ATL

2025-26 Season

ZACCHARIE RISACHER

Atlanta Hawks | Forward | 6-8
Zaccharie Risacher
9.3PPG
3.8RPG
1.1APG
21.8MPG
-2.1 Impact

Risacher produces at an below average rate for a 22-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
-2.1
Scoring +7.6
Points Scored 9.3 PPG = +9.3
Missed Shots difficulty-adjusted = -3.7
Shot Making above expected FG% = +2.0
Creation +0.5
Assists & Self-Creation 1.1 AST/g + self-creation = +0.5
Turnovers -1.9
Turnovers 0.8/g (live + dead blend) = -1.9
Defense +0.2
Steals 0.8/g = +1.8
Blocks 0.5/g = +0.5
Fouls + context committed fouls, matchup adj = -2.1
Hustle & Effort +3.1
Rebounds 3.8 RPG (OREB + DREB) = +0.9
Contested Shots 4.0/g = +0.8
Deflections 1.9/g = +1.2
Charges Drawn 0.0/g = +0.0
Loose Balls 0.3/g = +0.2
Screen Assists 0.1/g = +0.0
Raw Impact +9.5
Baseline (game-average expected) −11.6
Net Impact
-2.1
40th 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 54th
9.5 PPG
Efficiency 45th
55.7% TS
Playmaking 26th
1.1 APG
Rebounding 44th
3.8 RPG
Defense 56th
+7.6/g
Hustle 42th
+11.4/g
Creation 41th
+2.15/g
Shot Making 68th
+7.09/g
TO Discipline 73th
0.04/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Zaccharie Risacher’s first 23 games were defined by a maddening inconsistency, oscillating violently between dynamic shot-making and confusingly passive stretches. When aggressive, he looked like a true offensive focal point, peaking on 11/05 vs ORL with 21 points and a stellar +15.3 Impact score. But scoring alone rarely told the whole story. Hidden costs frequently dragged his overall value into the red, like on 11/29 vs CLE where he dropped an efficient 14 points on 5-of-6 shooting but still posted a -2.4 Impact. Despite the scoring punch, his glaring lack of secondary playmaking and poor defensive rotations actively hurt the team's rhythm in that contest. He did, however, occasionally flip that script to make himself useful when his jumper went cold. During an inefficient 11-point, 4-for-11 shooting performance on 12/04 vs LAC, Risacher managed a +1.5 Impact by offsetting his bricks with relentless hustle plays and locked-in perimeter defense. Until he smooths out these extreme peaks and valleys, his nightly reliability will remain a giant question mark.

Wild shooting swings and glaring inconsistency defined this turbulent midseason stretch for Zaccharie Risacher, eventually costing him his starting job. Even when his jumper was falling, the underlying metrics often painted a bleak picture. Take the 12/21 vs CHI matchup, where he poured in 17 points but still registered a -1.6 Impact score because his empty-calorie scoring was dragged down by poor defensive resistance and an inability to create for others. He did catch lightning in a bottle on 01/08 vs NOP, drilling seven triples for 25 points and generating a massive +18.6 Impact through pristine shot selection and aggressive rebounding. Yet, those fleeting highs were erased by disastrous performances like his 02/05 vs UTA outing. He missed all eight of his field goals that night, cratering to a horrific -19.3 Impact as his forced jumpers and lack of gravity completely stalled the offense. Ultimately, this erratic play forced a necessary role change, sending the struggling forward to the bench to close out February.

Zaccharie Risacher’s late-season stretch was defined by a jarring demotion to the bench that triggered some of the most volatile performance swings of his young career. When he found his rhythm, he looked like a brilliant draft steal. He erupted on 03/12 vs BKN for 19 points and nine rebounds, posting a massive +20.4 Impact score because of his aggressive glass-cleaning and highly efficient three-point shooting. Yet his offensive outbursts didn't always translate to winning basketball, as seen on 03/28 vs SAC. Despite scoring an efficient 13 points in just 19 minutes, his complete lack of playmaking and minimal rebounding dragged his Impact down to -0.2, revealing the hidden costs of a one-dimensional floor game. Conversely, he occasionally found ways to contribute when his shot vanished. During the 03/01 vs POR matchup, Risacher managed just five points, but his active rebounding and overall hustle still earned him a +1.4 Impact score. He remains a tantalizing talent, but until he smooths out these wild fluctuations, coaches will struggle to trust him with heavy rotation minutes.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Risacher'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 51% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

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

MATCHUP HISTORY ⚠ Updated 47 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

B. Ingram 87.5 poss
FG% 37.5%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.19
PTS 17
L. Ball 65.8 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.2
PTS 13
I. Quickley 47.0 poss
FG% 63.6%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.3
PTS 14
A. Edwards 43.2 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.07
PTS 3
T. Maxey 43.0 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 6
M. Buzelis 40.0 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 4
A. Bailey 39.3 poss
FG% 28.6%
3P% 20.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 5
T. Harris 38.3 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.05
PTS 2
P. George 36.0 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.06
PTS 2
D. Hunter 33.4 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.18
PTS 6

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

P. George 64.7 poss
FG% 36.4%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.26
PTS 17
R. Barrett 64.6 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 20.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 14
B. Ingram 48.3 poss
FG% 53.8%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.37
PTS 18
K. Middleton 48.1 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.19
PTS 9
D. Hunter 47.3 poss
FG% 80.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 8
J. McDaniels 45.6 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 3
K. Knueppel 43.3 poss
FG% 62.5%
3P% 83.3%
PPP 0.35
PTS 15
B. Miller 40.5 poss
FG% 36.4%
3P% 40.0%
PPP 0.3
PTS 12
A. Thompson 39.7 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.05
PTS 2
W. Riley 39.5 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.15
PTS 6

SEASON STATS

70
Games
9.3
PPG
3.8
RPG
1.1
APG
0.8
SPG
0.5
BPG
45.3
FG%
36.5
3P%
64.4
FT%
21.8
MPG

GAME LOG

70 games played