GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAC LA Clippers
S Kawhi Leonard 41.9m
32
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
+21.0

A monstrous defensive performance (+10.6) and relentless hustle (+5.9) drove an elite overall impact despite brutal shooting efficiency. He forced his will on the game through sheer volume and physical rebounding, masking the high number of missed jumpers. His ability to generate extra possessions single-handedly kept the offense afloat during stagnant stretches.

Shooting
FG 8/24 (33.3%)
3PT 4/12 (33.3%)
FT 12/12 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.6%
USG% 34.0%
Net Rtg +19.5
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.9m
Offense +22.5
Hustle +5.9
Defense +10.6
Raw total +39.0
Avg player in 41.9m -18.0
Impact +21.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 3
S James Harden 41.0m
21
pts
4
reb
10
ast
Impact
-4.2

A heavy volume of clanked isolation threes and forced drives dragged his overall impact into the red. While his defensive metrics (+5.3) were surprisingly stout, the sheer number of wasted offensive possessions stalled the team's momentum. The playmaking couldn't outrun the damage caused by poor shot quality.

Shooting
FG 6/20 (30.0%)
3PT 4/12 (33.3%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 46.4%
USG% 26.6%
Net Rtg +27.7
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.0m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +5.3
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 41.0m -17.6
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S John Collins 31.6m
17
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
+15.2

Exceptional shot selection and dominant rim protection (+8.9) resulted in a massive positive rating. He punished mismatches inside and stretched the floor effectively, continuing a highly efficient trend. His two-way physical presence dictated the terms of engagement in the paint all night.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.4%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +44.8
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +16.8
Hustle +3.0
Defense +8.9
Raw total +28.7
Avg player in 31.6m -13.5
Impact +15.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 21.4%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
S Kris Dunn 31.6m
8
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.8

Elite hustle plays (+6.1) and opportunistic perimeter shooting sparked a highly effective performance. He broke out of a recent slump by picking his spots perfectly and hounding ball-handlers. The timely defensive rotations and extra-effort plays were crucial momentum builders.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg +15.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +6.1
Defense +3.0
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 31.6m -13.5
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ivica Zubac 10.8m
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.9

Provided steady interior finishing during a limited run. Kept mistakes to a minimum, anchoring the drop coverage effectively when on the floor. A solid, low-variance shift that stabilized the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +68.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.8m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.0
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 10.8m -4.5
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Brook Lopez 24.9m
11
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.8

Solid drop-coverage defense (+2.7) and floor spacing were offset by struggles in transition and lateral quickness. Opponents successfully targeted his lack of mobility on the perimeter, bleeding points that erased his offensive contributions. A classic case where structural defensive liabilities outweighed efficient shooting.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg +6.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.7
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 24.9m -10.6
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 4
3
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.0

Passive offensive involvement and a step slow on defensive closeouts (-0.3) led to a negative return. He struggled to impact the game flow, floating on the perimeter without drawing defensive attention. The continuation of his shooting woes makes him difficult to keep on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.4%
Net Rtg -14.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.3
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 20.1m -8.5
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-10.9

Defensive lapses (-1.7) and a completely broken jumper combined for a disastrous stint. He failed to punish closeouts and became a target on the other end of the floor. The inability to hit open looks fundamentally compromised the spacing of his lineups.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 16.7%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -19.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense -3.9
Hustle +2.3
Defense -1.7
Raw total -3.3
Avg player in 17.9m -7.6
Impact -10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Kobe Sanders 17.1m
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

Efficient but overly deferential, failing to assert himself offensively in his minutes. The lack of secondary playmaking or rebounding meant his impact was entirely dependent on a few made shots. He needs to increase his activity level to generate a positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 7.3%
Net Rtg -27.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.8
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 17.1m -7.3
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Saw only garbage-time action, offering no meaningful sample size to evaluate. His recent scoring punch was left on the bench in this matchup.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +40.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 2.5m -1.0
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Kobe Brown 0.8m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Entered the game solely to run out the clock. His streak of highly efficient performances was paused due to a lack of opportunity.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +200.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.8m -0.3
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S LeBron James 37.6m
36
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+13.7

Elite defensive metrics (+6.9) and aggressive downhill attacks fueled a massive positive impact. He shattered his recent scoring trends by physically dominating his individual matchups in the half-court, converting high-value attempts at the rim. The sheer offensive gravity created favorable situations for the entire rotation.

