DEN

2025-26 Season

TIM HARDAWAY JR.

Denver Nuggets | Guard-Forward | 6-5
Tim Hardaway Jr.
13.7 PPG
2.6 RPG
1.3 APG
26.7 MPG
-2.6 Impact

Jr. produces at an below average rate for a 27-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
-2.6
Scoring +8.6
Points 13.7 PPG × +1.00 = +13.7
Missed 2PT 1.3/g × -0.78 = -1.0
Missed 3PT 4.1/g × -0.87 = -3.6
Missed FT 0.5/g × -1.00 = -0.5
Creation +1.5
Assists 1.3/g × +0.50 = +0.7
Off. Rebounds 0.6/g × +1.26 = +0.8
Turnovers -1.2
Turnovers 0.6/g × -1.95 = -1.2
Defense -0.1
Steals 0.5/g × +2.30 = +1.1
Blocks 0.1/g × +0.90 = +0.1
Def. Rebounds 1.9/g × +0.30 = +0.6
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +1.7
Contested Shots 2.9/g × +0.20 = +0.6
Deflections 0.9/g × +0.65 = +0.6
Charges Drawn 0.1/g × +2.70 = +0.3
Loose Balls 0.2/g × +0.60 = +0.1
Screen Assists 0.4/g × +0.30 = +0.1
Raw Impact +10.5
Baseline (game-average expected) −13.1
Net Impact
-2.6
28th 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 70th
13.7 PPG
Efficiency 89th
60.8% TS
Playmaking 17th
1.3 APG
Rebounding 39th
2.6 RPG
Rim Protection 13th
0.08/min
Hustle 3th
0.06/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 96th
0.02/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Tim Hardaway Jr.’s opening stretch of the season was defined by maddening volatility, acting as a chaotic pendulum swinging between lethal floor-spacing and offensive sabotage. When his jumper fell, he could single-handedly tilt the math in his team's favor. He did exactly that on 11/15 vs MIN, where scorching perimeter efficiency yielded 23 points and a massive +16.7 impact score. Yet, his sheer stubbornness frequently burned his own squad, even on nights when his point totals looked respectable. During a Christmas Day clash on 12/25 vs MIN, Hardaway scored 19 points but posted a brutal -8.0 impact score. That negative mark stemmed entirely from a heavy reliance on contested, early-clock perimeter jumpers that derailed the offensive flow and fed into a miserable -3.1 defensive impact. When the shots completely vanished, like on 10/25 vs PHX, the results were catastrophic. His disastrous shot selection and 1-for-6 shooting produced a horrific -13.6 impact, highlighting the steep cost of a one-dimensional gunner who offers zero utility when his primary weapon misfires.

A maddening addiction to contested perimeter jumpers and a revolving door on defense defined this infuriating stretch of basketball from Tim Hardaway Jr. He frequently posted gaudy point totals that masked disastrous hidden costs. Take the 12/23 vs DAL matchup. Despite pouring in 23 points, his overall impact cratered to -4.6 because his atrocious effort on the other end yielded a staggering -12.5 defensive score. When his shots stopped falling, his habit of hijacking possessions became actively destructive. Look no further than the 12/20 vs HOU disaster, where a disastrous string of forced, early-clock jumpers resulted in just 8 points and a catastrophic -14.9 overall impact. He did occasionally catch fire in ways that genuinely helped the lineup, like his 21-point outburst on 12/22 vs UTA. In that rare bright spot, relentless three-point shooting fueled a +12.0 impact score because he finally paired his offensive aggression with adequate defensive execution.

This twenty-game stretch perfectly captured the maddening, boom-or-bust volatility of a pure bench gunner. Hardaway could light up the scoreboard, only to bleed value elsewhere. On 03/01 vs MIN, his highly efficient 17 points were completely swallowed by severe defensive lapses, dragging his overall impact down to a frustrating -2.7. When his jumper actually fell, however, he was a lethal weapon. During a 01/29 vs BKN matchup, his relentless hunt for transition threes yielded 25 points and a massive +12.5 impact score. Yet, those blistering hot streaks were inevitably followed by stretches of agonizingly poor decision-making. Look no further than 03/02 vs UTA, where a barrage of forced isolation attempts and outside brick-laying resulted in just 7 points and a catastrophic -18.1 impact. Ultimately, his penchant for hoisting heavily contested perimeter shots early in the clock routinely derailed offensive momentum, making him a wildly unpredictable gamble on any given night.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Jr.'s impact swings wildly relative to his average — some nights dominant, others invisible. Scoring varies by ~7 points per game.

Middle-of-the-road efficiency — shoots 45%+ from the field in 51% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

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

Tends to go on runs. Longest hot streak: 2 games. Longest cold streak: 6 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

D. DiVincenzo 103.9 poss
FG% 77.8%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.21
PTS 22
I. Joe 57.7 poss
FG% 55.6%
3P% 60.0%
PPP 0.23
PTS 13
A. Thompson 56.4 poss
FG% 14.3%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.05
PTS 3
M. Monk 46.2 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 5
C. Gillespie 44.1 poss
FG% 44.4%
3P% 28.6%
PPP 0.23
PTS 10
R. Nembhard 42.9 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.05
PTS 2
R. Sheppard 40.8 poss
FG% 44.4%
3P% 40.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 10
K. Thompson 39.8 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 4
L. Kennard 39.6 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 5
J. Smith Jr. 39.2 poss
FG% 42.9%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.2
PTS 8

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

D. DiVincenzo 87.9 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 14.3%
PPP 0.1
PTS 9
A. Thompson 71.2 poss
FG% 42.9%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 12
K. Thompson 64.4 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.19
PTS 12
J. McDaniels 56.2 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.23
PTS 13
I. Joe 46.7 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 5
L. Kennard 40.4 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.05
PTS 2
R. Sheppard 39.1 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 5
D. Bane 38.4 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 6
M. Monk 37.5 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
S. Bey 37.0 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 5

SEASON STATS

75
Games
13.7
PPG
2.6
RPG
1.3
APG
0.5
SPG
0.1
BPG
45.0
FG%
40.9
3P%
81.0
FT%
26.7
MPG

GAME LOG

75 games played