NBA fantasy rankings: a nine-category guide

Efficiency needs attempt volume

A high percentage on a handful of shots can have less roster impact than a slightly lower percentage on many attempts. Across the available games, made shots divided by attempted shots gives the combined percentage—not an average of nightly percentages.

Overall ranking uses shooting impact relative to the ranked pool’s percentage, multiplied by attempts per game. Sorting FG% instead orders the displayed percentages; it does not rank the size of that impact.

Volume can amplify a strength or weakness

Assess both free-throw accuracy and attempts. A frequent shooter below the pool’s percentage can drag down a team’s combined result more than an infrequent shooter with a similar percentage.

The total ranking uses attempt-weighted impact for free throws too. Players with no attempts have no shooting impact, and percentage-only ordering places them last rather than treating them as proven efficient shooters.

Made threes, not three-point percentage

This category counts made three-pointers per game. A strong three-point percentage alone does not establish useful volume: compare repeated makes and minutes across appearances.

Read threes alongside points and field-goal impact. One hot shooting night in a small sample can move a recent ranking without proving that the production will last.

Scoring is one contribution, not the whole ranking

Points are compared per game so more appearances do not automatically create a better scoring average. A productive scorer can still lose overall value through inefficient shooting or turnovers.

Check whether scoring rose with minutes across several games. The current model describes recent production; it does not forecast usage, matchups or future scoring.

Compare total rebounds and playing time

Rebounds combine offensive and defensive boards in this nine-category model. Per-game production helps compare players with different numbers of appearances.

Use minutes and longer game logs to judge whether a rebound increase is repeated. A temporary injury-related role may disappear when a teammate returns.

Playmaking can address a different roster need

Assists are ranked by their per-game average. A player below a teammate in total value may still be the better fit for a roster that needs playmaking.

Compare assists with minutes and turnovers. A recent assists spike alone is not confirmation of a lasting change in ball-handling responsibility.

Small samples can exaggerate defensive events

Steals contribute independently to total category value. A few extra events over a short period can make a large difference to the per-game average.

Look for repeated contributions across appearances and compare a longer window in player trends. Do not treat missing box-score dates as games with zero steals.

Evaluate blocks separately from rebounds

Blocks and rebounds are distinct categories. A strong rebounder is not necessarily a strong shot blocker, and a lower-scoring player may still fill a blocks need.

Check minutes and multiple game logs before assuming a recent blocks surge is sustainable. The ranking measures recorded production, not future defensive opportunities.

Lower is better, but inactivity is not value

Turnovers are the inverse category: fewer turnovers per game improve the category score, and sorting turnovers puts the lowest average first.

Low turnovers alone do not establish a productive player. Read them alongside scoring, assists and minutes so a limited role is not mistaken for an all-around fantasy strength.