GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAC LA Clippers
S James Harden 38.8m
29
pts
7
reb
8
ast
Impact
-3.0

A massive scoring explosion and elite perimeter shot-making were completely undone by hidden costs, likely high-leverage turnovers or off-ball defensive lapses. While he orchestrated the offense masterfully for long stretches, his negative total impact (-3.0) suggests opponents successfully targeted him in space. The sheer volume of his offensive creation simply couldn't outpace the points surrendered during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.2%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg +1.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.8m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +2.3
Defense +3.1
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 38.8m -22.2
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 7
S Kawhi Leonard 37.1m
27
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+15.3

Elite two-way dominance (+15.3) was driven by suffocating perimeter defense (+11.3) and relentless isolation scoring. Even with a cold night from beyond the arc, his ability to generate high-quality midrange looks stabilized the half-court offense. He completely erased his primary matchup on the wing, consistently turning defensive stops into immediate transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 10/21 (47.6%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.2%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg -7.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Offense +19.3
Hustle +5.9
Defense +11.3
Raw total +36.5
Avg player in 37.1m -21.2
Impact +15.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 4
BLK 2
TO 2
S Ivica Zubac 33.4m
9
pts
18
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.4

A significant drop in scoring volume and struggles finishing through contact resulted in a slightly negative overall rating. He dominated the defensive glass to cleanly end possessions but routinely failed to punish smaller defenders on switches. The inability to convert high-percentage looks inside ultimately offset his otherwise strong rebounding and rim deterrence.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -6.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +5.1
Defense +4.9
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 33.4m -19.2
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 59.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
12
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.1

Despite a hyper-efficient scoring bump, his overall impact slipped into the negative due to surprisingly low hustle and rebounding involvement. He capitalized beautifully on backdoor cuts and transition leaks but struggled to influence the game when the pace slowed down. A total lack of secondary playmaking limited his overall effectiveness within the half-court structure.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.2%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg +5.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.0
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 27.2m -15.5
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Bradley Beal 20.1m
12
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.3

Efficient shot-making masked a highly negative impact (-4.3) driven by point-of-attack defensive vulnerabilities and a total lack of rebounding. Opponents routinely targeted him in pick-and-roll actions, forcing emergency rotations that compromised the entire defensive shell. He operated effectively as a pure scorer but gave back all of his production through defensive bleeding.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg -7.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.0
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 20.1m -11.6
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
John Collins 25.1m
12
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.7

A catastrophic -9.7 impact rating was fueled by severe defensive liabilities and a near-total lack of hustle plays. He was repeatedly exploited in pick-and-roll coverage, offering zero rim deterrence or meaningful rotational help. His decent scoring output was rendered entirely moot by how heavily opponents targeted him on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.4%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +6.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.3
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 25.1m -14.3
Impact -9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Kris Dunn 23.0m
10
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.8

Tenacious point-of-attack defense (+5.2) and a surprising surge in offensive efficiency drove a stellar +6.8 impact score. He completely disrupted the opposing backcourt's rhythm with relentless ball pressure while punishing them on the other end with perfect perimeter shooting. This two-way spark plug performance vastly exceeded his recent offensive struggles and energized the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +2.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +3.4
Defense +5.2
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 23.0m -13.1
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Brook Lopez 14.6m
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

Extremely poor shot selection from beyond the arc and a failure to impact the glass drove his negative rating. He fell in love with the three-point shot despite being ice cold, consistently bailing out the defense instead of utilizing his size inside. His inability to secure rebounds further compounded the damage from his offensive inefficiency.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +15.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.9
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 14.6m -8.3
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Chris Paul 13.8m
3
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.5

Poor shooting efficiency and a total inability to pressure the rim dragged his impact deep into the red (-4.5). He settled for contested perimeter jumpers rather than collapsing the defense, leading to highly stagnant offensive possessions. Even his typically reliable game management couldn't salvage a performance marred by such severe offensive anemia.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +26.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.8
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 13.8m -7.8
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.5

Logged empty cardio minutes during a highly ineffective rotation stint that tanked his impact score (-3.5). He was completely invisible on the floor, failing to register a single shot attempt, rebound, or hustle play. This extreme passivity made him a dead weight in the lineup, forcing teammates to play 4-on-5 offensively.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.5
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 6.8m -4.0
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIA Miami Heat
S Davion Mitchell 34.4m
8
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
+0.3

