GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAC Sacramento Kings
S Keon Ellis 32.3m
21
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.8

A massive perimeter scoring eruption completely shifted the geometry of the floor and punished drop coverages. His aggressive outside shooting was perfectly paired with suffocating point-of-attack defense to cement a highly positive two-way shift.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg +14.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +2.2
Defense +9.1
Raw total +24.4
Avg player in 32.3m -19.6
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 1
21
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
+2.0

An unexpected barrage from beyond the arc drove a massive surge in his base production. However, his final impact was heavily muted, suggesting that hidden mistakes like live-ball turnovers or defensive gambles offset much of his scoring outburst.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.6%
USG% 29.4%
Net Rtg +10.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +13.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.8
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 27.9m -16.9
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S DeMar DeRozan 27.8m
9
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+2.3

Uncharacteristic struggles from the midrange severely capped his offensive value and dragged down his efficiency. However, he salvaged a positive overall impact by leaning into his playmaking and generating extra possessions through sheer hustle.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.8%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +10.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +5.0
Defense +6.8
Raw total +19.1
Avg player in 27.8m -16.8
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Maxime Raynaud 27.0m
19
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.1

Dominated his matchup with a relentless, highly efficient scoring attack that punished the interior defense. Combined with excellent rim protection, his pristine shot selection fueled one of the most impactful performances of the night.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 63.3%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +2.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +17.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +8.2
Raw total +28.5
Avg player in 27.0m -16.4
Impact +12.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
5
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.2

Clunky interior finishing and forced shots erased the value of his otherwise stellar defensive effort. His inability to convert easy looks around the rim dragged a potentially dominant two-way performance down to a neutral net impact.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.2%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +8.7
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 25.3m -15.3
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.0

Thrived as an energy big by dominating the hustle margins and anchoring the defense. Refused to force bad shots, instead generating immense value through extra possessions and disciplined rim protection.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg +6.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +6.2
Defense +6.6
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 21.0m -12.8
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
10
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.1

Overcame a rough shooting night by applying constant defensive pressure and orchestrating the offense. His ability to disrupt passing lanes and generate hustle events ensured a strong positive impact despite the clanking jumpers.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.7%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +4.4
Defense +8.0
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 20.3m -12.3
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.0

Poor finishing at the rim was mitigated by a relentless motor on the glass and strong defensive rotations. He managed to stay in the green by generating enough hustle plays to make up for his wasted offensive trips.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.8%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -2.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +4.4
Defense +6.1
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 20.1m -12.2
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.3

Provided solid floor spacing by strictly hunting three-pointers, but gave it all back on the defensive end. Opponents easily exploited his defensive limitations, dragging his net impact into the negative despite the perimeter accuracy.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 12.0%
Net Rtg -7.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.2
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 19.4m -11.8
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Malik Monk 19.0m
7
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.2

Forced the issue offensively, leading to a slew of empty possessions that derailed the team's momentum. A sharp deviation from his usual scoring efficiency, combined with likely ball-security issues, resulted in a heavily damaging stint.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.9%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -13.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.1
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 19.0m -11.4
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Cooper Flagg 34.2m
23
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.5

Highly efficient perimeter execution was entirely overshadowed by a disastrous pattern of hidden mistakes. The massive gap between his positive base production and cratered overall impact points directly to a slew of costly live-ball turnovers. He essentially gave back every point he generated by fueling opponent transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg -13.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +2.6
Defense +2.7
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 34.2m -20.6
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 39.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S P.J. Washington 33.8m
17
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.1

Constant bricklaying from beyond the arc kept his offensive ceiling firmly capped. He managed to keep his head above water solely through robust defensive rotations and a willingness to generate extra possessions via hustle plays.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.4%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +13.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +3.3
Defense +7.5
Raw total +20.6
Avg player in 33.8m -20.5
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 18.8%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 2
S Max Christie 29.9m
9
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
-15.3

Impact absolutely plummeted due to a barrage of forced, low-quality shots that routinely killed offensive momentum. The sheer volume of wasted possessions created a negative ripple effect that his decent perimeter defense couldn't begin to salvage.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.9%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg +0.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense -1.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.6
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 29.9m -18.1
Impact -15.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Daniel Gafford 23.0m
11
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.2

Pristine shot selection around the rim and elite defensive anchoring defined this highly positive stint. Even with a dip in his usual scoring volume, his refusal to force bad looks ensured every offensive trip was maximized.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.9%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -19.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +1.1
Defense +8.3
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 23.0m -14.0
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Ryan Nembhard 16.8m
9
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.0

A sudden surge in offensive aggression was completely undone by severe vulnerabilities at the point of attack. His inability to string together defensive stops allowed opponents to immediately answer his scoring, resulting in a damaging overall shift.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +2.9
Defense -0.2
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 16.8m -10.2
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
11
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.9

Passive offensive involvement and a steep drop from his recent scoring averages resulted in a highly detrimental performance. The underlying metrics suggest his touches frequently ended in empty trips or turnovers, dragging his overall impact deep into the red.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.1%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.8
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 26.4m -16.0
Impact -10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
14
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.7

Perimeter gravity and solid defensive positioning kept him afloat despite a streaky overall shooting night. While he broke out of a recent slump from deep, a high volume of missed two-pointers prevented his net impact from climbing higher.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.8%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +3.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.7
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 25.1m -15.2
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
1
pts
11
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.4

Completely abandoned his scoring role to focus entirely on doing the dirty work in the paint. Exceptional hustle and elite defensive positioning drove a highly positive impact, proving his value doesn't require offensive touches.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 18.1%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +4.9
Defense +9.3
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 19.2m -11.6
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
7
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.1

Flashes of playmaking were neutralized by defensive inconsistencies and a lack of overall aggression. His impact hovered right around zero because his offensive contributions were perfectly offset by what he surrendered on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -3.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.0
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 12.8m -7.7
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.6

Made the most of limited minutes by taking high-quality shots and competing hard on the defensive end. A sharp drop in usage from his recent averages actually benefited the team, as his hyper-efficient approach yielded an excellent net rating.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -23.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +0.7
Defense +3.8
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 7.3m -4.4
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

Operated strictly as a complementary piece during his brief floor time, avoiding mistakes while providing mild rim deterrence. Kept the ball moving without forcing any offensive action, resulting in a perfectly steady, neutral presence.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +6.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.7
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 5.8m -3.5
Impact +0.6
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
1
ast
Impact
-2.0

Failed to leave any meaningful imprint on the game during a very short stint. A total lack of offensive involvement combined with minor defensive missteps resulted in a slightly negative shift.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg -71.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.6m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.9
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 5.6m -3.4
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0