DEN

2025-26 Season

PEYTON WATSON

Denver Nuggets | Guard | 6-8
Peyton Watson
14.7 PPG
4.9 RPG
2.0 APG
29.7 MPG
-0.4 Impact

Watson produces at an average rate for a 30-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
-0.4
Scoring +9.3
Points 14.7 PPG × +1.00 = +14.7
Missed 2PT 3.3/g × -0.78 = -2.6
Missed 3PT 2.1/g × -0.87 = -1.8
Missed FT 1.0/g × -1.00 = -1.0
Creation +2.5
Assists 2.0/g × +0.50 = +1.0
Off. Rebounds 1.2/g × +1.26 = +1.5
Turnovers -3.3
Turnovers 1.7/g × -1.95 = -3.3
Defense +2.3
Steals 0.9/g × +2.30 = +2.1
Blocks 1.1/g × +0.90 = +1.0
Def. Rebounds 3.7/g × +0.30 = +1.1
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +3.5
Contested Shots 6.2/g × +0.20 = +1.2
Deflections 1.6/g × +0.65 = +1.0
Charges Drawn 0.1/g × +2.70 = +0.3
Loose Balls 0.7/g × +0.60 = +0.4
Screen Assists 0.6/g × +0.30 = +0.2
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.1/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.4
Raw Impact +14.3
Baseline (game-average expected) −14.7
Net Impact
-0.4
63th 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
14.7 PPG
Efficiency 83th
59.5% TS
Playmaking 36th
2.0 APG
Rebounding 87th
4.9 RPG
Rim Protection 81th
0.15/min
Hustle 56th
0.11/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 47th
0.06/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Peyton Watson’s first twenty games of the 2025-26 season were defined by a jarring transition from a low-usage bench piece to a wildly volatile starter. He was a frustrating enigma who could actively hurt his team even when his jumper was falling. Look at the 11/22 vs SAC matchup, where he scored an efficient 15 points but posted a dismal -8.7 impact score because costly defensive errors bled points on the other end. Conversely, he occasionally flipped the script by dominating entirely without the ball. During the 10/31 vs POR contest, Watson managed just 10 points but generated a massive +8.4 impact score by wreaking absolute havoc as a weak-side helper and altering shots at the rim. He finally put the entire offensive package together on 11/19 vs NOP, erupting for 32 points and 12 rebounds to earn a +12.6 impact score through elite, aggressive shot-making. Yet, until he permanently cures the extreme offensive passivity that plagued his quieter nights, Watson will remain an unpredictable gamble.

This twenty-game stretch was defined by maddening inconsistency, as Peyton Watson continually sabotaged his own scoring outbursts with hidden offensive costs. Look no further than 01/02 vs CLE, where he poured in 21 points but registered a dismal -9.9 impact score. He settled for awful perimeter shot selection, bricking seven of his nine three-point attempts to drag his value deep into the red. His absolute floor was exposed earlier on 12/23 vs DAL. During that disastrous 24-minute stint, total offensive hesitation and blanking from the field cratered his overall value to a catastrophic -23.1 impact. Yet, when he actually married offensive efficiency with his physical gifts, the results were terrifying. On 01/13 vs NOP, Watson erupted for 31 points and a massive +19.9 impact, driving his rating sky-high by anchoring the wing with suffocating point-of-attack pressure.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Watson's impact swings wildly relative to his average — some nights dominant, others invisible. Scoring varies by ~9 points per game.

Middle-of-the-road efficiency — shoots 45%+ from the field in 69% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

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

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 55 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

C. Flagg 61.5 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 6
C. Cunningham 59.0 poss
FG% 12.5%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 5
A. Edwards 58.7 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 6
P. Siakam 48.9 poss
FG% 36.4%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.2
PTS 10
K. George 45.5 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.33
PTS 15
D. DeRozan 42.8 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
R. Westbrook 41.5 poss
FG% 37.5%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 6
T. Murphy III 41.5 poss
FG% 57.1%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.31
PTS 13
K. Durant 38.8 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.18
PTS 7
S. Bey 37.5 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 4

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

A. Edwards 91.1 poss
FG% 55.6%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.43
PTS 39
C. Cunningham 60.8 poss
FG% 54.5%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 15
P. Siakam 59.3 poss
FG% 36.4%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.22
PTS 13
D. DeRozan 56.9 poss
FG% 54.5%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.3
PTS 17
T. Murphy III 54.7 poss
FG% 46.2%
3P% 37.5%
PPP 0.31
PTS 17
K. George 52.8 poss
FG% 41.7%
3P% 40.0%
PPP 0.3
PTS 16
K. Durant 51.9 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 9
J. Johnson 44.5 poss
FG% 62.5%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 11
C. Flagg 43.8 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.32
PTS 14
M. Porter Jr. 40.7 poss
FG% 30.8%
3P% 40.0%
PPP 0.27
PTS 11

SEASON STATS

53
Games
14.7
PPG
4.9
RPG
2.0
APG
0.9
SPG
1.1
BPG
49.5
FG%
41.1
3P%
72.7
FT%
29.7
MPG

GAME LOG

53 games played