DAL

2025-26 Season

RYAN NEMBHARD

Dallas Mavericks | Guard | 5-11
Ryan Nembhard
6.6 PPG
2.2 RPG
5.3 APG
19.5 MPG
-7.1 Impact

Nembhard produces at an poor rate for a 20-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 +5.7
Points 6.6 PPG = +3.9
Shot Making above expected FG% = +1.8
Creation +1.0
Creation 5.3 AST/g = +1.0
Turnovers -3.3
Turnovers 1.4/g = -3.3
Defense -0.2
Defense 0.4 STL, 0.0 BLK = -0.2
Hustle & Effort +1.1
Rebounds 2.2 RPG = +1.1
Raw Impact +4.3
Baseline (game-average expected) −11.4
Net Impact
-7.1
5th 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 26th
6.8 PPG
Efficiency 5th
42.7% TS
Playmaking 87th
5.5 APG
Rebounding 30th
2.3 RPG
Defense 42th
+6.8/g
Hustle 41th
+7.9/g
Creation 83th
+4.18/g
Shot Making 71th
+7.90/g
TO Discipline 28th
0.07/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Ryan Nembhard’s promotion to the starting lineup defined his early season, yielding fleeting moments of brilliance buried beneath a mountain of defensive liabilities. The absolute peak arrived during 12/01 vs DEN, where he ruthlessly punished drop coverage for 28 points and 10 assists, generating a massive +14.1 impact score. However, that offensive explosion was a glaring outlier. Far too often, hidden costs on the other end of the floor dragged his overall value into the red. Take his start on 11/29 vs LAC, where severe defensive bleeding at the point of attack entirely erased an unexpected scoring surge, resulting in a brutal -9.2 impact score. Things unraveled completely on 12/22 vs NOP. Forcing contested looks early in the shot clock, he shot a disastrous 2-of-13 from the floor to post a season-worst -18.1 impact. He flashes the requisite vision to run an NBA offense, but until he stops over-dribbling and tightens his perimeter defense, his minutes will continue to hurt his team.

This brutal midseason stretch was defined by glaring point-of-attack defensive fragility and an inability to reliably steer the second unit. Even when his raw production looked appealing, hidden costs dragged his overall value into the gutter. Take the 01/10 vs CHI matchup. Nembhard tallied 16 points and 6 assists, yet posted a poor -5.7 impact score because his unexpected perimeter scoring explosion artificially inflated his box score while masking his usual defensive lapses. The bleeding was equally obvious during the 01/15 vs UTA contest. Despite dishing out 10 assists, he registered a -6.0 impact mark because his excellent court vision covered up a disastrous defensive performance where he repeatedly died on screens. He finally managed to flip the script during the 03/05 vs ORL game. By refusing to force the issue and relying on steady decision-making, he generated a positive +1.0 impact score on just 6 points.

A brutal slump defined this stretch for Ryan Nembhard, as his inability to score efficiently and crippling hidden costs completely derailed his playmaking. Look no further than Apr 12 vs CHI, where he racked up 15 points and an incredible 23 assists, yet still posted a -7.3 impact score. A disastrous turnover penalty completely erased the value of that masterful floor-general performance. Earlier on Mar 16 vs NOP, his offensive rhythm collapsed into a -14.0 impact abyss because he forced drives and chucked heavily contested floaters to finish with just 2 points. The bottom fell out entirely on Apr 10 vs SAS. Despite logging 13 points and 7 assists in that start, his inefficient shot selection and a porous point-of-attack defense resulted in a catastrophic -17.1 impact. When a guard cannot threaten the rim or protect the perimeter without turning the ball over, passing volume simply becomes empty calories.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Struggling. Nembhard has posted negative impact in 85% of games this season. The production rarely outweighs the cost.

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

Average defender. Nembhard doesn't hurt you defensively, but he's not making opponents uncomfortable either.

Tends to go on runs. Longest hot streak: 2 games. Longest cold streak: 14 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 62 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

K. Ellis 51.3 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.06
PTS 3
W. Clayton Jr. 49.8 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.16
PTS 8
I. Collier 38.5 poss
FG% 28.6%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.16
PTS 6
T. Maxey 32.1 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
B. Brown 31.8 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 5
S. Jones 31.3 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 4
D. Mitchell 31.1 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 3
P. Watson 30.9 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 5
C. Wallace 30.2 poss
FG% 28.6%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.17
PTS 5
J. Murray 29.9 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.33
PTS 10

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

W. Clayton Jr. 57.7 poss
FG% 37.5%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.14
PTS 8
K. Ellis 51.1 poss
FG% 71.4%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 13
S. Jones 44.7 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 7
I. Collier 44.5 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.11
PTS 5
T. Hardaway Jr. 42.9 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.05
PTS 2
D. Schröder 36.1 poss
FG% 62.5%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.33
PTS 12
R. Sheppard 31.7 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 4
K. George 30.6 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 75.0%
PPP 0.49
PTS 15
B. Sensabaugh 29.6 poss
FG% 71.4%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.37
PTS 11
D. Mitchell 29.1 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 4

SEASON STATS

60
Games
6.6
PPG
2.2
RPG
5.3
APG
0.4
SPG
0.0
BPG
41.5
FG%
35.6
3P%
80.6
FT%
19.5
MPG

GAME LOG

60 games played