MIL

2025-26 Season

CAM THOMAS

Milwaukee Bucks | Guard | 6-3
Cam Thomas
13.5 PPG
1.7 RPG
2.6 APG
21.0 MPG
-0.7 Impact

Thomas produces at an average rate for a 21-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
-0.7
Scoring +11.4
Points 13.5 PPG = +8.5
Shot Making above expected FG% = +2.9
Creation +1.2
Creation 2.6 AST/g = +1.2
Turnovers -4.1
Turnovers 1.8/g = -4.1
Defense -0.4
Defense 0.2 STL, 0.1 BLK = -0.4
Hustle & Effort +0.9
Rebounds 1.7 RPG = +0.9
Raw Impact +9.0
Baseline (game-average expected) −9.7
Net Impact
-0.7
57th 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 72th
13.8 PPG
Efficiency 21th
49.4% TS
Playmaking 50th
2.6 APG
Rebounding 10th
1.7 RPG
Defense 4th
+2.9/g
Hustle 8th
+4.1/g
Creation 70th
+3.40/g
Shot Making 76th
+8.28/g
TO Discipline 17th
0.08/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

A stark demotion to the bench and a chronic inability to process the game beyond his own shot attempts defined this volatile stretch for Cam Thomas. Even when the ball actually went through the hoop, his unrelenting tunnel vision often bled his team dry. During his 01/01 vs HOU matchup, he poured in 21 points but still posted a negative -2.4 impact score because he constantly died on defensive screens and refused to pass. When his jumper caught fire, he was an undeniable weapon. He erupted for 41 points and a +8.2 impact on 10/26 vs SAS simply by substituting bad jumpers for aggressive downhill attacks. Unfortunately, those brilliant flashes were heavily outweighed by disastrous outings like 01/09 vs LAC. In that game, he stubbornly forced isolation looks into set double-teams, dragging his impact down to a catastrophic -14.7. He remains a pure scorer who treats every possession like a one-on-one mixtape, a fatal flaw that often turns his offensive gifts into a hollow endeavor.

A maddening slump defined this stretch for Cam Thomas. Relentless tunnel vision and erratic shot selection routinely sabotaged the second-unit offense. He occasionally flashed his pure microwave potential, erupting for 34 points during the 02/11 vs ORL matchup to generate a massive +12.2 impact score. In that absolute scoring clinic, his aggressive downhill attacking completely fractured the opponent's isolation coverage. Far too often, however, his offensive approach dragged his overall value into the red. During the 03/01 vs CHI game, Thomas tallied 15 points, but an over-reliance on isolation hero-ball resulted in a negative -1.1 impact score. Drawing fouls salvaged his raw scoring total that night, yet the hidden costs of his playstyle—namely disrupted offensive rhythm and a total lack of connective passing—severely hurt the team. This selfish brand of basketball bottomed out in the 02/24 vs MIA contest, where heavily contested jumpers and forced shots earned him a catastrophic -10.2 impact score.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Thomas's impact swings wildly relative to his average — some nights dominant, others invisible. Scoring varies by ~10 points per game.

Streaky shooter — only cracks 45% from the field in 35% of games. Efficiency is all over the place night-to-night.

Defensive impact is minimal for a 21-minute player. Not generating enough contests, rim protection, or forced turnovers to move the needle.

Small downward trend. First-half impact: +0.6, second-half: -2.0. Not alarming yet, but trending the wrong direction.

In a rough stretch — 5 straight games with negative impact. Longest cold streak this season: 7 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 47 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

J. Clark 35.5 poss
FG% 57.1%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.31
PTS 11
J. Suggs 34.9 poss
FG% 85.7%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.4
PTS 14
I. Okoro 33.9 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.06
PTS 2
D. Daniels 31.6 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.06
PTS 2
J. McDaniels 29.9 poss
FG% 55.6%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.4
PTS 12
S. Merrill 28.9 poss
FG% 44.4%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.31
PTS 9
N. Penda 28.2 poss
FG% 37.5%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.32
PTS 9
A. Dosunmu 26.2 poss
FG% 14.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 2
J. Okogie 24.0 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
R. Dunn 23.1 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 5

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

J. Clark 34.0 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.15
PTS 5
J. Suggs 31.8 poss
FG% 44.4%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.35
PTS 11
D. Daniels 29.0 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 3
I. Okoro 26.7 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 2
J. McDaniels 23.3 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.26
PTS 6
N. Penda 23.2 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 5
J. Okogie 21.2 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 3
R. Dunn 20.8 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.29
PTS 6
J. Champagnie 19.9 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
D. DiVincenzo 19.9 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 5

SEASON STATS

42
Games
13.5
PPG
1.7
RPG
2.6
APG
0.2
SPG
0.1
BPG
41.0
FG%
31.0
3P%
81.1
FT%
21.0
MPG

GAME LOG

42 games played