GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAC Sacramento Kings
S DeMar DeRozan 27.6m
20
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.0

Steady, methodical isolation scoring provided a reliable offensive foundation without forcing bad looks. He manipulated defensive coverages beautifully in the mid-range, establishing a pattern of drawing fouls that ensured a positive impact.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 71.6%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -7.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +16.8
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.3
Raw total +19.1
Avg player in 27.6m -15.1
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S De'Andre Hunter 26.4m
9
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.9

Clanking numerous contested jumpers derailed offensive possessions and tanked his overall value. A lack of defensive resistance on the wing compounded the damage from a frustrating pattern of settling for long, inefficient twos.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.9%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.4
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 26.4m -14.5
Impact -11.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.4

A reckless barrage of low-percentage perimeter shots sabotaged offensive efficiency. Even though he found the bottom of the net a few times, a damaging pattern of ignoring open teammates to force contested threes heavily penalized the team.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 46.4%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.6
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 25.6m -14.0
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
24
pts
15
reb
3
ast
Impact
+20.1

Absolute dominance in the paint and relentless rebounding dictated the flow of the game. His ability to consistently punish mismatches inside created a massive gravitational pull that opened up the entire offense during a dominant first-half stretch.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg -19.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +27.3
Hustle +1.0
Defense +5.0
Raw total +33.3
Avg player in 24.1m -13.2
Impact +20.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 63.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Zach LaVine 22.2m
11
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

Poor shot quality and an inability to create separation against physical defense dragged his impact into the red. While he showed flashes of effort in transition, a pattern of stalled half-court isolations and missed jumpers proved too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.1%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -23.5
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.5
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 22.2m -12.1
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.0

Despite finding a solid offensive rhythm, his impact was dragged down by defensive miscommunications and late rotations. The scoring efficiency was ultimately negated by a pattern of losing his man off the ball, surrendering easy backdoor cuts.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.9%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.0
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 25.8m -14.2
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
5
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.6

Strong work on the glass was offset by a complete lack of offensive involvement and severe spacing issues. His inability to stretch the floor allowed opposing bigs to camp in the paint, establishing a pattern of clogged driving lanes for the guards.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.5%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.1
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 25.8m -14.2
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Devin Carter 23.8m
10
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.4

A brutal goose egg from beyond the arc highlighted a frustrating night of poor spacing and forced attempts. While his defensive intensity remained high, a pattern of opponents daring him to shoot crippled the half-court attack.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -3.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.2
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 23.8m -12.9
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
6
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.0

A sudden drop in offensive assertiveness snapped a strong stretch of play, leaving the second unit searching for answers. He passed up open looks and failed to establish deep post position, a passive pattern that severely limited his influence.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg -2.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.1
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 20.8m -11.4
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Malik Monk 17.9m
13
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.8

Forcing tough shots in isolation and a noticeable lack of defensive engagement resulted in a negative overall showing. He struggled to find the balance between aggressive scoring and keeping the offense flowing, falling into a pattern of over-dribbling into traffic.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.4%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.2
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 17.9m -9.8
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
MEM Memphis Grizzlies
S GG Jackson 27.2m
16
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.6

Exceptional shot selection and a high conversion rate at the rim drove a solid positive impact. He maintained his steady scoring rhythm while adding significant value through a pattern of active weak-side rotations that deterred drives.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 85.8%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg +10.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +2.6
Defense +4.1
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 27.2m -14.8
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Cedric Coward 26.5m
5
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
-7.1

A severe drop-off in scoring aggression and missed shots at the rim cratered his overall value. A frustrating pattern of passing up open looks and coughing up live-ball turnovers allowed defenders to dictate the offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg +16.4
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.2
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 26.5m -14.5
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jaylen Wells 26.0m
18
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.8

A scorching perimeter shooting display was completely wiped out by hidden negatives that dragged his overall impact into the red. A pattern of costly turnovers and defensive lapses against quicker guards allowed opponents to immediately recoup the points he generated.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 6/9 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg +8.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.5
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 26.0m -14.2
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Santi Aldama 24.1m
12
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.5

Defensive anchoring and relentless hustle plays far outweighed the damage of a clunky shooting performance. A pattern of timely weak-side blocks and contested rebounds provided a crucial stabilizing presence for the frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg +30.1
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +3.5
Defense +7.1
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 24.1m -13.2
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S Ty Jerome 20.7m
28
pts
1
reb
7
ast
Impact
+21.6

Masterful offensive execution defined this performance, as he carved up the defense with surgical precision and elite shot-making. His ability to consistently break down point-of-attack coverage during a crucial third-quarter stretch generated massive positive momentum.

Shooting
FG 10/14 (71.4%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 84.1%
USG% 31.9%
Net Rtg +24.1
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense +29.0
Hustle +2.4
Defense +1.5
Raw total +32.9
Avg player in 20.7m -11.3
Impact +21.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Cam Spencer 26.9m
20
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.9

Breaking out of a prolonged shooting slump, he provided a massive offensive spark by converting high-quality looks. Solid defensive positioning and a pattern of timely hustle plays ensured his scoring outburst translated into a net positive.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg -13.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.2
Raw total +18.5
Avg player in 26.9m -14.6
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
2
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.0

Completely abandoned his typical scoring role to focus entirely on lockdown defense and high-motor hustle plays. This shift in priorities proved effective, as his disruptive perimeter pressure against the opposing primary ball-handler generated enough stops to offset his lack of shots.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 3.6%
Net Rtg -10.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.8
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 22.9m -12.6
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
15
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.5

Efficient scoring was largely undone by defensive lapses and costly fouls that gave away free points. He struggled to contain dribble penetration, allowing opponents to capitalize on advantageous matchups throughout the second half.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.9%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg +4.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.5m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.9
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 22.5m -12.3
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.0

An abrupt end to his recent hot streak saw his impact plummet due to forced shots and clanked finishes in traffic. Although he remained engaged defensively, a pattern of driving into crowded paint areas stalled offensive momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.9%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -16.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.8
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 22.2m -12.2
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Javon Small 21.0m
5
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.1

Disastrous shot selection and bricked perimeter looks severely damaged the team's offensive flow. The sheer volume of empty possessions, characterized by a pattern of early-clock contested jumpers, completely overshadowed any marginal hustle contributions.

Shooting
FG 2/11 (18.2%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 22.7%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -22.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 21.0m -11.5
Impact -10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1