GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAC Sacramento Kings
S Maxime Raynaud 39.0m
17
pts
14
reb
4
ast
Impact
+11.0

Commanded the painted area with exceptional rebounding and high-percentage interior finishing. His ability to secure contested boards fueled the transition game and generated a stellar +18.4 box score impact. A dominant, physical presence that anchored the team on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.2%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg -15.7
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.0m
Offense +18.4
Hustle +4.0
Defense +9.8
Raw total +32.2
Avg player in 39.0m -21.2
Impact +11.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.0

Relentless interior physicality defined this performance, generating a massive +12.9 defensive impact score. He consistently walled off the paint and dominated the glass, ending opponent possessions after one shot. His highly efficient finishing around the rim perfectly complemented his defensive masterclass.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -31.4
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +5.4
Defense +12.9
Raw total +25.5
Avg player in 33.7m -18.5
Impact +7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 4
BLK 2
TO 3
S Keegan Murray 31.6m
15
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.0

Despite respectable scoring volume, defensive lapses in transition and untimely missed rotations dragged his overall impact into the negative. He struggled to contain his primary matchup during a crucial third-quarter stretch, bleeding points on the perimeter. The offensive production simply wasn't enough to cover for the defensive breakdowns.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.7%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -24.8
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.0
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 31.6m -17.2
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S DeMar DeRozan 19.2m
13
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.3

A brutal shooting night from the field was salvaged entirely by his veteran savvy in drawing contact and getting to the foul line. He leveraged his playmaking gravity to create looks for others when his own mid-range jumper abandoned him. Despite the severe dip in scoring efficiency, his steadying offensive initiation kept his net impact slightly positive.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 44.8%
USG% 31.1%
Net Rtg -21.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.2m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.1
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 19.2m -10.5
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.5

Disastrous shot selection from the perimeter completely derailed the offensive flow during his minutes. He repeatedly settled for early-clock, contested threes rather than pressuring the rim, leading to empty possessions and opponent fast breaks. This erratic decision-making resulted in a punishing -12.5 net impact.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.3%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg -39.3
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense -5.5
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.6
Raw total -3.2
Avg player in 16.8m -9.3
Impact -12.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-18.8

An inability to create separation or finish through contact led to a highly detrimental offensive shift. His missed shots frequently sparked opponent transition opportunities, compounding the damage of his scoring drought. Even solid hustle plays couldn't prevent his minutes from being a massive net negative for the lineup.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -46.5
+/- -32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Offense -6.1
Hustle +2.7
Defense +1.0
Raw total -2.4
Avg player in 30.0m -16.4
Impact -18.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
Devin Carter 28.4m
11
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.7

A frigid shooting performance from beyond the arc severely handicapped the offense, as defenders comfortably sagged off him. He fought hard to compensate on the other end, generating a stellar +7.8 defensive impact through relentless point-of-attack pressure. However, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions ultimately dictated a negative overall rating.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 37.6%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg -46.3
+/- -29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +7.8
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 28.4m -15.6
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
Malik Monk 20.1m
14
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.6

Efficient perimeter scoring masked a highly problematic defensive shift where he consistently lost his man off the ball. His inability to navigate screens allowed the opponent to generate wide-open looks, erasing the value of his offensive contributions. The defensive bleed ultimately pushed his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -32.5
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.9
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 20.1m -10.9
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Drew Eubanks 11.3m
0
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.7

Failed to provide any offensive utility, missing his few attempts around the basket and clogging the spacing. While he battled adequately on the boards, his lack of rim protection allowed guards to finish easily in the paint. A largely ineffective stint that dragged down the second unit's momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -76.0
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.3m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.3
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 11.3m -6.2
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.0

A shocking disappearance from the offense after a string of high-scoring performances. He failed to establish any rhythm, looking passive and out of sync with the half-court sets. This total lack of scoring gravity allowed the defense to overload on his teammates, resulting in a damaging negative impact.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg -78.9
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.9m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 9.9m -5.4
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
ORL Orlando Magic
S Paolo Banchero 32.2m
30
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+10.9

A dominant scoring display fueled a massive +20.4 box score impact, largely driven by an uncharacteristically hot hand from beyond the arc. He consistently broke down primary defenders in isolation to create high-value looks. His willingness to crash the glass and contest shots ensured his offensive explosion translated to a double-digit net positive.

