LA Clippers

Western Conference

Los Angeles
Clippers

42-40
W1

ROSTER — IMPACT RANKINGS

Kawhi Leonard
Forward Yr 14 65G (65S)
+23.7
27.9 pts
6.4 reb
3.6 ast
32.1 min

A relentless two-way hot streak defined this stretch of the season, as Kawhi Leonard routinely strangled opponents with suffocating perimeter defense and surgical mid-range execution. His absolute peak arrived on 03/11 vs MIN, where he dropped a staggering 45 points on 15-for-20 shooting to generate a massive +29.7 impact score. That jaw-dropping number was fueled by pristine shot selection and a complete dismantling of the opposing defensive scheme. He was not entirely immune to bad habits, however. During the 03/01 vs NOP matchup, Leonard settled for heavily contested perimeter jumpers, dragging his impact down to a -0.4 despite scoring 23 points. Yet even when his jumper abandoned him, he found ways to dictate the terms of engagement. On 12/11 vs HOU, he shot a miserable 9-for-22 from the floor but still posted a +12.5 impact score because his active hustle (+5.2) and elite defensive metrics completely erased his offensive misfires.

James Harden
Guard Yr 16 44G (44S)
+14.0
25.4 pts
4.8 reb
8.1 ast
35.4 min

This stretch was defined by a jarring Jekyll-and-Hyde duality, where brilliant offensive orchestration frequently collided with maddening bouts of apathy. Hidden costs constantly wrecked his actual value. Look at the 03/01 vs BKN matchup, where 22 points and 8 assists were entirely undone by careless perimeter turnovers that dragged his impact score down to a negative -6.4. The absolute nadir arrived on 03/15 vs DAL, where a stagnant offensive approach and a barrage of low-percentage jumpers tanked his value to a catastrophic -18.7 impact score. Clean execution flipped the script entirely. During the 02/19 vs BKN game, he managed a stellar +11.6 impact score on just 16 points because pristine shot selection and masterful half-court orchestration generated massive value without demanding heavy shot volume. Harden remains a surgical pick-and-roll maestro, but this volatile stretch makes it clear that his overall effectiveness is entirely hostage to his focus level.

Ivica Zubac
Center Yr 9 43G (42S)
+10.6
14.4 pts
11.0 reb
2.2 ast
30.9 min

This stretch was defined by a volatile pendulum swing between bruising interior dominance and bizarre disappearing acts. When engaged, Zubac was an absolute terror. He established deep post position early in the shot clock on 01/07 vs NYK, dropping 22 points and 11 rebounds to generate a staggering +19.0 impact score. He replicated that brute force on 01/22 vs LAL, grabbing 19 boards and posting a +15.6 impact score through relentless rebounding that suffocated the opposition. Yet, maddening inconsistencies plagued his overall execution. On 01/09 vs BKN, a stark drop-off in offensive execution led to a miserable 1-for-5 shooting night and a dismal -7.9 impact score. Even when his finishing was reliable, hidden defensive costs occasionally tanked his value. During the 01/30 vs DEN matchup, he scored an efficient 13 points on 6-of-10 shooting, but severe struggles navigating pick-and-roll coverage dragged his impact down to a -3.0.

Bennedict Mathurin
Guard-Forward Yr 3 26G (1S)
+6.1
17.4 pts
5.5 reb
2.5 ast
28.0 min

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.

Darius Garland
Guard Yr 6 19G (17S)
+5.8
19.9 pts
2.3 reb
6.4 ast
29.1 min

Darius Garland’s midseason stretch was defined by a maddening pendulum swing between pick-and-roll wizardry and self-destructive shot selection. When he dialed in his decision-making, he was virtually unguardable. He peaked on 03/21 vs DAL, posting a staggering +18.7 impact score by delivering an absolute masterclass in pick-and-roll navigation to generate pristine looks. Yet, his offensive aggression frequently bled into hubris, yielding brutal hidden costs even when his point totals looked respectable. Look no further than 03/16 vs SAS, where he poured in 25 points but still suffered a dismal -7.2 impact score because forced, low-percentage jumpers resulted in a staggering number of empty possessions. The bottom completely fell out on 04/02 vs SAS. During that contest, a catastrophic shot selection profile single-handedly torpedoed the offense and dragged him to a horrific -11.3 impact score. For every surgical dissection of a defense, Garland offered a frustrating reminder of how quickly poor discipline can sabotage a lineup.

