James Harden
Team
Cleveland Cavaliers
Pos
G
No.
1
HT
6-5
WT
220
Age
36
(Aug 26, 1989)
College
Arizona State
Draft
2009 (R1 P3)
Season Snapshot
2025
25.4
4.8
8.1
60%
With Teammate
0 Mins
Without Teammate
0 Mins
Most Impactful Pairings
Harden
Harden
Stat Impact
Core
Shooting
Defense & Discipline
Scoring Counts
Assisted vs Unassisted
Shot Diet & Point Mix
Playmaking
Touches & Passing Volume
Shot Quality
Defensive Playmaking
Contests
Matchups
Defense by Distance
Rebounding
Hustle Plays
Movement
Compare this player
Stat basis
Player season
Compare season
James Harden
—
VS
Pick a player
—
Search for a player above to begin.
Share this chart with anyone who needs to lose an argument.
James Harden
—
VS
Pick a player
—
Pick a comparison player to generate the biased list.
Polls
Log in to vote.
No active polls right now.
Discussion
No comments yet — be the first to start the discussion.
Loading more…
Page 1 / 1
Saved.
Financial Summary: James Harden
TOTAL VALUE
$81.5M
AVG. ANNUAL (AAV)
$40.8M
| Season | Team | Base Salary | Cap Hit |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | CLE | $39,182,693 | $39,182,693 |
| 2026-27 | CLE | $42,317,307 | $42,317,307 |
| 2027-28 | CLE | UFA | |
All Lineup Combinations
Career Statistics
| Season | Team | ||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 |
OKC
|
76 | 22.9 | 9.9 | 3.2 | 1.8 | 1.1 | 0.3 | 1.4 | 2.6 | 3.1 | 7.6 | 40.3% | 1.2 | 3.3 | 37.5% | 2.6 | 3.2 | 80.8% | 55.1% | — |
| 2010 |
OKC
|
82 | 26.7 | 12.2 | 3.1 | 2.1 | 1.1 | 0.3 | 1.3 | 2.5 | 3.6 | 8.3 | 43.6% | 1.4 | 4.0 | 34.9% | 3.5 | 4.2 | 84.3% | 59.8% | — |
| 2011 |
OKC
|
62 | 31.4 | 16.8 | 4.1 | 3.7 | 1.0 | 0.2 | 2.2 | 2.4 | 5.0 | 10.1 | 49.1% | 1.8 | 4.7 | 39.0% | 5.0 | 6.0 | 84.6% | 66.0% | — |
| 2012 |
HOU
|
78 | 38.3 | 25.9 | 4.9 | 5.8 | 1.8 | 0.5 | 3.8 | 2.3 | 7.5 | 17.1 | 43.8% | 2.3 | 6.2 | 36.8% | 8.6 | 10.2 | 85.1% | 60.0% | — |
| 2013 |
HOU
|
73 | 38.0 | 25.4 | 4.7 | 6.1 | 1.6 | 0.4 | 3.6 | 2.4 | 7.5 | 16.5 | 45.6% | 2.4 | 6.6 | 36.6% | 7.9 | 9.1 | 86.6% | 61.8% | — |
| 2014 |
HOU
|
81 | 36.8 | 27.4 | 5.7 | 7.0 | 1.9 | 0.7 | 4.0 | 2.6 | 8.0 | 18.1 | 44.0% | 2.6 | 6.9 | 37.5% | 8.8 | 10.2 | 86.8% | 60.5% | — |
| 2015 |
HOU
|
82 | 38.1 | 29.0 | 6.1 | 7.5 | 1.7 | 0.6 | 4.6 | 2.8 | 8.7 | 19.7 | 43.9% | 2.9 | 8.0 | 35.9% | 8.8 | 10.2 | 86.0% | 59.8% | — |
| 2016 |
HOU
|
81 | 36.4 | 29.1 | 8.1 | 11.2 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 5.7 | 2.6 | 8.3 | 18.9 | 44.0% | 3.2 | 9.3 | 34.7% | 9.2 | 10.9 | 84.7% | 61.3% | — |
| 2017 |
HOU
|
72 | 35.4 | 30.4 | 5.4 | 8.8 | 1.8 | 0.7 | 4.4 | 2.4 | 9.0 | 20.1 | 44.9% | 3.7 | 10.0 | 36.7% | 8.7 | 10.1 | 85.8% | 61.9% | — |
| 2018 |
HOU
|
