CHA

2025-26 Season

TRE MANN

Charlotte Hornets | Guard | 6-4
Tre Mann
5.7 PPG
1.8 RPG
1.7 APG
13.1 MPG
-2.7 Impact

Mann produces at an below average rate for a 13-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
-2.7
Scoring +2.6
Points 5.7 PPG × +1.00 = +5.7
Missed 2PT 1.7/g × -0.78 = -1.3
Missed 3PT 2.0/g × -0.87 = -1.7
Missed FT 0.1/g × -1.00 = -0.1
Creation +1.4
Assists 1.7/g × +0.50 = +0.8
Off. Rebounds 0.5/g × +1.26 = +0.6
Turnovers -2.1
Turnovers 1.1/g × -1.95 = -2.1
Defense -0.3
Steals 0.5/g × +2.30 = +1.1
Blocks 0.1/g × +0.90 = +0.1
Def. Rebounds 1.4/g × +0.30 = +0.4
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +1.5
Contested Shots 1.5/g × +0.20 = +0.3
Deflections 1.0/g × +0.65 = +0.7
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 +3.1
Baseline (game-average expected) −5.8
Net Impact
-2.7
26th 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 32th
7.2 PPG
Efficiency 12th
45.8% TS
Playmaking 38th
2.2 APG
Rebounding 32th
2.4 RPG
Rim Protection 31th
0.10/min
Hustle 54th
0.11/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 19th
0.08/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Tre Mann's first twenty games were defined by a frustrating paradox, as his relentless appetite for volume shooting routinely sabotaged his team's broader offensive rhythm. Look no further than his start on 11/07 vs MIA. He stuffed the box score with 20 points, 9 rebounds, and 7 assists, but a ghastly 7-for-24 shooting performance resulted in a -12.5 impact score because his empty possessions completely stalled the offense. When the shots were not falling at all, he became an outright liability on the floor. On 10/25 vs PHI, errant shot selection and an inability to finish through contact torpedoed his value, yielding an abysmal -15.2 impact score. Ironically, Mann was actually at his best when he stopped forcing the issue as a primary scorer. Despite logging just 4 points on 11/17 vs TOR, he posted a stellar +6.3 impact score by maximizing his short stint with highly disruptive point-of-attack defense. To survive in this league, he must realize that defensive hustle matters far more than tossing up contested jumpers.

Tre Mann's midseason stretch was defined by erratic bench minutes where aimless dribbling and defensive lapses vastly outweighed his occasional flashes of brilliance. He briefly looked like an elite sixth man on 01/10 vs UTA, pouring in 20 points in just 12 minutes to post a staggering +12.9 impact score through pure microwave shot-creation. That outlier performance was a total mirage. During a brutal showing on 02/05 vs HOU, Mann forced wild drives into heavy traffic to shoot 1-for-10 from the floor, tanking his net impact to an abysmal -8.8. His careless ball security made him a massive liability on most nights. Yet, he occasionally found ways to contribute without filling the basket, as seen on 02/11 vs ATL. Despite scoring only 5 points, Mann generated a +4.3 impact score by utilizing active hands in the passing lanes and applying relentless on-ball defensive pressure. Unfortunately, those gritty shifts were simply too rare to salvage a deeply flawed block of games.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Inconsistent. Mann has clear good-night/bad-night splits, with scoring swinging ~5 points between games. You're never quite sure which version shows up.

Streaky shooter — only cracks 45% from the field in 28% of games. Efficiency is all over the place night-to-night.

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

Slight upward trend. First-half impact: -3.7, second-half: -1.8. Modest improvement — possibly settling into a rhythm.

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

C. McCollum 33.7 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.18
PTS 6
R. Rollins 28.8 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 2
D. Mitchell 27.8 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 2
P. Larsson 19.9 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.4
PTS 8
G. Trent Jr. 19.2 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
Q. Grimes 19.2 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
J. Jaquez Jr. 18.7 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
D. Smith 18.2 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
T. Johnson 17.4 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.17
PTS 3
R. Sheppard 15.3 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.

C. McCollum 26.8 poss
FG% 85.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.56
PTS 15
P. Larsson 25.0 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.28
PTS 7
D. Smith 25.0 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 2
G. Trent Jr. 24.1 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.33
PTS 8
C. Kispert 22.5 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
W. Clayton Jr. 21.7 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.37
PTS 8
K. Kuzma 19.5 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.31
PTS 6
Q. Grimes 19.2 poss
FG% 80.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.73
PTS 14
D. Mitchell 18.5 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 2
T. Johnson 18.4 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 2

SEASON STATS

50
Games
5.7
PPG
1.8
RPG
1.7
APG
0.5
SPG
0.1
BPG
36.1
FG%
32.9
3P%
85.2
FT%
13.1
MPG

GAME LOG

50 games played