LAC

2025-26 Season

YANIC KONAN NIEDERHÄUSER

LA Clippers | Center | 6-11
Yanic Konan Niederhäuser
4.3 PPG
2.9 RPG
0.3 APG
10.3 MPG
+1.0 Impact

Niederhäuser produces at an average rate for a 10-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
+1.0
Scoring +3.2
Points 4.3 PPG × +1.00 = +4.3
Missed 2PT 0.8/g × -0.78 = -0.6
Missed 3PT 0.1/g × -0.87 = -0.1
Missed FT 0.4/g × -1.00 = -0.4
Creation +1.0
Assists 0.3/g × +0.50 = +0.1
Off. Rebounds 0.7/g × +1.26 = +0.9
Turnovers -1.2
Turnovers 0.6/g × -1.95 = -1.2
Defense -0.5
Steals 0.1/g × +2.30 = +0.2
Blocks 0.7/g × +0.90 = +0.6
Def. Rebounds 2.1/g × +0.30 = +0.6
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +1.3
Contested Shots 3.3/g × +0.20 = +0.7
Deflections 0.5/g × +0.65 = +0.3
Screen Assists 1.1/g × +0.30 = +0.3
Raw Impact +3.8
Baseline (game-average expected) −2.8
Net Impact
+1.0
23th 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 24th
5.8 PPG
Efficiency 81th
66.2% TS
Playmaking 4th
0.4 APG
Rebounding 16th
3.8 RPG
Rim Protection 28th
0.16/min
Hustle 52th
0.12/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 32th
0.06/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Yanic Konan Niederhäuser spent the first twenty games of the season oscillating between invisible end-of-bench cameos and sudden flashes of hyper-efficient rim running. Even when he found the basket early on, hidden defensive costs often dragged him down. On 12/01 vs MIA, he chipped in 6 points on 3-of-4 shooting in 12 minutes, but registered a dismal -3.8 impact score because he repeatedly got lost in pick-and-roll coverage. Conversely, he occasionally found ways to swing momentum without scoring a single point. During a brief three-minute stint on 12/03 vs ATL, he posted a +1.7 impact score entirely through highly disruptive defensive activity around the rim. When his playing time finally expanded in January, his true value emerged. Given an extended 23-minute run on 01/14 vs WAS, he erupted for 16 points and 5 rebounds on perfect 7-for-7 shooting. That flawless interior finishing, paired with stout paint defense, earned him a massive +9.3 impact score to cap off the stretch.

A dramatic late-season defensive awakening defined Yanic Konan Niederhäuser’s mid-year stretch, transforming him from an easily exploited reserve into a terrifying rim deterrent. Early on, his box scores offered nothing but empty calories. Look at the 02/04 vs CLE matchup, where he tallied a seemingly robust 10 points and eight rebounds on perfect 4-for-4 shooting but posted a brutal -3.5 impact score because a severely flawed defensive performance dragged his overall value into the red. He soon realized his actual NBA survival depended on doing the dirty work without needing the basketball. Even when he failed to score a single point on 02/11 vs HOU, he generated a +2.4 impact simply by providing steady interior resistance and altering shots around the basket. That defensive discipline exploded into sheer dominance on 03/02 vs GSW. He anchored the paint with a towering presence that completely deterred rim attempts, driving a staggering +15.5 impact score alongside 11 points and nine boards.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Niederhäuser's impact swings wildly relative to his average — some nights dominant, others invisible. Scoring varies by ~4 points per game.

Middle-of-the-road efficiency — shoots 45%+ from the field in 57% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

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

Slight upward trend. First-half impact: +0.2, second-half: +1.9. Modest improvement — possibly settling into a rhythm.

Hot right now — 5 straight games with positive impact. Longest positive run this season: 5 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 55 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

C. Capela 38.9 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
T. Bryant 28.5 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 4
M. Bagley III 26.0 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.23
PTS 6
M. Raynaud 25.1 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.28
PTS 7
W. Carter Jr. 22.7 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.09
PTS 2
J. Randle 22.4 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.18
PTS 4
A. Horford 19.4 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 2
A. Sengun 19.1 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.21
PTS 4
K. Filipowski 18.7 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 2
D. Queen 16.8 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.36
PTS 6

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

J. Randle 29.7 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.2
PTS 6
C. Capela 29.4 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.03
PTS 1
A. Sengun 26.4 poss
FG% 61.5%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.64
PTS 17
M. Bagley III 26.1 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.27
PTS 7
M. Raynaud 25.2 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 2
T. Bryant 22.9 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 5
W. Carter Jr. 19.8 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.15
PTS 3
K. Anderson 18.7 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.21
PTS 4
O. Tshiebwe 18.6 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 2
N. Jokić 16.7 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.24
PTS 4

SEASON STATS

41
Games
4.3
PPG
2.9
RPG
0.3
APG
0.1
SPG
0.7
BPG
64.0
FG%
20.0
3P%
75.8
FT%
10.3
MPG

GAME LOG

41 games played