GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAC LA Clippers
S James Harden 37.5m
32
pts
4
reb
10
ast
Impact
+13.8

Elite playmaking and surprisingly stout post defense drove a massive overall impact despite a highly inefficient shooting volume. He manipulated pick-and-roll coverages perfectly, consistently generating wide-open looks for his bigs. Even with a barrage of missed step-back threes, his ability to control the game's tempo was undeniable.

Shooting
FG 11/28 (39.3%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 38.1%
Net Rtg +1.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Offense +21.3
Hustle +2.9
Defense +9.2
Raw total +33.4
Avg player in 37.5m -19.6
Impact +13.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kawhi Leonard 30.6m
35
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+14.8

Surgical precision in the midrange and beyond the arc completely dismantled the opposing wing defenders. He dictated the pace of the entire game, punishing every late rotation with lethal shot selection. A steady, disruptive presence in the passing lanes rounded out a masterclass in two-way efficiency.

Shooting
FG 11/19 (57.9%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 76.2%
USG% 34.8%
Net Rtg +15.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +26.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.5
Raw total +30.6
Avg player in 30.6m -15.8
Impact +14.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S John Collins 30.3m
3
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.9

Completely neutralized by physical interior defense, leading to a disastrously hollow shift. He failed to establish deep post position and offered virtually zero rim protection on the other end. The lack of rebounding urgency or screen-setting allowed the opposition to dominate the frontcourt matchup.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 7.5%
Net Rtg +29.1
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.2
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 30.3m -15.8
Impact -13.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ivica Zubac 27.2m
9
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.6

Anchored the paint effectively by altering shots and securing defensive boards to close out possessions. He capitalized on his limited offensive touches through excellent positioning in the dunker spot. While not spectacular, his disciplined verticality provided a reliable safety net for the perimeter defenders.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.3
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 27.2m -14.2
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kris Dunn 20.6m
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.2

A catastrophic shooting night from the perimeter completely destroyed the team's half-court spacing. He tried to salvage his value through relentless ball pressure and loose-ball recoveries. However, the defense simply ignored him off the ball, bogging down the entire offensive system when he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +16.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense -3.1
Hustle +3.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 20.6m -10.7
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.6

Opportunistic cutting and transition rim-running allowed him to score efficiently without dominating the ball. He struggled slightly to navigate off-ball screens on defense, which capped his overall net impact. Still, his constant motion kept the defense scrambling and opened up driving lanes for the primary creators.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +1.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.3
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 27.4m -14.3
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Kobe Sanders 22.8m
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.3

Forced the issue offensively with a barrage of contested, low-percentage jumpers that short-circuited several possessions. He struggled to stay in front of quicker guards on the perimeter, offering little resistance at the point of attack. Despite decent energy on the offensive glass, the poor shot selection heavily outweighed his hustle.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +8.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.1
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 22.8m -11.9
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.6

Flawless execution of his role player duties maximized his time on the court. He blew up multiple offensive sets with his high-IQ weakside rotations and kept the ball moving on offense. Capitalizing on his limited perimeter looks punished the defense for helping off him in the corners.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 121.5%
USG% 6.1%
Net Rtg -3.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +2.0
Defense +6.7
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 21.9m -11.4
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Brook Lopez 20.4m
9
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.0

Classic drop-coverage mastery completely deterred opponents from challenging the rim during his shifts. He stretched the floor effectively, forcing opposing bigs out of the paint to respect his perimeter stroke. His active hands in the passing lanes generated crucial deflections that disrupted the opponent's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +15.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +3.2
Defense +5.5
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 20.4m -10.6
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Only saw the floor for a brief garbage-time cameo at the end of the game. Did not have enough time to register any meaningful statistical impact.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -200.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.4m -0.2
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Entered the game strictly for the final possession to run out the clock. Logged no measurable actions during his few seconds on the hardwood.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -200.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.4m -0.2
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Kobe Brown 0.4m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Relegated to a purely ceremonial appearance in the closing seconds. He was unable to build on his recent streak of highly efficient scoring performances due to the lack of playing time.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -200.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.4m -0.2
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Kon Knueppel 35.2m
18
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.7

