GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAC LA Clippers
S James Harden 37.6m
18
pts
7
reb
10
ast
Impact
-9.8

Brutal shot selection and heavy isolation volume cratered his offensive efficiency, resulting in a severely negative net impact. Surprisingly robust defensive metrics were completely overshadowed by the sheer number of wasted possessions on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/21 (28.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.5%
USG% 31.5%
Net Rtg +19.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.6m
Offense -1.0
Hustle +2.3
Defense +10.3
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 37.6m -21.4
Impact -9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 7
S John Collins 33.4m
13
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.0

Hyper-efficient finishing around the basket was entirely undone by poor rotational awareness on the defensive end. Despite sparkling offensive numbers, his inability to close out on shooters resulted in a net negative performance.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.5%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg +27.1
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.5
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 33.4m -19.1
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ivica Zubac 32.0m
18
pts
19
reb
0
ast
Impact
+14.6

Absolute dominance in the painted area and relentless rebounding fueled a massive positive impact score. He controlled the physical terms of the matchup, generating second-chance opportunities while walling off the rim defensively.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.0%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg +22.4
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +24.8
Hustle +3.3
Defense +4.8
Raw total +32.9
Avg player in 32.0m -18.3
Impact +14.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 35.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kris Dunn 29.5m
4
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.8

Strong point-of-attack defensive metrics and solid hustle couldn't compensate for a severe lack of offensive creation. His hesitance to attack the paint allowed the defense to sag, bogging down the team's spacing and dragging his overall impact down.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 5.5%
Net Rtg +21.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +5.3
Defense +3.0
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 29.5m -16.9
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kawhi Leonard 25.9m
24
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.4

Surgical shot creation in the mid-range drove a strong positive rating despite relatively quiet hustle metrics. His ability to hit timely, contested jumpers stabilized the offense during crucial half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 36.7%
Net Rtg +1.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +15.7
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.9
Raw total +20.3
Avg player in 25.9m -14.9
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
14
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.2

Opportunistic scoring bursts masked underlying struggles with defensive positioning and transition tracking. While he capitalized on his offensive touches, he gave back too much value on the other side of the floor to stay in the green.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 82.2%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -13.5
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.5
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 24.9m -14.3
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Kobe Sanders 24.4m
11
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.2

A highly efficient shooting display was slightly offset by minor defensive miscommunications during switch actions. He played a very balanced game, but a few costly fouls in the second half kept his overall impact hovering just below neutral.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +5.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +3.5
Defense +4.2
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 24.4m -13.8
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.7

A complete offensive blank severely handicapped his lineup, allowing defenders to aggressively double-team his teammates. Even with passable veteran defensive rotations, his inability to punish open looks resulted in a disastrous net rating.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg -9.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Offense -4.1
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.2
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 16.7m -9.5
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Brook Lopez 15.4m
10
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.1

Floor-spacing value and efficient interior touches were counterbalanced by a near-total lack of defensive mobility. Opponents exploited his drop coverage just enough to wipe out his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg -29.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.1
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 15.4m -8.8
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Luka Dončić 39.2m
32
pts
11
reb
8
ast
Impact
+11.2

Sheer offensive gravity and elite playmaking volume overwhelmed his highly inefficient shooting splits from deep. His surprisingly robust defensive metrics and ability to control the game's tempo ensured a dominant overall net rating despite the missed shots.

Shooting
FG 11/27 (40.7%)
3PT 3/13 (23.1%)
FT 7/10 (70.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 35.5%
Net Rtg -23.3
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.2m
Offense +18.9
Hustle +4.7
Defense +10.0
Raw total +33.6
Avg player in 39.2m -22.4
Impact +11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 43.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S LeBron James 35.9m
23
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.2

Despite an aggressive scoring punch that exceeded his recent averages, hidden inefficiencies dragged his overall impact into the red. Solid defensive metrics couldn't fully offset the negative value of empty possessions and potential transition lapses.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 29.4%
Net Rtg -13.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +4.8
Defense +5.9
Raw total +20.3
Avg player in 35.9m -20.5
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Marcus Smart 29.9m
10
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.8

An uncharacteristically high scoring volume was undermined by poor perimeter shot selection that stalled offensive momentum. Even with his trademark defensive grit and hustle plays, the wasted possessions on forced threes resulted in a net negative floor presence.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.9%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -1.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +5.8
Defense +4.4
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 29.9m -17.0
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jake LaRavia 22.4m
7
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.1

Elite defensive positioning and relentless hustle metrics completely drove his massive positive impact. He didn't need a high usage rate to dominate his minutes, anchoring the second unit's perimeter containment with high-energy closeouts.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +5.4
Defense +11.7
Raw total +21.8
Avg player in 22.4m -12.7
Impact +9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 3
BLK 4
TO 1
S Deandre Ayton 20.5m
4
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.5

A sharp drop in offensive volume limited his typical ceiling, breaking a streak of highly efficient scoring nights. However, disciplined rim protection and solid positional defense kept his overall net impact slightly above water.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -30.6
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +3.3
Defense +5.8
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 20.5m -11.6
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
12
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.8

Increased scoring production failed to mask significant defensive lapses that bled points on the other end of the floor. Opponents consistently targeted him in isolation, turning his offensive gains into a steep net negative.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +3.1
Defense +1.4
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 28.4m -16.2
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
7
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+14.0

Game-wrecking energy on the defensive end and elite hustle metrics completely dictated his massive positive impact. He generated crucial extra possessions through deflections and offensive rebounding, proving that low-usage players can dominate a game's flow.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg +37.8
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +9.0
Defense +9.3
Raw total +26.5
Avg player in 21.9m -12.5
Impact +14.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 0
Jaxson Hayes 16.6m
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

A lack of defensive resistance at the rim neutralized his highly efficient, albeit low-volume, offensive touches. Without his usual scoring punch to balance the scales, his overall floor impact slipped just below neutral.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -14.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.2
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 16.6m -9.5
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Gabe Vincent 15.6m
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.0

A complete lack of measurable hustle plays and defensive impact rendered his minutes highly ineffective. Floating on the perimeter without generating secondary actions allowed opponents to exploit his shifts on the other end.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 5.6%
Net Rtg -24.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +2.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 15.6m -8.8
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Drew Timme 9.7m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.7

A complete inability to generate offensive gravity or secure defensive stops made his brief stint highly detrimental. Opposing bigs easily exploited his lack of foot speed in pick-and-roll coverage.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +15.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.7m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.3
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 9.7m -5.5
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0