John Collins
Forward-Center Yr 8 69G (56S)
+4.5
13.6 pts
5.3 reb
1.0 ast
27.1 min

Extreme volatility defined John Collins’s midseason run, as his value swung wildly between elite floor spacing and crippling defensive apathy. When fully engaged, he looked like the ideal modern frontcourt weapon. Look at his 01/30 vs DEN performance, where his perimeter gravity yielded 18 points and a massive +16.3 impact score. Yet, that offensive brilliance frequently masked a porous interior presence that bled points on the other end. During the 02/02 vs PHI matchup, he dropped an efficient 15 points but still posted a brutal -11.0 impact because his defensive lapses completely compromised the scheme. Thankfully, he eventually found ways to contribute without the ball in his hands. Even when his shot abandoned him on 03/27 vs IND, he managed a +3.1 impact with just 5 points by relying on sharp defensive rotations and timely rim protection to keep his team afloat.

Derrick Jones Jr.
Forward Yr 9 50G (45S)
+0.9
10.1 pts
3.5 reb
1.4 ast
27.0 min

This mid-season stretch was defined by maddening volatility, as Derrick Jones Jr. oscillated wildly between an indispensable two-way slasher and a total offensive black hole. When he attacked the basket with a relentless downhill mentality, the results were staggering. Look no further than 02/19 vs DEN, where his constant rim pressure fueled 22 points and a massive +13.7 impact score. Yet, even decent box score production occasionally masked deeper flaws. During 03/21 vs DAL, a sudden 15-point scoring burst was entirely undermined by hidden defensive costs and transition mistakes, dragging him to a -1.5 impact. Conversely, he could easily salvage quiet offensive nights through sheer defensive terror. He posted a +6.1 impact on just 10 points on 03/13 vs CHI because his relentless energy and elite point-of-attack coverage completely suffocated the opposition.

Jordan Miller
Guard Yr 2 60G (1S)
+0.8
10.0 pts
3.0 reb
2.3 ast
22.1 min

Jordan Miller's late-season stretch was defined by maddening inconsistency, bouncing wildly between brilliant off-ball efficiency and forced, disjointed isolation play. His box scores frequently lied about his actual value, a reality perfectly illustrated on Mar 11 vs MIN. Despite tallying 14 points and 7 assists, he dragged the second unit down to a brutal -10.4 impact score because he constantly forced the issue in isolation rather than playing within the flow of the offense. Just five days later, he flipped the script entirely on Mar 16 vs SAS. By abandoning the hero ball in favor of flawless shot selection and relentless off-ball cutting, he erupted for 22 points and an astronomical +16.4 impact mark. Miller also found ways to drive winning basketball when his jumper completely abandoned him, like his spot start on Mar 19 vs NOP. He shot a dreadful 2-for-8 from the floor for just 11 points in that contest, yet still posted a sturdy +6.0 impact score. That positive rating stemmed entirely from his stellar defensive activity—highlighted by a massive +14.3 defensive metric—and a willingness to crash the glass.

