IND

2025-26 Season

ETHAN THOMPSON

Indiana Pacers | Guard | 6-4
Ethan Thompson
7.0PPG
2.2RPG
1.8APG
20.4MPG
-4.5 Impact

Thompson produces at an below average rate for a 20-minute workload. Defensive impact (-1.1/game) is a concern.

·
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
-4.5
Scoring +6.0
Points Scored 7.0 PPG = +7.0
Missed Shots difficulty-adjusted = -2.8
Shot Making above expected FG% = +1.8
Creation +0.7
Assists & Self-Creation 1.8 AST/g + self-creation = +0.7
Turnovers -1.9
Turnovers 0.8/g (live + dead blend) = -1.9
Defense -1.1
Steals 0.6/g = +1.4
Blocks 0.3/g = +0.3
Fouls + context committed fouls, matchup adj = -2.8
Hustle & Effort +1.7
Rebounds 2.2 RPG (OREB + DREB) = +0.0
Contested Shots 2.9/g = +0.6
Deflections 1.0/g = +0.7
Charges Drawn 0.1/g = +0.2
Loose Balls 0.2/g = +0.1
Screen Assists 0.3/g = +0.1
Raw Impact +5.4
Baseline (game-average expected) −9.9
Net Impact
-4.5
28th 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 46th
8.8 PPG
Efficiency 32th
52.0% TS
Playmaking 40th
2.2 APG
Rebounding 46th
2.7 RPG
Defense 21th
+5.0/g
Hustle 15th
+5.4/g
Creation 72th
+3.48/g
Shot Making 45th
+6.21/g
TO Discipline 76th
0.04/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Ethan Thompson’s early season was defined by a chaotic rotation carousel, bouncing between brief bench cameos and heavy starter minutes while struggling to find a consistent rhythm. High-scoring nights were often deceptive. For example, he dropped 12 points on 12/13 vs PHI, but still registered a -2.8 impact. That negative mark exposed the hidden costs of his erratic shot selection, as he clanked five threes and forced terrible looks within the offense. Sometimes, the scoring column didn't matter. During a start on 12/09 vs SAC, Thompson managed a +2.1 impact despite scoring just six points, relying heavily on relentless hustle and grabbing five rebounds to generate value. Yet, those gritty flashes were too often erased by disastrously brief stints, such as his four-minute nightmare on 12/19 vs NYK where he posted a staggering -12.2 impact without recording a single stat. If he wants to survive this rotation crunch, he must stop hemorrhaging value on the nights his jumper abandons him.

Ethan Thompson spent the bulk of this stretch buried at the end of the bench, struggling to justify his sparse minutes before finally finding his rhythm in February. Early on, his floor time was an active detriment to the roster. During a dismal outing vs MIA on 12/28, he posted a brutal -20.7 Impact score after failing to score a single point and missing both of his shot attempts in 12 hollow minutes. Even when his playing time spiked vs DET on 01/18, his 10 points masked a highly inefficient performance. Thompson forced terrible looks all night, clanking his way to a 3-for-13 shooting mark—including an abysmal 1-for-8 from beyond the arc—which kept his Impact score submerged at -3.6 despite the double-digit scoring. He finally flipped the script vs BKN on 02/11. Playing 26 minutes, he delivered an efficient 15 points, five rebounds, and three assists while hitting three of his six triples to earn a stellar +8.7 Impact.

Ethan Thompson's recent stretch was defined by wild inconsistency, oscillating between brilliant shot-making and offensive disasters before he finally settled into his starting role. He looked like a legitimate focal point on 04/01 vs CHI, draining five threes and dishing five assists to earn a massive +16.9 impact score. Then the wheels completely fell off. During the 04/05 vs CLE game, Thompson forced terrible looks all night, clanking his way to a 1-for-12 shooting nightmare that torpedoed his value and resulted in an abysmal -17.8 impact score. Rather than continuing to chuck his way out of the slump, he wisely pivoted to a more well-rounded approach. On 04/09 vs BKN, he generated a steady +2.9 impact score by crashing the glass for seven rebounds and keeping the offense flowing with six assists. When he stops forcing contested jumpers and lets the game come to him, Thompson actually helps his team win.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

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

Streaky shooter — only cracks 45% from the field in 35% of games. Efficiency is all over the place night-to-night.

Defensive impact is minimal for a 20-minute player. Not generating enough contests, rim protection, or forced turnovers to move the needle.

Getting better as the season goes on. First-half impact: -6.0, second-half: -2.9. That's a significant jump — could be a role change, confidence, or development clicking.

Hot right now — 4 straight games with positive impact. Longest positive run this season: 4 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY ⚠ Updated 46 days ago

Based on 33 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

P. Pritchard 37.6 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.08
PTS 3
Q. Grimes 24.8 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 2
D. White 23.7 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.13
PTS 3
J. Green 22.6 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.09
PTS 2
C. White 20.6 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.29
PTS 6
Z. LaVine 19.5 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.15
PTS 3
K. Knueppel 19.2 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 3
J. Ivey 19.1 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 2
C. McCollum 18.6 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
A. Simons 16.8 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.

D. White 34.5 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.46
PTS 16
K. Murray 26.9 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.19
PTS 5
J. Green 26.1 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.38
PTS 10
P. Pritchard 24.2 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.33
PTS 8
B. Carrington 23.5 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
A. Green 20.4 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
Q. Grimes 19.3 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 3
K. Knueppel 17.4 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.34
PTS 6
M. Buzelis 16.9 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.3
PTS 5
J. Hardy 16.1 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 2

SEASON STATS

32
Games
7.0
PPG
2.2
RPG
1.8
APG
0.6
SPG
0.3
BPG
37.8
FG%
32.8
3P%
78.7
FT%
20.4
MPG

GAME LOG

32 games played