GSW

2025-26 Season

BRANDIN PODZIEMSKI

Golden State Warriors | Guard | 6-4
Brandin Podziemski
14.0 PPG
5.2 RPG
3.6 APG
28.7 MPG
+5.3 Impact

Podziemski produces at an elite rate for a 29-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
+5.3
Scoring +12.6
Points 14.0 PPG = +9.4
Shot Making above expected FG% = +3.2
Creation +1.0
Creation 3.6 AST/g = +1.0
Turnovers -3.8
Turnovers 1.7/g = -3.8
Defense +1.4
Defense 1.1 STL, 0.2 BLK = +1.4
Hustle & Effort +3.9
Rebounds 5.2 RPG = +3.9
Raw Impact +15.1
Baseline (game-average expected) −9.8
Net Impact
+5.3
81st pctl vs Guards

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 245 Guards with 10+ games

Scoring 73th
14.0 PPG
Efficiency 67th
56.9% TS
Playmaking 68th
3.6 APG
Rebounding 90th
5.2 RPG
Defense 58th
+7.6/g
Hustle 97th
+19.1/g
Creation 63th
+3.20/g
Shot Making 50th
+6.52/g
TO Discipline 48th
0.06/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Brandin Podziemski’s start to the 2025-26 campaign was defined by sheer, maddening volatility as he bounced erratically between the starting lineup and the bench. He often functioned as his own worst enemy when given a heavy offensive workload. Look no further than 11/19 vs MIA, where he poured in 20 points but suffered a brutal -7.3 impact score because his high usage was poisoned by poor shot quality and a dismal 6-for-19 shooting night. Conversely, he occasionally found ways to stay afloat when his jumper completely abandoned him. During an ugly 8-point offensive outing on 10/24 vs POR, he scraped together a +0.2 impact score strictly through massive defensive value (+17.0). When everything finally clicked, like his blistering 23-point, +8.3 impact performance on 10/27 vs MEM, he was lethal from deep. Right now, his erratic shot selection and wild statistical swings make him a chaotic pendulum for his coaching staff to manage.

Wild swings in offensive aggression and defensive focus defined this highly volatile stretch for Podziemski. When he operated with patience, he looked like an elite rotational engine. He absolutely carved up the defense on 12/07 vs CHI, generating a massive +10.2 impact score alongside 21 points and 7 assists through masterful manipulation of pick-and-roll coverages. Yet, his value routinely cratered when hidden costs outweighed his box score production. During the 12/02 vs OKC matchup, he poured in 17 points but still posted a -2.7 impact score because poor defensive execution (-1.9 defense metric) bled away his offensive gains. Conversely, he occasionally found ways to stay afloat when his jumper vanished entirely. On 01/02 vs OKC, a brutal 4-for-13 shooting night was salvaged by relentless hustle and disruptive perimeter defense, allowing him to scrape out a +0.1 impact score despite the bricks. He remains a brilliant connector, but his tendency to drift into passivity or defensive lapses keeps his overall effectiveness maddeningly inconsistent.

This twenty-game stretch was defined by maddening volatility, as Brandin Podziemski bounced between the starting lineup and the bench while struggling to balance his aggressive motor with smart decision-making. His raw box score totals routinely lied about the actual reality of his floor game. During the 02/25 vs MEM matchup, he stuffed the stat sheet with 19 points, 8 rebounds, and 6 assists, yet posted a -2.7 impact score because he repeatedly forced careless passes into heavy traffic. Conversely, he didn't need to dominate the scoring column to dictate the terms of engagement. He tallied a modest 12 points on 01/24 vs MIN, but his decisive downhill drives beautifully collapsed the defense to generate a massive +9.2 impact. Even when his jumper completely abandoned him, as it did on 02/24 vs NOP, he salvaged a brutal shooting night by relentlessly crashing the glass for 15 rebounds to scratch out a +3.4 impact. Ultimately, his overall effectiveness lived and died on the margins of ball security and hustle rather than sheer offensive volume.

A maddening inconsistency defined Brandin Podziemski’s late-season stretch, swinging wildly between empty-calorie scoring and brilliant dirty work. The traditional box score frequently lied. Look exactly at Mar 23 vs DAL, where he posted a gaudy 20 points, 10 rebounds, and six assists. Despite that production, his actual net influence cratered to a -2.1 impact score because poor transition defense completely muted his overall value. Careless ball security similarly erased a highly efficient shooting night on Mar 09 vs UTA, dragging him down to a dismal -6.2 impact. Yet, when he stopped forcing the issue offensively, his true worth emerged through sheer grit. On Mar 20 vs DET, Podziemski managed just 15 points but generated a massive +8.8 impact score. He drove that highly positive performance by abandoning his scoring ego, instead relying on relentless energy on 50/50 balls and elite positional defense to swing the game.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Volatile for his role. Podziemski has noticeable ups and downs, with scoring moving ~6 points between games.

Middle-of-the-road efficiency — shoots 45%+ from the field in 55% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

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

Getting better as the season goes on. First-half impact: +3.2, second-half: +7.3. That's a significant jump — could be a role change, confidence, or development clicking.

Hot right now — 13 straight games with positive impact. Longest positive run this season: 13 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 76 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

C. Braun 54.6 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.09
PTS 5
J. McDaniels 53.8 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.19
PTS 10
M. Christie 51.8 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.15
PTS 8
C. Love 51.1 poss
FG% 80.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 13
C. Wallace 50.9 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 20.0%
PPP 0.18
PTS 9
D. Fox 49.8 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 5
S. Castle 43.4 poss
FG% 71.4%
3P% 75.0%
PPP 0.32
PTS 14
K. George 40.0 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.23
PTS 9
A. Reaves 39.8 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 4
C. Gillespie 38.7 poss
FG% 63.6%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.36
PTS 14

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

D. DiVincenzo 48.3 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.04
PTS 2
A. Reaves 47.5 poss
FG% 42.9%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 6
M. Christie 47.0 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.04
PTS 2
C. Braun 45.9 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 6
C. Love 45.1 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.11
PTS 5
J. Wells 44.6 poss
FG% 16.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.09
PTS 4
K. Dunn 42.7 poss
FG% 62.5%
3P% 75.0%
PPP 0.3
PTS 13
C. Gillespie 39.6 poss
FG% 42.9%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.2
PTS 8
C. Wallace 39.2 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 3
J. Goodwin 38.6 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.21
PTS 8

SEASON STATS

84
Games
14.0
PPG
5.2
RPG
3.6
APG
1.1
SPG
0.2
BPG
45.6
FG%
37.3
3P%
79.0
FT%
28.7
MPG

GAME LOG

84 games played