GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAC Sacramento Kings
S Nique Clifford 39.8m
30
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.6

Caught fire from the perimeter, punishing under-screens and late closeouts with lethal precision. His aggressive shot-hunting completely warped the defensive game plan, opening up driving lanes for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 12/19 (63.2%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.5%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +8.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.8m
Offense +23.0
Hustle +3.6
Defense +6.9
Raw total +33.5
Avg player in 39.8m -24.9
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
S Daeqwon Plowden 39.5m
16
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.7

Flashed strong scoring instincts but gave it all back through poor defensive awareness and costly rotational mistakes. His inability to stay in front of his man on the perimeter negated a highly efficient shooting performance.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.3%
USG% 14.4%
Net Rtg +11.2
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.5m
Offense +17.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense 0.0
Raw total +20.1
Avg player in 39.5m -24.8
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 76.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
21
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
-14.3

Despite a surprisingly hot shooting night from deep, catastrophic decision-making and live-ball turnovers destroyed his overall value. Opponents feasted on his erratic passes, turning his offensive aggression into easy fast-break points the other way.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.6%
USG% 27.2%
Net Rtg -8.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +6.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.3
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 31.9m -20.0
Impact -14.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 7
S DeMar DeRozan 29.6m
13
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.4

A severe lack of efficiency from the midrange cratered his offensive value, as he repeatedly forced contested jumpers against set defenses. The resulting empty possessions allowed the opposition to easily dictate the game's tempo.

Shooting
FG 4/16 (25.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg -14.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.5
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 29.6m -18.5
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Maxime Raynaud 22.8m
14
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.7

Anchored the interior with disciplined drop coverage, consistently altering shots without fouling. His soft touch around the basket provided a reliable release valve when the half-court offense bogged down.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg +4.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +2.1
Defense +6.0
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 22.8m -14.3
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Devin Carter 27.2m
18
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.1

Kept the offense humming with decisive downhill drives that compromised the secondary defense. However, a few over-aggressive gambles in the passing lanes slightly dampened an otherwise stellar two-way effort.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg -2.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +2.7
Defense +2.8
Raw total +20.1
Avg player in 27.2m -17.0
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
12
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.2

Dominated the glass through sheer physicality, securing crucial extra possessions that broke the opponent's spirit. His relentless rim-running and sturdy screen-setting were the unsung catalysts for the second unit's success.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +14.8
Hustle +3.5
Defense +3.8
Raw total +22.1
Avg player in 25.2m -15.9
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.1

Completely out of sync offensively, struggling to finish through contact and clogging the driving lanes. While his switchability on defense provided some value, his inability to capitalize on mismatches stalled the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.8%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -21.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense +4.4
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 15.8m -9.9
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.2

Failed to bend the defense during his brief stint, unable to shake loose for his signature off-screen looks. Without his gravity spacing the floor, the offense quickly became stagnant and predictable.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.0%
Net Rtg -53.2
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.2m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total -1.2
Avg player in 8.2m -5.0
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
35
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+12.6

Relentless rim pressure and off-the-dribble creation overwhelmed the primary coverage all night long. He forced defensive collapses on nearly every possession, though a few forced perimeter jumpers kept his impact from peaking even higher.

Shooting
FG 13/24 (54.2%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.6%
USG% 34.5%
Net Rtg +14.1
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Offense +24.0
Hustle +4.7
Defense +5.7
Raw total +34.4
Avg player in 34.6m -21.8
Impact +12.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 3
S Jarrett Allen 32.7m
29
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+16.0

Absolute dominance in the paint defined this performance, as he converted nearly every look around the rim with elite efficiency. His vertical spacing and sturdy screen-setting created a gravity that opened up the perimeter for everyone else.

Shooting
FG 11/12 (91.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 93.4%
USG% 21.0%
Net Rtg -25.4
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +27.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.1
Raw total +36.5
Avg player in 32.7m -20.5
Impact +16.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S James Harden 32.2m
23
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
+0.6

High-level perimeter shot-making was heavily offset by defensive indifference and sloppy execution in the half-court. While the deep ball was falling, his lack of resistance at the point of attack gave back almost all the value he generated.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.9%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -21.6
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +1.0
Defense +3.5
Raw total +20.7
Avg player in 32.2m -20.1
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jaylon Tyson 27.3m
10
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.1

Despite finding some success getting to his spots, poor ball security and defensive rotations dragged his overall impact into the red. Opponents consistently capitalized on his live-ball mistakes in transition to generate easy momentum.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -48.3
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.4
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 27.3m -17.1
Impact -10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Sam Merrill 23.9m
2
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-19.5

Brutal shot selection and an inability to connect from the perimeter completely tanked his value. Because he couldn't stretch the floor, defenders aggressively sagged into the paint, severely disrupting the offense's spacing.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 14.5%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -19.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense -4.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.8
Raw total -4.5
Avg player in 23.9m -15.0
Impact -19.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.2

Defensive tenacity and high-energy closeouts were the driving forces behind his positive minutes. He made his mark entirely through disruptive ball pressure and winning 50/50 balls rather than offensive output.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +9.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +5.7
Defense +7.0
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 22.8m -14.4
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Keon Ellis 17.4m
6
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.0

An absolute menace at the point of attack, he completely blew up opposing pick-and-roll actions. His elite screen navigation and relentless hustle plays far outweighed a quiet scoring night.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg +48.7
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +4.0
Defense +9.2
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 17.4m -10.8
Impact +10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
7
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.0

Stagnated the offense with poor shot selection from beyond the arc, repeatedly failing to convert on pull-up attempts. The resulting long rebounds fueled opponent transition opportunities, completely negating his decent playmaking metrics.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.1%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +54.4
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.6
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 17.0m -10.6
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.4

Capitalized on his limited minutes by playing strictly within his role and taking only high-percentage looks. Active hands in the passing lanes and solid positional defense ensured a net-positive stint.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg +52.6
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +2.7
Defense +3.5
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 16.8m -10.5
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.9

Provided a unique frontcourt dynamic by stepping out and knocking down trailing perimeter shots. This unexpected floor-spacing forced opposing bigs out of the paint, though his interior defense remained a slight liability.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.0%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +70.2
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.8
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 15.3m -9.5
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0