PHI

2025-26 Season

ANDRE DRUMMOND

Philadelphia 76ers | Center | 6-11
Andre Drummond
6.3 PPG
8.3 RPG
1.2 APG
19.4 MPG
+2.2 Impact

Drummond produces at an above average rate for a 19-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
+2.2
Scoring +3.5
Points 6.3 PPG × +1.00 = +6.3
Missed 2PT 1.9/g × -0.78 = -1.5
Missed 3PT 0.9/g × -0.87 = -0.8
Missed FT 0.5/g × -1.00 = -0.5
Creation +3.3
Assists 1.2/g × +0.50 = +0.6
Off. Rebounds 2.1/g × +1.26 = +2.7
Turnovers -1.9
Turnovers 1.0/g × -1.95 = -1.9
Defense +2.1
Steals 0.6/g × +2.30 = +1.4
Blocks 0.8/g × +0.90 = +0.7
Def. Rebounds 6.2/g × +0.30 = +1.9
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +2.7
Contested Shots 5.1/g × +0.20 = +1.0
Deflections 1.4/g × +0.65 = +0.9
Loose Balls 0.3/g × +0.60 = +0.2
Screen Assists 1.7/g × +0.30 = +0.5
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.0/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.1
Raw Impact +9.7
Baseline (game-average expected) −7.5
Net Impact
+2.2
41st 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 32th
6.6 PPG
Efficiency 11th
51.6% TS
Playmaking 39th
1.2 APG
Rebounding 78th
8.6 RPG
Rim Protection 59th
0.20/min
Hustle 40th
0.11/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 44th
0.05/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Andre Drummond’s first 20 games were defined by a dramatic mid-November promotion to the starting lineup that unleashed his sheer physical dominance on the glass. Even while coming off the bench early on, he flashed massive value without needing to score, posting a +13.0 impact score on 10/25 vs CHA despite tallying just 7 points. He completely controlled the boards in only 16 minutes, generating crucial second-chance opportunities that broke the opponent's back. His peak arrived as a starter on 11/17 vs LAC, where he grabbed 18 rebounds and scored 14 points to drive a massive +13.2 impact mark. That stellar rating stemmed directly from absolute domination of the painted area, suffocating the opposition's interior game. However, Drummond's massive frame remains a double-edged sword, perfectly captured on 11/19 vs TOR. Despite logging a respectable double-double with 10 points and 12 rebounds, he registered a -1.5 impact score because his heavy feet on the perimeter allowed guards to easily exploit him in pick-and-roll coverages.

Andre Drummond’s mid-season stretch was defined by a bizarre identity crisis, oscillating wildly between dominant interior bully and delusional perimeter shooter. Nothing captured this weirdness better than his 12/19 vs NYK performance, where an uncharacteristic barrage of perimeter shooting—including three makes from deep—helped generate a +3.0 impact. Yet, when he drifted away from his core strengths without the hot shooting, the hidden costs piled up rapidly. During the 02/03 vs GSW matchup, he recorded a double-double with 12 points and 12 rebounds, but sluggishness dragged his overall impact down to a -1.5. The floor completely fell out on 12/28 vs OKC, where poor positional awareness allowed opponents to exploit the paint and handed him a brutal -11.0 impact score. He remained a massive asset only when he embraced the dirty work. On 12/20 vs DAL, he scored a mere 6 points but generated a steady +2.8 impact because his sheer dominance on the glass created crucial second-chance opportunities. Whenever Drummond stuck to bullying opponents in the paint, he thrived, but his sudden infatuation with the three-point line routinely hurt his team.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Volatile for his role. Drummond has noticeable ups and downs, with scoring moving ~5 points between games.

Middle-of-the-road efficiency — shoots 45%+ from the field in 60% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

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

Small downward trend. First-half impact: +3.4, second-half: +1.0. Not alarming yet, but trending the wrong direction.

Tends to go on runs. Longest hot streak: 8 games. Longest cold streak: 4 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 74 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. Queta 67.2 poss
FG% 71.4%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 15
W. Carter Jr. 65.6 poss
FG% 30.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 7
D. Clingan 59.4 poss
FG% 44.4%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 8
N. Claxton 58.7 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 10
O. Okongwu 57.4 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.09
PTS 5
J. Duren 51.8 poss
FG% 71.4%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 13
I. Zubac 51.0 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
C. Murray-Boyles 46.5 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.04
PTS 2
J. Poeltl 46.2 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.04
PTS 2
K. Ware 40.8 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 7

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

N. Queta 66.5 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.23
PTS 15
N. Claxton 62.8 poss
FG% 85.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.24
PTS 15
W. Carter Jr. 56.8 poss
FG% 62.5%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.21
PTS 12
D. Clingan 55.3 poss
FG% 37.5%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.13
PTS 7
J. Duren 51.1 poss
FG% 80.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.18
PTS 9
O. Okongwu 49.1 poss
FG% 42.9%
3P% 20.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 7
I. Zubac 48.3 poss
FG% 37.5%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 6
J. Poeltl 45.1 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.27
PTS 12
A. Davis 41.3 poss
FG% 63.6%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.39
PTS 16
C. Murray-Boyles 41.3 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 7

SEASON STATS

58
Games
6.3
PPG
8.3
RPG
1.2
APG
0.6
SPG
0.8
BPG
47.1
FG%
36.1
3P%
63.6
FT%
19.4
MPG

GAME LOG

58 games played