GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAC LA Clippers
12
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.6

Exceptional weak-side rim contests and vertical spacing were overshadowed by disjointed team execution while he was on the floor. Despite finding his own offensive rhythm as a cutter, his minutes bled points during transition defensive breakdowns.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +28.1
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +1.7
Defense +4.2
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 25.8m -13.2
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Kawhi Leonard 23.4m
29
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+18.3

Clinical isolation scoring and suffocating point-of-attack defense absolutely dismantled the opposing wings. His ability to generate high-quality looks out of double teams drove a massive positive rating in just over a half of action.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.3%
USG% 35.2%
Net Rtg +30.4
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +23.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.0
Raw total +30.3
Avg player in 23.4m -12.0
Impact +18.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kris Dunn 22.9m
6
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.3

Brought immense value as an on-ball pest, blowing up perimeter handoffs and generating deflections. However, an inability to organize the offense or threaten the paint on the other end ultimately resulted in a slightly negative stint.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg +30.7
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +2.4
Defense +4.7
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 22.9m -11.7
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Brook Lopez 21.4m
17
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.0

Punished mismatches in the post and utilized his size to create high-percentage looks around the basket. This interior dominance forced defensive collapses, allowing him to anchor a highly productive stretch of half-court offense.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 63.8%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg +10.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +17.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.8
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 21.4m -10.9
Impact +8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kobe Sanders 21.0m
6
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.0

Constant defensive miscommunications and missed rotations completely erased the value of his high-energy hustle plays. Opponents actively targeted him in pick-and-roll actions, turning his shifts into highly profitable scoring runs for the other side.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +25.5
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +3.2
Defense -1.1
Raw total +2.7
Avg player in 21.0m -10.7
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.0

Provided spectacular isolation defense that consistently forced late-clock heaves from opposing wings. Unfortunately, his offensive hesitancy and bricked interior looks allowed defenders to sag off, severely clogging the spacing for everyone else.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +16.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +5.8
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 26.9m -13.7
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
-1.6

Orchestrated the offense well in spurts but struggled to contain dribble penetration on the defensive end. A few costly live-ball turnovers in traffic sparked opponent fast breaks, dragging his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +35.3
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.4
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 23.7m -12.1
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
23
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+12.6

Relentless downhill driving and elite finishing through contact shattered the opponent's interior defense. His aggressive shot profile yielded highly efficient scoring, while disciplined closeouts on the perimeter rounded out a dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 81.7%
USG% 28.3%
Net Rtg +67.0
+/- +32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +19.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total +23.7
Avg player in 21.9m -11.1
Impact +12.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
10
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.2

High-energy rim-running and disciplined drop coverage anchored a highly successful second-unit rotation. He capitalized on every dump-off pass and altered multiple shots at the summit, driving a strong positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 68.3%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +3.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.5
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 18.4m -9.4
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
6
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.3

Completely locked down the paint during a brief but brilliant rotational stint. His elite rim deterrence and perfect offensive execution as a lob threat triggered a massive momentum swing in just eight minutes of action.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 104.2%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg +77.4
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.2m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +6.1
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 8.2m -4.2
Impact +10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
1
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.2

Rushed perimeter jumpers and an inability to create separation bogged down the offensive rhythm. Opponents quickly recognized his lack of confidence, trapping him on the perimeter to force empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 12.9%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -87.5
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.2m
Offense -1.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total -2.0
Avg player in 8.2m -4.2
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.8

Struggled to initiate offensive sets against physical ball pressure during his limited run. The resulting stagnant possessions and poor floor balance allowed the opposition to easily leak out in transition.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -87.5
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.0m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.2
Raw total -1.7
Avg player in 8.0m -4.1
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.5

Injected immediate physicality into the frontcourt, securing tough rebounds in heavy traffic. This brief burst of energy and defensive grit provided a quick, stabilizing spark for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -66.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.3m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.5
Raw total +5.3
Avg player in 5.3m -2.8
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.2

