Jordan Clarkson
NYK · 2025-26Bench creatorMixed coverageWhat does Jordan Clarkson actually supply on the floor?
Jordan Clarkson's strongest evidenced functions are rim pressure, creation, passing; the weakest available areas are event creation, rim protection, rebounding. The profile is tied to NYK for 2025-26.
Function profile
2025-26 — eleven separate readings on a league scale. They are not additive.* limited evidence for that function. A dash means the evidence was insufficient — not a zero. Use the separate function strengths to evaluate role and roster fit; do not treat them as one player-value score. POA or switch conclusions require lineup, matchup, and assignment evidence beyond this profile.
Season by season
Every governed season profile on record.| Season | Team | Role | Evidence | Creation | Rim pressure | Shooting | Passing | Screening | Interior finish | Point of attack | Switch coverage | Rim protection | Event creation | Rebounding |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | NYK | Bench creator | Mixed coverage | 55 | 63 | 42 | 53 | — | 49 | — | — | 41 | 29 | 41 |
| 2024-25 | UTA | — | Mixed coverage | 65 | 53 | 56 | 64 | 45 | 49 | 46 | 46 | 42 | 48 | 39 |
| 2023-24 | UTA | — | High evidence | 70 | 55 | 39 | 73 | 44 | 52 | 58 | 60 | 39 | 21 | 38 |
| 2022-23 | UTA | — | High evidence | 69 | 58 | 46 | 69 | 42 | 50 | 52 | 50 | 43 | 23 | 48 |
| 2021-22 | UTA | — | High evidence | 58 | 54 | 43 | 55 | 41 | 48 | 60 | 64 | 36 | 48 | 48 |
| 2020-21 | UTA | — | High evidence | 65 | 54 | 52 | 64 | 52 | 51 | 61 | 58 | 32 | 52 | 45 |
| 2019-20 | — | — | High evidence | 65 | 63 | 64 | 62 | — | 67 | — | — | 46 | 42 | 39 |
| 2018-19 | CLE | — | High evidence | 63 | 60 | 43 | 59 | — | 55 | — | — | 33 | 37 | 48 |
| 2017-18 | — | — | High evidence | 70 | 61 | 54 | 71 | — | 57 | — | — | 30 | 43 | 37 |
| 2016-17 | LAL | — | High evidence | 68 | 57 | 47 | 64 | — | 53 | — | — | 24 | 53 | 31 |
| 2015-16 | LAL | — | Limited evidence | 62 | 62 | 58 | 56 | — | — | — | — | 25 | 50 | — |
| 2014-15 | LAL | — | Limited evidence | 77 | 66 | 48 | 76 | — | — | — | — | 35 | 57 | — |
What teams depended on him for
Seasons where a team's situation report named him a dependency case.NYK had a supported lineup path without Jordan Clarkson: [Karl-Anthony Towns, Josh Hart, Mikal Bridges, Jalen Brunson, Miles McBride] at 5.9 adjusted net points per 100 possessions over 271 possessions. This is an observed option, not proof it is universally better.
Replacement evidence
Karl-Anthony Towns · Josh Hart · Mikal Bridges · Jalen Brunson · Miles McBride
shrunk net 5.8550 over 271 possessions
on floor 2597 possessions · off floor 6145 possessions
UTA had a supported lineup path without Jordan Clarkson: [Lauri Markkanen, John Collins, Collin Sexton, Walker Kessler, Keyonte George] at 2.2 adjusted net points per 100 possessions over 374 possessions. This is an observed option, not proof it is universally better.
Replacement evidence
Lauri Markkanen · John Collins · Collin Sexton · Walker Kessler · Keyonte George
shrunk net 2.1540 over 374 possessions
on floor 1772 possessions · off floor 5568 possessions
UTA had a supported lineup path without Jordan Clarkson: [Kris Dunn, Lauri Markkanen, John Collins, Collin Sexton, Simone Fontecchio] at 3.4 adjusted net points per 100 possessions over 525 possessions. This is an observed option, not proof it is universally better.
Replacement evidence
Kris Dunn · Lauri Markkanen · John Collins · Collin Sexton · Simone Fontecchio
shrunk net 3.4340 over 525 possessions
on floor 3122 possessions · off floor 4255 possessions
UTA did not have enough reliable function-loss evidence to judge dependence on Jordan Clarkson.
