Joe Ingles
MIN · 2025-26Emergency depthMixed coverageWhat does Joe Ingles actually supply on the floor?
Joe Ingles's strongest evidenced functions are event creation, passing, shooting; the weakest available areas are interior finishing, rim pressure, rim protection. The profile is tied to MIN 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 | MIN | Emergency depth | Mixed coverage | 52 | 44 | 54 | 56 | — | 30 | — | — | 50 | 61 | 53 |
| 2024-25 | MIN | — | Mixed coverage | 54 | 43 | 47 | 56 | — | 34 | — | — | 44 | 37 | 51 |
| 2023-24 | ORL | — | Mixed coverage | 69 | 37 | 68 | 80 | — | 26 | 53 | 43 | 30 | 55 | 62 |
| 2022-23 | MIL | — | Mixed coverage | 57 | 33 | 62 | 66 | — | 14 | 49 | 50 | 31 | 48 | 60 |
| 2021-22 | UTA | — | Mixed coverage | 66 | 42 | 51 | 70 | — | 20 | 61 | 67 | 33 | 30 | 52 |
| 2021-22 | POR | — | Insufficient evidence | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 2020-21 | UTA | — | High evidence | 72 | 46 | 80 | 76 | — | 16 | 66 | 67 | 29 | 33 | 53 |
| 2019-20 | UTA | — | High evidence | 74 | 43 | 75 | 77 | — | 26 | — | — | 27 | 46 | 53 |
| 2018-19 | UTA | — | High evidence | 88 | 46 | 76 | 89 | — | 29 | — | — | 29 | 60 | 43 |
| 2017-18 | UTA | — | High evidence | 78 | 49 | 83 | 81 | — | 26 | — | — | 34 | 57 | 52 |
| 2016-17 | UTA | — | High evidence | 74 | 43 | 80 | 77 | — | 26 | — | — | 33 | 68 | 55 |
| 2015-16 | UTA | — | Limited evidence | 59 | 56 | 67 | 60 | — | — | — | — | 31 | 64 | — |
| 2014-15 | UTA | — | Limited evidence | 72 | 55 | 58 | 75 | — | — | — | — | 33 | 67 | — |
What teams depended on him for
Seasons where a team's situation report named him a dependency case.MIN had a supported lineup path without Joe Ingles: [Rudy Gobert, Donte DiVincenzo, Naz Reid, Anthony Edwards, Jaden McDaniels] at 5.3 adjusted net points per 100 possessions over 169 possessions. This is an observed option, not proof it is universally better.
Replacement evidence
Rudy Gobert · Donte DiVincenzo · Naz Reid · Anthony Edwards · Jaden McDaniels
shrunk net 5.2790 over 169 possessions
on floor 331 possessions · off floor 8105 possessions
MIN did not have enough resolved lineup possessions involving Joe Ingles for a dependable replacement conclusion.
Replacement evidence
Mike Conley · Rudy Gobert · Donte DiVincenzo · Nickeil Alexander-Walker · Naz Reid
shrunk net 6.3960 over 223 possessions
on floor 212 possessions · off floor 8210 possessions
ORL lineups performed 4.8 points per 100 possessions better with Joe Ingles than without him. The best supported alternative was [Gary Harris, Wendell Carter Jr., Franz Wagner, Jalen Suggs, Paolo Banchero] over 732 possessions.
Replacement evidence
Gary Harris · Wendell Carter Jr. · Franz Wagner · Jalen Suggs · Paolo Banchero
shrunk net 7.3080 over 732 possessions
on floor 2207 possessions · off floor 5546 possessions
MIL had a supported lineup path without Joe Ingles: [Brook Lopez, Jrue Holiday, Giannis Antetokounmpo, Grayson Allen, Jevon Carter] at 5.2 adjusted net points per 100 possessions over 362 possessions. This is an observed option, not proof it is universally better.
