MIN

2025-26 Season

JULIUS RANDLE

Minnesota Timberwolves | Forward-Center | 6-9
Julius Randle
21.0 PPG
6.7 RPG
5.0 APG
33.0 MPG
+9.9 Impact

Randle produces at an elite rate for a 33-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
+9.9
Scoring +18.5
Points 21.0 PPG = +14.6
Shot Making above expected FG% = +3.9
Creation +1.9
Creation 5.0 AST/g = +1.9
Turnovers -6.4
Turnovers 2.7/g = -6.4
Defense +0.4
Defense 1.1 STL, 0.2 BLK = +0.4
Hustle & Effort +5.9
Rebounds 6.7 RPG = +5.9
Raw Impact +20.3
Baseline (game-average expected) −10.4
Net Impact
+9.9
88th 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 93th
21.0 PPG
Efficiency 57th
57.6% TS
Playmaking 93th
5.0 APG
Rebounding 87th
6.7 RPG
Defense 70th
+8.1/g
Hustle 58th
+13.0/g
Creation 95th
+5.08/g
Shot Making 72th
+7.30/g
TO Discipline 7th
0.08/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

A dominant stretch of bully-ball that frequently devolved into frustrating isolation habits defined Julius Randle's first twenty games. When he relentlessly hunted high-value looks at the rim, he put on an absolute offensive clinic. He peaked on 11/01 vs CHA with 30 points and a staggering +16.0 impact score. Even with a modest 19 points on 11/03 vs BKN, he salvaged a solid +4.0 impact rating because his frontcourt playmaking generated 10 assists to overcome a cold shooting night. However, his stubborn shot selection remained a glaring liability that repeatedly hurt the team. Look at the 11/21 vs PHX matchup. Despite scoring 20 points, his heavy reliance on contested perimeter jumpers completely tanked the offense and dragged him to a dismal -6.0 impact rating.

A maddening tug-of-war between brilliant playmaking and stagnant isolation habits defined this stretch of the season for Julius Randle. When he embraced his role as an offensive hub rather than a pure scorer, he was devastating. This dynamic anchored his performance on 12/29 vs CHI, where he recorded a modest 17 points but dished out 14 assists. His elite passing vision created high-value opportunities for teammates, generating a staggering +11.5 impact score despite the lower scoring output. Conversely, his tendency to hijack possessions with forced jumpers often sabotaged his value. Even while scoring a respectable 20 points on 01/10 vs CLE, Randle frustratingly settled for contested looks from beyond the arc, which capped his efficiency and dragged his impact down to a dismal -3.9. He finally abandoned those bad habits and returned to relentless bully-ball on 01/13 vs MIL, physically warping the defense for 29 points and a massive +12.6 impact score.

Maddening inconsistency defined Julius Randle’s midseason stretch, as he swung violently between unstoppable interior enforcer and offensive black hole. When he committed to bullying the paint, he was entirely unguardable. This peaked on 02/11 vs POR, where his masterclass in physical shot creation tore apart the frontcourt for 41 points and a monstrous +22.8 impact score. He even found ways to salvage terrible shooting nights, like when he scored just 11 points on 01/24 vs GSW but still scratched out a +2.3 impact by transforming into an absolute wrecking ball on the defensive glass. Yet, his stubborn reliance on contested jumpers constantly sabotaged his momentum. Despite putting up a respectable 17 points on 02/04 vs TOR, forced isolation shots sparked long rebounds for the opponent, dragging his impact down to a disastrous -11.1. If he simply stops settling for empty perimeter attempts and accepts his role as a bruising interior hub, his nightly value will finally stabilize.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Very consistent. Randle posts positive impact in 84% of games — you almost always get a productive night. Scoring varies by ~7 points, but the overall contribution stays positive.

Middle-of-the-road efficiency — shoots 45%+ from the field in 62% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

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

Performance has dropped off. First-half impact: +12.1, second-half: +7.8. Worth watching whether it's fatigue, injury, or opponents adjusting.

Hot right now — 6 straight games with positive impact. Longest positive run this season: 25 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 77 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

P. Achiuwa 77.4 poss
FG% 44.4%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 19
S. Bey 77.3 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 13
K. Middleton 76.2 poss
FG% 21.4%
3P% 20.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 9
J. Smith Jr. 73.4 poss
FG% 38.5%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.19
PTS 14
P. Washington 73.4 poss
FG% 35.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.15
PTS 11
N. Jokić 72.8 poss
FG% 57.1%
3P% 28.6%
PPP 0.49
PTS 36
R. Hachimura 68.9 poss
FG% 56.2%
3P% 75.0%
PPP 0.36
PTS 25
J. Jackson Jr. 63.5 poss
FG% 58.3%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.28
PTS 18
D. Brooks 62.5 poss
FG% 62.5%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 14
J. Holiday 60.3 poss
FG% 54.5%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 15

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

N. Jokić 117.9 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.36
PTS 43
R. Hachimura 82.7 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 9
C. Holmgren 80.7 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 8
D. DeRozan 79.3 poss
FG% 45.5%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.15
PTS 12
S. Barnes 72.4 poss
FG% 62.5%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.18
PTS 13
S. Bey 72.2 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.21
PTS 15
J. Grant 72.0 poss
FG% 42.9%
3P% 28.6%
PPP 0.19
PTS 14
P. Washington 69.3 poss
FG% 37.5%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 10
K. Towns 66.0 poss
FG% 46.7%
3P% 57.1%
PPP 0.33
PTS 22
H. Barnes 64.3 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 8

SEASON STATS

80
Games
21.0
PPG
6.7
RPG
5.0
APG
1.1
SPG
0.2
BPG
48.0
FG%
31.2
3P%
80.3
FT%
33.0
MPG

GAME LOG

80 games played