GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAC Sacramento Kings
S DeMar DeRozan 32.8m
17
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.7

A stark disconnect between his individual scoring and overall team success resulted in a brutal -7.7 total impact. Poor transition defense and a tendency to hold the ball too long against double teams allowed opponents to dictate the tempo whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.9%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.8
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 32.8m -18.1
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Zach LaVine 32.4m
16
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.4

Efficient perimeter shot-making generated a strong box score rating, but his overall impact slipped into the red due to off-ball defensive lapses. He consistently lost his man on back-door cuts, giving away easy layups that negated his offensive output.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +12.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.5
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 32.4m -17.9
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
26
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
+5.2

Exploded for a massive offensive resurgence by catching fire from beyond the arc and punishing defenders who went under screens. This sudden perimeter gravity opened up passing lanes, driving a stellar +18.3 box impact and a highly positive overall rating.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 6/9 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.4%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg +2.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +18.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.2
Raw total +22.4
Avg player in 31.1m -17.2
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
16
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.3

Dominated the interior with ruthless efficiency, continuing a phenomenal streak of high-percentage finishing around the basket. His +4.5 defensive impact was highlighted by textbook verticality at the rim, deterring multiple driving attempts without fouling.

Shooting
FG 7/8 (87.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.1%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -5.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +18.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.5
Raw total +25.6
Avg player in 27.6m -15.3
Impact +10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Maxime Raynaud 21.7m
4
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.2

Took a massive step back as a scoring threat, passing up open looks and clogging the spacing in half-court sets. While his rebounding and positional defense remained stout, offensive passivity and sloppy screen-setting dragged his total impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg -12.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +3.4
Defense +3.4
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 21.7m -12.0
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 61.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.9

Anchored the frontcourt with elite two-way physicality, generating massive hustle and defensive metrics in limited minutes. His ability to seal off the defensive glass and initiate fast breaks with pinpoint outlet passes defined his highly positive stint.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.3%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg +29.8
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +5.8
Defense +5.7
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 21.2m -11.7
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
15
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.1

Picked apart drop coverages with surgical precision to generate a massive +11.1 box score impact. Despite the offensive clinic, a complete lack of hustle plays (+0.0) and poor transition effort kept his overall rating nearly flat.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +28.6
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +11.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.1
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 20.2m -11.1
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.0

Played a highly controlled two-way game, taking only high-value shots within the flow of the offense to secure a positive overall impact. His +2.9 defensive rating was fueled by excellent weak-side rotations that consistently blew up opponent lob attempts.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +45.2
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.9
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 18.9m -10.4
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.5

Capitalized on dump-off passes to finish efficiently around the rim, significantly outperforming his usual scoring average. However, his total impact was muted by a lack of rim protection (+0.1 Def), as opposing guards repeatedly finished through him in the paint.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +54.7
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.1
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 18.7m -10.3
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Malik Monk 15.6m
4
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.6

Forced contested jumpers early in the shot clock, completely short-circuiting the offensive flow and tanking his box impact. The resulting long rebounds fueled opponent fast breaks, directly contributing to a disastrous -10.6 total rating.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg +11.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense -4.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.3
Raw total -1.9
Avg player in 15.6m -8.7
Impact -10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
WAS Washington Wizards
S Bub Carrington 38.9m
11
pts
2
reb
9
ast
Impact
-5.6

Despite operating efficiently as a distributor, a catastrophic string of live-ball turnovers tanked his overall rating into the red. He gave away too many possessions forcing passes into tight pick-and-roll windows, completely negating his otherwise solid defensive metrics.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 112.7%
USG% 8.9%
Net Rtg +3.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.9m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +3.4
Defense +3.6
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 38.9m -21.4
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Tre Johnson 29.8m
18
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.1

Heavy shot volume and midrange misses suppressed his overall efficiency, keeping his total impact barely positive. However, his elite point-of-attack defense (+5.1) salvaged his night, effectively blowing up opponent dribble hand-offs on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 52.9%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg +0.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.1
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 29.8m -16.3
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Alex Sarr 27.7m
19
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.4

A massive offensive surge fueled a stellar overall rating, as he abandoned perimeter settling to dominate the painted area. His +4.0 defensive impact anchored the frontcourt, consistently altering shots as a weak-side helper.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.0%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -8.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.0
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 27.7m -15.3
Impact +6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
15
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.5

Sustained his recent streak of hyper-efficient scoring by attacking closeouts with purpose rather than settling for contested jumpers. The robust +15.2 box impact stems from excellent shot selection around the rim, though his defensive rotations were merely passable.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +15.2
Hustle +3.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +20.2
Avg player in 26.7m -14.7
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kyshawn George 23.8m
15
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.0

High-level impact (+10.0) was driven entirely by relentless activity on the glass and interior finishing, completely offsetting a cold night from beyond the arc. His elite hustle metrics (+5.3) reflected a constant motor in transition defense and loose ball recoveries.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -21.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +14.5
Hustle +5.3
Defense +3.3
Raw total +23.1
Avg player in 23.8m -13.1
Impact +10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.7

Racked up tremendous hustle and defensive metrics by diving for loose balls and aggressively disrupting passing lanes. Unfortunately, those effort plays were completely undone by careless offensive fouls and transition turnovers that plummeted his total impact to -6.7.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -1.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +5.5
Defense +4.2
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 26.1m -14.5
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Will Riley 22.0m
6
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-13.3

An abysmal shot selection from the perimeter derailed his offensive rhythm and led to a brutal -13.3 total impact. Opponents aggressively targeted him in isolation, exposing sluggish lateral movement that dragged his defensive metrics into the negative.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -34.9
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense -2.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.7
Raw total -1.1
Avg player in 22.0m -12.2
Impact -13.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.0

Found ways to contribute despite a dreadful shooting night by crashing the offensive glass and keeping possessions alive. His exceptional +6.0 hustle score was defined by relentless rim-running that forced early defensive rotations, compensating for his lack of scoring touch.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.9%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -24.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +6.0
Defense +3.6
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 19.2m -10.5
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.3

Provided a massive spark plug effect off the bench by decisively attacking the midrange. His crisp shot-making generated a +10.8 box impact, while disciplined closeouts on the perimeter boosted his defensive rating to +3.5.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.2%
USG% 28.1%
Net Rtg +30.2
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.5
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 13.2m -7.2
Impact +8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
AJ Johnson 11.5m
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Struggled to find the bottom of the net on rushed perimeter attempts, keeping his box impact perfectly flat. He managed to stay on the floor through gritty on-ball defense (+3.2), particularly when navigating screens against secondary ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -99.8
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.2
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 11.5m -6.3
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

Barely saw the floor in a fleeting cameo that snapped a highly efficient five-game scoring streak. A rushed, ill-advised perimeter heave in garbage time was his only notable contribution, resulting in a slight negative impact.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.1m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 1.1m -0.6
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0