DEN

2025-26 Season

CAMERON JOHNSON

Denver Nuggets | Forward | 6-8
Cameron Johnson
12.0 PPG
3.8 RPG
2.4 APG
30.4 MPG
-2.9 Impact

Johnson produces at an below average rate for a 30-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
-2.9
Scoring +7.8
Points 12.0 PPG × +1.00 = +12.0
Missed 2PT 1.9/g × -0.78 = -1.5
Missed 3PT 2.7/g × -0.87 = -2.4
Missed FT 0.3/g × -1.00 = -0.3
Creation +2.3
Assists 2.4/g × +0.50 = +1.2
Off. Rebounds 0.9/g × +1.26 = +1.1
Turnovers -1.8
Turnovers 0.9/g × -1.95 = -1.8
Defense +1.0
Steals 0.7/g × +2.30 = +1.6
Blocks 0.4/g × +0.90 = +0.4
Def. Rebounds 2.8/g × +0.30 = +0.9
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +3.0
Contested Shots 4.0/g × +0.20 = +0.8
Deflections 1.8/g × +0.65 = +1.2
Charges Drawn 0.1/g × +2.70 = +0.3
Loose Balls 0.5/g × +0.60 = +0.3
Screen Assists 0.7/g × +0.30 = +0.2
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.1/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.2
Raw Impact +12.3
Baseline (game-average expected) −15.2
Net Impact
-2.9
11th pctl vs Forwards

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 227 Forwards with 10+ games

Scoring 65th
12.0 PPG
Efficiency 72th
59.8% TS
Playmaking 71th
2.4 APG
Rebounding 42th
3.8 RPG
Rim Protection 15th
0.09/min
Hustle 31th
0.09/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 91th
0.03/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Cameron Johnson’s opening twenty games were defined by a frustratingly volatile blend of erratic perimeter shooting and glaring defensive lapses. Even when his shot completely abandoned him, he occasionally found ways to contribute without the basketball. During a scoreless outing on 11/07 vs GSW, Johnson still managed a positive +0.7 impact score because his excellent weak-side rotations fueled a robust +9.3 defensive rating. Conversely, his actual scoring outbursts frequently carried steep hidden costs. On 11/17 vs CHI, he poured in 19 points on blistering 5-for-7 shooting from deep, yet finished with a -1.2 impact due to costly defensive lapses and an inability to secure rebounds that entirely offset his offense. He finally put the pieces together on 11/28 vs SAS. Erupting for 28 points, he posted a massive +11.9 impact score. That rare dominant performance was driven by a lethal combination of high-volume perimeter shooting and excellent hustle that overwhelmed the opposition.

This stretch was defined by maddening volatility, swinging violently between lethal two-way spacing and absolute offensive craters. When his jumper was falling, he looked untouchable. During the 12/22 vs UTA game, he hit all six of his three-point attempts for 20 points, generating a +9.3 impact score purely through flawless perimeter shooting. Yet, that offensive brilliance sometimes masked hidden costs on the other end of the floor. Look at the 03/12 vs SAS matchup. He scored 15 points on an efficient 6-for-8 shooting night, but still registered a -4.4 impact because ill-timed defensive rotations bled points. Worse still were the nights his rhythm completely vanished. In the 03/01 vs MIN contest, he posted a brutal -10.1 impact score with zero points, actively sinking the offense by forcing contested jumpers that ignited opponent fast breaks.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Johnson's impact swings wildly relative to his average — some nights dominant, others invisible. Scoring varies by ~6 points per game.

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

Defensive difference-maker. Johnson 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: -4.6, second-half: -1.2. That's a significant jump — could be a role change, confidence, or development clicking.

Tends to go on runs. Longest hot streak: 2 games. Longest cold streak: 7 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 49 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

J. Smith Jr. 86.2 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.06
PTS 5
D. Avdija 54.7 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.27
PTS 15
D. DeRozan 53.7 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 4
J. Walker 50.9 poss
FG% 28.6%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 4
R. Westbrook 40.5 poss
FG% 57.1%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 9
Z. LaVine 40.4 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.35
PTS 14
K. Durant 38.5 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.18
PTS 7
J. Fears 38.4 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 6
C. Flagg 38.0 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 4
N. Marshall 37.1 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 8

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

J. Smith Jr. 109.7 poss
FG% 38.9%
3P% 55.6%
PPP 0.19
PTS 21
R. Westbrook 58.1 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 42.9%
PPP 0.26
PTS 15
N. Marshall 55.1 poss
FG% 42.9%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.13
PTS 7
A. Thompson 45.8 poss
FG% 58.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.35
PTS 16
J. Walker 44.0 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 7
J. Kuminga 37.1 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.05
PTS 2
J. Champagnie 36.8 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 5
G. Jackson 33.7 poss
FG% 57.1%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.39
PTS 13
T. Murphy III 33.6 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 4
W. Richard 33.4 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.06
PTS 2

SEASON STATS

50
Games
12.0
PPG
3.8
RPG
2.4
APG
0.7
SPG
0.4
BPG
47.0
FG%
42.6
3P%
84.0
FT%
30.4
MPG

GAME LOG

50 games played