CLE

2025-26 Season

NAE'QWAN TOMLIN

Cleveland Cavaliers | Forward | 6-8
Nae'Qwan Tomlin
5.5 PPG
2.7 RPG
0.8 APG
15.2 MPG
+0.1 Impact

Tomlin produces at an average rate for a 15-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
+0.1
Scoring +3.2
Points 5.5 PPG × +1.00 = +5.5
Missed 2PT 1.1/g × -0.78 = -0.9
Missed 3PT 1.4/g × -0.87 = -1.2
Missed FT 0.2/g × -1.00 = -0.2
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
Defense +0.8
Steals 0.7/g × +2.30 = +1.6
Blocks 0.5/g × +0.90 = +0.5
Def. Rebounds 2.0/g × +0.30 = +0.6
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +2.1
Contested Shots 2.5/g × +0.20 = +0.5
Deflections 1.8/g × +0.65 = +1.2
Loose Balls 0.3/g × +0.60 = +0.2
Screen Assists 0.5/g × +0.30 = +0.1
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.0/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.1
Raw Impact +6.6
Baseline (game-average expected) −6.5
Net Impact
+0.1
51st 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 25th
6.1 PPG
Efficiency 17th
50.7% TS
Playmaking 14th
0.8 APG
Rebounding 24th
2.9 RPG
Rim Protection 44th
0.13/min
Hustle 81th
0.13/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 93th
0.03/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Nae'Qwan Tomlin's opening stretch of the season was defined by raw, high-chaos energy that swung wildly between game-wrecking interior dominance and frustrating defensive disorientation. When his motor was channeled properly, he was an absolute menace. He peaked on 11/13 vs TOR with a staggering +16.2 impact score. He poured in 18 points on 8-of-10 shooting that night, dominating the paint with relentless finishing. Even when his shot refused to fall, his sheer effort created immense non-scoring value. On 12/06 vs GSW, he scored just 6 points but earned a +4.8 impact by ripping down 12 rebounds and acting as a magnet for second-chance opportunities. Yet, his lack of situational awareness often carried a heavy hidden cost. During 11/30 vs BOS, he managed 7 points in 22 minutes but sank to a -2.5 impact because his habit of over-helping on drives surrendered wide-open perimeter looks.

Nae'Qwan Tomlin's midseason stint was defined by chaotic volatility, oscillating wildly between game-wrecking hustle and catastrophic lapses in awareness. When fully engaged, his length and motor made him a terrifying weapon off the bench. During the 01/21 vs CHA matchup, he posted a massive +6.9 impact score despite scoring just 6 points, generating immense value through relentless rebounding and sheer activity on the glass. He peaked shortly after on 01/30 vs PHX, pairing elite weak-side rim protection with a surprise 14-point outburst to register a brilliant +8.8 impact mark. However, his effectiveness completely cratered when his defensive focus waned. Take his 01/16 vs PHI performance, where a 9-point scoring boost was entirely negated by glaring defensive lapses that bled value and resulted in a -4.1 impact score. When Tomlin sticks to dirty work and rim-running, he swings games, but his tendency to fall asleep on rotations makes him a highly unpredictable gamble.

This stretch of the season was defined by maddening inconsistency, as Nae'Qwan Tomlin continually sabotaged his physical gifts with erratic defensive discipline. The hidden costs of his game were glaring on 03/31 vs LAL. Despite scoring a stretch-high 9 points, he posted a dreadful -3.3 impact score because he constantly bit on pump fakes and took terrible closeout angles. A similar story unfolded on 03/13 vs DAL, where his 8 points were entirely negated by poor perimeter spacing that cratered the offense for a -3.7 impact mark. Simplicity was his only saving grace. During 03/09 vs PHI, Tomlin scored just 2 points but still earned a highly positive +2.2 impact score. That success was built entirely on the margins through hyper-active weak-side rotations that deterred late-game attacks at the rim. Until he stops hunting empty offensive flashes and commits to the dirty work, he will remain glued to the end of the bench.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Tomlin's impact swings wildly relative to his average — some nights dominant, others invisible. Scoring varies by ~4 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 Tomlin locks in defensively, others he gets picked apart.

Small downward trend. First-half impact: +1.1, second-half: -0.9. Not alarming yet, but trending the wrong direction.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 72 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

P. Banchero 36.5 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
N. Reid 25.8 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 2
W. Riley 23.0 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
J. Huff 22.3 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
J. Walker 21.7 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
R. Kalkbrenner 20.1 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
B. Ingram 20.1 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 2
P. Siakam 19.4 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 2
J. Smith 17.6 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.4
PTS 7
M. Buzelis 17.5 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 3

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

P. Siakam 32.2 poss
FG% 28.6%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 4
B. Miller 25.8 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.12
PTS 3
J. Walker 25.6 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.27
PTS 7
B. Brown 23.1 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
W. Riley 21.5 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.23
PTS 5
P. Banchero 21.3 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.28
PTS 6
N. Batum 20.8 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
J. Grant 20.5 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
B. Ingram 19.4 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.72
PTS 14
S. Barnes 18.7 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.37
PTS 7

SEASON STATS

60
Games
5.5
PPG
2.7
RPG
0.8
APG
0.7
SPG
0.5
BPG
47.0
FG%
20.4
3P%
75.0
FT%
15.2
MPG

GAME LOG

60 games played