LAC

2025-26 Season

DARIUS GARLAND

LA Clippers | Guard | 6-1
Darius Garland
18.7 PPG
2.4 RPG
6.7 APG
29.9 MPG
+3.4 Impact

Garland produces at an above average rate for a 30-minute workload.

Embed this player card

Copy & paste this HTML into any page:

The widget updates automatically whenever our data does.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
+3.4
Scoring +17.4
Points 18.7 PPG = +12.7
Shot Making above expected FG% = +4.7
Creation +1.8
Creation 6.7 AST/g = +1.8
Turnovers -6.7
Turnovers 2.9/g = -6.7
Defense +0.5
Defense 1.0 STL, 0.2 BLK = +0.5
Hustle & Effort +1.4
Rebounds 2.4 RPG = +1.4
Raw Impact +14.4
Baseline (game-average expected) −11.0
Net Impact
+3.4
74th pctl vs Guards

PBP Credit: Every play is analyzed from play-by-play data. Scorers get difficulty-adjusted credit, assisters get creation value based on the shot opportunity they created, and turnovers are classified by type. Shot difficulty is derived from 1M+ shots across 4 seasons. Full methodology

SKILL DNA

Percentile rank vs 245 Guards with 10+ games

Scoring 88th
18.7 PPG
Efficiency 79th
58.5% TS
Playmaking 94th
6.7 APG
Rebounding 32th
2.4 RPG
Defense 15th
+4.7/g
Hustle 23th
+6.3/g
Creation 90th
+4.73/g
Shot Making 97th
+11.55/g
TO Discipline 10th
0.10/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

A frustrating defensive slump and erratic decision-making defined Darius Garland’s rocky start to the 2025-26 campaign. Even when his box score numbers sparkled, hidden defensive costs routinely dragged down his actual value on the floor. Look no further than 12/25 vs NYK, where he tallied 20 points and 10 assists but posted a dismal -7.2 impact score because a porous point-of-attack defense completely erased his offensive orchestration. His shot selection could be equally destructive. He delivered an absolute disaster class on 12/03 vs POR, forcing terrible looks to finish with just 6 points and actively torpedoing the offense for a staggering -20.2 impact score. However, Garland occasionally found ways to stay in the green even when his scoring volume dipped. On 12/29 vs SAS, he managed a +1.2 impact despite scoring a modest 15 points, relying on elite playmaking and surprisingly stout defensive metrics to keep the team afloat. Until he stops bleeding points on the perimeter, his brilliant flashes of facilitation will remain overshadowed by his glaring defensive liabilities.

Darius Garland’s midseason stretch was defined by a maddening pendulum swing between pick-and-roll wizardry and self-destructive shot selection. When he dialed in his decision-making, he was virtually unguardable. He peaked on 03/21 vs DAL, posting a staggering +18.7 impact score by delivering an absolute masterclass in pick-and-roll navigation to generate pristine looks. Yet, his offensive aggression frequently bled into hubris, yielding brutal hidden costs even when his point totals looked respectable. Look no further than 03/16 vs SAS, where he poured in 25 points but still suffered a dismal -7.2 impact score because forced, low-percentage jumpers resulted in a staggering number of empty possessions. The bottom completely fell out on 04/02 vs SAS. During that contest, a catastrophic shot selection profile single-handedly torpedoed the offense and dragged him to a horrific -11.3 impact score. For every surgical dissection of a defense, Garland offered a frustrating reminder of how quickly poor discipline can sabotage a lineup.

IMPACT TIMELINE

Game-by-game performance vs average. Green = above average, red = below.

PATTERNS

Volatile for his role. Garland has noticeable ups and downs, with scoring moving ~7 points between games.

Middle-of-the-road efficiency — shoots 45%+ from the field in 49% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

Good defender on his best nights, but it comes and goes. Some games Garland locks in defensively, others he gets picked apart.

Getting better as the season goes on. First-half impact: +0.7, second-half: +6.1. That's a significant jump — could be a role change, confidence, or development clicking.

Hot right now — 5 straight games with positive impact. Longest positive run this season: 6 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 41 games with tracking data. Shows who guarded this player on offense and who he guarded on defense, with their shooting stats in those matchups.

ON OFFENSE: WHO GUARDED HIM

His shooting stats against each primary defender this season

A. Nembhard 73.9 poss
FG% 59.1%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.42
PTS 31
D. DiVincenzo 57.2 poss
FG% 70.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.26
PTS 15
D. Fox 49.9 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 4
M. Bridges 49.0 poss
FG% 28.6%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 6
B. Carrington 48.6 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 4
S. Castle 48.5 poss
FG% 35.7%
3P% 28.6%
PPP 0.31
PTS 15
B. Sheppard 48.4 poss
FG% 37.5%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.21
PTS 10
FG% 42.9%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.18
PTS 8
T. Camara 42.2 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.19
PTS 8
J. McDaniels 40.9 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 4

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

How opponents shot when he was the primary defender. Lower FG% = better defense.

D. DiVincenzo 66.9 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.24
PTS 16
D. Vassell 54.4 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 44.4%
PPP 0.26
PTS 14
G. Trent Jr. 51.4 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.1
PTS 5
A. Nembhard 51.3 poss
FG% 55.6%
3P% 75.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 13
J. McDaniels 42.7 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.21
PTS 9
B. Carrington 42.3 poss
FG% 14.3%
3P% 16.7%
PPP 0.09
PTS 4
M. Bridges 41.5 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.24
PTS 10
J. Fears 40.4 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 7
V. Edgecombe 40.3 poss
FG% 28.6%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 4
B. Sheppard 40.2 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0

SEASON STATS

47
Games
18.7
PPG
2.4
RPG
6.7
APG
1.0
SPG
0.2
BPG
46.1
FG%
39.5
3P%
86.8
FT%
29.9
MPG

GAME LOG

47 games played