MIA

2025-26 Season

PELLE LARSSON

Miami Heat | Guard | 6-5
Pelle Larsson
11.4PPG
3.5RPG
3.4APG
26.3MPG
-0.7 Impact

Larsson 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 +10.0
Points Scored 11.4 PPG = +11.4
Missed Shots difficulty-adjusted = -3.4
Shot Making above expected FG% = +2.0
Creation +1.3
Assists & Self-Creation 3.4 AST/g + self-creation = +1.3
Turnovers -3.4
Turnovers 1.5/g (live + dead blend) = -3.4
Defense -0.2
Steals 0.7/g = +1.6
Blocks 0.2/g = +0.2
Fouls + context committed fouls, matchup adj = -2.0
Hustle & Effort +3.0
Rebounds 3.5 RPG (OREB + DREB) = +0.3
Contested Shots 4.4/g = +0.9
Deflections 1.6/g = +1.1
Charges Drawn 0.2/g = +0.5
Loose Balls 0.2/g = +0.1
Screen Assists 0.2/g = +0.1
Raw Impact +10.7
Baseline (game-average expected) −11.4
Net Impact
-0.7
57th pctl vs Guards

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 246 Guards with 10+ games

Scoring 62th
11.7 PPG
Efficiency 88th
59.8% TS
Playmaking 65th
3.5 APG
Rebounding 67th
3.6 RPG
Defense 80th
+10.0/g
Hustle 80th
+12.7/g
Creation 84th
+4.20/g
Shot Making 28th
+4.99/g
TO Discipline 51th
0.06/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Pelle Larsson’s first 24 games played out like a cruel tease, defined by a sudden promotion to the starting lineup that quickly decayed into a brutal shooting slump. The experiment initially looked like a masterstroke on 10/28 vs CHA, where he poured in 17 points on crisp 6-of-10 shooting to generate a massive +16.5 Impact. His aggressive shot selection and relentless hustle completely overwhelmed Charlotte's defensive rotations that night. However, opposing defenses quickly adjusted, and Larsson’s inefficient volume began poisoning his overall value. During his 11/23 vs PHI start, a seemingly decent playmaking line of 7 rebounds and 8 assists was entirely ruined by an abysmal -14.2 Impact. He forced terrible looks all night, bricking 11 of his 13 field goal attempts and missing all six of his threes, crippling the offense with empty possessions. His eventual demotion back to the second unit culminated in a lifeless 12/06 vs ORL outing, where he posted zero points and a -13.8 Impact. Larsson must adapt quickly.

Pelle Larsson spent the middle of the season oscillating wildly between indispensable two-way starter and completely invisible floor spacer. When he actively hunted his shot, he was an absolute menace, peaking on 01/31 vs CHI with 22 points and seven rebounds on 7-of-11 shooting. That performance yielded a massive +26.6 Impact score because he paired his offensive aggression with relentless glass-crashing and stifling perimeter effort. Yet, Larsson frequently drifted into maddening passivity, perfectly captured by his 01/14 vs PHX dud. He logged 27 minutes but attempted exactly one field goal, generating a brutal -11.8 Impact score as his refusal to attack crippled the team's offensive flow. Even when he commanded heavy minutes and chipped in as a playmaker, hidden costs sometimes tanked his value. During a 35-minute shift on 02/21 vs MEM, he tallied 10 points and five assists but posted a dismal -9.9 Impact score due to a clanked 0-for-4 night from deep and poor defensive rotations. To survive as a permanent starter in this league, Larsson must eradicate these passive stretches and keep his foot on the gas.

Pelle Larsson's late-season stretch was a dizzying pendulum swing between brilliant two-way wing play and frustratingly hollow minutes. He reached his absolute ceiling during a massive 03/12 vs MIL performance. Pouring in 28 points, grabbing six rebounds, and dishing six assists on 9-for-14 shooting, his relentless offensive creation drove a towering +21.8 Impact score. Yet, he frequently struggled to translate sheer volume into actual winning basketball, a flaw glaringly obvious on 02/28 vs HOU. Despite logging 20 points, his clunky 1-for-5 shooting from beyond the arc and overall defensive apathy dragged his Impact score down to a flat -0.2. Conversely, he is often at his best when letting the game come to him, as seen during a bench shift on 03/25 vs CLE. He only attempted five shots to score 14 points, but his crucial five rebounds and mistake-free execution earned him a +4.6 Impact score.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Larsson'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 58% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

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

Getting better as the season goes on. First-half impact: -3.0, second-half: +1.6. That's a significant jump — could be a role change, confidence, or development clicking.

Tends to go on runs. Longest hot streak: 5 games. Longest cold streak: 8 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY ⚠ Updated 46 days ago

Based on 71 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

D. Bane 81.5 poss
FG% 44.4%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 11
M. Bridges 60.1 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.12
PTS 7
D. Mitchell 56.5 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 7
FG% 40.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.21
PTS 11
T. Maxey 51.1 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 7
A. Dosunmu 48.3 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 6
J. Johnson 45.4 poss
FG% 85.7%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.29
PTS 13
L. Dončić 44.5 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 6
C. Flagg 43.9 poss
FG% 62.5%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.3
PTS 13
S. Sharpe 41.6 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 6

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

D. Bane 71.2 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.1
PTS 7
N. Clowney 54.8 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.18
PTS 10
K. Knueppel 49.5 poss
FG% 62.5%
3P% 60.0%
PPP 0.28
PTS 14
C. Flagg 45.9 poss
FG% 45.5%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.26
PTS 12
J. Johnson 44.5 poss
FG% 57.1%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.2
PTS 9
D. Mitchell 43.3 poss
FG% 44.4%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 11
C. White 43.1 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.23
PTS 10
G. Allen 43.0 poss
FG% 45.5%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.33
PTS 14
A. Dosunmu 42.9 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 6
S. Sharpe 42.6 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0

SEASON STATS

71
Games
11.4
PPG
3.5
RPG
3.4
APG
0.7
SPG
0.2
BPG
49.6
FG%
32.1
3P%
79.5
FT%
26.3
MPG

GAME LOG

71 games played