GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAC Sacramento Kings
S Zach LaVine 34.5m
12
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.8

Forced action and questionable shot selection short-circuited several offensive possessions, severely dragging down his net rating. The underlying metrics point to costly live-ball errors and poor transition discipline that completely overshadowed his baseline production.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.6%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -29.5
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.8
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 34.5m -17.7
Impact -10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S DeMar DeRozan 31.0m
18
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.3

Methodical isolation scoring and an uncharacteristic willingness to compete on the defensive end drove a highly productive shift. He consistently punished mismatches in the mid-range, stabilizing the offense whenever the primary actions broke down.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -26.7
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +13.6
Hustle +4.8
Defense +4.8
Raw total +23.2
Avg player in 31.0m -15.9
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
19
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.9

Bullying his way to high-percentage looks in the paint, he served as the reliable offensive hub the starting unit needed. However, sluggish pick-and-roll coverage on the other end bled points, preventing his dominant offensive showing from translating into a massive overall rating.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.0%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg -30.5
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +19.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.6
Raw total +20.1
Avg player in 25.6m -13.2
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-14.6

An inability to penetrate the first line of defense rendered his playmaking entirely ineffective. Blanked on the scoreboard and struggling to navigate screens, his minutes were characterized by stagnant offense and compromised floor spacing.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -28.5
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense -6.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.3
Raw total -3.9
Avg player in 20.8m -10.7
Impact -14.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
6
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.1

A sharp decline in offensive aggression limited his overall influence, snapping a recent streak of dominant interior performances. Though he remained efficient with his limited touches, his reluctance to attack the glass or challenge shots at the rim left his net impact completely flat.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -37.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.8
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 18.0m -9.2
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
8
reb
11
ast
Impact
-0.0

Abysmal perimeter shooting and a refusal to stop launching from deep completely torpedoed his scoring efficiency. He managed to claw his way back to a neutral impact strictly through sheer force of will on the glass and relentless drive-and-kick creation.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.4%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -3.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +2.4
Defense +3.0
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 31.0m -15.9
Impact -0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Malik Monk 28.5m
12
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.1

Settling for contested perimeter jumpers rather than attacking the teeth of the defense severely capped his offensive efficiency. Despite showing flashes of active hands in passing lanes, his erratic decision-making in transition ultimately cost the team momentum.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +5.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.3
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 28.5m -14.6
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Drew Eubanks 22.2m
19
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.2

Dominated the restricted area by converting nearly every dump-off and lob thrown his way. His elite finishing as a roll man forced the defense to collapse, opening up the perimeter and driving a highly positive overall shift.

Shooting
FG 8/9 (88.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.6%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +11.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +17.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense -0.0
Raw total +19.7
Avg player in 22.2m -11.5
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Keon Ellis 14.3m
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.0

What he lacked in scoring volume, he more than made up for with suffocating point-of-attack defense and elite hustle metrics. His willingness to do the dirty work—diving for loose balls and blowing up dribble handoffs—provided a massive energy injection for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 2.9%
Net Rtg +9.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +5.7
Defense +3.5
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 14.3m -7.5
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
5
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.1

Struggled to find the speed of the game, consistently arriving late on closeouts and forcing contested looks offensively. The sharp drop in his usual scoring output highlighted a disjointed performance where he was repeatedly targeted in defensive switches.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +30.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.9m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 13.9m -7.2
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
DEN Denver Nuggets
S Jamal Murray 37.1m
23
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
+0.3

High-volume perimeter creation yielded diminishing returns as the game wore on, with hidden inefficiencies eating into his overall value. While his shot-making kept the offense afloat during stagnant stretches, defensive compromises at the point of attack flattened his net impact.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.9%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg +16.2
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Offense +15.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.9
Raw total +19.4
Avg player in 37.1m -19.1
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Nikola Jokić 32.8m
35
pts
15
reb
7
ast
Impact
+31.2

An absolute masterclass in offensive efficiency where he systematically dismantled the interior defense with surgical precision. Elite defensive positioning and relentless activity on the glass compounded his overwhelming positive influence on the game.

Shooting
FG 16/19 (84.2%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 86.1%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg +11.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +35.8
Hustle +5.0
Defense +7.2
Raw total +48.0
Avg player in 32.8m -16.8
Impact +31.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 76.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Aaron Gordon 30.1m
17
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.8

Despite a solid statistical output fueled by timely perimeter shooting, defensive lapses and poor rotational awareness negated his offensive contributions. He struggled to contain his primary assignments in the half-court, ultimately yielding more value than he generated.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 60.4%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg +23.8
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.3
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 30.1m -15.5
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Christian Braun 29.7m
12
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.3

Relentless energy and active hands defined a performance that heavily boosted the team's perimeter defense. His willingness to take and make timely outside shots kept the defense honest, though minor mistakes slightly capped his overall ceiling.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 11.0%
Net Rtg +26.0
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +4.2
Defense +4.2
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 29.7m -15.3
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Cameron Johnson 22.3m
5
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.3

A stark departure from his recent scoring tear, his inability to connect from deep severely cramped the floor for the second unit. The underlying metrics suggest hidden costs, likely poor transition defense or unforced errors, dragged his overall impact deeply into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +21.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.5
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 22.3m -11.5
Impact -9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Bruce Brown 27.3m
14
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.6

Continuing a streak of highly efficient finishing, he provided a crucial spark by attacking closeouts and making decisive reads. His lockdown perimeter defense and timely weak-side rotations were instrumental in swinging momentum during the middle quarters.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -2.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +2.1
Defense +5.7
Raw total +22.7
Avg player in 27.3m -14.1
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.3

Cold shooting from beyond the arc completely neutralized his primary utility as a floor spacer. The lack of offensive gravity allowed defenders to sag off, stalling half-court sets and resulting in a steep negative overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -4.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.3
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 24.1m -12.3
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.2

A complete offensive disappearing act severely handicapped the second unit's scoring punch. While he showed flashes of characteristic hustle, his inability to generate any rim pressure allowed the opposition to completely ignore him in half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.9%
Net Rtg -10.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense -4.4
Hustle +2.6
Defense -0.1
Raw total -1.9
Avg player in 18.3m -9.3
Impact -11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
10
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.1

Struggled to establish deep post position, leading to a string of forced, low-percentage looks near the basket. His interior presence was largely neutralized by quicker rotations, rendering his brief stint on the floor a slight net negative.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 38.2%
Net Rtg +13.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.0
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 15.2m -7.8
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

Failed to make a mark during a brief cameo appearance, rushing his lone perimeter attempt. The lack of rhythm was palpable, resulting in a quick hook before he could settle into the flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +57.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Offense -0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.5
Avg player in 3.1m -1.5
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0