WAS

2025-26 Season

WILL RILEY

Washington Wizards | Forward | 6-9
Will Riley
9.6 PPG
2.6 RPG
1.8 APG
21.0 MPG
-2.7 Impact

Riley produces at an below average rate for a 21-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
-2.7
Scoring +5.6
Points 9.6 PPG × +1.00 = +9.6
Missed 2PT 2.2/g × -0.78 = -1.7
Missed 3PT 2.1/g × -0.87 = -1.8
Missed FT 0.5/g × -1.00 = -0.5
Creation +1.8
Assists 1.8/g × +0.50 = +0.9
Off. Rebounds 0.7/g × +1.26 = +0.9
Turnovers -2.3
Turnovers 1.2/g × -1.95 = -2.3
Defense +0.2
Steals 0.6/g × +2.30 = +1.4
Blocks 0.1/g × +0.90 = +0.1
Def. Rebounds 2.0/g × +0.30 = +0.6
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +1.7
Contested Shots 3.0/g × +0.20 = +0.6
Deflections 1.0/g × +0.65 = +0.7
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 = +0.2
Raw Impact +7.0
Baseline (game-average expected) −9.7
Net Impact
-2.7
13th 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 61th
10.7 PPG
Efficiency 26th
53.0% TS
Playmaking 63th
2.0 APG
Rebounding 24th
2.9 RPG
Rim Protection 22th
0.10/min
Hustle 11th
0.07/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 27th
0.06/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Will Riley's first twenty games were defined by a frustrating inability to translate deep-bench cameos into reliable rotation minutes. He constantly fought a losing battle between passive irrelevance and forced heroics. Look at his highest-scoring night on 12/06 vs ATL. Riley poured in 15 points, yet posted a miserable -5.7 impact score because severe tunnel vision and forced perimeter attempts completely stalled the team's ball movement. Conversely, he occasionally found ways to be highly effective without dominating the ball. On 10/24 vs DAL, Riley logged a stellar +3.2 impact score while scoring just three points in four minutes, driven entirely by a brief, highly disruptive defensive stint that blew up opposing sets. But those flashes of discipline were rare, and his baseline was much closer to his disastrous showing on 11/03 vs NYK. Taking an uncharacteristically passive approach, he vanished from the offensive game plan to post a -6.0 impact score while going scoreless in 10 minutes.

This stretch was defined by a brutal offensive identity crisis that nearly played Will Riley out of the rotation before a late-winter revival saved him. His decision-making hit rock bottom on 01/16 vs SAC, where abysmal perimeter shot selection derailed the offense and earned him a disastrous -13.2 impact score. The misery continued on 01/19 vs LAC, as forced shots and a total lack of rhythm resulted in a cratering -12.2 impact alongside just a single point. Even when his jumper actually connected, like his 12-point effort on 01/14 vs LAC, a frustrating drop in overall usage and assertiveness dragged his impact down to -2.9. Realizing his scoring was unreliable, Riley smartly pivoted to the dirty work to salvage his minutes. During the 01/30 vs LAL matchup, he shot an ugly 5-for-15 but still posted a +2.5 impact by morphing into a defensive menace and generating massive hustle plays. That gritty breakthrough finally unlocked his offensive confidence, culminating on 02/05 vs DET with aggressive, high-percentage rim attacks against drop coverage that yielded 20 points and a stellar +5.3 impact.

Will Riley’s midseason stretch was defined by empty-calorie scoring and a maddening inability to translate heavy minutes into winning basketball. Whenever he hunted his own offense, the hidden costs usually outweighed the raw production. Take his performance on 03/10 vs MIA, where a seemingly impressive 22 points masked a barrage of live-ball turnovers and forced reads that dragged his impact score down to a -3.5. His shot selection frequently short-circuited offensive possessions entirely. This was painfully obvious on 02/11 vs CLE, as he forced up an abysmal 1-for-12 shooting line that resulted in a catastrophic -17.4 impact. Yet, when Riley actually played within the flow of the offense, his value spiked. He logged a +4.5 impact on 02/24 vs ATL by abandoning the contested jumpers for flawless shot selection, pouring in 18 points on a hyper-efficient 7-of-8 from the floor. If he wants to stick in the starting lineup permanently, he must realize that clinical finishing and smart reads matter far more than forcing up bad shots.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Inconsistent. Riley has clear good-night/bad-night splits, with scoring swinging ~7 points between games. You're never quite sure which version shows up.

Streaky shooter — only cracks 45% from the field in 36% of games. Efficiency is all over the place night-to-night.

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

Tends to go on runs. Longest hot streak: 5 games. Longest cold streak: 6 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 72 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

P. Banchero 42.4 poss
FG% 28.6%
3P% 20.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 5
T. Harris 42.3 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 5
Z. Risacher 39.5 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.15
PTS 6
J. McCain 32.5 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.06
PTS 2
D. Bane 29.6 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 2
J. Kuminga 28.5 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.21
PTS 6
L. Ball 28.3 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.18
PTS 5
W. Richard 27.8 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.29
PTS 8
K. Jakučionis 27.8 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 3
B. Podziemski 27.5 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.29
PTS 8

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

T. da Silva 53.9 poss
FG% 16.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 4
J. Kuminga 35.9 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.25
PTS 9
G. Trent Jr. 34.8 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.09
PTS 3
A. Thompson 33.8 poss
FG% 80.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.24
PTS 8
W. Richard 33.5 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.09
PTS 3
K. Jakučionis 33.4 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
K. Huerter 33.1 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.06
PTS 2
T. Harris 32.4 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.09
PTS 3
J. McCain 29.1 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.17
PTS 5
J. Tatum 28.6 poss
FG% 57.1%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.31
PTS 9

SEASON STATS

68
Games
9.6
PPG
2.6
RPG
1.8
APG
0.6
SPG
0.1
BPG
44.4
FG%
33.2
3P%
79.7
FT%
21.0
MPG

GAME LOG

68 games played