Isaiah Jackson
Forward Yr 4 17G
-0.3
7.5 pts
4.6 reb
1.2 ast
15.9 min

This stretch was defined by extreme volatility, with Isaiah Jackson oscillating wildly between game-changing defensive anchor and unplayable liability. His value rarely tied to his scoring column, perfectly illustrated during the 12/08 vs SAC matchup. Despite putting up zero points on 0-for-2 shooting, he logged a massive +4.2 impact score by salvaging his floor time with spectacular weakside shot-blocking. Yet, that same hyper-specialized profile completely collapsed on 01/21 vs BOS. In just nine minutes, a total offensive disappearing act dragged his impact down to a brutal -6.6, rendering him a massive negative on a night where he failed to generate any momentum. When he actually put everything together, the results were staggering. During the 02/02 vs HOU game, Jackson anchored the second unit for 25 minutes, generating a +6.4 impact through spectacular rim protection and high-energy rotations rather than his modest six points. He remains a chaotic situational weapon.

Kris Dunn
Guard Yr 9 82G (68S)
-2.0
7.3 pts
3.3 reb
3.6 ast
27.2 min

Kris Dunn’s late-season stretch was defined by a frustrating tug-of-war between his elite defensive harassment and a crippling lack of offensive gravity. When his shot disappeared, the results were ugly. During the Mar 06 vs SAS matchup, offensive passivity and poor spacing cratered his value, resulting in a brutal -16.9 impact score despite logging 31 minutes. Yet, he could occasionally swing a game without making a single basket. On Mar 25 vs TOR, Dunn posted a +2.2 impact score with zero points, generating immense value entirely through suffocating point-of-attack defense. Conversely, even when his jumper fell, hidden mistakes often dragged him into the red. He dropped 10 points on highly efficient 4-for-5 shooting on Mar 29 vs MIL, but those quiet errors saddled him with a disappointing -5.8 impact mark. Ultimately, opposing defenses simply learned to ignore him on the perimeter, turning his relentless hustle into a tragic afterthought.

Brook Lopez
Center Yr 17 75G (40S)
-2.2
8.5 pts
3.6 reb
1.3 ast
21.8 min

Matchup-dependent extremes defined Brook Lopez's mid-season stretch, swinging wildly between impenetrable defensive anchor and slow-footed perimeter liability. When opponents challenged him at the summit, he punished them. He erupted for 26 points and a massive +16.5 impact on 03/06 vs SAS, completely altering driving angles with elite rim protection while dominating the paint. Even when his shot fell, hidden costs occasionally dragged down his overall effectiveness. On 02/02 vs PHI, he scored an above-average 13 points but still suffered a -1.3 impact because his abysmal rebounding from the center position surrendered crucial extra possessions. Yet, his sheer size often salvaged his nightly value when his offense vanished entirely. Look at 03/16 vs SAS, where Lopez managed a positive +0.2 impact despite a meager 3 points and 1 rebound. He generated that non-scoring value strictly through disciplined rim deterrence, walling off the basket to offset his own offensive invisibility.

Yanic Konan Niederhäuser
Center Yr 0 41G
-4.8
4.3 pts
2.9 reb
0.3 ast
10.3 min

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.

Bogdan Bogdanović
Guard Yr 8 23G (3S)
-5.5
7.4 pts
2.6 reb
2.2 ast
19.7 min

Bogdan Bogdanović's twenty-game stretch was defined by a brutal, prolonged shooting slump and defensive liabilities that actively bled value from the second unit. The disaster started early on 10/26 vs POR, where his inability to hit open catch-and-shoot looks ruined the team's floor spacing and resulted in a catastrophic -20.4 impact score. Even when his jumper finally started falling, hidden costs often dragged down his overall effectiveness. During the 03/19 vs NOP contest, he poured in 16 points on highly efficient shooting, yet still registered a -1.2 impact score because severe defensive lapses completely erased his offensive gains. He needed another way to survive. On 02/26 vs MIN, Bogdanović scored a meager 8 points but actually generated a +4.4 impact score. He managed this by anchoring the lineup with surprisingly robust defensive effort, keeping his value positive despite his ongoing shooting struggles.

