DET

2025-26 Season

ISAIAH STEWART

Detroit Pistons | Forward-Center | 6-8
Isaiah Stewart
10.0 PPG
5.1 RPG
1.2 APG
23.2 MPG
+2.0 Impact

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

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
+2.0
Scoring +6.9
Points 10.0 PPG × +1.00 = +10.0
Missed 2PT 1.8/g × -0.78 = -1.4
Missed 3PT 1.4/g × -0.87 = -1.2
Missed FT 0.5/g × -1.00 = -0.5
Creation +2.2
Assists 1.2/g × +0.50 = +0.6
Off. Rebounds 1.3/g × +1.26 = +1.6
Turnovers -2.1
Turnovers 1.1/g × -1.95 = -2.1
Defense +1.3
Steals 0.3/g × +2.30 = +0.7
Blocks 1.6/g × +0.90 = +1.4
Def. Rebounds 3.8/g × +0.30 = +1.1
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +3.0
Contested Shots 9.3/g × +0.20 = +1.9
Deflections 0.6/g × +0.65 = +0.4
Loose Balls 0.3/g × +0.60 = +0.2
Screen Assists 1.5/g × +0.30 = +0.4
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.0/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.1
Raw Impact +11.3
Baseline (game-average expected) −9.3
Net Impact
+2.0
74th 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 56th
10.0 PPG
Efficiency 88th
63.0% TS
Playmaking 30th
1.2 APG
Rebounding 65th
5.1 RPG
Rim Protection 83th
0.19/min
Hustle 58th
0.11/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 43th
0.05/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Isaiah Stewart's early season was defined by extreme volatility, oscillating wildly between dominant interior bully-ball and spacing-killing offensive limitations. When his physical brand of basketball clicked, he was an absolute monster. Look no further than the 11/03 vs MEM matchup, where he battered his way to 26 points and 14 rebounds. His towering +21.9 impact score in that contest stemmed directly from sheer interior dominance and high-value shot creation that overwhelmed the defense. Conversely, his limitations frequently dragged down lineups when his jumper failed him. During a dismal showing on 10/24 vs HOU, Stewart posted a brutal -7.8 impact score because his complete lack of offensive gravity allowed his primary defender to mercilessly roam and clog the paint. Yet, he still managed to salvage value on nights when his scoring completely vanished. On 12/03 vs MIL, he managed just 5 points but still generated a stellar +5.9 impact simply by utilizing his imposing physical frame to deter shots at the rim and anchor the defense.

This twenty-game stretch was a volatile tug-of-war between Isaiah Stewart's bruising interior defense and his wildly inconsistent offensive spacing. Look at his 12/26 vs UTA performance, where hesitant perimeter shooting completely bogged down the half-court offense and dragged him to a brutal -10.0 impact score. Yet, his elite physical drop coverage often salvaged his overall value on quiet scoring nights. During the 01/05 vs NYK matchup, he managed a positive +0.6 impact despite scoring just seven points because his relentless defensive activity and rebounding locked down the paint. When he actually found his rhythm inside, the results were devastating. He erupted for 31 points on 14-of-17 shooting on 01/07 vs CHI, ruthlessly punishing mismatches through contact to generate a massive +22.6 impact score. Ultimately, Stewart remains a situational battering ram whose nightly effectiveness hinges entirely on whether his jumper commands enough respect to keep the floor unclogged.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Stewart'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 60% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

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

Small downward trend. First-half impact: +2.9, second-half: +1.0. Not alarming yet, but trending the wrong direction.

Tends to go on runs. Longest hot streak: 6 games. Longest cold streak: 3 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 62 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 74.9 poss
FG% 62.5%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 10
N. Vučević 63.0 poss
FG% 56.2%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.29
PTS 18
E. Mobley 53.9 poss
FG% 28.6%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 4
J. Johnson 49.8 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.18
PTS 9
K. Ware 49.8 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 7
O. Ighodaro 48.2 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.15
PTS 7
J. Nurkić 47.9 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.17
PTS 8
O. Okongwu 47.1 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 12
D. Sharpe 43.9 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.05
PTS 2
M. Robinson 41.9 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 6

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

B. Adebayo 94.7 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 11
N. Vučević 70.2 poss
FG% 45.0%
3P% 42.9%
PPP 0.3
PTS 21
E. Mobley 57.4 poss
FG% 36.4%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.21
PTS 12
J. Johnson 51.3 poss
FG% 28.6%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.21
PTS 11
D. Sharpe 45.5 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 3
J. Sims 45.2 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 6
M. Robinson 45.0 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
O. Okongwu 43.4 poss
FG% 58.3%
3P% 40.0%
PPP 0.39
PTS 17
O. Ighodaro 42.5 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.19
PTS 8
D. Cardwell 41.2 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 5

SEASON STATS

55
Games
10.0
PPG
5.1
RPG
1.2
APG
0.3
SPG
1.6
BPG
54.1
FG%
33.3
3P%
76.0
FT%
23.2
MPG

GAME LOG

55 games played