TOR

2025-26 Season

TRAYCE JACKSON-DAVIS

Toronto Raptors | Forward | 6-9
Trayce Jackson-Davis
3.6 PPG
2.9 RPG
0.8 APG
9.9 MPG
+1.7 Impact

Jackson-Davis produces at an above average rate for a 10-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
+1.7
Scoring +1.9
Points 3.6 PPG × +1.00 = +3.6
Missed 2PT 1.1/g × -0.78 = -0.9
Missed 3PT 0.0/g × -0.87 = -0.0
Missed FT 0.8/g × -1.00 = -0.8
Creation +1.3
Assists 0.8/g × +0.50 = +0.4
Off. Rebounds 0.7/g × +1.26 = +0.9
Turnovers -0.8
Turnovers 0.4/g × -1.95 = -0.8
Hustle & Effort +1.5
Contested Shots 3.5/g × +0.20 = +0.7
Deflections 0.6/g × +0.65 = +0.4
Loose Balls 0.2/g × +0.60 = +0.1
Screen Assists 1.1/g × +0.30 = +0.3
Raw Impact +3.9
Baseline (game-average expected) −2.2
Net Impact
+1.7
71st 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 17th
5.0 PPG
Efficiency 15th
49.8% TS
Playmaking 26th
1.1 APG
Rebounding 51th
4.1 RPG
Rim Protection 96th
0.25/min
Hustle 78th
0.12/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 50th
0.05/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Trayce Jackson-Davis opened the 2025-26 campaign as a wildly volatile situational weapon whose nightly value hinged entirely on rim protection and vertical spacing rather than raw scoring. When he anchored the paint, his non-scoring contributions swung games entirely. Look at 11/07 vs DEN, where he managed just 9 points but posted a massive +14.7 impact because his dominant rim protection completely altered the opponent's shot profile. He replicated this specialized dominance on 12/25 vs DAL, turning 13 brief minutes and 10 points into a +10.7 impact strictly through flawless execution as a roll man. However, when opponents neutralized his physical edges, his value plummeted. During 11/11 vs OKC, he scored 6 points and grabbed 6 rebounds in 22 minutes, yet suffered a brutal -13.4 impact because hidden costs like severe struggles with interior positioning and a high foul rate cratered his overall rating. He remains a highly effective connector and defensive anchor, provided he operates strictly within his physical limits.

This midseason stretch was defined by extreme rotation volatility, as Trayce Jackson-Davis bounced between game-changing hustle shifts and completely invisible cameos. When he embraced the grimy aspects of the game, his value spiked wildly, perfectly illustrated on 01/02 vs OKC. Despite a horrific 1-for-6 shooting night, he generated a massive +7.3 impact score by dominating the dirty work areas and pulling down nine rebounds. However, when that physical edge vanished, he became an active detriment to the second unit. During a 12-minute stint on 01/20 vs TOR, he offered virtually no offensive resistance or gravity, resulting in a brutal -6.1 impact score as he completely disappeared from the floor. He finally found his ideal rhythm on 02/08 vs IND. By completely sealing off the defensive glass and denying second-chance points, he posted a double-double in just 16 minutes to earn a staggering +14.4 impact score. Ultimately, his effectiveness hinged entirely on his willingness to do the exhausting, unglamorous chores in the paint.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Jackson-Davis's impact swings wildly relative to his average — some nights dominant, others invisible. Scoring varies by ~3 points per game.

Middle-of-the-road efficiency — shoots 45%+ from the field in 60% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

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

Small downward trend. First-half impact: +2.6, second-half: +0.8. Not alarming yet, but trending the wrong direction.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 70 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. Gobert 33.3 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.18
PTS 6
O. Ighodaro 31.6 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 4
C. Holmgren 25.1 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 2
J. Huff 23.5 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.38
PTS 9
J. Williams 23.5 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
K. Filipowski 23.5 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 4
M. Williams 22.5 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.18
PTS 4
R. Williams III 22.1 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.09
PTS 2
B. Adebayo 20.3 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 2
N. Claxton 16.8 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.24
PTS 4

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

O. Ighodaro 35.5 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 4
R. Gobert 29.5 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 2
K. Filipowski 28.9 poss
FG% 57.1%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.31
PTS 9
B. Adebayo 25.5 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 3
C. Holmgren 23.3 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.26
PTS 6
M. Williams 22.6 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
R. Williams III 22.4 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.27
PTS 6
N. Claxton 21.4 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.09
PTS 2
J. Huff 21.4 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
J. Williams 21.0 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 2

SEASON STATS

48
Games
3.6
PPG
2.9
RPG
0.8
APG
0.3
SPG
0.5
BPG
56.8
FG%
100.0
3P%
51.4
FT%
9.9
MPG

GAME LOG

48 games played