UTA

2025-26 Season

JUSUF NURKIĆ

Utah Jazz | Center | 6-11
Jusuf Nurkić
10.9 PPG
10.4 RPG
4.8 APG
26.4 MPG
+2.7 Impact

Nurkić produces at an above average rate for a 26-minute workload. Elite defensive value (+3.9/game) is a major strength.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
+2.7
Scoring +6.2
Points 10.9 PPG × +1.00 = +10.9
Missed 2PT 3.2/g × -0.78 = -2.5
Missed 3PT 1.1/g × -0.87 = -1.0
Missed FT 1.2/g × -1.00 = -1.2
Creation +5.7
Assists 4.8/g × +0.50 = +2.4
Off. Rebounds 2.6/g × +1.26 = +3.3
Turnovers -4.9
Turnovers 2.5/g × -1.95 = -4.9
Defense +3.9
Steals 1.3/g × +2.30 = +3.0
Blocks 0.5/g × +0.90 = +0.5
Def. Rebounds 7.8/g × +0.30 = +2.3
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +4.6
Contested Shots 6.7/g × +0.20 = +1.3
Deflections 2.7/g × +0.65 = +1.8
Loose Balls 0.3/g × +0.60 = +0.2
Screen Assists 4.4/g × +0.30 = +1.3
Raw Impact +15.5
Baseline (game-average expected) −12.8
Net Impact
+2.7
57th 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 59th
10.9 PPG
Efficiency 21th
54.9% TS
Playmaking 96th
4.8 APG
Rebounding 89th
10.4 RPG
Rim Protection 82th
0.24/min
Hustle 72th
0.13/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 5th
0.09/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Jusuf Nurkić’s opening stretch was defined by a maddening tug-of-war between his immense value as a defensive anchor and his self-sabotaging offensive habits. When he embraced a gritty, low-usage role, his massive frame dictated the entire flow of the game. Take his 11/05 vs DET performance. Despite scoring a meager 6 points, he generated a massive +11.1 impact score by grabbing 17 rebounds and anchoring the interior with absolute authority. Conversely, his insistence on playing bully-ball often dragged down his team. During the 12/01 vs HOU contest, Nurkić poured in 18 points but still posted a -0.7 impact because he stubbornly forced up contested looks in the paint. He reached his absolute peak when blending his elite playmaking with flawless shot selection. On 11/30 vs HOU, he operated as a brilliant high-post hub, dishing out 9 assists alongside 14 points to log a staggering +15.7 impact score.

A mid-winter transformation into a devastating high-post hub defined this volatile stretch for Jusuf Nurkić. Early on, hidden costs dragged down his overall value, perfectly illustrated on 12/18 vs LAL. Despite scoring a solid 15 points, he suffered a -1.4 impact score that night because sloppy ball security completely undercut his bruising interior play. He eventually stopped bleeding value and caught fire as a highly efficient offensive engine. During the 12/30 vs BOS matchup, near-perfect shot selection allowed him to hit 10 of his 11 shots, fueling a massive +12.0 impact rating. Crucially, he also found ways to completely dominate games when his scoring volume plummeted. On 01/12 vs CLE, Nurkić managed just 11 points but posted a staggering +15.2 impact score because his 17 rebounds and elite rim defense suffocated the opposition.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Nurkić's impact swings wildly relative to his average — some nights dominant, others invisible. Scoring varies by ~6 points per game.

Middle-of-the-road efficiency — shoots 45%+ from the field in 55% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

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

Getting better as the season goes on. First-half impact: +1.0, second-half: +4.3. That's a significant jump — could be a role change, confidence, or development clicking.

Tends to go on runs. Longest hot streak: 12 games. Longest cold streak: 4 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 48 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

R. Gobert 115.9 poss
FG% 35.3%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 14
V. Wembanyama 111.7 poss
FG% 32.1%
3P% 30.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 25
J. Hayes 66.6 poss
FG% 71.4%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.18
PTS 12
J. Duren 58.4 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 4
B. Adebayo 53.2 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.24
PTS 13
C. Holmgren 52.6 poss
FG% 31.2%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.19
PTS 10
D. Clingan 49.9 poss
FG% 54.5%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.24
PTS 12
W. Carter Jr. 48.0 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.15
PTS 7
A. Sengun 47.6 poss
FG% 63.6%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.34
PTS 16
D. Ayton 44.6 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.09
PTS 4

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

V. Wembanyama 119.0 poss
FG% 57.1%
3P% 37.5%
PPP 0.47
PTS 56
R. Gobert 117.6 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 15
J. Hayes 62.9 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.19
PTS 12
A. Sengun 58.5 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.31
PTS 18
D. Clingan 52.8 poss
FG% 62.5%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.25
PTS 13
W. Carter Jr. 48.7 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.23
PTS 11
I. Stewart 47.9 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.17
PTS 8
D. Ayton 47.0 poss
FG% 62.5%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.21
PTS 10
B. Adebayo 46.3 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 80.0%
PPP 0.5
PTS 23
J. Allen 45.2 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.09
PTS 4

SEASON STATS

41
Games
10.9
PPG
10.4
RPG
4.8
APG
1.3
SPG
0.5
BPG
50.3
FG%
35.2
3P%
54.9
FT%
26.4
MPG

GAME LOG

41 games played