GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAC LA Clippers
14
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-13.1

Forced shots and poor isolation efficiency cratered his net impact to a team-worst -13.1. He derailed offensive possessions by playing hero ball against set defenses, negating his otherwise respectable hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 30.7%
Net Rtg +0.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense -5.6
Hustle +2.6
Defense +2.9
Raw total -0.1
Avg player in 33.7m -13.0
Impact -13.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 6
S Brook Lopez 32.3m
8
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.5

Elite rim protection and massive hustle plays (+6.3) were overshadowed by a disastrous shooting night. Clanking open looks from deep allowed the defense to pack the paint, neutralizing the value of his defensive anchoring.

Shooting
FG 2/12 (16.7%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.1%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg -1.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Offense -4.2
Hustle +6.3
Defense +7.9
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 32.3m -12.5
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kris Dunn 32.1m
11
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+3.8

Superb defensive pressure and an unexpected scoring punch drove a highly positive shift. He disrupted opposing ball-handlers at the point of attack while aggressively taking what the defense gave him on the other end.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.1%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -4.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +1.5
Defense +4.3
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 32.1m -12.4
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 29.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
18
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.9

A massive offensive breakout fueled a highly productive two-way performance. He found success cutting baseline and finishing at the rim, completely shattering his recent trend of stagnant offensive play.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +1.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.1
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 31.6m -12.2
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S Nicolas Batum 25.9m
0
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.2

Excellent positional defense and hustle metrics (+3.4) couldn't mask the total absence of offensive threat. Opponents completely ignored him on the perimeter, which severely cramped the floor and dragged his overall impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.4%
Net Rtg +13.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense -1.3
Hustle +3.4
Defense +3.7
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 25.9m -10.0
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.1

Highly efficient finishing around the basket kept his box score impact strong, though his overall net rating hovered around neutral. He operated well within the flow of the offense but struggled to make a decisive impact on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -22.4
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 24.4m -9.2
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Kobe Sanders 19.4m
9
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.4

Steady secondary scoring provided a nice lift, even if his overall impact metric dipped slightly below zero. He capitalized on spot-up opportunities but lacked the high-end defensive disruption needed to push his rating into the green.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -25.4
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.2
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 19.4m -7.5
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.4

Surprisingly robust defensive metrics (+6.0) anchored his positive impact despite ongoing shooting struggles. He compensated for his misfires by fighting through screens and making high-IQ rotations on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.7%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg -13.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +6.0
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 17.1m -6.6
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
10
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.0

Capitalized on physical mismatches in the paint to generate a solid positive impact during his reserve minutes. His ability to draw contact and finish through traffic provided a reliable offensive spark for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg -18.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.1
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 15.7m -6.1
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.3

Failed to make a dent offensively during a brief rotation stint, extending a prolonged shooting slump. While he showed decent energy on closeouts, his inability to bend the defense rendered him a net negative.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.3%
Net Rtg -23.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.8m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 7.8m -3.0
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Anthony Edwards 36.0m
31
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.5

A massive bounce-back performance fueled a dominant +16.9 box impact, as he aggressively hunted his shot and broke out of a recent slump. His relentless downhill attacking dictated the game's tempo and forced the defense into constant rotations.

Shooting
FG 12/24 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 58.2%
USG% 37.5%
Net Rtg -4.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +16.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.0
Raw total +21.4
Avg player in 36.0m -13.9
Impact +7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Rudy Gobert 34.6m
3
pts
13
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.5

Massive hustle and defensive indicators (+7.6) almost entirely offset his complete lack of offensive involvement. He functioned strictly as a rim deterrent and screen-setter, though the sheer drop in his scoring volume ultimately left his net impact slightly in the red.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 6.6%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +4.7
Defense +7.6
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 34.6m -13.4
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 36.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2
S Jaden McDaniels 31.9m
12
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.9

Elite defensive metrics (+8.4) anchored his strong positive impact despite a sharp dip in his usual offensive volume. He sacrificed his own scoring load to focus on shutting down his assignment, effectively neutralizing the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -3.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +8.4
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 31.9m -12.3
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Julius Randle 31.7m
4
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-11.4

An uncharacteristic and brutal shooting slump completely tanked his overall impact score, snapping a streak of highly efficient scoring nights. The offense stagnated during his minutes as he failed to capitalize on his usual isolation mismatches, dragging down the starting unit's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 1/10 (10.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 18.4%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +6.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense -2.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.1
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 31.7m -12.1
Impact -11.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
18
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.4

High-quality shot selection from beyond the arc drove a stellar +8.4 total impact. He capitalized on defensive breakdowns with timely perimeter spacing, punishing closeouts and providing crucial secondary creation.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.8%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +14.4
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.8
Raw total +20.5
Avg player in 31.4m -12.1
Impact +8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Naz Reid 29.0m
11
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.5

Improved interior efficiency and solid weak-side defensive rotations (+4.4) salvaged a positive net rating. He bounced back from a recent shooting rut by attacking the paint rather than settling for contested jumpers.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +10.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.4
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 29.0m -11.2
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
Ayo Dosunmu 23.2m
12
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.6

Efficient opportunistic scoring kept his impact firmly in the green even with a reduced offensive role. He picked his spots perfectly in transition, maintaining excellent floor balance while contributing steady point-of-attack defense.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +18.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.9
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 23.2m -9.0
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Bones Hyland 14.7m
3
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.3

Poor shot-making in limited minutes dragged his total impact slightly below neutral. While he tried to facilitate, his inability to threaten the defense as a scorer allowed opponents to sag off and clog passing lanes.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +29.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.4
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 14.7m -5.6
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.0

A brief, invisible stint on the floor resulted in a steep negative rating due to defensive lapses. He failed to register any meaningful hustle stats or offensive pressure, rendering his minutes entirely empty.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.0m
Offense -1.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.5
Raw total -3.4
Avg player in 4.0m -1.6
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

Barely saw the floor, but his brief appearance was marred by a continuation of his recent shooting woes. He couldn't establish any offensive rhythm during his short stint, leading to a mild negative impact.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -57.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.4m
Offense -0.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.4
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 3.4m -1.3
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0