GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAC Sacramento Kings
S Keegan Murray 44.4m
26
pts
14
reb
2
ast
Impact
+16.1

A relentless physical presence in the paint and highly efficient perimeter shooting created a massive positive impact. He punished defensive rotations with timely outside shots while using his length to disrupt passing lanes on the other end. His ability to blend high-volume rebounding with elite floor spacing made him a matchup nightmare.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.0%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +6.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 44.4m
Offense +22.3
Hustle +4.2
Defense +11.0
Raw total +37.5
Avg player in 44.4m -21.4
Impact +16.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Zach LaVine 31.8m
7
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.1

Poor shot selection and a heavy reliance on contested perimeter jumpers severely damaged his offensive value. While he provided adequate defensive effort, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions stalled the team's momentum. His inability to penetrate the defense and settle for low-percentage looks drove the negative impact.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.0%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg -10.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.7
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 31.8m -15.3
Impact -10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S DeMar DeRozan 31.7m
33
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
+21.8

Masterful midrange execution and elite foul-drawing completely overwhelmed the defense. By consistently getting to his spots and operating with high efficiency, he dictated the game's tempo entirely from inside the arc. Strong defensive positioning and hustle metrics further amplified a dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 0/0
FT 15/15 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.0%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg +3.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +25.6
Hustle +5.5
Defense +6.0
Raw total +37.1
Avg player in 31.7m -15.3
Impact +21.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
-9.2

Inefficient volume shooting and erratic decision-making effectively neutralized his playmaking contributions. He forced too many contested shots early in the shot clock, bailing out the defense and sparking opponent transition opportunities. Despite solid defensive metrics, the offensive disruption was too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.8%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +4.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense -2.7
Hustle +2.4
Defense +5.0
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 28.7m -13.9
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Drew Eubanks 13.3m
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.4

Minimal offensive involvement and a lack of physical presence in the paint resulted in a negative stint. He struggled to secure position inside, leading to empty possessions and missed opportunities around the rim. The inability to generate meaningful hustle stats further diminished his overall effectiveness as a rotational big.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -26.2
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 13.3m -6.4
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

Strong interior finishing and stout defensive positioning were slightly offset by a lack of overall offensive volume. He executed well within his role but failed to assert himself enough to swing the momentum fully in his team's favor. A few missed rotations in transition ultimately kept his net impact hovering just below neutral despite efficient shooting.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +27.7
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.9
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 34.0m -16.4
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 45.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Malik Monk 26.1m
22
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.1

Aggressive downhill attacking and high-volume shot creation provided a massive spark off the bench. Even with some inefficiency from beyond the arc, his ability to consistently collapse the defense generated high-quality looks and tilted the floor. He paired this offensive burst with engaged perimeter defense to secure a strong positive impact.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg +24.2
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +17.1
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.5
Raw total +23.6
Avg player in 26.1m -12.5
Impact +11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
6
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
-2.8

Elite facilitation was undermined by a severe inability to convert his own scoring opportunities. He consistently broke down the defense to create for others, but his missed layups and poor perimeter shooting allowed defenders to sag into the passing lanes. The lack of scoring gravity ultimately hindered the second unit's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +6.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +2.9
Defense +1.0
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 24.3m -11.7
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
1
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.5

A complete inability to find the bottom of the net erased his usual interior efficiency and tanked his impact score. He looked out of sync offensively, missing point-blank looks and failing to establish deep post position. The lack of scoring production combined with neutral defensive metrics resulted in a highly damaging rotational stint.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 10.2%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -14.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.9m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +1.0
Defense -0.1
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 13.9m -6.7
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.3

A masterclass in impacting the game without requiring offensive touches defined his highly efficient minutes. Elite rebounding for his position and timely hustle plays generated extra possessions and fueled the transition attack. He embraced a gritty, blue-collar role that perfectly complemented the primary scorers and drove a stellar positive rating.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.2%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -11.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +2.6
Defense +1.4
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 11.6m -5.5
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Keon Ellis 5.2m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

Extreme offensive passivity rendered him virtually invisible during his brief time on the court. He failed to challenge the defense offensively or generate any meaningful playmaking, allowing his defender to act as a free safety. The lack of offensive engagement completely overshadowed his marginal defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.6
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 5.2m -2.6
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Rudy Gobert 40.8m
11
pts
13
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.3

