2025-26

Julius Randle

MIN · F-C · #30

r/NBA's 4th most hated player.

PPG: 21.1
RPG: 6.7
APG: 5.0
GP: 79

Height: 6′9″
Weight: 250 lb
Age: 31
Born: Nov 29, 1994
Experience: 11 yrs
From: Kentucky

Verdict

52.3%31.7%16.0%

52.3%Negative5,535 comments

31.7%Neutral3,352 comments

16.0%Positive1,690 comments

−36Net sentimentpositive minus negative

n=10,577 comments about Julius Randle

Receipts

What the room said about Julius Randle, verbatim: the highest-scoring comments in each class.

Exhibit 01Negative.DAL flair
Randle making 33mil to drop 3 points in 24 minutes, crazy
Post · THE MINNESOTA TIMBERWOLVES HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED FROM 2026 NBA CHAMPIONSHIP CONTENTION▲ 1,505May 16, 2026Source ↗
Exhibit 02Negative.no flair
-34 in 24 minutes 3 points on 12/0/50 splits. Same amount of points as fouls. Julius Randle with an all-time disasterclass in an elimination game.
Post · THE MINNESOTA TIMBERWOLVES HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED FROM 2026 NBA CHAMPIONSHIP CONTENTION▲ 1,422May 16, 2026Source ↗
Exhibit 03Negative.MIN flair
And that’s why I can’t stand watching him. Other guys contribute in other areas and keep their head straight. Randle is a wet blanket and pouts and sulks and gives noticeably less effort. He should be a tank commander, get his 22 points on 18 shots, make his money and enjoy his yearly early offseason.
Post · Julius Randle in Game 6 against the Spurs; 23 MINS, 3 PTS, 7 REB, 1 AST, 1/8FG, 0/2 3PM, 1/2FT, team low -34 while on the court▲ 277May 16, 2026Source ↗

Method

A receipt is a top-scoring comment about Julius Randle that cleared the classifier's confidence bar and a second pass confirming it is about him. No usernames: the site judges players, not commenters.

Fans

Of what r/NBA says about Julius Randle, his own Timberwolves fans are 56% negative, rival fans 49%, unflaired commenters 54%. Among the 8 fanbases with at least 200 comments, Thunder fans are hardest on him at 64% negative and Knicks fans kindest at 29% positive.

56.0%Own fansMIN flair · 2,652 comments

49.0%Rival fansevery other flair · 4,758 comments

54.2%Unflairedno flair · 3,167 comments

Who hates him most

Who defends him

Method

A fanbase is the flair its commenters wear. Flairs with fewer than 200 comments about Julius Randle are left out of the lists; the tick is his rate across every flaired comment, from summed counts, never a mean of rates.

Rooms

Julius Randle was talked about most in the game threads: 4,256 of his 10,577 comments, −51 net sentiment against −36 across his season. His harshest room was the game threads; his warmest highlights, −20 on 7% of his comments. The game threads ran 26 points harsher than the front page: his play was graded live.

Game threads40% of his commentsHarshest63.913.34,256

Post-game threads5% of his comments48.124.5563

Front page30% of his comments43.418.73,157

Highlights7% of his commentsWarmest43.323.3739

News16% of his comments43.712.01,655

Method

A room is the kind of post a comment sat under: a game thread, the front page, a highlight. A room is drawn when it holds at least 200 comments about Julius Randle; left out here: Daily chat thread (121), Lowlights (62), Discussion posts (12), Injury posts (4). The bar is the room's share of his comments, its split the room's sentiment. Harshest and warmest are by net sentiment, positive minus negative, from summed counts, never a mean of rates.

Timeline

Over 4-week windows, the negative share of comments about Julius Randle ran between 24% and 67%. His worst week was the week of Apr 13, 70% negative of 508 comments; his best the week of Oct 27, 45% positive. 2 of 40 weeks had fewer than 30 comments and are left off the line.

