CHA

2025-26 Season

COBY WHITE

Charlotte Hornets | Guard | 6-4
Coby White
17.6 PPG
3.5 RPG
4.2 APG
25.6 MPG
-1.5 Impact

White produces at an below average rate for a 26-minute workload. 2.6 turnovers per game cost 5.1 points of value nightly.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
-1.5
Scoring +10.8
Points 17.6 PPG × +1.00 = +17.6
Missed 2PT 2.8/g × -0.78 = -2.2
Missed 3PT 4.2/g × -0.87 = -3.7
Missed FT 0.9/g × -1.00 = -0.9
Creation +3.2
Assists 4.2/g × +0.50 = +2.1
Off. Rebounds 0.9/g × +1.26 = +1.1
Turnovers -5.1
Turnovers 2.6/g × -1.95 = -5.1
Defense +0.1
Steals 0.5/g × +2.30 = +1.1
Blocks 0.1/g × +0.90 = +0.1
Def. Rebounds 2.7/g × +0.30 = +0.8
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +2.6
Contested Shots 3.5/g × +0.20 = +0.7
Deflections 1.0/g × +0.65 = +0.7
Charges Drawn 0.2/g × +2.70 = +0.5
Loose Balls 0.4/g × +0.60 = +0.2
Screen Assists 0.3/g × +0.30 = +0.1
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.2/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.4
Raw Impact +11.6
Baseline (game-average expected) −13.1
Net Impact
-1.5
48th 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 84th
17.6 PPG
Efficiency 69th
57.4% TS
Playmaking 79th
4.2 APG
Rebounding 66th
3.5 RPG
Rim Protection 10th
0.08/min
Hustle 37th
0.09/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 7th
0.10/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Coby White’s opening stretch of the season was defined by a maddening inconsistency, oscillating wildly between dynamic offensive engine and actively detrimental chucker. He looked brilliant on 11/19 vs POR, punishing drop coverage with decisive pull-up shooting to generate a stellar +7.5 impact score. Yet, that disciplined approach frequently vanished. During his 12/21 vs ATL matchup, White poured in 21 points but still registered a terrible -10.0 impact score because he relentlessly bled points on the defensive end. The hidden costs of his game were equally glaring on 11/22 vs WAS. Despite scoring 20 points, he posted a -8.1 impact because his insistence on chucking low-percentage perimeter shots completely tanked the offense. Until he commits to consistent point-of-attack defense and stops bailing out opponents with early-clock heaves, White will remain a frustratingly volatile asset.

A jarring mid-season demotion to the bench completely redefined Coby White’s campaign. As a starter, he routinely produced hollow volume. Look at the 02/03 vs MIL matchup, where 21 points yielded a brutal -10.0 impact score because he relentlessly damaged the team's offensive rhythm by forcing contested jumpers early in the shot clock. Even when his shots connected, hidden costs dragged his value into the red, like on 02/28 vs POR when 20 points couldn't mask the significant point-of-attack defensive liabilities that caused a -4.2 impact. Relegated to the second unit, White eventually stopped hijacking possessions and started manipulating coverages. He posted a massive +11.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. White'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 44% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

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

Slight upward trend. First-half impact: -2.7, second-half: -0.3. Modest improvement — possibly settling into a rhythm.

Tends to go on runs. Longest hot streak: 3 games. Longest cold streak: 7 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 49 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. Larsson 43.1 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.23
PTS 10
Z. Risacher 36.6 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.05
PTS 2
K. George 35.9 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 6
B. Mathurin 34.1 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.29
PTS 10
D. Plowden 32.7 poss
FG% 57.1%
3P% 75.0%
PPP 0.37
PTS 12
B. Miller 32.7 poss
FG% 28.6%
3P% 20.0%
PPP 0.28
PTS 9
N. Clowney 31.9 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 60.0%
PPP 0.34
PTS 11
D. Mitchell 29.1 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.21
PTS 6
V. Krejčí 27.8 poss
FG% 80.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.61
PTS 17
K. Jakučionis 27.7 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 20.0%
PPP 0.36
PTS 10

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

P. Larsson 41.0 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 7
C. Williams 39.3 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
D. Plowden 36.0 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 8
D. Smith 34.6 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 5
K. Jakučionis 31.4 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 4
FG% 40.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 4
D. DiVincenzo 30.9 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.1
PTS 3
K. Murray 29.5 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 2
Q. Grimes 27.9 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.18
PTS 5
M. Smart 27.2 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 2

SEASON STATS

46
Games
17.6
PPG
3.5
RPG
4.2
APG
0.5
SPG
0.1
BPG
44.5
FG%
35.5
3P%
82.1
FT%
25.6
MPG

GAME LOG

46 games played