CHI

2025-26 Season

LEONARD MILLER

Chicago Bulls | Forward | 6-10
Leonard Miller
6.7 PPG
3.4 RPG
0.7 APG
13.4 MPG
+0.8 Impact

Miller produces at an average rate for a 13-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
+0.8
Scoring +4.6
Points 6.7 PPG × +1.00 = +6.7
Missed 2PT 0.9/g × -0.78 = -0.7
Missed 3PT 1.3/g × -0.87 = -1.1
Missed FT 0.3/g × -1.00 = -0.3
Creation +1.3
Assists 0.7/g × +0.50 = +0.3
Off. Rebounds 0.8/g × +1.26 = +1.0
Turnovers -1.2
Turnovers 0.6/g × -1.95 = -1.2
Defense -0.2
Steals 0.3/g × +2.30 = +0.7
Blocks 0.2/g × +0.90 = +0.2
Def. Rebounds 2.5/g × +0.30 = +0.8
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +1.6
Contested Shots 3.1/g × +0.20 = +0.6
Deflections 0.7/g × +0.65 = +0.5
Loose Balls 0.3/g × +0.60 = +0.2
Screen Assists 0.5/g × +0.30 = +0.1
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.1/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.2
Raw Impact +6.1
Baseline (game-average expected) −5.3
Net Impact
+0.8
59th 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 53th
9.7 PPG
Efficiency 76th
60.4% TS
Playmaking 22th
1.0 APG
Rebounding 60th
4.9 RPG
Rim Protection 52th
0.14/min
Hustle 57th
0.11/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 54th
0.05/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Leonard Miller spent his first twenty games of the 2025-26 season trapped in the purgatory of deep-bench spot minutes, oscillating wildly between hyper-efficient bursts and completely aimless wandering. When engaged, he maximized his microscopic playing time by attacking the rim and utilizing his length. This peak was obvious on 01/06 vs MIA, where he posted a brilliant +6.6 impact score by pouring in 6 points in just 5 minutes and finishing flawlessly through contact. He even managed to tilt the math without registering a single counting stat on 02/07 vs DEN, earning a +1.8 impact mark simply by blowing up late-game actions as a defensive specialist. But far too often, Miller simply drifted. During a brutal -4.2 impact showing on 01/24 vs GSW, he failed to score while actively sabotaging his team's half-court offense by uselessly clogging the dunker spot. To permanently escape garbage time, he must stop fading into the background and start treating every fleeting rotation minute with absolute urgency.

This twenty-game stretch was a volatile rollercoaster for Leonard Miller, defined by erratic role changes and wildly fluctuating on-court value. Even when he found the bottom of the net, hidden costs often dragged down his effectiveness. Look at his start on 03/13 vs LAC, where he tallied 14 points but posted a -1.9 impact because he stubbornly forced contested perimeter shots and bricked all five of his three-point attempts. Conversely, he occasionally found ways to tilt the math in his team's favor without filling the scoring column. During an abbreviated start on 03/28 vs MEM, Miller managed just 5 points but earned a +2.9 impact by anchoring the unit with disciplined weak-side rim protection and active hands in the passing lanes. When he actually merged his elite physical tools with smart basketball, the results were devastating for opponents. He logged a massive +18.6 impact off the bench on 03/30 vs SAS, pouring in 21 points because he leaned into his athleticism and relied on relentless energy on the offensive glass.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Miller'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 65% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

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

Slight upward trend. First-half impact: -0.2, second-half: +1.8. Modest improvement — possibly settling into a rhythm.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 76 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

R. Rupert 29.4 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 3
J. Williams 27.4 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 40.0%
PPP 0.36
PTS 10
K. Leonard 22.1 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
V. Krejčí 22.1 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
L. Kornet 18.5 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.27
PTS 5
V. Wembanyama 18.1 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 4
B. Portis 16.9 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
D. Ayton 16.9 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 2
B. Ingram 16.7 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
A. Sengun 16.0 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.38
PTS 6

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

R. Rupert 30.0 poss
FG% 42.9%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.27
PTS 8
J. Williams 26.7 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
B. Portis 25.9 poss
FG% 57.1%
3P% 60.0%
PPP 0.42
PTS 11
L. James 25.0 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
K. Leonard 23.2 poss
FG% 12.5%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 3
G. Santos 22.4 poss
FG% 42.9%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.27
PTS 6
J. Smith Jr. 18.6 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
V. Krejčí 16.2 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.31
PTS 5
K. Johnson 16.0 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 4
S. Barnes 15.0 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 2

SEASON STATS

41
Games
6.7
PPG
3.4
RPG
0.7
APG
0.3
SPG
0.2
BPG
54.2
FG%
30.8
3P%
73.8
FT%
13.4
MPG

GAME LOG

41 games played