Tyrese Maxey vs Mikal Bridges
Across 8 meetings and 233 matchup possessions, Maxey scored 60% below his own rate across the tracked data against Bridges. He shot 45.2% from the field in the matchup against 45.1% overall. Treat it as a pattern worth checking on film rather than proof the defender caused it.
The numbers
Each figure sits next to Maxey's own rate against every defender he faced, which is the only fair comparison for this unit.
Points per matchup possession
60% below his season rate.
Field goal percentage
+0.1 points of field goal percentage, on 31 shots in the matchup.
Possessions here are partial matchup possessions, only the stretches these two were actually matched up, so points per possession runs far below the roughly 1.1 a full team scores. Every figure is meant to be read against the same player's own season rate in the same unit.
Recorded games: 2025-12-19 to 2026-05-10
This ledger covers 8 tracked meetings, starting with PHI at NYK on 2025-12-19 and ending with NYK at PHI on 2026-05-10. It includes only per-game assignments with at least two partial matchup possessions; meetings or brief assignments absent from the feed are not treated as zero.
| Date / NBA game | Final score (away–home) | Competition | Partial poss. | Points | FG | TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-12-190022500382 | PHI 116 – NYK 107 | Regular Season | 42.8 | 12 | 4/9 | 1 |
| 2026-01-030022500487 | PHI 130 – NYK 119 | Regular Season | 14.3 | 0 | 0/0 | 1 |
| 2026-01-240022500643 | NYK 112 – PHI 109 | Regular Season | 25.1 | 5 | 2/5 | 1 |
| 2026-02-110022500780 | NYK 138 – PHI 89 | Regular Season | 10.9 | 2 | 1/1 | 0 |
| 2026-05-040042500211 | PHI 98 – NYK 137 | Playoffs | 31 | 0 | 0/2 | 3 |
| 2026-05-060042500212 | PHI 102 – NYK 108 | Playoffs | 47.1 | 8 | 4/7 | 4 |
| 2026-05-080042500213 | NYK 108 – PHI 94 | Playoffs | 27.1 | 2 | 1/1 | 1 |
| 2026-05-100042500214 | NYK 144 – PHI 114 | Playoffs | 34.5 | 4 | 2/6 | 1 |
| Total | 8 recorded meetings | 232.8 | 33 | 14/31 | 12 | |
Competition context
Regular Season: 4 meetings, 93.1 partial possessions, 19 points and 15 shots; 0.20 points per partial possession.
Playoffs: 4 meetings, 139.7 partial possessions, 14 points and 16 shots; 0.10 points per partial possession.
The pooled figure combines different competition settings. Compare the phase rates before using the overall number: repeated playoff assignments can dominate a season-long pairing.
Does one game drive the result?
The largest assignment was PHI at NYK on 2026-05-06: 47.1 partial possessions, 8 points and 4/7 shooting. It supplies 20.2% of this pairing’s recorded exposure and 22.6% of its shots.
Removing that game leaves 7 meetings and 185.7 partial possessions. The scoring rate changes from 0.14 to 0.13, against the same complete season baseline of 0.35.
Both versions remain below baseline. The direction survives this one-game removal, but that does not establish a defensive effect or statistical significance. The 10% band is an editorial description, not a confidence interval or a prediction.
Baseline and film-review plan
Tyrese Maxey’s full 2025–26 tracked baseline contains 6,201.8 partial matchup possessions, 2196 points and 841/1864 field goals against all recorded defenders. It includes this pairing. The baseline uses the same two-possession per-game floor and combines the same competition types; it is not a team offensive rating.
The pairing accounts for 3.8% of that tracked exposure. Its shooting rate is 45.2% versus 45.1% in the baseline. Shooting and scoring move in different directions here. Review shot mix, free throws and the tracking denominator before treating either figure as a single explanation.
- Review the largest assignment above. Tag the first action, initial defender, help, shot location and result separately.
- Compare with the smallest recorded assignment: NYK at PHI on 2026-02-11, 10.9 partial possessions and 2 points. Check whether the same action appears before calling it a repeatable tendency.
- Write one coverage question to verify in another game. The tracking table cannot identify a scheme, isolate switches, or show unrecorded meetings.
Sources and publication checks
NBA player-matchup tracking, distributed in the SportsDataverse matchup release; dates, teams and final scores from its NBA calendar release. Individual game links identify the source event; they do not promise free video. HoopBrief calculates the totals, exposure shares and one-game removal above.
This report passes the publication gate: 6 recorded games, 150 partial possessions, 25 shots, complete dated game context, a usable complete scorer baseline, and exact reconciliation of game totals with the summary. Passing the gate makes a report auditable, not causal. These historical figures are not 2026–27 statistics. Open Matchup Lab and choose a season for current coverage.
How to read this
These are the possessions the two were matched up, not a clean isolation of one defender against one scorer. Help, coverage calls, foul trouble, rest, and shot luck all live inside the same numbers, and 8 meetings is a small sample for any of them.
So a gap here is a reason to pull the film on these possessions, not evidence that the defender caused it. The useful question is what the offense tried in this matchup and what it stopped trying.
Both scouting reports
Build your next scouting question
Use this historical record to choose what to verify next. The free Scout works with current player profiles; it does not upload your film or automatically reproduce the historical assignments above.
The free scout needs no account. Full reports in the app start at $9.99/mo.
Related matchups
Mikal Bridges vs Tyrese Maxey
8 meetings · 167.7 poss · 0.22 pts/poss
Tyrese Maxey vs Derrick White
11 meetings · 293.8 poss · 0.26 pts/poss
James Harden vs Mikal Bridges
6 meetings · 173 poss · 0.05 pts/poss
Aggregated from NBA player-matchup tracking for 2025-26, across all competition types. Possessions are partial matchup possessions and retain up to one decimal place here. Figures describe what happened while these two were matched up and do not isolate one player's effect on the other.