GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAC LA Clippers
S Kawhi Leonard 39.2m
45
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+21.4

An absolute masterclass in offensive carry-job dynamics, yielding a colossal spike in scoring volume compared to his seasonal baseline. He weaponized a heavy diet of perimeter jumpers while simultaneously locking down his defensive assignments. This overwhelming two-way dominance dictated the entire flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 16/29 (55.2%)
3PT 6/16 (37.5%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 68.3%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg +11.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.2m
Offense +28.1
Hustle +3.8
Defense +9.1
Raw total +41.0
Avg player in 39.2m -19.6
Impact +21.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 55.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 3
S James Harden 28.9m
20
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+0.6

Inefficient perimeter isolation attempts significantly capped his overall effectiveness. He managed to keep his head above water by generating offense through playmaking and drawing fouls, but the brick-heavy shot profile limited the ceiling of his impact. A lack of defensive resistance further marginalized his overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 53.1%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.2
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 28.9m -14.3
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kris Dunn 24.4m
2
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.3

Offensive invisibility heavily penalized his overall rating despite decent peripheral defensive metrics. He failed to apply any pressure on the rim or create advantages, turning his minutes into a slog for the unit. The lack of tangible playmaking or scoring threat made him a net negative during his rotation.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 8.9%
Net Rtg -5.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.7
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 24.4m -12.2
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S John Collins 19.9m
8
pts
11
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.9

Maximized a low-usage offensive role by dominating the glass and providing stout interior defense. Though his scoring volume dipped, his defensive positioning and rebounding efficiency created massive value in a short stint. He played perfectly within himself to anchor the frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +31.2
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +7.1
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 19.9m -10.0
Impact +8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Brook Lopez 19.9m
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.2

A catastrophic shooting night from beyond the arc entirely torpedoed his offensive value. He stubbornly settled for perimeter looks that continually stalled out possessions. While his rim protection and defensive metrics remained strong, the sheer volume of wasted offensive trips dragged his overall impact deep into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/12 (8.3%)
3PT 1/12 (8.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 12.5%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg +7.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense -5.8
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.4
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 19.9m -9.9
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
14
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.6

Caught fire from the perimeter to deliver a massive offensive upgrade over his recent dismal shooting slump. His floor-spacing completely opened up the half-court offense, while his veteran defensive positioning added quiet value. The sudden resurgence in marksmanship was the primary driver of his strong positive rating.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 101.7%
USG% 10.1%
Net Rtg +19.3
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +3.4
Defense +1.8
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 27.7m -13.9
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.8

Relentless activity on the glass and strong hustle metrics formed the backbone of a highly effective shift. He didn't demand the ball, instead generating value through second-chance opportunities and solid interior positioning. His blue-collar approach perfectly complemented the primary scorers.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg +31.0
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +4.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 27.0m -13.5
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Kobe Sanders 24.4m
10
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.6

Despite maintaining solid shooting efficiency and contributing defensively, his overall impact metric fell slightly below zero. This indicates his rotation likely coincided with an opponent run where his individual execution wasn't enough to stem the tide. He played a clean game fundamentally but lacked the forceful presence to dictate the margin.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +24.5
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.8
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 24.4m -12.1
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
10
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.6

A surprising surge in shooting accuracy provided a much-needed offensive spark, yet his overall impact still slipped into the negative. This suggests his minutes were likely plagued by poor team-wide defensive stretches or transition vulnerabilities. He capitalized on his spot-up opportunities but couldn't swing the broader momentum.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +22.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.1
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 24.1m -12.1
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.2

Relegated to garbage-time duty, entirely neutralizing his usual rotational production. The microscopic sample size prevented him from influencing the game's outcome.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +75.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.5m
Offense +0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 1.5m -0.7
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Kobe Brown 1.5m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.4

