PHI

2025-26 Season

TRENDON WATFORD

Philadelphia 76ers | Guard-Forward | 6-8
Trendon Watford
6.7 PPG
3.4 RPG
2.5 APG
16.7 MPG
-1.6 Impact

Watford produces at an below average rate for a 17-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
-1.6
Scoring +4.3
Points 6.7 PPG × +1.00 = +6.7
Missed 2PT 1.8/g × -0.78 = -1.4
Missed 3PT 0.8/g × -0.87 = -0.7
Missed FT 0.3/g × -1.00 = -0.3
Creation +2.3
Assists 2.5/g × +0.50 = +1.2
Off. Rebounds 0.9/g × +1.26 = +1.1
Turnovers -2.3
Turnovers 1.2/g × -1.95 = -2.3
Hustle & Effort +1.8
Contested Shots 3.6/g × +0.20 = +0.7
Deflections 0.8/g × +0.65 = +0.5
Loose Balls 0.4/g × +0.60 = +0.2
Screen Assists 0.3/g × +0.30 = +0.1
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.1/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.3
Raw Impact +6.1
Baseline (game-average expected) −7.7
Net Impact
-1.6
46th 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 34th
7.3 PPG
Efficiency 47th
54.5% TS
Playmaking 52th
2.7 APG
Rebounding 70th
3.7 RPG
Rim Protection 30th
0.10/min
Hustle 51th
0.10/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 23th
0.07/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Trendon Watford’s early season was defined by a maddening pendulum swing between brilliant point-forward flashes and complete offensive invisibility. When he aggressively attacked the paint, he looked like a legitimate offensive hub. He peaked on 11/08 vs TOR with a massive 20-point, 17-rebound, 10-assist triple-double, earning a +14.6 impact score by completely fracturing the opposing defense with his playmaking. The flip side of that aggression was brutal. During a start on 11/09 vs DET, his inability to finish through contact and poor shot selection resulted in an abysmal -8.9 impact score. He often struggled to impose his will offensively, forcing contested looks that killed his team's momentum. Yet, he occasionally found ways to add value without scoring a single point. On 01/12 vs TOR, he logged zero points in just one minute of action but managed to salvage a +1.0 impact score entirely through sharp defensive rotations.

This stretch of the season was defined by maddening inconsistency, with Trendon Watford oscillating wildly between a brilliant connective piece and an offensive black hole. His worst habits surfaced on 02/11 vs NYK, where clunky execution and forced midrange shots resulted in a heavily negative -9.8 impact score. He often produced negative value even when his raw numbers looked fine. During the 02/09 vs POR matchup, he dropped 12 points on highly efficient 5-for-7 shooting, yet his overall impact slipped to a dismal -5.7 because hidden costs completely eroded his scoring contributions. Conversely, Watford occasionally found ways to be highly effective without filling it up. He logged just 5 points on 01/31 vs NOP but posted a +2.6 impact by leveraging timely cuts and relentless off-ball movement to break down the defensive shell. When he embraces his role as a quick-processing hub, he thrives, but when he forces his own offense, his minutes become actively harmful.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Watford'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 54% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

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

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 56 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

S. Cissoko 30.4 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 2
J. Grant 25.9 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 3
R. Barrett 23.0 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.52
PTS 12
B. Ingram 22.4 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 5
J. Tyson 22.4 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.22
PTS 5
S. Barnes 22.1 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.18
PTS 4
J. Green 21.0 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 2
K. Johnson 19.8 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 2
J. Minott 19.5 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 2
P. Pritchard 19.4 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 2

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

J. Minott 27.0 poss
FG% 57.1%
3P% 75.0%
PPP 0.41
PTS 11
J. Grant 27.0 poss
FG% 57.1%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.41
PTS 11
J. Tyson 25.3 poss
FG% 42.9%
3P% 60.0%
PPP 0.36
PTS 9
R. Barrett 24.9 poss
FG% 83.3%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.44
PTS 11
S. Barnes 23.8 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 2
J. Jaquez Jr. 21.8 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.09
PTS 2
M. Diawara 21.6 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 75.0%
PPP 0.51
PTS 11
S. Cissoko 21.3 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.19
PTS 4
L. Nance Jr. 20.7 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.29
PTS 6
R. Holland II 20.4 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 5

SEASON STATS

51
Games
6.7
PPG
3.4
RPG
2.5
APG
0.3
SPG
0.4
BPG
51.1
FG%
20.0
3P%
77.3
FT%
16.7
MPG

GAME LOG

51 games played