GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAC LA Clippers
S Kawhi Leonard 30.1m
34
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.7

Surgical precision from the perimeter and unyielding isolation efficiency anchored a massive positive impact score. He systematically hunted mismatches on the wing, punishing late closeouts with a barrage of contested triples. Coupled with his standard lockdown positional defense, this was a textbook two-way masterclass that dictated the game's tempo.

Shooting
FG 11/19 (57.9%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 6/9 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 74.0%
USG% 32.5%
Net Rtg +13.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +18.9
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.0
Raw total +21.0
Avg player in 30.1m -15.3
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Darius Garland 28.4m
22
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.1

Dynamic shot creation and an aggressive downhill approach kept the offense humming, though defensive lapses at the point of attack muted his overall score. He consistently broke down the primary defender to generate high-quality looks in the paint. However, getting caught on multiple high ball-screens allowed the opposition to trade baskets, keeping his net impact marginal.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 30.4%
Net Rtg +33.5
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +1.0
Defense +7.8
Raw total +18.5
Avg player in 28.4m -14.4
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Kris Dunn 27.2m
2
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.9

Despite putting on a clinic in point-of-attack screen navigation, his complete lack of offensive gravity severely handicapped the team's spacing. Defenders sagged off him entirely to clog the paint, leading to stalled possessions and late-clock turnovers for his teammates. The defensive brilliance simply couldn't compensate for playing four-on-five on the other end.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +32.8
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense -2.0
Hustle +2.4
Defense +9.4
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 27.2m -13.7
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Brook Lopez 25.3m
9
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
+14.0

Anchoring the drop coverage with textbook verticality, his paint deterrence was the primary driver of a robust positive impact. He completely neutralized the opponent's rim-running threats while dominating the defensive glass to end possessions. Timely floor-spacing on the other end kept the driving lanes clear for the primary creators.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 13.4%
Net Rtg +15.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +3.2
Defense +13.9
Raw total +26.8
Avg player in 25.3m -12.8
Impact +14.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 17.6%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 1
11
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.0

Relentless energy on the glass and explosive weak-side cuts generated a highly favorable net rating. He routinely beat his man to the baseline, converting broken plays into easy put-backs and shifting the momentum. This high-motor approach masked a slightly inefficient shooting night and provided critical secondary scoring.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg +19.2
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +13.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense -2.8
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 23.5m -12.0
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
John Collins 27.9m
12
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.0

Settling for low-percentage perimeter looks dragged down his efficiency and allowed the defense to off-load pressure from the paint. His inability to punish switches on the block forced the offense into stagnant, perimeter-heavy sets. Solid weak-side rim protection salvaged his defensive metrics, but the offensive disconnect ultimately drove a poor net score.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg -8.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +1.0
Defense +6.3
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 27.9m -14.2
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
9
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.5

A severe lack of touch around the rim and forced drives into heavy traffic cratered his overall value. He repeatedly derailed transition opportunities by ignoring open shooters in favor of highly contested, low-percentage layups. While his defensive rotations were crisp, the sheer volume of empty offensive trips made him a massive net negative.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 39.1%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -5.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +8.8
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 27.1m -13.7
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Kobe Sanders 24.4m
11
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.0

Excellent off-ball relocation and decisive catch-and-shoot mechanics provided a massive boost to the second unit's spacing. He consistently punished defensive miscommunications by drifting into the weak-side corners for open triples. Adding disciplined closeouts on the defensive end rounded out a highly productive, two-way shift.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +19.7
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +11.0
Raw total +20.4
Avg player in 24.4m -12.4
Impact +8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.8

Extreme passivity on the offensive end limited his ability to influence the game, resulting in a slightly negative net rating. He passed up several open catch-and-shoot opportunities, allowing the defense to recover and reset. A few solid hustle plays in transition prevented the score from dropping further, but the lack of aggression was glaring.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 5.0%
Net Rtg -5.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +1.8
Defense -0.6
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 16.2m -8.2
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.7

Two forced, out-of-rhythm jumpers in limited garbage-time minutes quickly dragged his net score into the red. He struggled to initiate the offense against late-game ball pressure, resulting in disjointed possessions.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.5m
Offense -2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total -2.5
Avg player in 2.5m -1.2
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.0

Barely saw the floor in a quick rotational cameo that left no statistical footprint on the offensive end. A minor defensive miscue in transition accounted for the slight dip in his overall metric.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.5m
Offense -0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 2.5m -1.3
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

A fleeting appearance at the end of the rotation offered no real rhythm to impact the game positively. Rushing his lone perimeter attempt led to an empty possession that slightly dinged his overall metric.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.5m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.5
Avg player in 2.5m -1.2
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Flashed some quick interior footwork during a very brief stint on the floor to secure a positive rating. Capitalizing on a deep post seal yielded an easy bucket, though there wasn't enough court time to build further momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.5m
Offense +2.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 2.5m -1.2
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Cooper Flagg 33.9m
25
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.8

Despite driving the offense through sheer volume, his overall impact was heavily muted by 16 missed field goals that frequently bailed out the defense. A steady diet of forced mid-range pull-ups against set coverage dragged down his efficiency compared to his recent hot streak. Still, his relentless rim pressure and gravity ensured the overall metric stayed in the green.

