NYK

2025-26 Season

JORDAN CLARKSON

New York Knicks | Guard | 6-5
Jordan Clarkson
8.9 PPG
1.7 RPG
1.3 APG
17.9 MPG
-1.7 Impact

Clarkson produces at an below average rate for a 18-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
-1.7
Scoring +5.3
Points 8.9 PPG × +1.00 = +8.9
Missed 2PT 2.0/g × -0.78 = -1.6
Missed 3PT 2.1/g × -0.87 = -1.8
Missed FT 0.2/g × -1.00 = -0.2
Creation +1.2
Assists 1.3/g × +0.50 = +0.7
Off. Rebounds 0.4/g × +1.26 = +0.5
Turnovers -1.8
Turnovers 0.9/g × -1.95 = -1.8
Defense -0.5
Steals 0.4/g × +2.30 = +0.9
Blocks 0.1/g × +0.90 = +0.1
Def. Rebounds 1.3/g × +0.30 = +0.4
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +1.7
Contested Shots 2.0/g × +0.20 = +0.4
Deflections 1.1/g × +0.65 = +0.7
Loose Balls 0.3/g × +0.60 = +0.2
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.2/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.4
Raw Impact +5.9
Baseline (game-average expected) −7.6
Net Impact
-1.7
46th 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 50th
9.3 PPG
Efficiency 40th
53.4% TS
Playmaking 20th
1.4 APG
Rebounding 13th
1.8 RPG
Rim Protection 4th
0.05/min
Hustle 41th
0.10/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 62th
0.05/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

This twenty-game stretch was defined by a chaotic, erratic rollercoaster of tunnel vision and wild shot selection. Clarkson remains the ultimate double-edged sword for a second unit. Look no further than 11/22 vs ORL, where he efficiently dropped 15 points but still posted a dismal -6.6 impact score because momentum-killing turnovers and poor foul discipline completely erased his offensive value. The bottom fell out entirely on 11/28 vs MIL. Disastrous shot selection and an ugly 2-for-13 shooting night tanked his overall rating to a staggering -10.6, as his inability to finish at the rim actively hurt the team. Yet, just when you want to pull his minutes, he delivers a vintage performance like 12/25 vs CLE. In that matchup, an explosive 25-point barrage yielded a massive +10.5 impact score, completely tilting the game's momentum by punishing the defense. He is a pure wild card, capable of single-handedly winning a quarter or completely shooting his squad out of the gym.

Jordan Clarkson's second quarter of the season was defined by a destructive combination of tunnel vision and erratic shot selection that routinely derailed the second unit. His offensive rhythm completely vanished during a catastrophic 12/07 vs ORL appearance. He went scoreless on 0/5 shooting and posted a staggering -15.1 impact score, operating as an absolute black hole whose refusal to move the ball crippled possessions. Even when his jumper actually fell, hidden costs dragged him down. Despite pouring in 20 points during the 12/31 vs SAS matchup, his impact remained stuck in the red at -1.0. That high-volume scoring outburst provided a major offensive spark, but his overall value was entirely negated by the defensive bleeding he allowed on the other end. He found true utility only once. During the 01/14 vs SAC contest, Clarkson managed just 11 points but generated a +6.5 impact score because his surprisingly stout point-of-attack resistance elevated the entire lineup.

This erratic stretch of the season was defined by a maddening tug-of-war between microwave brilliance and crippling tunnel vision. Even when his jumper fell, hidden costs often torpedoed his overall value. During a 02/04 vs DEN matchup, Clarkson chipped in a highly efficient 11 points, but his total lack of resistance on the other end of the floor resulted in a dismal -5.6 impact score. Conversely, he occasionally found ways to contribute without the ball in his hands. He went completely scoreless in eight minutes on 02/08 vs BOS, yet managed to post a +1.5 impact score simply by locking into his defensive assignments and avoiding empty isolation sets. When he actually blended his shot-making with smart decisions, the results were devastating. He torched the opposition on 03/11 vs UTA for 27 points on 10-of-15 shooting, generating a massive +15.6 impact score by attacking mismatches instead of settling for contested pull-ups. Ultimately, Clarkson remained a volatile weapon who could single-handedly win a quarter or shoot a lineup entirely out of rhythm.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Clarkson'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 61% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

Average defender. Clarkson doesn't hurt you defensively, but he's not making opponents uncomfortable either.

Slight upward trend. First-half impact: -3.1, second-half: -0.2. Modest improvement — possibly settling into a rhythm.

Hot right now — 7 straight games with positive impact. Longest positive run this season: 7 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

S. Fontecchio 46.3 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 6
A. Black 38.2 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 4
D. Smith 29.7 poss
FG% 44.4%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.37
PTS 11
T. McConnell 28.6 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.28
PTS 8
J. Walker 28.3 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 4
J. Howard 27.8 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 3
T. Martin 26.0 poss
FG% 28.6%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.15
PTS 4
D. Bane 25.9 poss
FG% 16.7%
3P% 20.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 3
J. Jaquez Jr. 25.6 poss
FG% 30.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.35
PTS 9
I. Collier 25.1 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 4

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

A. Black 45.2 poss
FG% 41.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 10
D. Smith 39.3 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 10
S. Fontecchio 38.2 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.24
PTS 9
J. Shead 28.8 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.21
PTS 6
O. Agbaji 27.7 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 3
T. McConnell 27.0 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.15
PTS 4
Q. Grimes 24.4 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
D. Mitchell 24.1 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.41
PTS 10
J. Suggs 23.9 poss
FG% 44.4%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.42
PTS 10
J. Howard 23.7 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.21
PTS 5

SEASON STATS

67
Games
8.9
PPG
1.7
RPG
1.3
APG
0.4
SPG
0.1
BPG
45.4
FG%
33.5
3P%
82.4
FT%
17.9
MPG

GAME LOG

67 games played