NYK

2025-26 Season

LANDRY SHAMET

New York Knicks | Guard | 6-5
Landry Shamet
9.6 PPG
1.9 RPG
1.4 APG
23.0 MPG
-0.9 Impact

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

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
-0.9
Scoring +5.7
Points 9.6 PPG × +1.00 = +9.6
Missed 2PT 0.9/g × -0.78 = -0.7
Missed 3PT 3.2/g × -0.87 = -2.8
Missed FT 0.4/g × -1.00 = -0.4
Creation +1.3
Assists 1.4/g × +0.50 = +0.7
Off. Rebounds 0.5/g × +1.26 = +0.6
Turnovers -1.2
Turnovers 0.6/g × -1.95 = -1.2
Defense +0.1
Steals 0.6/g × +2.30 = +1.4
Blocks 0.2/g × +0.90 = +0.2
Def. Rebounds 1.4/g × +0.30 = +0.4
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +2.9
Contested Shots 3.6/g × +0.20 = +0.7
Deflections 1.4/g × +0.65 = +0.9
Loose Balls 0.2/g × +0.60 = +0.1
Screen Assists 0.4/g × +0.30 = +0.1
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.4/g uncredited × +2.70 = +1.1
Raw Impact +8.8
Baseline (game-average expected) −9.7
Net Impact
-0.9
56th 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 52th
9.9 PPG
Efficiency 85th
60.2% TS
Playmaking 21th
1.4 APG
Rebounding 15th
1.9 RPG
Rim Protection 29th
0.10/min
Hustle 79th
0.13/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 94th
0.03/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Landry Shamet's opening stretch was defined by extreme volatility, oscillating wildly between being an unplayable defensive target and a sudden offensive flamethrower. Opponents relentlessly hunted him on the perimeter, turning him into a glaring liability during a brutal 10/24 vs BOS outing where getting targeted in switch actions dragged him to a dismal -5.4 impact score. Even when his shot was falling, hidden costs often ruined his value. For example, during his 11/11 vs MEM start, a highly efficient 10-point scoring effort was completely overshadowed by a total lack of defensive resistance, resulting in a -1.5 impact. Yet, just when you write him off, he erupts. He mercilessly punished drop coverage on 11/14 vs MIA, pouring in 36 points and posting a massive +11.4 impact score on the back of blistering off-screen shooting. Later, he delivered an absolute supernova performance on 01/21 vs BKN, draining all six of his three-point attempts in just 15 minutes to generate a staggering +21.4 impact score. Ultimately, Shamet remains the ultimate roll of the dice—a spacing threat whose defensive lapses are only justified when his jumper completely breaks the opponent's scheme.

Landry Shamet's midseason stretch was defined by extreme volatility, oscillating wildly between lethal perimeter sniper and crippling offensive liability. When his jumper was falling, he looked untouchable, highlighted by a blistering 23-point barrage on 02/01 vs LAL where catching fire from deep fueled a massive +11.9 impact score. However, a trigger-happy approach often yielded diminishing returns when his accuracy waned. During a brief stint in the starting lineup on 02/10 vs IND, he tallied 17 points but posted a -5.7 impact because his barrage of missed threes actively harmed the overall offensive flow. When the shot completely abandoned him, the floor fell out entirely. On 02/24 vs CLE, a total inability to connect from the perimeter resulted in a disastrous -14.0 impact score, offering absolutely zero secondary value to keep him afloat. Shamet remains a pure specialist who becomes awfully hard to keep on the hardwood if he isn't burying catch-and-shoot looks.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Shamet'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 46% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

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

Small downward trend. First-half impact: +0.2, second-half: -2.1. Not alarming yet, but trending the wrong direction.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 47 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

N. Powell 66.5 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 57.1%
PPP 0.23
PTS 15
A. Nesmith 40.8 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 3
T. Maxey 37.9 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.18
PTS 7
J. Murray 32.7 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
Q. Jackson 29.9 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 20.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 5
A. Nembhard 28.9 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 3
K. Thompson 26.9 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 3
J. Morant 26.0 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.27
PTS 7
B. Sheppard 25.8 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 3
J. Jaquez Jr. 25.3 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

A. Nesmith 52.1 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 60.0%
PPP 0.21
PTS 11
N. Powell 40.9 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 37.5%
PPP 0.42
PTS 17
T. Maxey 40.3 poss
FG% 57.1%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.35
PTS 14
A. Nembhard 35.8 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
T. Hardaway Jr. 35.6 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 4
S. Fontecchio 32.8 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.15
PTS 5
J. Murray 29.7 poss
FG% 44.4%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.27
PTS 8
K. Thompson 26.5 poss
FG% 28.6%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.19
PTS 5
J. Jaquez Jr. 25.2 poss
FG% 42.9%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.24
PTS 6
A. Wiggins 25.1 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0

SEASON STATS

48
Games
9.6
PPG
1.9
RPG
1.4
APG
0.6
SPG
0.2
BPG
44.2
FG%
39.4
3P%
71.6
FT%
23.0
MPG

GAME LOG

48 games played