78 | 36.8 | 36.1 | 6.6 | 7.5 | 2.0 | 0.7 | 5.0 | 3.1 | 10.8 | 24.5 | 44.2% | 4.8 | 13.2 | 36.8% | 9.7 | 11.0 | 87.9% | 61.6% | — |
| 2019 |
HOU
|
68 | 36.4 | 34.3 | 6.6 | 7.5 | 1.8 | 0.9 | 4.5 | 3.3 | 9.9 | 22.3 | 44.4% | 4.4 | 12.4 | 35.5% | 10.2 | 11.8 | 86.5% | 62.6% | — |
| 2020 |
BKN
|
36 | 36.6 | 24.6 | 8.5 | 10.9 | 1.3 | 0.8 | 4.0 | 2.4 | 7.8 | 16.6 | 47.1% | 2.7 | 7.3 | 36.6% | 6.2 | 7.3 | 85.6% | 61.9% | — |
| 2020 |
HOU
|
8 | 36.1 | 24.8 | 5.1 | 10.4 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 4.2 | 1.8 | 7.5 | 16.9 | 44.4% | 3.1 | 9.0 | 34.7% | 6.6 | 7.5 | 88.3% | 61.3% | — |
| 2020 |
TOT
|
44 | 36.5 | 24.6 | 7.9 | 10.8 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 4.0 | 2.2 | 7.8 | 16.7 | 46.6% | 2.8 | 7.6 | 36.2% | 6.3 | 7.3 | 86.1% | 61.8% | — |
| 2021 |
BKN
|
44 | 37.0 | 22.5 | 8.0 | 10.2 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 4.8 | 2.4 | 6.6 | 16.0 | 41.4% | 2.3 | 7.0 | 33.2% | 6.9 | 8.0 | 86.9% | 57.6% | — |
| 2021 |
PHI
|
21 | 37.8 | 21.1 | 7.1 | 10.5 | 1.2 | 0.2 | 3.4 | 2.3 | 5.5 | 13.6 | 40.2% | 2.2 | 6.7 | 32.6% | 7.9 | 8.9 | 89.2% | 60.1% | — |
| 2021 |
TOT
|
65 | 37.2 | 22.0 | 7.7 | 10.3 | 1.3 | 0.6 | 4.4 | 2.4 | 6.3 | 15.3 | 41.0% | 2.3 | 6.9 | 33.0% | 7.2 | 8.2 | 87.7% | 58.3% | — |
| 2022 |
PHI
|
58 | 36.8 | 21.0 | 6.1 | 10.7 | 1.2 | 0.5 | 3.4 | 1.9 | 6.4 | 14.5 | 44.1% | 2.8 | 7.2 | 38.5% | 5.4 | 6.2 | 86.7% | 60.7% | — |
| 2023 |
LAC
|
72 | 34.3 | 16.6 | 5.1 | 8.5 | 1.1 | 0.8 | 2.6 | 1.8 | 4.9 | 11.4 | 42.8% | 2.6 | 6.8 | 38.1% | 4.2 | 4.8 | 87.8% | 61.2% | — |
| 2024 |
LAC
|
79 | 35.3 | 22.8 | 5.8 | 8.7 | 1.5 | 0.7 | 4.3 | 2.0 | 6.7 | 16.4 | 41.0% | 3.0 | 8.5 | 35.2% | 6.4 | 7.3 | 87.4% | 58.2% | — |
| 2025 |
LAC
|
44 | 35.5 | 25.4 | 4.8 | 8.1 | 1.3 | 0.4 | 3.7 | 1.9 | 7.3 | 17.5 | 41.9% | 3.1 | 8.8 | 34.7% | 7.7 | 8.5 | 90.1% | 59.8% | — |
| 2025 |
CLE
|
12 | 33.2 | 20.2 | 5.1 | 7.8 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 3.2 | 2.0 | 6.3 | 13.0 | 48.7% | 3.1 | 6.8 | 45.1% | 4.4 | 5.5 | 80.3% | 65.4% | — |
| 2025 |
TOT
|
56 | 35.0 | 24.3 | 4.9 | 8.1 | 1.1 | 0.4 | 3.6 | 1.9 | 7.1 | 16.6 | 43.0% | 3.1 | 8.4 | 36.5% | 7.0 | 7.9 | 88.6% | 60.7% | — |
🧊 Playoffs? Never heard of ’emThis player hasn’t made the postseason yet. | |||||||||||||||||||||
Progression
Select Stats for Chart
Play Type Usage (Poss Freq%)
Play Type
Possession Outcomes
Shooting Volume & Efficiency
Hexbin Chart (eFG%)
Less
More
Cold
Hot
Zone Breakdown
Detailed Metrics
RIM
198 FGA
65.1%
47TH %ILE
PAINT
230 FGA
40.1%
47TH %ILE
MIDRANGE
89 FGA
40.5%
62TH %ILE
CORNER 3 (L)
6 FGA
25.0%
32TH %ILE
CORNER 3 (R)
19 FGA
26.3%
36TH %ILE
ABOVE BREAK 3
505 FGA
37.2%
76TH %ILE
Trades
Rumors and transaction history will appear here.
Stat
What it means
Formula
League context
League avg
—