SAS

2025-26 Season

DE'AARON FOX

San Antonio Spurs | Guard | 6-3
De'Aaron Fox
18.5 PPG
3.8 RPG
6.2 APG
30.9 MPG
+1.3 Impact

Fox produces at an above average rate for a 31-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
+1.3
Scoring +11.7
Points 18.5 PPG × +1.00 = +18.5
Missed 2PT 3.7/g × -0.78 = -2.9
Missed 3PT 3.6/g × -0.87 = -3.1
Missed FT 0.8/g × -1.00 = -0.8
Creation +4.2
Assists 6.2/g × +0.50 = +3.1
Off. Rebounds 0.9/g × +1.26 = +1.1
Turnovers -4.5
Turnovers 2.3/g × -1.95 = -4.5
Defense +2.1
Steals 1.2/g × +2.30 = +2.8
Blocks 0.3/g × +0.90 = +0.3
Def. Rebounds 2.8/g × +0.30 = +0.9
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +3.3
Contested Shots 3.4/g × +0.20 = +0.7
Deflections 2.8/g × +0.65 = +1.8
Loose Balls 0.5/g × +0.60 = +0.3
Screen Assists 0.2/g × +0.30 = +0.1
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.1/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.4
Raw Impact +16.8
Baseline (game-average expected) −15.5
Net Impact
+1.3
84th pctl vs Guards

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 235 Guards with 10+ games

Scoring 87th
18.5 PPG
Efficiency 76th
58.2% TS
Playmaking 92th
6.2 APG
Rebounding 70th
3.8 RPG
Rim Protection 58th
0.12/min
Hustle 53th
0.11/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 24th
0.07/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

De'Aaron Fox's first twenty games were defined by a maddening Jekyll-and-Hyde volatility, oscillating between terrifying downhill dominance and lazy perimeter habits. When he actually locked in, he was an absolute wrecking ball. Look at his 11/26 vs POR performance, where he dropped 37 points and generated a staggering +24.5 impact score. That astronomical rating wasn't just about his scoring volume; it was driven by relentless rim pressure and elite point-of-attack defense that completely shattered the opposing game plan. Yet, he frequently gave back all that value by refusing to guard his yard. During the 12/03 vs ORL matchup, Fox poured in 31 points but still dragged his team down with a -2.3 impact score because his offensive explosion was entirely undone by severe defensive apathy. His shot selection could be equally toxic. On 11/10 vs CHI, he posted a brutal -12.2 impact despite scoring 21 points, actively bailing out a struggling defense by settling for heavily contested perimeter jumpers instead of pressuring the rim.

This twenty-game stretch was defined by maddening inconsistency, oscillating wildly between brilliant two-way orchestration and erratic, self-destructive decision-making. Look no further than the 02/05 vs DAL matchup, where a respectable 17-point outing was entirely undermined by costly defensive lapses at the point of attack, dragging his overall value down to a -8.9 impact. Yet, when fully engaged, Fox's non-scoring contributions could completely tilt the floor. During the 01/19 vs UTA contest, he managed just 14 points but generated a robust +6.9 impact by leaning into relentless hustle and suffocating point-of-attack defense. He flipped the script entirely just days later. Torching the nets with blistering efficiency from all three levels, Fox poured in 31 points on 10/13 shooting on 01/22 vs UTA to drive a massive +11.1 impact score. Ultimately, this span revealed a star whose ceiling remains stratospheric, provided he stops sabotaging his own nights with forced perimeter jumpers and careless ball security.

This twenty-game stretch was a maddening rollercoaster of brilliant downhill orchestration and baffling lapses in focus. Even when his shot abandoned him during the 02/10 vs LAL matchup, Fox managed a stellar +10.3 impact score by relying on relentless defensive pressure and high-motor hustle plays rather than scoring output. He found his offensive rhythm perfectly on 03/10 vs BOS, attacking the basket with surgical precision to generate an incredibly efficient 25 points and a +12.5 impact. Yet, that offensive brilliance frequently came with a steep hidden cost. Look no further than the 03/12 vs DEN contest, where he poured in 27 points but posted a frustrating -4.0 impact. Those explosive scoring numbers were severely undercut by a string of careless live-ball turnovers that ignited the opponent's transition game. When he weaponizes his elite speed without coughing up the basketball, he remains a lethal weapon, but these erratic swings in concentration make him an unpredictable floor general.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Fox'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 66% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

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

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 67 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

C. Wallace 101.8 poss
FG% 53.3%
3P% 37.5%
PPP 0.21
PTS 21
A. Thompson 98.8 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 40.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 13
L. Dort 77.8 poss
FG% 30.8%
3P% 40.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 13
J. McDaniels 73.7 poss
FG% 58.8%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.31
PTS 23
H. Jones 62.9 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.11
PTS 7
V. Williams Jr. 59.8 poss
FG% 7.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.03
PTS 2
J. Wells 59.4 poss
FG% 44.4%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.42
PTS 25
J. Suggs 57.9 poss
FG% 28.6%
3P% 20.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 13
D. Jones Jr. 52.9 poss
FG% 37.5%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 6
J. Goodwin 50.6 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 8

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

J. Williams 87.1 poss
FG% 45.5%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 14
V. Williams Jr. 63.4 poss
FG% 37.5%
3P% 40.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 11
C. Wallace 59.7 poss
FG% 61.5%
3P% 28.6%
PPP 0.3
PTS 18
C. Gillespie 56.2 poss
FG% 44.4%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.2
PTS 11
A. Edwards 55.8 poss
FG% 52.4%
3P% 60.0%
PPP 0.57
PTS 32
N. Marshall 54.5 poss
FG% 45.5%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.28
PTS 15
R. Westbrook 54.0 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.09
PTS 5
J. Suggs 53.9 poss
FG% 42.9%
3P% 28.6%
PPP 0.28
PTS 15
D. White 52.9 poss
FG% 55.6%
3P% 40.0%
PPP 0.23
PTS 12
D. Garland 49.9 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 4

SEASON STATS

67
Games
18.5
PPG
3.8
RPG
6.2
APG
1.2
SPG
0.3
BPG
49.0
FG%
33.6
3P%
76.2
FT%
30.9
MPG

GAME LOG

67 games played