HOU

2025-26 Season

JAE'SEAN TATE

Houston Rockets | Forward | 6-4
Jae'Sean Tate
2.6 PPG
1.4 RPG
0.5 APG
8.3 MPG
-0.5 Impact

Tate produces at an average rate for a 8-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
-0.5
Scoring +1.6
Points 2.6 PPG × +1.00 = +2.6
Missed 2PT 0.7/g × -0.78 = -0.5
Missed 3PT 0.5/g × -0.87 = -0.4
Missed FT 0.1/g × -1.00 = -0.1
Creation +0.6
Assists 0.5/g × +0.50 = +0.2
Off. Rebounds 0.3/g × +1.26 = +0.4
Turnovers -0.6
Turnovers 0.3/g × -1.95 = -0.6
Defense -1.0
Steals 0.2/g × +2.30 = +0.5
Blocks 0.1/g × +0.90 = +0.1
Def. Rebounds 1.0/g × +0.30 = +0.3
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +1.1
Contested Shots 1.4/g × +0.20 = +0.3
Deflections 0.5/g × +0.65 = +0.3
Loose Balls 0.3/g × +0.60 = +0.2
Screen Assists 0.2/g × +0.30 = +0.1
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.1/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.2
Raw Impact +1.7
Baseline (game-average expected) −2.2
Net Impact
-0.5
44th 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 6th
3.7 PPG
Efficiency 31th
54.1% TS
Playmaking 6th
0.6 APG
Rebounding 4th
2.0 RPG
Rim Protection 12th
0.09/min
Hustle 89th
0.14/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 74th
0.04/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Jae'Sean Tate spent the first twenty games of the season clinging to the fringes of the rotation, operating as a chaotic, high-variance spark plug who either tilted the floor with raw hustle or actively damaged the defensive scheme. His value rarely correlated with his scoring output. During his 12/01 vs UTA appearance, Tate logged just 6 points in 13 minutes but generated a massive +13.6 impact score by relentlessly crashing the glass for 6 rebounds and injecting pure energy into a stagnant lineup. Conversely, his highest-scoring night of this stretch actually hurt the team. On 12/05 vs PHX, he tallied 8 points and hit both of his three-point attempts in 19 minutes, yet suffered a brutal -5.8 impact rating because he repeatedly surrendered costly defensive breakdowns in isolation. When his trademark motor stalled, he became an active liability. A disastrous stint on 11/01 vs BOS resulted in a -6.6 impact score in just 8 minutes, as complete offensive invisibility allowed the defense to completely ignore him. Tate remains a blunt instrument off the bench, capable of swinging momentum through sheer physicality but lacking the discipline to survive extended minutes.

Jae'Sean Tate spent this twenty-game stretch fighting a losing battle against irrelevance at the very end of the bench. His erratic playing time mostly yielded empty cardio minutes. Look no further than his 03/27 vs MEM appearance, where a passive offensive approach and a complete failure to affect the game resulted in a brutal -6.1 impact score. He actively hurt the offense again on 03/31 vs NYK, posting a -4.8 impact by repeatedly forcing awkward drives into a crowded paint to score just 2 points. Yet, Tate occasionally found ways to be highly effective without needing a heavy scoring load. During an 11-minute stint on 01/16 vs MIN, he generated a stellar +4.0 impact on a mere 4 points by utilizing gritty interior finishes and timely cuts to spark the second unit. Unfortunately, those efficient flashes were ultimately buried under a mountain of blown defensive assignments and clunky shot selection.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Tate's impact swings wildly relative to his average — some nights dominant, others invisible. Scoring varies by ~3 points per game.

Flat trajectory all season — first-half impact +0.1, second-half -1.2. No major shifts, which fits with the overall steadiness.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 60 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

A. Bailey 14.4 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.28
PTS 4
K. Filipowski 13.7 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.44
PTS 6
N. Marshall 12.6 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
J. Collins 11.7 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 2
C. Kispert 11.4 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
P. Siakam 10.6 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.19
PTS 2
C. Cunningham 9.9 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 1
L. Ball 9.3 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
C. Spencer 9.1 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
J. Butler III 9.1 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.33
PTS 3

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

J. Collins 14.3 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
K. Filipowski 14.0 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.5
PTS 7
G. Williams 13.4 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 3
A. Bailey 10.6 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.66
PTS 7
P. Washington 10.1 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.2
PTS 2
A. Davis 9.7 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.41
PTS 4
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
G. Jackson 9.4 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.21
PTS 2
B. Mathurin 9.0 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
C. Flagg 8.4 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.24
PTS 2

SEASON STATS

41
Games
2.6
PPG
1.4
RPG
0.5
APG
0.2
SPG
0.1
BPG
49.5
FG%
31.0
3P%
70.0
FT%
8.3
MPG

GAME LOG

41 games played