GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAC LA Clippers
S James Harden 40.6m
13
pts
0
reb
13
ast
Impact
-13.1

A brutal shooting performance from beyond the arc cratered his net impact (-13.1) and consistently bailed out the opposing defense. Although he generated high-level hustle metrics (+4.8) and facilitated well, the sheer volume of clanked step-back triples killed offensive momentum. His insistence on isolating against set defenders late in the shot clock resulted in a slew of empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 4/15 (26.7%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.8%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -20.4
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.6m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +4.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 40.6m -21.5
Impact -13.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Ivica Zubac 35.1m
21
pts
15
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.1

Absolute dominance in the painted area fueled a massive positive net rating. He punished switches with ruthless efficiency around the basket and provided an impenetrable wall in drop coverage (+6.5 defense). A relentless pattern of sealing his man early in the shot clock completely dictated the tempo of the game.

Shooting
FG 10/12 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.5%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -14.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +18.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense +6.5
Raw total +26.7
Avg player in 35.1m -18.6
Impact +8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kris Dunn 33.2m
6
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.3

Despite generating excellent hustle metrics (+4.2) and shooting efficiently, his time on the floor coincided with massive opponent scoring runs. The severe negative impact (-10.3) suggests costly off-ball defensive breakdowns or live-ball turnovers that aren't captured in his shooting splits. His inability to organize the half-court offense during a disastrous third-quarter stretch proved fatal to his net rating.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +4.2
Defense +1.9
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 33.2m -17.6
Impact -10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.0

Bricking multiple wide-open perimeter looks severely handicapped the team's spacing and tanked his overall impact (-8.0). While his on-ball defense remained respectable, the offense essentially played four-on-five when he was stationed on the wing. Opponents aggressively sagged off him in the half-court, completely bogging down the team's driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.0%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.4
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 27.2m -14.4
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Bradley Beal 19.6m
12
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.1

Active hands and decisive off-ball movement (+3.8 hustle) pushed his impact into the green despite a minutes restriction. He avoided forcing the issue against set defenses, instead capitalizing on spot-up opportunities and secondary transition breaks. His willingness to compete on the defensive end (+2.2) set a strong tone for the perimeter group.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg +7.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.2
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 19.6m -10.4
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
John Collins 28.4m
19
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.0

Continuing a red-hot stretch of offensive efficiency, his elite shot selection and vertical spacing tore the opposing frontcourt apart. He paired this offensive mastery with highly disruptive weak-side rim protection (+4.5 defense) to post a dominant +10.0 impact score. A series of perfectly timed pick-and-pop sequences completely neutralized the opponent's drop coverage.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.4%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +4.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +18.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.5
Raw total +25.0
Avg player in 28.4m -15.0
Impact +10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.9

Despite excellent defensive positioning (+5.0), his one-dimensional offensive role as a stationary floor spacer coincided with heavy negative swings (-4.9). He settled exclusively for perimeter looks, failing to pressure the rim or collapse the defense when run off the line. The lack of offensive versatility allowed defenders to stay glued to primary scorers during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -28.2
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.0
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 25.4m -13.4
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
Cam Christie 17.5m
8
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

A much-needed scoring bump was ultimately negated by low-impact off-ball play and minimal hustle contributions (+0.6). While his shot selection was vastly improved compared to recent outings, he struggled to navigate screens defensively, giving back points on the other end. His inability to impact the game outside of spot-up shooting kept his net rating slightly submerged.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -6.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.2
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 17.5m -9.3
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Brook Lopez 12.9m
8
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.0

Surgical precision around the basket allowed him to maximize a very short stint on the floor. He anchored the paint flawlessly (+2.3 defense) and converted nearly every touch he received without forcing bad angles. A quick flurry of post-ups in the second quarter provided a crucial stabilizing presence for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.3
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 12.9m -6.8
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
PHX Phoenix Suns
S Devin Booker 37.6m
21
pts
10
reb
9
ast
Impact
-6.6

