GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAC Sacramento Kings
S Zach LaVine 37.2m
20
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.5

High-volume shot creation kept the defense honest, though his efficiency wavered on contested pull-ups. He compensated for the erratic jumpers with surprisingly active hands in passing lanes and excellent closeouts on the perimeter. This engaged two-way effort salvaged a solid positive impact despite the streaky scoring.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.3%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +4.2
Defense +7.3
Raw total +20.1
Avg player in 37.2m -16.6
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S DeMar DeRozan 36.5m
21
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.0

Masterful navigation of the midrange and timely playmaking drove a massive offensive impact. He manipulated pick-and-roll coverages beautifully down the stretch, punishing drop coverages with his signature pull-up. Surprisingly stout positional defense ensured his offensive production translated directly to winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +1.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Offense +15.2
Hustle +1.8
Defense +5.4
Raw total +22.4
Avg player in 36.5m -16.4
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Maxime Raynaud 34.7m
14
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.6

Near-perfect shot selection around the basket fueled a massive positive metric. He consistently beat his man down the floor for early seals, combining soft touch with high-motor offensive rebounding to punish the interior defense. His ability to establish deep position before the defense set was the catalyst for his success.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.8%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg -6.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +4.8
Defense +2.4
Raw total +22.1
Avg player in 34.7m -15.5
Impact +6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-13.4

Errant perimeter shooting and out-of-control drives completely derailed the offensive flow, resulting in a devastatingly negative impact. While he competed hard on the defensive end, his insistence on jacking up early-clock triples bailed out the opposing defense time and time again. These wasted possessions fueled long rebounds and easy transition points for the opponent.

Shooting
FG 4/15 (26.7%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 32.8%
USG% 27.0%
Net Rtg +4.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense -4.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +4.1
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 31.1m -13.9
Impact -13.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
9
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.2

Maintained his streak of highly efficient interior finishing, but it was his versatile defensive switching that truly defined his night. By blowing up pick-and-roll actions and denying deep post position, he anchored a highly successful second-unit frontcourt. His physical screens also freed up the guards for clean downhill attacks.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +7.3
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 21.9m -9.9
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
11
pts
1
reb
9
ast
Impact
-2.8

Elite table-setting generated plenty of open looks for teammates, but his overall impact slipped into the red due to defensive mismatches. Opponents aggressively targeted his lack of size in switch situations, easily shooting over him in the midrange. This bleeding of points on the defensive end negated his positive offensive orchestration.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/7 (42.9%)
Advanced
TS% 42.0%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -18.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.0
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 25.7m -11.5
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Keon Ellis 23.4m
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.6

Proved to be an absolute menace defensively, generating immense value through relentless point-of-attack pressure and deflections. His offensive struggles were entirely overshadowed by his ability to blow up dribble hand-offs and force live-ball turnovers. The havoc he wreaked on the perimeter single-handedly ignited the team's fast break.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.3%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -1.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +7.6
Defense +8.8
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 23.4m -10.4
Impact +7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.6

Faded into the background during his minutes, failing to replicate his recent scoring aggression. A lack of assertiveness on the wing allowed the defense to ignore him, which bogged down spacing for the primary creators. This passivity resulted in a noticeable negative swing during his time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -26.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.1
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 14.2m -6.4
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
4
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.3

Capitalized on his limited run by dominating the glass and finishing the few drop-off passes that came his way. His physical screening freed up the guards, providing a sturdy, mistake-free presence in the paint. By simply playing within himself and protecting the rim, he delivered a highly efficient positive shift.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +28.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.5m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.1
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 10.5m -4.7
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

Rushed his perimeter looks during a brief cameo, failing to provide the floor-spacing gravity he was brought in for. With zero defensive resistance or hustle contributions to fall back on, his empty minutes were a clear detriment. Opponents completely ignored his off-ball movement, rendering his shift a net negative.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -55.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.6m
Offense -1.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.8
Avg player in 4.6m -2.0
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Max Christie 35.9m
11
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-13.0

A disastrous perimeter shooting performance cratered his overall value, as he repeatedly clanked open looks from deep. Forcing up low-quality jumpers disrupted the team's offensive rhythm and fueled opponent fast breaks. These empty offensive possessions completely erased the modest hustle plays he contributed on the other end.

