GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAC LA Clippers
S Ivica Zubac 31.6m
18
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+12.8

Dominant screen-setting and elite touch in the restricted area anchored a highly productive performance. He consistently punished switches by sealing smaller defenders deep in the paint. His massive defensive rating was driven by textbook verticality that deterred multiple drives at the rim.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -18.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +18.6
Hustle +3.9
Defense +8.1
Raw total +30.6
Avg player in 31.6m -17.8
Impact +12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 27
FGM Against 15
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S James Harden 29.8m
23
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.0

A steady diet of drawn fouls and precise half-court orchestration offset a miserable shooting night from beyond the arc. He manipulated the defense masterfully, using his pacing to create driving lanes and lob opportunities. Strong positional rebounding from the guard spot further buoyed his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 10/10 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.3%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -40.3
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense +5.0
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 29.8m -16.7
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S John Collins 20.7m
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.1

Abysmal touch around the rim ruined his impact score and snapped a highly efficient scoring streak. He forced several contested hook shots into heavy traffic rather than kicking out to open shooters. While his defensive rebounding was adequate, the offensive black hole he created was too damaging.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -53.0
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense -4.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.4
Raw total -0.5
Avg player in 20.7m -11.6
Impact -12.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
8
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.3

Relentless cutting and high-flying transition finishes broke him out of a recent offensive slump. He provided a massive spark by converting broken plays into momentum-shifting dunks. Defensively, his length disrupted passing lanes and generated timely deflections.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -32.5
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.2
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 19.6m -11.0
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
S Kris Dunn 15.5m
3
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.0

Poor decision-making in the pick-and-roll and clunky finishes at the basket severely hurt his overall rating. He struggled to break down his primary defender, leading to stalled offensive sets and late-clock desperation heaves. A lack of point-of-attack resistance on the other end compounded the negative impact.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -23.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +1.7
Defense -0.8
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 15.5m -8.6
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
22
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.8

Blistering perimeter shooting and decisive off-ball movement fueled a massive surge in offensive impact. He capitalized on every defensive lapse, punishing late closeouts with a barrage of deep jumpers. His active hands in the passing lanes also sparked several crucial transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 87.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +8.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +19.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.2
Raw total +25.5
Avg player in 26.4m -14.7
Impact +10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Kobe Sanders 24.7m
9
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.9

Disastrous defensive execution completely wiped out the value of his perimeter shot-making. He repeatedly lost his man on backdoor cuts and died on screens, bleeding points in the half-court. The inability to execute basic defensive rotations overshadowed his offensive spacing.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -25.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +2.1
Defense -3.8
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 24.7m -13.8
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.2

Despite knocking down his perimeter looks to break a shooting slump, his overall impact slipped into the negative due to defensive sluggishness. He was frequently targeted in isolation, struggling to stay in front of quicker wings. The efficient shooting couldn't mask the points surrendered on the other end.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg -9.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.0
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 22.1m -12.3
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
0
reb
6
ast
Impact
-5.2

Elite playmaking and a bounce-back shooting performance were entirely undone by a porous defensive showing. He was consistently hunted in pick-and-roll actions, offering zero resistance at the point of attack. The defensive bleeding heavily outweighed his offensive creation.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg +24.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense -2.2
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 20.2m -11.4
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Brook Lopez 15.9m
10
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.9

Reliable pick-and-pop execution kept the offense flowing, but his lack of mobility on the perimeter was heavily exploited. Opposing guards relentlessly attacked him in drop coverage, generating wide-open floaters and pull-up jumpers. The defensive bleed ultimately pushed his net impact slightly into the red.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg -2.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense -0.8
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 15.9m -8.9
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Kobe Brown 7.4m
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.6

A sudden loss of offensive aggression derailed his recent streak of highly efficient outings. He hesitated on open looks and failed to attack the rim, bogging down the second-unit offense. Minimal hustle and a lack of floor-stretching presence led to a negative stint.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +41.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.4m
Offense -0.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 7.4m -4.1
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.2

Smart ball movement and disciplined defensive positioning allowed him to survive a scoreless stretch from the floor. He focused entirely on connective passing rather than forcing bad shots, which stabilized the offense. Drawing a key shooting foul provided just enough value to keep his impact positive.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg +46.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.1m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 6.1m -3.5
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DEN Denver Nuggets
S Nikola Jokić 33.6m
55
pts
12
reb
6
ast
Impact
+45.0

An absolutely historic scoring explosion fueled an off-the-charts impact score. He systematically dismantled the opposing frontcourt with elite shot-making from all three levels, punishing every defensive scheme thrown his way. The sheer gravity of his offensive dominance completely warped the game.

