PHI

2025-26 Season

VJ EDGECOMBE

Philadelphia 76ers | Guard | 6-4
VJ Edgecombe
16.0 PPG
5.5 RPG
4.1 APG
34.8 MPG
-0.9 Impact

Edgecombe produces at an average rate for a 35-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
-0.9
Scoring +9.3
Points 16.0 PPG × +1.00 = +16.0
Missed 2PT 4.1/g × -0.78 = -3.2
Missed 3PT 3.6/g × -0.87 = -3.1
Missed FT 0.4/g × -1.00 = -0.4
Creation +3.8
Assists 4.1/g × +0.50 = +2.0
Off. Rebounds 1.4/g × +1.26 = +1.8
Turnovers -3.5
Turnovers 1.8/g × -1.95 = -3.5
Defense +3.0
Steals 1.4/g × +2.30 = +3.2
Blocks 0.5/g × +0.90 = +0.5
Def. Rebounds 4.1/g × +0.30 = +1.2
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +4.1
Contested Shots 4.3/g × +0.20 = +0.9
Deflections 3.2/g × +0.65 = +2.1
Loose Balls 1.1/g × +0.60 = +0.7
Screen Assists 0.3/g × +0.30 = +0.1
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.1/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.3
Raw Impact +16.7
Baseline (game-average expected) −17.6
Net Impact
-0.9
56th 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 78th
16.0 PPG
Efficiency 52th
55.0% TS
Playmaking 77th
4.1 APG
Rebounding 94th
5.5 RPG
Rim Protection 60th
0.12/min
Hustle 61th
0.11/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 57th
0.05/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

VJ Edgecombe's first twenty games of the 2025-26 season were defined by a spectacular early breakout that rapidly devolved into a frustrating, inefficient slump. He erupted immediately on 10/22 vs BOS, dropping 34 points and generating a massive +15.4 impact score fueled by relentless two-way energy and elite hustle metrics. Unfortunately, bad habits quickly emerged to drag down his overall value. Look no further than 11/14 vs DET, where he scored 18 points but posted a dismal -4.5 impact. That negative mark was the direct result of severe struggles finishing inside the arc, meaning his perimeter shot-making merely inflated an otherwise hollow box score. Conversely, he occasionally found ways to contribute without scoring, like his +8.5 impact on 12/02 vs WAS. Despite managing just 9 points, relentless energy on the defensive end kept his value firmly in the green while his jumper failed to fall.

A brutal mid-season rookie wall completely derailed VJ Edgecombe's momentum, turning a promising stretch into a masterclass in erratic decision-making. Early on, he looked untouchable during a 01/01 vs DAL matchup, posting a massive +17.6 impact score fueled by suffocating point-of-attack defense and elite two-way activity. But that aggressive edge quickly morphed into a liability. Look no further than his 01/11 vs TOR outing, where he managed 17 points but generated a dismal -10.2 impact. He forced contested perimeter attempts and settled for brutal shot selection, cratering his overall value despite commendable defensive effort. He swung to the opposite extreme in a 01/16 vs CLE tilt. Despite hyper-efficient shooting, a sharp decline in offensive aggression tanked his overall impact to an abysmal -12.9. Whether he was forcing bad looks or disappearing from the offense entirely, Edgecombe's wild inconsistency severely hampered his value.

VJ Edgecombe's midseason stretch was defined by maddening inconsistency, oscillating wildly between disruptive two-way dominance and deeply damaging offensive tunnel vision. The glaring disconnect between his box score and actual value peaked on 02/19 vs ATL. Though he dropped 20 points, his net impact sank to -6.5 because that raw output merely masked a sloppy performance ruined by momentum-killing turnovers. His shot selection occasionally hit rock bottom. During a brutal outing on 02/09 vs POR, he repeatedly forced a barrage of low-quality looks to finish with just 11 points on 3/13 shooting, generating a disastrous -19.1 impact score. Yet, when he channeled his energy away from contested jumpers and toward defensive disruption, he looked like a completely different player. On 02/24 vs IND, Edgecombe tallied 23 points and posted a massive +14.9 impact by relying on elite point-of-attack defense to completely suffocate the opposition rather than just hunting his own shot.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Edgecombe'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 48% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

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

Tends to go on runs. Longest hot streak: 4 games. Longest cold streak: 7 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 69 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

I. Quickley 87.7 poss
FG% 45.5%
3P% 80.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 14
J. Brunson 87.3 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.32
PTS 28
D. White 79.8 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 22.2%
PPP 0.16
PTS 13
P. Pritchard 64.9 poss
FG% 55.6%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.18
PTS 12
FG% 58.3%
3P% 44.4%
PPP 0.28
PTS 18
M. Bridges 56.7 poss
FG% 58.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 14
D. Bane 52.7 poss
FG% 57.1%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.21
PTS 11
A. Dosunmu 51.8 poss
FG% 22.2%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.1
PTS 5
K. Knueppel 49.6 poss
FG% 16.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.04
PTS 2
A. Nembhard 48.6 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.14
PTS 7

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

J. Brunson 106.2 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 40.0%
PPP 0.18
PTS 19
D. White 83.1 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 10
I. Quickley 76.1 poss
FG% 40.9%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.32
PTS 24
A. Nembhard 70.1 poss
FG% 47.1%
3P% 40.0%
PPP 0.3
PTS 21
P. Pritchard 66.3 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.14
PTS 9
FG% 36.4%
3P% 42.9%
PPP 0.24
PTS 14
J. Giddey 58.2 poss
FG% 71.4%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.21
PTS 12
T. Herro 53.3 poss
FG% 46.7%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.32
PTS 17
A. Edwards 52.5 poss
FG% 27.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 6
FG% 85.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.33
PTS 16

SEASON STATS

70
Games
16.0
PPG
5.5
RPG
4.1
APG
1.4
SPG
0.5
BPG
44.0
FG%
36.1
3P%
82.8
FT%
34.8
MPG

GAME LOG

70 games played