GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAC LA Clippers
S Kawhi Leonard 32.7m
33
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+24.8

Masterful shot creation and suffocating perimeter defense drove an elite, game-defining performance. He systematically dismantled his primary defenders with highly efficient three-level scoring, vastly exceeding his recent offensive output. Blending lethal perimeter shooting with disruptive defensive instincts resulted in a massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 11/19 (57.9%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 74.7%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg +46.9
+/- +31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +27.2
Hustle +5.2
Defense +11.1
Raw total +43.5
Avg player in 32.7m -18.7
Impact +24.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
S James Harden 30.0m
21
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.2

A heavy diet of missed step-back threes dragged down his shooting efficiency, but elite playmaking gravity kept his box score impact highly positive. He manipulated the pick-and-roll masterfully to draw fouls and create open looks for others. The sheer volume of offensive generation outweighed the clunky perimeter shooting.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 26.4%
Net Rtg +31.7
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Offense +15.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 30.0m -17.1
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Brook Lopez 22.9m
8
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.2

Elite rim deterrence and disciplined drop coverage salvaged his value on a night where his interior touch vanished. Clanking multiple bunnies near the basket suppressed his scoring, but his gravitational pull defensively altered countless opponent drives. Anchoring the paint ensured a positive net impact despite the offensive struggles.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.5%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg +30.4
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +4.3
Defense +7.9
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 22.9m -13.0
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S John Collins 21.9m
16
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+17.9

Exceptional efficiency as a roll man and floor spacer fueled a dominant box score impact. He consistently punished late rotations with timely outside shooting while maintaining a high level of rim protection. This two-way versatility perfectly complemented the primary creators and extended his streak of highly efficient outings.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +40.5
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +18.4
Hustle +2.7
Defense +9.3
Raw total +30.4
Avg player in 21.9m -12.5
Impact +17.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
S Kris Dunn 20.9m
10
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.3

An unexpected offensive outburst from the perimeter forced defenders to respect his shot, opening up driving lanes for teammates. He paired this surprising scoring efficiency with his trademark point-of-attack harassment. Punishing the defense for going under screens fundamentally shifted the momentum during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +39.0
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.9
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 20.9m -12.0
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Kobe Sanders 26.0m
7
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.9

A sharp regression in shot quality from deep neutralized his otherwise stellar defensive contributions. Forcing out-of-rhythm jumpers snapped his recent streak of hyper-efficient scoring. The resulting empty possessions slightly outweighed his excellent on-ball disruption.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +58.8
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +2.3
Defense +6.1
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 26.0m -14.9
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
16
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.8

Ruthless efficiency in the dunker spot generated a stellar box score impact. He feasted on dump-off passes and offensive rebounds, punishing the defense for rotating away from the rim. Solid positional defense rounded out a highly productive interior performance.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 75.2%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +50.4
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +15.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.2
Raw total +23.0
Avg player in 25.1m -14.2
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.0

High-flying transition finishes and lockdown wing defense drove a highly efficient two-way showing. He capitalized perfectly on the defensive attention drawn by the stars, converting his limited touches with zero wasted motion. His length and rotational awareness consistently disrupted the opponent's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg +52.8
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +2.4
Defense +6.0
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 19.8m -11.3
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.8

Continued perimeter shooting woes allowed defenders to blatantly ignore him, severely cramping the floor for the primary ball-handlers. While his veteran defensive positioning remained rock solid, the offensive spacing issues created a negative lineup differential. His inability to punish closeouts remains a glaring bottleneck.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.5%
Net Rtg +55.9
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.5
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 18.8m -10.7
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.4

Opportunistic cutting and decisive finishing around the basket maximized his short stint on the floor. He didn't force any actions, taking exactly what the defense conceded to maintain high efficiency. This disciplined shot selection drove a solid positive impact in limited action.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 7.3m -4.1
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Kobe Brown 7.3m
3
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.3

Hesitancy on the perimeter disrupted the offensive flow, breaking a recent streak of highly efficient shooting. He passed up open looks and struggled with defensive positioning, allowing easy blow-bys. The lack of assertiveness ultimately led to a mildly negative overall rating.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.7%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.3
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 7.3m -4.1
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.4

Complete offensive invisibility during his minutes allowed the defense to play five-on-four. He failed to generate any separation or meaningful gravity, continuing a brutal stretch of inefficient play. The inability to impact the game in any tangible way dragged his lineup metrics into the red.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Offense -0.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.1
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 7.3m -4.1
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAC Sacramento Kings
S Maxime Raynaud 35.1m
12
pts
12
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.4

