WAS

2025-26 Season

TRE JOHNSON

Washington Wizards | Guard | 6-5
Tre Johnson
12.2 PPG
2.8 RPG
2.0 APG
24.0 MPG
-4.5 Impact

Johnson produces at an below average rate for a 24-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
-4.5
Scoring +6.8
Points 12.2 PPG × +1.00 = +12.2
Missed 2PT 2.8/g × -0.78 = -2.2
Missed 3PT 3.4/g × -0.87 = -3.0
Missed FT 0.2/g × -1.00 = -0.2
Creation +1.9
Assists 2.0/g × +0.50 = +1.0
Off. Rebounds 0.7/g × +1.26 = +0.9
Turnovers -2.9
Turnovers 1.5/g × -1.95 = -2.9
Defense +0.4
Steals 0.6/g × +2.30 = +1.4
Blocks 0.3/g × +0.90 = +0.3
Def. Rebounds 2.1/g × +0.30 = +0.6
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +1.7
Contested Shots 2.5/g × +0.20 = +0.5
Deflections 1.4/g × +0.65 = +0.9
Loose Balls 0.2/g × +0.60 = +0.1
Screen Assists 0.2/g × +0.30 = +0.1
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.1/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.1
Raw Impact +7.9
Baseline (game-average expected) −12.4
Net Impact
-4.5
5th 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 64th
12.2 PPG
Efficiency 44th
54.3% TS
Playmaking 36th
2.0 APG
Rebounding 50th
2.8 RPG
Rim Protection 15th
0.08/min
Hustle 10th
0.07/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 35th
0.06/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Tre Johnson’s first twenty games of the 2025-26 campaign were defined by empty-calorie scoring and agonizing defensive lapses. Look no further than his 11/07 vs CLE performance. Despite pouring in 19 points on highly efficient shooting, he posted a dismal -7.6 impact score because he constantly lost his man on back-door cuts. This frustrating pattern of hidden costs routinely dragged down his raw production. Too often, as seen when he recorded a -4.5 impact on 12/26 vs TOR, his tunnel vision in isolation situations stalled the entire offense and generated empty possessions. Yet, when he actually bought into a physical, downhill mentality, the results completely flipped. During a 12/21 vs SAS matchup, he decisively attacked closeouts and finished through contact to earn a stellar +10.6 impact rating. Until he permanently cleans up the ill-advised jumpers and commits to off-ball engagement, his minutes will remain a chaotic gamble.

Tre Johnson’s midseason stretch was defined by maddening volatility and empty-calorie scoring outbursts. He frequently hunted his own shot at the expense of offensive flow and defensive integrity. Look no further than the 01/24 vs CHA matchup, where he poured in 26 points but posted a dismal -6.0 impact score because he needed a massive 22 attempts and actively damaged the offense with severe shot-chucking tendencies. His tunnel vision hit rock bottom on 01/17 vs DEN. He forced heavily contested looks all night, finishing with just 4 points on 1-for-10 shooting to drag his overall rating down to a disastrous -11.2. Yet, when he actually bought into the dirty work, the results flipped entirely. During the 02/20 vs IND game, Johnson only scored 14 points but drove a stellar +6.7 impact by injecting relentless off-ball movement and aggressive defensive closeouts into the lineup. He clearly has the raw talent to tilt a game, but he must realize that mindless volume shooting is actively harming his actual value.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Inconsistent. Johnson has clear good-night/bad-night splits, with scoring swinging ~5 points between games. You're never quite sure which version shows up.

Middle-of-the-road efficiency — shoots 45%+ from the field in 44% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

Good defender on his best nights, but it comes and goes. Some games Johnson locks in defensively, others he gets picked apart.

Small downward trend. First-half impact: -3.2, second-half: -5.8. Not alarming yet, but trending the wrong direction.

In a rough stretch — 9 straight games with negative impact. Longest cold streak this season: 11 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

D. Bane 68.2 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.06
PTS 4
D. Robinson 62.7 poss
FG% 57.1%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.29
PTS 18
K. Knueppel 57.5 poss
FG% 27.3%
3P% 12.5%
PPP 0.12
PTS 7
A. Green 54.6 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.09
PTS 5
K. Dunn 54.3 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 40.0%
PPP 0.15
PTS 8
C. McCollum 41.8 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 6
V. Edgecombe 37.0 poss
FG% 42.9%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.19
PTS 7
T. Hardaway Jr. 33.7 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.15
PTS 5
D. Mitchell 33.6 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.06
PTS 2
D. DiVincenzo 31.5 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 3

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

D. Bane 67.3 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 11
K. Dunn 55.6 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.04
PTS 2
K. Knueppel 54.4 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.09
PTS 5
R. Rollins 45.9 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.09
PTS 4
V. Edgecombe 45.9 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.09
PTS 4
D. Robinson 40.9 poss
FG% 44.4%
3P% 42.9%
PPP 0.27
PTS 11
J. Pickett 39.8 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
A. Thompson 35.6 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 4
E. Dëmin 34.6 poss
FG% 28.6%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.14
PTS 5
D. DiVincenzo 34.5 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.06
PTS 2

SEASON STATS

59
Games
12.2
PPG
2.8
RPG
2.0
APG
0.6
SPG
0.3
BPG
42.0
FG%
36.1
3P%
87.4
FT%
24.0
MPG

GAME LOG

59 games played