GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAC LA Clippers
S James Harden 31.2m
19
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
-0.8

A string of careless live-ball turnovers actively undermined what was otherwise a masterful playmaking display. Although his perimeter shot-making and surprisingly stout post defense generated positive value, the sheer cost of giving away possessions dragged his final score slightly below neutral.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 10/10 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.6%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg +33.8
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +6.1
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 31.2m -17.5
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5
S John Collins 26.3m
18
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.7

Capitalizing on pick-and-pop mismatches allowed him to sustain a recent hot streak of highly efficient offensive execution. Beyond his reliable finishing, exceptional weak-side rim protection heavily inflated his defensive metrics and drove a stellar overall impact.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +3.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +9.2
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 26.3m -14.8
Impact +7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kawhi Leonard 25.3m
28
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+13.9

Surgical isolation scoring against mismatched defenders drove a remarkably high box score rating. His ability to consistently draw contact and generate high-quality looks from the midrange completely overwhelmed the opposition, cementing a dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 66.8%
USG% 36.1%
Net Rtg +23.5
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +20.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.8
Raw total +28.1
Avg player in 25.3m -14.2
Impact +13.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Ivica Zubac 23.2m
11
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.5

Relentless positioning on the interior generated crucial second-chance opportunities and fueled a strong hustle rating. Even with a lower usage rate than usual, his highly efficient finishing around the basket and disciplined drop coverage ensured a sturdy positive impact.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.4%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +6.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +4.7
Defense +3.5
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 23.2m -13.0
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kris Dunn 12.9m
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.7

Tenacious ball pressure at the point of attack defined his brief appearance, disrupting the opponent's initiation sequences. While he was largely a non-factor on the offensive end, his gritty screen navigation and defensive activity kept his overall rating in the green.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +53.3
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +3.5
Defense +3.5
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 12.9m -7.3
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Kobe Sanders 30.3m
9
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-14.3

Bleeding points during his extended minutes, a severe lack of off-ball defensive awareness allowed opponents to feast on backdoor cuts. Despite converting his own attempts at a decent clip, his inability to orchestrate the offense or stop the bleeding in transition resulted in a catastrophic net rating.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +31.0
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.7
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 30.3m -17.0
Impact -14.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
16
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.9

Slashing to the rim with absolute conviction, his highly efficient shot selection tore apart the opposing defensive shell. This offensive surge was perfectly matched by aggressive closeouts and passing lane disruption, cementing a breakout two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 24.5%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +4.5
Defense +7.2
Raw total +24.1
Avg player in 23.4m -13.2
Impact +10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Brook Lopez 17.9m
3
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.7

Elite shot-contesting and verticality at the rim drove his defensive metrics, but his offensive passivity proved detrimental. Spending most of his shifts floating on the perimeter without drawing defensive attention caused the half-court spacing to stagnate, resulting in a mildly negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +81.2
+/- +31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +5.3
Defense +3.6
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 17.9m -9.9
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
3
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.3

Veteran positioning and flawless defensive rotations defined his stabilizing presence on the floor. He didn't force a single offensive action, instead relying on high-IQ connective passing and timely spacing to quietly elevate the lineup's overall efficiency.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 3.0%
Net Rtg +101.7
+/- +32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.1
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 14.8m -8.2
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Cam Christie 13.9m
3
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.2

Struggling to find the pace of the game, his overall impact cratered due to a complete lack of offensive assertiveness. While he held up adequately in isolation defense, failing to generate any rim pressure or creation for others left the unit playing essentially four-on-five.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +36.0
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.9m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.9
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 13.9m -7.8
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.7

Maximizing a brief rotational window, decisive finishing around the basket provided a quick jolt to the team's offensive rating. He managed to avoid any glaring mistakes during his stint, keeping the floor balanced and securing a tidy positive impact.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.9m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.1
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 6.9m -3.9
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.7

A sudden burst of flawless perimeter marksmanship instantly stretched the opposing defense during his short time on the hardwood. Although his defensive rotations were slightly a step behind, the sheer efficiency of his spot-up shooting easily pushed his net score into the green.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 133.3%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.9m
Offense +6.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 6.9m -3.8
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Kobe Brown 6.9m
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.2

