IND

2025-26 Season

QUENTON JACKSON

Indiana Pacers | Guard | 6-4
Quenton Jackson
8.5 PPG
2.2 RPG
2.5 APG
17.3 MPG
+0.4 Impact

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

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
+0.4
Scoring +5.6
Points 8.5 PPG × +1.00 = +8.5
Missed 2PT 1.7/g × -0.78 = -1.3
Missed 3PT 1.4/g × -0.87 = -1.2
Missed FT 0.4/g × -1.00 = -0.4
Creation +2.0
Assists 2.5/g × +0.50 = +1.2
Off. Rebounds 0.6/g × +1.26 = +0.8
Turnovers -2.3
Turnovers 1.2/g × -1.95 = -2.3
Defense -0.2
Steals 0.5/g × +2.30 = +1.1
Blocks 0.1/g × +0.90 = +0.1
Def. Rebounds 1.7/g × +0.30 = +0.5
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +2.9
Contested Shots 2.0/g × +0.20 = +0.4
Deflections 1.5/g × +0.65 = +1.0
Loose Balls 0.4/g × +0.60 = +0.2
Screen Assists 0.2/g × +0.30 = +0.1
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.5/g uncredited × +2.70 = +1.2
Raw Impact +8.0
Baseline (game-average expected) −7.6
Net Impact
+0.4
73th 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 47th
8.9 PPG
Efficiency 60th
56.0% TS
Playmaking 53th
2.7 APG
Rebounding 33th
2.4 RPG
Rim Protection 36th
0.10/min
Hustle 95th
0.17/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 28th
0.07/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Quenton Jackson’s first twenty games were defined by maddening inconsistency, oscillating wildly between masterful orchestration and total invisibility. He looked like a legitimate two-way force on 11/01 vs GSW, dropping 25 points and 10 assists to generate a massive +23.9 impact score by flawlessly running the offense and terrorizing passing lanes. Yet, that brilliance frequently vanished. During a start on 01/17 vs DET, he managed just 8 points while forcing heavily contested looks, resulting in a brutal -10.0 impact score. Even when he reached double figures, hidden costs often dragged down his overall value. Take his 27 minutes on 12/18 vs NYK, where a 10-point outing still yielded a -1.8 impact score because his negative influence on the overall game flow completely outweighed his respectable shooting splits. Jackson clearly possesses the raw athletic tools to swing games. To survive in a reliable NBA rotation, he must stop drifting into the passive spells and chaotic defensive lapses that currently sabotage his upside.

A dizzying plunge from explosive efficiency to erratic shot-hunting defined this volatile stretch for Quenton Jackson. He initially looked like a bench revelation during the 02/03 vs UTA matchup, erupting for 24 points on 9-of-10 shooting. That blistering performance yielded a massive +21.4 impact score, fueled by ruthless offensive execution and relentless point-of-attack disruption. However, the facade began to crack during the 02/20 vs WAS game, where his 21 points translated to a frustrating -1.0 impact. It was a classic empty-calorie outing; his high-volume scoring merely masked the significant defensive liabilities he bled on the other end of the floor. By the 03/15 vs MIL contest, the wheels had completely fallen off, resulting in a dismal -9.7 impact score. Despite generating some high-energy hustle plays, Jackson's erratic decision-making with the ball and heavily contested shots effectively destroyed the team's half-court rhythm.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Jackson'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 48% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

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

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 50 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. Brunson 48.7 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.23
PTS 11
D. White 38.8 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 20.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 5
R. Rollins 34.0 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
T. Maxey 33.5 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.06
PTS 2
D. Garland 32.0 poss
FG% 57.1%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.34
PTS 11
T. Herro 29.0 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 2
D. Mitchell 25.1 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 2
V. Edgecombe 24.9 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
A. Simons 23.8 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 4
L. Ball 22.9 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 4

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

D. Mitchell 51.0 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 5
L. Ball 39.2 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 44.4%
PPP 0.41
PTS 16
S. Curry 38.9 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 14.3%
PPP 0.15
PTS 6
D. Garland 37.8 poss
FG% 57.1%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.24
PTS 9
R. Rollins 37.8 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.21
PTS 8
M. Bridges 36.6 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
V. Edgecombe 33.1 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 4
L. Shamet 29.9 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 20.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 5
D. White 28.1 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.32
PTS 9
J. Alvarado 25.7 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.19
PTS 5

SEASON STATS

44
Games
8.5
PPG
2.2
RPG
2.5
APG
0.5
SPG
0.1
BPG
48.5
FG%
38.0
3P%
81.4
FT%
17.3
MPG

GAME LOG

44 games played