GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAC Sacramento Kings
S DeMar DeRozan 41.0m
27
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.1

Masterful foul-drawing and methodical half-court orchestration fueled a highly productive offensive showing. He compensated for mediocre shooting from the floor by relentlessly attacking angles and living at the charity stripe. His stabilizing veteran presence in the mid-range dictated the tempo of the entire game.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 12/13 (92.3%)
Advanced
TS% 62.2%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.0m
Offense +19.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.9
Raw total +25.1
Avg player in 41.0m -20.0
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
19
pts
6
reb
11
ast
Impact
-6.5

A classic high-usage, high-chaos outing where gaudy playmaking numbers were entirely undone by reckless decision-making. Errant passes and out-of-control drives fueled opponent transition opportunities, tanking his overall impact score. The sheer volume of his offensive initiation ultimately yielded diminishing returns due to the accompanying mistakes.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +4.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.2m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.4
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 39.2m -18.9
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
20
pts
14
reb
2
ast
Impact
+15.3

An absolute wrecking ball on the defensive end, he completely suffocated the opposition's frontcourt to drive a massive positive rating. Coupling that elite rim protection with highly efficient floor-spacing made him the most impactful player on the court. His relentless energy on the glass cemented a truly dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 58.5%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg +18.9
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.6m
Offense +16.3
Hustle +4.2
Defense +13.4
Raw total +33.9
Avg player in 38.6m -18.6
Impact +15.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
S Zach LaVine 36.2m
25
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.4

Blistering perimeter shot-making masked a performance that actually hurt the team's bottom line. Defensive lapses and an inability to stay in front of his man gave back nearly everything he generated on the offensive end. The scoring volume was flashy, but the underlying execution lacked the necessary two-way resistance.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.3%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.2m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +2.1
Defense -0.5
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 36.2m -17.6
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Maxime Raynaud 26.6m
10
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Despite highly efficient finishing around the basket, his overall influence slipped into the negative due to hidden mistakes. Costly turnovers or slow defensive rotations likely bled points during his shifts, undermining his clean shooting splits. He struggled to match the physical intensity of his matchups when operating outside the painted area.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 13.1%
Net Rtg +25.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.2
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 26.6m -12.9
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.0

Proved that scoring isn't required to heavily influence winning basketball. He anchored the second unit with impeccable defensive positioning and physical screen-setting, creating massive hidden value. His willingness to do the dirty work ensured his team won his minutes decisively.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 4.2%
Net Rtg -0.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense +7.3
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 21.4m -10.4
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
Malik Monk 19.2m
9
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.7

Stagnant offensive flow and a series of forced, contested jumpers derailed his stint off the bench. Without his usual burst to the rim, he settled for low-percentage looks that bailed out the defense. His inability to bend the opposing scheme resulted in a distinctly negative footprint.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.9%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -7.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +1.8
Defense +0.1
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 19.2m -9.4
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
0
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.4

An absolute offensive void during his minutes, completely crippling the team's spacing and flow. Defenders blatantly ignored him on the perimeter, turning every possession into a 4-on-5 uphill battle. The catastrophic impact score perfectly reflects a player who was actively detrimental to the offensive scheme.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense -4.8
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.8
Raw total -3.0
Avg player in 13.2m -6.4
Impact -9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Keon Ellis 4.7m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.3

Struggled to find the game's rhythm during a disjointed and brief rotation appearance. A blown defensive assignment and a rushed perimeter attempt quickly landed him in the coach's doghouse. He was a net negative before he could even break a sweat.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.1
Avg player in 4.7m -2.2
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
NYK New York Knicks
S Mikal Bridges 35.8m
19
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.8

Phenomenal two-way activity completely overshadowed a ghastly perimeter shooting performance. He generated massive value through perimeter containment and relentless off-ball tracking, ensuring his minutes were highly profitable. The sheer volume of his defensive disruptions erased the damage of his brick-heavy shot selection.