Replacement evidence
Brook Lopez · Jrue Holiday · Giannis Antetokounmpo · Grayson Allen · Jevon Carter
shrunk net 5.2220 over 362 possessions
on floor 2064 possessions · off floor 5581 possessions
UTA had a supported lineup path without Joe Ingles: [Mike Conley, Bojan Bogdanovic, Rudy Gobert, Royce O'Neale, Donovan Mitchell] at 3.4 adjusted net points per 100 possessions over 1378 possessions. This is an observed option, not proof it is universally better.
Replacement evidence
Mike Conley · Bojan Bogdanovic · Rudy Gobert · Royce O'Neale · Donovan Mitchell
shrunk net 3.3500 over 1378 possessions
on floor 1960 possessions · off floor 5471 possessions
UTA lineups performed 4.9 points per 100 possessions better with Joe Ingles than without him. The best supported alternative was [Mike Conley, Rudy Gobert, Jordan Clarkson, Georges Niang, Miye Oni] over 193 possessions.
Replacement evidence
Mike Conley · Rudy Gobert · Jordan Clarkson · Georges Niang · Miye Oni
shrunk net 10.9670 over 193 possessions
on floor 3937 possessions · off floor 3283 possessions
UTA was highly dependent on Joe Ingles. Removing him cost about 30.2% of passing production, and lineups with him performed 7.6 points per 100 possessions better than lineups without him. The best supported replacement group was [Mike Conley, Bojan Bogdanovic, Rudy Gobert, Royce O'Neale, Donovan Mitchell] over 712 possessions.
Replacement evidence
Mike Conley · Bojan Bogdanovic · Rudy Gobert · Royce O'Neale · Donovan Mitchell
shrunk net 5.6600 over 712 possessions
on floor 4167 possessions · off floor 2541 possessions
UTA was highly dependent on Joe Ingles. Removing him cost about 39.8% of passing production, and lineups with him performed 6.2 points per 100 possessions better than lineups without him. The best supported replacement group was [Kyle Korver, Jae Crowder, Rudy Gobert, Royce O'Neale, Donovan Mitchell] over 276 possessions.
Replacement evidence
Kyle Korver · Jae Crowder · Rudy Gobert · Royce O'Neale · Donovan Mitchell
shrunk net -0.0970 over 276 possessions
on floor 5058 possessions · off floor 2644 possessions
UTA did not have a sufficiently supported observed replacement lineup for Joe Ingles. 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 5255 possessions · off floor 2635 possessions
UTA had a supported lineup path without Joe Ingles: [Boris Diaw, Gordon Hayward, Rudy Gobert, Rodney Hood, Dante Exum] at 6.0 adjusted net points per 100 possessions over 216 possessions. This is an observed option, not proof it is universally better.
Replacement evidence
Boris Diaw · Gordon Hayward · Rudy Gobert · Rodney Hood · Dante Exum
shrunk net 5.9880 over 216 possessions
on floor 3858 possessions · off floor 3650 possessions
UTA did not have enough reliable function-loss evidence to judge dependence on Joe Ingles.
Replacement evidence
Derrick Favors · Gordon Hayward · Raul Neto · Rodney Hood · Trey Lyles
shrunk net 4.6980 over 200 possessions
on floor 2018 possessions · off floor 4587 possessions
UTA did not have enough reliable function-loss evidence to judge dependence on Joe Ingles.
Replacement evidence
Derrick Favors · Gordon Hayward · Rudy Gobert · Rodney Hood · Dante Exum
shrunk net 4.1600 over 268 possessions
on floor 2742 possessions · off floor 3784 possessions
Known contract calendar
Governed contract events naming this player — dates carry their honest quality.Joe Ingles has a reported team option for the 2025 season at a reported $11,000,000. Team controls the option. The stored date is the CBA outside date; the contract may require an earlier decision.
Joe Ingles 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.
Joe Ingles has a reported contract-control horizon through the 2023 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.
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.