WAS

2025-26 Season

WILL RILEY

Washington Wizards | Forward | 6-9
Will Riley
10.3 PPG
2.9 RPG
2.0 APG
22.1 MPG
-3.0 Impact

Riley produces at an below average rate for a 22-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
-3.0
Scoring +8.7
Points 10.3 PPG = +6.6
Shot Making above expected FG% = +2.1
Creation +0.8
Creation 2.0 AST/g = +0.8
Turnovers -2.8
Turnovers 1.3/g = -2.8
Defense +0.4
Defense 0.7 STL, 0.1 BLK = +0.4
Hustle & Effort +2.3
Rebounds 2.9 RPG = +2.3
Raw Impact +9.4
Baseline (game-average expected) −12.4
Net Impact
-3.0
29th 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 62th
11.3 PPG
Efficiency 24th
52.4% TS
Playmaking 66th
2.2 APG
Rebounding 26th
3.1 RPG
Defense 88th
+10.3/g
Hustle 53th
+12.7/g
Creation 62th
+2.73/g
Shot Making 58th
+6.38/g
TO Discipline 27th
0.06/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Will Riley's first twenty games were defined by a frustrating inability to translate deep-bench cameos into reliable rotation minutes. He constantly fought a losing battle between passive irrelevance and forced heroics. Look at his highest-scoring night on 12/06 vs ATL. Riley poured in 15 points, yet posted a miserable -5.7 impact score because severe tunnel vision and forced perimeter attempts completely stalled the team's ball movement. Conversely, he occasionally found ways to be highly effective without dominating the ball. On 10/24 vs DAL, Riley logged a stellar +3.2 impact score while scoring just three points in four minutes, driven entirely by a brief, highly disruptive defensive stint that blew up opposing sets. But those flashes of discipline were rare, and his baseline was much closer to his disastrous showing on 11/03 vs NYK. Taking an uncharacteristically passive approach, he vanished from the offensive game plan to post a -6.0 impact score while going scoreless in 10 minutes.

This stretch was defined by a brutal offensive identity crisis that nearly played Will Riley out of the rotation before a late-winter revival saved him. His decision-making hit rock bottom on 01/16 vs SAC, where abysmal perimeter shot selection derailed the offense and earned him a disastrous -13.2 impact score. The misery continued on 01/19 vs LAC, as forced shots and a total lack of rhythm resulted in a cratering -12.2 impact alongside just a single point. Even when his jumper actually connected, like his 12-point effort on 01/14 vs LAC, a frustrating drop in overall usage and assertiveness dragged his impact down to -2.9. Realizing his scoring was unreliable, Riley smartly pivoted to the dirty work to salvage his minutes. During the 01/30 vs LAL matchup, he shot an ugly 5-for-15 but still posted a +2.5 impact by morphing into a defensive menace and generating massive hustle plays. That gritty breakthrough finally unlocked his offensive confidence, culminating on 02/05 vs DET with aggressive, high-percentage rim attacks against drop coverage that yielded 20 points and a stellar +5.3 impact.

Will Riley’s midseason stretch was defined by empty-calorie scoring and a maddening inability to translate heavy minutes into winning basketball. Whenever he hunted his own offense, the hidden costs usually outweighed the raw production. Take his performance on 03/10 vs MIA, where a seemingly impressive 22 points masked a barrage of live-ball turnovers and forced reads that dragged his impact score down to a -3.5. His shot selection frequently short-circuited offensive possessions entirely. This was painfully obvious on 02/11 vs CLE, as he forced up an abysmal 1-for-12 shooting line that resulted in a catastrophic -17.4 impact. Yet, when Riley actually played within the flow of the offense, his value spiked. He logged a +4.5 impact on 02/24 vs ATL by abandoning the contested jumpers for flawless shot selection, pouring in 18 points on a hyper-efficient 7-of-8 from the floor. If he wants to stick in the starting lineup permanently, he must realize that clinical finishing and smart reads matter far more than forcing up bad shots.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Riley's impact swings wildly relative to his average — some nights dominant, others invisible. Scoring varies by ~8 points per game.

Streaky shooter — only cracks 45% from the field in 36% of games. Efficiency is all over the place night-to-night.

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

Getting better as the season goes on. First-half impact: -7.0, second-half: +1.0. That's a significant jump — could be a role change, confidence, or development clicking.

Tends to go on runs. Longest hot streak: 5 games. Longest cold streak: 13 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 72 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. Banchero 42.4 poss
FG% 28.6%
3P% 20.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 5
T. Harris 42.3 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 5
Z. Risacher 39.5 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.15
PTS 6
J. McCain 32.5 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.06
PTS 2
D. Bane 29.6 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 2
J. Kuminga 28.5 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.21
PTS 6
L. Ball 28.3 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.18
PTS 5
W. Richard 27.8 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.29
PTS 8
K. Jakučionis 27.8 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 3
B. Podziemski 27.5 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.29
PTS 8

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

T. da Silva 53.9 poss
FG% 16.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 4
J. Kuminga 35.9 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.25
PTS 9
G. Trent Jr. 34.8 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.09
PTS 3
A. Thompson 33.8 poss
FG% 80.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.24
PTS 8
W. Richard 33.5 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.09
PTS 3
K. Jakučionis 33.4 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
K. Huerter 33.1 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.06
PTS 2
T. Harris 32.4 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.09
PTS 3
J. McCain 29.1 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.17
PTS 5
J. Tatum 28.6 poss
FG% 57.1%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.31
PTS 9

SEASON STATS

74
Games
10.3
PPG
2.9
RPG
2.0
APG
0.7
SPG
0.1
BPG
43.9
FG%
31.6
3P%
80.0
FT%
22.1
MPG

GAME LOG

74 games played