Shooting
FG 15/28 (53.6%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.6%
USG% 38.1%
Net Rtg -7.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.6m
Offense +20.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.9
Raw total +29.8
Avg player in 37.6m -16.1
Impact +13.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Jake LaRavia 37.2m
12
pts
11
reb
6
ast
Impact
+12.6

Defensive anchoring (+8.2) and relentless activity on the glass drove a highly productive shift. Despite struggling from the perimeter, his timely weak-side cuts and hustle plays (+3.5) consistently tilted possessions in Los Angeles' favor. He capitalized on his minutes by doubling his usual scoring output through sheer effort around the basket.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg -32.9
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Offense +16.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +8.2
Raw total +28.5
Avg player in 37.2m -15.9
Impact +12.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jaxson Hayes 31.0m
8
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.9

Maintained his streak of hyper-efficient finishing, though a lower usage rate limited his overall offensive footprint. Solid defensive positioning (+3.4) in drop coverage kept him above water in the aggregate. His ability to execute within his role continues to provide stable, low-mistake minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -22.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.4
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 31.0m -13.2
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Marcus Smart 30.6m
5
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.8

Disastrous shot selection and bricked perimeter attempts completely tanked his offensive value. Outstanding hustle metrics (+7.1) and typical point-of-attack grit couldn't salvage the damage done by empty possessions. The refusal to stop shooting through a severe slump actively harmed the team's half-court rhythm.

Shooting
FG 1/12 (8.3%)
3PT 0/9 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 18.8%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -13.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense -3.1
Hustle +7.1
Defense +1.3
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 30.6m -13.1
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Luka Dončić 19.6m
12
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.5

A stark departure from his usual dominance, characterized by forced isolation jumpers and disjointed offensive flow. The heavy volume of missed shots dragged his impact score into the negatives. Opposing blitz schemes successfully sped up his processing, resulting in uncharacteristic inefficiency.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.5%
USG% 41.3%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense -4.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total -2.1
Avg player in 19.6m -8.4
Impact -10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
4
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.3

Offensive invisibility and missed assignments around the rim severely depressed his overall rating. While he provided his customary energy (+2.3 hustle), the inability to exploit defensive gaps made him a spacing liability. The lack of two-way balance ultimately hurt the lineup's effectiveness during his rotation block.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -22.2
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense -2.4
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.4
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 27.1m -11.6
Impact -10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
9
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.2

Streaky perimeter execution and forced drives yielded a mildly negative net result. Positive defensive metrics (+2.0) showed engagement on that end, but inefficient shot hunting capped his ceiling. He needs to refine his shot selection to translate his raw activity into winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.9%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.0
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 21.8m -9.2
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Maxi Kleber 15.8m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.3

Excellent hustle (+4.7) was completely overshadowed by a total offensive zero. Passing up open looks and failing to stretch the floor allowed defenders to sag off and clog the paint. His ongoing shooting slump renders him nearly unplayable in half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.4%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +4.7
Defense +0.2
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 15.8m -6.8
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Marginal offensive involvement meant his value had to come entirely from off-ball effort. Decent defensive rotations (+2.1) kept him from being a liability, but the inability to punish closeouts resulted in a slight negative total. He remains a non-factor when his perimeter shot isn't falling.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg -14.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.5m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.1
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 13.5m -5.8
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Barely registered during a brief stint, functioning purely as a cardio placeholder. Provided no offensive pressure, though he didn't make any glaring defensive mistakes. A complete non-factor whose impact score reflects his invisibility during the second quarter.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +64.4
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 5.8m -2.5
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0