GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAC Sacramento Kings
21
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.5

A truly chaotic performance where overwhelming defensive disruption (+12.3) completely masked horrific perimeter shooting. He bricked a barrage of threes and wasted numerous possessions, but his relentless point-of-attack pressure generated massive transition opportunities. His sheer motor and hustle (+4.8) willed his overall impact into the positive despite the offensive inefficiency.

Shooting
FG 5/16 (31.2%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 10/12 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 49.3%
USG% 28.7%
Net Rtg -15.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.9m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +4.8
Defense +12.3
Raw total +23.8
Avg player in 37.9m -17.3
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 4
BLK 3
TO 3
S DeMar DeRozan 28.7m
11
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.7

A heavy diet of contested mid-range jumpers backfired spectacularly, cratering his offensive efficiency. The resulting empty possessions allowed the opposition to leak out in transition, compounding the damage of his missed shots. Despite moderate defensive engagement (+2.1), his inability to bend the defense as a primary creator sank the lineup.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/7 (42.9%)
Advanced
TS% 39.1%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -36.1
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense -1.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.1
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 28.7m -13.1
Impact -10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Keegan Murray 26.7m
12
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.4

Missing every attempt from beyond the arc severely limited his offensive ceiling and dragged his net score into the red. While he found ways to contribute through active cuts and hustle plays (+2.9), the lack of perimeter spacing hurt the team's half-court geometry. Opposing wings sagged off him, clogging the driving lanes for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 46.2%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -30.1
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +2.9
Defense +1.6
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 26.7m -12.2
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Maxime Raynaud 24.1m
6
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.0

Opportunistic scoring around the basket and solid positional defense kept his impact slightly in the green. He maximized his limited touches by finishing strongly through contact rather than settling for jumpers. Active hands in the passing lanes (+2.9 Def) helped disrupt the opponent's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -40.1
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.9
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 24.1m -11.0
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.5

High-level defensive execution (+4.0) and disciplined shot selection defined a highly effective, albeit low-usage, shift. He refused to force bad looks, taking only what the defense conceded around the basket. His ability to anchor the paint and contest shots at the rim provided a steadying presence for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg -36.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +2.4
Defense +4.0
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 15.4m -7.1
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Zach LaVine 35.5m
20
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.6

Efficient three-level shot creation drove a robust +17.1 box score impact. He consistently beat his primary defender off the dribble, forcing defensive rotations and capitalizing with high-quality looks. While his defensive resistance was minimal, his offensive gravity kept the opposing unit constantly on its heels.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.3%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -8.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +17.1
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.4
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 35.5m -16.2
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.2

Tenacious on-ball defense (+6.1) and timely playmaking overcame a poor shooting night from the floor. He constantly harassed opposing ball-handlers, blowing up pick-and-roll actions before they could develop. This defensive pressure, combined with smart distribution, drove a highly positive overall impact despite the missed layups.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.0%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +3.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.1
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 26.1m -11.8
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Drew Eubanks 20.9m
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.7

Struggling to finish through contact in the paint limited his effectiveness as a roll man. While he provided adequate rim protection (+1.9), the missed opportunities at the rim stalled the offense. Opposing bigs successfully pushed him off his spots, neutralizing his interior presence.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +17.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.9
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 20.9m -9.5
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.5

Disciplined two-way play characterized a solid rotational stint. He took only high-percentage shots within the flow of the offense, avoiding the costly mistakes that plague young wings. Solid defensive rotations (+3.1) ensured he was a net positive while on the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +16.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +2.3
Defense +3.1
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 19.3m -8.7
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Keon Ellis 5.3m
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

A brief, mostly invisible stint yielded a near-neutral impact score. He failed to make a mark offensively, taking just one shot, but held his own on the defensive end (+1.2). The limited minutes prevented him from establishing any real rhythm or altering the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -74.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.3m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 5.3m -2.4
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIL Milwaukee Bucks
25
pts
4
reb
10
ast
Impact
+9.5

Elite playmaking and high-quality shot creation drove a stellar +20.5 box impact. He consistently broke down the primary point of attack, generating high-value looks for teammates while maintaining his own scoring gravity. A strong +5.0 defensive rating showed a rare two-way engagement that elevated his overall floor game.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.5%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +18.1
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.7m
Offense +20.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense +5.0
Raw total +27.5
Avg player in 39.7m -18.0
Impact +9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ryan Rollins 33.9m
12
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.1

Inefficient shot selection significantly dragged down his net impact, as he struggled to convert in traffic. While he provided a decent spark in hustle categories (+3.0), the wasted offensive possessions stalled team momentum. He failed to capitalize on his usual scoring rhythm, forcing contested mid-range looks instead of moving the ball.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg +27.8
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense +0.1
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 33.9m -15.6
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Myles Turner 31.9m
15
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.7

Defensive rim protection and active hustle plays (+4.6) kept his head above water despite a heavy reliance on perimeter jumpers. Settling for outside shots dragged down his offensive efficiency and limited his interior gravity. However, his ability to contest shots in the paint provided just enough value to secure a slightly positive overall impact.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.0%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg +43.3
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +4.6
Defense +4.5
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 31.9m -14.5
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
S AJ Green 31.6m
1
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.9

A complete inability to find the bottom of the net cratered his overall value, as he bricked every single perimeter attempt. Despite generating solid hustle metrics (+4.0) by staying active on loose balls, the offensive zeroes simply couldn't be overcome. Opposing defenders completely ignored him outside the arc, bogging down Milwaukee's spacing.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 7.8%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +37.3
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense -3.2
Hustle +4.0
Defense +1.6
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 31.6m -14.3
Impact -11.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
37
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+19.0

Supreme interior dominance fueled a massive +31.5 box score impact. He bullied his primary matchups in the paint, converting highly efficient looks at the rim without relying on the outside shot. This relentless downhill pressure warped the opposing defense and dictated the entire flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 13/17 (76.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 11/13 (84.6%)
Advanced
TS% 81.4%
USG% 34.7%
Net Rtg +30.4
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +31.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.7
Raw total +33.4
Avg player in 31.6m -14.4
Impact +19.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
13
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.8

Perimeter spacing was the sole driver of his positive value, as every single one of his field goal attempts came from beyond the arc. This pure floor-stretching role generated a strong +11.0 box impact by opening up driving lanes for the primary creators. He offered virtually zero resistance or disruption on the defensive end, making him a pure offensive specialist in this stint.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -8.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.3
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 22.3m -10.2
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Kyle Kuzma 17.7m
3
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.5

Complete offensive passivity and a lack of physical engagement resulted in a highly detrimental stint. He failed to register any hustle stats and settled for poor-quality perimeter looks rather than attacking the paint. Floating on the perimeter allowed defenders to rest, killing the team's half-court rhythm.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +2.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Offense +0.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 17.7m -8.1
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Bobby Portis 16.1m
9
pts
11
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.0

Forcing contested shots against set defenses dragged his efficiency down and resulted in a negative overall score. Although he secured extra possessions on the glass, the wasted scoring opportunities negated that work. His defensive rotations were a step slow, allowing opponents to capitalize on his misses in transition.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.3%
USG% 32.4%
Net Rtg -37.5
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.1
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 16.1m -7.4
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Gary Harris 15.2m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.7

A total ghost on the offensive end, his inability to generate any scoring gravity tanked his overall impact. He provided absolutely zero hustle value and was essentially ignored by the opposing defense. The lack of off-ball movement or defensive disruption made his minutes entirely empty.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg -9.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense +0.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 15.2m -7.0
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0