TOR

2025-26 Season

BRANDON INGRAM

Toronto Raptors | Forward | 6-8
Brandon Ingram
20.9PPG
5.4RPG
3.6APG
33.6MPG
+9.4 Impact

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

·
Embed this player card

Copy & paste this HTML into any page:

The widget updates automatically whenever our data does.

IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
+9.4
Scoring +18.7
Points Scored 20.9 PPG = +20.9
Missed Shots difficulty-adjusted = -6.7
Shot Making above expected FG% = +4.5
Creation +1.4
Assists & Self-Creation 3.6 AST/g + self-creation = +1.4
Turnovers -5.6
Turnovers 2.4/g (live + dead blend) = -5.6
Defense +0.3
Steals 0.7/g = +1.6
Blocks 0.7/g = +0.6
Fouls + context committed fouls, matchup adj = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +3.8
Rebounds 5.4 RPG (OREB + DREB) = +1.6
Contested Shots 4.4/g = +0.9
Deflections 1.5/g = +1.0
Charges Drawn 0.0/g = +0.0
Loose Balls 0.4/g = +0.2
Screen Assists 0.2/g = +0.1
Raw Impact +18.6
Baseline (game-average expected) −9.2
Net Impact
+9.4
88th 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 235 Forwards with 10+ games

Scoring 92th
20.9 PPG
Efficiency 50th
56.4% TS
Playmaking 89th
3.6 APG
Rebounding 73th
5.4 RPG
Defense 45th
+7.0/g
Hustle 53th
+12.7/g
Creation 86th
+4.09/g
Shot Making 95th
+9.78/g
TO Discipline 15th
0.07/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Brandon Ingram’s opening stretch of the 2025-26 season was defined by a volatile tug-of-war between aggressive, high-volume shot-making and sudden, frigid shooting slumps. When his jumper was falling, he was an absolute terror. He peaked offensively during the 11/25 vs CLE matchup, launching 30 shots to pour in 37 points and generate a massive +20.0 impact score. However, that relentless green light occasionally became a glaring liability. Just over a week earlier on 11/14 vs CLE, his shot selection completely abandoned him as he bricked all six of his three-point attempts, finishing with a dismal -7.7 impact score because his forced offense actively crippled the team's spacing. Yet, Ingram is slowly learning how to salvage his nightly value when the perimeter offense dries up. During the 11/16 vs IND contest, he managed a modest 19 points, but still posted a stellar +17.3 impact score by leaning into gritty defensive effort and timely hustle plays to disrupt the passing lanes.

Brandon Ingram spent the middle of the 2025-26 season operating as a high-usage offensive engine, riding a volatile wave of brilliant shot-making and frustrating inefficiency. When his jumper fell, he was utterly unguardable. He peaked on 01/30 vs ORL with a 35-point barrage on 13-of-23 shooting that generated a massive +27.8 impact score. However, his heavy reliance on isolation play occasionally hurt the team, as seen on 01/17 vs LAC. Despite logging 41 grueling minutes and scoring 19 points on an efficient 7-of-13 from the floor, he posted a -2.2 impact score because offensive passivity, poor defensive rotations, and a mere two assists dragged down his overall value. Conversely, Ingram found ways to salvage rough shooting nights by leaning into his size and vision. During a clunky 5-of-15 shooting performance on 01/13 vs PHI, he still managed a +12.2 impact score by crashing the glass for 10 rebounds and keeping the offense flowing with seven assists.

This late-season stretch was defined by a maddening inconsistency, oscillating wildly between unstoppable offensive brilliance and complete disappearing acts. When his jumper abandoned him during the 03/22 vs PHX matchup, Ingram looked entirely disengaged. He forced contested looks to finish with just six points, yielding a brutal -16.5 Impact score because his poor shot selection and lazy defensive rotations actively bled points. Yet, he could effortlessly flip a switch and dominate. He torched the defense on 04/09 vs MIA for 38 points, seven rebounds, and seven assists, generating a massive +39.6 Impact score by pairing his elite shot-making with sharp passing and relentless hustle. He even found ways to salvage rough shooting nights through sheer grit, notably during the 03/28 vs NOP contest. Despite managing only 13 points on 5-of-13 shooting, he scratched out a +5.1 Impact score by locking down on the perimeter and fighting for extra possessions. To be a reliable primary option, Ingram must bring that gritty secondary effort every night rather than letting his engagement fluctuate with his shooting percentage.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Very consistent. Ingram posts positive impact in 87% of games — you almost always get a productive night. Scoring varies by ~8 points, but the overall contribution stays positive.

Middle-of-the-road efficiency — shoots 45%+ from the field in 60% 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: 11 games. Longest cold streak: 1 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY ⚠ Updated 46 days ago

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

82
Games
20.9
PPG
5.4
RPG
3.6
APG
0.7
SPG
0.7
BPG
47.0
FG%
38.3
3P%
81.5
FT%
33.6
MPG

GAME LOG

82 games played