Brandon Ingram
TOR · 2025-26Primary starterHigh evidenceWhat does Brandon Ingram actually supply on the floor?
Brandon Ingram's strongest evidenced functions are creation, interior finishing, passing; the weakest available areas are event creation, rim protection, rebounding. The profile is tied to TOR for 2025-26.
Function profile
2025-26 — eleven separate readings on a league scale. They are not additive.* limited evidence for that function. A dash means the evidence was insufficient — not a zero. Use the separate function strengths to evaluate role and roster fit; do not treat them as one player-value score. POA or switch conclusions require lineup, matchup, and assignment evidence beyond this profile.
Season by season
Every governed season profile on record.| Season | Team | Role | Evidence | Creation | Rim pressure | Shooting | Passing | Screening | Interior finish | Point of attack | Switch coverage | Rim protection | Event creation | Rebounding |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | TOR | Primary starter | High evidence | 70 | 63 | 62 | 65 | — | 66 | — | — | 58 | 34 | 60 |
| 2024-25 | TOR | — | Insufficient evidence | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2024-25 | NOP | — | Mixed coverage | 70 | 60 | 59 | 73 | 45 | 52 | 53 | 58 | 50 | 47 | 51 |
| 2023-24 | NOP | — | High evidence | 80 | 62 | 57 | 80 | 43 | 50 | 61 | 61 | 54 | 43 | 44 |
| 2022-23 | NOP | — | Mixed coverage | 73 | 61 | 65 | 70 | 49 | 52 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 34 | 53 |
| 2021-22 | NOP | — | High evidence | 79 | 63 | 52 | 82 | 40 | 57 | 46 | 50 | 50 | 33 | 53 |
| 2020-21 | NOP | — | High evidence | 77 | 61 | 66 | 78 | 49 | 52 | 57 | 61 | 52 | 37 | 56 |
| 2019-20 | NOP | — | High evidence | 75 | 63 | 72 | 73 | — | 52 | — | — | 57 | 49 | 47 |
| 2018-19 | LAL | — | High evidence | 60 | 68 | 48 | 55 | — | 66 | — | — | 51 | 27 | 50 |
| 2017-18 | LAL | — | High evidence | 68 | 68 | 63 | 67 | — | 63 | — | — | 52 | 42 | 56 |
| 2016-17 | LAL | — | High evidence | 51 | 57 | 39 | 48 | — | 62 | — | — | 43 | 34 | 57 |
What teams depended on him for
Seasons where a team's situation report named him a dependency case.TOR did not have a sufficiently supported observed replacement lineup for Brandon Ingram. The database keeps the functional-loss evidence but does not invent a replacement plan.
Replacement evidence
No replacement lineup is supported by the available evidence.
on floor 4914 possessions · off floor 2767 possessions
NOP had a supported lineup path without Brandon Ingram: [CJ McCollum, Dejounte Murray, Javonte Green, Trey Murphy III, Yves Missi] at 0.2 adjusted net points per 100 possessions over 188 possessions. This is an observed option, not proof it is universally better.
Replacement evidence
CJ McCollum · Dejounte Murray · Javonte Green · Trey Murphy III · Yves Missi
shrunk net 0.2340 over 188 possessions
on floor 1078 possessions · off floor 6221 possessions
NOP did not have strong functional backup for Brandon Ingram in passing; removing him cost about 25.7% of the team's production in that area. The next observed option was Zion Williamson.
Replacement evidence
CJ McCollum · Larry Nance Jr. · Zion Williamson · Herbert Jones · Trey Murphy III
shrunk net 3.8230 over 161 possessions
on floor 4185 possessions · off floor 3431 possessions
NOP had a supported lineup path without Brandon Ingram: [Jonas Valanciunas, CJ McCollum, Josh Richardson, Naji Marshall, Trey Murphy III] at 3.8 adjusted net points per 100 possessions over 173 possessions. This is an observed option, not proof it is universally better.
Replacement evidence
Jonas Valanciunas · CJ McCollum · Josh Richardson · Naji Marshall · Trey Murphy III
shrunk net 3.8160 over 173 possessions
on floor 2828 possessions · off floor 4480 possessions
NOP did not have enough reliable function-loss evidence to judge dependence on Brandon Ingram.
