SAS

2025-26 Season

JULIAN CHAMPAGNIE

San Antonio Spurs | Forward | 6-7
Julian Champagnie
11.2 PPG
5.8 RPG
1.5 APG
27.6 MPG
-1.7 Impact

Champagnie produces at an below average rate for a 28-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
-1.7
Scoring +6.9
Points 11.2 PPG × +1.00 = +11.2
Missed 2PT 0.8/g × -0.78 = -0.6
Missed 3PT 3.9/g × -0.87 = -3.4
Missed FT 0.3/g × -1.00 = -0.3
Creation +2.6
Assists 1.5/g × +0.50 = +0.8
Off. Rebounds 1.4/g × +1.26 = +1.8
Turnovers -1.8
Turnovers 0.9/g × -1.95 = -1.8
Defense +1.6
Steals 0.8/g × +2.30 = +1.8
Blocks 0.4/g × +0.90 = +0.4
Def. Rebounds 4.3/g × +0.30 = +1.3
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +2.5
Contested Shots 4.0/g × +0.20 = +0.8
Deflections 1.5/g × +0.65 = +1.0
Loose Balls 0.6/g × +0.60 = +0.4
Screen Assists 0.8/g × +0.30 = +0.2
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.1/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.1
Raw Impact +11.8
Baseline (game-average expected) −13.5
Net Impact
-1.7
26th pctl vs Forwards

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 227 Forwards with 10+ games

Scoring 64th
11.2 PPG
Efficiency 68th
59.3% TS
Playmaking 48th
1.5 APG
Rebounding 80th
5.8 RPG
Rim Protection 47th
0.14/min
Hustle 20th
0.08/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 84th
0.03/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Julian Champagnie’s opening stretch of the season was defined by maddening inconsistency, oscillating wildly between elite two-way execution and hollow, empty-calorie shooting nights. On 10/22 vs DAL, he managed just 5 points but still generated a +3.9 impact score because his precise defensive rotations consistently blew up pick-and-roll actions on the perimeter. Conversely, his offensive outbursts often hid fatal flaws on the other end of the floor. During a 20-point performance on 11/20 vs ATL, his hot perimeter shooting merely masked underlying defensive struggles that dragged his net impact down to a disappointing -2.4. He finally put the pieces together on 11/07 vs HOU, pouring in 22 points and posting a massive +13.4 impact score driven by suffocating perimeter defense and elite two-way execution. When he locks in defensively, he looks like an indispensable rotation wing. But until he stops letting off-ball lapses erase his floor-spacing value, his overall influence will remain frustratingly volatile.

Julian Champagnie’s midseason stretch was defined by extreme perimeter volatility, transforming him into the ultimate boom-or-bust spacing weapon. When his jumper caught fire, he looked completely unstoppable. He peaked on 12/31 vs NYK with a historic 36-point eruption, hitting 11 threes to warp the defense and post a massive +15.3 impact score. Yet, the pendulum swung violently just two days later on 01/02 vs IND. A brutal 2-for-11 showing from deep tanked his overall value to a -5.7 impact, as his bricklaying entirely destroyed the team's spacing. He did occasionally salvage his cold nights by leaning on his physical tools. During a quiet 6-point outing on 12/19 vs ATL, elite defensive disruption drove a +3.2 impact even though his jumper had completely abandoned him. Ultimately, Champagnie must flatten out these wild swings, because his ice-cold shooting nights are simply too destructive for the rotation to absorb.

Julian Champagnie’s midseason stretch was defined by maddening volatility, swinging wildly between flamethrowing heroics and passive disappearing acts. When his jumper caught fire and his motor ran hot, he looked like an elite two-way wing. He erupted for 26 points on 02/26 vs BKN, generating a massive +23.6 impact score fueled by relentless point-of-attack defense and elite shot-making. Yet, he occasionally found ways to drive winning even when his scoring punch faded. On 02/25 vs TOR, he managed just 10 points on pedestrian shooting, but timely defensive rotations and secondary playmaking kept his head above water with a +1.4 impact score. The floor completely fell out on 02/04 vs OKC, however, when a glaring lack of physicality and poor rotational awareness dragged him down to a brutal -10.8 impact mark. Champagnie has the tools to be a lethal rotation piece, but his value vanishes entirely the moment his defensive intensity drops.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Champagnie's impact swings wildly relative to his average — some nights dominant, others invisible. Scoring varies by ~7 points per game.

Middle-of-the-road efficiency — shoots 45%+ from the field in 42% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

Defensive difference-maker. Champagnie consistently forces tough shots and protects the rim — opponents shoot worse when he's guarding them.

Tends to go on runs. Longest hot streak: 3 games. Longest cold streak: 8 games.

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

C. Spencer 54.6 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 6
FG% 25.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.04
PTS 2
K. Durant 53.0 poss
FG% 80.0%
3P% 80.0%
PPP 0.23
PTS 12
D. Robinson 52.5 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.06
PTS 3
D. DiVincenzo 52.4 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.15
PTS 8
C. Gillespie 52.4 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 20.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 6
L. Dončić 49.8 poss
FG% 37.5%
3P% 20.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 7
C. Coward 48.6 poss
FG% 57.1%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.23
PTS 11
D. Booker 46.7 poss
FG% 11.1%
3P% 14.3%
PPP 0.15
PTS 7
J. Brunson 46.0 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.2
PTS 9

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

J. LaRavia 67.8 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.15
PTS 10
J. Smith Jr. 67.2 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.15
PTS 10
T. Murphy III 64.6 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.33
PTS 21
D. DiVincenzo 63.3 poss
FG% 30.0%
3P% 28.6%
PPP 0.13
PTS 8
D. Bane 55.5 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.23
PTS 13
C. Coward 42.6 poss
FG% 30.8%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.26
PTS 11
C. Wallace 41.4 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 3
T. Harris 41.3 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
A. Bailey 41.2 poss
FG% 58.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.34
PTS 14
I. Joe 40.3 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 4

SEASON STATS

77
Games
11.2
PPG
5.8
RPG
1.5
APG
0.8
SPG
0.4
BPG
43.5
FG%
38.0
3P%
84.1
FT%
27.6
MPG

GAME LOG

77 games played