TOR

2025-26 Season

IMMANUEL QUICKLEY

Toronto Raptors | Guard | 6-2
Immanuel Quickley
16.9 PPG
4.1 RPG
6.0 APG
32.4 MPG
+1.3 Impact

Quickley produces at an above average rate for a 32-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
+1.3
Scoring +10.1
Points 16.9 PPG × +1.00 = +16.9
Missed 2PT 3.0/g × -0.78 = -2.4
Missed 3PT 4.3/g × -0.87 = -3.8
Missed FT 0.6/g × -1.00 = -0.6
Creation +4.3
Assists 6.0/g × +0.50 = +3.0
Off. Rebounds 1.0/g × +1.26 = +1.3
Turnovers -2.9
Turnovers 1.5/g × -1.95 = -2.9
Defense +2.1
Steals 1.3/g × +2.30 = +3.0
Blocks 0.1/g × +0.90 = +0.1
Def. Rebounds 3.1/g × +0.30 = +0.9
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +3.7
Contested Shots 3.5/g × +0.20 = +0.7
Deflections 2.3/g × +0.65 = +1.5
Loose Balls 0.5/g × +0.60 = +0.3
Screen Assists 0.5/g × +0.30 = +0.1
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.4/g uncredited × +2.70 = +1.1
Raw Impact +17.3
Baseline (game-average expected) −16.0
Net Impact
+1.3
84th 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 238 Guards with 10+ games

Scoring 81th
16.9 PPG
Efficiency 77th
58.0% TS
Playmaking 91th
6.0 APG
Rebounding 77th
4.1 RPG
Rim Protection 53th
0.12/min
Hustle 62th
0.11/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 66th
0.05/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Immanuel Quickley’s first twenty games were defined by a maddening inconsistency, oscillating wildly between explosive offensive outbursts and brutal volume-shooting slumps. When his mechanics aligned, he was a massive offensive engine, peaking on 11/11 vs BKN where his explosive shot creation drove a stellar +12.2 impact score. Yet, his heavy usage frequently yielded diminishing returns. During the 11/29 vs CHA matchup, Quickley stuffed the box score with 22 points and 10 assists, but his inefficient perimeter shooting dragged his overall impact down to a -0.3. His defensive engagement also fluctuated dramatically. On 11/02 vs MEM, he managed just 9 points and suffered a disastrous -11.1 impact score because he repeatedly died on ball screens, exposing the defensive backline. For every masterful orchestration of the offense, there was a night where erratic decision-making and forced perimeter looks completely cratered his value.

This twenty-game stretch was defined by maddening inconsistency, with Immanuel Quickley oscillating violently between offensive mastery and self-destructive habits. When he dialed in his decision-making, he was untouchable. He orchestrated a pick-and-roll masterclass on 12/05 vs CHA, punishing under-screens to generate 31 points and a massive +14.3 impact score. Yet, far too often, his gaudy scoring totals masked deep underlying flaws. Look no further than 12/28 vs GSW, where he poured in 27 points but still posted a -3.0 impact because hidden errors dragged his rating into the red. Conversely, he occasionally found ways to be a net positive when his jumper completely abandoned him. During a brutal 6-for-22 shooting night on 01/11 vs PHI, he managed to grind out a +2.2 impact. Rather than letting his broken perimeter stroke dictate his value, he leaned on phenomenal point-of-attack defense to salvage the evening.

Immanuel Quickley’s midseason stretch was defined by wild, unpredictable pendulum swings between offensive mastery and empty-calorie isolation play. When his jumper was falling, he looked utterly unstoppable, peaking on 01/20 vs GSW with a staggering +22.3 impact score fueled by 40 points, 10 assists, and lethal 7-for-8 perimeter shot-making. Yet, that blistering execution frequently vanished into bouts of selfish ball-stopping. During a brutal 01/28 vs NYK matchup, he managed just 7 points and a disastrous -14.2 impact because he insisted on pounding the air out of the ball and settling for heavily contested pull-ups. Even when his raw scoring totals looked respectable, hidden costs often ruined his actual value on the floor. His 20-point outing on 02/25 vs SAS yielded a -2.5 impact, as his complete lack of playmaking—zero assists in 37 minutes—turned a decent shooting night into classic empty calories that actively bled points. Quickley clearly has the talent to fracture a defensive shell, but his tendency to over-dribble remains a glaring liability.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Quickley'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 51% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

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

Slight upward trend. First-half impact: +0.3, second-half: +2.3. Modest improvement — possibly settling into a rhythm.

Tends to go on runs. Longest hot streak: 7 games. Longest cold streak: 5 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 69 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

R. Rollins 99.5 poss
FG% 52.2%
3P% 54.5%
PPP 0.35
PTS 35
FG% 66.7%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 23
T. Maxey 90.8 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 41.7%
PPP 0.29
PTS 26
V. Edgecombe 76.1 poss
FG% 40.9%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.32
PTS 24
L. Ball 63.7 poss
FG% 54.5%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 16
P. Pritchard 58.1 poss
FG% 16.7%
3P% 12.5%
PPP 0.09
PTS 5
A. Simons 55.2 poss
FG% 42.9%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 14
A. Nembhard 54.8 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 12
C. Wallace 53.1 poss
FG% 42.9%
3P% 60.0%
PPP 0.21
PTS 11
D. Mitchell 53.0 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 7

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

R. Rollins 93.6 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.11
PTS 10
V. Edgecombe 87.7 poss
FG% 45.5%
3P% 80.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 14
FG% 44.4%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.15
PTS 13
D. DiVincenzo 66.9 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 62.5%
PPP 0.22
PTS 15
A. Simons 66.2 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 30.0%
PPP 0.2
PTS 13
L. Ball 62.9 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.24
PTS 15
A. Nembhard 58.3 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 42.9%
PPP 0.22
PTS 13
D. Mitchell 58.3 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 75.0%
PPP 0.19
PTS 11
M. Bridges 58.2 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 4
C. McCollum 57.4 poss
FG% 54.5%
3P% 60.0%
PPP 0.26
PTS 15

SEASON STATS

67
Games
16.9
PPG
4.1
RPG
6.0
APG
1.3
SPG
0.1
BPG
44.5
FG%
37.4
3P%
82.1
FT%
32.4
MPG

GAME LOG

67 games played