DET

2025-26 Season

RONALD HOLLAND II

Detroit Pistons | Forward | 6-8
Ronald Holland II
8.1 PPG
4.1 RPG
1.2 APG
19.8 MPG
-1.4 Impact

II produces at an below average rate for a 20-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
-1.4
Scoring +4.4
Points 8.1 PPG × +1.00 = +8.1
Missed 2PT 2.0/g × -0.78 = -1.6
Missed 3PT 1.9/g × -0.87 = -1.7
Missed FT 0.4/g × -1.00 = -0.4
Creation +1.9
Assists 1.2/g × +0.50 = +0.6
Off. Rebounds 1.0/g × +1.26 = +1.3
Turnovers -2.5
Turnovers 1.3/g × -1.95 = -2.5
Defense +2.1
Steals 1.2/g × +2.30 = +2.8
Blocks 0.3/g × +0.90 = +0.3
Def. Rebounds 3.0/g × +0.30 = +0.9
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +2.2
Contested Shots 1.9/g × +0.20 = +0.4
Deflections 2.1/g × +0.65 = +1.4
Loose Balls 0.5/g × +0.60 = +0.3
Screen Assists 0.2/g × +0.30 = +0.1
Raw Impact +8.1
Baseline (game-average expected) −9.5
Net Impact
-1.4
30th 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 43th
8.1 PPG
Efficiency 18th
51.1% TS
Playmaking 33th
1.2 APG
Rebounding 49th
4.1 RPG
Rim Protection 67th
0.16/min
Hustle 60th
0.11/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 23th
0.06/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Ronald Holland II’s opening stretch of the season was defined by maddening volatility, swinging wildly between high-energy disruption and catastrophic offensive decision-making. When thrust into a starting role, his flaws were brutally exposed. Just look at 11/09 vs PHI, where he chucked his way to a miserable 3-for-15 shooting night, generating a dismal -12.6 impact score purely through severe offensive inefficiency. Even when his shot occasionally fell, hidden costs plagued his minutes. During 10/29 vs ORL, unseen errors like costly turnovers dragged him down to a -1.0 impact despite a respectable 10-point scoring output. Yet, when he strips away the scoring burden entirely, he transforms into a highly effective spark plug. During 11/24 vs IND, he attempted zero shots and scored zero points, but still posted a stellar +5.7 impact score by generating massive value through elite hustle and playmaking. The tape tells a clear story: when Holland forces contested looks he actively harms his team, but when he channels his raw athleticism into defensive pressure, he becomes a genuine asset.

A maddening pendulum of explosive rim pressure and reckless decision-making defined this midseason stretch for Ronald Holland II. When he channeled his athleticism properly, he was an absolute wrecking ball off the bench. This peak was obvious on 12/01 vs ATL, where relentless attacks on the basket fueled 17 points and a spectacular +15.0 impact score. Yet, that same aggressive mindset often backfired against set defenses. Look no further than 01/15 vs PHX, where his 11 points and 9 rebounds were completely undone by wild drives into traffic, resulting in empty possessions that cratered his impact to a dismal -9.8. Still, Holland found ways to salvage his minutes even when his offense vanished. During the 01/05 vs NYK matchup, he managed a positive +0.4 impact despite scoring just 5 points because his lockdown perimeter isolation defense suffocated the opposition.

Ronald Holland II spent this mid-season stretch oscillating wildly between relentless two-way hustle and self-destructive offensive decision-making. When he leaned into his elite motor, the results were undeniable. Look at his +9.9 impact score on 02/05 vs WAS. Relentless offensive rebounding generated immense value that night, turning loose balls into extra possessions to drive an elite rating despite scoring just 11 points. He replicated that gritty formula on 02/23 vs SAS, using aggressive transition play and 11 total rebounds to post a +8.2 impact score that completely hid a brutal 1-for-6 night from deep. Unfortunately, a broken perimeter jumper and reckless drives frequently derailed his momentum. A prime example came on 03/10 vs BKN, where he tallied a stretch-high 16 points but dragged the team down to a -4.5 impact. That scoring volume was entirely hollow, built on a highly inefficient 5-for-13 shot diet that stalled the half-court offense and handed opponents easy transition opportunities.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. II's impact swings wildly relative to his average — some nights dominant, others invisible. Scoring varies by ~5 points per game.

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

Defensive difference-maker. II consistently forces tough shots and protects the rim — opponents shoot worse when he's guarding them.

Tends to go on runs. Longest hot streak: 4 games. Longest cold streak: 8 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 73 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

M. Buzelis 37.3 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.43
PTS 16
K. Huerter 35.3 poss
FG% 37.5%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 6
J. Walker 31.8 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 4
M. Porter Jr. 29.1 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
N. Reid 28.8 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.28
PTS 8
D. Mitchell 26.8 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 2
W. Riley 25.5 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
A. Dosunmu 24.0 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 2
V. Edgecombe 24.0 poss
FG% 11.1%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 2
S. Mamukelashvili 23.2 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.09
PTS 2

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

V. Edgecombe 47.1 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 40.0%
PPP 0.21
PTS 10
B. Carrington 35.0 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.2
PTS 7
T. Jones 35.0 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.06
PTS 2
K. Huerter 32.3 poss
FG% 28.6%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 4
M. Porter Jr. 31.5 poss
FG% 55.6%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.32
PTS 10
K. George 30.7 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.23
PTS 7
A. Simons 30.5 poss
FG% 14.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 4
M. Buzelis 27.4 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 2
D. White 26.4 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.38
PTS 10
C. Porter Jr. 25.4 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.24
PTS 6

SEASON STATS

73
Games
8.1
PPG
4.1
RPG
1.2
APG
1.2
SPG
0.3
BPG
43.1
FG%
22.3
3P%
80.6
FT%
19.8
MPG

GAME LOG

73 games played