Active hands and physical on-ball defense set the tone for his brief but effective cameo. Even with a couple of forced attempts near the rim dragging down his efficiency, his commitment to shutting down driving lanes yielded a solid positive return.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.9m
Offense +0.9
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.6
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 6.9m -3.8
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
BKN Brooklyn Nets
S Egor Dëmin 28.6m
12
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-5.3

Falling in love with the deep ball proved costly, as a barrage of contested perimeter misses actively hindered the team's offensive rhythm. He managed to generate some positive momentum through secondary playmaking, but the inefficient shot profile ultimately dragged his net score down.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.7%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -17.9
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.5
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 28.6m -15.9
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Drake Powell 24.6m
5
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.1

A severe lack of shot creation doomed his overall rating, with forced looks from beyond the arc consistently stalling the half-court offense. Even though he battled hard defensively to disrupt passing lanes, the sheer weight of empty possessions and poor shot selection resulted in a massive net-negative performance.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg -30.1
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense -3.5
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.3
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 24.6m -13.9
Impact -10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Nic Claxton 23.8m
6
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.9

Rim deterrence served as the anchor for his positive rating, completely shutting down interior driving lanes throughout his shifts. While his offensive aggression dipped significantly compared to recent trends, relentless activity on the glass and altered shots ensured he remained a net positive.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -49.1
+/- -28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +3.7
Defense +6.7
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 23.8m -13.3
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
9
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.8

Perimeter struggles defined this outing, as a steady diet of clanked three-pointers cratered his overall offensive value. Despite solid defensive rotations and active hustle keeping him somewhat afloat, the sheer volume of wasted possessions dragged his net impact firmly into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.5%
USG% 27.7%
Net Rtg -48.9
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.8
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 21.6m -12.1
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Terance Mann 19.6m
8
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.5

Breaking out of a recent offensive slump, timely shot-making provided a much-needed spark to his overall profile. His value was primarily buoyed by aggressive point-of-attack defense, though a relatively low usage rate kept his total impact marginally positive rather than dominant.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -32.6
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +5.2
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 19.6m -11.0
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Danny Wolf 25.9m
14
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.3

Defensive anchoring and elite rebounding positioning salvaged a night where his jump shot completely abandoned him. Despite clanking a high volume of perimeter looks, his ability to generate second-chance opportunities and protect the paint kept his net rating afloat.

Shooting
FG 3/13 (23.1%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 42.4%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg -39.3
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.4
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 25.9m -14.5
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
7
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.8

High-energy loose ball recoveries and transition hustle were completely undone by stagnant half-court execution. Settling for heavily contested jumpers rather than attacking the paint caused a sharp drop in his usual scoring efficiency, leaving a noticeable dent in his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.8%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg -57.4
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +4.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 20.5m -11.5
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.5

Utter dominance in the painted area defined this stint, as he built an impenetrable wall that completely neutralized interior drives. His massive defensive rating was perfectly complemented by physical screen-setting and efficient finishing, resulting in a stellar overall impact score.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 63.3%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -19.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +3.4
Defense +11.1
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 20.4m -11.4
Impact +8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 2
Jalen Wilson 19.7m
9
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.3

Active closeouts and disciplined weak-side rotations provided just enough defensive value to survive a rough shooting night. His tendency to settle for contested above-the-break threes suppressed his offensive ceiling, keeping his final impact score hovering just above neutral.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 48.3%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +22.4
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.2
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 19.7m -11.0
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Ben Saraf 17.2m
6
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.3

An inability to secure the basketball effectively tanked his value, with sloppy decision-making leading to costly transition opportunities for the opponent. While he converted the few looks he took near the rim, his overall passivity and negative floor spacing created a severe drag on the lineup.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg -66.9
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense -3.5
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.0
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 17.2m -9.5
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
2
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.4

Forcing the issue against set defenses resulted in a string of errant jumpers that killed the team's offensive momentum. The sheer volume of empty trips and poor shot selection completely overshadowed his minor hustle contributions, plummeting his net rating.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 14.3%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -53.7
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense -2.1
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.5
Avg player in 14.3m -7.9
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.5

Making the absolute most of a brief rotation cameo, flawless execution on a spot-up opportunity instantly boosted his offensive metrics. He seamlessly fit into the defensive scheme during his short stint, yielding a highly efficient net positive rating before returning to the bench.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.3
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 3.8m -2.1
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0