Replacement evidence
Kelly Olynyk · Lauri Markkanen · Talen Horton-Tucker · Ochai Agbaji · Walker Kessler
shrunk net 4.5500 over 287 possessions
on floor 3610 possessions · off floor 3745 possessions
UTA lineups performed 3.1 points per 100 possessions better with Jordan Clarkson than without him. The best supported alternative was [Mike Conley, Bojan Bogdanovic, Rudy Gobert, Royce O'Neale, Donovan Mitchell] over 1378 possessions.
Replacement evidence
Mike Conley · Bojan Bogdanovic · Rudy Gobert · Royce O'Neale · Donovan Mitchell
shrunk net 3.3500 over 1378 possessions
on floor 3951 possessions · off floor 3480 possessions
UTA had a supported lineup path without Jordan Clarkson: [Bojan Bogdanovic, Rudy Gobert, Joe Ingles, Royce O'Neale, Georges Niang] at 11.1 adjusted net points per 100 possessions over 167 possessions. This is an observed option, not proof it is universally better.
Replacement evidence
Bojan Bogdanovic · Rudy Gobert · Joe Ingles · Royce O'Neale · Georges Niang
shrunk net 11.0780 over 167 possessions
on floor 3749 possessions · off floor 3449 possessions
UTA did not have enough reliable function-loss evidence to judge dependence on Jordan Clarkson.
Replacement evidence
Bojan Bogdanovic · Rudy Gobert · Joe Ingles · Royce O'Neale · Donovan Mitchell
shrunk net 8.6690 over 1069 possessions
on floor 2077 possessions · off floor 4652 possessions
CLE did not have enough reliable function-loss evidence to judge dependence on Jordan Clarkson.
Replacement evidence
Tristan Thompson · Larry Nance Jr. · Cedi Osman · Collin Sexton · Darius Garland
shrunk net -2.1120 over 201 possessions
on floor 1156 possessions · off floor 4429 possessions
CLE did not have enough reliable function-loss evidence to judge dependence on Jordan Clarkson.
Replacement evidence
Kevin Love · Brandon Knight · Cedi Osman · Ante Zizic · Collin Sexton
shrunk net -1.3940 over 251 possessions
on floor 3956 possessions · off floor 3190 possessions
CLE did not have enough reliable function-loss evidence to judge dependence on Jordan Clarkson.
Replacement evidence
LeBron James · JR Smith · Jose Calderon · Kevin Love · Jae Crowder
shrunk net 4.3840 over 653 possessions
on floor 1639 possessions · off floor 7377 possessions
LAL did not have enough reliable function-loss evidence to judge dependence on Jordan Clarkson.
Replacement evidence
Kentavious Caldwell-Pope · Julius Randle · Brandon Ingram · Lonzo Ball · Kyle Kuzma
shrunk net 4.0000 over 150 possessions
on floor 2294 possessions · off floor 5106 possessions
LAL did not have strong functional backup for Jordan Clarkson in creation; removing him cost about 25.5% of the team's production in that area. The next observed option was D'Angelo Russell.
Replacement evidence
Luol Deng · Nick Young · Timofey Mozgov · Julius Randle · D'Angelo Russell
shrunk net 4.2090 over 767 possessions
on floor 4448 possessions · off floor 2905 possessions
LAL did not have enough reliable function-loss evidence to judge dependence on Jordan Clarkson.
Replacement evidence
No replacement lineup is supported by the available evidence.
on floor 4675 possessions · off floor 2472 possessions
LAL did not have enough reliable function-loss evidence to judge dependence on Jordan Clarkson.
Replacement evidence
Jordan Hill · Wayne Ellington · Wesley Johnson · Ed Davis · Jeremy Lin
shrunk net 1.9970 over 196 possessions
on floor 2523 possessions · off floor 4488 possessions
Known contract calendar
Governed contract events naming this player — dates carry their honest quality.No governed contract-calendar events name this player.
Function scores, roles, dependence records and contract events are separate evidence. No combined player value, trade value or ranking is computed from them, and none of them is a causal impact claim.