Julius Randle
MIN · 2025-26Primary starterHigh evidenceWhat does Julius Randle actually supply on the floor?
Julius Randle's strongest evidenced functions are creation, passing, rim pressure; the weakest available areas are rim protection, shooting, event creation. 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 | Primary starter | High evidence | 77 | 72 | 39 | 74 | — | 71 | — | — | 37 | 42 | 54 |
| 2024-25 | MIN | — | High evidence | 74 | 70 | 51 | 75 | 52 | 63 | 42 | 48 | 44 | 25 | 43 |
| 2023-24 | NYK | — | High evidence | 67 | 73 | 42 | 68 | 40 | 62 | 38 | 36 | 45 | 23 | 61 |
| 2022-23 | NYK | — | High evidence | 66 | 70 | 51 | 68 | 51 | 67 | 43 | 49 | 39 | 24 | 65 |
| 2021-22 | NYK | — | High evidence | 68 | 64 | 35 | 71 | 43 | 62 | 53 | 46 | 55 | 37 | 53 |
| 2020-21 | NYK | — | High evidence | 75 | 58 | 70 | 82 | 49 | 55 | 54 | 57 | 58 | 37 | 52 |
| 2019-20 | NYK | — | High evidence | 61 | 66 | 35 | 55 | — | 75 | — | — | 45 | 37 | 69 |
| 2018-19 | NOP | — | High evidence | 62 | 72 | 53 | 59 | — | 79 | — | — | 60 | 40 | 67 |
| 2017-18 | LAL | — | High evidence | 60 | 73 | 42 | 57 | — | 79 | — | — | 66 | 37 | 68 |
| 2016-17 | LAL | — | High evidence | 67 | 60 | 42 | 63 | — | 70 | — | — | 55 | 37 | 77 |
| 2015-16 | LAL | — | Limited evidence | 49 | 56 | 46 | 40 | — | — | — | — | 51 | 35 | — |
| 2014-15 | LAL | — | Limited evidence | 49 | 51 | — | 48 | — | — | — | — | 49 | 48 | — |
What teams depended on him for
Seasons where a team's situation report named him a dependency case.MIN did not have strong functional backup for Julius Randle in creation; removing him cost about 33.7% of the team's production in that area. The next observed option was Anthony Edwards.
Replacement evidence
Rudy Gobert · Donte DiVincenzo · Naz Reid · Anthony Edwards · Jaden McDaniels
shrunk net 5.2790 over 169 possessions
on floor 5640 possessions · off floor 2800 possessions
MIN did not have strong functional backup for Julius Randle in passing; removing him cost about 26.6% of the team's production in that area. The next observed option was Anthony Edwards.
Replacement evidence
Mike Conley · Rudy Gobert · Donte DiVincenzo · Nickeil Alexander-Walker · Naz Reid
shrunk net 6.3960 over 223 possessions
on floor 4971 possessions · off floor 3445 possessions
NYK did not have enough reliable function-loss evidence to judge dependence on Julius Randle.
Replacement evidence
Isaiah Hartenstein · Josh Hart · Jalen Brunson · Donte DiVincenzo · Miles McBride
shrunk net 7.0440 over 382 possessions
on floor 2936 possessions · off floor 4991 possessions
NYK did not have strong functional backup for Julius Randle in interior finish; removing him cost about 30.4% of the team's production in that area. The next observed option was RJ Barrett.
Replacement evidence
Isaiah Hartenstein · Josh Hart · RJ Barrett · Obi Toppin · Immanuel Quickley
shrunk net -0.0140 over 218 possessions
on floor 5447 possessions · off floor 2626 possessions
NYK had a supported lineup path without Julius Randle: [Derrick Rose, Taj Gibson, Alec Burks, Obi Toppin, Immanuel Quickley] at 5.1 adjusted net points per 100 possessions over 153 possessions. This is an observed option, not proof it is universally better.
Replacement evidence
Derrick Rose · Taj Gibson · Alec Burks · Obi Toppin · Immanuel Quickley
shrunk net 5.1290 over 153 possessions
on floor 4489 possessions · off floor 2427 possessions
NYK did not have enough reliable function-loss evidence to judge dependence on Julius Randle.
Replacement evidence
Derrick Rose · Taj Gibson · Alec Burks · Obi Toppin · Immanuel Quickley
shrunk net 8.6440 over 258 possessions
on floor 5042 possessions · off floor 1498 possessions
NYK did not have a sufficiently supported observed replacement lineup for Julius Randle. 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 3673 possessions · off floor 1990 possessions
NOP had an observed replacement lineup for Julius Randle, but it came with a performance cost. The supported alternative was [Jrue Holiday, Wesley Johnson, Nikola Mirotic, E'Twaun Moore, Anthony Davis] at -1.3 adjusted net points per 100 possessions over 281 possessions.
Replacement evidence
Jrue Holiday · Wesley Johnson · Nikola Mirotic · E'Twaun Moore · Anthony Davis
shrunk net -1.2940 over 281 possessions
on floor 4284 possessions · off floor 3360 possessions
LAL did not have strong functional backup for Julius Randle in interior finish; removing him cost about 29.2% of the team's production in that area. The next observed option was Kyle Kuzma.
Replacement evidence
Brook Lopez · Kentavious Caldwell-Pope · Larry Nance Jr. · Brandon Ingram · Lonzo Ball
shrunk net -1.3090 over 417 possessions
on floor 4044 possessions · off floor 3350 possessions
LAL did not have strong functional backup for Julius Randle in rebounding; removing him cost about 28.6% of the team's production in that area. The next observed option was Larry Nance Jr..
Replacement evidence
Lou Williams · Jordan Clarkson · Tarik Black · Larry Nance Jr. · Brandon Ingram
shrunk net 3.1280 over 361 possessions
on floor 4022 possessions · off floor 3331 possessions
LAL did not have enough reliable function-loss evidence to judge dependence on Julius Randle.
Replacement evidence
Lou Williams · Roy Hibbert · Jordan Clarkson · Anthony Brown · Larry Nance Jr.
shrunk net -2.8440 over 204 possessions
on floor 4142 possessions · off floor 3005 possessions
LAL did not have enough resolved lineup possessions involving Julius Randle for a dependable replacement conclusion.
Replacement evidence
Jordan Hill · Wayne Ellington · Wesley Johnson · Ed Davis · Jeremy Lin
shrunk net 1.9970 over 196 possessions
on floor 20 possessions · off floor 6989 possessions
Known contract calendar
Governed contract events naming this player — dates carry their honest quality.Julius Randle has a reported player option for the 2028 season at a reported $35,802,468. Player controls the option. The stored date is the CBA outside date; the contract may require an earlier decision.
Julius Randle 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.
Julius Randle has a reported contract-control horizon through the 2022 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.
Julius Randle has a reported team option for the 2022 season at a reported $19,800,000. Team controls the option. The stored date is the CBA outside date; the contract may require an earlier decision.
Julius Randle has a reported contract-control horizon through the 2022 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.
Julius Randle has a reported player option for the 2020 season at a reported $18,000,000. Player controls the option. The stored date is the CBA outside date; the contract may require an earlier decision.
Julius Randle 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.
Julius Randle has a reported contract-control horizon through the 2018 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.
Julius Randle has a reported contract-control horizon through the 2018 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.