HOU

2025-26 Season

JAE'SEAN TATE

Houston Rockets | Forward | 6-4
Jae'Sean Tate
2.8 PPG
1.6 RPG
0.5 APG
8.8 MPG
-7.1 Impact

Tate produces at an poor rate for a 9-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
-7.1
Scoring +2.7
Points 2.8 PPG = +2.0
Shot Making above expected FG% = +0.7
Creation +0.1
Creation 0.5 AST/g = +0.1
Turnovers -1.0
Turnovers 0.3/g = -1.0
Defense -0.3
Defense 0.2 STL, 0.1 BLK = -0.3
Hustle & Effort +1.6
Rebounds 1.6 RPG = +1.6
Raw Impact +3.1
Baseline (game-average expected) −10.2
Net Impact
-7.1
4th pctl vs Forwards

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 234 Forwards with 10+ games

Scoring 6th
3.8 PPG
Efficiency 29th
53.9% TS
Playmaking 7th
0.7 APG
Rebounding 7th
2.2 RPG
Defense 12th
+4.4/g
Hustle 15th
+7.6/g
Creation 2th
+0.93/g
Shot Making 13th
+2.81/g
TO Discipline 69th
0.04/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Jae'Sean Tate spent the first twenty games of the season clinging to the fringes of the rotation, operating as a chaotic, high-variance spark plug who either tilted the floor with raw hustle or actively damaged the defensive scheme. His value rarely correlated with his scoring output. During his 12/01 vs UTA appearance, Tate logged just 6 points in 13 minutes but generated a massive +13.6 impact score by relentlessly crashing the glass for 6 rebounds and injecting pure energy into a stagnant lineup. Conversely, his highest-scoring night of this stretch actually hurt the team. On 12/05 vs PHX, he tallied 8 points and hit both of his three-point attempts in 19 minutes, yet suffered a brutal -5.8 impact rating because he repeatedly surrendered costly defensive breakdowns in isolation. When his trademark motor stalled, he became an active liability. A disastrous stint on 11/01 vs BOS resulted in a -6.6 impact score in just 8 minutes, as complete offensive invisibility allowed the defense to completely ignore him. Tate remains a blunt instrument off the bench, capable of swinging momentum through sheer physicality but lacking the discipline to survive extended minutes.

Jae'Sean Tate spent this twenty-game stretch fighting a losing battle against irrelevance at the very end of the bench. His erratic playing time mostly yielded empty cardio minutes. Look no further than his 03/27 vs MEM appearance, where a passive offensive approach and a complete failure to affect the game resulted in a brutal -6.1 impact score. He actively hurt the offense again on 03/31 vs NYK, posting a -4.8 impact by repeatedly forcing awkward drives into a crowded paint to score just 2 points. Yet, Tate occasionally found ways to be highly effective without needing a heavy scoring load. During an 11-minute stint on 01/16 vs MIN, he generated a stellar +4.0 impact on a mere 4 points by utilizing gritty interior finishes and timely cuts to spark the second unit. Unfortunately, those efficient flashes were ultimately buried under a mountain of blown defensive assignments and clunky shot selection.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Struggling. Tate has posted negative impact in 94% of games this season. The production rarely outweighs the cost.

Middle-of-the-road efficiency — shoots 45%+ from the field in 67% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

Flat trajectory all season — first-half impact -6.7, second-half -7.4. No major shifts, which fits with the overall steadiness.

Tends to go on runs. Longest hot streak: 1 games. Longest cold streak: 29 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 60 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

A. Bailey 14.4 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.28
PTS 4
K. Filipowski 13.7 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.44
PTS 6
N. Marshall 12.6 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
J. Collins 11.7 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 2
C. Kispert 11.4 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
P. Siakam 10.6 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.19
PTS 2
C. Cunningham 9.9 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 1
L. Ball 9.3 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
C. Spencer 9.1 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
J. Butler III 9.1 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.33
PTS 3

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

J. Collins 14.3 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
K. Filipowski 14.0 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.5
PTS 7
G. Williams 13.4 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 3
A. Bailey 10.6 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.66
PTS 7
P. Washington 10.1 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.2
PTS 2
A. Davis 9.7 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.41
PTS 4
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
G. Jackson 9.4 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.21
PTS 2
B. Mathurin 9.0 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
C. Flagg 8.4 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.24
PTS 2

SEASON STATS

47
Games
2.8
PPG
1.6
RPG
0.5
APG
0.2
SPG
0.1
BPG
50.0
FG%
30.3
3P%
69.2
FT%
8.8
MPG

GAME LOG

47 games played