GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAC Sacramento Kings
S DeMar DeRozan 41.6m
37
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
+7.8

Surgical precision from the midrange completely dismantled the opposing defense and drove a massive positive impact. By consistently hunting favorable matchups and punishing drop coverage, he generated high-quality looks without relying on the three-point line. His methodical isolation scoring stabilized the offense during crucial stretches.

Shooting
FG 12/18 (66.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 13/15 (86.7%)
Advanced
TS% 75.2%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.6m
Offense +33.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.3
Raw total +35.5
Avg player in 41.6m -27.7
Impact +7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 59.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
27
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.8

Erratic shot selection and a heavy diet of contested perimeter jumpers ultimately neutralized his relentless physical effort. While he generated immense value through chaotic hustle plays and aggressive point-of-attack defense, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions dragged his net impact down. The offense frequently stalled when he settled for early-clock triples instead of pressuring the rim.

Shooting
FG 9/21 (42.9%)
3PT 4/12 (33.3%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 56.1%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg -1.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.4m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +5.9
Defense +5.0
Raw total +24.7
Avg player in 38.4m -25.5
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
15
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.9

A surprising perimeter touch forced opposing bigs to respect his outside shot, completely altering the geometry of the floor. He paired this floor-spacing with excellent defensive versatility, effectively switching onto smaller guards without conceding driving angles. This two-way flexibility was the primary catalyst for his highly positive rating.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.7%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.7
Raw total +23.8
Avg player in 26.9m -17.9
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Maxime Raynaud 22.6m
8
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.0

High-IQ positioning and constant activity around the basket anchored a very solid rotational performance. He didn't force the issue offensively, instead capitalizing on dump-offs and offensive putbacks to maintain efficiency. His commitment to boxing out and executing defensive rotations ensured a steady positive impact.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg +9.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +4.3
Defense +1.7
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 22.6m -15.0
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Keegan Murray 20.2m
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.3

Complete offensive invisibility dragged his overall rating deep into negative territory. Failing to establish any scoring gravity allowed defenders to aggressively sag off and clog the driving lanes for his teammates. While he competed hard on the defensive end, his inability to punish closeouts severely handicapped the unit's spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg -37.5
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.3
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 20.2m -13.5
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
5
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.6

Embracing a pure glue-guy role allowed him to positively influence the game without demanding offensive touches. He focused entirely on setting bruising screens, protecting the paint, and generating extra possessions through sheer physicality. This selfless, defense-first approach perfectly complemented the high-usage scorers sharing the floor with him.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 4.3%
Net Rtg -18.9
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +5.0
Defense +3.1
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 26.8m -17.8
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
14
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.2

Despite knocking down shots at a respectable clip, defensive lapses and poor rotational awareness severely damaged his overall impact. He frequently lost his man off the ball, leading to easy backdoor cuts and open corner threes that fueled opponent runs. The scoring output simply couldn't compensate for the structural breakdowns he caused on the other end.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg +6.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +2.7
Defense +2.6
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 25.1m -16.7
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
10
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.1

Inefficient perimeter initiation and an inability to break down his primary defender stalled the offense during his minutes. Forcing contested looks in traffic rather than keeping the ball moving resulted in empty trips and transition opportunities going the other way. His struggles to navigate screens defensively only compounded the bleeding.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.9%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -29.1
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +4.4
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.5
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 20.5m -13.7
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Malik Monk 13.8m
9
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.3

Active hands in the passing lanes and surprisingly disruptive perimeter defense salvaged a streaky offensive performance. While his aggressive drives to the basket frequently ended in contested misses, his commitment to fighting over screens neutralized his matchup. He ultimately broke even by offsetting his offensive inefficiency with high-energy defensive plays.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 28.2%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +5.2
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 13.8m -9.2
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Keon Ellis 4.2m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

A disastrously brief stint was defined by rushed decisions and immediate defensive breakdowns. He forced bad shots early in the shot clock, instantly handing momentum back to the opposition before being quickly pulled from the rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -71.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense -0.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 4.2m -2.8
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DET Detroit Pistons
S Cade Cunningham 38.6m
23
pts
7
reb
14
ast
Impact
-0.9

Exceptional defensive metrics and relentless hustle were unfortunately undone by costly ball-security issues. While he orchestrated the offense at a high level, the hidden tax of live-ball turnovers gave opponents too many easy transition opportunities. His elite point-of-attack defense kept the damage from being much worse.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.6m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +5.4
Defense +13.2
Raw total +24.8
Avg player in 38.6m -25.7
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 9
S Ausar Thompson 35.6m
19
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.2

Despite a massive scoring surge compared to his recent baseline, offensive inefficiencies completely tanked his overall impact. Missing over half his field goal attempts allowed opponents to pack the paint and generate transition opportunities. The sheer volume of empty possessions ultimately outweighed his aggressive downhill attacks.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 0/0
FT 7/10 (70.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.6%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg -6.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +16.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.3
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 35.6m -23.7
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 47.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jalen Duren 32.5m
23
pts
13
reb
4
ast
Impact
+10.6

Absolute dominance in the painted area drove a massive positive impact score. He overwhelmed opposing bigs with relentless activity on the glass and highly efficient finishing around the rim. Adding significant value through rim protection and hustle plays made this a complete, two-way masterclass.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/7 (42.9%)
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg -7.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +24.6
Hustle +4.4
Defense +3.2
Raw total +32.2
Avg player in 32.5m -21.6
Impact +10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Duncan Robinson 30.6m
9
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.5

A stark lack of offensive gravity severely limited his overall effectiveness on the floor. Relying entirely on perimeter looks that failed to fall at a high rate resulted in stagnant half-court sets. Even with respectable effort on defensive rotations, his inability to pressure the rim dragged his net impact deep into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 9.0%
Net Rtg +1.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +2.7
Defense +2.4
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 30.6m -20.4
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Tobias Harris 29.2m
24
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.5

Elite shot selection and perimeter efficiency fueled a highly productive offensive shift. He punished defensive rotations by knocking down timely catch-and-shoot looks, capitalizing on a hot hand to outpace his usual scoring output. Solid positional defense further stabilized his positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.0%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +20.3
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.6
Raw total +23.9
Avg player in 29.2m -19.4
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.9

Physicality and floor-spacing from the frontcourt provided a steadying presence during his minutes. He successfully drew opposing bigs out of the paint by threatening from beyond the arc, opening up driving lanes for the guards. Consistent effort on closeouts and physical interior defense cemented a strong two-way showing.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +30.9
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.6
Raw total +18.1
Avg player in 21.3m -14.2
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Caris LeVert 19.3m
5
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.3

Smothering perimeter defense and high-energy hustle plays nearly salvaged an otherwise dismal offensive outing. He struggled to find any rhythm as a scorer, forcing contested looks that derailed the team's half-court flow. His commitment to fighting through screens and disrupting passing lanes kept his overall impact from completely cratering.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +23.8
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +8.2
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 19.3m -12.8
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 2
9
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.1

Relentless energy and off-ball movement defined this highly effective rotational stint. He generated extra possessions through sheer willpower, crashing the glass and diving for loose balls to swing momentum. That elite hustle, combined with opportunistic shot selection, resulted in a highly efficient shift.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +6.3
Defense +1.0
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 18.4m -12.3
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jaden Ivey 14.5m
8
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.3

Operating in a limited role, his overall influence on the game remained relatively muted. He took smart, efficient shots when the ball swung his way, but a lack of defensive playmaking prevented him from moving the needle positively. Ultimately, it was a quiet stint defined by safe decisions rather than aggressive creation.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +46.9
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.5m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.5
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 14.5m -9.7
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0