MIN

2025-26 Season

BONES HYLAND

Minnesota Timberwolves | Guard | 6-2
Bones Hyland
8.1PPG
1.7RPG
2.5APG
16.1MPG
-3.8 Impact

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

·
Embed this player card

Copy & paste this HTML into any page:

The widget updates automatically whenever our data does.

IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
-3.8
Scoring +7.4
Points Scored 8.1 PPG = +8.1
Missed Shots difficulty-adjusted = -2.8
Shot Making above expected FG% = +2.1
Creation +0.6
Assists & Self-Creation 2.5 AST/g + self-creation = +0.6
Turnovers -2.3
Turnovers 1.0/g (live + dead blend) = -2.3
Defense +0.2
Steals 0.6/g = +1.4
Blocks 0.2/g = +0.2
Fouls + context committed fouls, matchup adj = -1.4
Hustle & Effort +1.0
Rebounds 1.7 RPG (OREB + DREB) = -0.2
Contested Shots 1.7/g = +0.3
Deflections 1.0/g = +0.7
Charges Drawn 0.0/g = +0.0
Loose Balls 0.3/g = +0.2
Screen Assists 0.1/g = +0.0
Raw Impact +6.9
Baseline (game-average expected) −10.7
Net Impact
-3.8
33th pctl vs Guards

PBP Credit: Every play is analyzed from play-by-play data. Scorers get difficulty-adjusted credit, assisters get creation value based on the shot opportunity they created, and turnovers are classified by type. Shot difficulty is derived from 1M+ shots across 4 seasons. Full methodology

SKILL DNA

Percentile rank vs 246 Guards with 10+ games

Scoring 44th
8.7 PPG
Efficiency 41th
53.4% TS
Playmaking 52th
2.7 APG
Rebounding 14th
1.9 RPG
Defense 20th
+4.9/g
Hustle 19th
+6.0/g
Creation 48th
+2.70/g
Shot Making 51th
+6.71/g
TO Discipline 45th
0.06/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Bones Hyland spent the first quarter of the 2025-26 season trapped in the ultimate microwave-scorer paradox, oscillating wildly between instant offense and outright sabotage. When his jumper abandoned him, as it did on 10/27 vs DEN, his erratic shot selection resulted in an abysmal Impact:-14.6 while he forced up bad looks and shot 1-for-6 from the field. Yet, he could completely flip a game on its head just a couple of weeks later. He poured in 12 points on a flawless 4-for-4 shooting display on 11/08 vs UTA to generate a stellar Impact:+8.3 through pure, concentrated scoring efficiency. The defining frustration with Hyland remains his hidden costs. Even when his offensive rhythm clicked during a 14-point outburst on 12/09 vs PHX, he still posted an Impact:-0.6. He simply bled too much value on the other end, giving those points right back with lazy perimeter closeouts and defensive lapses.

Bones Hyland’s midseason stretch was defined by maddening volatility, oscillating wildly between explosive bench scoring and catastrophic inefficiency. He opened this run with an absolute dud on 12/31 vs ATL, missing all seven of his shots to post a disastrous -20.5 Impact score as his erratic shot selection cratered the offense. Yet, the fickle guard caught fire exactly two weeks later on 01/14 vs MIL. Pouring in 23 points on 9-of-16 shooting, he drove a massive +15.6 Impact score because his deep perimeter gravity finally stretched the floor and energized the second unit. Those flashes of brilliance rarely lasted. Take his outing on 01/29 vs OKC, where he logged 24 minutes and scored 9 points. His -6.9 Impact score in that contest exposed the hidden costs of his game, as forced jumpers and sloppy defensive rotations actively bled points on the other end. Hyland remains a chaotic sparkplug who can shoot you into a game just as easily as he shoots you out of it.

This stretch of the season was defined by extreme volatility, with Bones Hyland oscillating wildly between electric microwave scorer and detrimental shot-chucker. When his jumper caught fire, he was a massive weapon off the bench, erupting for 23 points and a +16.1 Impact on 03/22 vs BOS. Yet Hyland could also actively hurt the team even when his shot was falling, perfectly illustrated on 03/11 vs LAC. Despite scoring 10 points on an efficient 4-for-6 from the floor, he posted a -6.5 Impact because his complete lack of rebounding and defensive lapses bled points on the other end. Conversely, he occasionally found ways to contribute without filling the basket, like on 02/22 vs PHI. He managed a +0.4 Impact despite a dismal shooting performance (1-for-5 from the field) by grabbing four rebounds and digging in with gritty defensive hustle. If Hyland wants to be a reliable playoff rotation piece, he has to curb the erratic decision-making that leads to disastrous nights like his 3-for-12 clunker on 04/02 vs DET.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Inconsistent. Hyland has clear good-night/bad-night splits, with scoring swinging ~7 points between games. You're never quite sure which version shows up.

Middle-of-the-road efficiency — shoots 45%+ from the field in 52% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

Average defender. Hyland doesn't hurt you defensively, but he's not making opponents uncomfortable either.

Slight upward trend. First-half impact: -5.2, second-half: -2.5. Modest improvement — possibly settling into a rhythm.

In a rough stretch — 4 straight games with negative impact. Longest cold streak this season: 7 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY ⚠ Updated 46 days ago

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

80
Games
8.1
PPG
1.7
RPG
2.5
APG
0.6
SPG
0.2
BPG
44.1
FG%
37.7
3P%
78.9
FT%
16.1
MPG

GAME LOG

80 games played