LAC

2025-26 Season

BENNEDICT MATHURIN

LA Clippers | Guard-Forward | 6-5
Bennedict Mathurin
18.5 PPG
5.5 RPG
2.2 APG
30.7 MPG
-1.9 Impact

Mathurin produces at an below average rate for a 31-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
-1.9
Scoring +11.7
Points 18.5 PPG × +1.00 = +18.5
Missed 2PT 4.2/g × -0.78 = -3.3
Missed 3PT 3.1/g × -0.87 = -2.7
Missed FT 0.8/g × -1.00 = -0.8
Creation +2.9
Assists 2.2/g × +0.50 = +1.1
Off. Rebounds 1.4/g × +1.26 = +1.8
Turnovers -4.3
Turnovers 2.2/g × -1.95 = -4.3
Defense +1.3
Steals 0.8/g × +2.30 = +1.8
Blocks 0.2/g × +0.90 = +0.2
Def. Rebounds 4.1/g × +0.30 = +1.2
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +2.0
Contested Shots 2.7/g × +0.20 = +0.5
Deflections 1.3/g × +0.65 = +0.8
Loose Balls 0.3/g × +0.60 = +0.2
Screen Assists 0.2/g × +0.30 = +0.1
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.2/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.4
Raw Impact +13.6
Baseline (game-average expected) −15.5
Net Impact
-1.9
39th 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 235 Guards with 10+ games

Scoring 86th
18.5 PPG
Efficiency 64th
56.6% TS
Playmaking 40th
2.2 APG
Rebounding 94th
5.5 RPG
Rim Protection 16th
0.08/min
Hustle 9th
0.07/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 25th
0.07/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Bennedict Mathurin’s first twenty games were defined by empty calories and maddeningly erratic decision-making. You can see the illusion of his production perfectly on 12/27 vs MIA, where his 25 points masked a deeply negative -8.5 impact score. That deficit was driven entirely by his own tunnel vision and ball-stopping habits. He routinely bled value by forcing heavily contested perimeter looks instead of keeping the offense flowing. Occasionally, his raw aggression actually translated into winning basketball, like his performance on 11/19 vs CHA. Relentless downhill attacking and physical positioning at the rim overwhelmed his matchups in that game, earning him a stellar +11.0 impact score. But those flashes were quickly erased by disastrous, trigger-happy outings, bottoming out on 11/24 vs DET when a brutal 3-for-13 shooting night tanked his value to a staggering -16.8 impact.

Maddening tunnel vision and wildly fluctuating shot selection defined this turbulent midseason stretch for Bennedict Mathurin. When he embraced a downhill attack mentality, he looked entirely unguardable. Look no further than his masterpiece on 02/19 vs DEN, where he relentlessly pressured the rim to hang 38 points and a massive +14.7 impact score. Yet, the bad habits always lingered. Despite scoring 26 points on 02/20 vs LAL, a heavy diet of forced isolation attempts and contested jumpers cratered his efficiency, resulting in a damaging -6.2 impact score. He did occasionally find ways to salvage his minutes when his offense abandoned him. During a rough 3-for-10 shooting night on 02/11 vs HOU, he locked in defensively to generate a +5.3 impact score. If he stops bailing out opposing defenses with lazy pull-ups, his ceiling remains sky-high.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Mathurin's impact swings wildly relative to his average — some nights dominant, others invisible. Scoring varies by ~8 points per game.

Middle-of-the-road efficiency — shoots 45%+ from the field in 47% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

Defensive difference-maker. Mathurin 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: -4.3, second-half: +0.5. That's a significant jump — could be a role change, confidence, or development clicking.

Tends to go on runs. Longest hot streak: 4 games. Longest cold streak: 7 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 50 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. Thompson 68.2 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.15
PTS 10
J. Brown 55.8 poss
FG% 12.5%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.04
PTS 2
A. Nembhard 47.6 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 8
K. George 42.8 poss
FG% 42.9%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.21
PTS 9
M. Buzelis 38.8 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.21
PTS 8
A. Dosunmu 37.5 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 5
J. Walter 36.8 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 6
J. McDaniels 36.6 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.14
PTS 5
A. Black 36.1 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.19
PTS 7
L. Dort 35.5 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.2
PTS 7

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

A. Thompson 76.0 poss
FG% 80.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 9
K. George 47.2 poss
FG% 42.9%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.19
PTS 9
R. Westbrook 45.9 poss
FG% 71.4%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.31
PTS 14
C. McCollum 43.7 poss
FG% 36.4%
3P% 40.0%
PPP 0.23
PTS 10
T. Murphy III 41.6 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.19
PTS 8
D. White 39.7 poss
FG% 28.6%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 5
A. Dosunmu 39.5 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.38
PTS 15
S. Castle 39.4 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.2
PTS 8
O. Anunoby 38.6 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 20.0%
PPP 0.23
PTS 9
FG% 54.5%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.49
PTS 18

SEASON STATS

49
Games
18.5
PPG
5.5
RPG
2.2
APG
0.8
SPG
0.2
BPG
43.6
FG%
32.0
3P%
87.1
FT%
30.7
MPG

GAME LOG

49 games played