LAC

2025-26 Season

DARIUS GARLAND

LA Clippers | Guard | 6-1
Darius Garland
18.9 PPG
2.3 RPG
6.8 APG
29.9 MPG
-0.9 Impact

Garland produces at an average rate for a 30-minute workload. 3.0 turnovers per game cost 5.8 points of value nightly.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
-0.9
Scoring +11.8
Points 18.9 PPG × +1.00 = +18.9
Missed 2PT 3.9/g × -0.78 = -3.1
Missed 3PT 4.1/g × -0.87 = -3.6
Missed FT 0.4/g × -1.00 = -0.4
Creation +4.2
Assists 6.8/g × +0.50 = +3.4
Off. Rebounds 0.6/g × +1.26 = +0.8
Turnovers -5.8
Turnovers 3.0/g × -1.95 = -5.8
Defense +0.9
Steals 0.9/g × +2.30 = +2.1
Blocks 0.2/g × +0.90 = +0.2
Def. Rebounds 1.8/g × +0.30 = +0.5
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +2.9
Contested Shots 3.4/g × +0.20 = +0.7
Deflections 1.9/g × +0.65 = +1.2
Loose Balls 0.4/g × +0.60 = +0.2
Screen Assists 0.2/g × +0.30 = +0.1
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.3/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.7
Raw Impact +14.0
Baseline (game-average expected) −14.9
Net Impact
-0.9
56th pctl vs Guards

About this model: Net Impact can't measure floor spacing, help defense rotations, or playmaking gravity — so wings and guards are slightly undervalued vs bigs. How Net Impact works

SKILL DNA

Percentile rank vs 236 Guards with 10+ games

Scoring 89th
18.9 PPG
Efficiency 82th
59.2% TS
Playmaking 94th
6.8 APG
Rebounding 31th
2.3 RPG
Rim Protection 34th
0.10/min
Hustle 42th
0.10/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 9th
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

Boom-or-bust player. Garland's impact swings wildly relative to his average — some nights dominant, others invisible. Scoring varies by ~7 points per game.

Middle-of-the-road efficiency — shoots 45%+ from the field in 46% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

Defensive difference-maker. Garland consistently forces tough shots and protects the rim — opponents shoot worse when he's guarding them.

Getting better as the season goes on. First-half impact: -3.6, second-half: +1.8. That's a significant jump — could be a role change, confidence, or development clicking.

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

41
Games
18.9
PPG
2.3
RPG
6.8
APG
0.9
SPG
0.2
BPG
46.5
FG%
40.8
3P%
85.0
FT%
29.9
MPG

GAME LOG

41 games played