Phoenix Suns

Western Conference

Phoenix
Suns

45-37
W1

ROSTER — IMPACT RANKINGS

Devin Booker
Guard Yr 10 65G (65S)
+11.6
26.0 pts
3.8 reb
6.0 ast
33.6 min

Extreme volatility defined Devin Booker’s mid-season campaign, as he wildly oscillated between two-way mastery and damaging, inefficient shot selection. High point totals frequently masked the hidden costs of his floor game. During the 03/17 vs MIN matchup, he poured in 34 points but posted a -1.2 impact score because a dismal 1-for-7 mark from deep and severe overall inefficiency completely negated his scoring volume. Yet, when he dialed in his focus, he could easily break an opponent's scheme. He erupted for 43 points on 03/12 vs IND, leveraging unrelenting offensive volume to dictate the flow and secure a massive +16.7 impact. He also found ways to drive winning without needing to carry the entire offensive load. On 03/05 vs CHI, Booker logged 27 points but still generated a stellar +7.6 impact, as dominant defensive engagement surprisingly fueled his metrics more than his bucket-getting. When he stopped settling for heavily contested jumpers and actually read the floor, his elite ceiling was undeniable.

Mark Williams
Center Yr 3 61G (56S)
+8.5
11.5 pts
7.9 reb
1.0 ast
23.6 min

Mark Williams spent this stretch terrorizing the restricted area, relying on brute physical force and hyper-efficient finishing to overwhelm opposing frontcourts. He reached his absolute ceiling vs HOU on Apr 07, posting a jaw-dropping +32.0 impact score by pairing 19 points with suffocating interior defense. Even when his shot abandoned him, his sheer size salvaged his minutes. During a gritty matchup vs POR on Feb 22, he managed a highly positive +7.7 impact score despite scoring just 6 points on 3-of-8 shooting because he dominated the physical battles and provided elite rim deterrence. However, his value cratered the moment his motor idled. Against OKC on Feb 11, a severe lack of rebounding presence—grabbing just a single board in 16 minutes—dragged him to a -2.7 impact score despite missing only one field goal attempt. Williams is a terrifying vertical threat, but his overall effectiveness remains entirely tethered to his willingness to battle in the trenches.

Dillon Brooks
Guard-Forward Yr 8 57G (57S)
+8.1
20.2 pts
3.7 reb
1.8 ast
30.5 min

A maddening rollercoaster of erratic shot-hunting defined Dillon Brooks's mid-season stretch, oscillating between brilliant two-way dominance and selfish offensive craters. Even when his point totals popped, his tunnel vision often hurt the team, perfectly illustrated on 01/13 vs MIA. Despite racking up 25 points, he posted a -4.3 impact score because a relentless diet of low-quality perimeter jumpers—including an atrocious 1-for-10 from beyond the arc—completely stalled the half-court offense. The chucking reached rock bottom on 01/20 vs PHI, where an abysmal 2-for-13 shooting performance derailed his value and left him with a brutal -14.1 impact score. Yet, just when you want to write him off, Brooks flips the script. He closed the stretch with an absolute masterpiece on 01/29 vs DET, hanging 40 points and 8 rebounds on the Pistons. By pairing that explosive, highly efficient scoring surge with suffocating perimeter defense, he generated a massive +24.5 impact score to remind everyone of his ceiling.

Grayson Allen
Guard Yr 7 51G (27S)
+5.9
16.5 pts
3.0 reb
3.8 ast
28.8 min

An unapologetic, high-variance chucking marathon mixed with surprising defensive grit defined this midseason stretch for Grayson Allen. Even when his outside shot fell, hidden underlying issues often dragged down his actual value, perfectly illustrated on 02/03 vs POR when he dropped 24 points but still posted a -4.6 impact score. Conversely, he found ways to heavily tilt the math without dominating the scoring column. During a bench shift on 01/20 vs PHI, Allen managed a staggering +14.1 impact despite scoring just 16 points, relying entirely on elite defensive positioning and timely floor-spacing to fuel the lineup. His shot selection, however, frequently bordered on reckless. That trigger-happy approach backfired spectacularly on 01/25 vs MIA, where an abysmal 1-for-11 display from deep short-circuited the offense and saddled him with a -4.7 impact score. Ultimately, Allen became a chaotic pendulum, swinging wildly between a self-destructive gunner and a scrappy two-way catalyst.

