GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAC Sacramento Kings
S Maxime Raynaud 26.1m
12
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.5

Bullying smaller defenders in the paint allowed him to maintain his highly efficient scoring streak. His physical interior presence (+5.6 Def) stabilized the frontcourt and consistently punished defensive switches.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 13.1%
Net Rtg -7.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +3.4
Defense +5.6
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 26.1m -14.4
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S De'Andre Hunter 24.6m
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.0

Settling for heavily contested perimeter looks cratered his offensive value and fueled opponent run-outs. Even a commendable effort on loose balls (+5.8 Hustle) couldn't salvage a disastrous shooting performance.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +11.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense -4.5
Hustle +5.8
Defense +2.2
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 24.6m -13.5
Impact -10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S DeMar DeRozan 20.4m
5
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.1

Uncharacteristic offensive passivity limited his usual gravitational pull on opposing defenses. However, highly engaged point-of-attack defense (+6.3 Def) kept his overall impact hovering right around neutral.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.5%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -10.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.3
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 20.4m -11.1
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
6
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-11.9

Reckless shot selection and a complete inability to connect from deep severely damaged offensive spacing. The resulting long rebounds and disjointed possessions drove a catastrophic -11.9 overall impact score.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 32.2%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg -25.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.0
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 19.9m -11.0
Impact -11.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Zach LaVine 18.3m
6
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.8

Clanking multiple attempts from beyond the arc suppressed his offensive ceiling. Fortunately, active hands in passing lanes and solid defensive positioning (+4.2 Def) kept his head above water.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -25.2
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.2
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 18.3m -10.1
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
16
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.2

Elevated scoring volume was offset by forced perimeter attempts that bailed out the defense. Despite decent activity levels, the inefficiency of his shot profile dragged his net rating into the negative.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +6.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.0
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 33.3m -18.3
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
14
pts
14
reb
1
ast
Impact
+14.7

Absolutely dominated the interior to generate a massive +14.7 total impact. His relentless motor (+3.9 Hustle) and suffocating rim protection (+8.6 Def) completely neutralized the opposing frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +15.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +19.4
Hustle +3.9
Defense +8.6
Raw total +31.9
Avg player in 31.0m -17.2
Impact +14.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
Malik Monk 22.4m
18
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.0

A lethal perimeter barrage single-handedly stretched the opposing defense to its breaking point. Catching fire from the corners forced aggressive closeouts, opening up the floor for the entire unit.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 6/9 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 69.2%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +2.4
Defense +2.7
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 22.4m -12.4
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Devin Carter 21.9m
14
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.8

Elite hustle (+5.7) and relentless rim-running salvaged a night where his outside shot completely abandoned him. By crashing the glass and fighting through screens, he managed to stay net-positive despite his perimeter struggles.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 45.7%
USG% 29.6%
Net Rtg -15.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +5.7
Defense +1.8
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 21.9m -12.0
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.9

Efficient offensive execution was completely undermined by a porous defensive showing (-2.2 Def). Opponents consistently targeted him in isolation, turning his productive scoring stretches into a net negative.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +7.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.1m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense -2.2
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 14.1m -7.8
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.8

Maintained his streak of efficient shooting during a highly condensed rotational stint. Quick, decisive moves in the post maximized his value before returning to the bench.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg +41.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.1m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.8
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 8.1m -4.5
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
LAC LA Clippers
S Brook Lopez 36.3m
15
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.4

Defensive anchoring defined this outing, with his elite rim protection (+11.4 Def) completely deterring opponents from attacking the paint. Coupling that deterrence with exceptional hustle (+6.7) allowed him to control the game's flow without requiring high offensive usage.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +14.8
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +6.7
Defense +11.4
Raw total +27.4
Avg player in 36.3m -20.0
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
S Kawhi Leonard 35.7m
31
pts
9
reb
7
ast
Impact
+12.9

Elite two-way impact was driven by relentless rim pressure and suffocating perimeter defense (+7.6). His willingness to hunt mismatches in isolation masked a subpar night shooting from the outside.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 12/12 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.8%
USG% 33.8%
Net Rtg +23.8
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Offense +22.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +7.6
Raw total +32.5
Avg player in 35.7m -19.6
Impact +12.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S John Collins 34.4m
22
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.2

A massive offensive surge fueled his positive rating, as he consistently capitalized on interior mismatches to finish efficiently around the basket. Extending his streak of highly accurate shooting nights, he provided a reliable release valve whenever half-court sets bogged down.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.5%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg +3.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +19.9
Hustle +1.8
Defense +3.5
Raw total +25.2
Avg player in 34.4m -19.0
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Kris Dunn 33.1m
15
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-5.2

A shocking offensive explosion was entirely undone by defensive lapses and ball-security issues that tanked his total rating (-5.2). The scoring volume proved to be empty calories as opponents consistently exploited his defensive rotations on the other end.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 74.4%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +29.8
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.1
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 33.1m -18.3
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 36.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
13
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Despite a highly efficient scoring burst that far exceeded his recent averages, hidden costs in transition defense dragged his overall impact into the negative. His inability to string together stops on the wing negated the value of his opportunistic baseline cuts.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +40.4
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.6
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 27.5m -15.1
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.1

Pristine shot selection yielded high-efficiency looks, yet his overall impact slipped into the red. The underlying metrics suggest defensive rotations were a step slow, bleeding points that erased his tidy offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -21.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +3.5
Defense +3.1
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 24.0m -13.2
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Kobe Sanders 18.2m
1
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-12.9

Total offensive paralysis (-12.9 Total) stemmed from a complete inability to find the bottom of the net. Forcing bad shots early in the shot clock disrupted the team's rhythm and allowed the defense to leak out for easy transition points.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 8.5%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -40.3
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense -7.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.5
Raw total -2.8
Avg player in 18.2m -10.1
Impact -12.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
3
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.0

Passive offensive involvement limited his ability to positively influence the game during his brief stint. A lack of aggressiveness on the perimeter allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg -38.5
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.2
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 15.8m -8.7
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.1

Capitalized on a brief window of playing time by confidently knocking down a perimeter look to boost his rating. This quick-strike capability provided a much-needed jolt of spacing during a stagnant offensive stretch.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -111.1
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.2m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.1
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 9.2m -5.1
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

Barely saw the floor long enough to establish any sort of rhythm. A quick interior finish provided a momentary spark, but his overall footprint remained negligible.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -16.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.8m
Offense +0.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.4
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 5.8m -3.3
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1