CLE

2025-26 Season

THOMAS BRYANT

Cleveland Cavaliers | Center-Forward | 6-9
Thomas Bryant
6.0 PPG
3.3 RPG
0.5 APG
12.0 MPG
+1.7 Impact

Bryant produces at an above average rate for a 12-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
+1.7
Scoring +4.0
Points 6.0 PPG × +1.00 = +6.0
Missed 2PT 0.8/g × -0.78 = -0.6
Missed 3PT 1.4/g × -0.87 = -1.2
Missed FT 0.2/g × -1.00 = -0.2
Creation +1.2
Assists 0.5/g × +0.50 = +0.2
Off. Rebounds 0.8/g × +1.26 = +1.0
Turnovers -1.0
Turnovers 0.5/g × -1.95 = -1.0
Defense -0.1
Steals 0.3/g × +2.30 = +0.7
Blocks 0.4/g × +0.90 = +0.4
Def. Rebounds 2.5/g × +0.30 = +0.7
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +1.5
Contested Shots 3.0/g × +0.20 = +0.6
Deflections 0.6/g × +0.65 = +0.4
Loose Balls 0.2/g × +0.60 = +0.1
Screen Assists 0.9/g × +0.30 = +0.3
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.0/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.1
Raw Impact +5.6
Baseline (game-average expected) −3.9
Net Impact
+1.7
32th pctl vs Centers

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 92 Centers with 10+ games

Scoring 36th
7.0 PPG
Efficiency 56th
60.1% TS
Playmaking 10th
0.6 APG
Rebounding 20th
4.0 RPG
Rim Protection 65th
0.21/min
Hustle 35th
0.11/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 88th
0.04/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Thomas Bryant's early season was defined by extreme volatility, oscillating wildly between game-changing energy bursts and disastrous defensive lapses in a highly erratic fringe rotation role. He occasionally manufactured immense value without needing a heavy scoring load. During 11/12 vs MIA, he scored just four points but earned a robust +3.4 impact score by anchoring the second unit with disciplined drop coverage and sturdy post defense. His absolute peak arrived on 12/03 vs POR, where he flipped the game's momentum entirely. Stepping out as a lethal trail big, he drained three timely triples to finish with 14 points and a massive +7.8 impact mark. Conversely, hidden defensive costs often dragged him down even when he managed to find the basket. On 10/27 vs DET, he chipped in four points but posted a -1.0 impact score because he surrendered too much deep paint positioning. When Bryant embraced physicality and rim-running, he was a massive plus, but falling flat-footed in coverage frequently rendered him unplayable.

A high-variance stretch of backup big minutes defined Thomas Bryant's midseason run, oscillating wildly between dominant paint bullying and frustrating perimeter settling. When he embraced physical interior play, the results were staggering. On 12/23 vs NOP, he punished the defense with fierce rolls to the rim, generating a spectacular +14.3 impact score alongside 15 points and 7 rebounds. He managed to swing games even when his jumper abandoned him, like on 02/11 vs WAS. Despite a brutal 2-for-7 shooting night resulting in just 6 points, active rebounding and excellent verticality at the rim kept his impact firmly in the green at +3.6. Yet, whenever he struggled in space, his overall value plummeted. During a 10-point outing on 02/01 vs POR, his heavy feet in drop coverage allowed opposing guards to completely torch the defense, resulting in a dismal -5.0 impact score.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Typical consistency. Bryant is positive more often than not (54% of games) with scoring varying ~4 points from the average.

Middle-of-the-road efficiency — shoots 45%+ from the field in 64% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

Good defender on his best nights, but it comes and goes. Some games Bryant locks in defensively, others he gets picked apart.

Flat trajectory all season — first-half impact +1.5, second-half +2.0. No major shifts, which fits with the overall steadiness.

Tends to go on runs. Longest hot streak: 8 games. Longest cold streak: 5 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 77 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

M. Diabaté 31.0 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 5
M. Bagley III 30.7 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.23
PTS 7
I. Stewart 27.1 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 3
M. Wagner 25.1 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.24
PTS 6
B. Portis 24.2 poss
FG% 42.9%
3P% 20.0%
PPP 0.29
PTS 7
Z. Collins 24.0 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 3
P. Reed 23.9 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 2
K. Ware 23.9 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 20.0%
PPP 0.38
PTS 9
A. Drummond 23.5 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.3
PTS 7
Y. Niederhäuser 22.9 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 5

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

M. Diabaté 39.2 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 4
K. Ware 33.2 poss
FG% 77.8%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.57
PTS 19
M. Bagley III 32.4 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 4
Y. Niederhäuser 28.5 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 4
I. Stewart 28.2 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 4
A. Drummond 27.2 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.15
PTS 4
J. Sims 25.0 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.04
PTS 1
J. Hayes 24.7 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 4
P. Reed 24.6 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.24
PTS 6
M. Wagner 24.6 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 4

SEASON STATS

59
Games
6.0
PPG
3.3
RPG
0.5
APG
0.3
SPG
0.4
BPG
50.0
FG%
35.4
3P%
80.3
FT%
12.0
MPG

GAME LOG

59 games played