GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAC Sacramento Kings
S DeMar DeRozan 35.0m
23
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.1

A steady diet of isolation scoring inflated his box score while stalling the broader offensive engine. Heavy ball-stopping and a pattern of lazy transition defense ultimately cost the team more points than his mid-range mastery created.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 10/10 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.1%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg -21.5
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +17.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.5
Raw total +17.8
Avg player in 35.0m -19.9
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
22
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-1.1

Relentless downhill rim pressure generated a massive scoring surge, but erratic perimeter chucking stalled multiple rallies. Costly live-ball turnovers during a tight fourth-quarter stretch ultimately dragged his net impact into the red despite the high-energy output.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 29.3%
Net Rtg -20.1
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.9
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 31.2m -17.7
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 6
S Zach LaVine 22.2m
18
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.5

Blistering shot-making from the perimeter forced the defense into panic rotations all night. However, his overall impact was heavily suppressed by a pattern of lazy closeouts and ball-watching on the defensive glass.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.7%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg -10.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +15.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.2
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 22.2m -12.6
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.8

Stifling interior defense and strong rim contests were completely overshadowed by sloppy hands on the offensive end. Fumbled catches in the dunker spot and a crucial stretch of offensive three-second violations torpedoed his overall value.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -17.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.0
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 22.1m -12.5
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Maxime Raynaud 17.8m
7
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.4

Exceptional positional awareness in the paint deterred multiple driving attempts and anchored the second-unit defense. He didn't need a high scoring volume to dominate his minutes, relying instead on a pattern of elite box-outs and verticality to protect the rim.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -16.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +7.5
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 17.8m -10.1
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Malik Monk 29.8m
18
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.7

Instant offense off the bench provided a necessary spark, but his shot selection devolved into heavily contested hero-ball. Getting consistently lost on back-door cuts completely erased the value of his perimeter scoring in a crucial second-half stretch.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.8%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -2.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.3
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 29.8m -16.9
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.2

Active hands in the passing lanes created several deflection opportunities that fueled the transition game. Sadly, a pattern of poor shot selection early in the shot clock and missed defensive rotations negated his hustle.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +2.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.5
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 24.4m -13.8
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.1

Dominating the glass with sheer physicality, he generated crucial second-chance opportunities that broke the opponent's spirit. His disciplined drop coverage in the pick-and-roll neutralized the opposing guards without committing unnecessary fouls.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 5.8%
Net Rtg -1.7
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +5.0
Raw total +19.1
Avg player in 21.4m -12.0
Impact +7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
4
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-13.3

Pounding the air out of the ball at the top of the key led to stagnant, late-clock heaves. His inability to stay in front of quicker guards at the point of attack resulted in a cascading series of defensive breakdowns during the third quarter.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg -9.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense -4.9
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.4
Raw total -2.4
Avg player in 19.2m -10.9
Impact -13.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
6
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.2

Controlling the glass with sheer physicality dictated the tempo, yet his inability to finish through contact at the rim limited his effectiveness. A frustrating stretch of offensive fouls in the post kept him from asserting his usual dominance.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.5%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -10.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.0
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 17.0m -9.6
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIA Miami Heat
S Norman Powell 30.8m
22
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.2

Volume scoring masked a highly detrimental floor game defined by forced drives into heavy traffic. Bleeding value through a pattern of transition-starting turnovers and poor closeouts, his offensive production was entirely offset by defensive concessions.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg +18.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +3.6
Defense +0.9
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 30.8m -17.5
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Bam Adebayo 30.4m
25
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+10.9

Stretching the floor with an uncharacteristic barrage from deep completely warped the opponent's defensive shell. His elite rim protection anchored the interior, though a handful of moving screens slightly dented an otherwise dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 69.1%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg +16.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Offense +18.0
Hustle +2.3
Defense +7.8
Raw total +28.1
Avg player in 30.4m -17.2
Impact +10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Andrew Wiggins 29.6m
19
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.8

Aggressive perimeter scoring fueled his offensive metrics, but hidden costs like off-ball defensive fouls and untimely turnovers suppressed his overall impact. A strong third-quarter scoring burst was largely negated by a pattern of giving up easy transition opportunities the other way.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.8%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +15.9
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +2.4
Defense +4.0
Raw total +18.5
Avg player in 29.6m -16.7
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Pelle Larsson 26.2m
16
pts
6
reb
9
ast
Impact
+10.2

Surgical decision-making in the pick-and-roll drove a highly efficient offensive showing. Despite some defensive lapses that dragged down his overall rating from its box-score peak, a pattern of consistently finding the roll man created a steady stream of high-value looks.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 77.5%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +17.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +21.9
Hustle +2.3
Defense +0.9
Raw total +25.1
Avg player in 26.2m -14.9
Impact +10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Davion Mitchell 19.5m
6
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+1.3

Point-of-attack defensive pressure set the tone early, disrupting the opposing team's offensive initiation. While his scoring volume dipped significantly, his disciplined ball movement and a crucial stretch of lockdown defense in the second quarter kept his net impact in the green.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg +26.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +4.4
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 19.5m -11.0
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.9

Relentless on-ball defense and timely rotations generated significant value on that end of the floor. However, a pattern of forced, contested mid-range jumpers and offensive fouls dragged his overall impact down to near neutral.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.2%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +3.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +2.9
Defense +8.1
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 33.4m -19.0
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.2

A disastrous shooting night from the perimeter severely cramped the floor and derailed offensive possessions. Despite commendable hustle on loose balls, his inability to convert open looks allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes all night.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.7%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -2.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.3m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +4.3
Defense +1.4
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 19.3m -10.9
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
15
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.0

Catch-and-shoot gravity from the wings punished defensive breakdowns and provided a massive scoring spark. The sheer volume of his perimeter makes drove his positive impact, highlighted by a blistering second-quarter stretch that blew the game open.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +2.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.1
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 19.2m -10.8
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.4

Complete offensive invisibility allowed his primary defender to roam freely and double-team the ball handlers. While his weak-side defensive rotations were crisp, a pattern of passing up open looks rendered him a severe liability on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 12.9%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.3
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 16.9m -9.6
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.9

Flashing decent connective passing, he kept the offensive flow moving during his brief stints. Unfortunately, a tendency to bite on pump fakes and surrender straight-line drives erased any positive value he generated in his matchup against the opposing wings.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -7.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 14.8m -8.3
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0