CHI

2025-26 Season

PATRICK WILLIAMS

Chicago Bulls | Forward | 6-6
Patrick Williams
6.6 PPG
2.9 RPG
1.3 APG
19.6 MPG
-4.4 Impact

Williams produces at an below average rate for a 20-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
-4.4
Scoring +2.9
Points 6.6 PPG × +1.00 = +6.6
Missed 2PT 1.6/g × -0.78 = -1.3
Missed 3PT 2.4/g × -0.87 = -2.1
Missed FT 0.3/g × -1.00 = -0.3
Creation +1.6
Assists 1.3/g × +0.50 = +0.7
Off. Rebounds 0.7/g × +1.26 = +0.9
Turnovers -1.9
Turnovers 1.0/g × -1.95 = -1.9
Defense +0.4
Steals 0.6/g × +2.30 = +1.4
Blocks 0.3/g × +0.90 = +0.3
Def. Rebounds 2.1/g × +0.30 = +0.6
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +1.7
Contested Shots 3.1/g × +0.20 = +0.6
Deflections 1.3/g × +0.65 = +0.8
Loose Balls 0.3/g × +0.60 = +0.2
Screen Assists 0.4/g × +0.30 = +0.1
Raw Impact +4.7
Baseline (game-average expected) −9.1
Net Impact
-4.4
2th 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 31th
6.8 PPG
Efficiency 12th
48.9% TS
Playmaking 36th
1.3 APG
Rebounding 24th
2.9 RPG
Rim Protection 39th
0.13/min
Hustle 22th
0.08/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 38th
0.05/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

A maddening cocktail of extreme offensive passivity and hesitation defined Patrick Williams’s first twenty games of the season. Even when he managed to find the bottom of the net, hidden costs routinely dragged him down. Take his 12-point outing on 10/27 vs ATL, where he posted a -1.6 impact score because he stubbornly settled for contested perimeter jumpers instead of attacking closeouts. The bottom fell out completely during his lone start on 11/24 vs NOP. Thrust into the opening lineup, Williams registered a catastrophic -15.1 impact score as brutal shot selection and clanked looks completely stalled the offense. He finally offered a glimmer of hope on 12/03 vs BKN, snapping his severe slump with a +4.1 impact score by simply capitalizing on high-quality spot-up opportunities.

This stretch was defined by a crippling offensive slump that left Patrick Williams looking utterly invisible on the floor for weeks at a time. During a disastrous 01/08 vs MIA outing, he forced heavily contested shots and looked completely lost within the flow of the offense, dragging his impact score down to a dismal -13.2. The hesitation reached its nadir on 01/13 vs HOU, where a 0-for-6 shooting nightmare generated a -11.6 impact mark. He occasionally managed to salvage his minutes without scoring, such as on 12/07 vs GSW where he tallied just three points but still posted a +1.2 impact because his smothering wing defense offset his broken jumper. When Williams actually played with decisive aggression, the results flipped entirely. He caught defenders completely off guard on 01/02 vs ORL, using a sudden resurgence in shot creation to pour in 15 points and post a +5.9 impact score. Unfortunately, those aggressive flashes were a rare exception to a deeply passive rule.

This stretch was defined by maddening passivity and erratic shot selection. Even when he poured in 17 points on 02/03 vs MIL, his negative -0.2 impact score revealed the hidden costs of his underlying efficiency issues. Conversely, he found actual utility on 02/07 vs DEN by accepting a low-usage role. He generated a stellar +7.3 impact score on just 8 points by knocking down timely, open looks to stabilize the offense. Unfortunately, those brief flashes of competence were quickly swallowed up by disastrous duds. Operating as an absolute offensive black hole on 03/13 vs LAC, he missed all seven of his shot attempts to earn a staggering -11.8 impact score. When a forward floats on the perimeter and refuses to attack closeouts, the resulting spacing issues make him a severe liability.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Struggling. Williams has posted negative impact in 79% of games this season. The production rarely outweighs the cost.

Streaky shooter — only cracks 45% from the field in 30% of games. Efficiency is all over the place night-to-night.

Defensive difference-maker. Williams consistently forces tough shots and protects the rim — opponents shoot worse when he's guarding them.

Small downward trend. First-half impact: -3.4, second-half: -5.3. Not alarming yet, but trending the wrong direction.

In a rough stretch — 14 straight games with negative impact. Longest cold streak this season: 14 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 67 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

B. Adebayo 62.0 poss
FG% 27.3%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 10
Z. Williamson 60.0 poss
FG% 42.9%
3P% 42.9%
PPP 0.15
PTS 9
M. Bridges 53.5 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.3
PTS 16
P. Banchero 51.0 poss
FG% 83.3%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.24
PTS 12
B. Ingram 48.6 poss
FG% 42.9%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.14
PTS 7
O. Anunoby 48.2 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.06
PTS 3
P. Siakam 48.1 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 4
J. Brown 33.8 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.09
PTS 3
J. Jaquez Jr. 32.9 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 4
H. Barnes 27.6 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.11
PTS 3

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

B. Adebayo 71.2 poss
FG% 31.6%
3P% 12.5%
PPP 0.2
PTS 14
M. Bridges 64.8 poss
FG% 62.5%
3P% 62.5%
PPP 0.39
PTS 25
Z. Williamson 63.9 poss
FG% 62.5%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.2
PTS 13
O. Anunoby 62.7 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 71.4%
PPP 0.27
PTS 17
P. Banchero 51.0 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.02
PTS 1
P. Siakam 47.7 poss
FG% 30.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.23
PTS 11
B. Ingram 43.4 poss
FG% 36.4%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 11
J. Brown 34.8 poss
FG% 42.9%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.23
PTS 8
S. Barnes 32.8 poss
FG% 16.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.06
PTS 2
K. Durant 32.8 poss
FG% 42.9%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.24
PTS 8

SEASON STATS

67
Games
6.6
PPG
2.9
RPG
1.3
APG
0.6
SPG
0.3
BPG
37.1
FG%
34.7
3P%
67.7
FT%
19.6
MPG

GAME LOG

67 games played