Shooting
FG 10/21 (47.6%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.7%
USG% 35.1%
Net Rtg +49.2
+/- +32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +20.4
Hustle +4.1
Defense +4.0
Raw total +28.5
Avg player in 32.2m -17.6
Impact +10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Desmond Bane 32.0m
17
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.5

Blistering perimeter efficiency set the tone for the offense, punishing defensive rotations with timely shot-making. His overall impact was further buoyed by disciplined closeouts and active hands on the perimeter. A highly effective two-way shift despite a slight dip from his usual scoring volume.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 82.4%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +16.2
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +14.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.5
Raw total +24.1
Avg player in 32.0m -17.6
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Anthony Black 31.2m
20
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+17.3

Suffocating point-of-attack defense and relentless hustle plays generated a massive +17.3 net rating. He turned defensive stops into transition opportunities, capitalizing on high-quality looks from deep. This was a masterclass in two-way impact, defined by his ability to disrupt passing lanes and finish efficiently.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 76.9%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +41.3
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +16.8
Hustle +7.1
Defense +10.4
Raw total +34.3
Avg player in 31.2m -17.0
Impact +17.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.8

Offensive passivity severely limited his overall effectiveness, snapping a streak of highly efficient shooting performances. While he provided solid interior resistance, his inability to finish around the rim allowed the opponent to ignore him in the half-court. The lack of scoring gravity ultimately dragged his net impact firmly into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg +22.6
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +1.0
Defense +5.1
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 24.8m -13.6
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jalen Suggs 19.8m
9
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.5

Settling for contested perimeter jumpers rather than attacking the paint hampered his offensive rhythm. Despite hitting a few timely threes, his lack of playmaking and minimal hustle contributions failed to offset the empty possessions. A surprisingly flat defensive shift further contributed to a disappointing negative net impact.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg -16.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.3
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 19.8m -10.8
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
Jevon Carter 23.4m
14
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+6.8

An unexpected scoring surge provided a crucial spark off the bench, significantly outperforming his usual offensive baseline. He paired this efficient shot-making with his trademark ball pressure, disrupting the opponent's offensive flow. Excellent shot selection and timely defensive rotations cemented a highly productive outing.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.9%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +68.5
+/- +34
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense +4.2
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 23.4m -12.7
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.0

Clunky finishing around the basket threatened to derail his shift, but he salvaged his net impact through sheer physicality on the defensive end. He drew multiple crucial fouls to get to the line, manufacturing points when his jumper wasn't falling. His willingness to anchor the paint defensively kept him marginally in the green.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.3%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg +38.2
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +5.3
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 18.4m -10.0
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.6

Operating strictly as a catch-and-shoot threat, he punished the defense for over-helping on drives. His pristine shot selection from beyond the arc generated a highly efficient offensive rating. Solid positional defense ensured he didn't give those points back on the other end.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +43.6
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.7
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 17.9m -9.7
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.2

An absolute zero on the offensive end dragged down what was otherwise a solid defensive shift. He completely vanished from the scoring column, missing all his attempts and failing to pressure the rim. While his weak-side rim protection remained elite, the offensive limitations ultimately resulted in a negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.0m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 13.0m -7.0
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jett Howard 12.9m
16
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.4

Flawless shooting mechanics were on full display as he capitalized on every open look he was given. This pure scoring outburst entirely drove his positive impact, masking his relative invisibility on the defensive end. His ability to space the floor perfectly punished defensive breakdowns during a crucial second-half stretch.

Shooting
FG 6/6 (100.0%)
3PT 4/4 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 133.3%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +44.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Offense +16.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.8
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 12.9m -7.0
Impact +8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.5

Brief minutes yielded minimal offensive production, but active hands on defense kept his head above water. He executed his rotations perfectly during a short stint to prevent any easy looks. A quiet but fundamentally sound garbage-time appearance.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +111.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.9m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.6
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 4.9m -2.5
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Noah Penda 4.9m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Failed to register any meaningful statistics during his brief time on the floor, essentially just logging cardio. His lack of aggression or involvement in the offensive sets led to empty possessions. A completely invisible shift that resulted in a slight negative impact.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +111.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 4.9m -2.6
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jamal Cain 4.9m
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.1

Forced several ill-advised shots during a rushed stint off the bench, snapping a streak of highly efficient performances. While his defensive energy was commendable, the empty offensive trips stalled the team's momentum. The poor shot selection ultimately neutralized his hustle contributions.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +111.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.9m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.5
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 4.9m -2.8
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0