Oct 6 · 45% negative · 27% positive · 33 comments
- L vs IND 134–135
- L @ NYK 95–100
Oct 13 · 8 comments, under the floor
- L @ CHI 120–126
Oct 20 · 36% negative · 29% positive · 58 comments
- W @ POR 118–114
- L @ LAL 110–128
- W vs IND 114–110
Oct 27 · 23% negative · 45% positive · 158 comments
- L vs DEN 114–127
- L vs LAL 115–116
- W @ CHA 122–105
Nov 3 · 16% negative · 42% positive · 92 comments
- W @ BKN 125–109
- L @ NYK 114–137
- W vs UTA 137–97
- W @ SAC 144–117
Nov 10 · 27% negative · 32% positive · 81 comments
- W @ UTA 120–113
- W vs SAC 124–110
- L vs DEN 112–123
Nov 17 · 36% negative · 32% positive · 114 comments
- W vs DAL 120–96
- W vs WAS 120–109
- L @ PHX 113–114
Nov 24 · 52% negative · 19% positive · 199 comments
- L @ SAC 112–117
- L @ OKC 105–113
- W vs BOS 119–115
- W vs SAS 125–112
Dec 1 · 31% negative · 34% positive · 58 comments
- W @ NOP 149–142
- W @ NOP 125–116
- W vs LAC 109–106
Dec 8 · 37% negative · 25% positive · 67 comments
- L vs PHX 105–108
- W @ GSW 127–120
- W vs SAC 117–103
Dec 15 · 52% negative · 14% positive · 269 comments
- L vs MEM 110–116
- W vs OKC 112–107
- W vs MIL 103–100
Dec 22 · 50% negative · 22% positive · 165 comments
- W vs NYK 115–104
- L @ DEN 138–142
- L vs BKN 107–123
Dec 29 · 43% negative · 23% positive · 161 comments
- W @ CHI 136–101
- L @ ATL 102–126
- W @ MIA 125–115
- W @ WAS 141–115
Jan 5 · 17% negative · 28% positive · 101 comments
- W vs MIA 122–94
- W vs CLE 131–122
- L @ CLE 134–146
- W vs SAS 104–103
Jan 12 · 29% negative · 37% positive · 316 comments
- W @ MIL 139–106
- L @ HOU 105–110
- L @ SAS 123–126
Jan 19 · 40% negative · 19% positive · 81 comments
- L @ UTA 122–127
- L vs CHI 115–120
- L vs GSW 85–111
Jan 26 · 35% negative · 14% positive · 112 comments
- W vs GSW 108–83
- W @ DAL 118–105
- W vs OKC 123–111
- W @ MEM 131–114
Feb 2 · 41% negative · 10% positive · 201 comments
- L @ MEM 128–137
- W @ TOR 128–126
- L vs NOP 115–119
- L vs LAC 96–115
Feb 9 · 29% negative · 33% positive · 137 comments
- W vs ATL 138–116
- W vs POR 133–109
Feb 16 · 50% negative · 11% positive · 36 comments
- W vs DAL 122–111
- L vs PHI 108–135
Feb 23 · 57% negative · 11% positive · 93 comments
- W @ POR 124–121
- W @ LAC 94–88
- W @ DEN 117–108
Mar 2 · 59% negative · 12% positive · 68 comments
- W vs MEM 117–110
- W vs TOR 115–107
- L vs ORL 92–119
Mar 9 · 60% negative · 17% positive · 213 comments
- L @ LAL 106–120
- L @ LAC 128–153
- W @ GSW 127–117
- L @ OKC 103–116
Mar 16 · 43% negative · 16% positive · 82 comments
- W vs PHX 116–104
- W vs UTA 147–111
- L vs POR 104–108
- W @ BOS 102–92
Mar 23 · 48% negative · 17% positive · 216 comments
- W vs HOU 110–108
- L vs DET 87–109
Mar 30 · 43% negative · 24% positive · 54 comments
- W @ DAL 124–94
- L @ DET 108–113
- L @ PHI 103–115
- L vs CHA 108–122
Apr 6 · 40% negative · 24% positive · 45 comments
- W @ IND 124–104
Apr 13 · 70% negative · 7% positive · 508 comments
- L @ DEN 105–116
Apr 20 · 44% negative · 21% positive · 510 comments
- W @ DEN 119–114
- W vs DEN 113–96
- W vs DEN 112–96
Apr 27 · 52% negative · 15% positive · 471 comments
- L @ DEN 113–125
- W vs DEN 110–98
May 4 · 50% negative · 20% positive · 1,361 comments
- W @ SAS 104–102
- L @ SAS 95–133
- L vs SAS 108–115
- W vs SAS 114–109
May 11 · 70% negative · 8% positive · 2,573 comments
- L @ SAS 97–126
- L vs SAS 109–139

