GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAC Sacramento Kings
S Keegan Murray 36.5m
12
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.8

Elite defensive metrics completely overshadowed a cold shooting night from deep. He locked down the perimeter and blew up multiple pick-and-roll actions, proving he can dictate the game's outcome without relying on his jumper.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -27.2
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +6.0
Defense +15.9
Raw total +28.1
Avg player in 36.5m -19.3
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 65.0%
STL 5
BLK 3
TO 0
S Zach LaVine 35.4m
19
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.0

Consistent rim pressure and timely cuts fueled a solid positive rating. He leveraged his athleticism to disrupt passing lanes on defense, perfectly complementing a steady stream of downhill attacks.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.1%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -41.1
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +4.0
Defense +6.4
Raw total +23.7
Avg player in 35.4m -18.7
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S DeMar DeRozan 34.5m
23
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+16.9

A masterclass in shot creation and offensive flow drove his massive positive impact. He consistently punished drop coverage with his midrange game while generating unexpected value through active hands and hustle plays in transition.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 22.8%
Net Rtg -10.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +19.6
Hustle +8.7
Defense +7.0
Raw total +35.3
Avg player in 34.5m -18.4
Impact +16.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
-8.6

A disastrous shooting performance torpedoed his overall value and killed the team's momentum. Reckless drives into traffic and bricked perimeter jumpers completely derailed the offensive rhythm, negating his otherwise solid defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 1/10 (10.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 14.4%
USG% 28.3%
Net Rtg -56.2
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense -4.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.0
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 20.0m -10.6
Impact -8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Drew Eubanks 14.6m
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.3

He converted his few touches but offered zero resistance defensively, leading to a negative net rating. Getting pushed around in the paint and failing to secure contested rebounds allowed the opposition to generate crucial second-chance opportunities.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg -65.6
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +1.0
Defense -0.0
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 14.6m -7.8
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Malik Monk 33.7m
21
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+10.6

He injected massive energy into the lineup with aggressive downhill drives and high-motor hustle plays. His ability to break down the defense off the dribble forced constant rotations and consistently collapsed the opposing shell.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.7%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +16.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +8.6
Defense +5.8
Raw total +28.5
Avg player in 33.7m -17.9
Impact +10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
11
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.0

Despite a noticeable dip in scoring volume, his physical interior defense kept his impact firmly in the green. He walled off the paint effectively and finished strongly through contact when given the opportunity around the basket.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +30.5
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +1.0
Defense +5.2
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 23.7m -12.7
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.3

A passive approach on both ends led to a negative net rating as he failed to generate his usual offensive gravity. He struggled to anchor the drop coverage, allowing the opponent to comfortably execute their half-court sets without facing resistance.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.4%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg +7.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.1
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 22.8m -12.1
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Excellent hustle metrics were overshadowed by an inability to maintain defensive discipline. Blown assignments and late closeouts slightly outweighed his perfect shooting efficiency during his brief stint on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg +70.2
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +4.3
Defense -1.2
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 12.7m -6.7
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Keon Ellis 6.2m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
0.0

A brief, uneventful stint yielded a perfectly neutral rating. He provided a quick burst of defensive energy but didn't stay on the floor long enough to tilt the scales in either direction.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg +64.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.2m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +3.5
Defense +1.3
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 6.2m -3.3
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MEM Memphis Grizzlies
13
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.4

Solid rim protection and active defensive rotations kept his value afloat, but offensive inefficiency anchored his net impact near zero. Missing all his looks from deep and struggling to finish through contact inside resulted in too many empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.8%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +10.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +3.3
Defense +6.3
Raw total +17.8
Avg player in 34.0m -18.2
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jaylen Wells 29.6m
15
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.1

Flawless perimeter execution masked underlying issues in his off-ball engagement, dragging his net score into the red despite a massive scoring surge. A complete lack of secondary hustle plays and defensive passivity allowed opponents to immediately regain the points he generated.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 110.9%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg +31.2
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.3
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 29.6m -15.8
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Zach Edey 29.4m
32
pts
17
reb
0
ast
Impact
+23.3

Sheer physical dominance in the paint drove a massive positive rating. He served as an unstoppable offensive hub as a roll man, while his massive frame completely walled off the interior and deterred opponents from challenging the rim.

Shooting
FG 16/20 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.3%
USG% 33.8%
Net Rtg +39.1
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +26.6
Hustle +2.6
Defense +9.8
Raw total +39.0
Avg player in 29.4m -15.7
Impact +23.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 5
TO 5
S Cedric Coward 28.7m
10
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.7

Poor shot selection cratered his value as he repeatedly forced bad looks from beyond the arc. Bricking multiple perimeter jumpers derailed the offensive tempo and allowed the opposition to dictate the flow in transition.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 40.6%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.6
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 28.7m -15.3
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-16.5

A catastrophic shooting performance completely tanked his net impact, creating a string of dead offensive possessions. Even though he successfully facilitated for others, clanking every single field goal attempt destroyed the team's spacing and offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 0/8 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 10.2%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense -6.3
Hustle +2.6
Defense +1.4
Raw total -2.3
Avg player in 26.8m -14.2
Impact -16.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Santi Aldama 22.1m
7
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.3

High-motor rotations and defensive connectivity drove his positive score rather than scoring volume. Grabbing crucial loose balls and executing crisp closeouts provided a subtle but vital boost to the second unit's stability.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.4%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -41.7
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +5.2
Defense +4.6
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 22.1m -11.7
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 91.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Cam Spencer 21.2m
16
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.4

Sizzling perimeter shooting artificially inflated his offensive value while hiding a complete lack of rebounding and hustle. Opponents relentlessly targeted his defensive gaps, easily neutralizing the damage he did from behind the arc.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 26.4%
Net Rtg +9.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.2
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 21.2m -11.3
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
13
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.0

Efficient spot-up shooting wasn't enough to push his impact into positive territory. A glaring lack of disruptive defensive plays and minimal rebounding presence meant he was largely a passenger when the ball wasn't in his hands.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.8%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg +3.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +3.5
Defense +1.2
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 19.9m -10.6
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
Jock Landale 16.8m
5
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.8

A sharp drop in offensive production and negative defensive impact kept him firmly in the red. He routinely failed to establish deep post position, settling for contested looks that allowed the defense to easily reset and push the pace.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -40.5
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 16.8m -8.9
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
John Konchar 11.5m
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.4

He was essentially invisible on the offensive end, failing to pressure the rim or bend the defense. While his defensive rotations were fundamentally sound, the sheer lack of offensive gravity made it impossible to justify his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg +29.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.5m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.1
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 11.5m -6.0
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0