SAC

2025-26 Season

DREW EUBANKS

Sacramento Kings | Forward-Center | 6-10
Drew Eubanks
5.2 PPG
3.0 RPG
0.5 APG
13.1 MPG
+0.7 Impact

Eubanks produces at an average rate for a 13-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
+0.7
Scoring +3.4
Points 5.2 PPG × +1.00 = +5.2
Missed 2PT 1.4/g × -0.78 = -1.1
Missed 3PT 0.1/g × -0.87 = -0.1
Missed FT 0.6/g × -1.00 = -0.6
Creation +1.2
Assists 0.5/g × +0.50 = +0.2
Off. Rebounds 0.8/g × +1.26 = +1.0
Turnovers -1.4
Turnovers 0.7/g × -1.95 = -1.4
Defense +0.2
Steals 0.4/g × +2.30 = +0.9
Blocks 0.6/g × +0.90 = +0.5
Def. Rebounds 2.3/g × +0.30 = +0.7
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +2.0
Contested Shots 3.4/g × +0.20 = +0.7
Deflections 0.9/g × +0.65 = +0.6
Loose Balls 0.1/g × +0.60 = +0.1
Screen Assists 1.7/g × +0.30 = +0.5
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.0/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.1
Raw Impact +5.4
Baseline (game-average expected) −4.7
Net Impact
+0.7
59th pctl vs Forwards

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 227 Forwards with 10+ games

Scoring 21th
5.7 PPG
Efficiency 53th
56.9% TS
Playmaking 4th
0.5 APG
Rebounding 31th
3.3 RPG
Rim Protection 82th
0.19/min
Hustle 65th
0.11/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 34th
0.05/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Drew Eubanks spent the first stretch of the season riding a wild pendulum, bouncing erratically between dominant rim-running and glaring defensive collapses. His performance on 11/07 vs OKC perfectly captured this frustrating duality. Despite pouring in 16 points on a highly efficient 8-of-11 from the floor, he posted a dismal -3.9 impact score because he constantly surrendered deep post position on the defensive end. Conversely, he generated massive value doing the dirty work without demanding the ball on 11/26 vs PHX. He managed just 4 points in 14 minutes, yet logged a stellar +6.6 impact score by aggressively contesting shots to earn a +3.9 hustle rating. When the offensive execution matched his energy, as it did on 11/11 vs DEN, he was an absolute force who converted nearly every lob to tally 19 points and a +6.3 impact score. Ultimately, his effectiveness strictly hinges on his physical presence in the paint. If he stops anchoring the interior and lets opponents bully him, his hyper-efficient finishing completely loses its value.

Drew Eubanks’s midseason stretch was defined by a rocky transition from an overmatched spot-starter into a highly effective, situational battering ram off the bench. Early on, he actively harmed his team on the floor, posting a dismal -2.1 impact score on 11/30 vs MEM because he offered absolutely zero defensive resistance. Once demoted to a strict reserve role, however, he began generating massive positive swings without needing a heavy offensive diet. Look at his outing on 03/10 vs IND, where he scored just 4 points but still logged a stellar +5.5 impact by completely disrupting the opposition with exceptional rim deterrence in drop coverage. When his playing time finally spiked, he delivered an absolute masterclass on 03/05 vs NOP. He erupted for 15 points and 11 rebounds in 22 minutes, earning a monstrous +11.1 impact score through hyper-efficient finishing and relentless rim-running that anchored the paint. He remains a blunt instrument who occasionally rushes his looks, but he thrives as a backup big when kept strictly in his lane.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Eubanks's impact swings wildly relative to his average — some nights dominant, others invisible. Scoring varies by ~5 points per game.

Reliable shooter — hits 45%+ from the field in 79% of games. You can count on efficient nights more often than not.

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

Flat trajectory all season — first-half impact +0.4, second-half +1.0. No major shifts, which fits with the overall steadiness.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 66 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

I. Hartenstein 68.9 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.09
PTS 6
Z. Edey 64.3 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.06
PTS 4
N. Jokić 63.9 poss
FG% 83.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.33
PTS 21
O. Ighodaro 32.3 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.09
PTS 3
R. Gobert 32.2 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.06
PTS 2
M. Williams 30.3 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 2
J. Valančiūnas 24.8 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.24
PTS 6
B. Portis 23.4 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 4
J. Nurkić 22.8 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.09
PTS 2
K. Matković 21.7 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.

I. Hartenstein 61.2 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 6
Z. Edey 60.1 poss
FG% 77.8%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 15
N. Jokić 58.5 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.39
PTS 23
R. Gobert 34.7 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 4
M. Williams 31.4 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 3
O. Ighodaro 28.0 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.21
PTS 6
J. Valančiūnas 27.6 poss
FG% 37.5%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 6
J. Nurkić 24.9 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 2
B. Portis 23.3 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.26
PTS 6
M. Potter 21.5 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.19
PTS 4

SEASON STATS

42
Games
5.2
PPG
3.0
RPG
0.5
APG
0.4
SPG
0.6
BPG
59.6
FG%
14.3
3P%
56.1
FT%
13.1
MPG

GAME LOG

42 games played