Collin Gillespie
Guard Yr 2 81G (58S)
+4.7
12.6 pts
4.1 reb
4.6 ast
28.4 min

This stretch of the season was defined by catastrophic shooting slumps and brutal perimeter inefficiency that temporarily cost Gillespie his starting job in early April. He routinely sabotaged his own playmaking with horrific shot selection. Take Mar 30 vs MEM as a prime example. Despite tallying a double-double with 11 points and 10 assists, his -11.3 impact score reveals the hidden cost of forcing bad shots during a dismal 4-for-16 shooting night. The wheels completely fell off just a day prior on Mar 29 vs UTA, where a staggering 0-for-8 shooting performance cratered the second-unit offense and resulted in a disastrous -17.5 impact rating. Yet, when he stopped forcing the issue offensively, he found ways to contribute through sheer grit. During his Apr 10 vs LAL start, he scored a meager 5 points but posted a +5.0 impact score by leaning entirely on high-level hustle plays and steady defensive positioning.

Jalen Green
Guard Yr 4 33G (28S)
+4.5
18.3 pts
3.7 reb
2.8 ast
26.3 min

A maddening inconsistency and catastrophic shot selection defined Jalen Green’s first twenty games of the season. Even when his point totals looked respectable, his underlying habits routinely sabotaged the offense. During the 03/10 vs MIL matchup, he poured in 25 points but still posted a -1.8 impact score because erratic perimeter shot selection and heavy usage masked his actual value. When his jumper completely abandoned him, the results were downright disastrous. He repeatedly forced contested looks on 02/26 vs LAL, derailing the offense to the tune of a brutal -15.5 impact. Yet, he occasionally found ways to salvage his worth when the offense stalled. On 02/22 vs POR, Green managed a +6.3 impact despite scoring just 13 points on 6-for-16 shooting by locking in defensively and generating unexpected value on the other end of the floor. If he wants to be a reliable focal point, he has to stop letting stubborn offensive aggression dictate his nightly worth.

Jordan Goodwin
Guard Yr 4 71G (11S)
+2.5
8.7 pts
4.9 reb
2.1 ast
22.5 min

This twenty-game stretch was defined by absolute chaos, oscillating wildly between game-breaking two-way dominance and frustrating offensive ineptitude. When his jumper actually connected, he was an absolute menace off the bench, erupting for a +23.1 impact score on 02/03 vs POR by pairing 16 points and 10 rebounds with relentless ball pressure. However, his shot selection frequently derailed possessions, a flaw glaringly obvious on 02/19 vs SAS where he settled for low-percentage looks from deep to finish with a dismal -7.9 impact despite scoring 10 points. Instead of attacking the paint with his physical frame, he bricked away his value by forcing bad outside shots that actively killed offensive momentum. Yet, even when his jumper completely abandoned him, Goodwin often found ways to tilt the margins in his favor through sheer grit. During a spot start on 03/19 vs SAS, he managed a +1.3 impact score while scoring just 5 points on an ugly 2-of-9 shooting night. His elite ball-tracking and a +9.2 hustle rating masked his scoring struggles, keeping his team afloat simply by recovering loose balls and applying suffocating perimeter pressure.

Royce O'Neale
Forward Yr 8 79G (67S)
+0.3
9.8 pts
4.8 reb
2.7 ast
28.3 min

This twenty-game stretch was defined by a brutal, prolonged slump where Royce O'Neale's one-dimensional shot profile actively hurt his team. He routinely settled for perimeter jumpers rather than attacking closeouts, allowing defenders to sag off and clog passing lanes. During an ugly 02/03 vs POR matchup, he tallied 11 points and seven rebounds but posted a disastrous -12.0 impact score because costly transition mistakes completely ruined his strong rotational defense. His offensive invisibility hit rock bottom on 02/22 vs POR. Failing to score a single point, he generated a staggering -12.6 impact rating. There were fleeting moments of value, like his +4.1 impact performance on 02/07 vs PHI where 14 points and 11 rebounds fueled a quintessential 3-and-D masterclass. Ultimately, a few nights of elite floor-spacing could not mask the glaring defensive lapses and offensive passivity that plagued his minutes.

