GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAC Sacramento Kings
S DeMar DeRozan 34.9m
14
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-5.6

A passive approach to scoring limited his usual offensive gravity, resulting in a disappointing -5.6 net impact. While he distributed the ball effectively, his reluctance to force the issue in isolation allowed the defense to stay glued to Sacramento's perimeter shooters.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg -20.1
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.8
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 34.9m -17.8
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
23
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+9.2

Downhill aggression and surprisingly crisp perimeter shooting fueled a massive +9.2 impact rating. He completely dictated the tempo in transition while simultaneously locking down his assignment to generate an elite +7.2 defensive score.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 70.5%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg -12.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +16.6
Hustle +2.6
Defense +7.2
Raw total +26.4
Avg player in 33.5m -17.2
Impact +9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Zach LaVine 28.9m
18
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.3

Subpar shot selection from inside the arc offset his perimeter makes, leaving him with a nearly flat net score. He surprisingly chipped in with solid weak-side defensive rotations (+4.0), but the empty offensive trips prevented him from moving the needle.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 57.5%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg -12.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.0
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 28.9m -14.7
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Maxime Raynaud 22.7m
6
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.9

Bricked layups and forced hooks cratered his usual scoring efficiency, but he managed to stay in the green (+0.9) through sheer grit. A stellar +4.3 hustle rating reflects how he compensated for a broken jumper by relentlessly crashing the offensive glass and keeping plays alive.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 27.3%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -13.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +4.3
Defense +2.8
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 22.7m -11.5
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.7

A sharp decline in offensive aggression saw his impact dip into the negative, a stark contrast to his recent dominant interior stretch. He still provided sturdy resistance in the paint (+3.4 defense), but his inability to command touches severely limited his overall value.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -35.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.4
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 17.7m -9.1
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Malik Monk 25.9m
23
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.1

Lethal shot-making from beyond the arc completely broke the opposing team's defensive shell, driving a stellar +8.1 impact score. He hunted mismatches on the perimeter with ruthless efficiency, providing an unstoppable scoring punch that kept the offense in high gear.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 76.7%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg +10.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +17.0
Hustle +3.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +21.4
Avg player in 25.9m -13.3
Impact +8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.3

Capitalizing perfectly on dump-off passes and lob opportunities, he shattered his usual offensive output with ruthless efficiency. His +5.2 defensive rating highlights a phenomenal rim-protection clinic that completely deterred guards from challenging him in the restricted area.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +5.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.2
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 25.8m -13.2
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.3

Extreme passivity and a shocking lack of field goal attempts resulted in a disastrous -7.3 net rating. By failing to establish his usual physical dominance in the post, he allowed the opposing frontcourt to dictate the terms of engagement all night.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.0%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg +2.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.6
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 19.8m -10.2
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 6
2
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.9

Stalled offensive sets and clanked pull-up jumpers dragged his impact deep into negative territory. While he scrapped over screens to provide a minor defensive boost, his inability to orchestrate efficient half-court offense severely handicapped the second unit.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.7
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 17.7m -9.0
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.6

Complete offensive paralysis led to a brutal -6.6 net score, as he failed to dent the scoreboard or pressure the defense. He was largely a spectator during his rotation minutes, offering virtually no resistance or playmaking to justify his floor time.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg +23.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.1m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 13.1m -6.7
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Donovan Clingan 37.0m
21
pts
17
reb
3
ast
Impact
+16.5

Anchoring the paint with absolute authority, his defensive deterrence (+8.6) completely disrupted the opponent's interior attack. He capitalized on high-percentage looks around the rim to shatter his recent scoring averages, dominating the glass to secure extra possessions and a massive +16.5 overall impact.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 83.9%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +19.4
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Offense +24.4
Hustle +2.4
Defense +8.6
Raw total +35.4
Avg player in 37.0m -18.9
Impact +16.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Toumani Camara 36.4m
17
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+9.2

Flawless shot selection fueled a highly efficient offensive outing where he didn't waste a single possession from the floor. An exceptional +8.8 hustle rating highlights how his off-ball movement and loose-ball recoveries consistently tilted the math in Portland's favor.

Shooting
FG 7/7 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 107.9%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +20.5
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +17.9
Hustle +8.8
Defense +1.2
Raw total +27.9
Avg player in 36.4m -18.7
Impact +9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Sidy Cissoko 34.3m
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.3

Despite a massive scoring spike relative to his usual output, his overall impact plunged into the red due to clunky offensive execution and bricked perimeter looks. He provided genuine resistance on the defensive end to generate a +6.0 rating there, but it couldn't salvage the empty possessions he caused on the other end.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.7%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +12.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +3.9
Defense +6.0
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 34.3m -17.6
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Shaedon Sharpe 34.0m
27
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.6

High-volume chucking severely dragged down his overall metrics, as a barrage of missed field goals killed offensive momentum. While he managed a solid +4.8 hustle rating through active rebounding, his inefficient shot profile and inability to create for others ultimately resulted in a net negative impact.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 8/11 (72.7%)
Advanced
TS% 56.6%
USG% 34.9%
Net Rtg -1.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +4.8
Defense +0.4
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 34.0m -17.4
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Deni Avdija 31.8m
30
pts
8
reb
8
ast
Impact
+12.8

Elite dual-threat creation drove a stellar +12.8 net score, as he consistently punished defensive rotations with decisive drives and crisp passing. His ability to maintain high efficiency while shouldering a heavier scoring load kept the offense humming in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.7%
USG% 32.9%
Net Rtg +7.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +23.0
Hustle +2.3
Defense +3.7
Raw total +29.0
Avg player in 31.8m -16.2
Impact +12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
Caleb Love 21.7m
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.9

Errant perimeter shooting completely derailed his offensive value, missing all of his attempts from beyond the arc. The resulting long rebounds fueled opponent transition opportunities, dragging his net impact down to a dismal -7.9 despite respectable on-ball defensive effort.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg +28.9
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense -0.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.4
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 21.7m -11.1
Impact -7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Rayan Rupert 16.2m
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.1

Blown coverages and late closeouts resulted in a -1.2 defensive rating that dragged his overall impact into the red. Even with slightly better shot selection than his recent slump, his inability to stay in front of his man proved too costly during his rotation minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -11.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.2
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 16.2m -8.3
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Duop Reath 11.9m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.5

Offensive invisibility tanked his overall rating, as he failed to convert his limited touches or pressure the rim. He did provide a slight defensive boost (+2.8) by holding his ground in drop coverage, though it wasn't enough to offset the dead-weight offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -31.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.8
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 11.9m -6.1
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.2

A brief, disjointed stint on the floor yielded a -5.2 impact score due to blown assignments and forced looks in the paint. He flashed minor defensive utility, but an inability to finish around the basket quickly sent him back to the bench.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -27.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.4m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.2
Raw total -0.5
Avg player in 9.4m -4.7
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.1

Relentless energy on the defensive end (+4.9) salvaged a brief stint that was otherwise marred by poor perimeter shooting. His willingness to dive for loose balls and disrupt passing lanes generated crucial extra possessions, proving that pure hustle can overcome a cold shooting night.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +4.9
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 7.3m -3.7
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0