GSW

2025-26 Season

AL HORFORD

Golden State Warriors | Center-Forward | 6-8
Al Horford
8.4PPG
4.9RPG
2.5APG
21.9MPG
-0.1 Impact

Horford produces at an average rate for a 22-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
-0.1
Scoring +7.3
Points Scored 8.4 PPG = +8.4
Missed Shots difficulty-adjusted = -3.3
Shot Making above expected FG% = +2.2
Creation +0.4
Assists & Self-Creation 2.5 AST/g + self-creation = +0.4
Turnovers -2.3
Turnovers 0.9/g (live + dead blend) = -2.3
Defense +0.8
Steals 0.7/g = +1.6
Blocks 1.1/g = +1.0
Fouls + context committed fouls, matchup adj = -1.8
Hustle & Effort +3.7
Rebounds 4.9 RPG (OREB + DREB) = +1.3
Contested Shots 6.0/g = +1.2
Deflections 1.1/g = +0.7
Charges Drawn 0.0/g = +0.0
Loose Balls 0.4/g = +0.2
Screen Assists 0.9/g = +0.3
Raw Impact +9.9
Baseline (game-average expected) −10.0
Net Impact
-0.1
42th pctl vs Centers

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 93 Centers with 10+ games

Scoring 45th
8.5 PPG
Efficiency 32th
56.4% TS
Playmaking 79th
2.6 APG
Rebounding 34th
5.0 RPG
Defense 74th
+8.1/g
Hustle 17th
+11.7/g
Creation 9th
+1.33/g
Shot Making 66th
+6.15/g
TO Discipline 78th
0.04/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Al Horford's transition into a primary bench role was defined by a jarring offensive slump and wildly fluctuating effectiveness. On 10/23 vs DEN, the veteran tallied a highly efficient 13 points on 5-for-7 shooting, yet still posted a -2.5 Impact score because his minutes were plagued by sluggish defensive rotations that bled easy baskets on the other end. His perimeter touch completely vanished entirely during a brutal 11/06 vs SAC appearance. Horford bricked all seven of his three-point attempts in that contest, suffocating his team's offensive spacing and earning a dismal -7.3 Impact. He finally discovered the fountain of youth on 12/25 vs DAL. Erupting for 14 points in a mere 11 minutes of action, he drilled four triples to generate a massive +12.5 Impact. When his jumper falls, the veteran big man remains a lethal weapon, but his aging legs simply cannot salvage his value on nights when the shot abandons him.

Al Horford's mid-winter stretch was defined by a sudden role change, shifting from a reliable bench anchor into a highly effective spot starter when his team needed stability. Early in January, his value fluctuated due to erratic offensive execution. During the 01/06 vs LAC matchup, he posted a dismal -5.1 Impact score because a dreadful 1-for-8 shooting night completely erased his overall effectiveness on the floor. However, his move to the starting lineup later in the month unlocked his elite facilitation. Look at his performance on 01/28 vs UTA, where he generated a +4.8 Impact score despite scoring just 9 points. He achieved this high mark by operating as a flawless offensive hub, dishing out 8 assists and hitting 4 of his 5 shots to create massive non-scoring value. Yet, playing heavier minutes occasionally exposed his aging legs on the glass. On 02/03 vs PHI, Horford scored a respectable 10 points but registered a brutal -5.0 Impact score because he failed to grab a single rebound in 20 minutes of action.

Al Horford's mid-season stretch was defined by extreme volatility, alternating between vintage floor-stretching clinics and nights where his aging legs simply failed him. He turned back the clock on 02/22 vs DEN, pouring in 22 points and dishing out seven assists while draining six threes to generate a massive +16.1 Impact. That elite mark stemmed entirely from his flawless shot selection and crisp connective passing. But that offensive rhythm frequently vanished, leaving behind empty stat lines like his 04/15 vs LAC appearance. Despite a relatively high-scoring output of 14 points on an efficient 5-for-8 from the floor, Horford dragged the lineup down to a -4.3 Impact because he grabbed just three rebounds and completely abandoned his playmaking duties with zero assists. Conversely, he occasionally squeezed out positive value on true low-scoring nights. On 02/28 vs LAL, he tallied just 8 points but managed a +0.6 Impact by anchoring the defense and securing five rebounds. When the jumper isn't falling, the veteran must rely entirely on his basketball IQ to survive.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Horford's impact swings wildly relative to his average — some nights dominant, others invisible. Scoring varies by ~5 points per game.

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

Defensive difference-maker. Horford consistently forces tough shots and protects the rim — opponents shoot worse when he's guarding them.

Slight upward trend. First-half impact: -1.0, second-half: +0.7. Modest improvement — possibly settling into a rhythm.

In a rough stretch — 5 straight games with negative impact. Longest cold streak this season: 6 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY ⚠ Updated 46 days ago

Based on 46 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

N. Jokić 52.0 poss
FG% 70.0%
3P% 83.3%
PPP 0.37
PTS 19
B. Portis 36.8 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.05
PTS 2
K. Johnson 33.7 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.09
PTS 3
H. Barnes 28.7 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 2
L. Kornet 26.7 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.15
PTS 4
T. Bradley 26.1 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 3
M. Raynaud 25.7 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 2
T. Harris 25.7 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 4
J. Brown 24.2 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
P. Washington 23.3 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 3

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

N. Jokić 69.0 poss
FG% 35.3%
3P% 22.2%
PPP 0.22
PTS 15
L. Kornet 56.7 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 14
J. Randle 34.4 poss
FG% 42.9%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 6
A. Sengun 33.9 poss
FG% 41.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.29
PTS 10
J. Hayes 29.5 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 2
T. Bradley 29.4 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 4
B. Lopez 27.6 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 4
D. Ayton 27.2 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 6
B. Portis 26.6 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 3
M. Raynaud 26.6 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.15
PTS 4

SEASON STATS

48
Games
8.4
PPG
4.9
RPG
2.5
APG
0.7
SPG
1.1
BPG
43.1
FG%
37.0
3P%
83.3
FT%
21.9
MPG

GAME LOG

48 games played