Oso Ighodaro
Forward Yr 1 83G (24S)
-2.4
6.4 pts
5.0 reb
2.3 ast
22.1 min

A volatile mix of flawless rim-running and wildly inconsistent defensive anchoring defined Oso Ighodaro's late-season stretch. He immediately set the tone coming off the pine on Mar 03 vs SAC, posting a massive +17.3 impact score by dominating the paint and freeing up guards with punishing screens. Yet, his overall effectiveness occasionally evaporated even when his shot was falling, a flaw perfectly illustrated during the Mar 24 vs DEN matchup. Despite scoring 15 points on near-perfect shooting that night, hidden negative values in the margins dragged him to a -2.7 impact score. Conversely, he frequently found ways to tilt the floor without scoring, like when he logged just 4 points on Mar 16 vs BOS. Tremendous defensive rotations and high-end hustle metrics drove a +4.2 impact score in that contest. When he actively anchored the defense and rolled with intent, he looked like a premier rotational piece, but passive nights on the glass quickly rendered his minutes highly unproductive.

Haywood Highsmith
Forward Yr 5 6G
-2.5
6.3 pts
2.2 reb
1.2 ast
15.1 min
Ryan Dunn
Forward Yr 1 71G (16S)
-2.7
5.8 pts
4.2 reb
1.5 ast
19.2 min

Offensive invisibility and wild swings in reliability defined this deeply frustrating stretch for Ryan Dunn. Opposing defenses routinely ignored him on the perimeter. This fatal flaw peaked on 02/11 vs OKC, where defenders aggressively sagged into the paint and turned him into such a glaring liability that his impact score plummeted to a catastrophic -15.4. Even when his shot actually fell, hidden mental lapses erased his overall value. He scored an efficient 10 points on 02/26 vs LAL, yet a slew of blown defensive miscommunications still dragged him down to a negative -1.6 impact score. Fortunately, he salvaged his rotational minutes late in the window by weaponizing his physical tools rather than forcing his jumper. On 03/21 vs MIL, Dunn posted a stellar +8.3 impact score by using suffocating isolation defense and eight hard-fought rebounds to completely wreck the opponent's game plan.

Jamaree Bouyea
Guard Yr 3 46G (1S)
-3.4
5.7 pts
1.8 reb
1.8 ast
14.0 min

Extreme volatility defined Jamaree Bouyea's mid-season reserve minutes, as he wildly oscillated between defensive catalyst and offensive black hole. Even when he managed to find the basket, hidden costs often dragged down his overall value. Take his 02/11 vs OKC performance, where a stretch-high 11 points resulted in a -3.1 impact score because a heavy volume of missed shots completely outweighed his hustle. Conversely, he generated real value without needing heavy scoring volume on 02/22 vs POR. Despite tallying just 8 points in 21 minutes, his aggressive point-of-attack defense and relentless effort sparked the second unit to a +3.6 impact. Yet, these gritty bright spots were constantly interrupted by brutal offensive droughts. Look no further than the disastrous 02/03 vs POR outing, where total offensive invisibility yielded a catastrophic -10.8 impact in 15 minutes of aimless court time.

Amir Coffey
Guard-Forward Yr 6 16G (1S)
-4.5
4.8 pts
1.9 reb
1.0 ast
14.1 min

Amir Coffey’s midseason stretch was defined by maddening inconsistency and long spells of absolute offensive invisibility. His brutal -9.4 impact score on 01/23 vs DEN highlighted the depths of his struggles, driven by a disastrous defensive stint and a barrage of clanked three-pointers. Yet, he occasionally snapped out of his funk to deliver highly efficient minutes. On 02/04 vs NOP, Coffey maximized his touches with pristine shot selection, attacking closeouts decisively to post 16 points and a +3.8 impact score. He found even greater value without dominating the ball on 02/22 vs POR. Despite scoring just 8 points in that contest, he generated a staggering +7.5 impact score by acting as the ultimate connector, utilizing smart off-ball movement and playing disciplined perimeter defense. Far too often, however, he simply blended into the background, logging empty cardio shifts instead of leaving a definitive stamp on the game.

