GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAC LA Clippers
S Ivica Zubac 37.9m
19
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.2

Commanded the glass and provided sturdy rim protection to anchor the paint effectively. Capitalizing on deep post positioning allowed him to overwhelm smaller matchups and steady the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +2.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.9m
Offense +18.6
Hustle +2.7
Defense +5.1
Raw total +26.4
Avg player in 37.9m -20.2
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S James Harden 37.0m
29
pts
8
reb
11
ast
Impact
-2.2

A heavy diet of isolation misfires dragged his net value into the red despite a massive playmaking load. The sheer volume of empty offensive possessions ultimately outweighed his surprisingly stout defensive rotations against bigger forwards.

Shooting
FG 5/17 (29.4%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 17/19 (89.5%)
Advanced
TS% 57.2%
USG% 35.6%
Net Rtg -2.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.1
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 37.0m -19.7
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 7
S John Collins 36.0m
21
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.3

Elite finishing around the rim drove his positive value, continuing a highly efficient stretch of interior dominance. His gravity in the dunker spot forced constant defensive collapses, even if his own defensive metrics were merely average.

Shooting
FG 9/10 (90.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 96.5%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -0.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +19.6
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.8
Raw total +24.6
Avg player in 36.0m -19.3
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 40.9%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
S Kris Dunn 32.8m
6
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.0

Suffocating point-of-attack defense and active hands were completely undone by severe offensive spacing issues. Missing all of his perimeter attempts allowed his matchup to sag off and aggressively dig into the post.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg +14.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +4.7
Defense +6.3
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 32.8m -17.6
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kawhi Leonard 28.8m
30
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+13.9

Surgical isolation execution combined with highly disruptive hustle anchored a dominant two-way performance. He systematically dismantled his primary defender while simultaneously blowing up passing lanes on the other end.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.0%
USG% 36.8%
Net Rtg +3.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +19.9
Hustle +5.8
Defense +3.5
Raw total +29.2
Avg player in 28.8m -15.3
Impact +13.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-16.0

A complete inability to connect from the perimeter severely damaged the team's spacing and tanked his overall rating. Failing to punish closeouts allowed his matchup to freely roam and double-team the primary ball handlers, negating his decent rotational defense.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.1%
Net Rtg -9.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense -4.9
Hustle +2.7
Defense +1.2
Raw total -1.0
Avg player in 28.3m -15.0
Impact -16.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Kobe Brown 19.4m
5
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.8

Snapped a highly efficient streak with poor perimeter execution, leading to a noticeable drop in overall value. Settling for contested outside looks instead of leveraging his size advantage inside proved costly.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -35.3
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.4
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 19.4m -10.4
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Chris Paul 11.1m
0
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.0

Uncharacteristic passivity on offense made him a liability in half-court sets. While he organized the floor and competed defensively, failing to threaten the rim allowed his matchup to play free safety and clog passing lanes.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -12.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.8
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 11.1m -5.9
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.1

Struggled to adjust to the game's pace, offering virtually zero resistance or hustle during his rotational minutes. His inability to generate any offensive gravity allowed his primary defender to aggressively trap the ball handler.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg -83.5
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.8m
Offense -3.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.5
Raw total -2.4
Avg player in 8.8m -4.7
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Cooper Flagg 38.0m
35
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.3

Relentless downhill attacking fueled a massive offensive rating, continuing his recent tear of high-efficiency performances. However, his overall impact was significantly muted by average defensive metrics and a failure to punish defenders who went under screens.

Shooting
FG 13/22 (59.1%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 33.7%
Net Rtg -6.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Offense +22.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.8
Raw total +25.7
Avg player in 38.0m -20.4
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Naji Marshall 36.7m
18
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.4

Elite two-way execution defined this stint, with suffocating perimeter defense driving his massive positive value. He provided vital secondary creation while consistently blowing up passing lanes to ignite transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.5%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg +18.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Offense +16.7
Hustle +4.7
Defense +7.6
Raw total +29.0
Avg player in 36.7m -19.6
Impact +9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
S Dwight Powell 33.6m
9
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+18.4

Anchored the interior with a masterclass in activity level, generating staggering defensive and hustle metrics that dwarfed his offensive output. His ability to disrupt pick-and-roll actions and contest at the rim completely shifted the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 7.8%
Net Rtg +20.4
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +9.3
Defense +16.0
Raw total +36.3
Avg player in 33.6m -17.9
Impact +18.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 43.5%
STL 6
BLK 1
TO 1
S Ryan Nembhard 20.9m
8
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.2

Defensive bleeding at the point of attack entirely erased the value of his unexpected scoring surge. Opposing guards consistently blew past him in isolation, forcing rotations that compromised the entire defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -26.1
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense -1.6
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 20.9m -11.1
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Max Christie 20.0m
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.0

A brutal perimeter shooting slump cratered his offensive value and allowed defenders to aggressively pack the paint. While his defensive effort remained steady, the sheer volume of clanked catch-and-shoot looks made him a severe liability in half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 1/9 (11.1%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -13.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.8
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 20.0m -10.7
Impact -10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
1
reb
7
ast
Impact
+3.1

Navigated screens beautifully to apply relentless defensive pressure, keeping his overall impact in the green. His playmaking gravity compensated for a complete inability to connect from beyond the arc against drop coverage.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.2%
USG% 28.3%
Net Rtg +26.9
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +7.7
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 25.9m -13.8
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
23
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.5

Vintage perimeter spacing punished defensive lapses and broke him out of a recent shooting slump. Minimal hustle and defensive contributions capped his overall ceiling, but the sheer gravity of his shot-making warped the opponent's scheme.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.9%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +30.4
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +18.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.3
Raw total +19.4
Avg player in 25.9m -13.9
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Caleb Martin 21.4m
0
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.8

A textbook example of non-scoring impact, driven entirely by elite hustle and relentless defensive rotations. Despite offering zero offensive threat, his ability to generate extra possessions through sheer effort kept his team afloat.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -2.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense -3.5
Hustle +8.4
Defense +8.3
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 21.4m -11.4
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Moussa Cisse 14.3m
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.5

Largely invisible during his short stint, failing to generate meaningful defensive resistance or hustle metrics. Opposing bigs easily sealed him off in the paint, resulting in negative value across his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.1
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 14.3m -7.7
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.4

Failed to find the flow of the game during a brief cameo, registering zero hustle or defensive metrics. His inability to establish any rhythm resulted in empty minutes that snapped his recent streak of high-level production.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense -1.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.6
Avg player in 3.5m -1.8
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0