Punt FG% is a head-to-head nine-category strategy, not a reason to draft every inefficient shooter. Luka Dončić supplies a substantial offensive base with 33.4 points, 4.0 threes, 7.7 rebounds and 8.2 assists. His 4.0 turnovers and 78.0% free throws on ten attempts still matter, however. Removing field-goal percentage does not automatically make a guard-heavy roster strong at the foul line.
Derrick White illustrates the direct category benefit: his 39.5% FG on 14.4 attempts disappears, while 2.7 threes, 5.4 assists and 1.3 blocks remain. Efficient centers can still be the correct complements. Towns supplies 11.9 rebounds but only 0.5 blocks; Holmgren offers stronger rim protection. Turner's 1.6 blocks and 2.1 threes solve a different problem from his modest 5.3 rebounds. Check the actual contribution rather than assuming one center fixes the whole frontcourt.
Measure FT% from total makes and attempts, not an average of player percentages. Curry's 92.2% on 5.1 attempts and Bane's 90.8% on 4.2 can support a weaker shooter, but the surrounding volume decides the outcome. Low-turnover contributors also matter if you intend to compete in that category. Eight-category leagues remove that constraint; roto adds a season-long standings cost to deliberately sacrificing FG%.
The live table removes FG% from corrected 2025-26 production and does not forecast the coming season. Compare it with the projected Top 150 and current Yahoo ADP. Written draft ranges retain the September 26 ADP snapshot and use Yahoo standard pre-ranks checked October 3. Draft-room pre-rank and average draft position are different signals, and new role or health information can override either dated price.
What removing FG% actually buys you
Punt FG% is a head-to-head nine-category strategy for a team whose strengths justify accepting a likely loss in field-goal percentage. It is not a contest to find the league's worst shooters. Removing a category makes Derrick White's misses irrelevant, but it does not make every low-percentage guard valuable or every efficient center wasteful. The draft decision is whether the other eight categories are worth the price. In roto, deliberately finishing near the bottom in one column carries a season-long standings cost, so the same approach is much less forgiving.
Luka is an obvious starting point because 33.4 points, 4.0 threes, 7.7 rebounds and 8.2 assists give you so much offense in one pick. The more important follow-up question is what he leaves exposed. His 78.0% free throws came on ten attempts per game, and his 4.0 turnovers remain on the scorecard. You cannot assume a guard-led roster wins FT% or that conceding one shooting category gives you permission to ignore another. Maxey offers a different foundation: 89.2% free throws, 1.9 steals and fewer turnovers, but considerably less rebounding.
White illustrates the direct benefit more clearly than many stars. His 39.5% field-goal shooting on 14.4 attempts is a substantial penalty in a balanced team; here you keep 2.7 threes, 5.4 assists and 1.3 blocks without carrying it. Conversely, Towns and Holmgren can still be excellent choices even though their positive FG% is discarded. Their rebounding or shot blocking may solve a problem another discounted guard only makes worse.
The categories that still need work
Points, threes and assists are accessible through perimeter scorers, but there is little benefit in dominating all three while conceding rebounds, blocks, turnovers and FG%. Establish enough creation to compete, then use later picks to address the actual gaps. White can supply blocks from a guard slot, Murphy contributes steals without another high-turnover role, and Hart adds wing rebounding. None is a universal answer: White is not an elite scorer, Murphy is not a rim protector, and Hart does little for blocks.
Rebounds and blocks must be evaluated separately. Towns averaged 11.9 rebounds and only 0.5 blocks; Turner supplied 1.6 blocks but just 5.3 boards. Taking one does not finish the frontcourt. Sarr offers 7.4 rebounds and 2.0 blocks, but his 69.2% free throws on 3.0 attempts introduce another cost. A center who no longer helps your punted percentage can still be worth drafting for those remaining contributions. A stretch center who fails to rebound cannot be assumed to solve the problem merely because he fills the position.
Free-throw impact depends on attempts as well as accuracy. Curry's 92.2% on 5.1 attempts and Bane's 90.8% on 4.2 provide real support, but Luka's ten attempts mean one good shooter may not settle the category. Compare total makes with total attempts across the roster; averaging individual percentages hides who actually controls the result. Low-volume weakness is different too: Ware's 74.0% came on 1.2 attempts, whereas Washington's 68.7% came on 3.3.
Turnovers are the other common accidental punt. Harden's 3.5 and Booker's 3.2 remain costs even after their field-goal rates stop mattering. Bridges, Wallace and Bey can add useful categories with roughly one turnover each, but a few careful late picks cannot guarantee they will undo any high-usage opening. In eight-category leagues this constraint disappears, making another creator more attractive. Rebounding, blocks and the foul line still need the same scrutiny.
The round-by-round draft targets, the building blocks and the example rosters for this build come with a Draft Pass.
Frequently Asked Questions
Should I avoid efficient centers?
No. Their FG% no longer helps, but the remaining categories may be exactly what you need. Towns supplies rebounds and useful free-throw volume, while Holmgren supplies rebounds and blocks with some threes. Another low-FG guard is not automatically better if the roster already has enough offense.
Does a Luka start guarantee strong free throws?
No. Luka shot 78.0% on ten attempts per game in 2025-26, so his volume can outweigh several smaller positive contributions. Calculate team FT% from total makes and attempts. Strong shooters such as Curry and Bane help, but you still need to measure the combined result before adding a poor foul-shooting center.
Can I still compete in turnovers?
Yes, but not regardless of your picks. One high-usage creator is easier to balance than several, and low-turnover contributors such as Bridges or Bey can help. If you decide to concede turnovers too, treat that as a deliberate two-category build with less margin elsewhere, not an automatic benefit of punting FG%.
What changes in eight-category leagues or roto?
Without turnovers, a second high-usage creator becomes easier to justify, but rebounds, blocks and FT% still need support. In roto, deliberately sacrificing FG% costs standings points for the whole season. This guide's main case is head-to-head categories, where a planned category loss can support a winning weekly combination.
Are the sample teams projections or guaranteed draft paths?
Neither. They illustrate 12-team snake paths using dated Yahoo prices and sum eight players' historical per-game lines with equal appearances. FT% is weighted by attempts. Availability, new roles, weekly schedules, roster eligibility and your room's prices can all change the result; use the category decisions rather than expecting to draft every listed name.