Sustained interior dominance drove a massive positive impact, continuing a highly efficient stretch of finishing around the basket. His relentless activity on the glass and in 50/50 situations constantly generated second-chance opportunities. He anchored the frontcourt with a highly productive two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -26.7
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +7.7
Defense +4.6
Raw total +28.4
Avg player in 35.1m -20.0
Impact +8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 28
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 46.4%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
S Keegan Murray 29.6m
11
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.9

Poor shot selection from the perimeter heavily dragged down his overall impact despite decent defensive metrics. Clanking the majority of his looks from deep stalled Sacramento's offensive rhythm during crucial stretches. The resulting negative lineup differential overshadowed his positive individual hustle plays.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.6%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -50.7
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +1.8
Defense +2.7
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 29.6m -16.8
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S DeMar DeRozan 27.6m
8
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.9

Severe offensive regression from his usual scoring output tanked his overall value, as contested midrange misses repeatedly killed possessions. Even though his defensive rotations were surprisingly sharp, the lack of scoring gravity allowed the defense to key in on others. The inability to find his spots defined a frustratingly quiet night.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.2%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -33.2
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense -0.0
Hustle +1.7
Defense +5.2
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 27.6m -15.8
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
12
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.3

Defensive lapses and poor off-ball awareness completely negated a relatively efficient perimeter shooting night. Opponents consistently exploited his matchups on the perimeter, bleeding points that erased his offensive contributions. Erratic defensive positioning ultimately drove his negative overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -52.0
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +0.7
Defense -1.6
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 18.9m -10.9
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
0
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.0

A complete offensive disappearing act derailed his usual interior efficiency, snapping a recent hot streak from the floor. While he generated significant value through high-energy hustle plays, his inability to convert around the rim left empty possessions that punished the offense.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -43.7
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +5.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 17.2m -9.7
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
18
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.3

Blistering perimeter efficiency fueled a massive box impact, but severe lineup bleeding while he was on the floor dragged his total score into the red. He capitalized beautifully on catch-and-shoot opportunities to shatter his recent scoring averages. However, minor defensive miscommunications prevented his offensive explosion from translating to a positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.3%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg -30.3
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +3.3
Defense -0.3
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 28.9m -16.6
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
11
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-9.8

Despite an unexpected scoring surge compared to his recent slump, defensive breakdowns and inefficient finishing inside the arc resulted in a team-worst net impact. Opposing guards easily navigated his point-of-attack defense, forcing rotational scrambles. The volume of empty possessions outweighed his improved scoring aggression.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -37.9
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.7
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 24.7m -14.1
Impact -9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Keon Ellis 19.4m
2
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.2

An absolute freeze-out from beyond the arc crippled his offensive value, falling drastically short of his recent double-digit scoring standard. While he remained engaged on the defensive end, his missed open looks allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes. The inability to stretch the floor was the primary driver of his steep negative impact.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -54.7
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.5
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 19.4m -11.0
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Drew Eubanks 12.9m
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

Highly efficient rim-running provided a solid baseline, but a lack of overall volume kept his net impact hovering near neutral. He executed his pick-and-roll assignments perfectly when called upon. Ultimately, his limited involvement in the offensive flow prevented him from leaving a larger imprint on the game.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -80.0
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.4
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 12.9m -7.3
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Malik Monk 11.1m
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.9

A shocking lack of offensive aggression completely neutralized his usual spark-plug role, resulting in a disastrous box score impact. He passed up multiple semi-contested looks he normally takes, stalling the second unit's momentum. This passivity created a vacuum in shot creation that the bench unit could not overcome.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg -60.2
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Offense -7.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.9
Raw total -5.5
Avg player in 11.1m -6.4
Impact -11.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
4
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Forcing up contested perimeter shots derailed his offensive efficiency, continuing a recent trend of poor shooting from deep. He compensated slightly with disciplined on-ball defense during his short rotation. The inability to convert from outside ultimately capped his effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 31.3%
Net Rtg -13.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 7.3m -4.1
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.1

Limited touches in a brief stint prevented him from establishing any real shooting rhythm. He provided adequate spacing and executed his defensive rotations properly to stay afloat. However, the lack of offensive volume in his minutes resulted in a slightly negative overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -13.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.2
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 7.3m -4.2
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1