MIN

2025-26 Season

RUDY GOBERT

Minnesota Timberwolves | Center | 7-1
Rudy Gobert
10.5PPG
11.3RPG
1.8APG
31.4MPG
+11.2 Impact

Gobert produces at an elite rate for a 31-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
+11.2
Scoring +8.7
Points Scored 10.5 PPG = +10.5
Missed Shots difficulty-adjusted = -2.8
Shot Making above expected FG% = +1.0
Creation +1.1
Assists & Self-Creation 1.8 AST/g + self-creation = +1.1
Turnovers -3.3
Turnovers 1.4/g (live + dead blend) = -3.3
Defense +0.4
Steals 0.8/g = +1.8
Blocks 1.6/g = +1.4
Fouls + context committed fouls, matchup adj = -2.8
Hustle & Effort +12.6
Rebounds 11.3 RPG (OREB + DREB) = +8.7
Contested Shots 9.1/g = +1.8
Deflections 1.6/g = +1.0
Charges Drawn 0.0/g = +0.0
Loose Balls 0.2/g = +0.1
Screen Assists 3.4/g = +1.0
Raw Impact +19.5
Baseline (game-average expected) −8.3
Net Impact
+11.2
85th 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 59th
10.5 PPG
Efficiency 74th
63.5% TS
Playmaking 65th
1.8 APG
Rebounding 94th
11.3 RPG
Defense 79th
+8.4/g
Hustle 85th
+24.1/g
Creation 75th
+3.25/g
Shot Making 25th
+2.78/g
TO Discipline 68th
0.04/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Rudy Gobert opened the 2025-26 season defined by hyper-efficient interior finishing and relentless glass-cleaning. He routinely tilted games without needing a heavy diet of post touches. On 10/26 vs IND, he bullied his way to 14 points and 18 rebounds on 6-for-7 shooting, generating a massive +24.2 Impact score by monopolizing the paint and securing extra possessions. He later pulverized smaller frontlines, peaking on 12/13 vs GSW with 24 points and 14 rebounds to post a staggering +34.3 Impact score because he converted an absurd 11 of his 13 shot attempts. Even when his offensive volume vanished, like a five-point outing on 11/27 vs OKC, Gobert still managed a +5.6 Impact score by ripping down 12 rebounds and anchoring the defensive shell. However, his effectiveness occasionally evaporated against bulkier matchups. He cratered to a -9.5 Impact score on 11/16 vs DEN after managing just four points and six rebounds in a highly passive 23 minutes.

This midseason stretch was a masterclass in knowing your role, with Rudy Gobert dictating the terms of engagement through relentless rim protection and glass-cleaning rather than offensive volume. During the 12/22 vs MIL matchup, he attempted just seven shots but ripped down 18 rebounds to generate a massive +23.8 Impact score. He produces these towering metrics not by demanding touches, but by erasing mistakes at the rim and securing extra possessions through sheer physical dominance. Even when his offense completely evaporated on 01/12 vs SAS, he still managed a +8.3 Impact score while scoring a measly two points. That positive rating stems entirely from his defensive gravity and hustle, anchoring the paint so effectively that his lack of scoring becomes irrelevant to winning basketball. The formula only breaks down when he fails to control the boards. You can see this clearly on 01/28 vs DAL, where a quiet six-rebound night dragged him down to a rare -3.5 Impact score. Ultimately, he remains the ultimate luxury piece, a towering defensive anchor who warps the game without ever needing a play called for him.

This late-season stretch was defined by Rudy Gobert's overwhelming brute force on the glass, turning his offensive limitations into an afterthought through sheer rebounding volume. When he actually got touches, he was a wrecking ball. He punished the interior on 02/20 vs DAL with 22 points and 17 rebounds, generating a massive +32.8 Impact score thanks to flawless shot selection that yielded a 9-of-11 mark from the floor. Yet even when his scoring vanished, his relentless board-hunting kept his overall value comfortably in the green. Look at 03/17 vs PHX, where he managed just 9 points but ripped down 19 boards, earning a +18.3 Impact score because his elite hustle and defensive positioning completely suffocated the opposition's second-chance opportunities. The only times his value tanked were when both his scoring and rebounding dried up simultaneously. During a sluggish outing on 03/15 vs OKC, he mustered a meager 2 points and 7 rebounds, resulting in a -6.3 Impact score as poor defensive effort and an inability to control the paint exposed his offensive passivity.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Very consistent. Gobert posts positive impact in 87% of games — you almost always get a productive night. Scoring varies by ~5 points, but the overall contribution stays positive.

Reliable shooter — hits 45%+ from the field in 84% of games. You can count on efficient nights more often than not.

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

Tends to go on runs. Longest hot streak: 22 games. Longest cold streak: 1 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY ⚠ Updated 46 days ago

Based on 77 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. Clingan 169.1 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 27
N. Jokić 120.9 poss
FG% 46.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 15
B. Lopez 120.5 poss
FG% 83.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 12
J. Nurkić 117.6 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 15
D. Queen 99.5 poss
FG% 57.1%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.23
PTS 23
I. Hartenstein 99.0 poss
FG% 37.5%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 8
D. Ayton 98.9 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.04
PTS 4
J. Landale 97.7 poss
FG% 71.4%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.2
PTS 20
Q. Post 94.1 poss
FG% 77.8%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 15
D. Sabonis 87.6 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.15
PTS 13

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

D. Clingan 171.6 poss
FG% 43.8%
3P% 20.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 17
J. Nurkić 115.9 poss
FG% 35.3%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 14
D. Queen 104.8 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.23
PTS 24
N. Jokić 103.1 poss
FG% 65.0%
3P% 42.9%
PPP 0.33
PTS 34
B. Lopez 103.1 poss
FG% 38.5%
3P% 44.4%
PPP 0.16
PTS 16
I. Hartenstein 98.9 poss
FG% 41.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 10
D. Ayton 97.7 poss
FG% 78.6%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.23
PTS 22
D. Sabonis 88.6 poss
FG% 42.9%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.21
PTS 19
Q. Post 87.6 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 12
J. Landale 80.0 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 40.0%
PPP 0.2
PTS 16

SEASON STATS

87
Games
10.5
PPG
11.3
RPG
1.8
APG
0.8
SPG
1.6
BPG
66.4
FG%
0.0
3P%
52.1
FT%
31.4
MPG

GAME LOG

87 games played