ATL

2025-26 Season

CJ MCCOLLUM

Atlanta Hawks | Guard | 6-3
CJ McCollum
18.7 PPG
3.3 RPG
3.8 APG
29.8 MPG
-1.0 Impact

McCollum produces at an below average rate for a 30-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
-1.0
Scoring +11.2
Points 18.7 PPG × +1.00 = +18.7
Missed 2PT 4.0/g × -0.78 = -3.1
Missed 3PT 4.2/g × -0.87 = -3.7
Missed FT 0.7/g × -1.00 = -0.7
Creation +2.9
Assists 3.8/g × +0.50 = +1.9
Off. Rebounds 0.8/g × +1.26 = +1.0
Turnovers -3.5
Turnovers 1.8/g × -1.95 = -3.5
Defense +1.0
Steals 0.8/g × +2.30 = +1.8
Blocks 0.4/g × +0.90 = +0.4
Def. Rebounds 2.5/g × +0.30 = +0.7
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +2.2
Contested Shots 4.1/g × +0.20 = +0.8
Deflections 1.5/g × +0.65 = +1.0
Loose Balls 0.5/g × +0.60 = +0.3
Screen Assists 0.4/g × +0.30 = +0.1
Raw Impact +13.8
Baseline (game-average expected) −14.8
Net Impact
-1.0
54th 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 87th
18.7 PPG
Efficiency 56th
55.6% TS
Playmaking 70th
3.8 APG
Rebounding 59th
3.3 RPG
Rim Protection 32th
0.10/min
Hustle 10th
0.07/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 43th
0.06/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

CJ McCollum’s opening stretch of the season was defined by wild, unpredictable swings between nuclear shooting outbursts and actively damaging offensive slumps. Even when his scoring volume looked robust, hidden costs often ruined his actual value on the floor. Take 11/07 vs CLE as a prime example. He poured in 25 points, yet posted a -3.2 impact score because he hijacked the offense to launch a barrage of ill-advised, erratic attempts. He flipped the script completely on 11/25 vs ATL, erupting for 46 points and generating a staggering +22.6 impact score through an absolute clinic of perimeter marksmanship. However, those brilliant peaks were heavily offset by brutal valleys like 11/05 vs BOS, where a disastrous 1-for-10 shooting performance and a steady diet of early-clock contested jumpers resulted in a -13.5 impact. When he methodically exploits drop coverage, he remains a lethal offensive weapon. Unfortunately, his penchant for forcing bad looks and dying on screens at the point of attack makes him a wildly volatile veteran presence.

This stretch was defined by a painful transition to a bench role and a frustrating string of empty-calorie scoring nights. Look at his outing vs ATL on 12/06, where he poured in 28 points on 7-of-12 shooting from deep, yet posted a catastrophic -11.1 impact score because his perimeter fireworks merely masked a total defensive collapse. He repeated this damaging pattern vs LAL on 01/13. Despite dropping 25 points off the bench, he logged a -4.9 impact due to a heavy reliance on contested mid-range pull-ups that severely capped his offensive efficiency. However, McCollum occasionally found bizarre ways to contribute when his jumper abandoned him. During his matchup vs PHX on 12/29, he went a miserable 0-for-5 from three-point range but still managed a +3.0 impact score by delivering a surprising defensive masterclass to salvage his overall value. Ultimately, his demotion to the second unit reflects a harsh reality about his aging game, as his defensive bleeding and isolation-heavy habits are simply too costly to ignore.

This stretch of the season was defined by extreme volatility, with McCollum oscillating wildly between serving as an unstoppable offensive flamethrower and a hollow, empty-calorie scorer. His tendency to bleed value despite filling the box score was glaringly obvious on 01/29 vs HOU. He dropped 23 points that night, yet posted a -1.8 impact because defensive exploitation entirely erased his scoring output. The same frustrating dynamic surfaced on 02/20 vs MIA, where a highly efficient 20-point performance yielded a -4.1 impact due to defensive apathy and a total lack of secondary playmaking. However, when his shot selection tightened and he fully engaged, his ceiling remained remarkably high. He erupted as a starter on 02/09 vs MIN, carrying the offensive load with 38 points and generating a massive +13.1 impact through aggressive, lethal shot-making. He also showed he could dominate through facilitation, driving a stellar +10.6 impact on 02/19 vs PHI through masterful pick-and-roll navigation rather than sheer scoring volume alone. Ultimately, McCollum is a high-variance weapon whose nightly worth hinges entirely on whether his jumper is falling enough to mask his defensive lapses.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. McCollum's impact swings wildly relative to his average — some nights dominant, others invisible. Scoring varies by ~8 points per game.

Middle-of-the-road efficiency — shoots 45%+ from the field in 58% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

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

Slight upward trend. First-half impact: -2.5, second-half: +0.5. Modest improvement — possibly settling into a rhythm.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 70 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

M. Christie 89.0 poss
FG% 41.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.18
PTS 16
R. Rollins 83.9 poss
FG% 61.1%
3P% 55.6%
PPP 0.39
PTS 33
J. Walsh 77.2 poss
FG% 26.1%
3P% 20.0%
PPP 0.23
PTS 18
K. Porter Jr. 72.1 poss
FG% 38.9%
3P% 45.5%
PPP 0.28
PTS 20
T. Mann 69.6 poss
FG% 62.5%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 12
B. Sheppard 63.3 poss
FG% 36.4%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 8
A. Thompson 63.0 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 11
J. Wells 62.0 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 28.6%
PPP 0.13
PTS 8
A. Nembhard 61.0 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.21
PTS 13
I. Quickley 57.4 poss
FG% 54.5%
3P% 60.0%
PPP 0.26
PTS 15

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

A. Green 130.0 poss
FG% 37.5%
3P% 37.5%
PPP 0.07
PTS 9
T. Mann 81.3 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.22
PTS 18
M. Christie 79.4 poss
FG% 28.6%
3P% 40.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 6
S. Hauser 79.2 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.23
PTS 18
A. Thompson 68.2 poss
FG% 64.3%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.28
PTS 19
K. Knueppel 62.1 poss
FG% 42.9%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.26
PTS 16
B. Sheppard 49.1 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.06
PTS 3
D. White 46.3 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.19
PTS 9
K. Kuzma 46.0 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.24
PTS 11
D. Robinson 46.0 poss
FG% 37.5%
3P% 28.6%
PPP 0.17
PTS 8

SEASON STATS

73
Games
18.7
PPG
3.3
RPG
3.8
APG
0.8
SPG
0.4
BPG
45.4
FG%
37.1
3P%
77.4
FT%
29.8
MPG

GAME LOG

73 games played