POR

2025-26 Season

HANSEN YANG

Portland Trail Blazers | Center | 7-1
Hansen Yang
2.3 PPG
1.6 RPG
0.5 APG
7.2 MPG
-1.6 Impact

Yang produces at an below average rate for a 7-minute workload. Defensive impact (-1.1/game) is a concern.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
-1.6
Scoring +0.8
Points 2.3 PPG × +1.00 = +2.3
Missed 2PT 0.8/g × -0.78 = -0.6
Missed 3PT 0.9/g × -0.87 = -0.8
Missed FT 0.1/g × -1.00 = -0.1
Creation +0.7
Assists 0.5/g × +0.50 = +0.2
Off. Rebounds 0.4/g × +1.26 = +0.5
Turnovers -1.6
Turnovers 0.8/g × -1.95 = -1.6
Defense -1.1
Steals 0.1/g × +2.30 = +0.2
Blocks 0.2/g × +0.90 = +0.2
Def. Rebounds 1.2/g × +0.30 = +0.4
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +1.2
Contested Shots 2.6/g × +0.20 = +0.5
Deflections 0.4/g × +0.65 = +0.3
Loose Balls 0.1/g × +0.60 = +0.1
Screen Assists 0.9/g × +0.30 = +0.3
Raw Impact -0.0
Baseline (game-average expected) −1.6
Net Impact
-1.6
4th pctl vs Centers

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 92 Centers with 10+ games

Scoring 5th
3.1 PPG
Efficiency 2th
41.1% TS
Playmaking 22th
0.9 APG
Rebounding 3th
2.3 RPG
Rim Protection 31th
0.17/min
Hustle 64th
0.12/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 2th
0.10/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

A brutal adjustment to the sheer speed of the NBA defined the opening stretch of Hansen Yang's rookie campaign. He frequently looked lost in brief rotational cameos, bottoming out vs DAL on 12/29 with a disastrous -13.7 impact score. Rushed attempts and a complete inability to sync with the offense ruined his minutes that night. Even when he managed to generate decent box-score production, ugly shot selection dragged down his actual value. Look at his 18-minute outing vs OKC on 11/23, where he tallied 8 points but still posted a -0.9 impact because a heavy volume of forced interior shots destroyed his team's offensive rhythm. Still, Yang occasionally found ways to positively influence the game without scoring. During a quick five-minute stint vs CLE on 12/03, he recorded just 2 points but earned a +2.6 impact score by executing flawless defensive rotations and clogging passing lanes. To survive in this league, he must process the floor faster instead of chucking up panicked looks.

This stretch of the season was defined by a desperate, often painful struggle to adapt to the sheer velocity of the NBA game. When handed an extended look on 01/07 vs HOU, Yang looked entirely overwhelmed. He logged a brutal -13.7 impact score that night because disjointed offensive possessions and an inability to process the game's pace completely derailed his minutes. He was a glaring negative. Instead of letting the offense come to him, he routinely forced terrible outside shots or rushed off-balance attempts in the paint. Yet, when he finally stopped overthinking and relied on simple fundamentals, he found ways to tilt the floor. Despite scoring just two points on 02/11 vs MIN, he posted a stellar +6.1 impact by providing immediate defensive activity and executing his role flawlessly. He mirrored that disciplined approach on 03/23 vs BKN, generating a +4.2 impact through smart positional awareness and verticality around the basket rather than hunting empty stats.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Below-average consistency. Yang is negative impact in 66% of games, with scoring moving ~2 points game-to-game.

Streaky shooter — only cracks 45% from the field in 17% of games. Efficiency is all over the place night-to-night.

Average defender. Yang doesn't hurt you defensively, but he's not making opponents uncomfortable either.

Flat trajectory all season — first-half impact -1.0, second-half -2.1. No major shifts, which fits with the overall steadiness.

Tends to go on runs. Longest hot streak: 2 games. Longest cold streak: 6 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 61 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

B. Carlson 28.6 poss
FG% 14.3%
3P% 20.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 3
Z. Edey 24.0 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 4
C. Johnson 15.1 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
J. Smith Jr. 13.7 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.22
PTS 3
M. Raynaud 13.7 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
J. Isaac 12.7 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 2
I. Hartenstein 12.4 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.48
PTS 6
L. Garza 11.8 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
T. Bryant 11.3 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
D. Ayton 11.0 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.09
PTS 1

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

Z. Edey 25.6 poss
FG% 28.6%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 4
S. Adams 19.9 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 2
B. Carlson 16.8 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.54
PTS 9
C. Johnson 15.6 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 2
T. Jackson-Davis 13.9 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 2
I. Hartenstein 13.2 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
A. Gill 10.9 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.18
PTS 2
L. Garza 10.7 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.28
PTS 3
T. Bryant 9.9 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
D. Holmes II 9.9 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.51
PTS 5

SEASON STATS

41
Games
2.3
PPG
1.6
RPG
0.5
APG
0.1
SPG
0.2
BPG
31.0
FG%
11.9
3P%
82.4
FT%
7.2
MPG

GAME LOG

41 games played