Norchad Omier
Forward Yr 0 6G
-5.5
2.8 pts
1.2 reb
0.3 ast
4.0 min
Kobe Sanders
Guard Yr 0 68G (16S)
-6.3
7.3 pts
2.2 reb
1.6 ast
19.9 min

Kobe Sanders spent this twenty-game stretch oscillating wildly between erratic liability and sudden microwave scorer. Even when his shot was falling, hidden mistakes often eroded his overall value on the floor. Despite an efficient 11-point outing on 03/13 vs CHI, careless ball security and poorly timed fouls completely undermined his performance, dragging him to a -4.0 impact score. Conversely, Sanders occasionally found ways to salvage his minutes without filling up the stat sheet. He managed just 5 points on 03/19 vs NOP, but still generated a +3.0 impact because his high-level defensive rotations and active hands disrupted the opposing offense. When his decision-making finally aligned with his scoring touch, the ceiling was undeniable. He exploded for 19 points on 8-of-10 shooting on 03/23 vs MIL, utilizing decisive drives against tight coverage to post a stretch-high +8.4 impact score.

Cam Christie
Guard Yr 1 55G
-6.3
2.8 pts
1.4 reb
0.6 ast
8.7 min

Cam Christie spent this twenty-game stretch drowning in offensive hesitancy, looking thoroughly overwhelmed by the speed of the professional game. His extreme passivity was glaringly obvious during the 01/14 vs WAS matchup, where he logged 21 minutes but posted a disastrous -7.7 impact score because defenders simply sagged off him to clog the lane. He briefly flipped the script two nights later on 01/16 vs TOR. By aggressively attacking closeouts rather than hesitating, he poured in 16 points and generated a massive +8.1 impact score to break out of his shooting slump. Unfortunately, that aggression quickly evaporated into a brutal stretch characterized by errant shot selection, culminating in a -6.1 impact mark on 03/04 vs IND where his inability to create separation completely bogged down the team's rhythm. He did occasionally claw his way into the green without scoring, such as his +0.6 impact showing on 02/10 vs HOU. In that brief five-minute stint, Christie tallied zero points but leveraged his length to contest perimeter shots, finding minor ways to survive defensively even when his jumper betrayed him.

Nicolas Batum
Guard-Forward Yr 17 74G (6S)
-6.7
4.0 pts
2.5 reb
0.9 ast
17.5 min

Extreme offensive passivity defined Nicolas Batum's midseason stretch, turning the veteran into a perimeter ghost who actively harmed his team's spacing. During a brutal outing on 02/02 vs PHI, his hesitation to shoot completely derailed the half-court flow. His refusal to look at the rim allowed defenders to aggressively clog the paint, resulting in a dismal -9.1 impact score. He occasionally salvaged his floor time through sheer basketball IQ, like when he posted a +2.3 impact score on 01/25 vs BKN despite scoring only 3 points. Flawless defensive rotations and veteran positioning provided a stabilizing presence that transcended his quiet box score. Yet even when his jumper briefly returned, hidden costs kept his overall value in the red. On 03/06 vs SAS, he knocked down a pair of threes for 6 points, but a glaring lack of physical engagement on the glass dragged him down to a -1.4 impact.

Kobe Brown
Forward Yr 2 34G
-7.0
2.9 pts
1.6 reb
0.8 ast
8.7 min

Kobe Brown spent this stretch trapped in a maddening cycle of extreme offensive passivity and hidden defensive lapses. Even when his raw production looked respectable, hidden costs tanked his value. Look no further than the Mar 17 vs NYK matchup, where he managed 13 points but posted a disastrous -15.2 impact score because severe defensive rotation errors and poor transition balance bled points the other way. He occasionally flipped the script by doing the dirty work, as seen on Mar 27 vs LAC. Despite scoring just 11 points, he dominated the margins with relentless energy to secure loose balls, driving a stellar +12.7 impact score. Sadly, those high-motor flashes were quickly erased by nights like Apr 07 vs MIN, where a drastic drop in scoring aggression yielded just 2 points and a -10.1 impact score. Until he stops letting off-ball laziness and offensive hesitation dictate his nights, his minutes will remain a serious liability.

