CLE

2025-26 Season

JAYLON TYSON

Cleveland Cavaliers | Guard-Forward | 6-6
Jaylon Tyson
13.1 PPG
5.1 RPG
2.2 APG
27.0 MPG
-0.3 Impact

Tyson produces at an average rate for a 27-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
-0.3
Scoring +8.6
Points 13.1 PPG × +1.00 = +13.1
Missed 2PT 2.6/g × -0.78 = -2.0
Missed 3PT 2.4/g × -0.87 = -2.1
Missed FT 0.4/g × -1.00 = -0.4
Creation +2.7
Assists 2.2/g × +0.50 = +1.1
Off. Rebounds 1.3/g × +1.26 = +1.6
Turnovers -2.9
Turnovers 1.5/g × -1.95 = -2.9
Defense +1.5
Steals 0.8/g × +2.30 = +1.8
Blocks 0.4/g × +0.90 = +0.4
Def. Rebounds 3.8/g × +0.30 = +1.2
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +2.6
Contested Shots 4.6/g × +0.20 = +0.9
Deflections 1.7/g × +0.65 = +1.1
Loose Balls 0.5/g × +0.60 = +0.3
Screen Assists 0.5/g × +0.30 = +0.1
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.1/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.2
Raw Impact +12.5
Baseline (game-average expected) −12.8
Net Impact
-0.3
66th 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 67th
13.1 PPG
Efficiency 87th
60.4% TS
Playmaking 39th
2.2 APG
Rebounding 89th
5.1 RPG
Rim Protection 46th
0.11/min
Hustle 39th
0.09/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 53th
0.05/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Jaylon Tyson’s first twenty games were defined by a volatile search for a consistent NBA identity. Early on, flashy box score production often masked underlying flaws that actively hurt his team. Look at his 10/31 vs TOR performance. He poured in 18 points, yet finished with a -0.5 impact score because careless passing in traffic sparked costly live-ball turnovers that completely neutralized his sharp shooting. Conversely, Tyson found ways to tilt the floor positively even when his scoring volume plummeted. During the 10/24 vs BKN matchup, he managed a mere 8 points but posted a stellar +7.0 impact, driven entirely by elite defensive metrics and relentless hustle plays. Eventually, the game slowed down for the erratic wing. Everything finally clicked on 12/01 vs IND, where elite shot selection fueled a 27-point, 11-rebound offensive masterclass that generated a massive +16.4 impact.

Extreme volatility defined Jaylon Tyson's midseason campaign, as he oscillated wildly between hyper-efficient scoring outbursts and head-scratching decision-making. When he played within the flow of the offense, the results were staggering. He reached his absolute peak on 01/16 vs PHI, where an incredible offensive explosion of 39 points on 13-of-17 shooting yielded a massive +11.7 impact score. Yet, that brilliant ceiling was constantly undermined by brutal stretches of hero ball. Look no further than 12/19 vs CHI, where forced, contested jumpers and disastrous offensive execution dragged him down to a catastrophic -17.4 impact. Empty stats also became a recurring theme for the erratic wing. During 01/23 vs SAC, Tyson managed a respectable 17 points and seven rebounds, but egregious weak-side ball-watching and defensive lapses tanked his night to a -7.4 impact. If he wants to stick in the starting lineup permanently, he must eradicate the careless habits that currently hold his immense scoring talent hostage.

This twenty-game stretch was defined by a maddening disconnect between raw shot-making and actual winning basketball, a flaw that forced a volatile role change. You could see the cracks forming early during the 02/01 vs POR matchup, where Tyson poured in 18 points on flawless perimeter execution but still posted a dismal -6.1 impact score. Empty scoring volume frequently masked a deeply flawed floor game, as poor rotations and a lack of defensive awareness consistently dragged down his overall effectiveness. He occasionally tapped into his true ceiling, like when he hung 20 points and a +7.1 impact score on 01/28 vs LAL by pairing aggressive downhill drives with relentless hustle. But those complete two-way performances were frustratingly rare. Even when he found his shooting stroke, the hidden costs were devastating to his team. During the 02/27 vs DET game, he knocked down four triples for 15 points in 41 minutes, yet his overall impact cratered to -8.9 because he repeatedly fell asleep off the ball. Until he learns to value consistent defensive positioning over hunting his own shot, his minutes will remain in jeopardy.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Tyson's impact swings wildly relative to his average — some nights dominant, others invisible. Scoring varies by ~7 points per game.

Middle-of-the-road efficiency — shoots 45%+ from the field in 55% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

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

Small downward trend. First-half impact: +1.0, second-half: -1.6. Not alarming yet, but trending the wrong direction.

Tends to go on runs. Longest hot streak: 6 games. Longest cold streak: 5 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 64 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

J. Giddey 80.6 poss
FG% 64.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.24
PTS 19
C. Cunningham 70.9 poss
FG% 58.3%
3P% 62.5%
PPP 0.28
PTS 20
K. Knueppel 46.0 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.09
PTS 4
T. Maxey 44.8 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.11
PTS 5
B. Ingram 38.6 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 4
Q. Grimes 37.0 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 4
C. McCollum 34.7 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
T. Harris 34.2 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.06
PTS 2
M. Porter Jr. 33.8 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.09
PTS 3
J. Murray 33.7 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

T. Maxey 84.0 poss
FG% 28.6%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 8
J. Giddey 81.0 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 20.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 13
C. Cunningham 74.6 poss
FG% 27.8%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.23
PTS 17
K. Knueppel 48.9 poss
FG% 28.6%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 4
M. Porter Jr. 45.2 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 44.4%
PPP 0.4
PTS 18
J. Murray 40.6 poss
FG% 14.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.05
PTS 2
A. Edwards 39.1 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.31
PTS 12
B. Carrington 38.8 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.26
PTS 10
S. Sharpe 36.6 poss
FG% 30.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.22
PTS 8
C. McCollum 35.6 poss
FG% 77.8%
3P% 83.3%
PPP 0.62
PTS 22

SEASON STATS

64
Games
13.1
PPG
5.1
RPG
2.2
APG
0.8
SPG
0.4
BPG
49.6
FG%
45.5
3P%
74.3
FT%
27.0
MPG

GAME LOG

64 games played