UTA

2025-26 Season

KYLE FILIPOWSKI

Utah Jazz | Center | 6-11
Kyle Filipowski
11.3 PPG
7.1 RPG
2.5 APG
23.3 MPG
+1.3 Impact

Filipowski produces at an above average rate for a 23-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
+1.3
Scoring +7.2
Points 11.3 PPG × +1.00 = +11.3
Missed 2PT 2.2/g × -0.78 = -1.7
Missed 3PT 1.9/g × -0.87 = -1.7
Missed FT 0.7/g × -1.00 = -0.7
Creation +3.5
Assists 2.5/g × +0.50 = +1.2
Off. Rebounds 1.8/g × +1.26 = +2.3
Turnovers -3.1
Turnovers 1.6/g × -1.95 = -3.1
Defense +2.5
Steals 1.0/g × +2.30 = +2.3
Blocks 0.5/g × +0.90 = +0.5
Def. Rebounds 5.3/g × +0.30 = +1.6
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +2.9
Contested Shots 5.6/g × +0.20 = +1.1
Deflections 1.7/g × +0.65 = +1.1
Loose Balls 0.4/g × +0.60 = +0.2
Screen Assists 1.4/g × +0.30 = +0.4
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.0/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.1
Raw Impact +13.0
Baseline (game-average expected) −11.7
Net Impact
+1.3
27th pctl vs Centers

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 92 Centers with 10+ games

Scoring 65th
11.5 PPG
Efficiency 55th
60.0% TS
Playmaking 78th
2.5 APG
Rebounding 65th
7.1 RPG
Rim Protection 34th
0.17/min
Hustle 42th
0.11/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 20th
0.07/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Kyle Filipowski’s opening twenty games were defined by extreme volatility and an early demotion to the second unit. When he forced the issue offensively, the results were disastrous. Look no further than 10/27 vs PHX, where an abrupt collapse in finishing efficiency destroyed his value and resulted in an abysmal -10.7 impact score. Yet, he eventually found ways to drive winning without dominating the ball. Despite scoring a modest 9 points in the 11/07 vs MIN matchup, he posted a strong +4.3 impact score because his elite activity on the offensive glass generated crucial second-chance opportunities. Conversely, empty offensive calories occasionally masked his actual on-court detriments. Even when he managed an above-average 12 points in the 12/01 vs HOU game, his inability to anchor the paint defensively dragged his impact score down to a troubling -4.9.

A maddening rollercoaster of extreme offensive variance and lineup shuffling defined this bizarre stretch of Filipowski's season. When the big man secured deep interior positioning, he looked like an absolute force. Look at his masterpiece vs MEM on 12/23, where excellent spatial awareness and sustained efficiency in the paint drove a massive +10.3 impact score alongside 25 points and 13 rebounds. However, the moment physical defenders successfully denied him deep post position, his overall value completely evaporated. This glaring vulnerability ruined his night vs DAL on 01/15. Unable to anchor himself inside, he settled for forced, off-balance shots that dragged him to a dismal -12.1 impact score. To his credit, he occasionally found ways to survive these brutal offensive slumps by leaning entirely on his basketball IQ. During a rough six-point outing vs SAS on 12/27, he still managed to scrape together a +0.8 impact score by dishing out six assists and executing elite defensive rotations.

A permanent shift to the starting lineup transformed this stretch from a frustrating slump into a full-blown breakout for Kyle Filipowski. Early on, he looked lost in a reserve role, drifting through games with severe drops in offensive aggression and minimal interior dominance. But once he settled into heavy minutes, he found ways to dictate games without needing the ball, perfectly captured on 03/04 vs PHI. In that contest, he scored just 6 points but logged a +6.2 impact by anchoring the defense with elite rim deterrence. He still suffered the occasional offensive disaster class, like on 02/28 vs NOP where an uncharacteristically brutal shooting night—going 2-for-10 from the floor and 0-for-5 from deep—dragged him to a -4.2 impact despite putting up 12 points. Yet, those duds became rare exceptions. By the time he wrecked the frontcourt on 03/05 vs WAS, posting 20 points and 14 rebounds on 9-of-14 shooting, his relentless efficiency at the rim earned him a massive +14.9 impact score.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Filipowski'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.

Defensive difference-maker. Filipowski 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: -1.0, second-half: +3.5. That's a significant jump — could be a role change, confidence, or development clicking.

Hot right now — 5 straight games with positive impact. Longest positive run this season: 7 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

D. Powell 72.0 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 10
A. Sengun 60.7 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.21
PTS 13
J. Randle 55.9 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.11
PTS 6
N. Claxton 55.3 poss
FG% 71.4%
3P% 80.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 14
N. Vučević 55.1 poss
FG% 45.5%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.18
PTS 10
R. Gobert 53.0 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
K. Durant 52.5 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.04
PTS 2
N. Jokić 47.8 poss
FG% 56.2%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.48
PTS 23
A. Bona 46.7 poss
FG% 12.5%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 6
N. Reid 40.3 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 7

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

A. Sengun 70.6 poss
FG% 78.6%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.31
PTS 22
D. Powell 63.7 poss
FG% 80.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 8
J. Randle 59.3 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 13
D. Clingan 50.1 poss
FG% 57.1%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.2
PTS 10
N. Claxton 48.2 poss
FG% 28.6%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 4
N. Vučević 45.7 poss
FG% 68.8%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.55
PTS 25
L. Kornet 41.6 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 7
M. Cisse 41.5 poss
FG% 80.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 9
R. Gobert 40.7 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.37
PTS 15
K. Durant 40.0 poss
FG% 46.7%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.6
PTS 24

SEASON STATS

75
Games
11.3
PPG
7.1
RPG
2.5
APG
1.0
SPG
0.5
BPG
49.8
FG%
33.3
3P%
75.1
FT%
23.3
MPG

GAME LOG

75 games played