Shooting
FG 18/23 (78.3%)
3PT 5/6 (83.3%)
FT 14/16 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 91.5%
USG% 39.0%
Net Rtg +41.8
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +51.7
Hustle +2.4
Defense +9.7
Raw total +63.8
Avg player in 33.6m -18.8
Impact +45.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jamal Murray 32.8m
15
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.5

Exceptionally disruptive defense and high-motor hustle plays salvaged his impact on a night where his jumper completely abandoned him. Poor shot selection and clunky isolation possessions dragged down his offensive efficiency. However, his relentless point-of-attack pressure generated crucial stops down the stretch.

Shooting
FG 5/16 (31.2%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.2%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +13.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +8.8
Defense +10.4
Raw total +22.9
Avg player in 32.8m -18.4
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 3
S Aaron Gordon 30.8m
18
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.1

Elevated offensive aggression and timely cuts along the baseline drove a positive net rating. His willingness to take open perimeter shots forced closeouts, which he attacked effectively. Defensively, his versatility in switching onto smaller guards anchored the frontcourt rotation.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +46.1
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +5.0
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 30.8m -17.2
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Christian Braun 16.1m
6
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.1

Passive offensive tendencies limited his overall influence, as he passed up several open looks he usually takes. While his playmaking in transition was crisp, the steep drop in scoring volume neutralized his value. He struggled to stay attached to shooters on the defensive end, resulting in a slightly negative total impact.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 104.2%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg +30.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 16.1m -9.1
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

A drastic drop-off in scoring volume tanked his overall impact during a brief stint on the floor. He couldn't find his rhythm from the perimeter, completely stalling out after a hot five-game stretch. A lack of offensive aggression allowed defenders to sag off and disrupt spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +1.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.0
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 7.8m -4.4
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Bruce Brown 27.9m
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-14.6

A jarring lack of offensive production snapped a highly efficient streak and cratered his overall impact. He struggled to finish through contact in the paint, often forcing wild attempts rather than resetting the offense. The inability to initiate sets or pressure the rim left the half-court attack stagnant while he was out there.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg +0.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.6
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 27.9m -15.6
Impact -14.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.8

Offensive invisibility severely punished his overall rating, as he missed badly on his perimeter attempts. He failed to capitalize on the momentum from his recent strong performances, looking hesitant against physical coverage. Despite solid weak-side rim protection, his inability to generate offense proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.5%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -2.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +3.0
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 22.1m -12.3
Impact -9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
12
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.5

Catch-and-shoot reliability from beyond the arc provided a much-needed spacing boost for the second unit. He showed surprising engagement on the defensive end, fighting through screens to stay glued to his assignment. This two-way effort resulted in a highly efficient and positive stint.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.1%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +51.1
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.8
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 20.7m -11.6
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.2

Extreme passivity on offense resulted in a negative overall rating despite perfect shooting execution. He simply floated on the perimeter without putting any pressure on the defense or attacking closeouts. Failing to secure a single loose ball or rebound further diminished his floor presence.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 2.9%
Net Rtg +45.5
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.2
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 15.4m -8.6
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.4

Poor shot selection from the perimeter continues to plague his offensive efficiency. He rushed several contested looks early in the shot clock, killing offensive momentum. A lack of secondary contributions on the glass or in transition kept his impact firmly in the negative.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -76.1
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.3m
Offense -0.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 11.3m -6.4
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.1

Efficient interior finishing kept his box score positive during a very brief rotation stint. He established deep post position effectively but was rarely rewarded by the guards. Defensive mobility issues in pick-and-roll coverage limited his total impact to a near-neutral output.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 30.4%
Net Rtg -49.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.9m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.8
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 10.9m -6.1
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.3

Active hands and quick defensive rotations salvaged a positive impact during garbage time. He bricked his only offensive looks but compensated by blowing up a dribble hand-off on the other end. The energetic defensive effort outweighed the empty offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -66.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.6
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 3.5m -1.9
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Zeke Nnaji 3.5m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.9

A complete lack of offensive involvement dragged down his brief appearance. He essentially operated as a cardio guy, failing to attempt a shot or alter the geometry of the floor. Minor defensive positioning mistakes compounded the lack of production.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -66.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 3.5m -1.9
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.8

Defensive lapses against quicker guards negated his perfect shooting mark in limited minutes. He was repeatedly beaten off the dribble, forcing the frontcourt to over-help and concede offensive rebounds. The inability to stay in front of his man outweighed his single perimeter conversion.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 37.5%
Net Rtg -66.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense -0.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 3.5m -1.9
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2