TyTy Washington Jr.
Guard Yr 3 16G
-7.1
1.3 pts
0.4 reb
1.1 ast
5.5 min
Bradley Beal
Guard Yr 13 6G (6S)
-7.4
8.2 pts
0.8 reb
1.7 ast
20.1 min
Chris Paul
Guard Yr 20 16G
-8.3
2.9 pts
1.8 reb
3.3 ast
14.2 min
Sean Pedulla
Guard Yr 0 7G
-8.3
1.9 pts
0.4 reb
0.7 ast
4.4 min
Jahmyl Telfort
Guard Yr 0 8G
-10.5
0.1 pts
0.4 reb
0.1 ast
4.0 min

GAME LOG

W
GSW GSW 110
115 LAC LAC
Apr 12 Analysis available
+5
L
LAC LAC 97
116 POR POR
Apr 10 Analysis available
-19
L
OKC OKC 128
110 LAC LAC
Apr 8 Analysis available
-18
W
DAL DAL 103
116 LAC LAC
Apr 7 Analysis available
+13
W
LAC LAC 138
109 SAC SAC
Apr 5 Analysis available
+29
L
SAS SAS 118
99 LAC LAC
Apr 2 Analysis available
-19
L
POR POR 114
104 LAC LAC
Mar 31 Analysis available
-10
W
LAC LAC 127
113 MIL MIL
Mar 29 Analysis available
+14
W
LAC LAC 114
113 IND IND
Mar 27 Analysis available
+1
W
TOR TOR 94
119 LAC LAC
Mar 25 Analysis available
+25
W
MIL MIL 96
129 LAC LAC
Mar 23 Analysis available
+33
W
LAC LAC 138
131 DAL DAL
Mar 21 Analysis available
+7
L
LAC LAC 99
105 NOP NOP
Mar 19 Analysis available
-6
L
LAC LAC 109
124 NOP NOP
Mar 18 Analysis available
-15
L
SAS SAS 119
115 LAC LAC
Mar 16 Analysis available
-4
L
SAC SAC 118
109 LAC LAC
Mar 14 Analysis available
-9
W
CHI CHI 108
119 LAC LAC
Mar 13 Analysis available
+11
W
MIN MIN 128
153 LAC LAC
Mar 11 Analysis available
+25
W
NYK NYK 118
126 LAC LAC
Mar 9 Analysis available
+8
W
LAC LAC 123
120 MEM MEM
Mar 7 Analysis available
+3
L
LAC LAC 112
116 SAS SAS
Mar 6 Analysis available
-4
W
IND IND 107
130 LAC LAC
Mar 4 Analysis available
+23
W
LAC LAC 114
101 GSW GSW
Mar 2 Analysis available
+13
W
NOP NOP 117
137 LAC LAC
Mar 1 Analysis available
+20
L
MIN MIN 94
88 LAC LAC
Feb 26 Analysis available
-6
L
ORL ORL 111
109 LAC LAC
Feb 22 Analysis available
-2
L
LAC LAC 122
125 LAL LAL
Feb 20 Analysis available
-3
W
DEN DEN 114
115 LAC LAC
Feb 19 Analysis available
+1
W
LAC LAC 105
102 HOU HOU
Feb 11 Analysis available
+3
L
LAC LAC 95
102 HOU HOU
Feb 10 Analysis available
-7
W
LAC LAC 115
96 MIN MIN
Feb 8 Analysis available
+19
W
LAC LAC 114
111 SAC SAC
Feb 6 Analysis available
+3
L
CLE CLE 124
91 LAC LAC
Feb 4 Analysis available
-33
L
PHI PHI 128
113 LAC LAC
Feb 2 Analysis available
-15
W
LAC LAC 117
93 PHX PHX
Feb 1 Analysis available
+24
L
LAC LAC 109
122 DEN DEN
Jan 30 Analysis available
-13
W
LAC LAC 115
103 UTA UTA
Jan 28 Analysis available
+12
W
BKN BKN 89
126 LAC LAC
Jan 26 Analysis available
