PHI #19 ラウル・ネトRaul Neto Raul Neto

54 G

12.4

PPG5.1

RPG1.1

APG1.8

SPG0.4

BPG0.1

FG%45.5

3P%38.6

FT%83.0

GFC185cm/82kg6'1"/180lbBrazilThe country the NBA has on file. It need not match where they were born or whom they play for.Read in the glossaryHow they entered the league: which round and overall pick, or that they went undrafted.Read in the glossary

Petal length = Where a player sits from the top of the qualified pool. Lower is better; last place is 100%.Read in the glossary / dashed ring = the Eight steps from S to G, decided purely by where a player ranks in the league that season.Read in the glossary boundary

Played 54 games / 12.4 min per game

An all-in-one metric of production per minute. The NBA does not publish it, so this site computes it.Read in the glossary 12.7Shooting efficiency with both threes and free throws built in — a truer picture than FG%.Read in the glossary 56.7%How much of the team's offense a player finishes while on the floor. Lead options run high.Read in the glossary 18.1%

Distance covered during a game, given per game (kilometers or miles, set on My page).Read in the glossary 1.50km0.93mi / gameAverage speed while on the floor, split between offense and defense.Read in the glossary Off 7.35 / Def 6.49 km/hOff 4.57 / Def 4.03 mph

A bar splitting scoring, play types, rebounding and defense into shares of 100%.Read in the glossaryWhere the points came from

020406080100

Rim35Paint8Mid-range63P37FT14

Play type mixHow the possessions ended

020406080100

Transition16PnR35Iso / Post7Spot up26Cut / Screen0Putback0Other17

Rebounding mixWhere they were won, and how

020406080100

Off. contested3Off. free15Def. contested12Def. free71

Defensive mixWhat size of opponent they guarded

020406080100

Under 190cmUnder 6'3"31190–198cm6'3"–6'6"38198–206cm6'6"–6'9"21206cm and up6'9" and up9

Offense

Drive & Kick Ball Handler

Defense

None

Other

None

Breakdown

Shooting

CScoringTop 47.9%(#194 of 405)

PTS / 100 possessions

D2P finishingTop 67.7%(#264 of 390)

actual points ÷ expected points by zone

C3P finishingTop 27.8%(#90 of 324)

actual points ÷ expected points by zone

CFT shootingTop 30.2%(#114 of 377)

FT%

On-ball

BPlaymakingTop 16.7%(#67 of 405)

AST% (how many of the team's baskets you had a hand in)

CHalf-court creationTop 41.0%(#123 of 301)

Frequency

Efficiency

DDrivingTop 61.3%(#193 of 315)

Drives

Points per drive

Fouls drawn

CBall securityTop 37.8%(#153 of 405)

turnovers per 100 touches

Off-ball

—CuttingNot a mark against the player — there were too few attempts to rank them.Read in the glossary

PPP on cuts and off-screen plays

DScreeningTop 62.7%(#254 of 405)

screen-assist points / 100 possessions

Rebounds

FReboundingTop 94.8%(#383 of 405)

REB% (offense and defense combined)

DRebound conversionTop 60.7%(#246 of 405)

the share of balls landing near you that you came down with

DBox-outsTop 68.9%(#279 of 405)

box-outs / 100 poss

Defense

COn-ball defenseTop 38.8%(#157 of 405)

Deflections

3P contests

Ace suppression

DRim protectionTop 68.1%(#246 of 361)

Blocks

2P contests

Rim volume

Rim FG% suppressed

BHustleTop 24.7%(#100 of 405)

Charges drawn

Loose balls on defense

By season

Year	Team	POS	Age	G	MP	Shooting				On-ball				Off-ball		Rebounds			Defense			Tags
Year	Team	POS	Age	G	MP	Scoring	2P	3P	FT	AST	Hub	Drive	Care	Cut	Screen	REB	Conv	BOX	1on1	Rim	Hustle	Tags
2015-16	UTA	G	23	81	18.5	D	D	B	D	B	D	E	D	—		F	E
2016-17	UTA	G	24	40	8.7	E	D	—	—	C	—	E	C	—	D	F	D			—
2017-18	UTA	G	25	41	12.1	D	D	—	D	B	D	E	D	—	C	E	E	E	D	—	A	D&KHNDL
2018-19	UTA	G	26	37	12.8	D	C	D	B	B	B	D	D	—	D	D	C	E	D	—	A	D&KHNDL
2019-20	PHI	G	27	54	12.4	C	D	C	C	B	C	D	C	—	D	F	D	D	C	D	B	D&KHNDL
2020-21	WAS	G	28	64	21.9	D	C	C	B	C	D	B	B	—	D	E	E	D	C	D	A	SLSHHNDLCHRGSTL
2021-22	WAS	G	29	70	19.6	D	C	E	D	B	B	C	C	E	D	E	E	E	B	E	A	HNDL
2022-23	CLE	G	30	48	10.5	E	B	—	B	B	C	D	B	—	G	E	C	E	B	—	A	D&KHNDL

