GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAC Sacramento Kings
S Keegan Murray 38.1m
19
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.6

Offset a cold shooting night from beyond the arc by leveraging his length to suffocate opposing wings on the perimeter. His timely weak-side rotations and disciplined closeouts drove a highly positive defensive rating.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.5%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +6.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.1m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +2.9
Defense +7.7
Raw total +25.2
Avg player in 38.1m -20.6
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
S DeMar DeRozan 36.8m
10
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.7

Uncharacteristic struggles to create separation in the midrange resulted in forced, contested looks that derailed the half-court offense. Despite showing active hands in passing lanes, his inability to bend the defense as a primary scorer tanked his overall value.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.1%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -20.8
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +5.2
Defense +0.1
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 36.8m -19.9
Impact -10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Zach LaVine 31.6m
13
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-15.1

Cratered his team's offensive rhythm by settling for deep, contested jumpers early in the shot clock. The sheer volume of wasted possessions and clanked perimeter looks completely overshadowed any marginal defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.7%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg -7.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense -3.9
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.8
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 31.6m -17.1
Impact -15.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 6
19
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.6

Slashed to the rim with vintage efficiency, but his overall impact plummeted due to reckless decision-making in transition. Defensive lapses and a failure to secure loose balls gave the opponent too many easy counter-attacks.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 73.1%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.6
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 30.9m -16.7
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S Drew Eubanks 14.4m
4
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.2

Anchored the interior during his shifts by aggressively contesting shots and securing contested rebounds in traffic. His physical screen-setting freed up shooters and maximized his value despite a low-usage offensive role.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -38.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +2.4
Defense +5.8
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 14.4m -7.8
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.9

Punished mismatches in the paint with decisive, powerful finishes to maintain his streak of hyper-efficient performances. His ability to seal defenders early in the shot clock created high-percentage looks that anchored the second unit's offense.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.8%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg +5.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +17.1
Hustle +3.6
Defense +2.5
Raw total +23.2
Avg player in 24.8m -13.3
Impact +9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Keon Ellis 23.0m
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.6

Put on an absolute clinic in point-of-attack defense, hounding ball-handlers and blowing up dribble hand-offs all night. His relentless motor and elite screen navigation generated massive hidden value that far outweighed a quiet scoring night.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -20.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +9.4
Defense +10.6
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 23.0m -12.4
Impact +9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 3
BLK 3
TO 1
Malik Monk 22.7m
15
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.8

Provided a reliable scoring punch off the bench but bled value on the other end of the floor through missed rotations. Opponents consistently targeted him in pick-and-roll actions, negating his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 32.7%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.6
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 22.7m -12.1
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.1

Struggled to adapt to the game's pace, forcing bad angles on drives and coming up empty on his attempts. His inability to stay connected to shooters on the perimeter compounded a highly negative brief appearance.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -24.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.0m
Offense -3.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total -1.2
Avg player in 9.0m -4.9
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

Looked completely out of sync during a brief stint, failing to establish deep post position and rushing his few touches. The lack of offensive gravity allowed defenders to cheat off him and crowd the paint.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -33.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.9m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.4
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 8.9m -4.7
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
PHX Phoenix Suns
S Devin Booker 39.0m
19
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
-5.4

Forced the issue against aggressive double-teams, resulting in a barrage of contested, low-percentage jumpers that derailed offensive momentum. While his defensive effort remained solid, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions tanked his overall value.

Shooting
FG 6/22 (27.3%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 38.6%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg +16.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.0m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +2.4
Defense +5.8
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 39.0m -21.0
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
21
pts
3
reb
9
ast
Impact
+4.5

Broke out of a recent shooting slump by hunting high-quality perimeter looks and punishing drop coverage. His steady playmaking and timely perimeter shooting provided a massive offensive spark when the primary rotation struggled.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg +11.4
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +4.8
Defense +5.0
Raw total +22.8
Avg player in 34.0m -18.3
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Dillon Brooks 33.4m
13
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.6

Continued a trend of poor shot selection, bricking away possessions to crater his overall impact. His inability to convert from deep allowed defenders to sag off, severely clogging the spacing for Phoenix's primary creators.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.2%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +18.5
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.2
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 33.4m -17.9
Impact -12.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Royce O'Neale 32.1m
9
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.7

Elite perimeter rotations and active hands generated a massive defensive rating, but his offensive limitations dragged his overall impact into the red. Settling exclusively for perimeter jumpers resulted in empty possessions that stalled the offense.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +12.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +4.4
Defense +9.3
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 32.1m -17.3
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
S Mark Williams 28.6m
21
pts
16
reb
4
ast
Impact
+22.9

Completely dominated the interior with relentless rim-running and highly efficient finishing through contact. His massive overall rating was driven by elite positioning that secured extra possessions and deterred drivers on the other end.

Shooting
FG 9/12 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.9%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +25.1
Hustle +5.0
Defense +8.3
Raw total +38.4
Avg player in 28.6m -15.5
Impact +22.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 52.4%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
7
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.5

Overcame a mediocre shooting night by relentlessly crashing the glass and generating extra possessions through pure grit. His physical point-of-attack defense disrupted the opponent's timing and drove a highly positive overall rating.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +24.6
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +5.0
Defense +6.0
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 24.0m -13.0
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
11
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.2

Delivered a surprising scoring punch by knocking down spot-up opportunities when the defense collapsed inside. However, his overall impact remained muted due to a lack of physical engagement and minimal resistance on the defensive perimeter.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -17.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 18.7m -10.1
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Oso Ighodaro 15.4m
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.4

Capitalized on every offensive opportunity with flawless execution in the pick-and-roll. Maintained his streak of hyper-efficient finishing while anchoring the backup unit with disciplined rim protection.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/3 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.2%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -7.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +4.8
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 15.4m -8.4
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Provided a brief spark of defensive energy but was completely ignored by the opposing defense on the other end. His inability to threaten the rim or connect from deep made him an offensive liability during his short stint.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg +27.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.2m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.0
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 9.2m -4.9
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.2

Maximized a brief rotation appearance by setting hard screens and altering shots around the basket. His flawless execution in limited action provided a quick, stabilizing presence for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 104.2%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +11.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.5m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.2
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 5.5m -2.9
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0