GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAC LA Clippers
S James Harden 40.1m
23
pts
7
reb
11
ast
Impact
-5.8

A brutal combination of forced step-back jumpers and stalled isolation sets torpedoed his overall impact despite the high scoring volume. He dominated the ball for long stretches but failed to generate consistent advantages, allowing the defense to set up and counter. The sheer number of empty offensive possessions completely overshadowed his playmaking flashes.

Shooting
FG 6/18 (33.3%)
3PT 4/13 (30.8%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.6%
USG% 28.3%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.1m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.6
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 40.1m -20.7
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
S Ivica Zubac 39.1m
9
pts
12
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.5

Fumbled catches and blown interior finishes turned what should have been a dominant physical performance into a net negative. He provided solid rim protection and altered several drives, but his inability to punish switches in the post stalled out multiple offensive sets. The drop-off in finishing efficiency was the primary culprit for his negative impact score.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.3%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -10.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.1m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.7
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 39.1m -20.3
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S John Collins 32.8m
10
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.2

An uncharacteristic struggle to finish around the rim and clanked perimeter looks severely hampered his overall effectiveness. Even though he crashed the glass with high intensity to generate extra possessions, the sheer volume of wasted offensive trips dragged his rating into the negative. Opponents sagged off him late, completely muddying the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.8%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -8.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +5.7
Defense +3.1
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 32.8m -17.0
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Kris Dunn 30.4m
11
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.7

Terrifying point-of-attack defense completely derailed the opponent's offensive initiation, resulting in a staggering +14.0 defensive rating. He blew up countless pick-and-roll actions by fighting over screens and generating deflections that ignited transition breaks. The unexpected perimeter scoring was just a bonus on top of a defensive masterclass.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.7%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +7.4
Defense +14.0
Raw total +27.4
Avg player in 30.4m -15.7
Impact +11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 9.1%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kawhi Leonard 28.5m
39
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+22.8

Absolute mastery of the midrange and surgical isolation scoring drove an astronomical +22.8 net impact. He systematically dismantled the primary defender, generating high-quality looks at will while completely suffocating his assignment on the other end. This two-way clinic dictated the entire tempo of the game whenever he stepped on the hardwood.

Shooting
FG 15/24 (62.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 38.6%
Net Rtg +2.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +29.9
Hustle +2.1
Defense +5.6
Raw total +37.6
Avg player in 28.5m -14.8
Impact +22.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.6

Elite weak-side rim protection and smart defensive rotations were entirely undone by his absolute refusal to look at the basket. Operating as a complete non-threat on offense allowed his defender to freely roam and double-team the ball handlers. The resulting offensive stagnation dragged his net impact firmly into the red.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 75.8%
USG% 3.6%
Net Rtg -3.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense +6.7
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 23.3m -12.2
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
Kobe Brown 16.4m
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Active hands and high-energy closeouts kept his head above water despite a frigid night shooting from beyond the arc. He snapped a streak of efficient offensive outings by settling for contested perimeter looks early in the clock. Fortunately, his commitment to defensive rebounding and disrupting passing lanes salvaged his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -13.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +3.5
Defense +4.9
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 16.4m -8.5
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Chris Paul 15.0m
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.7

Pacing issues and an inability to contain quicker guards at the point of attack resulted in a surprisingly negative impact during his shift. He orchestrated the half-court sets cleanly but couldn't prevent the opponent from generating easy transition opportunities. The defensive bleed completely negated his efficient, albeit low-volume, offensive execution.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg -2.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.0m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.9
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 15.0m -7.8
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Kobe Sanders 14.2m
3
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.6

Struggled to find the flow of the game during his rotational minutes, looking hesitant to attack closeouts. His lack of aggression allowed the defense to ignore him on the perimeter, cramping the floor for the primary creators. He provided adequate positional defense but offered zero resistance when targeted in space.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.1
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 14.2m -7.4
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
MEM Memphis Grizzlies
S Zach Edey 32.0m
5
pts
19
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.6

