CHI

2025-26 Season

NICK RICHARDS

Chicago Bulls | Center | 6-11
Nick Richards
5.9 PPG
5.2 RPG
0.3 APG
14.9 MPG
-0.8 Impact

Richards produces at an average rate for a 15-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
-0.8
Scoring +3.4
Points 5.9 PPG × +1.00 = +5.9
Missed 2PT 1.8/g × -0.78 = -1.4
Missed 3PT 0.3/g × -0.87 = -0.3
Missed FT 0.8/g × -1.00 = -0.8
Creation +1.7
Assists 0.3/g × +0.50 = +0.1
Off. Rebounds 1.3/g × +1.26 = +1.6
Turnovers -2.5
Turnovers 1.3/g × -1.95 = -2.5
Defense +0.4
Steals 0.2/g × +2.30 = +0.5
Blocks 0.7/g × +0.90 = +0.6
Def. Rebounds 3.9/g × +0.30 = +1.2
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +2.1
Contested Shots 4.1/g × +0.20 = +0.8
Deflections 0.7/g × +0.65 = +0.5
Loose Balls 0.1/g × +0.60 = +0.1
Screen Assists 1.9/g × +0.30 = +0.6
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.0/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.1
Raw Impact +5.1
Baseline (game-average expected) −5.9
Net Impact
-0.8
9th pctl vs Centers

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 92 Centers with 10+ games

Scoring 30th
6.2 PPG
Efficiency 19th
54.8% TS
Playmaking 3th
0.3 APG
Rebounding 43th
5.6 RPG
Rim Protection 19th
0.15/min
Hustle 15th
0.09/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 12th
0.08/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Nick Richards spent the first quarter of the season riding a chaotic seesaw as a situational big man, oscillating wildly between micro-stint dominance and defensive liability. Look at his performance on 10/27 vs UTA, where he scored just 6 points but posted a massive +7.4 impact score. He earned that lofty rating by anchoring the interior defense and ripping down 10 rebounds, creating enough non-scoring value to overcome his sluggish shooting. Conversely, his outing on 10/25 vs DEN was an absolute disaster. He posted a brutal -7.8 impact in just 10 minutes because his poor positional awareness in drop coverage allowed opposing guards to walk right into comfortable mid-range jumpers. When elevated to the starting lineup on 11/13 vs IND, he completely vanished as a roll threat, failing to attempt a single field goal and dragging his team down with a -5.2 impact. When he sets hard screens and protects the rim, he survives. When his physicality wanes, he becomes completely unplayable.

This erratic midseason stretch was defined by maddening inconsistencies, as Nick Richards constantly oscillated between bruising interior enforcer and self-sabotaging liability. On 12/29 vs WAS, he endured a nightmare offensive performance, managing just 2 points on a brutal 1-for-8 shooting night. However, he still posted a +2.3 impact score because his sturdy interior defense and nine rebounds provided essential non-scoring value that kept the second unit afloat. Conversely, his box score production often masked damaging hidden costs on the other end of the floor. During the 03/01 vs MIL matchup, Richards scored 11 points but registered a -2.7 impact because a slew of costly illegal screens and moving fouls completely negated his interior finishing. A similar story unfolded on 03/12 vs LAL, where he racked up 15 points on 7-of-9 shooting but sank to a -2.3 impact because a total lack of rim deterrence allowed the opposition to score at will. When he simply sets hard screens and protects the paint, he thrives, but his overall effectiveness evaporates the moment his fundamental discipline slips.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Richards's impact swings wildly relative to his average — some nights dominant, others invisible. Scoring varies by ~4 points per game.

Middle-of-the-road efficiency — shoots 45%+ from the field in 57% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

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

Flat trajectory all season — first-half impact -0.7, second-half -0.9. No major shifts, which fits with the overall steadiness.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 73 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. Lopez 63.1 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.21
PTS 13
A. Sengun 39.3 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.18
PTS 7
J. Williams 35.1 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 6
N. Jokić 33.6 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
E. Mobley 31.2 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 4
M. Bagley III 27.7 poss
FG% 16.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 2
O. Ighodaro 26.9 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 2
R. Williams III 26.1 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.15
PTS 4
N. Claxton 23.9 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 2
J. Poeltl 23.0 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

B. Lopez 50.6 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 6
A. Sengun 48.7 poss
FG% 73.7%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.6
PTS 29
N. Jokić 39.8 poss
FG% 80.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.3
PTS 12
E. Mobley 39.6 poss
FG% 62.5%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.28
PTS 11
R. Williams III 36.8 poss
FG% 83.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.27
PTS 10
O. Ighodaro 30.4 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 2
D. Ayton 29.8 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.2
PTS 6
J. Sims 29.4 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 2
J. Williams 28.9 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.17
PTS 5
J. Poeltl 24.4 poss
FG% 57.1%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.33
PTS 8

SEASON STATS

47
Games
5.9
PPG
5.2
RPG
0.3
APG
0.2
SPG
0.7
BPG
51.2
FG%
27.8
3P%
64.4
FT%
14.9
MPG

GAME LOG

47 games played