GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAC Sacramento Kings
29
pts
12
reb
5
ast
Impact
+16.0

Absolute dominance in the painted area drove a massive +16.0 overall impact. High-motor offensive rebounding (+5.8 Hustle) and smothering interior defense (+7.5 Def) allowed him to dictate the terms of engagement on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 12/16 (75.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 77.8%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -2.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.9m
Offense +28.1
Hustle +5.8
Defense +7.5
Raw total +41.4
Avg player in 40.9m -25.4
Impact +16.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 14
Opp FG% 56.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
19
pts
2
reb
10
ast
Impact
-0.6

High-usage playmaking was entirely offset by defensive gambles and inefficient perimeter attempts. His aggressive downhill style created opportunities, but the resulting transition vulnerability kept his net impact hovering just below neutral.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.2%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -6.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.5
Raw total +20.3
Avg player in 33.5m -20.9
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S DeMar DeRozan 27.3m
15
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.9

A heavy dose of contested midrange misses tanked his offensive efficiency and overall rating. Despite putting in a respectable defensive shift (+3.1 Def), the sheer number of empty possessions he generated stalled the team's halfcourt execution.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.2%
USG% 26.4%
Net Rtg -3.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +0.7
Defense +3.1
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 27.3m -17.0
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Maxime Raynaud 26.4m
10
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.6

Hidden defensive lapses and poor rotational timing caused his overall impact to plummet despite decent shooting efficiency. Opponents consistently targeted him in pick-and-roll coverage, erasing the value of his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -10.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.8
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 26.4m -16.4
Impact -7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Nique Clifford 21.3m
7
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.7

Ineffective finishing around the rim and a lack of defensive deterrence (-4.7 Total) dragged his rating into the red. While he showed flashes of energy (+3.3 Hustle), it wasn't enough to compensate for disjointed offensive execution.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -1.9
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +3.3
Defense +0.2
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 21.3m -13.3
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Malik Monk 30.1m
18
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.7

A barrage of ill-advised three-point attempts severely damaged his offensive value. Coupled with uninspired perimeter defense (-0.8 Def), his shot selection actively bailed out the opposing defense during crucial stretches.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -24.2
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.8
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 30.1m -18.7
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Drew Eubanks 21.6m
15
pts
11
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.8

Elite rim-running and hyper-efficient finishing fueled a highly productive shift. He anchored the paint effectively (+4.3 Def) and capitalized on every dump-off pass, maximizing his role without demanding the ball.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -15.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +17.0
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.3
Raw total +24.3
Avg player in 21.6m -13.5
Impact +10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.8

A sharp drop in offensive volume compared to his recent stretch limited his ability to influence the game. While he competed defensively (+2.3 Def), his passive approach on the other end resulted in a slightly negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg -40.0
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.7m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.3
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 17.7m -11.0
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.6

Lackluster point-of-attack defense (-0.8 Def) and an inability to pressure the rim kept his rating in the negative. He struggled to initiate the offense effectively, leading to stagnant possessions and low-quality shots.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +37.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.9m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.8
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 10.9m -6.8
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.5

A disastrously cold shooting stint completely tanked his brief time on the floor. Forcing low-quality looks without providing any defensive resistance made him a net negative in just under six minutes of action.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -53.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.9m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.1
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 5.9m -3.6
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.8

Failed to provide his signature floor spacing, bricking his only attempts during a brief appearance. Without his perimeter gravity, his inherent defensive limitations (-0.5 Def) were immediately exposed.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -61.4
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.3m
Offense -1.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total -2.2
Avg player in 4.3m -2.6
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Saddiq Bey 32.8m
20
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.1

The negative overall impact stems from defensive liabilities (-1.2 Def) that undermined his efficient perimeter shooting. Despite generating solid offensive value through spot-up opportunities, his inability to contain his assignment consistently bled points on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 73.3%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.2
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 32.8m -20.3
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Trey Murphy III 31.9m
21
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.4

Elite two-way execution defined this performance, combining high-level perimeter spacing with disruptive defensive activity (+6.3 Def). His exceptional hustle metrics (+6.0) highlight a relentless motor that generated extra possessions and transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +17.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +15.9
Hustle +6.0
Defense +6.3
Raw total +28.2
Avg player in 31.9m -19.8
Impact +8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Zion Williamson 28.8m
23
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.5

Interior dominance drove a highly positive rating, fueled by relentless paint touches and high-percentage conversions. His physical advantages created a steady stream of high-value looks, while solid rotational defense (+1.9 Def) ensured the offensive gains weren't given back.

Shooting
FG 10/14 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.0%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg +7.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +16.6
Hustle +3.8
Defense +1.9
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 28.8m -17.8
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Herbert Jones 24.4m
12
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.4

Poor shot selection and perimeter inefficiency severely dragged down his overall rating. While his defensive instincts remained sharp (+3.5 Def), the sheer volume of empty offensive possessions from deep negated his value on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.6%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg -10.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.5
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 24.4m -15.1
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Yves Missi 15.7m
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.3

A massive defensive rating (+10.8) anchored his exceptional overall impact in limited minutes. His rim protection and switchability completely disrupted the opponent's offensive flow, making him a highly effective specialist during his stint.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 101.7%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -14.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +2.4
Defense +10.8
Raw total +18.1
Avg player in 15.7m -9.8
Impact +8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 4
TO 2
13
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
-5.3

Inefficient volume shooting and a lack of defensive resistance (-5.3 Total) cratered his overall impact. Forcing contested looks rather than moving the ball stalled the offense, offsetting any raw production he managed to accumulate.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 46.4%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +16.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.2
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 27.8m -17.2
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 64.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.4

A surprisingly robust defensive showing (+6.7 Def) was the primary catalyst for his positive impact. He stayed attached to shooters and navigated screens effectively, complementing an opportunistic offensive approach that didn't force the issue.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.8%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +3.0
Defense +6.7
Raw total +21.9
Avg player in 26.5m -16.5
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
Derik Queen 26.1m
12
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.6

Missed perimeter attempts and a lack of offensive rhythm kept his overall impact slightly below neutral. Though he held his own defensively (+2.9 Def), his inability to stretch the floor allowed the opposing defense to pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +4.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.9
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 26.1m -16.2
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
9
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.4

Strong positional defense (+5.9 Def) and consistent effort plays pushed his rating firmly into the green. Continuing a trend of reliable interior play, his ability to contest shots without fouling provided a stable anchor for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg +39.7
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +3.5
Defense +5.9
Raw total +23.1
Avg player in 25.3m -15.7
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.7

A brief, uneventful cameo at the end of the rotation yielded a negligible impact score. He simply wasn't on the floor long enough to influence the game's momentum in either direction.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 100.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.7m
Offense +1.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 0.7m -0.4
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0