OKC

2025-26 Season

ISAIAH JOE

Oklahoma City Thunder | Guard | 6-4
Isaiah Joe
11.0 PPG
2.6 RPG
1.4 APG
21.5 MPG
+0.9 Impact

Joe produces at an average rate for a 22-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
+0.9
Scoring +7.2
Points 11.0 PPG × +1.00 = +11.0
Missed 2PT 0.7/g × -0.78 = -0.5
Missed 3PT 3.5/g × -0.87 = -3.1
Missed FT 0.2/g × -1.00 = -0.2
Creation +1.5
Assists 1.4/g × +0.50 = +0.7
Off. Rebounds 0.6/g × +1.26 = +0.8
Turnovers -1.2
Turnovers 0.6/g × -1.95 = -1.2
Defense +0.5
Steals 0.7/g × +2.30 = +1.6
Blocks 0.2/g × +0.90 = +0.2
Def. Rebounds 1.9/g × +0.30 = +0.6
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +3.0
Contested Shots 2.4/g × +0.20 = +0.5
Deflections 1.6/g × +0.65 = +1.0
Charges Drawn 0.1/g × +2.70 = +0.3
Loose Balls 0.3/g × +0.60 = +0.2
Screen Assists 0.4/g × +0.30 = +0.1
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.3/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.9
Raw Impact +11.0
Baseline (game-average expected) −10.1
Net Impact
+0.9
78th 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 58th
11.0 PPG
Efficiency 93th
61.7% TS
Playmaking 18th
1.4 APG
Rebounding 42th
2.6 RPG
Rim Protection 41th
0.11/min
Hustle 86th
0.14/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 92th
0.03/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Isaiah Joe's opening stretch of the 2025-26 season was defined by extreme volatility, oscillating wildly between game-breaking floor spacing and rhythm-killing chucking. When his jumper connected, he was an absolute menace off the bench. This peak was obvious on 10/30 vs WAS, where his lightning-quick release and relentless off-ball motion yielded 20 points and a massive +8.3 impact score. However, his heavy volume from the perimeter often carried hidden costs that actively tanked his overall value. During an 18-point outing on 11/11 vs GSW, his defensive lapses completely erased his offensive gravity, dragging him down to a brutal -7.5 impact score. Sometimes, he found other ways to survive. On 11/15 vs CHA, Joe managed a meager 3 points on 1-of-5 shooting, yet still salvaged a +1.7 impact score because his high-level defensive rotations kept the second unit afloat. Ultimately, this stretch reveals a highly combustible weapon whose effectiveness hinges entirely on his shot selection and willingness to guard.

This stretch was defined by a maddening perimeter slump that frequently sapped Isaiah Joe's offensive gravity and crippled his overall value. The absolute nadir arrived on 01/09 vs MEM. A brutal 0-for-5 night from deep completely tanked his offensive worth, handing him a dreadful -8.5 impact score as defenders aggressively sagged off him. Even when he found the bottom of the net, hidden costs often dragged him down. On 01/17 vs MIA, Joe efficiently hit two of his three perimeter attempts for 8 points, but a slew of hidden mistakes and bad fouls yielded an ugly -4.1 impact mark. Conversely, he occasionally found ways to drive winning without filling it up. During the 12/23 vs SAS matchup, he only scored 8 points but generated a stellar +6.4 impact score by relying on elite shot selection and timely defensive rotations. When his mechanics finally clicked on 01/27 vs NOP, his lethal off-ball movement punished the defense for 17 points and a +3.1 impact score, highlighting exactly why his spacing remains a vital weapon.

Extreme volatility defined this twenty-game stretch for Isaiah Joe, as he swung wildly between serving as a lethal floor-spacing weapon and an outright offensive liability. Even when his shot volume dipped, his mere presence could warp opposing defensive schemes to his team's advantage. Look at 02/20 vs BKN, where he scored just 11 points but posted a massive +12.8 impact score because his perimeter gravity relentlessly opened up the paint for his teammates. Conversely, empty scoring totals regularly masked hidden costs when his jumper abandoned him. During the 03/03 vs CHI matchup, Joe tallied a respectable 19 points, yet suffered a -2.2 impact score because a heavy volume of bricked perimeter shots—going an abysmal 2/10 from deep—severely penalized his overall value. When the three-ball vanished entirely, the results were disastrous. He bottomed out on 02/04 vs SAS with a brutal -12.1 impact score, managing only 2 points as a complete loss of shooting rhythm turned him into a severe net negative on the floor.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Joe'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 49% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

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

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

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 68 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

T. Hardaway Jr. 46.7 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 5
J. Champagnie 40.3 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 4
R. Dillingham 39.6 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 28.6%
PPP 0.33
PTS 13
C. Spencer 37.0 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 3
P. Spencer 35.9 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 8
B. Podziemski 32.4 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 4
D. DiVincenzo 31.9 poss
FG% 16.7%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.09
PTS 3
B. Hyland 31.9 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 40.0%
PPP 0.19
PTS 6
A. Green 31.8 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.09
PTS 3
L. Kennard 25.9 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 75.0%
PPP 0.35
PTS 9

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

T. Hardaway Jr. 57.7 poss
FG% 55.6%
3P% 60.0%
PPP 0.23
PTS 13
L. Kennard 48.2 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.15
PTS 7
R. Dillingham 42.4 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 5
P. Spencer 39.4 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.3
PTS 12
J. Champagnie 38.7 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.05
PTS 2
J. Alvarado 38.1 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 5
B. Hield 35.8 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.2
PTS 7
A. Green 33.4 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.36
PTS 12
D. DiVincenzo 32.8 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.18
PTS 6
B. Hyland 32.4 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0

SEASON STATS

67
Games
11.0
PPG
2.6
RPG
1.4
APG
0.7
SPG
0.2
BPG
44.8
FG%
41.6
3P%
88.9
FT%
21.5
MPG

GAME LOG

67 games played