POR

2025-26 Season

DONOVAN CLINGAN

Portland Trail Blazers | Center | 7-2
Donovan Clingan
12.0 PPG
11.6 RPG
2.1 APG
27.2 MPG
+8.5 Impact

Clingan produces at an elite rate for a 27-minute workload. Elite defensive value (+3.6/game) is a major strength.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
+8.5
Scoring +7.7
Points 12.0 PPG × +1.00 = +12.0
Missed 2PT 2.1/g × -0.78 = -1.6
Missed 3PT 2.1/g × -0.87 = -1.8
Missed FT 0.9/g × -1.00 = -0.9
Creation +4.8
Assists 2.1/g × +0.50 = +1.1
Off. Rebounds 2.9/g × +1.26 = +3.7
Turnovers -2.5
Turnovers 1.3/g × -1.95 = -2.5
Defense +3.6
Steals 0.6/g × +2.30 = +1.4
Blocks 1.7/g × +0.90 = +1.5
Def. Rebounds 8.7/g × +0.30 = +2.6
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +4.4
Contested Shots 13.3/g × +0.20 = +2.7
Deflections 1.0/g × +0.65 = +0.7
Loose Balls 0.4/g × +0.60 = +0.2
Screen Assists 2.3/g × +0.30 = +0.7
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.0/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.1
Raw Impact +18.0
Baseline (game-average expected) −9.5
Net Impact
+8.5
92th pctl vs Centers

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 92 Centers with 10+ games

Scoring 69th
12.0 PPG
Efficiency 53th
59.2% TS
Playmaking 72th
2.1 APG
Rebounding 97th
11.6 RPG
Rim Protection 92th
0.26/min
Hustle 88th
0.14/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 58th
0.05/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Donovan Clingan's first twenty games of the 2025-26 season were defined by absolute defensive terror in the paint, masking an offensive game that remains very much a work in progress. Even when his shot abandoned him, his sheer size warped opposing game plans. This dynamic was perfectly captured on 10/31 vs DEN, where he managed just 5 points but still posted a +4.7 impact score. That positive mark stemmed entirely from an imposing drop coverage that yielded a +12.9 defensive impact, completely deterring drivers from challenging the rim. When his touch around the basket actually clicked, he morphed into a two-way monster. Look no further than 11/19 vs CHI, where he swallowed up driving lanes and dominated the glass to amass 17 points, 21 rebounds, and a massive +16.9 impact score. Yet, his offensive limitations exacted a heavy toll on off nights. During a frustrating tilt on 11/12 vs NOP, he nearly logged a double-double with 9 points and 10 rebounds but suffered a brutal -10.9 impact score because his perimeter bricklaying (0 for 4 from deep) actively sabotaged the offense.

Donovan Clingan spent this twenty-game stretch oscillating wildly between absolute paint dominance and frustrating offensive clumsiness. When he fully leveraged his massive frame, the results were terrifying for opponents. He peaked on 01/03 vs SAS, bullying his way to 24 points and 12 rebounds to post a stellar +11.6 impact score. Yet, his towering presence on the glass did not always translate to winning basketball. Look no further than 01/05 vs UTA, where a gaudy 17-rebound night was dragged down to a -4.0 impact by hidden costs like foul trouble and careless turnovers. Conversely, he found ways to dictate the terms of engagement even when his shot abandoned him. During a clunky 8-point offensive showing on 01/09 vs HOU, Clingan still salvaged a +0.3 impact by vacuuming up 15 rebounds and anchoring the interior with elite rim deterrence. If he stops launching ill-advised perimeter shots and focuses purely on suffocating drop coverage, he will finally transform from an erratic giant into a reliable two-way anchor.

Donovan Clingan’s midseason stretch was defined by sheer physical intimidation, transforming the big man into a terrifying interior anchor. He dictated the terms of engagement through pure force. During the 01/26 vs BOS matchup, he scored a mere 9 points but still posted a highly positive +6.4 impact score. His value stemmed entirely from elite rim deterrence, logging a staggering +19.8 defensive impact by completely altering the opponent's shot profile. He reached his absolute peak on 02/12 vs UTA. Exploding for 23 points, 18 rebounds, and 7 assists, he generated a monstrous +21.1 impact score by utterly dominating the paint on both ends. Yet, his occasional attempts to force offense came with severe hidden costs, as seen on 03/06 vs HOU. Despite pouring in 18 points and grabbing 13 boards, Clingan registered a -3.3 impact because his sudden offensive aggression compromised his usual rim protection, plummeting his defensive impact to a meager +1.2.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Very consistent. Clingan posts positive impact in 82% of games — you almost always get a productive night. Scoring varies by ~6 points, but the overall contribution stays positive.

Middle-of-the-road efficiency — shoots 45%+ from the field in 65% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

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

Slight upward trend. First-half impact: +7.1, second-half: +9.9. Modest improvement — possibly settling into a rhythm.

Tends to go on runs. Longest hot streak: 31 games. Longest cold streak: 2 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 76 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

R. Gobert 171.6 poss
FG% 43.8%
3P% 20.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 17
M. Raynaud 104.5 poss
FG% 80.0%
3P% 75.0%
PPP 0.21
PTS 22
O. Okongwu 81.2 poss
FG% 55.6%
3P% 40.0%
PPP 0.18
PTS 15
N. Jokić 80.8 poss
FG% 53.3%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.25
PTS 20
S. Adams 73.9 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 22.2%
PPP 0.24
PTS 18
B. Lopez 71.0 poss
FG% 37.5%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 9
W. Carter Jr. 69.1 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.03
PTS 2
O. Prosper 66.8 poss
FG% 68.8%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.37
PTS 25
M. Williams 62.8 poss
FG% 53.8%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.29
PTS 18
M. Diabaté 62.3 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 7

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

R. Gobert 169.1 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 27
M. Raynaud 88.2 poss
FG% 45.5%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.27
PTS 24
D. Green 76.4 poss
FG% 41.2%
3P% 27.3%
PPP 0.22
PTS 17
N. Jokić 68.3 poss
FG% 59.1%
3P% 54.5%
PPP 0.48
PTS 33
S. Adams 66.8 poss
FG% 80.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 8
M. Diabaté 65.4 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 9
O. Okongwu 64.3 poss
FG% 38.1%
3P% 31.2%
PPP 0.34
PTS 22
W. Carter Jr. 63.8 poss
FG% 53.3%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.31
PTS 20
L. Kornet 62.5 poss
FG% 62.5%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.19
PTS 12
B. Lopez 61.3 poss
FG% 35.0%
3P% 26.7%
PPP 0.36
PTS 22

SEASON STATS

73
Games
12.0
PPG
11.6
RPG
2.1
APG
0.6
SPG
1.7
BPG
52.0
FG%
32.7
3P%
67.3
FT%
27.2
MPG

GAME LOG

73 games played