GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAC Sacramento Kings
S DeMar DeRozan 35.7m
25
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.1

High-volume inefficiency dragged his Total Impact down to a flat -0.1 despite a strong Box score. Missing 12 shots from the field represented a cascade of empty possessions that offset his scoring output. He settled for heavily contested midrange looks that failed to convert at his usual rate.

Shooting
FG 8/20 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.2%
USG% 29.1%
Net Rtg -1.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.1
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 35.7m -19.6
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
23
pts
16
reb
10
ast
Impact
+17.5

An absolute masterclass in efficiency and defensive rebounding fueled a gargantuan +17.5 Total Impact. He ruthlessly punished defensive gaps, converting at an incredibly high clip while anchoring the defense (+8.2 Def). This was a massive, highly-disciplined spike over his recent baseline.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.9%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg +2.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Offense +24.0
Hustle +4.7
Defense +8.2
Raw total +36.9
Avg player in 35.4m -19.4
Impact +17.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Nique Clifford 32.9m
12
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.0

While he shot well from beyond the arc, his overall impact cratered to -5.0 due to off-ball defensive lapses and poor transition spacing. The solid box metrics (+7.1) were entirely erased by the points surrendered while he was on the floor. He knocked down his open looks but gave it all back on the margins.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +4.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +2.4
Defense +3.5
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 32.9m -18.0
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
18
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
-5.5

Forcing the issue on drives led to 11 missed shots, driving his Total Impact into the red (-5.5). He stalled the offense with empty possessions despite a massive spike in overall scoring volume. While the raw production looked better than his recent slump, the inefficiency was highly damaging.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.0%
USG% 28.2%
Net Rtg +5.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.7
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 32.3m -17.5
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Drew Eubanks 32.2m
12
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Elite defensive metrics (+7.8 Def) and near-perfect finishing were bizarrely undermined by negative lineup combinations, resulting in a -1.1 Total Impact. He played his role perfectly as a rim-runner and interior deterrent. The negative overall score reflects rotational struggles rather than individual execution.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +7.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +7.8
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 32.2m -17.6
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
Malik Monk 25.3m
21
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.3

A potent scoring punch off the bench generated a strong +13.4 Box score, but defensive apathy (-0.0 Def) nearly washed out his entire impact. He traded baskets effectively but offered zero resistance on the other end. The result was a neutral +0.3 Total Impact despite the offensive fireworks.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 67.7%
USG% 27.7%
Net Rtg +1.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +13.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.0
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 25.3m -13.9
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Keon Ellis 17.1m
0
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.6

Complete offensive invisibility caused his Total Impact to slip to -1.6, a stark drop from his recent double-digit scoring average. However, he salvaged his floor time with phenomenal hustle metrics (+6.8) and point-of-attack defense. He was a pure energy specialist who refused to shoot.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.4%
Net Rtg +9.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +6.8
Defense +2.6
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 17.1m -9.3
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.0

Seeing a sharp decline in offensive touches didn't prevent him from posting a solid +4.0 Total Impact. He pivoted beautifully to a defensive anchor role, logging an impressive +5.8 Def metric to protect the paint. His ability to impact winning without his usual scoring volume showcased excellent versatility.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -3.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.8
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 15.1m -8.3
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.4

Perfect finishing on limited touches and solid interior defense (+2.8 Def) kept him in the green (+1.4) despite a drastically reduced role. He didn't force the issue when the offense went away from him. It was a highly efficient, mistake-free shift that stabilized the frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +19.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.3m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.8
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 9.3m -5.1
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.1

Barely seeing the floor, his inability to generate any offense in a brief stint led to a negative impact (-2.1). He failed to register a single hustle play, looking completely out of sync with the rotation. It was a non-factor performance compared to his recent double-digit scoring run.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.8m
Offense -0.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 4.8m -2.6
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
GSW Golden State Warriors
S Moses Moody 38.5m
28
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.3

