UTA

2025-26 Season

ISAIAH COLLIER

Utah Jazz | Guard | 6-4
Isaiah Collier
11.7 PPG
2.5 RPG
7.2 APG
25.7 MPG
-3.6 Impact

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

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
-3.6
Scoring +7.2
Points 11.7 PPG × +1.00 = +11.7
Missed 2PT 3.2/g × -0.78 = -2.5
Missed 3PT 1.2/g × -0.87 = -1.0
Missed FT 1.0/g × -1.00 = -1.0
Creation +4.4
Assists 7.2/g × +0.50 = +3.6
Off. Rebounds 0.6/g × +1.26 = +0.8
Turnovers -4.9
Turnovers 2.5/g × -1.95 = -4.9
Defense +1.5
Steals 1.1/g × +2.30 = +2.5
Blocks 0.3/g × +0.90 = +0.3
Def. Rebounds 1.9/g × +0.30 = +0.6
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +2.0
Contested Shots 2.5/g × +0.20 = +0.5
Deflections 1.7/g × +0.65 = +1.1
Loose Balls 0.3/g × +0.60 = +0.2
Screen Assists 0.2/g × +0.30 = +0.1
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.0/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.1
Raw Impact +10.2
Baseline (game-average expected) −13.8
Net Impact
-3.6
13th pctl vs Guards

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 235 Guards with 10+ games

Scoring 60th
11.7 PPG
Efficiency 64th
56.6% TS
Playmaking 96th
7.2 APG
Rebounding 39th
2.5 RPG
Rim Protection 50th
0.12/min
Hustle 14th
0.07/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 10th
0.10/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Isaiah Collier's start to the 2025-26 campaign was defined by a maddening inability to translate high-volume playmaking into actual winning basketball. Take his performance on 12/18 vs LAL. He racked up 18 points and 13 assists, yet his porous point-of-attack defense dragged his overall impact down to a dismal -7.2. The hidden costs were staggering. During an otherwise productive 16-point, 9-assist showing on 11/16 vs CHI, sloppy ball security and telegraphed passes yielded a -1.3 impact score by feeding live-ball turnovers directly to the opposition. The lone bright spot arrived on 12/05 vs NYK, where masterful offensive orchestration finally earned him a +3.8 impact rating. Unfortunately, that brief flash of control was an anomaly for a guard whose reckless drives into traffic and matador defense kept his value firmly in the red.

This stretch was defined by the maddening disconnect between Isaiah Collier's flashy counting stats and the hidden errors that constantly tanked his actual value on the floor. Look no further than 01/01 vs LAC, where he stuffed the sheet with 16 points, 6 rebounds, and 10 assists but still posted a dreadful -7.7 impact score. Despite efficient interior finishing, a wave of turnovers completely erased his offensive production. The exact same script played out on 01/10 vs CHA. He racked up 17 points and 9 assists, yet a brutal string of unforced errors dragged his overall impact down to a frustrating -3.1. Ironically, his most effective basketball arrived when he stopped chasing box-score glory. During 01/03 vs GSW, he scored just 8 points but generated a stellar +4.2 impact score simply because his tenacious point-of-attack defense actively disrupted the opponent's primary actions. Until he values the basketball and commits to getting consistent stops, his gaudy assist totals will remain entirely hollow.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Struggling. Collier has posted negative impact in 80% of games this season. The production rarely outweighs the cost.

Reliable shooter — hits 45%+ from the field in 70% of games. You can count on efficient nights more often than not.

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

Getting better as the season goes on. First-half impact: -5.4, second-half: -1.9. That's a significant jump — could be a role change, confidence, or development clicking.

Tends to go on runs. Longest hot streak: 2 games. Longest cold streak: 13 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 67 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

T. Camara 44.9 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 5
R. Nembhard 44.5 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.11
PTS 5
D. Daniels 41.2 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 3
K. Jones 41.0 poss
FG% 16.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.05
PTS 2
B. Williams 39.6 poss
FG% 28.6%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 4
D. Harper 39.6 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.05
PTS 2
K. Dunn 34.6 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.09
PTS 3
J. McDaniels 32.3 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 4
A. Thompson 31.5 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 4
A. Dosunmu 31.2 poss
FG% 37.5%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.35
PTS 11

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

S. Cissoko 44.1 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 7
R. Nembhard 38.5 poss
FG% 28.6%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.16
PTS 6
C. Spencer 35.5 poss
FG% 83.3%
3P% 80.0%
PPP 0.42
PTS 15
D. DiVincenzo 33.3 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.18
PTS 6
J. Suggs 32.2 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.16
PTS 5
B. Williams 31.9 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 4
J. LaRavia 30.9 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.23
PTS 7
K. Dunn 29.3 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 3
T. Camara 29.2 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 2
D. Harper 28.4 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 4

SEASON STATS

59
Games
11.7
PPG
2.5
RPG
7.2
APG
1.1
SPG
0.3
BPG
49.5
FG%
27.0
3P%
72.2
FT%
25.7
MPG

GAME LOG

59 games played