MIA

2025-26 Season

JAIME JAQUEZ JR.

Miami Heat | Guard | 6-6
Jaime Jaquez Jr.
15.0 PPG
5.1 RPG
4.7 APG
28.2 MPG
-0.5 Impact

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

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
-0.5
Scoring +9.5
Points 15.0 PPG × +1.00 = +15.0
Missed 2PT 4.4/g × -0.78 = -3.4
Missed 3PT 1.6/g × -0.87 = -1.4
Missed FT 0.7/g × -1.00 = -0.7
Creation +4.0
Assists 4.7/g × +0.50 = +2.4
Off. Rebounds 1.3/g × +1.26 = +1.6
Turnovers -3.9
Turnovers 2.0/g × -1.95 = -3.9
Defense +1.2
Steals 0.7/g × +2.30 = +1.6
Blocks 0.3/g × +0.90 = +0.3
Def. Rebounds 3.8/g × +0.30 = +1.2
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +2.4
Contested Shots 5.1/g × +0.20 = +1.0
Deflections 1.5/g × +0.65 = +1.0
Loose Balls 0.5/g × +0.60 = +0.3
Screen Assists 0.2/g × +0.30 = +0.1
Raw Impact +13.2
Baseline (game-average expected) −13.7
Net Impact
-0.5
62th 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 76th
15.0 PPG
Efficiency 59th
55.9% TS
Playmaking 80th
4.7 APG
Rebounding 90th
5.1 RPG
Rim Protection 61th
0.13/min
Hustle 23th
0.08/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 27th
0.07/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Jaime Jaquez Jr.’s opening stretch was defined by a maddening inconsistency off the bench, oscillating wildly between surgical mid-post mastery and isolation-heavy disasters. When he operated within the flow of the offense, he was a lethal weapon. Just look at the 10/28 vs CHA matchup, where he carved up the defense with decisive drives and elite footwork to drop 28 points alongside a massive +11.2 impact score. Yet, a troubling hero-ball habit frequently sabotaged his overall value. During the 11/14 vs NYK game, he poured in 23 points but registered a -2.3 impact because he constantly forced the issue in isolation sets, gifting New York easy transition runouts off empty offensive trips. Scoring volume rarely told the whole story with him. On 11/19 vs GSW, Jaquez shot an abysmal 4-for-12 for just 12 points, but his gritty connective play kept his impact afloat at a positive +1.2. He must realize that his true worth lies in methodical dissection, not contested heroics.

This twenty-game stretch defined Jaime Jaquez Jr. as a player whose actual value lives entirely in the margins rather than the box score. His 12/23 vs TOR performance captured his worst habits perfectly. Despite pouring in 21 points on efficient 9/16 shooting, he posted a -5.4 impact score because his heavy reliance on isolation sets completely ground the offense to a halt. Conversely, he generated a massive +8.3 impact on 12/03 vs DAL while scoring just 10 points on a miserable 3/10 from the floor. Elite defensive disruption and relentless hustle (+4.7) completely masked that broken jumper. He operates best as a gritty connector rather than a primary creator. When he forces the issue with wild interior passes, as seen in his dismal -9.5 impact showing on 01/19 vs GSW, his overall effectiveness craters.

A maddening tug-of-war between aggressive playmaking and baffling passivity defined Jaime Jaquez Jr.'s midseason stretch off the bench. Even when his shot was falling, hidden defensive lapses often ruined his night. Look at the 01/28 vs ORL matchup, where an efficient 13-point shooting performance yielded a brutal -12.5 impact because he continually bled easy points by losing his man on backdoor cuts. His offensive decision-making could be equally destructive. During an ugly 02/08 vs WAS tilt, he forced terrible looks in traffic all night to shoot 2-for-12, driving a catastrophic -19.1 impact score. Yet, Jaquez also flashed an innate ability to salvage value when his jumper abandoned him entirely. On 02/09 vs UTA, he managed a positive +0.6 impact despite scoring just 9 points on 1-of-7 shooting because his elite defensive instincts and exceptional gap-filling kept the second unit afloat. If he can ditch the contested isolation jumpers and consistently rely on his hustle, his two-way ceiling remains incredibly high.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Jr.'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 59% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

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

Small downward trend. First-half impact: +0.5, second-half: -1.4. Not alarming yet, but trending the wrong direction.

Tends to go on runs. Longest hot streak: 6 games. Longest cold streak: 3 games.

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

J. Hart 89.8 poss
FG% 61.9%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.3
PTS 27
P. Banchero 65.6 poss
FG% 44.4%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 8
T. da Silva 63.1 poss
FG% 58.3%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 16
S. James 50.4 poss
FG% 54.5%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.26
PTS 13
D. Terry 46.5 poss
FG% 30.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.15
PTS 7
J. Johnson 44.3 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.27
PTS 12
D. Bane 41.0 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 4
J. Sims 39.6 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.05
PTS 2
I. Okoro 38.5 poss
FG% 44.4%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.21
PTS 8
M. Bridges 35.8 poss
FG% 42.9%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 9

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

J. Hart 56.9 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 6
P. Banchero 53.4 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.28
PTS 15
M. Bridges 47.0 poss
FG% 41.7%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.26
PTS 12
D. White 43.1 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.39
PTS 17
D. Bane 39.7 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 20.0%
PPP 0.23
PTS 9
K. Towns 39.5 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.35
PTS 14
J. Suggs 38.6 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.26
PTS 10
J. Johnson 38.0 poss
FG% 46.2%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.32
PTS 12
D. Brooks 37.7 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.24
PTS 9
S. James 37.3 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.05
PTS 2

SEASON STATS

70
Games
15.0
PPG
5.1
RPG
4.7
APG
0.7
SPG
0.3
BPG
49.7
FG%
30.3
3P%
76.3
FT%
28.2
MPG

GAME LOG

70 games played