Elite rim protection and high-end hustle metrics underscored a dominant interior performance. He maximized his offensive touches with highly efficient finishing while completely deterring opponents from attacking the paint. His massive defensive footprint anchored the team's half-court execution and drove a stellar positive impact.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 10.9%
Net Rtg +6.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.8m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +4.9
Defense +10.1
Raw total +26.9
Avg player in 40.8m -19.6
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Anthony Edwards 40.2m
43
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+21.1

An explosive scoring surge completely dictated the flow of the game, breaking him out of a recent offensive slump. His aggressive shot selection paid off massively, as he consistently broke down perimeter defenders to create high-value looks. Beyond the scoring barrage, his engaged point-of-attack defense prevented opponents from matching his offensive output.

Shooting
FG 16/29 (55.2%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.1%
USG% 35.4%
Net Rtg -15.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.2m
Offense +27.9
Hustle +2.7
Defense +9.9
Raw total +40.5
Avg player in 40.2m -19.4
Impact +21.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
S Julius Randle 38.7m
17
pts
10
reb
5
ast
Impact
-10.8

A sharp decline in shooting efficiency snapped his recent hot streak and cratered his overall impact. While he remained active on the glass to generate secondary opportunities, his defensive lapses and inefficient shot profile ultimately dragged down the starting unit. He settled for contested looks rather than attacking the paint where he usually thrives.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 22.8%
Net Rtg -17.1
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.7m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +2.7
Defense -0.6
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 38.7m -18.6
Impact -10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S Jaden McDaniels 37.3m
6
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-14.0

Offensive struggles completely derailed his overall value, as his scoring production plummeted well below his recent baseline. The inability to connect from deep combined with poor finishing around the rim outweighed his solid defensive contributions. His failure to find an offensive rhythm forced the team to play essentially four-on-five on that end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -5.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Offense -3.5
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.6
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 37.3m -18.0
Impact -14.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
17
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.7

Perimeter volume couldn't mask the inefficiency of a heavily three-point reliant shot diet. Though he provided solid rotational defense and hustle, the sheer number of empty possessions from missed deep looks ultimately resulted in a negative net impact. His inability to diversify his offensive approach made him too predictable against closeouts.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 5/13 (38.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg +10.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +3.8
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 37.0m -17.8
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Mike Conley 25.0m
3
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.4

Passive offensive involvement and defensive struggles against quicker matchups severely limited his effectiveness. While he facilitated well and generated positive hustle plays, his reluctance to look for his own shot allowed defenders to sag off and clog passing lanes. The lack of scoring gravity ultimately stalled the half-court offense and tanked his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg -9.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +3.8
Defense -1.3
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 25.0m -12.1
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Naz Reid 23.4m
15
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.3

A neutral impact score reflects a tug-of-war between high-activity glass cleaning and poor perimeter shot selection. He forced too many outside shots rather than leveraging his size advantage inside, limiting his offensive ceiling. However, timely defensive rotations and secondary rim protection kept him from being a liability during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.2%
USG% 29.3%
Net Rtg -2.2
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.7
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 23.4m -11.3
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.9

Despite a complete lack of scoring production, exceptional defensive engagement and high-energy hustle plays drove a positive overall impact. He applied relentless ball pressure that disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm and created transition opportunities. His playmaking and defensive intensity proved that generating points isn't required to heavily influence winning.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.8m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense +6.2
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 8.8m -4.3
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.5

A completely invisible offensive stint rendered him a net negative during his brief time on the floor. Defensive miscommunications further hurt his value, as he struggled to stay attached to his assignments on the perimeter. He failed to make any tangible impact outside of a few minor hustle plays that couldn't offset the empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.5%
Net Rtg -23.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.4m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +1.3
Defense -1.4
Raw total -1.0
Avg player in 7.4m -3.5
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

Empty offensive possessions and defensive breakdowns defined a highly ineffective rotational stint. Failing to convert any offensive looks wasted valuable trips down the floor, while his inability to generate hustle plays highlighted a lack of energy. Opponents successfully targeted him on the defensive end, driving his impact score firmly into the red.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.4m
Offense +0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.2
Raw total -0.7
Avg player in 6.4m -3.1
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0