GSW

2025-26 Season

QUINTEN POST

Golden State Warriors | Center | 7-0
Quinten Post
7.8 PPG
4.0 RPG
1.4 APG
17.5 MPG
+0.2 Impact

Post produces at an average rate for a 18-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
+0.2
Scoring +4.6
Points 7.8 PPG × +1.00 = +7.8
Missed 2PT 0.9/g × -0.78 = -0.7
Missed 3PT 2.8/g × -0.87 = -2.4
Missed FT 0.1/g × -1.00 = -0.1
Creation +2.0
Assists 1.4/g × +0.50 = +0.7
Off. Rebounds 1.0/g × +1.26 = +1.3
Turnovers -1.6
Turnovers 0.8/g × -1.95 = -1.6
Defense +0.4
Steals 0.4/g × +2.30 = +0.9
Blocks 0.5/g × +0.90 = +0.5
Def. Rebounds 3.0/g × +0.30 = +0.9
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +2.2
Contested Shots 6.2/g × +0.20 = +1.2
Deflections 0.6/g × +0.65 = +0.4
Loose Balls 0.3/g × +0.60 = +0.2
Screen Assists 0.9/g × +0.30 = +0.3
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.0/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.1
Raw Impact +7.6
Baseline (game-average expected) −7.4
Net Impact
+0.2
14th 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 44th
8.4 PPG
Efficiency 18th
54.7% TS
Playmaking 56th
1.5 APG
Rebounding 27th
4.4 RPG
Rim Protection 29th
0.16/min
Hustle 43th
0.11/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 54th
0.05/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Quinten Post's opening stretch was defined by extreme stylistic whiplash, oscillating wildly between a transformative stretch-five and a situational defensive liability. Look at his perplexing outing vs DEN on 11/07. He poured in 14 points on flawless 6-for-6 shooting, yet posted a -1.1 impact score because his atrocious drop coverage bled points on the other end. Conversely, his jumper completely abandoned him vs POR on 11/21. He scored just 7 points on an ugly 1-for-5 mark from deep, but still manufactured a +4.6 impact by salvaging the reserve unit with disciplined interior defense. When he actually managed to fuse his floor-spacing with defensive verticality, he looked like a genuine difference-maker. He warped the entire opposing scheme vs PHX on 11/04, knocking down four threes to generate a massive +11.0 impact score. The physical tools are clearly there for him to survive as a modern big, provided he stops settling for rushed perimeter looks on the nights his touch is absent.

A maddening addiction to the three-point line defined this stretch for Quinten Post, turning him into a highly volatile rotation piece. When his jumper actually fell, he looked like a lethal weapon. He completely broke the opposing defensive scheme on 12/07 vs CHI, burying five triples for 19 points to earn a massive +10.3 impact score. But that floor-spacing gravity often became a trap. During the 01/02 vs OKC matchup, Post tallied a respectable 11 points but still posted a -2.9 impact score. He fell in love with the deep ball, and a barrage of perimeter misses (1-for-6 from three) actively hurt the offense rather than helping it. He was actually far more valuable when he simply did the dirty work. Look at his 12/22 vs ORL performance; he scored just 8 points, yet generated a +3.3 impact rating by grabbing 12 rebounds and creating crucial second-chance opportunities with a +3.5 hustle score.

Quinten Post’s midseason stretch was defined by a jarring demotion to the bench and extreme volatility as a floor-spacing big. Early on, he looked like a genuine weapon, logging a +9.5 impact score on 01/19 vs MIA by operating as a lethal pick-and-pop threat who completely warped the opposing defense. But as the season wore on, his shot selection deteriorated and his offensive aggression vanished. Look no further than his brutal -8.0 impact mark on 03/09 vs UTA. Despite scraping together 10 points, a disastrous 0-for-6 night from beyond the arc tanked his value as he stubbornly settled for contested perimeter jumpers instead of working the interior. His passivity reached its absolute nadir on 03/05 vs HOU, where total offensive invisibility and just three points yielded a ghastly -10.7 impact score. When his jumper connects, his gravity opens the floor. When it misses, his refusal to establish deep position turns him into a glaring liability.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Post'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 47% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

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

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 74 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

R. Gobert 87.6 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 12
L. Markkanen 41.0 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.07
PTS 3
D. Avdija 39.1 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 5
K. Towns 36.7 poss
FG% 37.5%
3P% 40.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 8
O. Ighodaro 36.1 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 20.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 5
C. Holmgren 33.1 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 4
O. Okongwu 32.6 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.21
PTS 7
B. Adebayo 31.0 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 3
B. Ingram 30.3 poss
FG% 16.7%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 3
E. Mobley 30.1 poss
FG% 28.6%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 4

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

R. Gobert 94.1 poss
FG% 77.8%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 15
M. Williams 59.0 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 5
D. Clingan 58.6 poss
FG% 83.3%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.2
PTS 12
E. Mobley 41.2 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.19
PTS 8
O. Ighodaro 40.5 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 4
K. Filipowski 35.6 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.2
PTS 7
B. Adebayo 35.3 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.45
PTS 16
I. Zubac 32.4 poss
FG% 42.9%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 8
O. Okongwu 32.2 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.25
PTS 8
C. Holmgren 32.0 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.28
PTS 9

SEASON STATS

66
Games
7.8
PPG
4.0
RPG
1.4
APG
0.4
SPG
0.5
BPG
44.1
FG%
33.6
3P%
79.1
FT%
17.5
MPG

GAME LOG

66 games played