GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAC LA Clippers
S Kris Dunn 33.7m
7
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.8

A complete lack of playmaking vision from the guard spot severely handicapped the half-court offense. Failing to register a single assist in over 33 minutes of action created a stagnant, predictable attack. Even his trademark point-of-attack defensive pressure (+5.0) couldn't salvage the massive offensive void he left.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.1%
USG% 5.3%
Net Rtg -15.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.0
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 33.7m -18.9
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kawhi Leonard 32.9m
37
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+19.1

Two-way dominance defined this performance, with an overwhelming +9.8 defensive rating anchoring his massive overall impact. He systematically hunted favorable matchups in the mid-range, punishing smaller defenders with surgical precision. Exceptional hustle metrics (+5.3) highlighted his relentless engagement on 50/50 balls and weak-side rotations.

Shooting
FG 14/25 (56.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 63.9%
USG% 43.2%
Net Rtg -6.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense +22.3
Hustle +5.3
Defense +9.8
Raw total +37.4
Avg player in 32.9m -18.3
Impact +19.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 3
6
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.6

Severe perimeter shooting woes torpedoed his value, as clanking five attempts from deep allowed the defense to completely ignore him. The offensive spacing issues negated his highly effective on-ball defense (+4.7) and solid transition hustle. He consistently short-circuited possessions by forcing contested drives when his jumper abandoned him.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg -0.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +3.6
Defense +4.7
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 32.5m -18.0
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Kobe Sanders 26.4m
7
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.4

Hidden mistakes eroded his overall rating despite respectable defensive and hustle metrics. Costly decision-making in traffic likely resulted in momentum-killing live-ball turnovers that fueled the opponent's transition attack. He struggled to process defensive rotations quickly enough to keep the ball moving on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg +3.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +3.2
Defense +3.5
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 26.4m -14.7
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Brook Lopez 22.0m
10
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.9

Veteran positioning and timely rim protection yielded a steady, positive impact during his rotation minutes. He effectively neutralized opposing bigs in the drop coverage scheme without fouling. A balanced approach to floor-spacing and interior physicality kept the offense humming smoothly.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.3%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +3.7
Defense +3.0
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 22.0m -12.2
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
21
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.4

High-volume scoring masked underlying inefficiencies, resulting in a barely positive net rating. He forced the issue from beyond the arc, missing multiple contested perimeter looks that bailed out the defense. However, his aggressive downhill attacking kept the defense in rotation just enough to break even.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 30.9%
Net Rtg +1.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.8
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 30.1m -16.7
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.9

An absolute defensive masterclass (+10.2) anchored a highly productive stint on the floor. He dominated the painted area with relentless rim deterrence and elite rotational awareness. High-motor hustle plays consistently generated second-chance opportunities and extra possessions for his squad.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.1%
Net Rtg +1.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +4.3
Defense +10.2
Raw total +20.4
Avg player in 26.0m -14.5
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 1
14
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.6

Highly efficient shot-making was effectively canceled out by a lack of defensive resistance and low hustle metrics. He capitalized on spot-up opportunities but gave those points right back by allowing straight-line drives on the other end. A failure to impact the game beyond scoring left his overall rating slightly in the red.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +0.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.1
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 23.4m -13.1
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.7

Passing up open looks and failing to bend the defense resulted in a negative impact during his brief rotation spot. The offense effectively played a man down, as his lack of shooting gravity allowed defenders to pack the paint. Solid positional defense wasn't enough to compensate for the complete offensive zero.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -4.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.0m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.4
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 13.0m -7.3
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
ORL Orlando Magic
S Paolo Banchero 37.0m
16
pts
7
reb
8
ast
Impact
-7.4

Heavy offensive usage yielded diminishing returns due to a high volume of missed shots inside the arc. While his playmaking vision created open looks for teammates, his inability to convert in isolation matchups tanked his overall impact score. Forcing contested mid-range jumpers stalled the half-court rhythm.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.0%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -5.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.6
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 37.0m -20.7
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Anthony Black 36.4m
11
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-16.8

Invisible defensive impact and empty offensive possessions cratered his overall rating to a team-worst -16.8. He struggled to dictate the tempo as a lead guard, frequently settling for low-quality perimeter looks rather than attacking the paint. A lack of disruptive plays on the perimeter allowed opposing guards to operate with zero friction.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.1%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -9.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense -0.1
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 36.4m -20.2
Impact -16.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
15
pts
14
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.5

A surprising dip in interior finishing snapped his recent streak of highly efficient shooting nights. Missing eight attempts around the basket severely depressed his offensive value, erasing the benefits of his otherwise solid defensive positioning. He struggled to establish deep post leverage against physical rim protection.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.0%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg +6.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.3
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 33.3m -18.5
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S Desmond Bane 32.0m
36
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+19.7

Blistering shot creation fueled an elite +19.7 overall rating. He systematically dismantled drop coverages with lethal pull-up shooting, punishing defenders at every level of the floor. Excellent defensive engagement (+4.0) ensured his massive offensive output translated directly to the bottom line.

Shooting
FG 13/19 (68.4%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 6/10 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.9%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg +21.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +30.0
Hustle +3.6
Defense +4.0
Raw total +37.6
Avg player in 32.0m -17.9
Impact +19.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.7

Perimeter efficiency drove a solid positive rating, as he generated all his offense from beyond the arc without wasting possessions. Strong hustle metrics (+4.2) supplemented his floor-spacing value. He consistently punished defensive rotations when left open on the wing.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 83.8%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg +13.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +4.2
Defense +2.4
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 29.7m -16.5
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jevon Carter 18.7m
0
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.7

Complete offensive passivity severely limited his overall value, as he failed to register a single point. While his point-of-attack defense remained typically disruptive, playing essentially 4-on-5 on the other end stalled the second unit's momentum. He passed up multiple open looks that bogged down the shot clock.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 2.3%
Net Rtg -3.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.1
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 18.7m -10.4
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Jett Howard 17.0m
2
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.2

Firing blanks from the perimeter completely neutralized his offensive utility in limited minutes. His inability to knock down spot-up opportunities allowed defenders to aggressively sag into the paint. Despite decent hustle metrics, the lack of floor-spacing gravity made him a net negative.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 20.5%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -10.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense -2.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.6
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 17.0m -9.4
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.7

Elite rim deterrence and switchability drove a highly efficient +5.7 impact rating in a short stint. He completely shut off the paint during his minutes, functioning as a one-man wrecking crew against opposing drives. Low-usage, high-efficiency offensive execution perfectly complemented his defensive masterclass.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg -5.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +6.2
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 14.9m -8.4
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
9
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.9

An injection of pure energy off the bench resulted in an outstanding +8.9 rating in under 11 minutes of action. He battered opponents on the interior, generating extra possessions through sheer physical hustle. His aggressive rim runs completely changed the geometry of the floor for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 30.8%
Net Rtg +34.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.9m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +4.0
Defense +4.2
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 10.9m -6.1
Impact +8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.6

A lack of defensive resistance and zero hustle contributions dragged his brief appearance into the red. He was frequently targeted on switches, giving up straight-line drives that compromised the defensive shell. Efficient finishing around the basket wasn't enough to offset his struggles on the other end.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +5.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.0m
Offense +4.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.2
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 10.0m -5.5
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0