TOR

2025-26 Season

BRANDON INGRAM

Toronto Raptors | Forward | 6-8
Brandon Ingram
21.4 PPG
5.6 RPG
3.6 APG
33.8 MPG
-0.1 Impact

Ingram produces at an average rate for a 34-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
-0.1
Scoring +13.4
Points 21.4 PPG × +1.00 = +21.4
Missed 2PT 6.0/g × -0.78 = -4.7
Missed 3PT 2.9/g × -0.87 = -2.5
Missed FT 0.8/g × -1.00 = -0.8
Creation +3.6
Assists 3.6/g × +0.50 = +1.8
Off. Rebounds 1.4/g × +1.26 = +1.8
Turnovers -4.9
Turnovers 2.5/g × -1.95 = -4.9
Defense +1.8
Steals 0.8/g × +2.30 = +1.8
Blocks 0.7/g × +0.90 = +0.6
Def. Rebounds 4.2/g × +0.30 = +1.3
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +2.4
Contested Shots 5.0/g × +0.20 = +1.0
Deflections 1.7/g × +0.65 = +1.1
Loose Balls 0.4/g × +0.60 = +0.2
Screen Assists 0.2/g × +0.30 = +0.1
Raw Impact +16.3
Baseline (game-average expected) −16.4
Net Impact
-0.1
50th 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 94th
21.4 PPG
Efficiency 52th
56.8% TS
Playmaking 87th
3.6 APG
Rebounding 75th
5.6 RPG
Rim Protection 32th
0.12/min
Hustle 9th
0.07/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 12th
0.07/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

A maddening tug-of-war between lethal shot-making and detrimental isolation habits defined Brandon Ingram's opening twenty games. He frequently put up empty numbers, perfectly illustrated on 11/19 vs PHI when a highly efficient 22-point outing was entirely erased by significant defensive bleeding on the perimeter, dragging his impact down to a -4.4. Conversely, he occasionally found ways to drive winning basketball without dominating the box score. During the 11/15 vs IND matchup, Ingram managed just 19 points but generated a stellar +6.7 impact score by locking in with excellent weak-side defensive rotations. The floor completely fell out on 11/13 vs CLE, where severe perimeter inefficiency and an ugly 0-for-6 night from beyond the arc cratered his impact to an abysmal -16.4. When Ingram attacks downhill and engages defensively, he remains a devastating two-way wing. Unfortunately, his tendency to settle into a contested mid-range diet too often stalls out possessions and actively harms his team's spacing.

This stretch was defined by a maddening tug-of-war between Ingram's stubborn reliance on contested isolations and his flashes of surgical shot-making. High scoring totals frequently masked underlying damage, like on 12/07 vs BOS where he dropped 30 points but posted a -1.8 impact score due to costly live-ball turnovers and defensive lapses. Conversely, he occasionally found ways to drive winning basketball without filling the bucket. During the 01/07 vs CHA matchup, Ingram managed a measly 6 points, yet he still registered a +4.2 impact because his relentless defensive engagement kept his overall value firmly in the green. When he finally stopped forcing bad shots against set defenses, his ceiling was undeniable. On 01/03 vs ATL, his methodical mid-range execution yielded 29 points and a massive +11.7 impact score. Ultimately, this run revealed a highly volatile offensive weapon who gave back value just as fast as he generated it.

Brandon Ingram's mid-season stretch was a volatile rollercoaster that began with surgical two-way dominance but crashed into a stagnant, isolation-heavy slump. Early on, he dictated games even when his jumper betrayed him. During the 01/23 vs POR matchup, a cold 1/5 night from deep was completely offset by stellar defensive rotations that anchored a massive +14.9 impact score. But as February wore on, his shot selection drastically deteriorated. High-volume scoring masked his underlying inefficiencies during a 22-point outing on 02/22 vs MIL, where forced isolation sets pushed his net impact slightly into the red at -1.0. This sticky playstyle eventually ground the team's ball movement to a complete halt. The regression bottomed out on 03/10 vs HOU, as forced mid-range jumpers and a dismal 3/12 shooting night dragged his overall impact deep into the abyss at -15.4.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Ingram's impact swings wildly relative to his average — some nights dominant, others invisible. Scoring varies by ~7 points per game.

Middle-of-the-road efficiency — shoots 45%+ from the field in 58% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

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

Tends to go on runs. Longest hot streak: 6 games. Longest cold streak: 7 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 73 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

D. Daniels 88.4 poss
FG% 72.2%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.36
PTS 32
G. Trent Jr. 85.0 poss
FG% 57.1%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 19
M. Bridges 81.5 poss
FG% 57.1%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.27
PTS 22
L. Dort 80.4 poss
FG% 27.8%
3P% 16.7%
PPP 0.15
PTS 12
T. Harris 73.0 poss
FG% 53.3%
3P% 20.0%
PPP 0.26
PTS 19
K. Oubre Jr. 71.2 poss
FG% 38.9%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.2
PTS 14
H. Jones 70.7 poss
FG% 22.2%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 6
J. McDaniels 67.1 poss
FG% 47.4%
3P% 20.0%
PPP 0.33
PTS 22
O. Anunoby 64.6 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.36
PTS 23
M. Buzelis 63.6 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 16

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

Z. Risacher 87.5 poss
FG% 37.5%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.19
PTS 17
N. Clowney 87.3 poss
FG% 46.2%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.17
PTS 15
G. Trent Jr. 82.7 poss
FG% 30.0%
3P% 37.5%
PPP 0.11
PTS 9
T. Harris 80.5 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.09
PTS 7
M. Bridges 73.1 poss
FG% 45.5%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.15
PTS 11
A. Wiggins 72.0 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.12
PTS 9
J. McDaniels 70.8 poss
FG% 62.5%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 11
J. Hart 65.8 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.21
PTS 14
M. Bridges 60.3 poss
FG% 45.5%
3P% 16.7%
PPP 0.18
PTS 11
J. Smith Jr. 55.1 poss
FG% 28.6%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 7

SEASON STATS

72
Games
21.4
PPG
5.6
RPG
3.6
APG
0.8
SPG
0.7
BPG
47.2
FG%
37.7
3P%
82.0
FT%
33.8
MPG

GAME LOG

72 games played