Skip to content

Last season (2025-26)

What changed?

Players whose game really moved: more minutes, a bigger role, a new shot diet. Each change comes with the likely reason and how much of it should hold.

The 2026-27 season does not have enough games yet, so this shows 2025-26: each player's last 25 games (or his games since a role change or a trade) against the rest of his season. Once players have about 20 games this season, the page switches to this season by itself.

Biggest real changes

279 of 393 players flagged

Showing 11 changes, biggest first (size after the "is it real?" pull). Clear filters

Luke KennardG · LALProbably real
3-point rate-15 pts

32 games with LAL vs the 46 games before

Kennard's 3-point rate is down 15 points over his 32 games with LAL (47% vs 62%). The likely reason: he moved from ATL to LAL (first game Feb 7). Probably real: about 75% should hold.

  • New teamHe moved from ATL to LAL (first game Feb 7)
Austin ReavesG · LALProbably real
TS%-6.9 pts

22 games since Feb 22 vs the 29 games before

Reaves's TS% is down 6.9 points over his 22 games since Feb 22 (60.0% vs 66.9%). Most of it is shot-making: his TS% was 0.0 points above what his shot spots predict (4.4 points above before). Also shot diet: his short paint share of shots went from 23% to 32%. Probably real: about 70% should hold.

  • Shot-makingHis TS% was 0.0 points above what his shot spots predict (4.4 points above before) (about 63% of the change)
  • Shot dietHis short paint share of shots went from 23% to 32% (about 37% of the change)
Rui HachimuraF · LALProbably real
Minutes-6.2

40 games since Jan 15 vs the 28 games before

Hachimura's playing time is down 6.2 minutes a game over his 40 games since Jan 15 (25.8 vs 32.0). Most of it is the starting role change: he started 14 of 40 games, down from 27 of 28, after Luke Kennard joined the rotation. Probably real: about 75% should hold.

  • Starting roleHe started 14 of 40 games, down from 27 of 28 (about 88% of the change)
  • New teammateLuke Kennard joined the rotation on Feb 7 and played 23.0 MPG
Austin ReavesG · LALProbably real
Points-5.3

22 games since Feb 22 vs the 29 games before

Reaves's scoring is down 5.3 points a game over his 22 games since Feb 22 (20.3 vs 25.6). Most of it is shot volume: his shots per 36 minutes (counting free throw trips) went from 20.5 to 17.0. Also shooting efficiency: his TS% went from 66.9% to 60.0%. Probably real: about 70% should hold.

  • Shot volumeHis shots per 36 minutes (counting free throw trips) went from 20.5 to 17.0 (about 90% of the change)
  • EfficiencyHis TS% went from 66.9% to 60.0% (about 44% of the change)
Jarred VanderbiltF · LALProbably real
Minutes-6.2

20 games since Feb 20 vs the 45 games before

Vanderbilt's playing time is down 6.2 minutes a game over his 20 games since Feb 20 (13.1 vs 19.3). No clear cause shows up in our data; it could be an injury, a coaching choice or the schedule. Probably real: about 75% should hold.

Jake LaRaviaF · LALProbably real
Above-the-break 3 share-10 pts

30 games since Feb 10 vs the 52 games before

LaRavia's above-the-break 3 share is down 10 points over his 30 games since Feb 10 (14% vs 24%). No clear cause shows up in our data; it could be an injury, a coaching choice or the schedule. Probably real: about 70% should hold.

Jake LaRaviaF · LALProbably real
Minutes-5.1

30 games since Feb 10 vs the 52 games before

LaRavia's playing time is down 5.1 minutes a game over his 30 games since Feb 10 (21.9 vs 27.0). No clear cause shows up in our data; it could be an injury, a coaching choice or the schedule. Probably real: about 80% should hold.

Austin ReavesG · LALPartly real
Usage-5.4 pts

22 games since Feb 22 vs the 29 games before

Reaves's usage is down 5.4 points over his 22 games since Feb 22 (24.0% vs 29.5%). No clear cause shows up in our data; it could be an injury, a coaching choice or the schedule. Partly real: about 60% should hold.