A drastic reduction in playing time snapped a reliable string of efficient performances. His fleeting moments on the court yielded a slightly negative footprint due to empty possessions during the closing stretch.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +75.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.5m
Offense -1.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.6
Avg player in 1.5m -0.8
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Barely saw the floor in a brief cameo appearance at the end of the rotation. Did not log enough court time to generate any meaningful statistical impact.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +75.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 1.5m -0.8
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
UTA Utah Jazz
S Isaiah Collier 37.0m
16
pts
6
reb
10
ast
Impact
-7.4

High-level playmaking and efficient interior finishing generated strong box score metrics, yet his total impact inexplicably plunged into the red. This disconnect points to likely systemic breakdowns or ill-timed mistakes during his heavy minutes load. He orchestrated the offense well but bled value in the margins.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.8
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 37.0m -18.4
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 5
20
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.2

Value was heavily suppressed by a complete inability to connect from beyond the arc, stalling out several offensive sets. However, his exceptional defensive metrics suggest he was a major disruptor on the other end of the floor. The scoring volume was there, but poor perimeter shot selection ultimately tipped his overall rating into the negative.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.0%
USG% 30.6%
Net Rtg -24.4
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +2.4
Defense +5.9
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 31.6m -15.8
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
S Kyle Filipowski 28.4m
4
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-19.1

An absolute offensive cratering drove his massive negative impact, snapping a five-game streak of highly efficient scoring. Forcing contested looks from deep completely derailed Utah's half-court rhythm. He did manage to contribute solid hustle and defensive positioning, but it was nowhere near enough to offset the sheer volume of wasted possessions.

Shooting
FG 2/13 (15.4%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 15.4%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg -28.1
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense -10.9
Hustle +3.2
Defense +2.6
Raw total -5.1
Avg player in 28.4m -14.0
Impact -19.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 31.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Svi Mykhailiuk 23.6m
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.3

A severe regression to the mean dragged down his overall effectiveness after a scorching stretch of recent play. Brick-heavy perimeter shooting cratered his offensive value, though he salvaged some utility through active defensive rotations. The sharp drop-off in scoring punch ultimately left a sizable negative footprint.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 27.8%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -29.7
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.5
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 23.6m -11.7
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.6

Despite finally finding the bottom of the net on limited attempts, his overall influence remained firmly in the red. A lack of defensive resistance and low-volume involvement prevented him from shifting the momentum during his rotation minutes. He operated too passively to make a tangible positive dent.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -26.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.1
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 16.6m -8.2
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
22
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+18.0

Delivered a massive outlier performance, exploding offensively while anchoring the team with elite hustle and defensive metrics. His near-perfect shot selection punished mismatches all night. The combination of hyper-efficient scoring and relentless two-way activity resulted in a dominant overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 8/10 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 84.1%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +8.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +20.7
Hustle +6.7
Defense +6.3
Raw total +33.7
Avg player in 31.7m -15.7
Impact +18.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
9
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.0

Outstanding defensive engagement and high-motor hustle plays completely drove his positive value. He struggled to find an offensive rhythm and yielded low scoring volume, but his disruption on the perimeter was undeniable. He proved that impacting winning doesn't always require a heavy shooting load.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.0%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg -14.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +4.8
Defense +7.1
Raw total +19.1
Avg player in 30.2m -15.1
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
18
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.1

Highly efficient shot-making fueled a strong positive rating, showcasing a much-needed uptick in accuracy compared to recent outings. He operated strictly as a finisher rather than a connector, entirely ignoring the glass and playmaking duties. Still, his ability to convert offensive opportunities at a high clip provided a reliable boost.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.8%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -16.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +13.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.7
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 26.1m -13.1
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.4

A sharp decline in finishing around the rim snapped a long streak of highly efficient interior play. He managed to stay in the green purely through physical defensive presence and active rebounding in limited action. The lack of offensive touch was glaring, but his dirty work kept his shift a net positive.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 22.5%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg -9.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +2.3
Defense +3.9
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 14.8m -7.4
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0