GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAC LA Clippers
S James Harden 36.6m
22
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
-4.7

A massive volume of clanked jumpers and forced isolation plays severely damaged his overall efficiency. The raw scoring output was entirely a product of usage, masking how much his poor shot selection and stagnant offense hurt the team's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 5/17 (29.4%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 10/10 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.4%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg +4.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 36.6m -21.0
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kawhi Leonard 30.2m
33
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+22.2

A lethal barrage from beyond the arc combined with suffocating defensive pressure resulted in a masterclass performance. His ability to hit heavily contested threes while simultaneously locking down the opponent's best scorer drove an astronomical net rating.

Shooting
FG 9/22 (40.9%)
3PT 7/11 (63.6%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.7%
USG% 42.9%
Net Rtg +11.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +22.5
Hustle +6.0
Defense +11.1
Raw total +39.6
Avg player in 30.2m -17.4
Impact +22.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kobe Sanders 25.6m
11
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.8

Defensive liabilities completely erased the value of his unexpected scoring punch. Getting repeatedly targeted and blown by on the perimeter allowed easy penetration, negating his efficient shooting night.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -8.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.4
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 25.6m -14.7
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kris Dunn 23.2m
4
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.3

Defensive menace and high-energy hustle defined his highly impactful shift. He perfectly executed his role as a disruptive point-of-attack defender, blowing up actions and securing extra possessions without needing to force his own offense.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 3.8%
Net Rtg -15.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +3.9
Defense +6.7
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 23.2m -13.4
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
S Brook Lopez 21.0m
11
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.1

Elite rim protection and solid hustle metrics offset a brutal night shooting from deep. While his perimeter jumper abandoned him, his sheer size and positional awareness deterred drives and anchored the interior defense.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -9.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +3.3
Defense +3.7
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 21.0m -12.1
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
11
pts
10
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.0

Consistent two-way effort and excellent defensive versatility kept him in the green. He thrived by attacking closeouts and securing contested rebounds, providing steady, mistake-free basketball that subtly boosted the lineup.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.7%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +31.8
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense +6.6
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 33.8m -19.5
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.7

Despite a surprising resurgence in perimeter shooting and stout defensive metrics, his overall impact remained negative due to a lack of secondary playmaking and transition defense. His spot-up shooting couldn't fully compensate for the momentum-killing empty possessions when he was run off the line.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +47.3
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.4
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 26.3m -15.1
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
16
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.2

Flawless finishing around the basket and active interior defense generated a massive positive impact. He feasted on dump-offs and putbacks, refusing to force bad shots while consistently altering attempts at the rim.

Shooting
FG 7/7 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 101.5%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +31.2
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +15.6
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.9
Raw total +22.4
Avg player in 22.9m -13.2
Impact +9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
Cam Christie 20.6m
2
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.8

Extreme passivity on offense and a failure to stretch the floor allowed defenders to sag off and clog the paint. While he didn't miss a shot, his complete reluctance to engage in the offense actively hindered the team's spacing and flow.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 4.5%
Net Rtg +44.5
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.0
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 20.6m -11.9
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
WAS Washington Wizards
S Kyshawn George 32.3m
23
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.6

Elite two-way impact was driven by relentless hustle and highly efficient interior scoring. His aggressive rim pressure and off-ball activity generated massive positive value, easily overcoming a shaky shooting night from beyond the arc.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.6%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg +7.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Offense +19.6
Hustle +6.2
Defense +2.4
Raw total +28.2
Avg player in 32.3m -18.6
Impact +9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Tre Johnson 27.4m
10
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-11.2

Poor shot selection and defensive bleeding tanked his overall rating despite decent hustle metrics. Settling for heavily contested perimeter jumpers rather than attacking the paint severely limited his offensive ceiling and fueled transition opportunities for the opposition.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +5.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense -0.1
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 27.4m -15.7
Impact -11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Khris Middleton 27.3m
17
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.3

A massive scoring surge compared to his recent slump was entirely undone by defensive limitations and a lack of secondary hustle plays. His offensive revival was ultimately overshadowed by empty possessions and defensive lapses that allowed opponents to capitalize.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg +9.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.5
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 27.3m -15.8
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Alex Sarr 13.3m
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.6

An uncharacteristically passive offensive showing cratered his value, as he struggled to find his spots and forced contested looks. While his rim protection and defensive positioning remained solid, the severe drop in scoring efficiency neutralized his contributions.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 31.0%
Net Rtg -23.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.4
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 13.3m -7.7
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

A nearly invisible offensive footprint in limited minutes prevented him from making a tangible mark on the game. He provided adequate defensive resistance, but his complete lack of offensive aggression compared to his recent averages left his overall impact flat.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 104.2%
USG% 4.8%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.8m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.6
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 9.8m -5.6
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
-18.0

A disastrous shooting performance defined his night, as a barrage of missed perimeter shots derailed the offense and plummeted his net rating. Continuing to force up bricks rather than deferring to teammates created empty possessions that completely overshadowed his respectable playmaking.

Shooting
FG 1/11 (9.1%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 16.8%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg -0.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense -1.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.9
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 32.9m -19.0
Impact -18.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Will Riley 27.1m
12
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.0

Defensive tenacity and efficient shot-making weren't enough to overcome a significant drop in his usual offensive usage. Fading into the background during crucial stretches prevented him from maximizing his impact, resulting in a slightly negative overall grade.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.1%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -36.4
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.5
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 27.1m -15.7
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
15
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.7

Absolute dominance in the paint and elite defensive anchoring fueled a massive positive net rating. His relentless work on the glass and high-percentage finishing around the rim dictated the tempo and consistently punished smaller defenders.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +18.7
Hustle +3.6
Defense +5.8
Raw total +28.1
Avg player in 26.9m -15.4
Impact +12.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.0

Strong defensive rotations and active rebounding kept him afloat, but a noticeable dip in offensive volume dragged his net score negative. His inability to sustain his recent hot shooting streak limited his overall effectiveness, even as he anchored the perimeter defense.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -44.1
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +2.3
Defense +4.0
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 26.6m -15.3
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
10
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.6

Efficient floor-spacing and smart shot selection maximized his value in limited minutes. Capitalizing on defensive breakdowns to knock down open looks provided a crucial offensive spark off the bench.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 41.2%
Net Rtg -69.6
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.7m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +1.7
Defense +0.3
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 7.7m -4.5
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.1

Active hands and solid defensive positioning salvaged a scoreless cameo appearance. He made his presence felt by disrupting passing lanes and staying attached to his man, proving useful despite the lack of offensive output.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -87.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.0m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.3
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 4.0m -2.4
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
AJ Johnson 3.4m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.0

A brief, ineffective stint was marred by forced perimeter shots that failed to draw iron. His inability to generate any offensive rhythm or defensive disruption during his short time on the floor resulted in a quick negative impact.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -75.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.4m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +0.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.1
Avg player in 3.4m -1.9
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.2

Barely saw the floor, registering only a handful of hustle points during a brief rotational appearance. His streak of highly efficient scoring was snapped simply due to a complete lack of opportunity.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 1.1m -0.6
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0