View

101 / 222(45.5%)Not shown on the chart: Beyond 30 ft: 2 (they are included in the table below)

ColorZone FG% − league average (points)+7 or better+2.5−2.5−7−7 or worse

HatchingToo few shots to measure

SizeShots taken from that cell

Zone	Att	Made	FG%	League	Diff
Rim	80	48	60.0%	63.5%	−3.5
Above the break 3 · Left wing	31	15	48.4%	35.7%	+12.7
Paint · Center	31	10	32.3%	38.5%	−6.3
Above the break 3 · Right wing	24	7	29.2%	35.0%	−5.9
Above the break 3 · Center	18	6	33.3%	34.6%	−1.2
Left corner 3 · Left	9	4	44.4%	39.7%	+4.7
Mid-range · Left	6	3	50.0%	40.5%	+9.5
Mid-range · Center	5	3	60.0%	42.0%	+18.0
Paint · Left	4	1	25.0%	40.3%	−15.3
Right corner 3 · Right	4	2	50.0%	38.0%	+12.0
Mid-range · Right wing	3	1	33.3%	40.7%	−7.4
Mid-range · Right	3	0	0.0%	40.1%	−40.1
Backcourt	2	0	0.0%	1.7%	−1.7
Paint · Right	1	0	0.0%	39.4%	−39.4
Mid-range · Left wing	1	1	100.0%	39.8%	+60.2

Each hexagon is about two feet across. Size is how many shots came from that cell, color is the gap to the league average (shrunk toward that zone's FG% before comparing). Hatched cells have too few shots to measure; free throws carry no coordinates, so they are left out. Zones with fewer than 10 attempts are left uncolored.

Year	Team	POS	Age	G	GS	MP	FG	FGA	FG%	2P	2PA	2P%	3P	3PA	3P%	FT	FTA	FT%	ORB	DRB	TRB	AST	STL	BLK	TOV	PF	PTS
2015-16	UTA	G	23	81	53	18.5	2.2	5.2	43.1	1.4	3.2	45.3	0.8	2.0	39.5	0.6	0.9	74.3	0.2	1.3	1.5	2.1	0.8	0.0	1.3	1.5	5.9
2016-17	UTA	G	24	40	0	8.7	1.0	2.3	45.1	0.8	1.5	51.7	0.3	0.8	32.3	0.2	0.2	88.9	0.1	0.7	0.8	0.9	0.5	0.1	0.4	1.2	2.5
2017-18	UTA	G	25	41	0	12.1	1.7	3.7	45.7	1.2	2.5	48.1	0.5	1.1	40.4	0.6	0.9	74.3	0.2	1.0	1.2	1.8	0.3	0.1	0.9	0.9	4.5
2018-19	UTA	G	26	37	1	12.8	2.0	4.4	46.0	1.5	2.7	53.5	0.5	1.6	33.3	0.8	0.9	84.8	0.2	1.5	1.7	2.5	0.4	0.1	0.9	1.3	5.3
2019-20	PHI	G	27	54	3	12.4	1.9	4.1	45.5	1.2	2.5	50.0	0.6	1.6	38.6	0.7	0.9	83.0	0.2	0.9	1.1	1.8	0.4	0.1	0.9	0.9	5.1
2020-21	WAS	G	28	64	22	21.9	3.3	7.0	46.8	2.3	4.4	51.2	1.0	2.6	39.0	1.2	1.3	88.2	0.4	2.0	2.4	2.3	1.1	0.1	0.8	1.7	8.7
2021-22	WAS	G	29	70	19	19.6	2.9	6.3	46.3	2.4	4.6	52.6	0.5	1.7	29.2	1.2	1.5	76.9	0.2	1.7	1.9	3.1	0.8	0.0	1.1	1.5	7.5
2022-23	CLE	G	30	48	1	10.5	1.2	2.3	51.8	0.9	1.4	66.2	0.3	0.9	28.6	0.6	0.7	91.2	0.2	0.8	1.0	1.6	0.4	0.1	0.5	1.0	3.3

