GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAC Sacramento Kings
S Keegan Murray 47.0m
26
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.0

Capitalizing on defensive stops to leak out in transition fueled a highly efficient two-way performance. He punished closeouts perfectly, taking only high-quality looks within the flow of the offense. Elite defensive positioning consistently disrupted opponent passing lanes.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.2%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +7.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 47.0m
Offense +22.8
Hustle +3.8
Defense +7.3
Raw total +33.9
Avg player in 47.0m -25.9
Impact +8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S DeMar DeRozan 40.1m
27
pts
4
reb
9
ast
Impact
+10.6

Masterful control of the half-court tempo and precise playmaking dissected the opposing defense. He consistently drew two defenders and made the right read, generating high-quality looks for teammates. Methodical shot creation in the mid-range stabilized the offense during crucial stretches.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.1m
Offense +23.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.8
Raw total +32.6
Avg player in 40.1m -22.0
Impact +10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Maxime Raynaud 37.1m
12
pts
14
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.6

Conceding easy looks in the paint and struggling with defensive rotations drove his negative impact. While active on the glass, his inability to protect the rim allowed opponents to score at will inside. Missed assignments in pick-and-roll coverage frequently compromised the defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.4
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 37.1m -20.4
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 14
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
21
pts
13
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.1

A chaotic performance defined by 16 missed shots that severely damaged the team's offensive efficiency. While his relentless hustle generated extra possessions, his erratic shot selection frequently gave the ball right back. The sheer volume of forced attempts completely overshadowed his high-energy rebounding.

Shooting
FG 8/24 (33.3%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.2%
USG% 38.7%
Net Rtg -0.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +5.2
Defense +4.5
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 29.3m -16.2
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
5
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.0

A severe lack of offensive involvement rendered him largely ineffective despite solid defensive metrics. Failing to establish himself as a roll threat allowed the defense to trap the ball-handler aggressively. He was essentially a non-factor on the offensive end during his 18 minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/8 (37.5%)
Advanced
TS% 45.3%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +0.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +2.3
Defense +2.9
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 18.2m -10.0
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
24
pts
7
reb
10
ast
Impact
+9.5

Slicing through the point of attack to create high-quality looks drove a massive offensive breakout. He consistently collapsed the defense with dribble penetration, leading to easy dump-offs and kick-outs. Excellent decision-making in the pick-and-roll dictated the flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 72.6%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +22.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.0
Raw total +27.1
Avg player in 31.9m -17.6
Impact +9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.0

Excellent defensive intensity was completely undone by an inability to space the floor. Missing all four of his perimeter attempts allowed defenders to pack the paint and stifle driving lanes. His offensive struggles turned him into a liability despite holding his own on the other end.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.2
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 26.9m -14.9
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.6

Existing on the floor without generating any tangible advantages resulted in a slightly negative impact. He failed to set meaningful screens or roll with purpose, stagnating the half-court offense. A completely passive approach left him floating through his 20 minutes of action.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 2.1%
Net Rtg -4.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +2.4
Defense +1.9
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 20.6m -11.4
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
Keon Ellis 9.0m
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

Empty offensive possessions and missed perimeter looks defined a highly ineffective brief stint. He failed to capitalize on open spot-up opportunities, stalling the momentum of the second unit. Active perimeter defense couldn't make up for the complete lack of offensive production.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -66.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.0m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.9
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 9.0m -4.9
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Malik Monk 4.8m
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.7

A very quick hook prevented him from establishing any sort of rhythm or impact. He barely had time to break a sweat before being pulled from the rotation. The minimal sample size offered no real opportunity to influence the game's outcome.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -39.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 4.8m -2.7
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
HOU Houston Rockets
S Kevin Durant 47.5m
24
pts
10
reb
8
ast
Impact
-7.7

Heavy volume and 13 missed field goals severely dragged down his overall efficiency. The sheer number of empty offensive possessions negated his otherwise solid defensive metrics. Forcing contested mid-range jumpers against double teams ultimately hurt the offense.

Shooting
FG 8/21 (38.1%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 24.5%
Net Rtg +2.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 47.5m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.2
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 47.5m -26.1
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Amen Thompson 45.1m
18
pts
9
reb
8
ast
Impact
+5.6

Relentless rim pressure and elite finishing around the basket drove a highly efficient performance. He consistently generated extra possessions through high-motor hustle plays in the trenches. Defensive versatility allowed him to seamlessly switch across multiple positions without giving up advantages.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.5%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +1.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 45.1m
Offense +17.3
Hustle +5.7
Defense +7.5
Raw total +30.5
Avg player in 45.1m -24.9
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Alperen Sengun 40.9m
28
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+13.2

Dominant interior positioning and highly efficient finishing created a massive positive swing. He consistently punished switches in the post, forcing defensive rotations that opened up the floor. Elite hustle metrics reflect his relentless effort in keeping offensive possessions alive.

Shooting
FG 12/17 (70.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 71.3%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.9m
Offense +17.5
Hustle +6.5
Defense +11.8
Raw total +35.8
Avg player in 40.9m -22.6
Impact +13.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 4
18
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.6

Clanking 10 shots from the field completely neutralized his decent defensive contributions. Opponents frequently capitalized on his long misses to push the pace in transition. His inability to find a rhythm from deep stalled several half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 52.0%
USG% 20.2%
Net Rtg -28.2
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.5
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 36.4m -20.0
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Josh Okogie 33.7m
3
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.2

Offensive invisibility and poor spacing severely hampered the team's flow while he was on the floor. Missing four perimeter looks allowed defenders to completely sag off him and clog the paint. His defensive energy simply wasn't enough to offset playing 4-on-5 on the other end.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg -6.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +4.3
Defense +2.0
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 33.7m -18.5
Impact -11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
15
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-13.9

Poor shot selection and nine missed field goals created a significant drag on the offense. Opposing guards consistently targeted him on the perimeter, leading to defensive breakdowns and negative impact metrics. Forcing contested looks early in the shot clock fueled opponent transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.4%
USG% 21.0%
Net Rtg +19.7
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense -1.6
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 33.8m -18.6
Impact -13.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Tari Eason 15.5m
16
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+14.3

An absolute supernova off the bench who swung the game's momentum in just 15 minutes. Perfect perimeter execution and immediate defensive intensity overwhelmed the opposing second unit. Every minute he played felt like a massive net positive due to flawless shot selection.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.1%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -16.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Offense +17.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.0
Raw total +23.0
Avg player in 15.5m -8.7
Impact +14.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Clint Capela 11.9m
2
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.4

Failing to convert high-percentage looks around the rim limited his effectiveness in a brief stint. He struggled to establish deep post position, resulting in empty offensive trips. The lack of interior gravity made it easy for the defense to stay home on shooters.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +0.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.9m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.4
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 11.9m -6.6
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1