Made virtually no imprint on the game during a very brief cameo appearance. Faded into the background offensively and lacked the foot speed to keep up with quicker assignments in transition.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +53.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 5.0m -2.5
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
IND Indiana Pacers
S Jarace Walker 30.7m
17
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.8

Despite extending his streak of highly efficient shooting nights, his overall impact slipped into the red due to defensive breakdowns during key stretches. The scoring punch was effectively neutralized by giving up easy transition lanes on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.8%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg +4.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.4
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 30.7m -15.7
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 7.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Pascal Siakam 30.3m
29
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+12.7

Dominated his individual matchups by consistently getting to his spots and finishing through contact. His massive positive impact was driven by highly efficient shot selection and a stifling defensive presence that completely disrupted the opponent's frontcourt rotation.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 12/14 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 71.9%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg -27.0
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +23.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total +28.1
Avg player in 30.3m -15.4
Impact +12.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jay Huff 25.1m
18
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.8

Stretching the floor effectively from the perimeter forced opposing bigs out of the paint and opened up driving lanes for teammates. This perimeter gravity, combined with timely rim contests, fueled a strong two-way outing that significantly exceeded his recent baseline.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 69.2%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg +4.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +1.8
Defense +1.5
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 25.1m -12.8
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Andrew Nembhard 24.1m
5
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-8.0

Passive offensive execution and hesitancy to attack the paint stalled the half-court offense during his shifts. He provided excellent point-of-attack defense and generated deflections, but the inability to capitalize on the other end ultimately dragged down his net rating.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -28.3
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense -3.2
Hustle +4.0
Defense +3.5
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 24.1m -12.3
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Aaron Nesmith 19.7m
2
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.3

An ice-cold shooting night cratered his overall value, as forced jumpers and empty possessions killed offensive momentum. While he tried to compensate with high-energy hustle plays and loose ball recoveries, the sheer volume of wasted offensive trips kept his impact firmly in the negative.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 11.8%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -45.2
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense -5.8
Hustle +4.8
Defense +1.8
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 19.7m -10.1
Impact -9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Micah Potter 23.7m
10
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.6

Defensive positioning and rim protection were bright spots, yet his minutes coincided with detrimental opponent runs. A few costly late-clock defensive rotations overshadowed an otherwise steady, efficient offensive performance.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -11.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.5
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 23.7m -12.1
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Kobe Brown 22.2m
5
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.3

High-motor hustle plays and active hands in passing lanes weren't enough to salvage a passive offensive showing. He passed up several open looks, stalling ball movement and allowing the defense to reset, which resulted in a net-negative stint.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg -24.5
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +3.4
Defense +2.2
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 22.2m -11.3
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Ben Sheppard 20.4m
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.8

Settling for contested perimeter jumpers rather than attacking closeouts severely damaged offensive flow. The resulting long rebounds fueled opponent transition opportunities, turning his poor shot selection into a massive overall deficit.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -38.4
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.0
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 20.4m -10.4
Impact -9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.3

Timely perimeter shot-making punished defensive drop coverages and kept the floor spaced. He maintained his recent streak of efficient decision-making, taking only what the defense gave him to ensure a steady, positive impact.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.1%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -12.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 18.4m -9.3
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.4

Relentless backcourt pressure and elite hustle metrics defined this highly disruptive performance. By consistently diving for loose balls and accelerating the pace off opponent misses, he single-handedly tilted the game's momentum during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -17.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +7.5
Defense +1.5
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 15.8m -8.1
Impact +6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Obi Toppin 9.6m
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.6

Completely vanished from the offensive gameplan during a brief, ineffective stint. A lack of off-ball movement and failure to secure weak-side rebounds allowed the opposition to dictate the tempo while he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -63.4
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.6m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.2
Raw total -1.7
Avg player in 9.6m -4.9
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1