NYK

2025-26 Season

MIKAL BRIDGES

New York Knicks | Guard-Forward | 6-6
Mikal Bridges
14.4 PPG
3.8 RPG
3.7 APG
32.8 MPG
+7.7 Impact

Bridges 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
+7.7
Scoring +13.1
Points 14.4 PPG = +9.7
Shot Making above expected FG% = +3.4
Creation +0.7
Creation 3.7 AST/g = +0.7
Turnovers -2.2
Turnovers 1.0/g = -2.2
Defense +1.7
Defense 1.3 STL, 0.7 BLK = +1.7
Hustle & Effort +3.1
Rebounds 3.8 RPG = +3.1
Raw Impact +16.4
Baseline (game-average expected) −8.7
Net Impact
+7.7
86th 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 75th
14.5 PPG
Efficiency 84th
59.3% TS
Playmaking 70th
3.7 APG
Rebounding 72th
3.8 RPG
Defense 99th
+16.0/g
Hustle 87th
+14.0/g
Creation 45th
+2.60/g
Shot Making 85th
+9.02/g
TO Discipline 85th
0.03/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Mikal Bridges’s early season was defined by a wild pendulum swing between hollow offensive production and game-wrecking defensive utility. You can see this disconnect perfectly on 10/31 vs CHI, where he dropped 23 points but registered a rough -3.5 impact score. While the raw scoring looked pretty, his actual on-court value plummeted due to costly defensive lapses that completely negated his buckets. Flip the script to 11/14 vs MIA, and you find the exact opposite phenomenon. He bricked his way to 15 points on an abysmal 6-for-21 shooting night, yet still drove a highly positive +5.3 impact. He managed this by delivering a suffocating defensive masterclass that completely erased his primary assignment. His playmaking came with similar hidden costs, as seen on 11/02 vs CHI. Despite handing out 9 assists, he posted a dismal -8.0 impact because a disastrous string of live-ball turnovers constantly ignited the opponent's transition offense.

A jarring rollercoaster of blistering offensive peaks and baffling mid-winter inconsistency defined this twenty-game stretch for Mikal Bridges. He erupted early on 12/02 vs BOS, pouring in 35 points on 12-for-17 shooting to generate a monstrous +22.9 impact score driven by pristine shot selection. Yet, his scoring outbursts didn't always translate to winning basketball. During the 12/21 vs MIA matchup, Bridges tallied 24 points on scorching 6-for-7 perimeter shooting, but costly defensive miscommunications and poor positioning dragged his impact down to a disappointing -0.2. As the calendar flipped, his jumper frequently abandoned him, leading to a string of negative-impact performances where forced isolation attempts bogged down the offense. He eventually salvaged his value through sheer grit rather than grace. Despite a ghastly 6-for-20 shooting night on 01/14 vs SAC, Bridges still posted a +5.4 impact score because his phenomenal two-way activity and relentless hustle completely eclipsed his offensive woes.

Wild inconsistency defined this mid-season stretch for Mikal Bridges. On 01/24 vs PHI, a disastrous perimeter shooting performance completely cratered his value. He bricked his way to a 3-for-16 night from the floor, yielding a brutal -13.1 impact score. Raw point totals often painted a misleading picture of his actual on-court contributions, however. During 02/06 vs DET, Bridges tallied a respectable 19 points, but his overall rating sank to a -6.9 impact because his high-volume shot creation could not hide costly defensive lapses. Conversely, he routinely salvaged quieter offensive nights through sheer defensive grit. Even while managing just 10 points on 02/27 vs MIL, he generated a stellar +8.8 impact by blowing up dribble hand-offs and executing an absolute defensive masterclass at the point of attack.

A baffling wave of offensive passivity and frigid perimeter shooting completely derailed Mikal Bridges during this late-season stretch. Aside from a brilliant two-way masterclass on Mar 01 vs SAS (+19.3 impact), he spent these twenty games fading into the background. Even when he found his scoring touch, like his 24-point outing on Mar 18 vs MEM, his net impact barely crawled above neutral (+1.0) because forced isolation attempts and live-ball turnovers bled away value. Conversely, his quiet seven-point performance on Mar 09 vs LAC actually yielded a positive +3.9 impact score. That night was salvaged entirely by a suffocating +13.1 defensive rating that wrecked the opponent's rhythm despite his offensive hesitation. The absolute nadir arrived on Mar 08 vs LAL, where a scoreless 0-for-6 shooting night cratered his impact to a dismal -11.2. In that disaster, his total inability to generate offense dragged down the entire unit, as his missed shots functioned as deflating turnovers that fueled transition opportunities the other way.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Very consistent. Bridges posts positive impact in 86% of games — you almost always get a productive night. Scoring varies by ~6 points, but the overall contribution stays positive.

Middle-of-the-road efficiency — shoots 45%+ from the field in 61% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

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

Performance has dropped off. First-half impact: +10.9, second-half: +4.5. Worth watching whether it's fatigue, injury, or opponents adjusting.

Tends to go on runs. Longest hot streak: 19 games. Longest cold streak: 2 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 76 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 88.5 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 14.3%
PPP 0.24
PTS 21
D. Bane 84.6 poss
FG% 56.2%
3P% 20.0%
PPP 0.26
PTS 22
N. Powell 79.4 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.13
PTS 10
M. Buzelis 73.9 poss
FG% 53.3%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.32
PTS 24
B. Ingram 73.1 poss
FG% 45.5%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.15
PTS 11
A. Wiggins 67.3 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 45.5%
PPP 0.31
PTS 21
I. Quickley 58.2 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 4
S. Sharpe 56.7 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.04
PTS 2
B. Carrington 49.6 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 6
A. Nesmith 48.7 poss
FG% 62.5%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.23
PTS 11

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

N. Powell 114.7 poss
FG% 46.2%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.27
PTS 31
D. Bane 114.0 poss
FG% 35.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 14
T. Maxey 93.1 poss
FG% 46.7%
3P% 42.9%
PPP 0.2
PTS 19
B. Ingram 81.5 poss
FG% 57.1%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.27
PTS 22
D. Mitchell 72.1 poss
FG% 35.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.31
PTS 22
A. Wiggins 66.7 poss
FG% 18.2%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.06
PTS 4
D. Booker 65.1 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 14
A. Edwards 61.2 poss
FG% 43.8%
3P% 42.9%
PPP 0.28
PTS 17
B. Carrington 60.5 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 8
M. Porter Jr. 60.2 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 6

SEASON STATS

83
Games
14.4
PPG
3.8
RPG
3.7
APG
1.3
SPG
0.7
BPG
49.1
FG%
37.0
3P%
82.7
FT%
32.8
MPG

GAME LOG

83 games played