DAL

2025-26 Season

RYAN NEMBHARD

Dallas Mavericks | Guard | 5-11
Ryan Nembhard
6.6PPG
2.2RPG
5.3APG
19.5MPG
-7.1 Impact

Nembhard produces at an poor rate for a 20-minute workload.

·
Embed this player card

Copy & paste this HTML into any page:

The widget updates automatically whenever our data does.

IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
-7.1
Scoring +5.7
Points Scored 6.6 PPG = +6.6
Missed Shots difficulty-adjusted = -2.7
Shot Making above expected FG% = +1.8
Creation +1.0
Assists & Self-Creation 5.3 AST/g + self-creation = +1.0
Turnovers -3.3
Turnovers 1.4/g (live + dead blend) = -3.3
Defense -0.2
Steals 0.4/g = +0.9
Blocks 0.0/g = +0.0
Fouls + context committed fouls, matchup adj = -1.1
Hustle & Effort +1.1
Rebounds 2.2 RPG (OREB + DREB) = +0.0
Contested Shots 1.5/g = +0.3
Deflections 0.6/g = +0.4
Charges Drawn 0.0/g = +0.1
Loose Balls 0.4/g = +0.2
Screen Assists 0.2/g = +0.1
Raw Impact +4.3
Baseline (game-average expected) −11.4
Net Impact
-7.1
5th pctl vs Guards

PBP Credit: Every play is analyzed from play-by-play data. Scorers get difficulty-adjusted credit, assisters get creation value based on the shot opportunity they created, and turnovers are classified by type. Shot difficulty is derived from 1M+ shots across 4 seasons. Full methodology

SKILL DNA

Percentile rank vs 246 Guards with 10+ games

Scoring 26th
6.8 PPG
Efficiency 5th
42.7% TS
Playmaking 87th
5.5 APG
Rebounding 30th
2.3 RPG
Defense 41th
+6.8/g
Hustle 41th
+7.9/g
Creation 83th
+4.18/g
Shot Making 70th
+7.90/g
TO Discipline 28th
0.07/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Ryan Nembhard’s opening twenty games of the 2025-26 season were defined by a sudden mid-November promotion to the starting lineup that yielded wild swings in effectiveness. Given the keys to the offense, he erupted on 12/02 vs DEN. He poured in 28 points and 10 assists on blazing 12-for-14 shooting to earn a massive +18.5 Impact score, driven entirely by elite shot selection and flawless half-court execution. Yet, as the month dragged on, the heavy workload exposed his flaws. This inconsistency was perfectly captured on 12/16 vs UTA. Despite logging a double-double with 14 points and 11 assists, Nembhard posted a dismal -4.4 Impact score because hidden costs like poor offensive sequencing and empty possessions dragged him down. Things bottomed out completely on 12/23 vs NOP when a disastrous 2-for-13 shooting night resulted in a brutal -21.0 Impact score. The flashes of brilliance are undeniably real, but his erratic decision-making reveals a guard who still needs to learn how to manage a game when his jumper stops falling.

Ryan Nembhard's mid-season stretch was defined by a brutal demotion to the bench and a prolonged crisis of offensive efficiency. After opening this block in the starting five, he was quickly relegated to the second unit. Look no further than the 01/16 vs UTA matchup, where he tallied 10 assists but still posted a dismal -13.0 Impact score. That severe negative rating exposes the hidden costs of his floor game; his passing was entirely undone by dreadful shot selection and a 3-for-9 shooting night that killed offensive momentum. He managed exactly one positive outing during these twenty games, scraping together a +1.5 Impact on 01/11 vs CHI. In that rare start, he finally found his rhythm, dropping 16 points and hitting three of his six attempts from deep to actually reward his coach's trust. The relief was painfully short-lived. During a disastrous 03/01 vs OKC appearance, he clanked his way to a 2-for-9 shooting line and generated a catastrophic -16.7 Impact because his sheer inability to score essentially forced his team to play four-on-five.

Ryan Nembhard’s bumpy transition from the end of the bench to the starting rotation was defined by severe growing pains and erratic shot selection. When given heavy minutes on 03/16 vs NOP, he posted a disastrous -16.0 Impact score. He forced bad looks all night, bricking seven of his eight field goal attempts while his modest five assists failed to offset the offensive bleeding. Even when he found his scoring touch on 04/10 vs SAS with 13 points and seven assists, his -6.4 Impact score revealed the hidden costs of his inefficiency. He needed 13 shot attempts to get those points, stalling the offensive flow and dragging down his overall value on the floor. However, the guard finally put the puzzle pieces together on 04/12 vs CHI. Racking up 15 points, nine rebounds, and an absurd 23 assists, Nembhard earned a +3.8 Impact score by abandoning the selfish chucking to masterfully orchestrate the offense.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Struggling. Nembhard has posted negative impact in 85% of games this season. The production rarely outweighs the cost.

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

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

Tends to go on runs. Longest hot streak: 2 games. Longest cold streak: 14 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY ⚠ Updated 46 days ago

Based on 62 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

K. Ellis 51.3 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.06
PTS 3
W. Clayton Jr. 49.8 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.16
PTS 8
I. Collier 38.5 poss
FG% 28.6%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.16
PTS 6
T. Maxey 32.1 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
B. Brown 31.8 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 5
S. Jones 31.3 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 4
D. Mitchell 31.1 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 3
P. Watson 30.9 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 5
C. Wallace 30.2 poss
FG% 28.6%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.17
PTS 5
J. Murray 29.9 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.33
PTS 10

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

W. Clayton Jr. 57.7 poss
FG% 37.5%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.14
PTS 8
K. Ellis 51.1 poss
FG% 71.4%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 13
S. Jones 44.7 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 7
I. Collier 44.5 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.11
PTS 5
T. Hardaway Jr. 42.9 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.05
PTS 2
D. Schröder 36.1 poss
FG% 62.5%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.33
PTS 12
R. Sheppard 31.7 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 4
K. George 30.6 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 75.0%
PPP 0.49
PTS 15
B. Sensabaugh 29.6 poss
FG% 71.4%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.37
PTS 11
D. Mitchell 29.1 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 4

SEASON STATS

60
Games
6.6
PPG
2.2
RPG
5.3
APG
0.4
SPG
0.0
BPG
41.5
FG%
35.6
3P%
80.6
FT%
19.5
MPG

GAME LOG

60 games played