Khaman Maluach
Center Yr 0 46G (1S)
-5.0
3.0 pts
2.9 reb
0.1 ast
8.9 min

Khaman Maluach spent this stretch morphing into a terrifying, high-leverage defensive specialist who could completely hijack a game in just a handful of minutes. He operates as pure chaos off the bench, swinging wildly between unplayable mistakes and absolute rim-protecting dominance. Look at his disastrous outing on 03/05 vs CHI, where he posted a brutal -6.1 impact score; severe struggles with defensive rotations and positioning bled points despite him grabbing four rebounds. Yet, he flipped the script immediately the next night on 03/06 vs NOP. He scored just 4 points in 20 minutes, but generated a massive +7.0 impact score by completely altering the geometry of the court with a monstrous defensive performance that erased driving lanes. When the offensive touches actually align with his defensive instincts, the results are staggering. He dismantled the opposition on 03/28 vs UTA, racking up 12 points and 9 rebounds to drive a colossal +13.0 impact score purely by acting as an impenetrable rim deterrent.

Rasheer Fleming
Forward Yr 0 55G (1S)
-5.2
4.3 pts
2.3 reb
0.3 ast
12.2 min

Rasheer Fleming’s midseason stretch was defined by extreme volatility as he desperately tried to graduate from mop-up duty into a reliable rotational floor-spacer. The growing pains were often brutal. This peaked during a disastrous 02/24 vs BOS matchup where he spent 21 agonizing minutes actively hurting his own squad. Getting bullied off his spots defensively compounded a completely barren zero-point offensive night, dragging him down to an abysmal -10.2 impact score. Yet, when his jumper actually fell, he transformed into a lethal weapon off the bench. On 03/08 vs CHA, he punished the defense from the trail spot by drilling four deep balls, racking up 16 points and a massive +10.1 impact score. He even managed to dominate without high volume on 03/13 vs TOR, where flawless 3-for-3 perimeter execution combined with suffocating defensive rotations fueled a stellar +9.9 impact score.

CJ Huntley
Forward Yr 0 4G
-6.1
3.0 pts
1.2 reb
0.5 ast
10.1 min
Koby Brea
Guard Yr 0 12G
-6.2
3.8 pts
0.7 reb
0.8 ast
7.0 min
Nick Richards
Center Yr 5 27G (2S)
-6.6
3.3 pts
3.4 reb
0.3 ast
9.4 min

This erratic midseason stretch was defined by maddening inconsistencies, as Nick Richards constantly oscillated between bruising interior enforcer and self-sabotaging liability. On 12/29 vs WAS, he endured a nightmare offensive performance, managing just 2 points on a brutal 1-for-8 shooting night. However, he still posted a +2.3 impact score because his sturdy interior defense and nine rebounds provided essential non-scoring value that kept the second unit afloat. Conversely, his box score production often masked damaging hidden costs on the other end of the floor. During the 03/01 vs MIL matchup, Richards scored 11 points but registered a -2.7 impact because a slew of costly illegal screens and moving fouls completely negated his interior finishing. A similar story unfolded on 03/12 vs LAL, where he racked up 15 points on 7-of-9 shooting but sank to a -2.3 impact because a total lack of rim deterrence allowed the opposition to score at will. When he simply sets hard screens and protects the paint, he thrives, but his overall effectiveness evaporates the moment his fundamental discipline slips.

Isaiah Livers
Forward Yr 3 36G
-7.4
1.8 pts
1.7 reb
0.6 ast
9.6 min

Isaiah Livers spent the first twenty games of the season battling basketball irrelevance, largely drifting through his minutes as an offensive ghost. His nadir arrived on 11/24 vs HOU, where he logged 23 scoreless minutes on 0-for-3 shooting and posted a brutal -10.0 impact score. That abysmal rating stemmed directly from his failure to convert spot-up opportunities, which severely shrank the floor for his teammates. When he finally decided to pull the trigger, the results were often worse. On 01/02 vs SAC, Livers derailed the offensive flow by forcing contested shots early in the clock, finishing with zero points and a -6.6 impact rating. He did manage one brilliant outlier on 01/11 vs WAS, instantly sparking the bench with a perfect 3-for-3 shooting night to earn a +6.0 impact score in just seven minutes. Ultimately, those fleeting moments of competence were buried under a mountain of defensive breakdowns and crippling passivity.

