UTA

2025-26 Season

SVI MYKHAILIUK

Utah Jazz | Guard-Forward | 6-7
Svi Mykhailiuk
9.2 PPG
2.4 RPG
1.9 APG
23.1 MPG
-2.6 Impact

Mykhailiuk produces at an below average rate for a 23-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
-2.6
Scoring +6.0
Points 9.2 PPG × +1.00 = +9.2
Missed 2PT 0.9/g × -0.78 = -0.7
Missed 3PT 2.7/g × -0.87 = -2.4
Missed FT 0.1/g × -1.00 = -0.1
Creation +1.7
Assists 1.9/g × +0.50 = +0.9
Off. Rebounds 0.6/g × +1.26 = +0.8
Turnovers -1.6
Turnovers 0.8/g × -1.95 = -1.6
Defense -0.1
Steals 0.5/g × +2.30 = +1.1
Blocks 0.1/g × +0.90 = +0.1
Def. Rebounds 1.8/g × +0.30 = +0.6
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +2.1
Contested Shots 2.6/g × +0.20 = +0.5
Deflections 1.6/g × +0.65 = +1.0
Loose Balls 0.5/g × +0.60 = +0.3
Screen Assists 0.3/g × +0.30 = +0.1
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.1/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.2
Raw Impact +8.1
Baseline (game-average expected) −10.7
Net Impact
-2.6
28th 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 49th
9.2 PPG
Efficiency 99th
65.0% TS
Playmaking 32th
1.9 APG
Rebounding 36th
2.4 RPG
Rim Protection 20th
0.09/min
Hustle 30th
0.09/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 81th
0.03/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Svi Mykhailiuk's opening twenty games were defined by a maddening inconsistency, oscillating violently between lethal floor-spacing and outright unplayable stretches. When he found his rhythm, he was a dangerous weapon. On 11/05 vs DET, he caught absolute fire, pouring in 28 points on 6-of-11 from deep to generate a stellar +9.8 impact score by ruthlessly punishing late closeouts. Yet, that offensive spark rarely sustained itself without hidden costs dragging him down. Take the 11/10 vs MIN matchup, where he managed 11 points but posted a disastrous -11.4 impact because he repeatedly tanked possessions by forcing heavily contested looks. Even when his shot was falling, as it did on 11/18 vs LAL with 13 highly efficient points, his overall impact slipped into the red (-3.1) due to costly defensive mistakes that bled points on the other end. His true value fluctuated entirely on his discipline. When he played within the flow of the offense, he looked like a viable rotation piece, but his frequent defensive lapses made him a glaring liability.

Extreme volatility and defensive liabilities defined this frustrating mid-season stretch for Svi Mykhailiuk. He occasionally flashed high-end value as a movement shooter, erupting for 23 points on 12/20 vs ORL where his constant off-ball motion warped the opposing defensive shell to yield a stellar +11.4 impact score. However, those offensive outbursts were rare anomalies buried beneath a mountain of passive play and defensive bleeding. Look no further than 01/12 vs CLE, where he managed a respectable 11 points on efficient 4-of-7 shooting but still posted a dismal -9.8 impact. That severe negative rating stemmed entirely from his inability to stay in front of his man, allowing opposing guards to repeatedly exploit him on the perimeter. His floor-spacing utility completely collapsed by 01/28 vs GSW. During that contest, poor shot selection from beyond the arc yielded just 2 points and short-circuited multiple offensive sets, resulting in an abysmal -16.7 impact score that actively fueled opponent transition attacks.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Mykhailiuk'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 56% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

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

Getting better as the season goes on. First-half impact: -4.6, second-half: -0.8. That's a significant jump — could be a role change, confidence, or development clicking.

Tends to go on runs. Longest hot streak: 3 games. Longest cold streak: 8 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 75 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. DiVincenzo 60.2 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 28.6%
PPP 0.13
PTS 8
FG% 25.0%
3P% 14.3%
PPP 0.08
PTS 5
D. Robinson 55.8 poss
FG% 63.6%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.32
PTS 18
S. Curry 48.0 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
L. Dončić 47.9 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.21
PTS 10
D. Booker 44.0 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.18
PTS 8
Z. LaVine 42.0 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.05
PTS 2
G. Allen 41.9 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.12
PTS 5
R. Sheppard 35.5 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 9
C. Spencer 32.9 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 4

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

L. Dončić 60.0 poss
FG% 41.2%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.27
PTS 16
FG% 60.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.3
PTS 16
K. Durant 45.2 poss
FG% 69.2%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.44
PTS 20
G. Allen 44.7 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.16
PTS 7
D. Booker 43.6 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.39
PTS 17
D. Robinson 42.3 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.14
PTS 6
Z. LaVine 41.9 poss
FG% 28.6%
3P% 20.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 5
D. DiVincenzo 39.2 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
J. McDaniels 35.4 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.06
PTS 2
J. Butler III 33.4 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.24
PTS 8

SEASON STATS

49
Games
9.2
PPG
2.4
RPG
1.9
APG
0.5
SPG
0.1
BPG
48.3
FG%
41.2
3P%
89.3
FT%
23.1
MPG

GAME LOG

49 games played