PHI

2025-26 Season

ANDRE DRUMMOND

Philadelphia 76ers | Center | 6-11
Andre Drummond
6.5 PPG
8.5 RPG
1.3 APG
19.7 MPG
+2.5 Impact

Drummond produces at an above average rate for a 20-minute workload.

Embed this player card

Copy & paste this HTML into any page:

The widget updates automatically whenever our data does.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
+2.5
Scoring +5.2
Points 6.5 PPG = +4.0
Shot Making above expected FG% = +1.2
Creation +0.6
Creation 1.3 AST/g = +0.6
Turnovers -2.3
Turnovers 1.0/g = -2.3
Defense -0.1
Defense 0.6 STL, 0.8 BLK = -0.1
Hustle & Effort +9.5
Rebounds 8.5 RPG = +9.5
Raw Impact +12.9
Baseline (game-average expected) −10.4
Net Impact
+2.5
54th pctl vs Centers

PBP Credit: Every play is analyzed from play-by-play data. Scorers get difficulty-adjusted credit, assisters get creation value based on the shot opportunity they created, and turnovers are classified by type. Shot difficulty is derived from 1M+ shots across 4 seasons. Full methodology

SKILL DNA

Percentile rank vs 93 Centers with 10+ games

Scoring 33th
6.7 PPG
Efficiency 10th
52.2% TS
Playmaking 42th
1.3 APG
Rebounding 81th
8.7 RPG
Defense 51th
+6.4/g
Hustle 99th
+30.5/g
Creation 47th
+2.18/g
Shot Making 42th
+3.91/g
TO Discipline 52th
0.05/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Andre Drummond’s first 20 games were defined by a dramatic mid-November promotion to the starting lineup that unleashed his sheer physical dominance on the glass. Even while coming off the bench early on, he flashed massive value without needing to score, posting a +13.0 impact score on 10/25 vs CHA despite tallying just 7 points. He completely controlled the boards in only 16 minutes, generating crucial second-chance opportunities that broke the opponent's back. His peak arrived as a starter on 11/17 vs LAC, where he grabbed 18 rebounds and scored 14 points to drive a massive +13.2 impact mark. That stellar rating stemmed directly from absolute domination of the painted area, suffocating the opposition's interior game. However, Drummond's massive frame remains a double-edged sword, perfectly captured on 11/19 vs TOR. Despite logging a respectable double-double with 10 points and 12 rebounds, he registered a -1.5 impact score because his heavy feet on the perimeter allowed guards to easily exploit him in pick-and-roll coverages.

Andre Drummond’s mid-season stretch was defined by a bizarre identity crisis, oscillating wildly between dominant interior bully and delusional perimeter shooter. Nothing captured this weirdness better than his 12/19 vs NYK performance, where an uncharacteristic barrage of perimeter shooting—including three makes from deep—helped generate a +3.0 impact. Yet, when he drifted away from his core strengths without the hot shooting, the hidden costs piled up rapidly. During the 02/03 vs GSW matchup, he recorded a double-double with 12 points and 12 rebounds, but sluggishness dragged his overall impact down to a -1.5. The floor completely fell out on 12/28 vs OKC, where poor positional awareness allowed opponents to exploit the paint and handed him a brutal -11.0 impact score. He remained a massive asset only when he embraced the dirty work. On 12/20 vs DAL, he scored a mere 6 points but generated a steady +2.8 impact because his sheer dominance on the glass created crucial second-chance opportunities. Whenever Drummond stuck to bullying opponents in the paint, he thrived, but his sudden infatuation with the three-point line routinely hurt his team.

This stretch was defined by a bizarre, chaotic identity crisis where a traditional interior bruiser suddenly fell in love with the three-point line. During a seemingly productive nine-point, ten-rebound shift on Mar 17 vs DEN, he posted a -2.9 impact score because launching four ill-advised perimeter shots completely sabotaged the offensive flow. But when the spacing experiment actually worked, the results were staggering. On Mar 19 vs SAC, Drummond drained all three of his attempts from deep, shocking the defense and warping drop coverages to generate a massive +8.4 impact score. Even when the jumper vanished, his sheer physical gravity could still dictate terms. During a quiet four-point outing on Mar 21 vs UTA, he anchored the paint with a +8.3 defensive rating, driving a +2.9 overall impact by suffocating the rim and protecting the glass. Ultimately, his value wildly fluctuated based on his shot selection, transforming him into a high-variance wildcard rather than a reliable rebounding anchor.

IMPACT TIMELINE

Game-by-game performance vs average. Green = above average, red = below.

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Drummond's impact swings wildly relative to his average — some nights dominant, others invisible. Scoring varies by ~5 points per game.

Middle-of-the-road efficiency — shoots 45%+ from the field in 59% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

Defensive difference-maker. Drummond consistently forces tough shots and protects the rim — opponents shoot worse when he's guarding them.

Small downward trend. First-half impact: +3.5, second-half: +1.6. Not alarming yet, but trending the wrong direction.

Hot right now — 4 straight games with positive impact. Longest positive run this season: 5 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 74 games with tracking data. Shows who guarded this player on offense and who he guarded on defense, with their shooting stats in those matchups.

ON OFFENSE: WHO GUARDED HIM

His shooting stats against each primary defender this season

N. Queta 67.2 poss
FG% 71.4%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 15
W. Carter Jr. 65.6 poss
FG% 30.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 7
D. Clingan 59.4 poss
FG% 44.4%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 8
N. Claxton 58.7 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 10
O. Okongwu 57.4 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.09
PTS 5
J. Duren 51.8 poss
FG% 71.4%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 13
I. Zubac 51.0 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
C. Murray-Boyles 46.5 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.04
PTS 2
J. Poeltl 46.2 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.04
PTS 2
K. Ware 40.8 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 7

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

How opponents shot when he was the primary defender. Lower FG% = better defense.

N. Queta 66.5 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.23
PTS 15
N. Claxton 62.8 poss
FG% 85.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.24
PTS 15
W. Carter Jr. 56.8 poss
FG% 62.5%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.21
PTS 12
D. Clingan 55.3 poss
FG% 37.5%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.13
PTS 7
J. Duren 51.1 poss
FG% 80.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.18
PTS 9
O. Okongwu 49.1 poss
FG% 42.9%
3P% 20.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 7
I. Zubac 48.3 poss
FG% 37.5%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 6
J. Poeltl 45.1 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.27
PTS 12
A. Davis 41.3 poss
FG% 63.6%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.39
PTS 16
C. Murray-Boyles 41.3 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 7

SEASON STATS

64
Games
6.5
PPG
8.5
RPG
1.3
APG
0.6
SPG
0.8
BPG
47.5
FG%
36.6
3P%
64.0
FT%
19.7
MPG

GAME LOG

64 games played