OKC

2025-26 Season

AJAY MITCHELL

Oklahoma City Thunder | Guard | 6-4
Ajay Mitchell
14.0 PPG
3.4 RPG
3.5 APG
26.1 MPG
+2.4 Impact

Mitchell produces at an above average rate for a 26-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
+2.4
Scoring +9.2
Points 14.0 PPG × +1.00 = +14.0
Missed 2PT 3.4/g × -0.78 = -2.7
Missed 3PT 2.1/g × -0.87 = -1.8
Missed FT 0.3/g × -1.00 = -0.3
Creation +2.9
Assists 3.5/g × +0.50 = +1.8
Off. Rebounds 0.9/g × +1.26 = +1.1
Turnovers -2.9
Turnovers 1.5/g × -1.95 = -2.9
Defense +2.2
Steals 1.3/g × +2.30 = +3.0
Blocks 0.3/g × +0.90 = +0.3
Def. Rebounds 2.6/g × +0.30 = +0.8
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +3.7
Contested Shots 3.4/g × +0.20 = +0.7
Deflections 2.4/g × +0.65 = +1.6
Loose Balls 0.6/g × +0.60 = +0.4
Screen Assists 0.2/g × +0.30 = +0.1
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.3/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.9
Raw Impact +15.1
Baseline (game-average expected) −12.7
Net Impact
+2.4
89th 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 74th
14.3 PPG
Efficiency 90th
60.9% TS
Playmaking 67th
3.6 APG
Rebounding 64th
3.5 RPG
Rim Protection 73th
0.14/min
Hustle 88th
0.14/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 50th
0.06/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Ajay Mitchell's first twenty games were a chaotic rollercoaster defined by brilliant playmaking flashes undermined by crippling defensive lapses. When fully engaged, he was a massive net positive. Look at 11/07 vs SAC, where he racked up 10 assists and a stellar +13.3 impact score because his aggressive defensive rotations completely offset a mediocre shooting night. Yet, he frequently sabotaged his own scoring outbursts with hidden costs on the other end of the floor. During 10/28 vs SAC, Mitchell poured in 18 points but posted a dismal -6.1 impact score because transition defensive miscommunications constantly left him trailing the play and conceding easy looks. Conversely, he found ways to drive winning basketball even when his jumper vanished. On 11/21 vs UTA, he managed just 12 points but generated a sturdy +5.6 impact score by relying on tenacious point-of-attack defense and a +3.6 hustle rating to compensate for his streaky touch. Until he stops forcing bad shots and falling asleep in transition, his overall value will remain fiercely unpredictable.

A wildly volatile stretch of erratic shot selection and brilliant flashes defined Ajay Mitchell's mid-season campaign as a rotational spark-plug. When he played within the flow of the offense, the results were devastatingly effective. This peaked on 11/23 vs POR, where a flawless 8-for-8 shooting night and an aggressive downhill mentality generated a massive +12.8 impact score. He even managed to drive winning basketball when his jumper abandoned him, logging a +6.5 impact on 01/07 vs UTA despite an ugly 5-for-15 shooting clip. During that gritty performance, exceptional defensive disruption and relentless hustle plays kept his overall value firmly in the green. However, his tendency to hijack possessions occasionally dragged down the second unit. Look no further than his disastrous outing on 01/17 vs MIA, where he tallied a respectable 15 points but bled a staggering -10.3 impact. Forcing low-percentage perimeter looks entirely erased his scoring output, turning a decent box score into a massive net negative for his team.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Volatile for his role. Mitchell has noticeable ups and downs, with scoring moving ~5 points between games.

Middle-of-the-road efficiency — shoots 45%+ from the field in 60% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

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

Tends to go on runs. Longest hot streak: 8 games. Longest cold streak: 3 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 55 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

K. Caldwell-Pope 41.9 poss
FG% 57.1%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.29
PTS 12
M. Monk 39.3 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 5
C. Love 37.7 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 6
C. Sexton 37.1 poss
FG% 80.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.24
PTS 9
D. DiVincenzo 36.4 poss
FG% 71.4%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.38
PTS 14
P. Pritchard 35.4 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 4
K. Murray 32.0 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 8
D. Schröder 31.6 poss
FG% 71.4%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.32
PTS 10
B. Sheppard 29.9 poss
FG% 57.1%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.43
PTS 13
D. Jenkins 28.5 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 4

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

C. Love 47.9 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.23
PTS 11
C. Spencer 45.3 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.22
PTS 10
M. Monk 41.2 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 7
C. Sexton 40.8 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 7
A. Reaves 40.8 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.05
PTS 2
D. Schröder 38.4 poss
FG% 57.1%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.23
PTS 9
B. Podziemski 36.4 poss
FG% 42.9%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 8
D. DiVincenzo 35.7 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.14
PTS 5
K. Caldwell-Pope 35.0 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.06
PTS 2
B. Sensabaugh 31.4 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.19
PTS 6

SEASON STATS

53
Games
14.0
PPG
3.4
RPG
3.5
APG
1.3
SPG
0.3
BPG
48.9
FG%
34.3
3P%
88.3
FT%
26.1
MPG

GAME LOG

53 games played