GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAC LA Clippers
S Kawhi Leonard 36.8m
41
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+20.8

An absolute masterclass in shot-making and offensive efficiency drove a massive positive rating. Systematically dismantling the defense by hunting favorable matchups allowed him to execute flawlessly in isolation. His surgical precision from the mid-range and beyond the arc completely dictated the tempo and flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 16/23 (69.6%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.3%
USG% 36.0%
Net Rtg +39.5
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Offense +35.8
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.3
Raw total +41.9
Avg player in 36.8m -21.1
Impact +20.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S James Harden 34.7m
29
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+3.9

Masterful orchestration of the pick-and-roll and a steady diet of drawn fouls drove a solid positive impact. Manipulating defensive coverages expertly allowed him to create high-value looks for both himself and his teammates. His classic knack for baiting defenders into cheap fouls consistently bailed out stagnant offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 12/13 (92.3%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 32.4%
Net Rtg +29.7
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +17.3
Hustle +1.5
Defense +4.9
Raw total +23.7
Avg player in 34.7m -19.8
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S John Collins 29.4m
13
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+10.9

Exceptional defensive activity and highly efficient floor spacing fueled a tremendous two-way performance. Punishing late closeouts with confident perimeter shooting perfectly complemented his ability to protect the weak side of the rim. His agility in seamlessly switching onto smaller guards defensively was a major key to his high impact score.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 81.3%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +33.6
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +16.0
Hustle +3.8
Defense +8.0
Raw total +27.8
Avg player in 29.4m -16.9
Impact +10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
S Brook Lopez 27.3m
5
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.2

Elite rim protection was completely offset by a dismal shooting performance that repeatedly stalled the offense. Anchoring the paint defensively was overshadowed by an inability to convert wide-open pick-and-pop opportunities, allowing the defense to ignore him. Bricking multiple uncontested looks from the perimeter ultimately neutralized his immense defensive value.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg +16.9
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +3.6
Defense +6.7
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 27.3m -15.7
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 47.6%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
S Kris Dunn 25.6m
11
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.1

Disruptive point-of-attack defense and timely perimeter shot-making pushed his impact into the green. Hounding opposing ball-handlers generated crucial stops that directly fueled transition opportunities. Hitting open catch-and-shoot looks when the defense collapsed inside provided just enough offensive value to secure a positive rating.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +37.5
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense +3.8
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 25.6m -14.6
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.7

A severe lack of offensive aggression and poor defensive rotations resulted in a heavily negative rating. Frequently targeted in space, he struggled mightily to stay in front of quicker wings on the perimeter. His reluctance to attack closeouts or initiate ball movement caused the half-court offense to bog down during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg +18.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.5
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 25.2m -14.3
Impact -10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.5

A disastrous shooting performance and remarkably poor shot selection absolutely cratered his net impact. Repeatedly forcing contested jumpers early in the shot clock killed offensive momentum and fueled opponent fast breaks. His inability to create separation off the dribble resulted in a string of highly damaging empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +18.4
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense -2.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.0
Raw total -1.3
Avg player in 19.4m -11.2
Impact -12.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

Invisibility on the offensive end and a failure to impact the game defensively led to a negative score. Struggling to establish any physical presence in the paint allowed opponents to secure easy positioning inside. A lack of decisive screening action rendered him a complete non-factor in the team's offensive sets.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.8%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -1.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.0
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 15.3m -8.7
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Kobe Sanders 13.4m
13
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.3

Blistering perimeter efficiency and decisive off-ball movement fueled a highly impactful performance off the bench. Punishing defensive lapses by draining every open look from beyond the arc stretched the opposing defense to its breaking point. His ability to instantly space the floor and capitalize on catch-and-shoot opportunities completely changed the geometry of the offense.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 110.5%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +29.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Offense +14.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.3
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 13.4m -7.7
Impact +9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.1

Opportunistic scoring in very limited action provided a slight positive bump to his overall rating. Capitalizing on a defensive breakdown to secure an easy basket maximized his brief time on the floor. His decisive cut to the rim showcased good offensive awareness despite the incredibly small sample size.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -23.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense +4.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 4.2m -2.4
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.6

A completely empty offensive shift and a missed opportunity from the field resulted in a negative score. Failing to integrate into the flow of the offense left him largely floating on the perimeter without purpose. His inability to generate any pressure on the defense made his brief minutes highly unproductive.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -23.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense -0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 4.2m -2.4
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Kobe Brown 4.2m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.9

Despite some minor defensive contributions, a lack of offensive execution kept his impact slightly in the red. Missing his only attempt at the rim meant he failed to capitalize on a rare scoring opportunity. His inability to secure meaningful positioning in the paint limited his effectiveness during his short stint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -23.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense -0.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.8
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 4.2m -2.4
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
HOU Houston Rockets
S Amen Thompson 34.7m
19
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.7

