2025-26 Season
CAM THOMAS
2025-26 Season
CAM THOMAS
Thomas produces at an below average rate for a 21-minute workload.
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
TEAM COMPARISON
of 17 teammates (10+ games, 10+ min)
SKILL DNA
Percentile rank vs 235 Guards with 10+ games
THE SEASON SO FAR
A stark demotion to the bench and a chronic inability to process the game beyond his own shot attempts defined this volatile stretch for Cam Thomas. Even when the ball actually went through the hoop, his unrelenting tunnel vision often bled his team dry. During his 01/01 vs HOU matchup, he poured in 21 points but still posted a negative -2.4 impact score because he constantly died on defensive screens and refused to pass. When his jumper caught fire, he was an undeniable weapon. He erupted for 41 points and a +8.2 impact on 10/26 vs SAS simply by substituting bad jumpers for aggressive downhill attacks. Unfortunately, those brilliant flashes were heavily outweighed by disastrous outings like 01/09 vs LAC. In that game, he stubbornly forced isolation looks into set double-teams, dragging his impact down to a catastrophic -14.7. He remains a pure scorer who treats every possession like a one-on-one mixtape, a fatal flaw that often turns his offensive gifts into a hollow endeavor.
A maddening slump defined this stretch for Cam Thomas. Relentless tunnel vision and erratic shot selection routinely sabotaged the second-unit offense. He occasionally flashed his pure microwave potential, erupting for 34 points during the 02/11 vs ORL matchup to generate a massive +12.2 impact score. In that absolute scoring clinic, his aggressive downhill attacking completely fractured the opponent's isolation coverage. Far too often, however, his offensive approach dragged his overall value into the red. During the 03/01 vs CHI game, Thomas tallied 15 points, but an over-reliance on isolation hero-ball resulted in a negative -1.1 impact score. Drawing fouls salvaged his raw scoring total that night, yet the hidden costs of his playstyle—namely disrupted offensive rhythm and a total lack of connective passing—severely hurt the team. This selfish brand of basketball bottomed out in the 02/24 vs MIA contest, where heavily contested jumpers and forced shots earned him a catastrophic -10.2 impact score.
IMPACT TIMELINE
Game-by-game performance vs average. Green = above average, red = below.
Struggling. Thomas has posted negative impact in 76% of games this season. The production rarely outweighs the cost.
Streaky shooter — only cracks 45% from the field in 35% of games. Efficiency is all over the place night-to-night.
Average defender. Thomas doesn't hurt you defensively, but he's not making opponents uncomfortable either.
Slight upward trend. First-half impact: -3.8, second-half: -2.1. Modest improvement — possibly settling into a rhythm.
In a rough stretch — 5 straight games with negative impact. Longest cold streak this season: 9 games.
MATCHUP HISTORY
Based on 47 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
ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED
How opponents shot when he was the primary defender. Lower FG% = better defense.
SEASON STATS
GAME LOG
42 games played