Loading
Teams ranked from worst to best offensive efficiency. Identifying where offenses break down reveals roster construction weaknesses and coaching challenges.
| # | Team | Est. PPP | Avg PPG | Tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Washington Wizards 20-52 | 1.028 | 0 | Poor |
| 2 | Detroit Pistons 22-50 | 1.031 | 0 | Poor |
| 3 | Portland Trail Blazers 24-48 | 1.033 | 0 | Poor |
| 4 | Charlotte Hornets 25-47 | 1.035 | 0 | Poor |
| 5 | San Antonio Spurs 26-46 | 1.036 | 0 | Poor |
| 6 | Brooklyn Nets 28-44 | 1.039 | 0 | Poor |
| 7 | Utah Jazz 28-44 | 1.039 | 0 | Poor |
| 8 | Toronto Raptors 30-42 | 1.042 | 0 | Poor |
| 9 | Chicago Bulls 36-36 | 1.05 | 0 | Poor |
| 10 | Houston Rockets 37-35 | 1.051 | 0 | Poor |
| 11 | New Orleans Pelicans 40-32 | 1.056 | 0 | Poor |
| 12 | Miami Heat 44-28 | 1.061 | 0 | Poor |
| 13 | Orlando Magic 45-27 | 1.063 | 0 | Poor |
| 14 | Los Angeles Clippers 45-27 | 1.063 | 0 | Poor |
| 15 | Memphis Grizzlies 35-37 | 1.377 | 25.1 | Good |
| 16 | Atlanta Hawks 38-34 | 1.38 | 25.7 | Elite |
| 17 | Sacramento Kings 42-30 | 1.402 | 26.6 | Elite |
| 18 | Golden State Warriors 39-33 | 1.402 | 26.4 | Elite |
| 19 | Minnesota Timberwolves 49-23 | 1.406 | 25.9 | Elite |
| 20 | Indiana Pacers 46-26 | 1.412 | 20.1 | Elite |
| 21 | Cleveland Cavaliers 52-20 | 1.414 | 26.6 | Elite |
| 22 | Dallas Mavericks 47-25 | 1.415 | 33.9 | Elite |
| 23 | Milwaukee Bucks 48-24 | 1.42 | 27.4 | Elite |
| 24 | Boston Celtics 54-18 | 1.427 | 24.9 | Elite |
| 25 | New York Knicks 50-22 | 1.429 | 28.7 | Elite |
| 26 | Phoenix Suns 44-28 | 1.432 | 27.1 | Elite |
| 27 | Los Angeles Lakers 43-29 | 1.436 | 25.2 | Elite |
| 28 | Philadelphia 76ers 41-31 | 1.438 | 34.7 | Elite |
| 29 | Oklahoma City Thunder 57-15 | 1.453 | 30.1 | Elite |
| 30 | Denver Nuggets 50-22 | 1.469 | 26.4 | Elite |
Download team efficiency rankings for analysis.
Low offensive efficiency typically stems from a combination of poor shot selection, high turnover rates, and lack of shooting talent. Teams at the bottom of these rankings often rely too heavily on contested mid-range shots instead of high-value three-pointers and rim attacks.
Roster construction plays a huge role. Teams without a reliable floor-spacing center or multiple three-point threats see their efficiency crater because defenses can pack the paint. Check our sharpshooters page to see which players would boost these struggling offenses.
High turnover rates, poor shot selection (too many long twos), lack of floor spacing, and over-reliance on isolation scoring are the primary drivers of offensive inefficiency.
Absolutely. Coaching changes often produce immediate efficiency gains by installing better motion offenses, improving shot selection, and maximizing player strengths through better play-calling.
Efficiency matters more. A team that scores 1.15 PPP at a slow pace will still outscore a team at 1.05 PPP playing fast, because the efficient team generates more points per opportunity regardless of tempo.