Relentless rim pressure and disruptive perimeter defense fueled a highly productive shift. Thriving in transition, he used his elite athleticism to convert high-percentage looks and consistently collapse the opposing defense. His knack for jumping passing lanes and sparking fast breaks served as the primary catalyst for his positive rating.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 70.3%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -28.4
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +15.6
Hustle +2.9
Defense +5.0
Raw total +23.5
Avg player in 34.7m -19.8
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
16
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.8

Perimeter shot selection severely damaged his net impact, as a heavy diet of missed attempts from beyond the arc killed offensive momentum. Offering little interior presence or defensive disruption meant he provided minimal value when his jumper wasn't falling. His insistence on forcing contested catch-and-shoot threes rather than attacking closeouts derailed multiple possessions.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg -33.6
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.5
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 32.0m -18.3
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kevin Durant 29.4m
22
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.2

Solid scoring volume was entirely offset by empty possessions from the perimeter and a lack of secondary playmaking. His overall impact flatlined because a high volume of missed jumpers dragged down his offensive efficiency despite positive defensive contributions. Settling for contested mid-range looks rather than attacking the rim ultimately capped his ceiling for the night.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.0%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg -25.1
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.5
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 29.4m -16.7
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
S Alperen Sengun 28.1m
19
pts
11
reb
7
ast
Impact
+15.6

Elite interior positioning and exceptional hustle metrics drove a massive positive impact across the board. He dominated the painted area by consistently generating high-quality looks and facilitating out of the post to keep the offense flowing. His ability to anchor the defense while creating second-chance opportunities defined a masterful two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.8%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg -21.8
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +19.6
Hustle +5.2
Defense +6.8
Raw total +31.6
Avg player in 28.1m -16.0
Impact +15.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Josh Okogie 11.7m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.7

Complete offensive invisibility tanked his overall rating during his brief stint on the floor. Failing to generate any meaningful pressure on the rim effectively allowed the opposition to play five-on-four defensively. A glaring lack of aggressive off-ball cutting rendered him a total non-factor in the half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.0%
Net Rtg +13.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 11.7m -6.7
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.2

Poor shot selection and a string of missed perimeter jumpers severely dragged down his overall impact score. Struggling to find a rhythm against physical point-of-attack defense led to empty possessions that repeatedly stalled the offense. Forcing contested looks early in the shot clock ultimately negated his otherwise modest defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.4%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg -41.2
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.4
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 26.3m -14.9
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Tari Eason 18.3m
7
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Missed opportunities from beyond the arc kept his overall impact slightly in the red despite solid hustle metrics. Bringing excellent energy to the glass was overshadowed by an inability to punish defensive closeouts, which hindered floor spacing. A clear pattern of settling for low-percentage outside shots rather than attacking the paint limited his effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -51.8
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.6
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 18.3m -10.4
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.1

Defensive lapses and an inability to convert on the offensive end resulted in a severely negative rating. Consistently getting beaten off the dribble forced the interior defense into highly unfavorable rotations. His tendency to force contested floaters in traffic only compounded the damage during his time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -31.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense -2.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense -1.3
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 16.1m -9.3
Impact -10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Steven Adams 14.0m
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.3

A lack of offensive involvement and missed opportunities around the basket resulted in a noticeably negative overall impact. While providing adequate resistance defensively, an inability to finish through contact inside hurt the team's half-court execution. His struggles to secure deep post position limited his effectiveness as a traditional screen-and-roll partner.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -17.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.0m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.1
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 14.0m -8.0
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.3

Opportunistic cutting and highly efficient finishing around the rim drove a strong positive impact in limited action. Capitalizing on defensive breakdowns allowed him to find soft spots in the zone and generate easy looks. His decisive movement off the ball provided a crucial and timely spark for the second unit's offense.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.7m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.2
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 13.7m -7.8
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Jeff Green 5.2m
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

A lack of physical engagement and zero hustle contributions led to a slightly negative impact during his brief appearance. Floating on the perimeter offensively meant he failed to put any meaningful pressure on the defense. His failure to aggressively contest shots at the rim allowed the opposition to score too easily inside.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +8.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Offense +2.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 5.2m -2.9
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
JD Davison 5.2m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.3

Complete passivity on the offensive end tanked his value during a short stint. Operating merely as a ball-mover without ever threatening to score allowed defenders to sag off and clog the passing lanes. A glaring lack of aggression in pick-and-roll situations rendered his minutes entirely unproductive.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +8.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 5.2m -3.0
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.7

Strong defensive positioning and rim protection kept his impact slightly positive despite minimal offensive involvement. Effectively deterring drives to the basket allowed him to alter several shots in the paint. His ability to anchor the drop coverage during his brief shift provided vital stability for the second-unit defense.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg +8.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.0
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 5.2m -3.1
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0