POR

2025-26 Season

CALEB LOVE

Portland Trail Blazers | Guard | 6-3
Caleb Love
10.8 PPG
2.4 RPG
2.6 APG
21.5 MPG
-3.9 Impact

Love produces at an below average rate for a 22-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
-3.9
Scoring +5.2
Points 10.8 PPG × +1.00 = +10.8
Missed 2PT 2.1/g × -0.78 = -1.6
Missed 3PT 4.2/g × -0.87 = -3.7
Missed FT 0.3/g × -1.00 = -0.3
Creation +2.1
Assists 2.6/g × +0.50 = +1.3
Off. Rebounds 0.6/g × +1.26 = +0.8
Turnovers -2.5
Turnovers 1.3/g × -1.95 = -2.5
Defense +0.1
Steals 0.6/g × +2.30 = +1.4
Blocks 0.1/g × +0.90 = +0.1
Def. Rebounds 1.8/g × +0.30 = +0.5
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +1.4
Contested Shots 1.8/g × +0.20 = +0.4
Deflections 1.2/g × +0.65 = +0.8
Loose Balls 0.2/g × +0.60 = +0.1
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.0/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.1
Raw Impact +6.3
Baseline (game-average expected) −10.2
Net Impact
-3.9
8th 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 59th
11.2 PPG
Efficiency 7th
43.7% TS
Playmaking 54th
2.7 APG
Rebounding 39th
2.5 RPG
Rim Protection 26th
0.09/min
Hustle 7th
0.06/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 42th
0.06/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Caleb Love's early season was defined by a chaotic, green-light mentality off the bench that yielded wildly unpredictable returns. When his quick trigger actually found the bottom of the net, as it did on 11/21 vs GSW, his unrelenting perimeter aggression fueled a 26-point explosion and a +5.9 impact score. Far too often, however, his severe tunnel vision hijacked the second unit entirely. Look no further than 11/23 vs OKC, where a horrendous 3-for-13 shooting display and a total lack of rhythm dragged him to a catastrophic -18.4 impact score. Even when the raw point totals looked respectable, hidden costs routinely plagued his floor game. During a 13-point outing on 11/24 vs MIL, his tendency to force ill-advised, early-clock shots generated a -4.7 impact score despite the scoring surge. He operates as a pure volume chucker who shoots his team out of just as many possessions as he saves.

Caleb Love’s second quarter of the season was defined by maddening volatility, oscillating wildly between game-breaking perimeter explosions and deeply damaging shot-chasing. When his jumper falls, he looks like a legitimate weapon. He caught fire from deep on 12/29 vs DAL, pouring in 24 points to generate a massive +10.1 impact score by completely transforming the offense and punishing defenders. Yet, his insatiable appetite for contested looks frequently sabotages his own production. Look no further than 01/22 vs MIA, where he tallied 20 points but posted a -3.6 impact because reckless shot selection and forced early-clock attempts entirely wiped out his scoring value. The hidden costs of his game also extend to the other end of the floor. On 01/23 vs TOR, catastrophic transition defense resulted in a brutal -10.0 impact despite a decent offensive rhythm. He remains a tantalizing talent, but his stubborn ball-stopping habits keep his overall value wildly unpredictable.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Below-average consistency. Love is negative impact in 74% of games, with scoring moving ~7 points game-to-game.

Streaky shooter — only cracks 45% from the field in 33% of games. Efficiency is all over the place night-to-night.

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

Flat trajectory all season — first-half impact -4.4, second-half -3.4. No major shifts, which fits with the overall steadiness.

Tends to go on runs. Longest hot streak: 1 games. Longest cold streak: 6 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 48 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

A. Mitchell 47.9 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.23
PTS 11
B. Podziemski 45.1 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.11
PTS 5
B. Williams 31.4 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 40.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 8
P. Pritchard 30.5 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 4
C. Porter Jr. 29.2 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.24
PTS 7
C. Gillespie 27.8 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 2
D. Schröder 26.8 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.26
PTS 7
D. Fox 26.7 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.19
PTS 5
W. Clayton Jr. 25.8 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 2
A. Simons 24.4 poss
FG% 11.1%
3P% 14.3%
PPP 0.12
PTS 3

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

B. Podziemski 51.1 poss
FG% 80.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 13
P. Pritchard 45.2 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 5
A. Mitchell 37.7 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 6
G. Trent Jr. 37.5 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 5
W. Clayton Jr. 28.5 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 2
J. Small 27.3 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.26
PTS 7
B. Williams 25.5 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 2
I. Joe 25.5 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.12
PTS 3
M. McBride 25.4 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
D. Schröder 24.9 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.24
PTS 6

SEASON STATS

47
Games
10.8
PPG
2.4
RPG
2.6
APG
0.6
SPG
0.1
BPG
38.9
FG%
32.0
3P%
73.5
FT%
21.5
MPG

GAME LOG

47 games played