MIN

2025-26 Season

JULIUS RANDLE

Minnesota Timberwolves | Forward-Center | 6-9
Julius Randle
20.6PPG
6.8RPG
4.8APG
33.2MPG
+9.1 Impact

Randle produces at an elite rate for a 33-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
+9.1
Scoring +17.9
Points Scored 20.6 PPG = +20.6
Missed Shots difficulty-adjusted = -6.5
Shot Making above expected FG% = +3.8
Creation +1.9
Assists & Self-Creation 4.8 AST/g + self-creation = +1.9
Turnovers -6.5
Turnovers 2.8/g (live + dead blend) = -6.5
Defense +0.3
Steals 1.0/g = +2.3
Blocks 0.2/g = +0.2
Fouls + context committed fouls, matchup adj = -2.2
Hustle & Effort +6.0
Rebounds 6.8 RPG (OREB + DREB) = +3.4
Contested Shots 4.0/g = +0.8
Deflections 1.8/g = +1.2
Charges Drawn 0.0/g = +0.0
Loose Balls 0.6/g = +0.4
Screen Assists 0.6/g = +0.2
Raw Impact +19.6
Baseline (game-average expected) −10.5
Net Impact
+9.1
87th pctl vs Forwards

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 235 Forwards with 10+ games

Scoring 92th
20.6 PPG
Efficiency 47th
56.0% TS
Playmaking 93th
4.8 APG
Rebounding 87th
6.8 RPG
Defense 69th
+8.1/g
Hustle 57th
+13.0/g
Creation 95th
+5.08/g
Shot Making 71th
+7.30/g
TO Discipline 7th
0.08/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Julius Randle spent the first quarter of the season operating as an absolute offensive wrecking ball before his notoriously fickle shot selection dragged him back to earth. He was virtually unstoppable early on, bullying mismatches in the paint and scoring with brutal efficiency. Look at the 11/01 vs CHA matchup, where he racked up 30 points on 12-of-19 shooting to post a staggering +24.4 impact score. But the pendulum inevitably swung toward erratic hero-ball as the calendar flipped to mid-November. During a frustrating 11/18 vs DAL tilt, he clanked his way to 12 points on 4-of-16 shooting, generating a -0.5 impact as his forced jumpers actively stalled the offense. To his credit, Randle occasionally found ways to salvage his nightly value when his touch completely vanished. Despite shooting a miserable 2-of-13 from the floor on 11/27 vs OKC, he still scraped together a +3.4 impact by crashing the glass for eight rebounds and grinding out gritty defensive stops. He remains a wildly unpredictable talent, capable of carrying a franchise on his broad shoulders or shooting them entirely out of the building.

This midseason stretch was defined by Julius Randle morphing from a predictable isolation scorer into a surprisingly adaptable offensive hub. On 12/30 vs CHI, he dished out a staggering 14 assists while scoring a modest 17 points. He generated a +12.7 Impact score in that matchup by creating wide-open looks for teammates instead of forcing contested jumpers. Even when his shot abandoned him on 01/18 vs SAS, he salvaged a +13.6 Impact score despite a brutal 4-for-13 shooting night by crashing the glass for 10 rebounds and grinding out essential defensive stops. However, his worst habits still crept back in to ruin his overall effectiveness. On 02/02 vs MEM, he stuffed the stat sheet with 19 points and 8 assists but posted a -0.1 Impact score, as a disastrous 5-for-14 shooting night and hidden defensive lapses completely negated his box score production. He is no longer just a blunt instrument. Still, his nightly value violently fluctuates depending on his willingness to keep the ball moving.

Julius Randle’s late-season stretch was a dizzying rollercoaster of maddening shooting slumps immediately followed by dominant offensive explosions. When his jumper was falling, he looked utterly unstoppable, like during the 02/11 vs POR matchup where he erupted for 41 points on 14-of-24 shooting to post a massive +33.5 Impact score. Yet, that same aggressive mentality often dragged him into the abyss. This was painfully obvious on 02/26 vs LAC, when horrible shot selection led to an abysmal 1-for-10 shooting night and a brutal -15.4 Impact score. Even when his scoring volume dipped, Randle could occasionally salvage his floor time through sheer grit and facilitating. During the 02/09 vs ATL game, he generated a stellar +13.2 Impact score despite scoring a modest 18 points because of his relentless hustle on the glass for 12 rebounds and unselfish playmaking to the tune of 10 assists. This erratic production makes him a deeply frustrating puzzle. You simply never know if you are getting a hyper-efficient bulldozer or a reckless volume shooter on any given night.

This late-season stretch was defined by maddening inconsistency, as Julius Randle oscillated violently between unstoppable bully-ball and offense-killing isolation habits. His worst tendencies flared up heavily during the Mar 25 vs HOU matchup. Despite pouring in 24 points, he dragged his impact score down to -8.3 by forcing a brutal diet of contested mid-range jumpers on 11-of-27 shooting. Hidden costs often ruined his night even when the ball actually went in. During the Apr 03 vs PHI game, his 21 points on 9-of-15 shooting were completely undone by sluggish defensive rotations and careless turnovers, resulting in a -4.4 impact. Yet, Randle looked completely unstoppable when he actually committed to the paint. He dominated the Mar 15 vs OKC contest, racking up 32 points and 6 assists on 11-of-18 shooting to post a massive +21.4 impact by punishing mismatches in the post. Unfortunately, those flashes of physical dominance were too often derailed by ball-stopping possessions.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Very consistent. Randle posts positive impact in 81% of games — you almost always get a productive night. Scoring varies by ~7 points, but the overall contribution stays positive.

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

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

Performance has dropped off. First-half impact: +12.2, second-half: +6.1. Worth watching whether it's fatigue, injury, or opponents adjusting.

Tends to go on runs. Longest hot streak: 25 games. Longest cold streak: 2 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

P. Achiuwa 77.4 poss
FG% 44.4%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 19
S. Bey 77.3 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 13
K. Middleton 76.2 poss
FG% 21.4%
3P% 20.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 9
J. Smith Jr. 73.4 poss
FG% 38.5%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.19
PTS 14
P. Washington 73.4 poss
FG% 35.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.15
PTS 11
N. Jokić 72.8 poss
FG% 57.1%
3P% 28.6%
PPP 0.49
PTS 36
R. Hachimura 68.9 poss
FG% 56.2%
3P% 75.0%
PPP 0.36
PTS 25
J. Jackson Jr. 63.5 poss
FG% 58.3%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.28
PTS 18
D. Brooks 62.5 poss
FG% 62.5%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 14
J. Holiday 60.3 poss
FG% 54.5%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 15

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

N. Jokić 117.9 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.36
PTS 43
R. Hachimura 82.7 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 9
C. Holmgren 80.7 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 8
D. DeRozan 79.3 poss
FG% 45.5%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.15
PTS 12
S. Barnes 72.4 poss
FG% 62.5%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.18
PTS 13
S. Bey 72.2 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.21
PTS 15
J. Grant 72.0 poss
FG% 42.9%
3P% 28.6%
PPP 0.19
PTS 14
P. Washington 69.3 poss
FG% 37.5%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 10
K. Towns 66.0 poss
FG% 46.7%
3P% 57.1%
PPP 0.33
PTS 22
H. Barnes 64.3 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 8

SEASON STATS

90
Games
20.6
PPG
6.8
RPG
4.8
APG
1.0
SPG
0.2
BPG
47.1
FG%
30.9
3P%
79.6
FT%
33.2
MPG

GAME LOG

90 games played