GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAC LA Clippers
S Kris Dunn 30.1m
6
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.1

A brutal overall impact (-8.1) was masked by excellent point-of-attack defense (+5.8 Def) and high-energy deflections (+3.6 Hustle). His offensive limitations crippled the spacing, as defenders routinely went under screens and dared him to shoot. Costly live-ball turnovers in the pick-and-roll directly fueled opponent transition runs, severely punishing his minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg -34.4
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +3.6
Defense +5.8
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 30.1m -16.7
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S James Harden 30.1m
25
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+4.8

Drove a solid positive impact (+4.8) by masterfully manipulating the pick-and-roll and hunting favorable switches on the perimeter. His aggressive shot selection from deep broke him out of a recent scoring dip and forced the defense into constant rotation. While a handful of sloppy passing turnovers slightly dented his total, his offensive gravity dictated the entire tempo.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg +1.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +2.4
Defense +3.0
Raw total +21.5
Avg player in 30.1m -16.7
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
16
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.5

Broke out of a brutal shooting slump to post a massive offensive surge, though defensive lapses kept his overall impact muted (+0.5). He thrived as a cutter, finding soft spots in the zone to generate high-percentage finishes at the rim. However, getting caught on back-door screens gave back much of the value he created on the scoring end.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.1%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.9
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 28.4m -15.7
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Ivica Zubac 25.6m
7
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.9

Despite anchoring the paint with strong rim deterrence (+6.0 Def), his overall impact slipped (-1.9) due to fumbled entry passes and missed bunnies inside. He struggled to establish deep post position, allowing the defense to push him out of his preferred scoring zones. This sharp drop in offensive production forced the team into late-clock perimeter bailouts.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +10.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +6.0
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 25.6m -14.1
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Nicolas Batum 17.8m
3
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.1

Suffered a severe negative impact (-9.1) as his ongoing shooting slump resulted in multiple empty, momentum-killing possessions. Opponents aggressively sagged off him to trap the primary ball-handlers, completely stalling the half-court offense. Despite decent hustle (+1.8), his inability to punish closeouts or stretch the floor made him an offensive liability.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +1.8
Defense -0.0
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 17.8m -10.0
Impact -9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.8

Hovered just below neutral (-0.8) despite surprisingly stout defensive metrics (+7.0 Def) and active hands in the passing lanes. His shot selection was erratic, settling for contested mid-range pull-ups rather than moving the ball against a set defense. The inefficiency on high-leverage possessions ultimately offset the value he brought as a secondary playmaker.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.4%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -28.3
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +7.0
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 29.6m -16.3
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
John Collins 24.9m
17
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.3

Despite continuing a highly efficient scoring streak, his impact cratered (-5.3) due to poor defensive rebounding and late rotations. He was repeatedly targeted in the pick-and-roll, bleeding points in the paint as he struggled to contain driving guards. The offensive production was entirely negated by the defensive breakdowns that occurred during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 27.6%
Net Rtg -51.9
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.2
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 24.9m -13.8
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
Brook Lopez 15.8m
12
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Dragged into the negative (-1.2) by a lack of mobility in drop coverage, allowing opposing guards to feast on uncontested floaters. While his flawless perimeter shooting stretched the floor beautifully on offense, he failed to secure critical defensive rebounds. The inability to close out defensive possessions ultimately outweighed his elite floor-spacing gravity.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 4/4 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 85.7%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -88.1
+/- -29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.3
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 15.8m -8.7
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Chris Paul 11.3m
0
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.8

A disastrous, scoreless shift (-8.8) was defined by an inability to generate separation or organize the half-court offense. He was completely neutralized by ball pressure, resulting in stagnant possessions and zero hustle contributions (+0.0). Defensively, he was repeatedly hunted on switches, allowing straight-line drives that collapsed the interior defense.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg -93.9
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.3m
Offense -1.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.2
Raw total -2.5
Avg player in 11.3m -6.3
Impact -8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.2

Hemorrhaged value (-4.2) in just six minutes due to empty offensive possessions and a total lack of hustle stats (+0.0). He was completely invisible on the offensive end, failing to create advantages or space the floor. The negative swing was exacerbated by poor transition defense, allowing easy leak-outs before he could get back.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg +21.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.6m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 6.6m -3.6
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Kobe Brown 6.6m
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.1

Snapped a highly efficient scoring streak with a scoreless dud that dragged his impact into the red (-3.1). He forced multiple bad shots from the perimeter, completely disrupting the second unit's offensive rhythm. While he offered some minor defensive resistance (+1.5 Def), the inability to convert on offense made him a distinct liability during his shift.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +21.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.6m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.5
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 6.6m -3.7
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.2

Provided a spark of positive value (+2.2) by capitalizing on rare open looks and breaking a severe shooting slump. He played within the flow of the offense, avoiding the forced shots that had plagued his recent appearances. Solid positional awareness ensured he didn't give away points on the defensive end, making for a highly efficient cameo.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +21.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.6m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.3
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 6.6m -3.7
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

A brief appearance resulted in a slight negative impact (-1.1) due to missed defensive assignments and slow rotations. He managed to finish a play around the rim but struggled with the physicality of the opposing bigs. A lack of hustle plays or rebounding presence limited his ability to positively influence the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.5%
USG% 31.3%
Net Rtg +21.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.6m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 6.6m -3.6
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
S Chet Holmgren 30.1m
11
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.3

