GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAC LA Clippers
22
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.4

An aggressive downhill mentality led to a massive scoring spike, constantly pressuring the rim in early offense. However, over-helping on defense frequently left his primary assignment wide open for back-breaking corner threes. The sheer volume of his offensive output masked some glaring positional mistakes on the other end.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 60.8%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg -2.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.1
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 33.5m -16.8
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 15.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kawhi Leonard 32.9m
23
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.6

Settled for too many contested isolation jumpers late in the shot clock, bogging down the half-court offense. His uncharacteristic struggles from beyond the arc allowed defenders to sag and clog the driving lanes. While his physical on-ball defense remained steady, the inefficient shot diet severely capped his overall value.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.4%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg -12.2
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +2.4
Defense +2.8
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 32.9m -16.6
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S John Collins 31.6m
11
pts
12
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.1

Anchored the weak-side defense beautifully, consistently rotating over to alter shots at the rim. He capitalized on his athletic advantages by rim-running hard in transition to collapse the opposing defense. A highly disciplined two-way performance that provided crucial stability to the frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -1.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +3.0
Defense +8.2
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 31.6m -15.9
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 2
S Brook Lopez 30.8m
8
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.0

His inability to stretch the floor from the perimeter completely neutralized his offensive utility in pick-and-pop sets. Opposing bigs simply ignored him on the perimeter, packing the paint and stifling the team's driving lanes. Despite providing his usual stout rim protection, the offensive spacing issues he created resulted in a net negative impact.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -7.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +4.0
Defense +5.4
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 30.8m -15.6
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Kris Dunn 29.4m
2
pts
8
reb
8
ast
Impact
-1.9

Operated as an absolute menace at the point of attack, fighting over screens and blowing up opposing offensive sets. Unfortunately, his complete lack of scoring gravity allowed his defender to roam freely as a free safety. The resulting 4-on-5 offensive dynamic ultimately outweighed his spectacular defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 9.9%
Net Rtg +1.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +4.0
Defense +9.8
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 29.4m -14.8
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
38
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+18.0

Put on an absolute clinic in relentless rim pressure, consistently beating his primary defender off the bounce. His ability to absorb contact and finish through traffic utterly broke the opponent's defensive shell. Combined with attentive closeouts on the perimeter, he dictated the terms of engagement for the entire night.

Shooting
FG 12/22 (54.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 12/13 (92.3%)
Advanced
TS% 68.5%
USG% 37.8%
Net Rtg +8.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +27.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +5.5
Raw total +35.1
Avg player in 33.8m -17.1
Impact +18.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
6
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Knocked down a pair of crucial spot-up triples to punish defensive miscommunications. However, his declining lateral quickness was repeatedly exposed by faster wings in isolation situations. The defensive bleeding on the perimeter completely negated his efficient floor-spacing.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.0%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.5
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 17.6m -8.8
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.2

Provided a reliable interior target during his brief stints, sealing his man effectively for high-percentage looks. He stayed vertically disciplined around the basket, altering a few key floaters without fouling. A perfectly functional shift that kept the rotation afloat while the starters rested.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg +27.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.7
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 13.2m -6.6
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.0

Faded completely into the background offensively, showing zero aggression when the ball swung his way. Passing up semi-open looks stalled the offensive flow and forced teammates into tough late-clock situations. Even a few decent defensive rotations couldn't salvage a highly passive, disjointed outing.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.4%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg +17.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.5
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 13.2m -6.7
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.3

Injected immediate energy during a very brief cameo, crashing the glass hard to generate extra possessions. He sprinted the floor well in transition but wasn't out there long enough to establish an offensive rhythm. A quick burst of effort that marginally tilted the scales in a positive direction.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.1
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 3.8m -1.9
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
DEN Denver Nuggets
S Nikola Jokić 36.1m
22
pts
17
reb
6
ast
Impact
-9.1

Uncharacteristic inefficiency from the perimeter severely dragged down his overall offensive gravity. Settling for heavily contested outside looks rather than operating from the elbows led to empty trips and easy transition run-outs for the opposition. Despite active hands in the passing lanes, the sheer volume of wasted possessions cratered his net value.

Shooting
FG 9/22 (40.9%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 43.9%
USG% 34.4%
Net Rtg -7.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.2
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 36.1m -18.3
Impact -9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 52.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 6
S Cameron Johnson 35.3m
18
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.2

Solid overall scoring output was heavily diluted by empty possessions and perimeter misses that allowed the defense to leak out in transition. His inability to connect consistently from deep bogged down half-court spacing during crucial stretches. Still, timely defensive rotations kept his overall impact barely above water.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +1.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.6
Raw total +17.9
Avg player in 35.3m -17.7
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jamal Murray 35.0m
20
pts
8
reb
8
ast
Impact
+3.2

Struggled mightily to separate from primary defenders, forcing several off-balance midrange jumpers that tanked his offensive efficiency. However, he salvaged his night by digging in exceptionally well at the point of attack. Navigating screens and blowing up dribble hand-offs kept his overall impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 8/10 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 26.4%
Net Rtg +0.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +4.2
Defense +9.3
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 35.0m -17.6
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
S Christian Braun 34.4m
7
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.7

Passivity on the offensive end neutralized his otherwise stellar point-of-attack defense. He routinely passed up open driving lanes, stalling the offensive flow and forcing teammates into late-clock bailouts. His relentless screen navigation couldn't fully compensate for being a non-threat with the ball in his hands.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 8.2%
Net Rtg -3.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +4.0
Defense +6.0
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 34.4m -17.3
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
18
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.6

An unexpected perimeter eruption completely altered the geometry of the floor for the second unit. He hunted spot-up opportunities relentlessly, punishing late closeouts to generate massive offensive value. High-energy closeouts and loose ball recoveries further amplified his career-best impact.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 81.8%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +6.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +4.6
Defense +3.8
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 25.0m -12.6
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Bruce Brown 25.5m
19
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.3

Capitalized brilliantly on defensive rotations, finding soft spots in the zone to maintain his scorching shooting streak. However, his overall influence was muted by a lack of weak-side awareness on the other end of the floor. Getting caught ball-watching allowed crucial backdoor cuts that erased much of his offensive production.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg +5.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.0
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 25.5m -12.9
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.2

A complete lack of rhythm turned him into a glaring offensive liability whenever he stepped on the floor. Forcing contested perimeter looks early in the shot clock repeatedly killed momentum and fed opponent fast breaks. Without any secondary playmaking or defensive resistance to fall back on, his minutes were highly detrimental.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg -13.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.9
Raw total -2.0
Avg player in 20.4m -10.2
Impact -12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.5

Looked overwhelmed by the speed of the game, consistently arriving a half-step late on closeouts. His inability to stay in front of straight-line drives compromised the entire defensive shell. A couple of minor hustle plays weren't enough to mask his struggles navigating off-ball screens.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 8.1%
Net Rtg -0.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.4
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 16.4m -8.3
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
6
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.7

Provided a brief but sturdy interior presence, using his wide frame to wall off the paint against driving guards. He executed drop coverage effectively, forcing contested floaters rather than yielding easy rim attempts. Limited minutes restricted his overall footprint, but he executed his specific role perfectly.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +29.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.9m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +4.3
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 11.9m -6.0
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2