Heavy offensive usage masked a damaging overall impact (-6.6) driven by clunky shot selection and empty perimeter attempts. Without his usual rhythm from deep, he settled for contested mid-range pull-ups that fueled opponent transition runs. His neutral defensive presence did nothing to offset the costly misses during a crucial second-half stretch.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.5%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg +6.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.6m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.0
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 37.6m -19.9
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S Grayson Allen 31.2m
14
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.4

Perimeter spacing was offset by inefficient finishing inside the arc, dragging his overall impact into the red. Despite generating strong defensive metrics (+4.6), his inability to convert two-point attempts created empty possessions that stalled the offense. His role as a floor-spacer was overshadowed by a pattern of yielding transition opportunities off missed drives.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +19.6
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +2.7
Defense +4.6
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 31.2m -16.5
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Mark Williams 28.6m
19
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.6

Dominating the interior with ruthless efficiency, his massive +10.6 impact was anchored by elite finishing around the rim. He consistently generated second-chance opportunities and anchored the drop coverage beautifully to stifle paint penetration. A relentless stretch of rim-running in the second half completely broke the opponent's interior defense.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.8%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +28.3
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +15.4
Hustle +5.2
Defense +5.1
Raw total +25.7
Avg player in 28.6m -15.1
Impact +10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Dillon Brooks 27.7m
16
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.4

Elite hustle (+6.5) and disciplined shot selection fueled a massive positive impact. Breaking out of a recent shooting slump, he punished defensive rotations by only taking high-value attempts within the flow of the offense. His relentless point-of-attack pressure set the tone for the defensive unit.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 88.1%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +3.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +6.5
Defense +5.1
Raw total +25.1
Avg player in 27.7m -14.7
Impact +10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Green 6.8m
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.2

A stark departure from his recent high-volume scoring tear, his brief stint on the floor yielded a negligible net impact. He struggled to find rhythm in limited minutes, forcing a couple of contested looks before being subbed out. The lack of offensive aggression and minimal hustle contributions kept him from leaving a footprint on the game.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.8m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.1
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 6.8m -3.6
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.6

Strictly operating as a catch-and-shoot threat, his entire offensive output came from beyond the arc. Strong rotational awareness yielded excellent defensive metrics (+5.2), keeping his overall impact in the green. His ability to perfectly execute the 3-and-D role provided crucial spacing without demanding the ball.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -5.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.2
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 28.8m -15.2
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.4

Shot selection heavily dragged down his net rating, as a barrage of missed perimeter looks stalled offensive momentum. While he showed great effort on loose balls (+3.8 hustle), the sheer volume of wasted possessions outweighed those extra-effort plays. A pattern of forcing early-clock triples prevented the second unit from establishing any offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.8%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg -0.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +3.8
Defense -0.3
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 26.5m -14.1
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Ryan Dunn 19.7m
6
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.4

High-energy rotations and active hands translated into a strong hustle score (+4.0) that anchored his positive impact. He maximized his limited touches by cutting decisively to the basket rather than settling for jumpers. A key sequence of deflections in the second quarter perfectly encapsulated his disruptive off-ball value.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg +28.6
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +4.0
Defense +1.1
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 19.7m -10.3
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

Operating strictly as a low-usage rim protector, he managed to stay marginally positive through disciplined verticality (+2.4 defense). He rarely touched the ball on offense, but avoided mistakes and set solid screens to free up shooters. His steady, mistake-free drop coverage during the second quarter stabilized the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -24.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.4
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 15.3m -8.1
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
7
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.5

Point-of-attack defensive pressure (+3.0) drove a solid positive impact in limited minutes. He stayed perfectly within his role, exclusively taking open perimeter looks and refusing to force drives into traffic. A crucial pair of defensive stops on the perimeter highlighted his value as a spark plug off the bench.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +26.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.7m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.0
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 13.7m -7.2
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.3

Defensive lapses during a brief first-half stint quickly pushed his impact into the negative. He failed to register a single field goal attempt, completely vanishing from the offensive flow after a recent stretch of highly efficient play. Getting targeted in pick-and-roll coverage ultimately cut his night short.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.8
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 4.2m -2.2
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0