GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAC Sacramento Kings
20
pts
13
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.1

Brutal interior finishing derailed his offensive value, as he repeatedly forced shots into heavy rim protection. The sheer volume of empty possessions and missed bunnies outweighed his typical rebounding contributions, driving a negative total impact.

Shooting
FG 5/17 (29.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 10/12 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 44.9%
USG% 32.9%
Net Rtg -29.7
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.0
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 29.8m -19.1
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Zach LaVine 29.6m
26
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.6

Torched drop coverage with lethal pull-up shooting from beyond the arc. His elite shot-making carried the offensive unit, though a lack of secondary hustle plays capped his overall ceiling slightly.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 6/9 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 76.5%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -33.9
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +20.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.0
Raw total +23.7
Avg player in 29.6m -19.1
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Despite finishing efficiently around the rim, poor screen-setting and clogged spacing dragged down the lineup's overall flow. His inability to stretch the floor allowed the defense to pack the paint, resulting in a negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 72.1%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -19.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +2.6
Defense +3.0
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 29.2m -18.8
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S DeMar DeRozan 28.9m
22
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.6

Methodical isolation scoring and uncharacteristic perimeter accuracy drove a massive box score rating. However, a lack of defensive playmaking and stagnant off-ball movement kept his overall net impact surprisingly grounded.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -30.6
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +16.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.2
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 28.9m -18.7
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-16.8

Offensive rhythm completely collapsed due to stalled dribble combinations and forced floaters in traffic. The resulting transition opportunities for the opponent cratered his net impact to a team-worst deficit.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 21.8%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -24.6
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.8
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 28.5m -18.4
Impact -16.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.6

Active hands in the passing lanes and strong positional rebounding generated solid individual defensive metrics. Unfortunately, poor spacing and defensive miscommunications in his specific lineup rotations dragged his overall total into the red.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -17.9
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.4
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 22.6m -14.6
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Malik Monk 19.6m
2
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
-13.9

Wildly erratic shot selection short-circuited the second unit's momentum. A complete absence of defensive resistance or loose-ball recoveries compounded the damage of his bricked jumpers, leading to a massive negative swing.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 14.3%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg -18.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense -0.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.1
Raw total -1.3
Avg player in 19.6m -12.6
Impact -13.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.3

Reckless drives into traffic resulted in low-quality attempts that fueled opponent run-outs. While his point-of-attack defense was solid, the offensive chaos and poor spacing were too destructive to overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -48.6
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense -1.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.5
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 15.9m -10.3
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Drew Eubanks 13.4m
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.9

Anchored the backup unit with disciplined verticality at the rim. Kept things simple offensively by setting hard screens and rolling with purpose, avoiding the turnover bug.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 56.4%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -11.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.4
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 13.4m -8.6
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Keon Ellis 12.0m
5
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.8

Hesitant decision-making against closeouts bogged down the offensive flow and tanked his overall impact. Failed to replicate his recent scoring punch, and his usually disruptive perimeter defense was largely neutralized by quick ball movement.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.5
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 12.0m -7.7
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.9

Looked completely out of sync during a brief stint, failing to initiate any meaningful offense. Defensive effort was present, but he was overwhelmed by the speed of the opponent's ball movement.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -20.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.6m
Offense -3.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.1
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 5.6m -3.5
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.6

Maximized garbage-time minutes with decisive cuts to the basket. Maintained his streak of perfect efficiency by refusing to settle for contested looks, generating a quick positive spike.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -15.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.8m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.1
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 4.8m -3.1
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Rudy Gobert 33.8m
19
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
+19.2

Absolute dominance as a roll man and lob threat fueled a massive scoring spike compared to his recent baseline. His towering defensive presence completely erased the opponent's interior attack and deterred drives before they even started.

Shooting
FG 9/10 (90.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.3%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +30.0
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +18.2
Hustle +6.0
Defense +16.7
Raw total +40.9
Avg player in 33.8m -21.7
Impact +19.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 31.8%
STL 1
BLK 5
TO 1
S Anthony Edwards 29.6m
26
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.7

Snapped out of a two-game slump by hunting high-quality catch-and-shoot threes instead of settling for contested midrange pull-ups. This perimeter barrage stretched the defense, allowing his active hands to generate easy transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg +39.7
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +17.8
Hustle +3.4
Defense +4.7
Raw total +25.9
Avg player in 29.6m -19.2
Impact +6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.4

Cold perimeter shooting dragged down his offensive value, continuing a recent trend of struggles from deep. However, relentless point-of-attack defense and loose-ball recoveries salvaged a positive overall rating despite the bricked jumpers.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.1%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +24.6
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +3.7
Defense +5.3
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 28.4m -18.3
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 15.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Julius Randle 26.5m
19
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.1

Physical downhill drives created consistent rim pressure, sustaining his highly efficient offensive stretch. Rotational awareness and heavy rebounding traffic kept the overall impact firmly in the green despite a few forced jumpers.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +35.1
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +15.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense +4.0
Raw total +23.1
Avg player in 26.5m -17.0
Impact +6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jaden McDaniels 26.2m
21
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.1

Elite shot selection and timely off-ball cutting drove a massive positive rating. He maintained his recent hot streak by punishing closeouts rather than forcing isolation looks, pairing that efficiency with stifling perimeter containment.

Shooting
FG 8/10 (80.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.8%
USG% 21.0%
Net Rtg +22.6
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +18.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.6
Raw total +22.9
Avg player in 26.2m -16.8
Impact +6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
Naz Reid 25.2m
13
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.4

Shot selection was overly reliant on above-the-break threes, leading to clunky offensive possessions and long rebounds. He compensated with elite energy on the glass and timely weak-side rim protection to keep his head above water.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 46.4%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +13.2
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +6.3
Defense +5.9
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 25.2m -16.3
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Mike Conley 17.6m
6
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.9

Operated as a pure stabilizing force, taking only high-leverage shots to break a recent string of poor efficiency. Superb positional discipline against quicker guards anchored the second unit's defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 6.4%
Net Rtg +37.8
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +6.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense +5.2
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 17.6m -11.2
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.0

Forced the issue on drives, resulting in empty possessions that tanked his overall impact despite a scoring uptick. Needs to process defensive rotations faster rather than pre-determining his attacks into heavy traffic.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.4%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg -2.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.0
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 15.6m -10.0
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Jaylen Clark 15.4m
11
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.2

Capitalized on limited minutes with flawless spot-up spacing, doubling his recent offensive output. The scoring burst masked a relatively quiet defensive stint where he mostly floated on the weak side.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 112.7%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +23.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +2.7
Defense +0.6
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 15.4m -10.0
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.7

Provided a brief but effective spark by attacking tilted defenses off the catch rather than pounding the rock. His defensive engagement was a pleasant surprise, cutting off driving lanes early in the shot clock.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.3m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +0.7
Defense +3.0
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 6.3m -4.1
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

Barely registered an impact during his short stint, floating on the perimeter offensively without setting meaningful screens. Lacked the physicality needed to alter shots around the basket, resulting in a slightly negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg +20.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.6m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.1
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 5.6m -3.6
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.4

A sharp drop-off in aggression saw him fade into the background after a strong five-game stretch. Failed to generate his usual paint touches or crash the offensive glass, resulting in a muted statistical footprint.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.9m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +0.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 4.9m -3.2
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.3

Rushed his perimeter looks and offered zero resistance on the defensive end. The lack of secondary hustle stats made his missed jumpers even more costly to the lineup's momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.9m
Offense +1.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.1
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 4.9m -3.3
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0