GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAC Sacramento Kings
S Zach LaVine 37.5m
19
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-8.1

A heavy diet of contested, early-clock jumpers severely damaged his offensive efficiency and fueled opponent transition opportunities. His poor shot selection bailed out the defense time and again during crucial momentum swings. Despite showing flashes of engaged on-ball defense, the sheer volume of wasted offensive trips tanked his net score.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 22.8%
Net Rtg -22.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.3
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 37.5m -21.0
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
23
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.3

Chaotic offensive decision-making and a barrage of missed perimeter shots offset his impressive defensive intensity. He generated significant pressure at the point of attack, but squandered those extra possessions with erratic drives into heavy traffic. The resulting transition run-outs for the opponent ultimately pushed his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 9/22 (40.9%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.3%
USG% 32.9%
Net Rtg -25.5
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +7.0
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 34.5m -19.3
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 4
S DeMar DeRozan 33.3m
9
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.6

Uncharacteristic passivity completely cratered his net impact, as he repeatedly passed up favorable midrange matchups. The offense bogged down whenever he held the ball without attacking, leading to stagnant late-clock situations. This lack of aggressive shot creation allowed the defense to comfortably pack the paint against his teammates.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.1%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -29.1
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.3
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 33.3m -18.6
Impact -9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Maxime Raynaud 22.1m
8
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.8

Struggling to establish deep post position resulted in a string of contested, low-percentage hooks that dragged down his overall efficiency. Opponents successfully pushed him off his spots, neutralizing his typical interior gravity. While he battled adequately on the glass, his inability to finish through contact severely limited his value.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -25.4
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 22.1m -12.4
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.1

Elite finishing around the rim drove a highly positive rating during his time on the floor. He capitalized on broken plays and dump-offs, punishing the defense for rotating away from the dunker spot. His disciplined rim protection also deterred multiple drives without committing cheap fouls.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg -26.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.5
Raw total +17.7
Avg player in 20.7m -11.6
Impact +6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Malik Monk 25.5m
17
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.3

Blistering shooting efficiency kept the offense afloat, but his inability to navigate defensive screens gave those points right back. Opposing guards relentlessly targeted him in pick-and-roll actions, forcing defensive breakdowns across the board. The spectacular shot-making was essentially canceled out by his struggles to stay in front of his man.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 107.9%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +0.6
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 25.5m -14.2
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
2
pts
13
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.2

Dominating the dirty work transformed a low-scoring night into a massive net positive for the frontcourt. He anchored the paint with exceptional verticality, altering numerous shots and securing crucial contested defensive boards. This relentless physical presence completely shut off the opponent's second-chance opportunities.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 4.7%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +4.1
Defense +8.8
Raw total +23.1
Avg player in 24.8m -13.9
Impact +9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 1
4
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.6

Blanking from beyond the arc allowed defenders to completely sag off him, destroying the team's half-court spacing. He provided sturdy resistance on the defensive end, but his offensive limitations were too costly to overcome. The opponent actively ignored him on the perimeter, forcing his teammates into suffocating double-teams.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +13.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +1.8
Defense +4.2
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 21.2m -11.9
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
16
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.6

Over-dribbling and settling for heavily contested pull-up threes neutralized his scoring burst. He consistently stalled the offensive flow by ignoring open shooters on the weak side, opting instead for low-percentage isolation looks. A complete lack of hustle plays further emphasized a performance that looked better in the box score than on the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 31.4%
Net Rtg +21.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.3m
Offense +8.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.7
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 20.3m -11.4
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
TOR Toronto Raptors
18
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
+2.9

Navigating pick-and-roll traffic with poise allowed him to generate high-quality looks for teammates, driving his positive box score impact. However, defensive lapses in transition and a few forced perimeter jumpers dragged down his overall net rating. His ability to draw fouls during the third-quarter push was the main catalyst keeping his team afloat.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.4%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +2.1
Defense +5.9
Raw total +22.9
Avg player in 35.7m -20.0
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Brandon Ingram 34.7m
23
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.5

A sharp uptick in perimeter scoring efficiency drove his positive box score metrics, masking a relatively quiet night on the margins. His overall impact remained modest because he rarely engaged in defensive rotations or loose-ball scrums. The offensive focal point role suited him well during crucial isolation stretches, but the lack of secondary effort capped his ceiling.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +21.4
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +18.6
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.4
Raw total +21.0
Avg player in 34.7m -19.5
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jamal Shead 33.2m
15
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+5.4

Relentless point-of-attack pressure defined this outing, reflected in superb defensive and hustle metrics. By fighting through screens and blowing up dribble hand-offs, he consistently derailed the opponent's offensive timing. His unexpected perimeter shot-making served as a crucial bonus that kept defenders honest.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.2%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +19.5
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +6.0
Defense +5.6
Raw total +24.0
Avg player in 33.2m -18.6
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 81.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
22
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.4

Capitalizing on favorable frontcourt matchups, his floor-spacing ability completely opened up the half-court offense. The high net rating stems from excellent shot selection and timely weak-side defensive rotations that disrupted lob attempts. He operated as a reliable release valve whenever the primary actions broke down.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 21.0%
Net Rtg +22.1
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Offense +20.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.1
Raw total +25.6
Avg player in 32.3m -18.2
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 45.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Scottie Barnes 31.9m
23
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
+16.6

Elite two-way engagement fueled a massive overall impact score, highlighted by exceptional defensive metrics. He dictated the game's physicality by consistently blowing up opponent pick-and-rolls and generating extra possessions through sheer hustle. This aggressive downhill mentality forced the defense into constant rotation, elevating his value far beyond his scoring surge.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.6%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +18.1
Hustle +6.8
Defense +9.6
Raw total +34.5
Avg player in 31.9m -17.9
Impact +16.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 3
3
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.5

Offensive struggles around the rim tanked his net impact despite commendable effort on the glass. He repeatedly forced heavily contested interior shots rather than kicking out to open shooters. The resulting empty possessions negated the value of his hard-nosed box-outs and physical screen-setting.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.5%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +8.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.2
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 22.5m -12.6
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Ochai Agbaji 19.6m
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.4

A lack of offensive assertiveness severely limited his overall footprint on the game. While he provided sturdy on-ball defense against opposing wings, his reluctance to attack closeouts stalled the team's momentum. He essentially operated as a non-factor on the offensive end, allowing defenders to freely roam and pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.2%
Net Rtg +56.4
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.2
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 19.6m -11.0
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Gradey Dick 19.2m
11
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Cold perimeter shooting dragged down his overall rating, as he failed to punish defensive coverages that dared him to shoot. Even with a notable uptick in scoring volume, the sheer number of missed long-range attempts resulted in costly empty trips. He managed to salvage some value by executing crisp defensive rotations on the weak side.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.8%
USG% 28.3%
Net Rtg -25.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.0
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 19.2m -10.7
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Brief rotational minutes yielded a negative impact due to defensive miscommunications in transition. He managed to stretch the floor during a short second-quarter stint, but struggled to keep up with the game's pace. Opponents actively targeted him in isolation, exposing his lateral quickness.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -50.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.6m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.5
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 7.6m -4.3
Impact -1.4
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
-3.3

A fleeting appearance resulted in a sharp negative rating due to blown defensive assignments during a quick opponent run. He failed to register any meaningful offensive actions, mostly floating on the perimeter. The lack of engagement on either end made his brief stint actively detrimental.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -42.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.3m
Offense -0.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -1.5
Avg player in 3.3m -1.8
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1