IND

2025-26 Season

ANDREW NEMBHARD

Indiana Pacers | Guard-Forward | 6-4
Andrew Nembhard
16.9 PPG
2.8 RPG
7.7 APG
31.3 MPG
-2.1 Impact

Nembhard produces at an below average rate for a 31-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
-2.1
Scoring +10.1
Points 16.9 PPG × +1.00 = +16.9
Missed 2PT 4.1/g × -0.78 = -3.2
Missed 3PT 3.3/g × -0.87 = -2.9
Missed FT 0.7/g × -1.00 = -0.7
Creation +4.8
Assists 7.7/g × +0.50 = +3.9
Off. Rebounds 0.7/g × +1.26 = +0.9
Turnovers -4.7
Turnovers 2.4/g × -1.95 = -4.7
Defense +0.9
Steals 0.9/g × +2.30 = +2.1
Blocks 0.1/g × +0.90 = +0.1
Def. Rebounds 2.1/g × +0.30 = +0.6
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +2.4
Contested Shots 2.5/g × +0.20 = +0.5
Deflections 1.6/g × +0.65 = +1.0
Loose Balls 0.5/g × +0.60 = +0.3
Screen Assists 0.4/g × +0.30 = +0.1
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.2/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.5
Raw Impact +13.5
Baseline (game-average expected) −15.6
Net Impact
-2.1
35th 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 81th
16.9 PPG
Efficiency 55th
55.5% TS
Playmaking 97th
7.7 APG
Rebounding 49th
2.8 RPG
Rim Protection 7th
0.07/min
Hustle 17th
0.08/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 21th
0.08/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Andrew Nembhard's first twenty games were defined by a maddening tug-of-war between brilliant pick-and-roll orchestration and destructive shot-hunting. When he read the floor instead of forcing the issue, he looked like an elite offensive engine. Look no further than 11/21 vs CLE. He aggressively attacked drop coverage to rack up 32 points and 8 assists, generating a massive +18.1 impact score. Too often, however, his desire for scoring volume actively sabotaged his team. During the 11/08 vs DEN matchup, he poured in 22 points but posted a disastrous -6.8 impact score because he repeatedly bailed out the defense with early, ill-advised jumpers. This empty-calorie production reared its head again on 12/22 vs BOS, where his 20 points were entirely negated by severe defensive lapses at the point of attack that dragged him to a -5.5 impact score. If he wants to be a reliable lead guard, he must stop letting poor efficiency and defensive breakdowns bleed away his actual value.

This stretch was defined by a maddening inconsistency where brilliant facilitation constantly fought a losing battle against brutal shot selection. Look at 01/19 vs PHI. Nembhard dropped 25 points, but his -2.2 impact score reveals the hidden costs of defensive containment issues and turnover leakage that dragged down his overall value. Conversely, when he actually dialed in his offensive orchestration, he was utterly dominant. He posted a massive +21.5 impact on 01/10 vs MIA behind 29 points and lethal shot-making. Yet, he frequently gave those analytical gains right back. On 12/27 vs MIA, a staggering 16 assists couldn't save him from a -9.2 impact, as poor perimeter shooting and defensive bleed completely offset his elite distribution. Until he stops letting forced jumpers and defensive passivity ruin his bottom line, his net influence will remain frustratingly hollow.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Nembhard's impact swings wildly relative to his average — some nights dominant, others invisible. Scoring varies by ~7 points per game.

Middle-of-the-road efficiency — shoots 45%+ from the field in 49% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

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

In a rough stretch — 4 straight games with negative impact. Longest cold streak this season: 6 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 64 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

P. Pritchard 95.0 poss
FG% 35.7%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 16
V. Edgecombe 70.1 poss
FG% 47.1%
3P% 40.0%
PPP 0.3
PTS 21
J. Giddey 70.1 poss
FG% 46.2%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.19
PTS 13
I. Quickley 58.3 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 42.9%
PPP 0.22
PTS 13
FG% 16.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.04
PTS 2
M. Bridges 51.8 poss
FG% 44.4%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 9
D. Garland 51.3 poss
FG% 55.6%
3P% 75.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 13
D. Mitchell 50.7 poss
FG% 57.1%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.26
PTS 13
J. Shead 48.3 poss
FG% 57.1%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.27
PTS 13
B. Carrington 45.8 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 20.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 5

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

J. Giddey 120.2 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.19
PTS 23
D. Bane 101.8 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.19
PTS 19
P. Pritchard 89.8 poss
FG% 37.5%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 6
J. Brunson 79.6 poss
FG% 58.3%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.39
PTS 31
T. Herro 79.4 poss
FG% 41.7%
3P% 42.9%
PPP 0.16
PTS 13
D. Garland 73.9 poss
FG% 59.1%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.42
PTS 31
J. Brown 73.4 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.26
PTS 19
C. McCollum 61.0 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.21
PTS 13
A. Reaves 57.6 poss
FG% 14.3%
3P% 20.0%
PPP 0.09
PTS 5
D. Mitchell 55.9 poss
FG% 35.7%
3P% 28.6%
PPP 0.23
PTS 13

SEASON STATS

57
Games
16.9
PPG
2.8
RPG
7.7
APG
0.9
SPG
0.1
BPG
44.2
FG%
36.1
3P%
82.5
FT%
31.3
MPG

GAME LOG

57 games played