ORL

2025-26 Season

NOAH PENDA

Orlando Magic | Guard-Forward | 6-7
Noah Penda
4.1 PPG
3.3 RPG
1.2 APG
13.2 MPG
-0.5 Impact

Penda produces at an average rate for a 13-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
-0.5
Scoring +2.0
Points 4.1 PPG × +1.00 = +4.1
Missed 2PT 1.0/g × -0.78 = -0.8
Missed 3PT 1.1/g × -0.87 = -1.0
Missed FT 0.3/g × -1.00 = -0.3
Creation +1.6
Assists 1.2/g × +0.50 = +0.6
Off. Rebounds 0.8/g × +1.26 = +1.0
Turnovers -1.4
Turnovers 0.7/g × -1.95 = -1.4
Defense +0.3
Steals 0.5/g × +2.30 = +1.1
Blocks 0.3/g × +0.90 = +0.3
Def. Rebounds 2.5/g × +0.30 = +0.8
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +1.6
Contested Shots 2.4/g × +0.20 = +0.5
Deflections 1.0/g × +0.65 = +0.7
Loose Balls 0.4/g × +0.60 = +0.2
Screen Assists 0.3/g × +0.30 = +0.1
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.1/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.1
Raw Impact +4.1
Baseline (game-average expected) −4.6
Net Impact
-0.5
62th 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 11th
4.8 PPG
Efficiency 21th
49.0% TS
Playmaking 17th
1.3 APG
Rebounding 71th
3.8 RPG
Rim Protection 84th
0.16/min
Hustle 68th
0.12/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 56th
0.05/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Noah Penda's opening twenty games were defined by wild swings between game-wrecking defensive energy and crippling offensive ineptitude. On 11/01 vs WAS, he logged just 3 points in seven minutes but generated a massive +7.5 impact score by operating as a highly disruptive defensive presence. When given extended run, his relentless motor occasionally overwhelmed opponents, peaking on 12/20 vs UTA where he ripped down 12 rebounds and posted a staggering +21.0 impact mark. That massive rating stemmed directly from his elite help-side coverage and glass-cleaning, creating immense value without demanding a heavy offensive diet. However, his limitations became glaringly obvious whenever he tried to force the issue offensively. During the 12/23 vs POR matchup, he tallied 8 points and 6 rebounds but suffered a brutal -12.7 impact score. Poor shot selection and a barrage of bricked attempts—going 3-for-10 from the floor—severely punished his overall rating and actively stalled the offense. Until he learns to simply execute his role and stop forcing bad looks, his rotation minutes will remain a chaotic roll of the dice.

Noah Penda’s midseason stretch was defined by maddening inconsistency, oscillating wildly between brilliant bursts of energy and completely unplayable stints. Against CHA on 01/22, he looked like a legitimate rotation weapon. He posted a staggering +9.1 impact score on the back of flawless offensive execution and a highly efficient 13 points. Yet, when given a starting nod and 38 minutes against NOP on 01/11, his overall value plummeted to a brutal -9.1 impact rating. Even though he scored nine points in that contest, poor shot quality and careless offensive fouls actively dragged down his team. Conversely, Penda found ways to salvage his minutes even when his jumper completely abandoned him. During a scoreless six-minute run against PHX on 02/21, he still scratched out a +1.7 impact by relying entirely on high-energy hustle plays to keep possessions alive. To survive in this league, he must realize his worth lies in relentless grit rather than forced half-court creation.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Penda's impact swings wildly relative to his average — some nights dominant, others invisible. Scoring varies by ~4 points per game.

Streaky shooter — only cracks 45% from the field in 38% of games. Efficiency is all over the place night-to-night.

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

Small downward trend. First-half impact: +0.6, second-half: -1.6. Not alarming yet, but trending the wrong direction.

In a rough stretch — 7 straight games with negative impact. Longest cold streak this season: 7 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 73 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. Murphy III 30.3 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 3
T. Maxey 29.5 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 2
M. Porter Jr. 26.5 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 2
D. Mitchell 24.2 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
C. Thomas 23.2 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 5
L. Ball 22.4 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.09
PTS 2
T. Salaün 20.8 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.38
PTS 8
K. Knueppel 19.7 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
B. Portis 18.9 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 2
J. Jackson Jr. 18.6 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 4

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

T. Murphy III 42.2 poss
FG% 83.3%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.28
PTS 12
M. Porter Jr. 31.9 poss
FG% 22.2%
3P% 28.6%
PPP 0.19
PTS 6
C. Thomas 28.2 poss
FG% 37.5%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.32
PTS 9
P. George 24.6 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 2
D. Avdija 24.2 poss
FG% 55.6%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.45
PTS 11
C. McCollum 22.9 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 3
J. Champagnie 22.1 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.27
PTS 6
E. Mobley 21.9 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.41
PTS 9
L. Ball 21.2 poss
FG% 28.6%
3P% 20.0%
PPP 0.24
PTS 5
D. Barlow 19.7 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.36
PTS 7

SEASON STATS

55
Games
4.1
PPG
3.3
RPG
1.2
APG
0.5
SPG
0.3
BPG
41.3
FG%
33.3
3P%
68.8
FT%
13.2
MPG

GAME LOG

55 games played