BKN

2025-26 Season

JOSH MINOTT

Brooklyn Nets | Forward | 6-8
Josh Minott
7.3 PPG
3.3 RPG
0.9 APG
17.0 MPG
+2.0 Impact

Minott produces at an above average rate for a 17-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
+2.0
Scoring +4.9
Points 7.3 PPG × +1.00 = +7.3
Missed 2PT 0.8/g × -0.78 = -0.6
Missed 3PT 1.8/g × -0.87 = -1.6
Missed FT 0.2/g × -1.00 = -0.2
Creation +1.5
Assists 0.9/g × +0.50 = +0.5
Off. Rebounds 0.8/g × +1.26 = +1.0
Turnovers -1.8
Turnovers 0.9/g × -1.95 = -1.8
Defense +1.3
Steals 0.9/g × +2.30 = +2.1
Blocks 0.4/g × +0.90 = +0.4
Def. Rebounds 2.5/g × +0.30 = +0.7
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +2.7
Contested Shots 3.2/g × +0.20 = +0.6
Deflections 2.1/g × +0.65 = +1.4
Loose Balls 0.5/g × +0.60 = +0.3
Screen Assists 0.4/g × +0.30 = +0.1
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.1/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.3
Raw Impact +8.6
Baseline (game-average expected) −6.6
Net Impact
+2.0
74th 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 41th
7.9 PPG
Efficiency 84th
62.0% TS
Playmaking 24th
1.0 APG
Rebounding 38th
3.6 RPG
Rim Protection 85th
0.19/min
Hustle 94th
0.16/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 40th
0.05/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

A chaotic blend of relentless defensive havoc and offensive invisibility defined Josh Minott’s early-season transition between the starting lineup and the bench. Even when his jumper completely abandoned him, his sheer physical exertion kept him highly relevant, as seen on 11/01 vs HOU. Despite a brutal 3-for-11 shooting night, he managed a +6.6 impact score because elite +5.0 hustle metrics and constant defensive pressure entirely overshadowed his offensive limitations. However, when that manic energy faded, his value plummeted into the abyss. On 11/16 vs LAC, Minott wandered aimlessly through offensive sets without setting meaningful screens, resulting in a disastrous -7.5 impact score while going scoreless. He is at his absolute best when pairing that high-motor defense with decisive finishing, a combination that peaked on 11/05 vs WAS. Slashing his way to 21 points, he posted a stellar +9.7 impact score by blowing up pick-and-roll actions with exceptional defensive anticipation. If he can stop floating on the perimeter and consistently channel his raw athleticism into disciplined hustle, he will remain a terrifying two-way weapon.

This stretch was defined by erratic rotation minutes that forced Josh Minott to toggle wildly between offensive invisibility and sudden two-way brilliance. When his jumper failed him, he actively hurt the offense. On 03/10 vs DET, he managed 9 points but dragged the lineup down with a terrible -4.5 impact score, primarily due to poor shot selection and a brutal 1-for-5 clanking from beyond the arc. Yet, Minott frequently found ways to tilt the math without needing the ball in his hands. During his 12/19 vs MIA appearance, he scored just 2 points in seven minutes, but a relentless motor on the margins earned him a +3.1 impact. Everything finally aligned when he was given a longer leash on 03/12 vs ATL. He erupted for 24 points in 24 minutes, generating a towering +22.2 impact score through lethal perimeter shot-making and suffocating defense.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Typical consistency. Minott is positive more often than not (58% of games) with scoring varying ~7 points from the average.

Middle-of-the-road efficiency — shoots 45%+ from the field in 62% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

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

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 65 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. Banchero 40.9 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 5
E. Mobley 35.9 poss
FG% 28.6%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 5
I. Stewart 32.0 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.09
PTS 3
J. Kuminga 30.9 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.29
PTS 9
T. Watford 27.0 poss
FG% 57.1%
3P% 75.0%
PPP 0.41
PTS 11
O. Anunoby 25.6 poss
FG% 80.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.39
PTS 10
J. Hayes 23.6 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.25
PTS 6
C. McCollum 23.0 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.26
PTS 6
S. Cissoko 22.0 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.23
PTS 5
C. Cunningham 19.6 poss
FG% 25.0%
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.

E. Mobley 46.5 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.02
PTS 1
T. Maxey 33.0 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 60.0%
PPP 0.27
PTS 9
J. Brunson 29.8 poss
FG% 14.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 2
F. Wagner 25.8 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 4
P. Banchero 25.2 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 2
C. Cunningham 25.1 poss
FG% 80.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.4
PTS 10
J. Kuminga 24.2 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
I. Stewart 24.0 poss
FG% 42.9%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 6
K. George 23.6 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.21
PTS 5
D. Bane 23.3 poss
FG% 30.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.26
PTS 6

SEASON STATS

48
Games
7.3
PPG
3.3
RPG
0.9
APG
0.9
SPG
0.4
BPG
49.8
FG%
42.6
3P%
79.3
FT%
17.0
MPG

GAME LOG

48 games played