IND

2025-26 Season

PASCAL SIAKAM

Indiana Pacers | Forward | 6-8
Pascal Siakam
24.0 PPG
6.6 RPG
3.8 APG
33.2 MPG
+4.1 Impact

Siakam produces at an above average rate for a 33-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
+4.1
Scoring +14.3
Points 24.0 PPG × +1.00 = +24.0
Missed 2PT 6.6/g × -0.78 = -5.2
Missed 3PT 3.0/g × -0.87 = -2.6
Missed FT 1.9/g × -1.00 = -1.9
Creation +4.0
Assists 3.8/g × +0.50 = +1.9
Off. Rebounds 1.7/g × +1.26 = +2.1
Turnovers -4.3
Turnovers 2.2/g × -1.95 = -4.3
Defense +2.5
Steals 1.1/g × +2.30 = +2.5
Blocks 0.4/g × +0.90 = +0.4
Def. Rebounds 5.0/g × +0.30 = +1.5
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +3.5
Contested Shots 5.8/g × +0.20 = +1.2
Deflections 2.3/g × +0.65 = +1.5
Loose Balls 0.6/g × +0.60 = +0.4
Screen Assists 0.8/g × +0.30 = +0.2
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.1/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.2
Raw Impact +20.0
Baseline (game-average expected) −15.9
Net Impact
+4.1
88th 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 95th
24.0 PPG
Efficiency 45th
56.1% TS
Playmaking 90th
3.8 APG
Rebounding 86th
6.6 RPG
Rim Protection 50th
0.14/min
Hustle 41th
0.10/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 19th
0.07/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Pascal Siakam's opening twenty games were defined by the extreme volatility of a heavy offensive burden, oscillating wildly between unstoppable two-way dominance and frustrating isolation slumps. When he hunted mismatches patiently, he was an absolute nightmare for opposing defenses. Look at his 11/28 vs WAS performance, where sheer mastery of the midrange and transition game fueled a massive +16.3 impact score alongside 24 points and 11 rebounds. Yet, his primary creation role sometimes carried severe hidden costs. During the 11/05 vs BKN matchup, Siakam racked up an impressive 23 points and 10 assists, but defensive miscommunications completely poisoned his minutes and dragged him to a brutal -11.6 impact rating. He also hurt the team when his aggression vanished entirely, like on 11/26 vs TOR, where a surprisingly passive offensive approach plummeted his scoring volume to a mere 11 points and generated a -3.7 impact score. To maintain consistent value, Siakam must pair his mid-post footwork with engaged weak-side rim protection rather than letting defensive lapses ruin his offensive output.

Pascal Siakam’s mid-season run was a volatile Jekyll-and-Hyde act defined by brilliant mismatch hunting heavily offset by stubborn, inefficient isolation habits. When he aggressively attacked the rim, the veteran forward was absolutely unstoppable. Look directly at 12/05 vs CHI, where he blended physical drives with lethal perimeter execution to post a massive +17.1 impact score alongside 36 points and 10 rebounds. He even found ways to anchor the lineup when his scoring volume dropped. During the 12/23 vs MIL matchup, Siakam tallied just 15 points but still generated a +4.8 impact because his high-level intangibles kept the offense humming. Yet, a maddening reliance on contested mid-range jumpers frequently dragged down his overall value despite gaudy box-score numbers. On 01/19 vs PHI, he managed to drop 24 points, but defensive lapses and high-volume inefficiency actively harmed the team, resulting in a damaging -5.8 impact score. He remains a devastating weapon, but only when he resists the urge to settle for stagnant half-court offense.

A volatile tug-of-war between dominant mismatch hunting and stubborn shot selection defined Pascal Siakam's mid-season campaign. When he committed to bullying defenders in the paint, he was entirely unguardable. He peaked on 03/23 vs ORL with a massive +19.1 impact score, driven by 37 points of overwhelming isolation mastery that completely hijacked the game flow. Yet, his insistence on settling for tough jumpers frequently sabotaged his overall value. Look no further than 03/25 vs LAL. He managed 20 points, but posted a dismal -8.4 impact because his contested mid-range isolations completely stalled the team's offense. Still, Siakam occasionally salvaged rough offensive nights through sheer effort, like on 01/26 vs ATL where he generated a +8.6 impact despite an ugly 8-for-21 shooting night by leaning heavily on his defensive gravity.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

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

Middle-of-the-road efficiency — shoots 45%+ from the field in 66% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

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

Small downward trend. First-half impact: +5.5, second-half: +2.8. Not alarming yet, but trending the wrong direction.

Tends to go on runs. Longest hot streak: 7 games. Longest cold streak: 2 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

S. Barnes 132.4 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 35.7%
PPP 0.25
PTS 33
P. Banchero 96.6 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 57.1%
PPP 0.28
PTS 27
M. Bridges 83.7 poss
FG% 68.4%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.35
PTS 29
D. Daniels 80.9 poss
FG% 43.8%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.23
PTS 19
D. Barlow 63.5 poss
FG% 42.9%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.22
PTS 14
H. González 61.2 poss
FG% 35.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.23
PTS 14
P. Watson 59.3 poss
FG% 36.4%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.22
PTS 13
A. Wiggins 55.8 poss
FG% 38.9%
3P% 20.0%
PPP 0.3
PTS 17
D. Jones Jr. 50.4 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 11
P. Williams 47.7 poss
FG% 30.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.23
PTS 11

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

S. Barnes 126.6 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.24
PTS 30
M. Bridges 103.7 poss
FG% 55.0%
3P% 55.6%
PPP 0.26
PTS 27
P. Banchero 99.2 poss
FG% 40.9%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 22
E. Mobley 87.7 poss
FG% 28.6%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 9
H. González 61.0 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 6
P. Washington 59.9 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 6
C. Holmgren 58.0 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 10
Z. Williamson 55.0 poss
FG% 76.5%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.53
PTS 29
D. Barlow 53.0 poss
FG% 42.9%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 6
D. Jones Jr. 51.6 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 5

SEASON STATS

62
Games
24.0
PPG
6.6
RPG
3.8
APG
1.1
SPG
0.4
BPG
48.4
FG%
35.8
3P%
69.3
FT%
33.2
MPG

GAME LOG

62 games played