Nigel Hayes-Davis
Forward Yr 1 27G
-7.9
1.3 pts
1.2 reb
0.3 ast
7.2 min

Nigel Hayes-Davis spent the first twenty games of the 2025-26 season clinging to the fringes of the rotation, battling offensive invisibility and disastrous defensive lapses. His stint vs DEN on 11/29 epitomized these struggles, as he posted an abysmal -11.2 impact score while missing all three of his shots in 13 minutes. Disastrous offensive execution completely tanked his value that night, turning his minutes into a massive liability. Yet, when he simplified his game, the results flipped entirely. During his matchup vs LAC on 10/24, he logged a season-high 21 minutes and generated a stellar +5.8 impact score. Despite scoring just seven points, his elite defensive execution and highly efficient shot selection drove massive positive value for the second unit. He flashed this opportunistic scoring again vs CLE on 12/31, hunting quality looks to notch five points in just four minutes for a quick +2.9 impact. Unfortunately, those efficient sparks were too rare to offset the empty possessions that plagued his early campaign.

GAME LOG

W
PHX PHX 135
103 OKC OKC
Apr 12 Analysis available
+32
L
PHX PHX 73
101 LAL LAL
Apr 10 Analysis available
-28
W
DAL DAL 107
112 PHX PHX
Apr 8 Analysis available
+5
L
HOU HOU 119
105 PHX PHX
Apr 7 Analysis available
-14
W
PHX PHX 120
110 CHI CHI
Apr 5 Analysis available
+10
L
PHX PHX 107
127 CHA CHA
Apr 2 Analysis available
-20
L
PHX PHX 111
115 ORL ORL
Mar 31 Analysis available
-4
W
PHX PHX 131
105 MEM MEM
Mar 30 Analysis available
+26
W
UTA UTA 109
134 PHX PHX
Mar 29 Analysis available
+25
L
DEN DEN 125
123 PHX PHX
Mar 24 Analysis available
-2
W
TOR TOR 98
120 PHX PHX
Mar 22 Analysis available
+22
L
MIL MIL 108
105 PHX PHX
Mar 21 Analysis available
-3
L
PHX PHX 100
101 SAS SAS
Mar 19 Analysis available
-1
L
PHX PHX 104
116 MIN MIN
Mar 17 Analysis available
-12
L
PHX PHX 112
120 BOS BOS
Mar 16 Analysis available
-8
L
PHX PHX 115
122 TOR TOR
Mar 13 Analysis available
-7
W
PHX PHX 123
108 IND IND
Mar 12 Analysis available
+15
W
PHX PHX 129
114 MIL MIL
Mar 10 Analysis available
+15
W
CHA CHA 99
111 PHX PHX
Mar 8 Analysis available
+12
W
NOP NOP 116
118 PHX PHX
Mar 6 Analysis available
+2
L
CHI CHI 105
103 PHX PHX
Mar 5 Analysis available
-2
W
PHX PHX 114
103 SAC SAC
Mar 3 Analysis available
+11
W
LAL LAL 110
113 PHX PHX
Feb 26 Analysis available
+3
L
BOS BOS 97
81 PHX PHX
Feb 24 Analysis available
-16
L
POR POR 92
77 PHX PHX
Feb 22 Analysis available
-15
W
ORL ORL 110
113 PHX PHX
Feb 21 Analysis available
+3
L
PHX PHX 94
121 SAS SAS
Feb 19 Analysis available
-27
L
OKC OKC 136
109 PHX PHX
Feb 11 Analysis available
-27
W
DAL DAL 111
120 PHX PHX
Feb 10 Analysis available
+9
L
PHI PHI 109
103 PHX PHX
Feb 7 Analysis available
-6
L
GSW GSW 101
97 PHX PHX
Feb 5 Analysis available
