GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAC Sacramento Kings
S Nique Clifford 39.3m
10
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.1

Provided excellent point-of-attack resistance (+9.0 Def) but gave that value right back with a frigid shooting night from the perimeter. Missing all of his three-point attempts allowed defenders to sag into the paint and clog driving lanes for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.5%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +6.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.3m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +5.0
Defense +9.0
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 39.3m -21.3
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 84.6%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
18
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.0

Imposed his will in the restricted area by finishing through contact and sealing off defenders early in the shot clock. His sustained interior efficiency generated a robust box score impact (+18.0) that stabilized the frontcourt rotation.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +1.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.0m
Offense +18.0
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.0
Raw total +26.1
Avg player in 39.0m -21.1
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 13.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Maxime Raynaud 35.9m
22
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
+16.8

Put on an absolute clinic in rim-running and pick-and-roll execution, converting nearly every touch near the basket. His astronomical impact (+16.8) was fueled by flawless shot selection and a relentless motor that overwhelmed opposing bigs in transition.

Shooting
FG 10/12 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 82.6%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg +3.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Offense +22.7
Hustle +5.3
Defense +8.2
Raw total +36.2
Avg player in 35.9m -19.4
Impact +16.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 48.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S DeMar DeRozan 33.6m
17
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.8

A heavy diet of contested, isolation mid-range jumpers tanked his offensive efficiency and overall score (-5.8). Although he worked hard to navigate screens defensively, the sheer volume of empty offensive possessions allowed the opposition to dictate the tempo.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 44.8%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -19.2
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +4.6
Defense +2.3
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 33.6m -18.2
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
+2.1

Energized the second unit with chaotic but effective defensive pressure that disrupted the opponent's offensive flow (+9.9 Def). Hitting half of his perimeter looks forced defenders to respect his shot, opening up crucial passing angles in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.8%
USG% 22.8%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +3.2
Defense +9.9
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 31.5m -17.1
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 3
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.6

Completely neutralized on the offensive end, failing to register a single made field goal during his twenty minutes of action. While his defensive rotations were passable, the lack of scoring gravity severely hampered the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.8%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg -24.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +5.8
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 21.0m -11.4
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Malik Monk 17.9m
13
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.5

Scored in bunches but leaked points on the other end due to late closeouts and poor screen navigation. His quick-trigger offense couldn't outpace the defensive breakdowns that occurred during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -58.3
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 17.9m -9.8
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
3
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.4

Hesitant decision-making stalled the offense whenever he initiated sets at the top of the key. Settling for heavily contested pull-ups rather than probing the defense kept his impact firmly in the negative.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -15.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.8m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +1.7
Defense +0.8
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 9.8m -5.4
Impact -1.4
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
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Rushed his attempts around the basket during a brief, ineffective stint. Failed to establish any offensive rhythm, resulting in empty possessions that slightly depressed his overall impact score.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -41.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.4m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.9
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 9.4m -5.1
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.7

Endured a disastrous two-minute cameo where blown defensive assignments immediately gifted the opposition a quick scoring run. Was quickly yanked from the game after failing to protect the rim or secure loose balls.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -116.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.6m
Offense -2.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.8
Raw total -3.3
Avg player in 2.6m -1.4
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
PHX Phoenix Suns
17
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
+4.0

Capitalized brilliantly on defensive breakdowns to drill high-value perimeter looks. His massive box score impact (+17.0) stemmed from flawless shot selection and timely playmaking that consistently punished defensive over-rotations.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 85.0%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +20.1
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +17.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.6
Raw total +21.1
Avg player in 31.5m -17.1
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Devin Booker 31.1m
17
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-10.1

A brutal night finishing inside the arc completely derailed his overall metrics (-10.1). He repeatedly forced contested midrange jumpers against set defenses, bleeding value on wasted possessions while offering little resistance on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/19 (31.6%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.7%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg -7.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.9
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 31.1m -16.9
Impact -10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jalen Green 31.0m
20
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.5

Strong defensive rotations and active hands (+12.3 Def) kept him engaged on one end of the floor. However, his overall impact slipped into the red due to erratic perimeter shot selection that stalled offensive momentum. He settled for contested looks from deep rather than attacking the paint.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 30.4%
Net Rtg +12.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +12.3
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 31.0m -16.8
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 7
S Royce O'Neale 29.0m
6
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-8.0

Exclusively hunting looks from beyond the arc yielded poor returns and cratered his overall impact (-8.0). While his defensive positioning remained solid, the inability to generate rim pressure or connect on spot-up opportunities severely limited his floor value.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -9.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.7
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 29.0m -15.7
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Mark Williams 22.2m
10
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.6

Anchored the interior effectively by contesting shots at the rim and securing defensive glass. His positive impact (+3.6) was driven by disciplined paint positioning rather than offensive volume, forcing opponents into tough floaters.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 57.9%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -20.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +6.4
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 22.2m -12.0
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Oso Ighodaro 25.8m
14
pts
14
reb
3
ast
Impact
+14.8

Dominated the painted area with elite finishing and superb screen-setting that freed up guards all night. His towering impact score (+14.8) was a direct result of taking only high-percentage looks and controlling the interior physicality.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +36.4
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +18.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +7.8
Raw total +28.8
Avg player in 25.8m -14.0
Impact +14.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
18
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+8.0

Relentless perimeter ball pressure and active closeouts (+9.5 Def) defined his highly productive stint. Even with a barrage of missed triples, his constant hustle plays and disruptive passing lane deflections heavily tilted the math in his team's favor.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 4/12 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg +32.7
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +3.6
Defense +9.5
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 25.3m -13.7
Impact +8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
Ryan Dunn 16.8m
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.3

Faded completely into the background during offensive sets, offering zero gravity to stretch the floor. While he chipped in slightly with hustle plays, his inability to threaten the defense allowed opponents to freely double-team primary creators.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg +40.6
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.8m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +1.7
Defense +1.0
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 16.8m -9.1
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.3

Provided a sharp injection of spacing by knocking down catch-and-shoot opportunities from the corner. Maximized his brief rotation minutes by taking exactly what the defense conceded without forcing the issue.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +9.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.1
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 15.1m -8.3
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Amir Coffey 12.1m
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.7

Struggled to find the rhythm of the game during a disjointed second-quarter stint. His negative overall mark (-4.7) reflected a passive offensive approach where he frequently passed up open driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -2.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.1m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.9
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 12.1m -6.6
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0