IND

2025-26 Season

JARACE WALKER

Indiana Pacers | Forward | 6-7
Jarace Walker
11.6PPG
5.1RPG
2.5APG
25.7MPG
-0.7 Impact

Walker produces at an average rate for a 26-minute workload.

·
Embed this player card

Copy & paste this HTML into any page:

The widget updates automatically whenever our data does.

IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
-0.7
Scoring +9.7
Points Scored 11.6 PPG = +11.6
Missed Shots difficulty-adjusted = -4.5
Shot Making above expected FG% = +2.6
Creation +1.0
Assists & Self-Creation 2.5 AST/g + self-creation = +1.0
Turnovers -4.3
Turnovers 1.8/g (live + dead blend) = -4.3
Defense +0.4
Steals 0.8/g = +1.8
Blocks 0.3/g = +0.3
Fouls + context committed fouls, matchup adj = -1.7
Hustle & Effort +3.3
Rebounds 5.1 RPG (OREB + DREB) = +1.3
Contested Shots 2.7/g = +0.5
Deflections 1.8/g = +1.2
Charges Drawn 0.0/g = +0.0
Loose Balls 0.3/g = +0.2
Screen Assists 0.2/g = +0.1
Raw Impact +10.1
Baseline (game-average expected) −10.8
Net Impact
-0.7
50th pctl vs Forwards

PBP Credit: Every play is analyzed from play-by-play data. Scorers get difficulty-adjusted credit, assisters get creation value based on the shot opportunity they created, and turnovers are classified by type. Shot difficulty is derived from 1M+ shots across 4 seasons. Full methodology

SKILL DNA

Percentile rank vs 235 Forwards with 10+ games

Scoring 64th
11.7 PPG
Efficiency 41th
55.3% TS
Playmaking 75th
2.5 APG
Rebounding 68th
5.2 RPG
Defense 95th
+12.0/g
Hustle 83th
+16.8/g
Creation 90th
+4.32/g
Shot Making 57th
+6.29/g
TO Discipline 16th
0.07/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Jarace Walker spent the first quarter of the 2025-26 season trapped in a frustrating cycle of erratic shot selection and a constantly shifting role. Even on decent scoring nights, hidden costs often dragged his overall value into the gutter. During the 11/10 vs GSW matchup, he tallied 12 points but posted a dismal -16.0 impact score because his production was entirely hollow, weighed down by a forced 4-for-14 shooting performance and zero assists. Conversely, Walker occasionally tilted the floor on nights where his scoring volume was modest, like on 11/27 vs TOR. He put up just 13 points in that contest, but generated a massive +12.8 impact score by crashing the glass for nine rebounds and altering opponent possessions with relentless hustle. He finally married efficiency with volume on 11/25 vs DET. Blazing hot from deep, he poured in 21 points on near-perfect 8-for-10 shooting to earn a season-high +15.5 impact score. If Walker wants to escape the fringes of the rotation, he must stop alternating between highly-engaged defensive menace and inefficient offensive black hole.

Jarace Walker’s midseason stretch was defined by a chaotic transition from a passive bench piece to a high-volume, erratic starter. His early winter minutes were plagued by offensive invisibility. This peaked on 12/28 vs MIA, when he attempted just a single field goal in 21 minutes, dragging his Impact score down to a brutal -16.7 due to sheer passivity. He eventually found his footing by crashing the glass and moving the ball instead of forcing bad looks. On 01/11 vs MIA, Walker recorded a massive +17.3 Impact score despite scoring just 13 points, generating tremendous non-scoring value through his nine rebounds and four assists. That versatile effort helped him crack the starting lineup, but the expanded role quickly exposed his shot selection. Look no further than 02/03 vs UTA, where he poured in 24 points but posted a dismal -10.3 Impact score, revealing the hidden costs of a disastrous 1-for-7 shooting night from beyond the arc.

Walker's late-season run was defined by a permanent promotion to the starting unit, morphing him from a rotational puzzle piece into a high-volume, multi-tool forward. He immediately began finding ways to influence winning even when his jumper abandoned him. On 02/24 vs PHI, Walker scored just 8 points on a miserable 3-for-13 shooting night, yet he still managed a +2.0 Impact score by crashing the glass for 10 rebounds and distributing six assists. Conversely, his 16-point effort on 03/17 vs NYK yielded a dismal -7.9 Impact score. While his scoring totals looked fine on paper, hidden costs like defensive lapses and poor shot selection dragged his overall value into the gutter. When he actually dialed in his shooting, the results were devastating. During the 03/21 vs SAS matchup, Walker poured in 21 points on hyper-efficient 8-of-10 shooting, generating a staggering +17.2 Impact score through relentless hustle and focused defensive effort.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Walker'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 46% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

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

Getting better as the season goes on. First-half impact: -4.1, second-half: +2.8. That's a significant jump — could be a role change, confidence, or development clicking.

Tends to go on runs. Longest hot streak: 6 games. Longest cold streak: 14 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY ⚠ Updated 46 days ago

Based on 74 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. Johnson 71.7 poss
FG% 45.5%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.17
PTS 12
K. Middleton 50.6 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 11
B. Ingram 49.7 poss
FG% 28.6%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 7
C. Johnson 44.0 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 7
B. Coulibaly 40.9 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.02
PTS 1
J. Brunson 35.4 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 5
G. Trent Jr. 35.3 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.06
PTS 2
D. Robinson 32.7 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.09
PTS 3
R. Barrett 32.6 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.18
PTS 6
T. Mann 30.5 poss
FG% 14.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 2

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

B. Ingram 63.5 poss
FG% 56.2%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.35
PTS 22
K. Middleton 52.6 poss
FG% 57.1%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 9
C. Johnson 50.9 poss
FG% 28.6%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 4
B. Coulibaly 48.5 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.21
PTS 10
J. Johnson 47.8 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 6
G. Trent Jr. 35.9 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
T. da Silva 35.6 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.06
PTS 2
K. Richmond 35.2 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.06
PTS 2
D. Hunter 33.6 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.21
PTS 7
D. Barlow 32.7 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0

SEASON STATS

76
Games
11.6
PPG
5.1
RPG
2.5
APG
0.8
SPG
0.3
BPG
41.9
FG%
37.4
3P%
74.9
FT%
25.7
MPG

GAME LOG

76 games played