Playoffs

Year	Team	POS	Age	G	GS	MP	FG	FGA	FG%	2P	2PA	2P%	3P	3PA	3P%	FT	FTA	FT%	ORB	DRB	TRB	AST	STL	BLK	TOV	PF	PTS
2015-16	UTA	G	23	Missed the playoffs
2016-17	UTA	G	24	9	0	6.7	0.9	1.4	61.5	0.6	0.8	71.4	0.3	0.7	50.0	0.4	0.4	100.0	0.0	0.8	0.8	0.4	0.1	0.1	0.3	0.9	2.6
2017-18	UTA	G	25	8	0	9.0	0.9	2.9	30.4	0.6	2.0	31.3	0.3	0.9	28.6	0.6	0.6	100.0	0.3	1.0	1.3	1.3	0.3	0.0	0.5	0.9	2.6
2018-19	UTA	G	26	3	0	6.7	0.3	2.0	16.7	0.3	1.7	20.0	0.0	0.3	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	0.0	1.0	1.0	0.3	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.7	0.7
2019-20	PHI	G	27	2	0	13.0	1.5	4.5	33.3	0.5	2.0	25.0	1.0	2.5	40.0	0.0	0.0	—	0.0	1.5	1.5	1.5	0.5	0.0	0.5	0.0	4.0
2020-21	WAS	G	28	5	3	22.4	2.4	6.8	35.3	1.6	3.8	42.1	0.8	3.0	26.7	0.8	1.0	80.0	0.6	1.6	2.2	1.0	0.4	0.0	0.2	2.2	6.4
2021-22	WAS	G	29	Missed the playoffs
2022-23	CLE	G	30	2	0	3.5	0.0	0.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	—	0.0	0.5	0.0	0.5	1.0	50.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.5	0.0	0.0	1.0	1.0	0.5

Year	Team	POS	Age	G	MP	PER	TS%	eFG%	USG%	AST%	TRB%	ORB%	DRB%	TOV%	ORtg	DRtg	NetRtg	PACE	PIE	POSS
2015-16	UTA	G	23	81	18.5	10.2	53.0	50.7	17.2	19.0	4.2	1.2	7.1	14.9	103.2	99.9	3.3	92.3	7.0	2,871
2016-17	UTA	G	24	40	8.6	10.8	52.7	50.5	14.0	14.0	4.4	1.2	7.3	10.5	107.3	95.0	12.3	97.1	6.2	699
2017-18	UTA	G	25	41	12.2	11.9	55.0	52.0	17.3	23.0	4.8	1.4	7.9	13.0	104.9	95.4	9.5	100.3	8.8	1,051
2018-19	UTA	G	26	37	12.8	13.4	55.8	52.2	18.4	25.1	6.4	1.4	10.5	11.5	116.1	98.6	17.5	104.5	9.6	1,029
2019-20	PHI	G	27	54	12.4	12.7	56.7	53.2	18.1	21.8	4.4	1.6	7.2	12.2	103.8	101.1	2.8	101.5	9.4	1,410
2020-21	WAS	G	28	64	21.9	13.0	57.5	53.9	15.5	14.1	5.3	1.9	8.7	7.7	109.3	110.3	-1.0	106.0	8.6	3,104
2021-22	WAS	G	29	70	19.6	12.4	53.8	50.2	18.0	22.8	5.0	1.0	8.9	10.1	109.6	112.9	-3.3	99.3	8.5	2,842
2022-23	CLE	G	30	48	10.5	12.7	62.8	57.3	13.3	22.6	4.8	2.2	7.1	10.5	111.2	109.8	1.4	96.8	8.7	1,017

/* 切り替えられないのでタブの行とプルダウンは出さない。全面を縦に並べて全部読めるようにする。 `[hidden]` は行（移籍の内訳）にも付いているので、**面だけ**を狙う。 */ .ptabs, .facebar { display: none; } .ppanes > [data-pane][hidden] { display: block !important; }