MIN

2025-26 Season

MIKE CONLEY

Minnesota Timberwolves | Guard | 6-1
Mike Conley
4.3 PPG
1.7 RPG
2.9 APG
18.1 MPG
-3.1 Impact

Conley produces at an below average rate for a 18-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
-3.1
Scoring +1.9
Points 4.3 PPG × +1.00 = +4.3
Missed 2PT 0.6/g × -0.78 = -0.5
Missed 3PT 2.1/g × -0.87 = -1.8
Missed FT 0.1/g × -1.00 = -0.1
Creation +1.9
Assists 2.9/g × +0.50 = +1.4
Off. Rebounds 0.4/g × +1.26 = +0.5
Turnovers -1.2
Turnovers 0.6/g × -1.95 = -1.2
Defense +0.2
Steals 0.6/g × +2.30 = +1.4
Blocks 0.3/g × +0.90 = +0.3
Def. Rebounds 1.3/g × +0.30 = +0.4
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +2.0
Contested Shots 2.1/g × +0.20 = +0.4
Deflections 1.1/g × +0.65 = +0.7
Loose Balls 0.3/g × +0.60 = +0.2
Screen Assists 0.3/g × +0.30 = +0.1
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.2/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.6
Raw Impact +4.8
Baseline (game-average expected) −7.9
Net Impact
-3.1
22th 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 8th
4.3 PPG
Efficiency 22th
49.1% TS
Playmaking 57th
3.0 APG
Rebounding 10th
1.7 RPG
Rim Protection 37th
0.10/min
Hustle 51th
0.10/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 85th
0.03/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Father Time finally caught up to Mike Conley during a brutal opening stretch defined by vanishing rim pressure and an inability to stay in front of younger assignments. The physical decline was glaring on 10/24 vs LAL, where opposing guards ruthlessly blew past him at the point of attack to saddle him with a disastrous -11.7 impact score in just 9 scoreless minutes. Yet, the savvy veteran can still manipulate a game with pure basketball IQ. During a spot start on 10/27 vs DEN, Conley orchestrated the offense with masterful tempo control to post a +3.1 impact score despite shooting just 3-for-8 from the floor. Those vintage performances were rare. Even when his box score looked respectable, hidden costs often dragged down his value. On 11/01 vs CHA, he tallied 10 points and 6 assists on pristine 3-for-6 shooting, but still bled value to finish with a -1.8 impact score due to uncharacteristic errors that disrupted the team's overall rhythm.

This brutal twenty-game stretch felt like watching Father Time finally catch up to a seasoned floor general. His declining burst routinely stalled the half-court offense, bottoming out completely on 01/17 vs SAS with a disastrous -17.4 impact score. He went completely scoreless in that shift, failing to penetrate the paint or hit open looks while the defense comfortably suffocated his teammates. Yet, the veteran still found fleeting moments of brilliance when he leaned fully into his cerebral game management, like on 12/21 vs MIL. Despite scoring just six points, he generated a stellar +8.1 impact by orchestrating the offense flawlessly and delivering highly disruptive perimeter defense. Conversely, simply hitting shots no longer guaranteed a positive return. When he dropped a stretch-high nine points on 01/13 vs MIL, he still posted a -2.5 impact because underlying struggles with ball security and offensive stagnation dragged down the entire unit.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Struggling. Conley has posted negative impact in 76% of games this season. The production rarely outweighs the cost.

Streaky shooter — only cracks 45% from the field in 21% of games. Efficiency is all over the place night-to-night.

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

Flat trajectory all season — first-half impact -2.5, second-half -3.6. No major shifts, which fits with the overall steadiness.

Tends to go on runs. Longest hot streak: 2 games. Longest cold streak: 16 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 66 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

D. Jenkins 39.9 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.08
PTS 3
A. Thompson 35.5 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.06
PTS 2
J. Murray 32.8 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.06
PTS 2
D. Schröder 30.5 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
B. Williams 29.7 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 2
C. McCollum 27.7 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 3
K. Huerter 26.8 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
R. Dennis 22.7 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.09
PTS 2
C. Gillespie 22.7 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.13
PTS 3
K. George 22.3 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 3

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

D. Schröder 37.4 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 3
R. Sheppard 35.4 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 5
K. Huerter 32.1 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.31
PTS 10
A. Green 30.2 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.1
PTS 3
K. Knueppel 30.0 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
D. Robinson 29.9 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 4
B. Williams 26.6 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.3
PTS 8
D. Jenkins 25.4 poss
FG% 42.9%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.35
PTS 9
R. Westbrook 23.7 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 3
B. Brown 23.7 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.21
PTS 5

SEASON STATS

51
Games
4.3
PPG
1.7
RPG
2.9
APG
0.6
SPG
0.3
BPG
31.5
FG%
31.2
3P%
89.6
FT%
18.1
MPG

GAME LOG

51 games played