GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAC LA Clippers
S Kawhi Leonard 34.5m
22
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.0

Suffocating point-of-attack defense and active hands kept his overall impact positive despite a brutal shooting night. Clanking heavily contested mid-range pull-ups dragged down his offensive efficiency, but he compensated by blowing up multiple pick-and-roll sets. His sheer physical imposition on the wing dictated the opponent's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.6%
USG% 28.9%
Net Rtg -17.6
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +3.8
Defense +8.6
Raw total +25.3
Avg player in 34.5m -22.3
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
S James Harden 33.8m
18
pts
3
reb
12
ast
Impact
-2.8

Over-reliance on low-efficiency isolation step-backs from deep dragged his net impact into the negative. Despite orchestrating the offense well, his perimeter bricklaying allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes. Solid defensive rebounding and positional awareness slightly mitigated the offensive damage.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg -40.4
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +13.9
Hustle +2.3
Defense +2.8
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 33.8m -21.8
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kris Dunn 30.5m
10
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-7.8

Offensive disjointedness and poor finishing at the rim severely penalized his overall impact score. While he managed an unexpected scoring bump, his inability to bend the defense or generate high-quality looks stalled out multiple possessions. A neutral defensive showing wasn't enough to offset the friction he caused on the other end.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -17.9
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +1.1
Defense 0.0
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 30.5m -19.7
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S John Collins 28.9m
22
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.2

Flawless shot selection and explosive rim-running fueled a massive scoring surge that drove his highly positive rating. He weaponized the pick-and-pop to perfection, punishing late closeouts with confident perimeter strokes to extend an efficient shooting streak. A slight defensive minus was easily washed out by his overwhelming offensive efficiency.

Shooting
FG 9/10 (90.0%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 105.4%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -18.9
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +22.5
Hustle +2.7
Defense -0.3
Raw total +24.9
Avg player in 28.9m -18.7
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Brook Lopez 12.6m
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.6

Sluggish defensive rotations and missed perimeter looks forced a negative impact during a shortened shift. Opponents successfully neutralized his drop coverage by attacking the mid-range, exposing his lack of foot speed in space. The inability to stretch the floor effectively cramped the half-court offense and stalled out momentum.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg -61.4
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.6m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.1
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 12.6m -8.1
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
19
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.4

An explosive scoring eruption built on backdoor cuts and transition dunks sent his impact soaring. He capitalized brilliantly on defensive inattention, converting nearly every look while providing highly disruptive weak-side help. His vertical spacing completely warped the opponent's rotation patterns and punished their lack of rim protection.

Shooting
FG 8/9 (88.9%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 100.6%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -25.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +17.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.1
Raw total +22.4
Avg player in 24.8m -16.0
Impact +6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Ivica Zubac 20.8m
4
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.8

Fumbling interior catches and missing point-blank hooks muted his offensive value, leading to a negative overall score. He remained a sturdy deterrent in the paint, walling off the restricted area effectively against drives. However, the inability to punish switches down low allowed the opposition to play smaller without consequence.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -37.7
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.8
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 20.8m -13.5
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.9

Passive offensive tendencies and a failure to secure loose balls kept his overall impact slightly submerged. While he knocked down a pair of timely spot-up looks, his reluctance to attack closeouts allowed the defense to recover easily. A decent positional defensive effort wasn't enough to overcome the lack of tangible counting-stat production.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg -49.2
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.9
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 16.3m -10.6
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Kobe Sanders 14.8m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-18.1

Complete offensive paralysis and a stark inability to stay in front of his man defined a catastrophic rotational stint. Failing to attempt meaningful shots, he allowed the defense to completely ignore him and overload the strong side. The massive drop-off from his recent efficient scoring form left a gaping hole in the second unit's production.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -66.3
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense -8.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.5
Raw total -8.6
Avg player in 14.8m -9.5
Impact -18.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.1

Rushed shot attempts during a brief stint hindered his ability to positively affect the game flow. He struggled to navigate screens defensively, giving up slight advantages that compromised the team's shell. The lack of offensive rhythm mirrored his recent struggles to find the mark from the field.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -70.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.7
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 5.8m -3.7
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

Failing to establish deep post position resulted in a disjointed offensive showing and a negative net score. He flashed some rim-protection upside, but was ultimately outmuscled on the interior during critical rebounding sequences. The inability to convert his lone look inside highlighted a raw offensive skill set.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -70.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.7
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 5.8m -3.8
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.2

Plummeting offensive aggression rendered him largely ineffective during his limited minutes. He was caught ball-watching on a few defensive possessions, allowing backdoor cuts that damaged his overall rating. The lack of downhill driving removed a key element of his usual offensive package.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -70.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.1
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 5.8m -3.7
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Kobe Brown 5.8m
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.8

