PHX

2025-26 Season

MARK WILLIAMS

Phoenix Suns | Center | 7-1
Mark Williams
11.5 PPG
7.9 RPG
1.0 APG
23.6 MPG
+8.5 Impact

Williams produces at an elite rate for a 24-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
+8.5
Scoring +10.6
Points 11.5 PPG = +9.2
Shot Making above expected FG% = +1.4
Creation +0.9
Creation 1.0 AST/g = +0.9
Turnovers -2.6
Turnovers 1.1/g = -2.6
Defense +0.5
Defense 0.9 STL, 1.0 BLK = +0.5
Hustle & Effort +8.6
Rebounds 7.9 RPG = +8.6
Raw Impact +18.0
Baseline (game-average expected) −9.5
Net Impact
+8.5
77th pctl vs Centers

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 93 Centers with 10+ games

Scoring 65th
11.5 PPG
Efficiency 81th
66.2% TS
Playmaking 27th
1.0 APG
Rebounding 74th
7.9 RPG
Defense 71th
+7.8/g
Hustle 70th
+20.3/g
Creation 72th
+3.08/g
Shot Making 39th
+3.82/g
TO Discipline 64th
0.05/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

A violent takeover of the painted area defined the first twenty games of Mark Williams's 2025-26 campaign. After starting the year on the bench, he forced his way into the starting lineup by utterly destroying the interior on 10/29 vs MEM. He paired soft touch on lobs with suffocating rim protection to post a staggering +24.8 impact score in that contest. Even when his scoring vanished entirely, his sheer physical presence dictated the terms of engagement. He took just one shot on 11/10 vs NOP, scoring a measly 2 points, yet still generated a +4.3 impact simply by altering the geometry of the paint without needing a single offensive touch. He was not completely immune to growing pains, however. Poor defensive positioning and an inability to secure contested rebounds dragged him down to a -6.0 impact on 11/16 vs ATL. Ultimately, those blips were rare for a big man who consistently overwhelmed opponents with relentless rim-running and elite vertical spacing.

Absolute interior dominance defined Mark Williams’s midseason stretch, as he morphed into a terrifying two-way anchor who relentlessly punished opponents in the restricted area. Even when his offensive touches vanished, his sheer physical presence warped opposing game plans. Look at the 12/20 vs GSW contest. Williams attempted just three shots for 4 points, yet he still posted a +8.7 impact score because his elite defensive anchoring and a +5.3 hustle rating completely suffocated the offense. He was not entirely immune to offensive lulls, however. A sharp drop in involvement turned him into a mere static rebounder during the 01/20 vs PHI game, where he grabbed 9 boards but still suffered a dismal -6.1 impact score. He quickly erased that memory during the 01/27 vs BKN finale. By converting 13 of his 16 field goals for 27 points, he generated a staggering +23.7 impact score driven by flawless shot selection and sheer paint bullying.

Mark Williams spent this stretch terrorizing the restricted area, relying on brute physical force and hyper-efficient finishing to overwhelm opposing frontcourts. He reached his absolute ceiling vs HOU on Apr 07, posting a jaw-dropping +32.0 impact score by pairing 19 points with suffocating interior defense. Even when his shot abandoned him, his sheer size salvaged his minutes. During a gritty matchup vs POR on Feb 22, he managed a highly positive +7.7 impact score despite scoring just 6 points on 3-of-8 shooting because he dominated the physical battles and provided elite rim deterrence. However, his value cratered the moment his motor idled. Against OKC on Feb 11, a severe lack of rebounding presence—grabbing just a single board in 16 minutes—dragged him to a -2.7 impact score despite missing only one field goal attempt. Williams is a terrifying vertical threat, but his overall effectiveness remains entirely tethered to his willingness to battle in the trenches.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Very consistent. Williams posts positive impact in 80% of games — you almost always get a productive night. Scoring varies by ~6 points, but the overall contribution stays positive.

Reliable shooter — hits 45%+ from the field in 82% of games. You can count on efficient nights more often than not.

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

Performance has dropped off. First-half impact: +11.1, second-half: +6.1. Worth watching whether it's fatigue, injury, or opponents adjusting.

Tends to go on runs. Longest hot streak: 15 games. Longest cold streak: 2 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 58 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

I. Zubac 119.0 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.2
PTS 24
D. Ayton 110.0 poss
FG% 83.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.23
PTS 25
C. Holmgren 94.4 poss
FG% 45.5%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 12
M. Raynaud 79.1 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 11
B. Adebayo 75.1 poss
FG% 62.5%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 13
J. Allen 64.1 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.06
PTS 4
J. Duren 63.8 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.06
PTS 4
D. Clingan 61.1 poss
FG% 57.1%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.28
PTS 17
O. Okongwu 60.8 poss
FG% 83.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 10
Q. Post 59.0 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 5

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

I. Zubac 121.6 poss
FG% 76.2%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.31
PTS 38
D. Ayton 102.4 poss
FG% 81.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.33
PTS 34
M. Raynaud 79.2 poss
FG% 45.5%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 10
B. Adebayo 74.9 poss
FG% 57.9%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.47
PTS 35
J. Allen 73.5 poss
FG% 53.8%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 16
N. Claxton 70.9 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 11
J. Duren 63.1 poss
FG% 70.6%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.41
PTS 26
W. Kessler 62.9 poss
FG% 71.4%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.19
PTS 12
D. Clingan 62.8 poss
FG% 53.8%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.29
PTS 18
R. Gobert 57.3 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.23
PTS 13

SEASON STATS

61
Games
11.5
PPG
7.9
RPG
1.0
APG
0.9
SPG
1.0
BPG
64.4
FG%
100.0
3P%
77.1
FT%
23.6
MPG

GAME LOG

61 games played