NYK

2025-26 Season

MIKAL BRIDGES

New York Knicks | Guard-Forward | 6-6
Mikal Bridges
14.6 PPG
3.9 RPG
3.8 APG
33.3 MPG
+1.0 Impact

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

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
+1.0
Scoring +9.2
Points 14.6 PPG × +1.00 = +14.6
Missed 2PT 2.9/g × -0.78 = -2.3
Missed 3PT 3.3/g × -0.87 = -2.9
Missed FT 0.2/g × -1.00 = -0.2
Creation +3.2
Assists 3.8/g × +0.50 = +1.9
Off. Rebounds 1.0/g × +1.26 = +1.3
Turnovers -1.9
Turnovers 1.0/g × -1.95 = -1.9
Defense +2.7
Steals 1.3/g × +2.30 = +3.0
Blocks 0.8/g × +0.90 = +0.7
Def. Rebounds 3.0/g × +0.30 = +0.9
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +3.6
Contested Shots 5.3/g × +0.20 = +1.1
Deflections 2.2/g × +0.65 = +1.4
Loose Balls 0.5/g × +0.60 = +0.3
Screen Assists 0.3/g × +0.30 = +0.1
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.2/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.7
Raw Impact +16.8
Baseline (game-average expected) −15.8
Net Impact
+1.0
80th 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 75th
14.6 PPG
Efficiency 78th
58.5% TS
Playmaking 69th
3.8 APG
Rebounding 74th
3.9 RPG
Rim Protection 75th
0.14/min
Hustle 50th
0.10/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 86th
0.03/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Mikal Bridges’s early season was defined by a wild pendulum swing between hollow offensive production and game-wrecking defensive utility. You can see this disconnect perfectly on 10/31 vs CHI, where he dropped 23 points but registered a rough -3.5 impact score. While the raw scoring looked pretty, his actual on-court value plummeted due to costly defensive lapses that completely negated his buckets. Flip the script to 11/14 vs MIA, and you find the exact opposite phenomenon. He bricked his way to 15 points on an abysmal 6-for-21 shooting night, yet still drove a highly positive +5.3 impact. He managed this by delivering a suffocating defensive masterclass that completely erased his primary assignment. His playmaking came with similar hidden costs, as seen on 11/02 vs CHI. Despite handing out 9 assists, he posted a dismal -8.0 impact because a disastrous string of live-ball turnovers constantly ignited the opponent's transition offense.

A jarring rollercoaster of blistering offensive peaks and baffling mid-winter inconsistency defined this twenty-game stretch for Mikal Bridges. He erupted early on 12/02 vs BOS, pouring in 35 points on 12-for-17 shooting to generate a monstrous +22.9 impact score driven by pristine shot selection. Yet, his scoring outbursts didn't always translate to winning basketball. During the 12/21 vs MIA matchup, Bridges tallied 24 points on scorching 6-for-7 perimeter shooting, but costly defensive miscommunications and poor positioning dragged his impact down to a disappointing -0.2. As the calendar flipped, his jumper frequently abandoned him, leading to a string of negative-impact performances where forced isolation attempts bogged down the offense. He eventually salvaged his value through sheer grit rather than grace. Despite a ghastly 6-for-20 shooting night on 01/14 vs SAC, Bridges still posted a +5.4 impact score because his phenomenal two-way activity and relentless hustle completely eclipsed his offensive woes.

Wild inconsistency defined this mid-season stretch for Mikal Bridges. On 01/24 vs PHI, a disastrous perimeter shooting performance completely cratered his value. He bricked his way to a 3-for-16 night from the floor, yielding a brutal -13.1 impact score. Raw point totals often painted a misleading picture of his actual on-court contributions, however. During 02/06 vs DET, Bridges tallied a respectable 19 points, but his overall rating sank to a -6.9 impact because his high-volume shot creation could not hide costly defensive lapses. Conversely, he routinely salvaged quieter offensive nights through sheer defensive grit. Even while managing just 10 points on 02/27 vs MIL, he generated a stellar +8.8 impact by blowing up dribble hand-offs and executing an absolute defensive masterclass at the point of attack.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Bridges's impact swings wildly relative to his average — some nights dominant, others invisible. Scoring varies by ~6 points per game.

Middle-of-the-road efficiency — shoots 45%+ from the field in 59% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

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

Small downward trend. First-half impact: +2.3, second-half: -0.3. Not alarming yet, but trending the wrong direction.

In a rough stretch — 11 straight games with negative impact. Longest cold streak this season: 11 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 76 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

T. Maxey 88.5 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 14.3%
PPP 0.24
PTS 21
D. Bane 84.6 poss
FG% 56.2%
3P% 20.0%
PPP 0.26
PTS 22
N. Powell 79.4 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.13
PTS 10
M. Buzelis 73.9 poss
FG% 53.3%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.32
PTS 24
B. Ingram 73.1 poss
FG% 45.5%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.15
PTS 11
A. Wiggins 67.3 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 45.5%
PPP 0.31
PTS 21
I. Quickley 58.2 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 4
S. Sharpe 56.7 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.04
PTS 2
B. Carrington 49.6 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 6
A. Nesmith 48.7 poss
FG% 62.5%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.23
PTS 11

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

N. Powell 114.7 poss
FG% 46.2%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.27
PTS 31
D. Bane 114.0 poss
FG% 35.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 14
T. Maxey 93.1 poss
FG% 46.7%
3P% 42.9%
PPP 0.2
PTS 19
B. Ingram 81.5 poss
FG% 57.1%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.27
PTS 22
D. Mitchell 72.1 poss
FG% 35.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.31
PTS 22
A. Wiggins 66.7 poss
FG% 18.2%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.06
PTS 4
D. Booker 65.1 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 14
A. Edwards 61.2 poss
FG% 43.8%
3P% 42.9%
PPP 0.28
PTS 17
B. Carrington 60.5 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 8
M. Porter Jr. 60.2 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 6

SEASON STATS

77
Games
14.6
PPG
3.9
RPG
3.8
APG
1.3
SPG
0.8
BPG
48.6
FG%
37.0
3P%
83.9
FT%
33.3
MPG

GAME LOG

77 games played