Shooting
FG 6/20 (30.0%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.8%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg -16.4
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +7.3
Defense +7.5
Raw total +25.2
Avg player in 35.8m -17.4
Impact +7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
13
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.0

Elite rim deterrence and active interior rotations kept his head above water on a night where his offensive touch completely abandoned him. Clanking heavily contested looks inside the arc cratered his usual scoring gravity. He essentially transformed into a pure defensive anchor to salvage a neutral impact rating.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.2%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -13.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +4.7
Defense +10.4
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 33.3m -16.2
Impact -0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 3
S Josh Hart 31.8m
10
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.8

Despite generating immense value through loose-ball recoveries and transition hustle, his overall impact plummeted into the red. Hidden mistakes, likely a string of live-ball turnovers or blown coverages in the half-court, completely negated his efficient shot profile. His relentless motor couldn't mask the execution errors during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -22.6
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +5.2
Defense +1.8
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 31.8m -15.4
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S OG Anunoby 27.4m
15
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.5

A brutal goose egg from beyond the arc torpedoed his offensive efficiency and dragged down his overall rating. While he provided his usual physical resistance on the wing, the inability to space the floor allowed the defense to pack the paint. Forced jumpers early in the shot clock ultimately outweighed his solid baseline production.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 45.4%
USG% 27.0%
Net Rtg -24.7
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.4
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 27.4m -13.4
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Jalen Brunson 5.0m
4
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

An abbreviated stint cut short any chance to establish his usual offensive rhythm. He managed to find the bottom of the net on a couple of early drives, but the microscopic sample size left his overall footprint slightly negative. The lack of court time defined this outing entirely.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg -97.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +0.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 5.0m -2.5
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
-8.7

Reckless offensive sequencing and a barrage of clanked perimeter jumpers severely damaged his team's momentum. Although he found ways to contribute on the glass and as a facilitator, his inability to convert efficiently bled points in transition. The massive negative impact score reflects a player shooting his team out of offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -9.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.0
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 27.6m -13.5
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Tyler Kolek 23.5m
7
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.0

Inefficient finishing in the paint and a handful of forced passes dragged his overall metrics into the red. While he successfully initiated the offense at times, his inability to punish drop coverage with his jumper allowed defenders to sag off. The resulting spacing issues bogged down the half-court execution during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.9%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +4.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.5
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 23.5m -11.3
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.7

Surprisingly stout point-of-attack resistance elevated what was otherwise a standard scoring punch off the bench. He didn't just hunt shots; he actively disrupted passing lanes and fought through screens to generate stops. This two-way engagement turned a modest offensive night into a highly impactful shift.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +3.4
Defense +6.8
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 23.1m -11.3
Impact +6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
11
reb
0
ast
Impact
+11.5

Absolute dominance in the painted area drove a staggering positive rating in limited minutes. He feasted on second-chance opportunities, converting every look around the rim while anchoring the interior defense. This performance was a masterclass in maximizing value through elite role execution and physical imposition.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.0%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg -12.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +15.4
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.6
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 19.1m -9.2
Impact +11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.3

Trigger-happy tendencies in a very limited window completely derailed his stint on the floor. Firing up multiple errant triples in under six minutes killed offensive possessions and led to easy run-outs for the opposition. His brief appearance was defined by rushed decisions rather than playing within the flow.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 38.5%
Net Rtg +15.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.8
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 5.8m -2.8
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Capitalized on a microscopic stint by converting his only look at the basket. His brief appearance was clean and mistake-free, resulting in a slight positive bump to his metrics. He did exactly what was asked in a mop-up role.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +73.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.6m
Offense +2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 2.6m -1.2
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Failed to leave a positive mark during a fleeting rotation appearance. A couple of empty possessions and missed assignments quickly dropped his rating into negative territory. The game flow completely bypassed him during his brief time on the hardwood.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +73.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.6m
Offense -0.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 2.6m -1.2
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Logged a purely cardio session during his brief time on the floor. He generated zero tangible production across any category, resulting in a slight negative drag on the lineup. There simply wasn't enough time or involvement to alter the game's trajectory.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +73.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.6m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 2.6m -1.2
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0