-4
W
PHX PHX 130
125 POR POR
Feb 3 Analysis available
+5
L
LAC LAC 117
93 PHX PHX
Feb 1 Analysis available
-24
W
CLE CLE 113
126 PHX PHX
Jan 30 Analysis available
+13
W
DET DET 96
114 PHX PHX
Jan 29 Analysis available
+18
W
BKN BKN 102
106 PHX PHX
Jan 28 Analysis available
+4
L
MIA MIA 111
102 PHX PHX
Jan 26 Analysis available
-9
L
PHX PHX 103
110 ATL ATL
Jan 24 Analysis available
-7
W
PHX PHX 116
110 PHI PHI
Jan 21 Analysis available
+6
W
PHX PHX 126
117 BKN BKN
Jan 20 Analysis available
+9
W
PHX PHX 106
99 NYK NYK
Jan 18 Analysis available
+7
L
PHX PHX 105
108 DET DET
Jan 16 Analysis available
-3
L
PHX PHX 121
127 MIA MIA
Jan 14 Analysis available
-6
W
WAS WAS 93
112 PHX PHX
Jan 12 Analysis available
+19
W
NYK NYK 107
112 PHX PHX
Jan 10 Analysis available
+5
W
PHX PHX 117
98 MEM MEM
Jan 8 Analysis available
+19
L
PHX PHX 97
100 HOU HOU
Jan 6 Analysis available
-3
W
OKC OKC 105
108 PHX PHX
Jan 5 Analysis available
+3
W
SAC SAC 102
129 PHX PHX
Jan 3 Analysis available
+27
L
PHX PHX 113
129 CLE CLE
Dec 31 Analysis available
-16
W
PHX PHX 115
101 WAS WAS
Dec 30 Analysis available
+14
W
PHX PHX 123
114 NOP NOP
Dec 28 Analysis available
+9
W
PHX PHX 115
108 NOP NOP
Dec 27 Analysis available
+7
W
LAL LAL 108
132 PHX PHX
Dec 24 Analysis available
+24
L
PHX PHX 116
119 GSW GSW
Dec 21 Analysis available
-3
W
GSW GSW 98
99 PHX PHX
Dec 19 Analysis available
+1
L
LAL LAL 116
114 PHX PHX
Dec 15 Analysis available
-2
L
PHX PHX 89
138 OKC OKC
Dec 11 Analysis available
-49
W
PHX PHX 108
105 MIN MIN
Dec 9 Analysis available
+3
L
PHX PHX 98
117 HOU HOU
Dec 6 Analysis available
-19
W
PHX PHX 125
108 LAL LAL
Dec 2 Analysis available
+17
L
DEN DEN 130
112 PHX PHX
Nov 30 Analysis available
-18
L
PHX PHX 119
123 OKC OKC
Nov 29 Analysis available
-4
W
PHX PHX 112
100 SAC SAC
Nov 27 Analysis available
+12
L
HOU HOU 114
92 PHX PHX
Nov 25 Analysis available
-22
W
SAS SAS 102
111 PHX PHX
Nov 24 Analysis available
+9
W
MIN MIN 113
114 PHX PHX
Nov 22 Analysis available
+1
W
PHX PHX 127
110 POR POR
Nov 19 Analysis available
+17
L
ATL ATL 124
122 PHX PHX
Nov 17 Analysis available
-2
W
IND IND 98
133 PHX PHX
Nov 14 Analysis available
+35
W
PHX PHX 123
114 DAL DAL
Nov 13 Analysis available
+9
W
NOP NOP 98
121 PHX PHX
Nov 11 Analysis available
+23
W
PHX PHX 114
103 LAC LAC
Nov 9 Analysis available
+11
W
LAC LAC 102
115 PHX PHX
Nov 7 Analysis available
+13
L
PHX PHX 107
118 GSW GSW
Nov 5 Analysis available
-11
W
SAS SAS 118
130 PHX PHX
Nov 3 Analysis available
+12
W
UTA UTA 96
118 PHX PHX
Nov 1 Analysis available
+22
L
MEM MEM 114
113 PHX PHX
Oct 30 Analysis available
-1
L
PHX PHX 134
138 UTA UTA
Oct 27 Analysis available
-4
L
PHX PHX 111
133 DEN DEN
Oct 25 Analysis available
-22
L
PHX PHX 102
129 LAC LAC
Oct 24 Analysis available
-27
W
SAC SAC 116
120 PHX PHX
Oct 22 Analysis available
+4