Shooting
FG 3/13 (23.1%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.4%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -3.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +2.9
Defense +0.5
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 35.9m -16.0
Impact -13.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Anthony Davis 35.6m
19
pts
16
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.9

A brutal shooting night from the floor severely capped his offensive value, as he settled for too many contested isolation jumpers. However, he salvaged a positive net impact through sheer defensive dominance. His elite rim protection and relentless activity on the glass erased multiple defensive breakdowns from the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 7/23 (30.4%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 36.4%
USG% 31.9%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +6.3
Defense +9.9
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 35.6m -15.9
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
S Cooper Flagg 35.0m
20
pts
8
reb
6
ast
Impact
+11.4

Even with his scoring volume cooling off from his recent torrid stretch, his elite two-way presence drove a massive positive impact. High-quality shot selection and consistent weak-side defensive rotations anchored the frontcourt. He proved he can dictate the flow of the game without needing to force offensive touches.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.0%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +13.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +17.8
Hustle +3.9
Defense +5.3
Raw total +27.0
Avg player in 35.0m -15.6
Impact +11.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Naji Marshall 31.5m
15
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.1

Efficient slashing and opportunistic cuts kept his offensive metrics healthy, yet his overall impact inexplicably flatlined. This disconnect stems from giving up timely defensive breakdowns and bleeding value during transition sequences. His inability to stay attached to shooters neutralized his otherwise crisp offensive execution.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -7.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +2.9
Defense +5.3
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 31.5m -14.2
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Daniel Gafford 22.5m
10
pts
13
reb
0
ast
Impact
+12.3

Continued his streak of hyper-efficient finishing around the rim, converting high-percentage drop-offs to anchor a stellar impact score. His vertical spacing and disciplined rim-running forced defensive collapses all night. Solid weak-side help defense rounded out a highly effective, mistake-free shift.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +25.8
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +4.3
Defense +4.8
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 22.5m -10.0
Impact +12.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-14.0

Cold shooting completely tanked his value, as he settled for heavily contested perimeter jumpers early in the shot clock. Without his usual gravity pulling defenders away, the half-court offense stagnated into isolation ball. His lack of foot speed on defensive closeouts compounded the damage, resulting in a team-worst impact score.

Shooting
FG 2/12 (16.7%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +1.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense -4.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.9
Raw total -1.7
Avg player in 27.3m -12.3
Impact -14.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
18
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.8

Relentless penetration and decisive decision-making generated a strong positive offensive impact. He consistently broke down the primary point of attack, collapsing the defense to create wide-open passing lanes. A few costly defensive gambles slightly muted his overall net positive, but his rim pressure was undeniable.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -7.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +2.6
Defense +3.0
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 26.6m -11.9
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Caleb Martin 13.9m
1
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.7

An invisible offensive outing forced him to rely entirely on his motor to stay on the floor. While he generated extra possessions through deflections and loose ball recoveries, his inability to threaten the defense bogged down the spacing. Opponents aggressively sagged off him, which ultimately dragged his overall impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.4%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg +6.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.9m
Offense -2.5
Hustle +4.8
Defense +1.2
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 13.9m -6.2
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.3

Operated purely as a facilitator during his brief stint, completely passing up scoring opportunities to keep the ball moving. His reluctance to look at the rim allowed defenders to cheat into the passing lanes, slightly stalling the half-court sets. Despite mistake-free floor generalship, his lack of scoring gravity resulted in a slight negative swing.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +19.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.8
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 11.7m -5.1
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0