GUIDES · BETSLIP DOCTOR
Why can NBA paint and fast-break scoring percentages overlap, and why is %PTS a different share?
%PTS PITP and %PTS FBPS describe different ways to classify points in a player’s scoring row: by where they were scored and by fast-break opportunity. A point may carry both labels, so those shares need not add to 100%. %PTS asks a separate denominator question: the player’s points compared with team points scored while that player is on court. Keep the same row and sample in view. The glossary does not spell out every tagging or filter rule, so the overlap below is stipulated fiction, not an official tagging recipe.
For Readers auditing an NBA Stats scoring breakdown who need to identify overlapping categories and align percentage denominators before adding or comparing columns. · Updated
Choose the denominator before comparing shares
The NBA Stats glossary defines %PTS as the percentage of a team’s points that a player has while on court. The scoring labels %PTS PITP and %PTS FBPS describe the share of a player’s or team’s points scored in the paint or from fast-break opportunities. They answer different questions.
For a player row, compare the paint and fast-break shares against that row’s own points in the same sample. For %PTS, compare the player’s points with team points during that player’s on-court intervals. Team points across the entire game use a different denominator.
Paint and fast break are different labels
Paint describes where a point was scored; fast break describes the scoring opportunity. Those axes can overlap: a fast-break basket can also be stipulated as a paint basket. If both labels apply to the same points, the corresponding percentages are not disjoint pieces of one 100% total.
That is a logical consequence of the two stipulated labels in the example, not a claim that the glossary publishes event-adjudication rules or that every actual stats view uses identical filters.
Match the row and sample
Before adding or comparing columns, check that they refer to the same player, sample and selected view. Do not substitute full-game team points for the on-court team-points denominator of %PTS.
The undated glossary does not establish every filter, category-tag rule or missing-value display. The worked example uses positive denominators and explicitly stipulated classifications; it is not observed player or team data.
One point can carry both stipulated labels
Suppose fictional Player A scores 4 points in a selected sample: 2 points are stipulated as both fast-break and paint scoring, and 2 additional points are stipulated as half-court paint scoring. The fictional team scores 10 points while A is on court and 20 points across the full game. Then %PTS is 4 ÷ 10 = 40%; 4 ÷ 20 = 20% is a different full-game share, not %PTS. %PTS PITP is 4 ÷ 4 = 100%, and %PTS FBPS is 2 ÷ 4 = 50%. The two category shares total 150% because the same 2 points have both stipulated labels. No points or baskets are created by counting both labels.
Related questions
Should %PTS PITP and %PTS FBPS add to 100%?
Not necessarily. They describe paint and fast-break classifications that can overlap. The stipulated example totals 150% because two of four points have both labels; it does not establish an official tagging rule.
Can I use full-game team points as the %PTS denominator?
That would answer a different question. The glossary describes %PTS using team points while the player is on court, so do not relabel a full-game comparison as %PTS.