Solid hustle metrics kept his head above water despite a completely barren night from beyond the arc. His inability to stretch the floor allowed the defense to sag, neutralizing some of his typical offensive gravity. Consistent off-ball movement prevented his impact from dipping into the negative.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.9%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -6.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +4.3
Defense +1.8
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 35.2m -18.3
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Moussa Diabaté 35.1m
13
pts
15
reb
4
ast
Impact
+11.4

Absolute dominance on the interior anchored a massive defensive impact score. He completely walled off the paint against drives, while his relentless activity on the glass generated critical second-chance opportunities. Capitalizing on every dump-off pass without demanding post touches sustained his streak of elite finishing.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -2.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +16.7
Hustle +3.5
Defense +9.5
Raw total +29.7
Avg player in 35.1m -18.3
Impact +11.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 26.3%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 1
S Miles Bridges 34.5m
11
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.8

A steep drop-off in shot-making efficiency cratered his overall value, as he forced heavily contested looks in the half-court. Despite generating respectable hustle metrics, the sheer volume of empty possessions derailed the offense. His inability to punish mismatches on the perimeter stalled out several crucial sets.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.8%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg -23.7
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +3.3
Defense +1.3
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 34.5m -18.0
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Brandon Miller 32.9m
13
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-5.3

Passive perimeter play and a sharp decline in usage severely limited his overall footprint. While he provided adequate defensive resistance, his reluctance to attack closeouts allowed the opposing defense to rest. He settled for perimeter swings rather than aggressively hunting his own shot, dragging his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -8.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.4
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 32.9m -17.2
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S LaMelo Ball 32.2m
25
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.9

Erratic shot selection from deep heavily taxed his offensive efficiency, capping his overall impact despite a high-usage night. He offset some of those wasted possessions with surprisingly engaged point-of-attack defense. Ultimately, the sheer volume of forced transition threes prevented a good performance from becoming a great one.

Shooting
FG 11/24 (45.8%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 34.6%
Net Rtg -13.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +13.6
Hustle +1.7
Defense +4.5
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 32.2m -16.9
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Sion James 18.6m
8
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.7

Poor finishing around the basket wasted multiple high-value scoring opportunities created by the primary ball-handlers. Although he showed flashes of competence navigating screens defensively, the offensive dead-ends were too costly. His inability to convert in traffic ultimately derailed the second unit's momentum.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -12.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.7
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 18.6m -9.7
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.9

Provided a brief stabilizing presence as a small-ball big, using his physical frame to deter drives. His willingness to take what the defense gave him resulted in a highly efficient, low-mistake stint. However, a lack of elite rim protection kept his overall impact ceiling relatively low.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 81.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +15.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.6
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 13.2m -6.9
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.4

Struggled to anchor the drop coverage during his minutes, bleeding points in the pick-and-roll. Without his usual lob-threat gravity to collapse the defense, his offensive utility vanished completely. Opposing guards consistently targeted his heavy feet in space, driving his net impact deep into the negatives.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg -20.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 12.9m -6.7
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Josh Green 12.8m
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.8

Minimal engagement on both ends rendered him nearly invisible during his brief rotation stint. He failed to generate any meaningful rim pressure, settling instead for contested perimeter looks that went nowhere. A lack of secondary playmaking or off-ball cutting left him floating aimlessly on offense.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +33.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.5
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 12.8m -6.7
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Tre Mann 12.6m
9
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.8

A sudden burst of isolation shot-making provided a vital spark for the bench unit. He relentlessly attacked drop coverage with his pull-up game, maximizing his short stint on the floor. Defensive lapses at the point of attack slightly muted the value of his scoring surge.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +0.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.6m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.7
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 12.6m -6.5
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0