-one opportunities where a player converts a field goal and takes a single bonus shot. In college basketball, one-and-one bonus situations also change how many free throws occur during a single possession. The 0.44 coefficient aggregates those mixed foul types into a single constant.

How TS% separates itself from effective field goal percentage

Scoring analysis also uses effective field goal percentage (eFG%). KenPom defines eFG% as field goals made plus 0.5 times three-pointers made, divided by total field-goal attempts:

EFG% = (FGM + 0.5 * 3PM) / FGA

KenPom states that eFG% differs from conventional field-goal percentage by accounting for the extra value of a made three-pointer. Breakthrough Basketball notes that eFG% gives more credit to made three-point field goals because they yield 1.5 times the scoring of a made two-point field goal. A shooter who converts four three-pointers on ten attempts scores twelve points, which matches the output of a player who hits six two-pointers on ten attempts. Effective field goal percentage rates both lines identically at 60 percent.

Yet eFG% stops at the perimeter line. As KenPom outlines, true shooting percentage is like eFG% but adds trips to the line and converts them to a shooting percentage. Breakthrough Basketball points out that TS% includes free throws, which allows it to capture players who score efficiently by getting to the line rather than only by making field goals. A player who struggles from three-point range but generates frequent free throws will look average in eFG% while ranking high in TS%.

What the metric leaves out and what counts as good

Because TS% focuses strictly on scoring efficiency per scoring attempt, it leaves out other events on the court. The metric does not account for turnovers that end possessions without a shot. It does not track offensive rebounds that keep possessions alive, nor does it factor in shot quality or defensive pressure.

Evaluating what constitutes a strong true shooting mark requires a reliable benchmark. Among 151 players who qualified as rotation regulars, the average true shooting mark was 58.6 percent.

For readers evaluating box scores, tracking whether a scorer sits above or below that 58.6 percent mark for rotation regulars offers immediate context on their scoring output. The open question is how coaching staffs weigh that individual shooting efficiency against the turnovers and possession outcomes the formula leaves uncounted.