Method

Lines are 4-week rolling rates from summed counts (Σ negative ÷ Σ comments), drawn only where the window holds at least 30 comments. Dots are single weeks, sized by n. Bands follow the season calendar.

Games

The room talked about Julius Randle in 28 of his 94 games, at least 20 comments each. It was harsher after losses: net sentiment −58 in losses (69% negative, 11% positive) against −43 in wins (59% negative, 16% positive), on a season net sentiment of −36.

−43In wins59% neg · 16% pos · 1,944 comments

−58In losses69% neg · 11% pos · 2,318 comments

−36His season52% neg · 16% pos · 10,577 comments

Games the room talked about Julius Randle in, at least 20 comments each, newest first.
Date	Phase	Opp	Result	Min	Pts	Reb	Ast	FG	3P	TOV	+/−	P/R/A	Comments	Verdict
May 15R2 G6	R2 G6	vs SASL 109–139	L 109–139	24	3	7	1	1-8	0-2	0	-34	3/7/1	12,817	34 points harsher than his season, from 494 comments.
May 12R2 G5	R2 G5	@ SASL 97–126	L 97–126	36	17	10	1	6-17	0-4	0	-22	17/10/1	9,878	31 points harsher than his season, from 515 comments.
May 10R2 G4	R2 G4	vs SASW 114–109	W 114–109	38	12	8	3	5-12	2-4	6	+12	12/8/3	163	28 points harsher than his season, from 704 comments.
May 8R2 G3	R2 G3	vs SASL 108–115	L 108–115	31	12	6	0	3-12	0-3	2	-11	12/6/0	16,377	13 points harsher than his season, from 424 comments.
May 6R2 G2	R2 G2	@ SASL 95–133	L 95–133	27	12	5	2	4-10	0-2	5	-26	12/5/2	10,165	15 points harsher than his season, from 76 comments.
May 4R2 G1	R2 G1	@ SASW 104–102	W 104–102	41	21	10	2	8-20	2-6	5	-3	21/10/2	17,924	19 points warmer than his season, from 427 comments.
Apr 30R1 G6	R1 G6	vs DENW 110–98	W 110–98	37	18	4	5	6-17	2-5	4	+15	18/4/5	18,335	14 points harsher than his season, from 224 comments.
Apr 27R1 G5	R1 G5	@ DENL 113–125	L 113–125	32	27	9	6	8-15	2-4	5	-16	27/9/6	7,427	10 points harsher than his season, from 100 comments.
Apr 25R1 G4	R1 G4	vs DENW 112–96	W 112–96	32	15	9	2	6-16	0-1	4	+13	15/9/2	13,778	4 points harsher than his season, from 130 comments.
Apr 23R1 G3	R1 G3	vs DENW 113–96	W 113–96	33	15	6	4	6-15	0-3	1	+8	15/6/4	9,929	29 points warmer than his season, from 51 comments.

Bad nights get punished: across 28 games the room talked about, net sentiment rises with Julius Randle's Game Score.

r = 0.54 · 28 games · win loss