Luke KennardG · LALProbably real
Corner-3 share-10 pts

32 games with LAL vs the 46 games before

Kennard's corner-3 share is down 10 points over his 32 games with LAL (14% vs 24%). The likely reason: he moved from ATL to LAL (first game Feb 7). Probably real: about 65% should hold.

  • New teamHe moved from ATL to LAL (first game Feb 7)
Jake LaRaviaF · LALProbably real
3-point rate-8 pts

30 games since Feb 10 vs the 52 games before

LaRavia's 3-point rate is down 8 points over his 30 games since Feb 10 (40% vs 49%). No clear cause shows up in our data; it could be an injury, a coaching choice or the schedule. Probably real: about 70% should hold.

Luke KennardG · LALPartly real
TS%-5.2 pts

32 games with LAL vs the 46 games before

Kennard's TS% is down 5.2 points over his 32 games with LAL (66.1% vs 71.3%). Most of it is shot-making: his TS% was 9.9 points above what his shot spots predict (14.8 points above before), after his move to LAL. Partly real: about 55% should hold.

  • Shot-makingHis TS% was 9.9 points above what his shot spots predict (14.8 points above before) (about 95% of the change)
  • New teamHe moved from ATL to LAL (first game Feb 7)
How this works

Windows

Every night we split each player's regular season (8+ games on each side) in one of three ways, in this order: the day he joined a new team; the game after which his minutes and usage shifted the most (a simple two-part split); or, if neither moved much, his last 10 games. Until the new season has enough games (about 20 each for most players) we use last season and its last 25 games, which catches the roles that changed at the trade deadline.

Is it big?

A change counts as big when it reaches:

  • Points: 4 points a game
  • Minutes: 5 minutes a game
  • Usage: 4 points
  • TS%: 4 points
  • 3P%: 5 points
  • 3-point rate: 8 points
  • Rim share: 8 points
  • Midrange share: 8 points
  • Corner-3 share: 8 points
  • Above-the-break 3 share: 8 points
  • Assists: 2 assists a game
  • Rebounds: 2.5 rebounds a game

Players need 15+ minutes a game on one side. Shooting needs 40+ threes or 60+ shots on each side.

Is it real?

Both windows are pulled toward the player's whole season by a fixed amount of weight M, the sample size where a stat is half skill and half luck: (window x n + season x M) / (n + M). A change is shown only if the pulled gap keeps at least half of the raw gap: Probably real keeps 60% or more, Partly real keeps 50 to 59%, anything less is Mostly noise and stays off the feed.

M values: 3P% 501 threes, TS% 218 shots and points 9.7 games, from Is it real?; minutes 9.4, usage 17, assists 18.9, rebounds 18.1, 3-point rate 13.9, rim share 18.2, midrange 16.8, corner 3 21.6 and above the break 15.4 games, measured on 1,766 pairs of back-to-back 10-game stretches in 2025-26. That is why 3P% changes almost never make it: threes are mostly luck until a player has taken hundreds.

Causes

Rules, each with a number. Points split exactly into minutes, shot volume and efficiency. Assists and rebounds split into minutes and per-minute rate. TS% and 3P% split into shot diet (league FG% from the spots he shot from) and shot-making (the rest). Context: a new team, a move into or out of the starting five (starting lineups from our stint data), key teammates (25+ minutes before) who missed most of the window, a new rotation player (20+ minutes), and opponents' defensive rating. We keep causes that explain 15%+ of the change and show the top three.

What we measured

Backtest on 2025-26: we ran this as if the season stopped on 3 dates and checked each flag against the rest of the season. Probably real changes kept 71% of their size on average (we predicted 66%) and 88% kept going the same way (301 flags). Partly real kept 60% (predicted 55%). Mostly noise kept 39% (predicted 33%), so the pull is a little cautious, which is the safe side.

Latest run: 393 players checked, 447 probably real and 180 partly real changes, and 273 big swings left out as mostly noise.

What it cannot see

Injuries a player played through, coaching decisions, matchups and schemes, and anything off the box score. Missing teammates are read from who played, not the injury report. Causes are rough splits, not proof; when nothing in our data fits we say so.