Shooting
FG 9/25 (36.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.2%
USG% 33.0%
Net Rtg -18.7
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.3
Raw total +17.9
Avg player in 33.9m -17.1
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Max Christie 28.9m
12
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.6

Elite point-of-attack defense and aggressive screen navigation drove a stellar defensive rating, but his offensive struggles ultimately pulled his net score into the red. He repeatedly settled for contested late-clock jumpers, bricking all five attempts from deep. Drawing fouls on aggressive drives salvaged his scoring output, though the empty shooting possessions hurt the overall rhythm.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 10/10 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.4%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -20.1
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense +6.9
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 28.9m -14.6
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Naji Marshall 19.9m
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.9

Defensive intensity and elite hustle metrics entirely carried his baseline value on a night where his jumper abandoned him. He disrupted passing lanes and blew up multiple dribble hand-offs to spark transition opportunities. However, clanking several wide-open corner looks prevented him from capitalizing on the defensive momentum he created.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -33.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense -4.6
Hustle +4.9
Defense +1.9
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 19.9m -10.1
Impact -7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Khris Middleton 19.6m
2
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.4

An ongoing shooting slump rendered him a virtual non-factor in half-court sets, severely cratering his overall impact metric. Opponents completely ignored him on the perimeter to pack the paint, stalling the team's spacing and flow. A few timely weak-side rotations on defense prevented his score from dipping even further into the abyss.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -40.9
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense -4.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +4.9
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 19.6m -9.9
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Dwight Powell 19.5m
4
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.4

Operating strictly as a screen-setter and rim-runner, he generated positive value entirely through low-usage dirty work. His ability to seal off drop defenders created wide-open driving lanes for the primary ball-handlers. Generating extra possessions via the offensive glass and drawing fouls kept his total impact slightly positive despite taking zero shots from the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 5.5%
Net Rtg -22.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.2
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 19.5m -9.8
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.7

A disastrous perimeter shooting performance completely tanked his overall value, as he routinely short-circuited offensive sets with rushed, off-balance heaves. The gravity he usually provides vanished once defenders realized he was ice cold from beyond the arc. Minor contributions in team rebounding and positional defense couldn't mask the damage done by 13 empty shooting possessions.

Shooting
FG 4/17 (23.5%)
3PT 1/10 (10.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.8%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg +1.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.6
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 26.3m -13.3
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
21
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+16.7

Total domination in the painted area drove a spectacular net rating, fueled by elite finishing and decisive rim-runs. He consistently punished switches by burying smaller defenders under the basket for easy entry passes. Adding a surprising level of vertical rim protection on the other end solidified a masterclass performance.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.3%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -13.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +26.9
Hustle +3.5
Defense -0.6
Raw total +29.8
Avg player in 26.1m -13.1
Impact +16.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
12
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
-5.6

Snapping out of a recent offensive funk, his ability to probe the pick-and-roll and find soft spots in the midrange stabilized the second unit. He paired this improved shot selection with aggressive ball pressure that disrupted the opponent's initiation sequences. Limiting his perimeter attempts to focus on high-percentage floaters was the primary catalyst for his positive net score.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +11.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.4
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 24.6m -12.4
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Strong on-ball defensive possessions and consistent closeouts were completely undone by a frigid night from beyond the arc. He failed to punish the defense for leaving him open on the weak side, allowing opponents to freely double the post. The resulting stagnant half-court offense dragged his overall metric firmly into the negative.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg +15.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +7.0
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 18.5m -9.4
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Tyler Smith 17.6m
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.7

Capitalizing on limited minutes, his spot-up spacing provided a crucial release valve against aggressive gap help. Hitting timely triples from the slot forced the defense to stretch out, indirectly opening up driving lanes for the guards. Active hands in the passing lanes and solid weak-side rotations further padded a highly efficient, low-usage shift.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -2.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense -0.6
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 17.6m -8.8
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
AJ Johnson 5.2m
1
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

A brief, erratic stint yielded a negative net score due to forced isolation attempts that disrupted the offensive flow. He struggled to acclimate to the game's pace, getting caught out of position on two critical defensive rotations. The lack of meaningful playmaking during his minutes left the unit treading water.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.4%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -25.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 5.2m -2.7
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0