Two-way dominance defined this outing, pairing lethal perimeter sniping with lockdown defensive metrics (+9.9 Def). He capitalized on open catch-and-shoot opportunities to drastically improve his efficiency from recent games. The combination of high-volume shot-making and defensive disruption resulted in a massive +11.3 Total Impact.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 83.5%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +4.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Offense +19.8
Hustle +2.7
Defense +9.9
Raw total +32.4
Avg player in 38.5m -21.1
Impact +11.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 4
TO 3
24
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.5

Despite a hefty scoring bump above his recent average, severe inefficiency on high volume cratered his overall impact (-7.5). Missing 11 shots from the floor negated the value of his increased aggression. Solid hustle metrics couldn't salvage a performance defined by forced offensive reps.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 32.6%
Net Rtg +4.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +0.8
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 35.6m -19.4
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S Will Richard 34.5m
30
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+14.7

A massive offensive explosion fueled his sky-high +14.7 Total Impact score. Elite perimeter shot selection and hyper-efficient conversion generated a staggering +30.2 Box metric. He completely shattered his recent scoring baseline to carry the offensive load in a breakout performance.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 83.0%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg +1.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +30.2
Hustle +2.7
Defense +0.7
Raw total +33.6
Avg player in 34.5m -18.9
Impact +14.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
9
reb
9
ast
Impact
-2.9

Dropping well below his usual scoring volume limited his offensive ceiling, leading to a negative Total Impact (-2.9). While his hustle metrics were stellar (+4.1), the lack of his typical offensive punch left a void. He functioned more as a connector than a primary engine in this matchup.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +19.7
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +4.1
Defense +1.8
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 31.0m -17.0
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Quinten Post 15.7m
0
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.9

A complete offensive goose egg was heavily masked by outstanding defensive metrics (+6.8 Def). Brick-laying from the perimeter tanked his box score, but active rotations and rim deterrence kept his overall impact near neutral. His value came entirely without the basketball.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +11.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.8
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 15.7m -8.5
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
Al Horford 26.5m
0
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.3

Missing every single shot he took severely punished his Total Impact (-8.3) despite phenomenal defensive positioning. His inability to punish defenses from the outside allowed opponents to completely ignore him on the perimeter. Elite hustle and rim protection (+7.2 Def) simply couldn't overcome the offensive zeroes.

Shooting
FG 0/8 (0.0%)
3PT 0/7 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -5.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense -5.7
Hustle +4.8
Defense +7.2
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 26.5m -14.6
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Pat Spencer 17.0m
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.1

Subpar finishing inside the arc and negative defensive metrics compounded to drag his Total Impact down to -9.1. He struggled to stay in front of his matchups, bleeding value on the less glamorous end of the floor. A dip from his usual scoring baseline only magnified the defensive shortcomings.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -51.4
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.3
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 17.0m -9.4
Impact -9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Buddy Hield 13.8m
9
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.6

Breaking out of a severe slump, his efficient shot-making in limited bursts drove a solid +2.6 Total Impact. He maximized his short floor time by capitalizing on defensive breakdowns. The sudden resurgence in accuracy provided a much-needed spark off the bench.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.5%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -35.7
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.0
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 13.8m -7.6
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.5

Severely reduced offensive involvement limited his overall influence, though he remained a net positive (+0.5). He made his lone shot attempt but primarily leaned on his defensive positioning (+2.5 Def) to stay afloat. The lack of typical scoring volume prevented a higher impact score.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg -33.1
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.4m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.5
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 11.4m -6.1
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.5

High-energy rim runs and active hands generated a positive impact (+1.5) during a very brief stint. He played strictly within his role, avoiding mistakes while contributing solid hustle metrics. It was a textbook low-usage, high-efficiency cameo.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -9.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.0m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.9
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 9.0m -4.9
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Gui Santos 7.0m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.4

An abrupt halt to his recent hot streak tanked his brief rotation minutes. Failing to convert on limited touches resulted in a stark -4.4 Total Impact. He couldn't find the rhythm that had defined his previous four hyper-efficient outings.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.0m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.5
Raw total -0.5
Avg player in 7.0m -3.9
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0