TOR

2025-26 Season

JAMAL SHEAD

Toronto Raptors | Guard | 6-1
Jamal Shead
6.8 PPG
1.7 RPG
5.4 APG
22.7 MPG
-4.9 Impact

Shead produces at an below average rate for a 23-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
-4.9
Scoring +5.3
Points 6.8 PPG = +3.7
Shot Making above expected FG% = +1.6
Creation +1.2
Creation 5.4 AST/g = +1.2
Turnovers -3.2
Turnovers 1.4/g = -3.2
Defense +0.7
Defense 0.9 STL, 0.2 BLK = +0.7
Hustle & Effort +1.1
Rebounds 1.7 RPG = +1.1
Raw Impact +5.1
Baseline (game-average expected) −10.0
Net Impact
-4.9
25th 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 25th
6.8 PPG
Efficiency 14th
47.5% TS
Playmaking 85th
5.4 APG
Rebounding 10th
1.7 RPG
Defense 86th
+10.9/g
Hustle 34th
+7.6/g
Creation 94th
+5.27/g
Shot Making 34th
+5.33/g
TO Discipline 43th
0.06/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Jamal Shead's first twenty games of the 2025-26 season were defined by a maddening tug-of-war between brilliant backup orchestration and crippling offensive passivity. When he actively pressured the rim and distributed the ball, his value spiked. Look at his performance on 11/21 vs WAS, where he tallied 10 assists and 7 points on flawless 2-for-2 shooting to earn a stellar +5.9 impact score without forcing bad looks. Conversely, his reluctance to attack or poor shot selection often derailed the second unit entirely. During a 10/29 vs HOU matchup, he managed a respectable 6 points and 4 assists, but severe over-dribbling against set pressure bogged down the offense and resulted in a brutal -8.3 impact score. Similarly, errant perimeter shooting yielded a disastrous -9.4 impact score on 11/29 vs CHA, as his 1-for-5 chucking from deep completely stalled out possessions. He clearly possesses the defensive tenacity and passing vision to run an NBA bench, but he desperately needs to find a reliable scoring pulse to keep opponents honest.

Jamal Shead’s second quarter of the season was defined by a bizarre duality, oscillating between suffocating point-of-attack defense and outright offensive invisibility. During an early matchup on 12/02 vs POR, he tallied a measly 3 points on 1-for-8 shooting but still generated a massive +4.1 impact score. He earned that mark purely through defensive terror. By completely suffocating opposing ball-handlers at the point of attack, he posted a brilliant +15.8 defensive rating to salvage his awful shooting. Conversely, when his scoring finally spiked later in the stretch, hidden costs dragged his overall value firmly into the red. On 01/09 vs BOS, he posted 13 points and 8 assists, yet finished with a -1.5 impact score because he repeatedly died on screens and got lost tracking back-door cuts. Opponents eventually caught onto his erratic decision-making and shooting woes, actively daring him to fire from the perimeter. This blatant disrespect peaked on 12/31 vs DEN, where defenders completely ignored him to clog the passing lanes, saddling him with a brutal -13.5 impact score.

A steep offensive regression and a swift demotion to the bench defined this grueling stretch for Jamal Shead. Even when he managed to put the ball in the hoop, hidden costs frequently dragged down his overall value. He dropped 13 points vs OKC on 02/24, but a lack of resistance on the other end resulted in a -4.0 impact score. His floor-spacing completely evaporated in several outings, bottoming out vs DET on 02/11 where a 0-for-5 shooting night turned him into an offensive black hole with a staggering -15.2 impact. Yet, Shead occasionally salvaged his minutes by abandoning his scoring entirely to become a defensive terror. During a gritty matchup vs CHI on 02/05, he scored just three points but still earned a +1.1 impact score because his elite hustle and point-of-attack pressure completely disrupted the opposing backcourt. Unfortunately, those chaotic defensive flashes were too often overshadowed by stagnant decision-making and errant finishing at the rim.

Offensive passivity and a crippling lack of scoring gravity turned Jamal Shead into a massive liability during this late-season stretch. Opposing defenses simply ignored him, a flaw glaringly obvious on Mar 23 vs UTA. Despite racking up 14 assists in a starting role, his absolute refusal to look at the rim allowed defenders to sag off and clog passing lanes, dragging his impact score down to a dismal -13.1. Even when he found the bottom of the net, hidden costs ruined his minutes. On Apr 01 vs SAC, he tallied a stretch-high 16 points and seven assists, yet still posted a -2.9 impact because erratic pacing and spacing issues derailed the offense. He did briefly flip the script on Mar 29 vs ORL. Suffocating point-of-attack defense and brilliant playmaking resulted in a massive +21.6 impact score alongside 12 points and 10 assists. Unfortunately, that brilliant two-way flash was a rare anomaly in a month defined by bricked perimeter looks and stalled possessions.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Struggling. Shead has posted negative impact in 78% of games this season. The production rarely outweighs the cost.

Streaky shooter — only cracks 45% from the field in 24% of games. Efficiency is all over the place night-to-night.

Good defender on his best nights, but it comes and goes. Some games Shead locks in defensively, others he gets picked apart.

Tends to go on runs. Longest hot streak: 3 games. Longest cold streak: 14 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 75 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

T. Maxey 90.6 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 12
J. Brunson 59.7 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.12
PTS 7
C. Sexton 57.8 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.09
PTS 5
D. Jenkins 43.0 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 5
R. Rollins 38.3 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 40.0%
PPP 0.21
PTS 8
D. Garland 36.5 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 5
T. McConnell 35.4 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 6
Q. Grimes 35.0 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.09
PTS 3
B. Sheppard 34.3 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
A. Nembhard 33.5 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.06
PTS 2

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

T. Maxey 111.0 poss
FG% 61.1%
3P% 62.5%
PPP 0.24
PTS 27
J. Brunson 65.4 poss
FG% 46.7%
3P% 28.6%
PPP 0.31
PTS 20
D. Mitchell 56.9 poss
FG% 53.8%
3P% 44.4%
PPP 0.37
PTS 21
S. Curry 50.4 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.28
PTS 14
A. Nembhard 48.3 poss
FG% 57.1%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.27
PTS 13
K. Knueppel 47.5 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 8
P. Pritchard 43.4 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 3
C. Sexton 40.3 poss
FG% 57.1%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.2
PTS 8
B. Carrington 38.5 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 3
T. McConnell 36.8 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 6

SEASON STATS

83
Games
6.8
PPG
1.7
RPG
5.4
APG
0.9
SPG
0.2
BPG
37.1
FG%
33.2
3P%
77.8
FT%
22.7
MPG

GAME LOG

83 games played