UTA

2025-26 Season

ELIJAH HARKLESS

Utah Jazz | Guard | 6-3
Elijah Harkless
6.8PPG
2.0RPG
2.9APG
21.0MPG
-5.0 Impact

Harkless produces at an poor rate for a 21-minute workload.

·
Embed this player card

Copy & paste this HTML into any page:

The widget updates automatically whenever our data does.

IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
-5.0
Scoring +4.9
Points Scored 6.8 PPG = +6.8
Missed Shots difficulty-adjusted = -3.3
Shot Making above expected FG% = +1.4
Creation +0.9
Assists & Self-Creation 2.9 AST/g + self-creation = +0.9
Turnovers -2.5
Turnovers 1.0/g (live + dead blend) = -2.5
Defense +1.1
Steals 1.2/g = +2.8
Blocks 0.2/g = +0.2
Fouls + context committed fouls, matchup adj = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +1.3
Rebounds 2.0 RPG (OREB + DREB) = -1.2
Contested Shots 2.7/g = +0.5
Deflections 2.5/g = +1.6
Charges Drawn 0.1/g = +0.2
Loose Balls 0.1/g = +0.1
Screen Assists 0.4/g = +0.1
Raw Impact +5.7
Baseline (game-average expected) −10.7
Net Impact
-5.0
24th 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 246 Guards with 10+ games

Scoring 32th
7.2 PPG
Efficiency 11th
46.1% TS
Playmaking 59th
3.1 APG
Rebounding 26th
2.2 RPG
Defense 66th
+8.9/g
Hustle 22th
+6.3/g
Creation 45th
+2.61/g
Shot Making 34th
+5.34/g
TO Discipline 64th
0.05/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Elijah Harkless spent the opening stretch of the 2025-26 season battling for relevance at the deep end of the bench. He simply could not turn fleeting minutes into positive momentum. When given an extended look on 11/04 vs BOS, Harkless logged 21 minutes but generated a brutal -15.9 Impact score. His sheer lack of scoring punch and passive shot selection—hitting just 1 of 4 attempts—severely dragged down his overall effectiveness. The offensive bleeding continued months later on 02/23 vs HOU, where he missed all three of his field goal attempts in 14 minutes. While he managed to dish out four assists in that contest, his complete inability to threaten the rim allowed defenders to sag off, resulting in a -7.9 Impact score. Ultimately, Harkless's total offensive passivity makes him a glaring liability.

Elijah Harkless's mid-season stretch was defined by a tantalizing promotion that immediately collapsed into a brutal shooting slump. He earned that starting nod by torching the second unit on 02/28 vs NOP. In that contest, he posted a stellar +8.6 Impact score by pairing 14 points on crisp 5-for-9 shooting with five assists. The reward was a starting job on 03/02 vs DEN, but the elevated role completely broke his rhythm. He laid a massive egg against the Nuggets, registering a catastrophic -15.4 Impact score by forcing terrible looks to go 0-for-5 from the floor while grabbing zero rebounds. Even his highest scoring night on 03/09 vs GSW was entirely hollow. Despite pouring in 16 points, he managed a disappointing -0.5 Impact score because his inefficient 4-for-10 chucking actively stalled the offense. Harkless clearly thrives as a low-minute sparkplug, but heavier rotational burdens quickly expose his glaring limitations.

Elijah Harkless spent this eight-game stretch trapped in a grueling offensive slump, battling his own erratic shot selection while logging heavy starter minutes. His lone spark of brilliance ignited on 03/19 vs MIL, where crisp playmaking and confident perimeter shooting yielded 23 points, 10 assists, and a massive +14.2 impact score. However, that offensive rhythm completely vanished during a brutal marathon shift on 03/28 vs DEN. Despite logging 41 minutes, his disastrous 4-for-16 shooting from the floor dragged his impact down to a dismal -6.6. He did manage to salvage some sneaky value earlier on 03/21 vs PHI, generating a robust +8.8 impact with a modest 15 points by locking down his assignment and keeping the ball moving. Ultimately, when his jumper abandons him, Harkless becomes a glaring liability on the floor.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Struggling. Harkless has posted negative impact in 85% of games this season. The production rarely outweighs the cost.

Streaky shooter — only cracks 45% from the field in 24% of games. Efficiency is all over the place night-to-night.

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

Slight upward trend. First-half impact: -5.9, second-half: -4.1. Modest improvement — possibly settling into a rhythm.

In a rough stretch — 4 straight games with negative impact. Longest cold streak this season: 9 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY ⚠ Updated 46 days ago

Based on 40 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. Murray 37.9 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.05
PTS 2
R. Rollins 31.9 poss
FG% 28.6%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 5
B. Carrington 23.9 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
V. Edgecombe 23.2 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 3
J. Fears 21.7 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.09
PTS 2
D. DeRozan 21.4 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
J. Clarkson 21.1 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.09
PTS 2
T. Maxey 21.0 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
N. Jokić 20.0 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.15
PTS 3
D. Plowden 16.9 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.47
PTS 8

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

N. Jokić 71.1 poss
FG% 80.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.44
PTS 31
V. Edgecombe 32.1 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 4
R. Rollins 25.7 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 3
J. Fears 23.9 poss
FG% 14.3%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 3
B. Carrington 22.5 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 3
D. DeRozan 21.5 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.47
PTS 10
J. Murray 19.5 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.62
PTS 12
J. Brown 19.5 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.36
PTS 7
D. Booker 19.0 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.47
PTS 9
Q. Grimes 17.4 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.46
PTS 8

SEASON STATS

26
Games
6.8
PPG
2.0
RPG
2.9
APG
1.2
SPG
0.2
BPG
33.5
FG%
23.9
3P%
76.6
FT%
21.0
MPG

GAME LOG

26 games played