Efficient finishing in the restricted area maximized his brief time on the floor, yielding a positive impact. He maintained a streak of high-percentage shooting by decisively attacking closeouts and avoiding forced jumpers. A slight defensive negative was overshadowed by his reliable offensive execution within the flow of the system.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -70.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.4
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 5.8m -3.8
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
BOS Boston Celtics
12
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
-7.4

A heavy minutes load exposed him to defensive mismatches that drained his overall impact, despite solid hustle metrics. His scoring aggression dipped significantly from his recent hot streak, leading to stagnant stretches when orchestrating the second unit. The lack of downhill rim pressure allowed the defense to stay home on shooters and smother the half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +35.1
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.6m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.1
Raw total +18.1
Avg player in 39.6m -25.5
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Derrick White 37.0m
29
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
+7.9

Elite two-way activity fueled a highly positive impact, highlighted by a staggering hustle rating that generated crucial extra possessions. Breaking out of a recent scoring slump, his aggressive perimeter hunting completely warped the opposing defensive shell. His ability to blend point-of-attack disruption with timely weak-side rotations set the tone for the backcourt.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.3%
USG% 29.1%
Net Rtg +23.3
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Offense +21.2
Hustle +7.0
Defense +3.6
Raw total +31.8
Avg player in 37.0m -23.9
Impact +7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
S Jaylen Brown 35.1m
50
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+21.5

An absolute offensive masterclass drove a massive +21.5 impact, fueled by relentless rim pressure and elite perimeter shot-making. His efficiency spike overwhelmed the Clippers' wing defenders all night, marking a massive surge over his recent scoring average. The sheer volume of high-quality looks generated easily offset a slightly negative defensive rating.

Shooting
FG 18/26 (69.2%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.2%
USG% 41.3%
Net Rtg +34.7
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +41.7
Hustle +2.7
Defense -0.2
Raw total +44.2
Avg player in 35.1m -22.7
Impact +21.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Neemias Queta 22.6m
8
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.6

High-energy rim protection and interior deterrence kept his head above water, but a few uncharacteristic missed bunnies in the paint limited his overall value. Despite the slight dip in finishing efficiency, his physical screening and vertical spacing defined his minutes as a functional roll man against drop coverage. He maintained his streak of solid shooting nights by converting high-percentage dump-offs.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +34.8
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.6
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 22.6m -14.5
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Sam Hauser 21.4m
8
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.6

Clanking open looks from deep dragged his overall impact into the red despite a surprisingly stout defensive showing. A cold shooting night stalled out half-court sets when he was the designated spacer, breaking a recent trend of high-efficiency scoring. Opponents successfully ran him off his spots, forcing uncomfortable contested jumpers that fueled transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.0
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 21.4m -13.8
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Jordan Walsh 29.6m
13
pts
13
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.8

Relentless rebounding and elite defensive versatility across multiple positions anchored a massive breakout performance. He shattered his recent scoring averages by actively cutting baseline and converting high-percentage dump-offs. His chaotic energy and length disrupted passing lanes, creating transition opportunities that swung the math in his team's favor.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 92.9%
USG% 11.0%
Net Rtg +42.1
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +18.0
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.9
Raw total +25.9
Avg player in 29.6m -19.1
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Luka Garza 19.8m
11
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.5

Capitalizing on deep post seals and soft touch, he maintained a highly efficient scoring pattern to drive a strong positive impact. His physical presence inside deterred drives and secured the defensive glass effectively against smaller frontcourts. A consistent ability to finish through contact extended his streak of high-percentage shooting nights.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.4%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +47.1
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +16.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.2
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 19.8m -12.7
Impact +8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
15
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.8

Lethal catch-and-shoot execution from beyond the arc generated a massive offensive punch in limited minutes. He punished drop coverages relentlessly, finding soft spots on the perimeter to swing momentum during a crucial second-quarter stretch. The pure scoring gravity he provided masked a relatively quiet night in the hustle and defensive departments.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 93.8%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +47.4
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.4
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 19.0m -12.2
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.7

Complete offensive invisibility and defensive lapses cratered his impact during a brief rotation stint. Failing to register a single counting stat of note, he was repeatedly targeted in isolation sequences by quicker guards. His inability to find a rhythm or impact the game physically made him a severe net negative on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.6%
Net Rtg +30.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.8m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense -1.9
Raw total -2.4
Avg player in 9.8m -6.3
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.0

Given only a microscopic rotational cameo, he had little time to establish any rhythm. He managed to flash some activity by fighting through screens, but a missed perimeter look highlighted a disjointed offensive sequence. The brevity of his stint prevented any meaningful defensive adjustments against the opposing second unit.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +46.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.2m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +2.7
Defense -0.8
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 3.2m -2.0
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.8

Despite a completely blank offensive ledger, quick defensive rotations salvaged a positive impact in garbage time. He utilized his length to blow up a key perimeter action, showcasing his switchability in a pinch. The lack of touches snapped a recent streak of solid scoring, but his defensive motor remained intact.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.9m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.3
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 2.9m -1.9
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0