GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAC LA Clippers
S John Collins 39.1m
18
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.4

Defensive miscommunications and poor rotational timing likely bled points, driving a surprisingly negative overall impact despite solid individual metrics. While he spaced the floor beautifully to boost his box score, his inability to secure key weak-side rebounds gave the opponent crucial second-chance opportunities. The scoring surge masked underlying structural defensive flaws during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -8.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.1m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +2.4
Defense +6.5
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 39.1m -20.8
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 3
S Kawhi Leonard 38.1m
24
pts
12
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.1

An abysmal showing from beyond the arc cratered his offensive efficiency and dragged his net impact into the negative. Despite the shooting woes, his isolation defense was spectacular (+8.8), consistently shutting down the opponent's primary options. The sheer volume of wasted possessions on forced jumpers overshadowed his defensive masterclass.

Shooting
FG 10/25 (40.0%)
3PT 0/8 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.8%
USG% 37.2%
Net Rtg +12.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.1m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +8.8
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 38.1m -20.3
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 5
S Kobe Sanders 35.6m
20
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.1

An explosive scoring surge was entirely negated by bleeding points on the other end of the floor. His aggressive drives yielded fantastic box metrics, but poor transition defense and missed rotations dragged his total impact into the red. He essentially traded baskets in a high-usage, low-resistance performance.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +12.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.1
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 35.6m -18.9
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kris Dunn 33.2m
16
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-2.9

Pushing the pace and hitting timely jumpers resulted in a massive scoring spike, yet his overall impact remained negative. Aggressive point-of-attack defense generated strong hustle stats, but he likely gambled too often, compromising the team's defensive shell. The impressive shooting efficiency masked the structural breakdowns that occurred during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 91.3%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg -14.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +3.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 33.2m -17.7
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Ivica Zubac 33.1m
10
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.5

Starved for touches in the pick-and-roll, his scoring output plummeted well below his recent average. He still dominated the glass to generate a massive +11.9 box impact, but his overall rating suffered due to defensive lapses in drop coverage. Opposing guards consistently exploited his lack of foot speed on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.7%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -8.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.9
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 33.1m -17.7
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.4

Lethargic weak-side defense and a failure to close out on shooters severely damaged his overall impact. While he managed to knock down a pair of spot-up threes to double his recent scoring average, he gave it all back by getting bullied on the glass. His minutes coincided with massive opponent runs due to a lack of physical resistance.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 9.6%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.7
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 24.0m -12.8
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.4

Struggled to positively influence the game despite relatively efficient shot-making. His defensive rotations were frequently a half-step slow, allowing the opposition to capitalize on open driving lanes. The inability to string together stops during his second-half stint ultimately pushed his net score into the negative.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +22.2
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.4
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 22.1m -11.8
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Brook Lopez 14.8m
0
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.5

Firing blanks from the perimeter completely neutralized his offensive utility. He saved his impact score from plummeting further by providing elite rim protection (+5.9) and altering multiple shots in the paint. Functioned strictly as a defensive anchor while struggling to stretch the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +23.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.9
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 14.8m -8.0
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 8.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
GSW Golden State Warriors
S Stephen Curry 33.5m
27
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+9.8

High-volume perimeter misfires prevented what could have been a monstrous impact score. The sheer gravity of his off-ball movement still warped the opposing defense, driving a stellar +18.4 box creation metric. Even on an inefficient shooting night, his constant pressure on the defense dictated the tempo.

Shooting
FG 9/23 (39.1%)
3PT 4/15 (26.7%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.6%
USG% 31.7%
Net Rtg +4.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +18.4
Hustle +4.8
Defense +4.6
Raw total +27.8
Avg player in 33.5m -18.0
Impact +9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
24
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+20.7

Smothering perimeter defense fueled a massive +12.4 defensive rating, completely disrupting the opponent's offensive flow. High-energy hustle plays and efficient inside finishing created a dominant two-way performance. His ability to force difficult shots on the wing masked a shaky night from beyond the arc.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 9/11 (81.8%)
Advanced
TS% 57.6%
USG% 27.7%
Net Rtg +1.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +19.2
Hustle +7.0
Defense +12.4
Raw total +38.6
Avg player in 33.4m -17.9
Impact +20.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 2
S Draymond Green 31.9m
6
pts
5
reb
12
ast
Impact
+0.1

Errant perimeter shooting severely capped his overall impact, dragging his total down to a neutral +0.1. Despite the offensive struggles, his elite rotational defense and relentless hustle kept the second unit afloat. He functioned primarily as a defensive anchor rather than a scoring threat.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +18.1
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +4.2
Defense +5.8
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 31.9m -17.1
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Moses Moody 19.2m
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.8

A massive drop-off in scoring volume was salvaged entirely by his defensive intensity (+7.0). He struggled to find any rhythm on the perimeter, missing all of his deep attempts. However, his willingness to fight through screens and contest shooters kept him marginally in the green.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +7.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +3.7
Defense +7.0
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 19.2m -10.3
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
S Quinten Post 12.5m
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.5

Maximized a brief rotation stint by generating extra possessions, reflected in a strong +3.8 hustle rating. Timely rim contests and decisive shot selection allowed him to be a strong net positive off the bench. He provided exactly the kind of low-mistake, high-energy frontcourt depth needed in the second quarter.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -20.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.5m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense +3.1
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 12.5m -6.7
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Offensive passivity resulted in a steep scoring drop-off, ultimately pushing his net impact slightly into the red. He partially compensated for the lack of scoring punch with excellent point-of-attack defense (+6.4). The reluctance to attack closeouts limited his ability to collapse the defense.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -13.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +6.4
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 26.7m -14.3
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.8

Stagnant offensive decision-making and bricked jumpers dragged his overall impact heavily into the negative. While his perimeter defense remained solid (+3.9), the inability to capitalize on open spot-up opportunities stalled the team's half-court execution. He essentially operated as an offensive liability whenever the ball swung his way.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +0.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +2.4
Defense +3.9
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 24.6m -13.3
Impact -8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
Al Horford 15.7m
5
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.4

Clanking wide-open pick-and-pop attempts severely damaged his offensive value. He still anchored the drop coverage effectively, yielding a +4.4 defensive rating by walling off the paint. The sheer volume of missed perimeter looks, however, allowed the opposition to pack the paint against drivers.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.2%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg -49.9
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.4
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 15.7m -8.4
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.3

Relentless cutting and elite finishing around the basket drove a highly efficient offensive showing. Generating a +13.5 box impact in limited minutes, he perfectly exploited gaps in the opponent's zone coverage. His ability to convert high-percentage looks without needing offensive plays called for him defined his stint.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.0%
USG% 27.0%
Net Rtg -23.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.3
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 15.4m -8.2
Impact +9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Gui Santos 11.7m
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.5

Continued his streak of highly efficient shooting, capitalizing perfectly on defensive breakdowns to generate a +6.1 box impact. His decisive off-ball movement created easy scoring angles during transition sequences. Even with a reduced scoring load compared to his recent tear, his shot selection remained impeccable.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +53.7
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.2
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 11.7m -6.3
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Will Richard 10.6m
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.5

Faded entirely into the background offensively, failing to register a single point after a solid stretch in recent games. He managed to provide minor rotational value through hustle and defensive positioning. Ultimately, his hesitance to shoot allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg -30.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.6m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.2
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 10.6m -5.6
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.4

A completely invisible offensive stint and defensive lapses led to a quick hook from the coaching staff. Failed to secure the paint during a crucial late-quarter stretch, offering zero rim deterrence. The lack of physical engagement made it impossible to keep him on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -85.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.9
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 4.7m -2.5
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0