Massive positional size altered the geometry of the floor defensively, resulting in a stellar +7.6 defensive rating. He dominated the interior by sealing off driving angles and cleaning up the glass, even with a remarkably low-usage offensive role. His ability to anchor the drop coverage was the defining element of his minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -4.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +7.6
Raw total +20.2
Avg player in 32.0m -16.6
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
24
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.8

Elite offensive execution and high-value shot making fueled a massive box score rating, but defensive lapses dragged down his overall net impact. He struggled to anchor the paint effectively, allowing opponents to capitalize on driving lanes. The sheer scoring efficiency kept his final rating in the green.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.3%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg -5.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +18.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.6
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 30.8m -15.9
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Cedric Coward 30.7m
7
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-16.8

A stark regression in offensive rhythm led to a disastrous -16.8 net impact, driven heavily by forced perimeter jumpers and stalled possessions. Without his usual scoring punch, his lack of secondary playmaking or defensive disruption became glaringly apparent. He was consistently hunted in isolation during the second half.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.0%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -8.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 30.7m -16.0
Impact -16.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jaylen Wells 28.1m
13
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.0

Relentless off-ball activity and defensive rotations drove a highly positive impact (+9.0) despite a rough shooting night from the perimeter. His willingness to crash the glass and generate extra possessions completely offset the inefficient shot selection. He provided a crucial energy injection during transition sequences.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.8%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +7.7
Defense +4.2
Raw total +23.6
Avg player in 28.1m -14.6
Impact +9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.2

High-volume shot creation yielded diminishing returns, as a barrage of missed contested looks dragged his overall impact into the red. While he provided steady perimeter defense and active hands in the passing lanes, the offensive inefficiency was too costly. His shot selection early in the clock frequently short-circuited offensive momentum.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 47.1%
USG% 35.1%
Net Rtg -29.2
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +3.1
Defense +2.4
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 23.3m -12.1
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
Cam Spencer 24.6m
10
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.1

Despite showing decent defensive activity, his minutes coincided with massive opponent runs that tanked his overall rating. He struggled to maintain offensive flow, frequently passing up open looks and stalling the half-court offense. Opponents successfully targeted his lack of lateral quickness in pick-and-roll switches.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 21.0%
Net Rtg +35.3
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +2.4
Defense +3.0
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 24.6m -12.8
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
Santi Aldama 22.2m
13
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.1

Flawless shot selection and sharp weak-side defensive rotations anchored a highly productive stint on the floor. He capitalized on every offensive opportunity without forcing the issue, letting the game come to him organically. His ability to stretch the floor as a trailing big created crucial driving lanes for the guards.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.2%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +12.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +13.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.2
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 22.2m -11.5
Impact +7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.2

Timely perimeter spacing and disciplined point-of-attack defense resulted in a steady, positive net rating. He perfectly executed his role as a floor-spacer, punishing defensive rotations while rarely making mistakes on the other end. Navigating screens to bother opposing guards was the hallmark of his shift.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +43.2
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +2.3
Defense +3.8
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 21.2m -11.0
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jock Landale 16.0m
12
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

A heavy diet of missed interior looks neutralized what could have been a highly impactful rotational stint. He failed to establish deep post position, settling for awkward push shots that fueled opponent transition opportunities. The lack of secondary hustle plays left his overall net rating hovering just below zero.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 35.0%
Net Rtg +24.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.4
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 16.0m -8.4
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
John Konchar 11.1m
0
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.3

Complete offensive passivity rendered him a virtual non-factor on that end of the floor, dragging down his overall impact. While he executed his defensive assignments cleanly and avoided mistakes, the refusal to look at the rim allowed defenders to aggressively double-team his teammates. He operated strictly as an invisible floor-spacer during his brief stint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.0
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 11.1m -5.7
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0