A surprisingly steep negative total (-6.3) was driven by empty offensive possessions and missed connections in the pick-and-pop. While his rim protection metrics remained elite (+3.9 Def), his inability to establish deep post position allowed smaller defenders to push him off his spots. This marked a sharp regression from his recent highly efficient scoring stretch, bogging down the starting unit's flow.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.4%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +33.4
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +3.8
Defense +3.9
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 30.1m -16.7
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 3
30
pts
4
reb
12
ast
Impact
+21.2

Generated an astronomical impact score (+21.2) by systematically dissecting drop coverages and generating high-value looks for teammates. His flawless shot selection and relentless downhill pressure forced constant defensive collapses, yielding a massive offensive contribution. He also supplied superb off-ball defensive awareness (+8.6 Def), jumping passing lanes to ignite fast breaks.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 83.5%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +27.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +8.6
Raw total +37.3
Avg player in 29.1m -16.1
Impact +21.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2
S Cason Wallace 24.9m
12
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.3

Kept his head above water (+0.3) by combining timely perimeter shot-making with disruptive point-of-attack defense (+3.7 Def). His impact was somewhat muted by a few costly rotation errors in transition, but his active hands generated crucial deflections. The sophomore's poise as a spot-up threat perfectly complemented the primary ball-handlers during the middle quarters.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -11.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +3.2
Defense +3.7
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 24.9m -13.8
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+13.9

Anchored a massive positive swing (+13.9) through dominant interior positioning and elite defensive deterrence (+11.6 Def). His high-IQ screen-setting and quick processing out of the short roll consistently dismantled the opponent's blitz coverages. Punishing mismatches inside with exceptional efficiency, he completely dictated the physicality of the paint during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +3.4
Defense +11.6
Raw total +27.0
Avg player in 23.5m -13.1
Impact +13.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
S Luguentz Dort 14.8m
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

Despite strong hustle metrics (+3.8), his negative overall impact (-1.8) stemmed from defensive lapses and a continued pattern of offensive inefficiency. He failed to capitalize on perimeter spacing, continuing a multi-game shooting slump that stalled early half-court sets. His uncharacteristic defensive dip was driven by poor screen navigation against opposing guards.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -9.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense -0.8
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 14.8m -8.3
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.8

Despite continuing a highly efficient finishing streak, his overall impact slipped into the red (-1.8) due to ill-timed turnovers and missed defensive assignments. He generated good looks within the flow of the offense but gave value back by getting caught ball-watching on the weak side. The scoring bump couldn't overcome the negative swing caused by opponent transition opportunities during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.5%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +47.4
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.7
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 25.9m -14.3
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Alex Caruso 23.7m
8
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.3

Wreaked absolute havoc with his energy, posting an elite hustle rating (+9.2) through loose ball recoveries and relentless screen navigation. Breaking out of a recent scoring lull, he punished defenders who sagged off him with confident perimeter strikes. His defensive versatility completely neutralized the opponent's secondary creators during pivotal second-half stretches.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +52.3
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +9.2
Defense +5.8
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 23.7m -13.2
Impact +9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Isaiah Joe 21.4m
22
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.0

Exploded for a massive positive impact (+9.0) by hunting transition threes and punishing late closeouts. Doubling his recent scoring average, his gravity as a movement shooter completely warped the opponent's defensive shell. He paired this lethal shot-making with active off-ball movement to ensure his minutes were overwhelmingly productive.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.4%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +18.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +17.6
Hustle +2.7
Defense +0.5
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 21.4m -11.8
Impact +9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.4

Overcame a dip in scoring volume by clamping down defensively (+8.8 Def) and disrupting the opponent's rhythm. His relentless ball pressure and quick hands forced multiple rushed decisions from opposing guards. Even with his jumper not falling at its usual rate, his commitment to making the extra rotation drove a solid positive impact (+4.4).

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg +73.8
+/- +31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +3.0
Defense +8.8
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 19.6m -11.0
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

A sharp drop in offensive aggression led to a slightly negative overall showing (-1.7). He passed up several open looks from the perimeter, which allowed the defense to pack the paint against drivers. However, his sturdy positional defense (+2.2 Def) and willingness to absorb contact kept the stint from being a total loss.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg -25.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.2
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 13.6m -7.5
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.5

Completely vanished offensively during a brief stint, failing to attempt a single shot and cratering his recent scoring momentum. His passivity allowed defenders to completely ignore him, gumming up the spacing for the second unit. A lack of meaningful defensive resistance or rebounding presence resulted in a quiet, negative shift (-1.5).

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 5.8m -3.1
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Registered a near-neutral impact (-0.2) in limited minutes, primarily due to forced shots late in the shot clock. He failed to generate any hustle stats (+0.0), floating on the perimeter rather than engaging in the paint. The brief appearance was defined by a lack of rhythm and inability to replicate his prior efficiency.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -53.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense +1.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 3.8m -2.1
Impact -0.2
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
-0.6

Struggled to make a dent during his short run, finishing with a slightly negative score (-0.6) driven by poor defensive positioning. While he managed to convert a look inside, his lack of physicality on the glass limited his utility. He was consistently beaten down the floor in transition, neutralizing any minor offensive gains.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -53.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 3.8m -2.1
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0