MIN

2025-26 Season

BONES HYLAND

Minnesota Timberwolves | Guard | 6-2
Bones Hyland
8.2 PPG
1.7 RPG
2.6 APG
16.2 MPG
-0.7 Impact

Hyland produces at an average rate for a 16-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
-0.7
Scoring +5.0
Points 8.2 PPG × +1.00 = +8.2
Missed 2PT 1.0/g × -0.78 = -0.8
Missed 3PT 2.5/g × -0.87 = -2.2
Missed FT 0.2/g × -1.00 = -0.2
Creation +1.8
Assists 2.6/g × +0.50 = +1.3
Off. Rebounds 0.4/g × +1.26 = +0.5
Turnovers -1.8
Turnovers 0.9/g × -1.95 = -1.8
Defense +0.1
Steals 0.6/g × +2.30 = +1.4
Blocks 0.2/g × +0.90 = +0.2
Def. Rebounds 1.3/g × +0.30 = +0.4
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +1.6
Contested Shots 2.0/g × +0.20 = +0.4
Deflections 1.2/g × +0.65 = +0.8
Loose Balls 0.3/g × +0.60 = +0.2
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.1/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.2
Raw Impact +6.7
Baseline (game-average expected) −7.4
Net Impact
-0.7
60th 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 47th
8.8 PPG
Efficiency 62th
56.4% TS
Playmaking 51th
2.7 APG
Rebounding 14th
1.8 RPG
Rim Protection 28th
0.10/min
Hustle 38th
0.09/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 49th
0.06/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Bones Hyland’s early season was defined by maddening volatility, oscillating wildly between game-breaking microwave scoring and absolute offensive sabotage. When he caught fire, he was an undeniable weapon. Look at his explosive outing on 11/07 vs UTA, where he poured in 12 points in a mere 9 minutes to post a massive +9.4 impact score by shifting momentum with a perfect shooting barrage. Yet, giving him a longer leash often yielded disastrous results. During a rare start on 12/17 vs MEM, Hyland managed 12 points and 5 assists but dragged the team down to a brutal -8.8 impact. Firing away with errant shot selection from beyond the arc—bricking seven of his nine three-point attempts—he severely handicapped the offense despite his double-digit scoring. Even when his box score looked respectable off the bench, hidden costs frequently eroded his overall value. On 12/25 vs DEN, he tallied 11 points and 5 assists but still registered a -1.6 impact because his tendency to over-dribble and throw errant transition passes completely stagnated the second unit's flow.

This deeply frustrating stretch was defined by a wildly volatile slump where erratic shot selection and defensive apathy routinely sabotaged the second unit. The absolute nadir arrived on 12/31 vs ATL, where his rhythm-killing shot-hunting resulted in a disastrous 0-for-7 shooting night and a catastrophic -15.2 impact score. Even when the ball actually went through the hoop, hidden costs often dragged him down. During the 01/17 vs SAS matchup, he hit all three of his field goal attempts for 7 points, yet still posted a -0.4 impact because his poor defense immediately gave those points right back to the opponent. He remains a tantalizing but maddening player because he can occasionally tilt the floor entirely on his own. He temporarily shattered his slump on 01/13 vs MIL with an explosive 23-point outburst, generating a massive +12.6 impact by catching fire from deep and finally making crisp decisions. Ultimately, relying on his isolation-heavy game feels like playing Russian roulette with the team's offensive flow.

A maddeningly volatile rollercoaster of instant-offense highs and defensive-liability lows defined Bones Hyland's midseason stretch off the bench. His raw scoring totals frequently painted a deceptive picture of his actual value on the floor. Against UTA on 03/18, Hyland poured in 18 points but posted a -4.4 impact score, as his scoring volume merely masked the point-of-attack defensive vulnerabilities bleeding points on the other end. Conversely, he salvaged a +2.0 impact mark against PHI on 02/22 despite finishing with just three points on a dreadful 1-for-5 shooting night. He earned that positive rating by unexpectedly locking in defensively and generating extra possessions through sheer hustle. When both his shot and his defensive focus vanished, the results were catastrophic. This was painfully obvious against MEM on 03/03, where erratic shot selection and defensive liabilities culminated in a brutal -10.4 impact score. Hyland remains the ultimate wild card, capable of shooting his team into—or completely out of—any basketball game.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Hyland'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 52% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

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

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 77 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

J. Wells 42.7 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
B. Hield 36.4 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 75.0%
PPP 0.33
PTS 12
I. Joe 32.4 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
S. Henderson 32.0 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.34
PTS 11
Q. Grimes 28.0 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.18
PTS 5
B. Brown 27.8 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 6
P. Pritchard 26.0 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 2
J. Fears 25.6 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 2
C. Gillespie 25.4 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 2
T. Hardaway Jr. 24.8 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.28
PTS 7

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

J. Wells 35.8 poss
FG% 55.6%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.42
PTS 15
I. Joe 31.9 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 40.0%
PPP 0.19
PTS 6
B. Brown 31.8 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.06
PTS 2
J. Fears 31.1 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
S. Henderson 28.3 poss
FG% 30.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.42
PTS 12
B. Williams 27.1 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.33
PTS 9
J. Goodwin 26.5 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 3
J. Miller 26.4 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 3
C. Porter Jr. 26.2 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 2
W. Richard 25.4 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0

SEASON STATS

68
Games
8.2
PPG
1.7
RPG
2.6
APG
0.6
SPG
0.2
BPG
45.2
FG%
38.0
3P%
77.8
FT%
16.2
MPG

GAME LOG

68 games played