MIL

2025-26 Season

BOBBY PORTIS

Milwaukee Bucks | Forward | 6-9
Bobby Portis
13.7 PPG
6.4 RPG
1.6 APG
24.2 MPG
+3.0 Impact

Portis produces at an above average rate for a 24-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
+3.0
Scoring +8.7
Points 13.7 PPG × +1.00 = +13.7
Missed 2PT 3.3/g × -0.78 = -2.6
Missed 3PT 2.4/g × -0.87 = -2.1
Missed FT 0.3/g × -1.00 = -0.3
Creation +2.8
Assists 1.6/g × +0.50 = +0.8
Off. Rebounds 1.6/g × +1.26 = +2.0
Turnovers -1.9
Turnovers 1.0/g × -1.95 = -1.9
Defense +1.1
Steals 0.6/g × +2.30 = +1.4
Blocks 0.2/g × +0.90 = +0.2
Def. Rebounds 4.8/g × +0.30 = +1.4
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +2.6
Contested Shots 5.3/g × +0.20 = +1.1
Deflections 1.6/g × +0.65 = +1.0
Loose Balls 0.4/g × +0.60 = +0.2
Screen Assists 1.0/g × +0.30 = +0.3
Raw Impact +13.3
Baseline (game-average expected) −10.3
Net Impact
+3.0
82th pctl vs Forwards

About this model: Net Impact can't measure floor spacing, help defense rotations, or playmaking gravity — so wings and guards are slightly undervalued vs bigs. How Net Impact works

SKILL DNA

Percentile rank vs 227 Forwards with 10+ games

Scoring 72th
13.7 PPG
Efficiency 67th
59.0% TS
Playmaking 50th
1.6 APG
Rebounding 85th
6.4 RPG
Rim Protection 62th
0.16/min
Hustle 48th
0.10/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 65th
0.04/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Bobby Portis's early 2025-26 campaign was defined by maddening inconsistency, oscillating wildly between momentum-killing shot selection and ruthless mismatch hunting. When he fell in love with his own offense, the hidden costs severely dragged down his overall value. This was painfully obvious on 11/14 vs CHA. Despite a decent 12-point scoring output, his severe post tunnel vision disrupted the broader offensive rhythm and resulted in a poor -3.9 impact score. He hit absolute rock bottom on 11/28 vs NYK, posting a disastrous -12.2 impact mark simply by forcing contested jumpers early in the shot clock. Yet, when Portis embraced physical interior play and decisive footwork, he transformed into a completely different weapon. Moving into the starting lineup on 11/20 vs PHI, he punished mismatches with remarkable efficiency to post a stellar +9.7 impact score alongside 19 points. Ultimately, his effectiveness hinged entirely on discipline; when he stopped forcing bad shots, his relentless energy made him a genuine difference-maker.

This twenty-game stretch was defined by a stark duality: when Portis embraced his identity as a physical bench enforcer, he was lethal, but the moment he tried to do too much, his value plummeted. Look no further than 12/21 vs MIN, where a seemingly robust double-double of 16 points and 11 rebounds masked a dismal -4.0 impact score. Thrust into the starting lineup, he hijacked the offense with a heavy diet of forced, contested jumpers that actively dragged down the team's overall effectiveness. Conversely, he found ways to be genuinely useful even when his shot abandoned him completely. During 12/06 vs DET, Portis suffered a horrific shooting night to finish with just seven points, yet he still managed to scrape out a +0.6 impact. He salvaged that performance entirely through sheer grit, generating a +4.0 hustle score and +3.4 defensive score by crashing the glass and anchoring the interior. When he actually combined that physicality with efficient scoring, as he did on 12/27 vs CHI, the results were devastating. Bullying opponents on the boards to establish total physical dominance, he posted a massive +15.5 impact score to absolutely crush the opposing second unit.

A volatile transition from a brief starting nod back to his natural role as a bench enforcer defined this stretch for Bobby Portis. Even when filling the box score as a starter, hidden defensive costs often dragged down his overall value. Look at the 01/27 vs PHI matchup as a prime example of empty calories. He racked up a hefty 17 points, 12 rebounds, and 8 assists, yet finished with a negative -0.8 impact score because frequent miscommunications in drop coverage bled easy points defensively. Once he returned to the second unit full-time, his physical intensity finally aligned with winning basketball. He generated a massive +15.9 impact mark on 02/12 vs OKC despite a modest 15-point scoring night, driving that towering rating through dominant interior positioning and elite defensive anchoring rather than sheer volume. He maintained that bench dominance on 03/08 vs ORL, posting 18 points and 10 rebounds to earn a +10.5 impact. By decisively punishing late closeouts and stretching the opposing frontcourt to its breaking point, Portis reminded everyone why he remains a terrifying rotational weapon.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Volatile for his role. Portis has noticeable ups and downs, with scoring moving ~6 points between games.

Middle-of-the-road efficiency — shoots 45%+ from the field in 59% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

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

Hot right now — 12 straight games with positive impact. Longest positive run this season: 12 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 69 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. George 45.6 poss
FG% 46.2%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.31
PTS 14
N. Reid 44.7 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 7
S. Barnes 42.4 poss
FG% 44.4%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.24
PTS 10
P. Siakam 41.6 poss
FG% 37.5%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 6
D. Wade 36.0 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.06
PTS 2
M. Bagley III 35.4 poss
FG% 22.2%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.23
PTS 8
J. Randle 35.1 poss
FG% 71.4%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.34
PTS 12
J. Duren 35.0 poss
FG% 57.1%
3P% 75.0%
PPP 0.31
PTS 11
C. Murray-Boyles 34.9 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.14
PTS 5
J. Johnson 34.8 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.09
PTS 3

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

S. Mamukelashvili 46.5 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.34
PTS 16
N. Reid 46.0 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 10
E. Mobley 44.5 poss
FG% 55.6%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 10
M. Wagner 41.1 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 9
M. Bagley III 36.9 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 4
A. Horford 36.8 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.05
PTS 2
K. Ware 34.4 poss
FG% 42.9%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.26
PTS 9
D. Wade 33.9 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.06
PTS 2
J. Randle 33.8 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.27
PTS 9
M. Diabaté 32.8 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 4

SEASON STATS

67
Games
13.7
PPG
6.4
RPG
1.6
APG
0.6
SPG
0.2
BPG
48.8
FG%
45.6
3P%
70.6
FT%
24.2
MPG

GAME LOG

67 games played