+37
W
LAL LAL 104
112 LAC LAC
Jan 23 Analysis available
+8
L
LAC LAC 110
138 CHI CHI
Jan 21 Analysis available
-28
W
LAC LAC 110
106 WAS WAS
Jan 19 Analysis available
+4
W
LAC LAC 121
117 TOR TOR
Jan 17 Analysis available
+4
W
WAS WAS 105
119 LAC LAC
Jan 15 Analysis available
+14
W
CHA CHA 109
117 LAC LAC
Jan 13 Analysis available
+8
W
LAC LAC 98
92 DET DET
Jan 11 Analysis available
+6
W
LAC LAC 121
105 BKN BKN
Jan 10 Analysis available
+16
L
LAC LAC 111
123 NYK NYK
Jan 8 Analysis available
-12
W
GSW GSW 102
103 LAC LAC
Jan 6 Analysis available
+1
L
BOS BOS 146
115 LAC LAC
Jan 4 Analysis available
-31
W
UTA UTA 101
118 LAC LAC
Jan 2 Analysis available
+17
W
SAC SAC 90
131 LAC LAC
Dec 31 Analysis available
+41
W
DET DET 99
112 LAC LAC
Dec 29 Analysis available
+13
W
LAC LAC 119
103 POR POR
Dec 27 Analysis available
+16
W
HOU HOU 108
128 LAC LAC
Dec 24 Analysis available
+20
W
LAL LAL 88
103 LAC LAC
Dec 21 Analysis available
+15
L
LAC LAC 101
122 OKC OKC
Dec 19 Analysis available
-21
L
MEM MEM 121
103 LAC LAC
Dec 16 Analysis available
-18
L
LAC LAC 113
115 HOU HOU
Dec 12 Analysis available
-2
L
LAC LAC 106
109 MIN MIN
Dec 7 Analysis available
-3
L
LAC LAC 98
107 MEM MEM
Dec 6 Analysis available
-9
W
LAC LAC 115
92 ATL ATL
Dec 4 Analysis available
+23
L
LAC LAC 123
140 MIA MIA
Dec 2 Analysis available
-17
L
DAL DAL 114
110 LAC LAC
Nov 30 Analysis available
-4
L
MEM MEM 112
107 LAC LAC
Nov 29 Analysis available
-5
L
LAC LAC 118
135 LAL LAL
Nov 26 Analysis available
-17
L
LAC LAC 105
120 CLE CLE
Nov 23 Analysis available
-15
W
LAC LAC 131
116 CHA CHA
Nov 22 Analysis available
+15
L
LAC LAC 101
129 ORL ORL
Nov 21 Analysis available
-28
L
LAC LAC 108
110 PHI PHI
Nov 18 Analysis available
-2
L
LAC LAC 118
121 BOS BOS
Nov 16 Analysis available
-3
W
LAC LAC 133
127 DAL DAL
Nov 15 Analysis available
+6
L
DEN DEN 130
116 LAC LAC
Nov 13 Analysis available
-14
L
ATL ATL 105
102 LAC LAC
Nov 11 Analysis available
-3
L
PHX PHX 114
103 LAC LAC
Nov 9 Analysis available
-11
L
LAC LAC 102
115 PHX PHX
Nov 7 Analysis available
-13
L
OKC OKC 126
107 LAC LAC
Nov 5 Analysis available
-19
L
MIA MIA 120
119 LAC LAC
Nov 4 Analysis available
-1
W
NOP NOP 124
126 LAC LAC
Nov 1 Analysis available
+2
L
LAC LAC 79
98 GSW GSW
Oct 29 Analysis available
-19
W
POR POR 107
114 LAC LAC
Oct 26 Analysis available
+7
W
PHX PHX 102
129 LAC LAC
Oct 24 Analysis available
+27
L
LAC LAC 108
129 UTA UTA
Oct 22 Analysis available
-21