Point-of-attack defensive pressure (+6.7) and unselfish playmaking kept his impact slightly positive despite a dip in his recent scoring efficiency. He sacrificed his own offense to operate as a pure facilitator, consistently probing the paint to collapse the defense. A lack of perimeter gravity capped his ceiling, but his relentless ball pressure set the tone.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.4%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg +9.2
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +3.3
Defense +6.7
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 34.4m -19.6
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
S Andrew Wiggins 31.8m
17
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.2

Excellent shot selection and timely perimeter execution fueled a strong positive rating. He picked his spots perfectly from deep to punish defensive rotations without stalling the offensive flow. Active off-ball movement and high-level hustle (+7.3) ensured his impact extended well beyond his scoring bump.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.8%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +11.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +7.3
Defense +3.6
Raw total +22.4
Avg player in 31.8m -18.2
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Bam Adebayo 30.2m
25
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
+13.9

Elite defensive anchoring (+11.8) and a massive bounce-back in offensive efficiency generated a dominant overall impact score. He broke out of his recent shooting slump by establishing deep post position early and punishing drop coverages from the perimeter. This two-way supremacy completely dictated the terms of engagement in the frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 31.0%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +15.2
Hustle +4.0
Defense +11.8
Raw total +31.0
Avg player in 30.2m -17.1
Impact +13.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Norman Powell 28.4m
21
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.0

A negative overall rating (-3.0) despite highly efficient scoring points to hidden costs on the margins, likely defensive rotational lapses or off-ball stagnation. While his shot-making was crisp and on par with recent trends, his minimal contributions to hustle and containment dragged down his value. He operated almost entirely as a one-dimensional scoring valve in this matchup.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.3%
USG% 26.6%
Net Rtg +8.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.1
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 28.4m -16.2
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Pelle Larsson 23.8m
7
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.9

High-level defensive engagement (+6.8 Def) and relentless energy plays drove a solid positive impact despite his scoring volume dropping significantly from recent outings. He embraced a low-usage role, focusing entirely on perimeter containment and disruption rather than forcing shots. Maintaining his streak of efficient shooting ensured he maximized his limited offensive touches.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.8%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +25.2
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +7.0
Defense +6.8
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 23.8m -13.6
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.5

A sharp regression in offensive rhythm and poor shooting efficiency drove his negative overall rating. He struggled to find his spots against set defenses, often forcing contested looks in the mid-range rather than keeping the ball moving. Solid positional defense (+4.7) prevented his impact score from cratering entirely during a frustrating offensive night.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -7.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +2.7
Defense +4.7
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 25.8m -14.8
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Kel'el Ware 17.8m
16
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.1

Devastatingly efficient finishing and unexpected floor-spacing fueled a massive +10.1 impact in limited minutes. He capitalized on defensive breakdowns with decisive rolls to the rim while punishing sagging bigs from beyond the arc. This sudden offensive explosion completely tilted the momentum during his second-unit shifts.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.1%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg -6.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +2.2
Defense +4.3
Raw total +20.3
Avg player in 17.8m -10.2
Impact +10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
7
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.7

Defensive passivity and near-zero hustle metrics resulted in a noticeable negative impact during his rotation minutes. He struggled to stay in front of quicker assignments, frequently giving up straight-line drives that compromised the entire defensive shell. While he showed brief flashes of secondary playmaking, it wasn't enough to offset the damage done on the other end.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.8%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -46.2
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.9
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 17.6m -10.1
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.8

Despite a massive scoring surge and vastly improved shooting efficiency, his overall impact remained negative due to a lack of peripheral contributions. He operated strictly as a play-finisher, offering minimal resistance defensively and failing to impact the glass. The empty-calorie nature of his offensive burst limited his actual value to the team's success.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.4%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg -8.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.9
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 16.7m -9.5
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Dru Smith 13.7m
2
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.4

A severe lack of offensive aggression and poor defensive metrics cratered his impact score (-6.4). He operated as a complete non-threat with the ball, allowing defenders to aggressively cheat into passing lanes and disrupt the offensive flow. His inability to apply ball pressure or generate any meaningful hustle plays made him a liability during his brief stint.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg -27.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.7m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 13.7m -7.8
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1