TOR

2025-26 Season

JAMISON BATTLE

Toronto Raptors | Forward | 6-7
Jamison Battle
3.2 PPG
1.6 RPG
0.4 APG
8.9 MPG
-1.2 Impact

Battle produces at an below average rate for a 9-minute workload. Defensive impact (-1.2/game) is a concern.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
-1.2
Scoring +2.0
Points 3.2 PPG × +1.00 = +3.2
Missed 2PT 0.4/g × -0.78 = -0.3
Missed 3PT 0.9/g × -0.87 = -0.8
Missed FT 0.1/g × -1.00 = -0.1
Creation +0.7
Assists 0.4/g × +0.50 = +0.2
Off. Rebounds 0.4/g × +1.26 = +0.5
Turnovers -0.6
Turnovers 0.3/g × -1.95 = -0.6
Defense -1.2
Steals 0.1/g × +2.30 = +0.2
Blocks 0.1/g × +0.90 = +0.1
Def. Rebounds 1.2/g × +0.30 = +0.4
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +0.6
Contested Shots 1.0/g × +0.20 = +0.2
Deflections 0.3/g × +0.65 = +0.2
Loose Balls 0.1/g × +0.60 = +0.1
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.0/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.1
Raw Impact +1.5
Baseline (game-average expected) −2.7
Net Impact
-1.2
34th pctl vs Forwards

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 227 Forwards with 10+ games

Scoring 9th
4.2 PPG
Efficiency 91th
64.2% TS
Playmaking 4th
0.5 APG
Rebounding 5th
2.0 RPG
Rim Protection 21th
0.10/min
Hustle 9th
0.07/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 77th
0.04/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Jamison Battle’s first twenty games were defined by dizzying variance, oscillating violently between untouchable human torch and completely invisible ghost. When he found his rhythm, the results were staggering, perfectly captured on 10/31 vs CLE when he erupted for 20 points on a flawless 6-for-6 from deep. That monstrous +11.2 impact score was earned by completely breaking Cleveland's zone coverage and punishing the defense with elite spacing. Yet, when the jumper wasn't falling, his overall value cratered due to extreme passivity and glaring lapses. Look no further than his disastrous 12/18 vs MIL outing. Despite logging only five minutes, he posted a brutal -5.7 impact mark because he forced bad shots and repeatedly blew his defensive assignments. Even a spot start on 11/30 vs NYK ended in the red (-2.9 impact), as empty possessions and missed perimeter looks revealed his inability to positively influence the floor when his primary weapon misfires.

This stretch was defined by a frustrating inability to stick in the rotation, as Jamison Battle mostly drifted through brief, low-impact cameos. His worst outing came on 01/11 vs PHI, where sluggish defensive closeouts and poor spatial awareness resulted in a brutal -9.6 impact score despite him chipping in five points. Conversely, he occasionally found ways to contribute without the ball. He logged a +3.9 impact score on 12/31 vs DEN despite scoring just two points, maximizing his six minutes by perfectly executing his assignments to generate a +3.2 defensive score. Too often, however, Battle actively hurt the second unit with rushed decisions. During a seven-minute stint on 02/08 vs IND, he short-circuited the offense with contested, early-clock heaves, dragging his impact down to -4.9 as he missed all four of his shot attempts. Unless he stops fading into the background and tightens up his shot selection, he will remain a fringe bench piece.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Struggling. Battle has posted negative impact in 75% of games this season. The production rarely outweighs the cost.

Middle-of-the-road efficiency — shoots 45%+ from the field in 62% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

Flat trajectory all season — first-half impact -0.6, second-half -1.8. No major shifts, which fits with the overall steadiness.

Tends to go on runs. Longest hot streak: 2 games. Longest cold streak: 8 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 71 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. McConnell 20.6 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 2
R. Dillingham 15.6 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.19
PTS 3
A. Simons 14.8 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
B. Sheppard 13.8 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
K. Filipowski 13.2 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
M. Porter Jr. 13.0 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.15
PTS 2
W. Riley 12.8 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
A. Nembhard 12.8 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
J. Champagnie 12.3 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.24
PTS 3
Q. Grimes 12.3 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.

W. Riley 17.5 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.34
PTS 6
R. Dillingham 16.7 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.24
PTS 4
B. Sheppard 16.6 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
Q. Grimes 16.1 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.19
PTS 3
T. Salaün 14.8 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
A. Nesmith 14.8 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 2
P. Williams 13.9 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 3
K. Filipowski 13.2 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
J. Champagnie 12.7 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.39
PTS 5
E. Harkless 12.5 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 2

SEASON STATS

56
Games
3.2
PPG
1.6
RPG
0.4
APG
0.1
SPG
0.1
BPG
50.4
FG%
42.2
3P%
66.7
FT%
8.9
MPG

GAME LOG

56 games played