Replacement evidence
Jonas Valanciunas · CJ McCollum · Devonte' Graham · Jaxson Hayes · Herbert Jones
shrunk net 7.7150 over 180 possessions
on floor 3883 possessions · off floor 3896 possessions
NOP did not have enough reliable function-loss evidence to judge dependence on Brandon Ingram.
Replacement evidence
No replacement lineup is supported by the available evidence.
on floor 3725 possessions · off floor 2564 possessions
NOP did not have a sufficiently supported observed replacement lineup for Brandon Ingram. The database keeps the functional-loss evidence but does not invent a replacement plan.
Replacement evidence
No replacement lineup is supported by the available evidence.
on floor 4006 possessions · off floor 2533 possessions
LAL had a supported lineup path without Brandon Ingram: [LeBron James, JaVale McGee, Lonzo Ball, Kyle Kuzma, Josh Hart] at 4.5 adjusted net points per 100 possessions over 269 possessions. This is an observed option, not proof it is universally better.
Replacement evidence
LeBron James · JaVale McGee · Lonzo Ball · Kyle Kuzma · Josh Hart
shrunk net 4.5400 over 269 possessions
on floor 3412 possessions · off floor 4202 possessions
LAL had an observed replacement lineup for Brandon Ingram, but it came with a performance cost. The supported alternative was [Corey Brewer, Jordan Clarkson, Julius Randle, Kyle Kuzma, Josh Hart] at -1.3 adjusted net points per 100 possessions over 208 possessions.
Replacement evidence
Corey Brewer · Jordan Clarkson · Julius Randle · Kyle Kuzma · Josh Hart
shrunk net -1.2970 over 208 possessions
on floor 3646 possessions · off floor 3746 possessions
LAL had a supported lineup path without Brandon Ingram: [Luol Deng, Nick Young, Timofey Mozgov, Julius Randle, D'Angelo Russell] at 4.2 adjusted net points per 100 possessions over 767 possessions. This is an observed option, not proof it is universally better.
Replacement evidence
Luol Deng · Nick Young · Timofey Mozgov · Julius Randle · D'Angelo Russell
shrunk net 4.2090 over 767 possessions
on floor 4213 possessions · off floor 3140 possessions
Known contract calendar
Governed contract events naming this player — dates carry their honest quality.Brandon Ingram has a reported player option for the 2028 season at a reported $41,904,762. Player controls the option. The stored date is the CBA outside date; the contract may require an earlier decision.
Brandon Ingram has a reported contract-control horizon through the 2028 season. The June 30 date is a season-boundary planning proxy, not proof of exact free-agency status. The player is inside the two-season extension-review horizon, but exact eligibility and value are not certified.
Brandon Ingram has a reported contract-control horizon through the 2025 season. The June 30 date is a season-boundary planning proxy, not proof of exact free-agency status. The player is inside the two-season extension-review horizon, but exact eligibility and value are not certified.
Brandon Ingram has a reported contract-control horizon through the 2025 season. The June 30 date is a season-boundary planning proxy, not proof of exact free-agency status. The player is inside the two-season extension-review horizon, but exact eligibility and value are not certified.
Brandon Ingram has a reported contract-control horizon through the 2025 season. The June 30 date is a season-boundary planning proxy, not proof of exact free-agency status. The player is inside the two-season extension-review horizon, but exact eligibility and value are not certified.
Brandon Ingram has a reported contract-control horizon through the 2025 season. The June 30 date is a season-boundary planning proxy, not proof of exact free-agency status. No extension-review trigger is applied yet.
Brandon Ingram has a reported contract-control horizon through the 2020 season. The June 30 date is a season-boundary planning proxy, not proof of exact free-agency status. The player is inside the two-season extension-review horizon, but exact eligibility and value are not certified.
Brandon Ingram has a reported contract-control horizon through the 2020 season. The June 30 date is a season-boundary planning proxy, not proof of exact free-agency status. The player is inside the two-season extension-review horizon, but exact eligibility and value are not certified.
Brandon Ingram has a reported contract-control horizon through the 2020 season. The June 30 date is a season-boundary planning proxy, not proof of exact free-agency status. The player is inside the two-season extension-review horizon, but exact eligibility and value are not certified.
Brandon Ingram has a reported contract-control horizon through the 2020 season. The June 30 date is a season-boundary planning proxy, not proof of exact free-agency status. No extension-review trigger is applied yet.
Function scores, roles, dependence records and contract events are separate evidence. No combined player value, trade value or ranking is computed from them, and none of them is a causal impact claim.