GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAS San Antonio Spurs
S Devin Vassell 34.9m
11
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.3

Settling for heavily contested mid-range pull-ups derailed the offensive flow and dragged his net rating into the red. His inability to break down his primary defender forced late-clock heaves that routinely sparked opponent transition breaks. Despite commendable defensive effort, the offensive inefficiency was too much to overcome.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.6%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +11.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +3.2
Defense +3.5
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 34.9m -20.2
Impact -9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Stephon Castle 33.9m
6
pts
8
reb
8
ast
Impact
-16.2

A complete lack of scoring gravity allowed the defense to trap the ball-handler and blow up offensive sets. While he generated extra possessions through relentless hustle on loose balls, his hesitation to attack closeouts stalled the offense repeatedly. The playmaking numbers look fine, but his inability to punish defensive gaps directly led to a massive negative swing.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +8.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense -2.4
Hustle +5.0
Defense +0.8
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 33.9m -19.6
Impact -16.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S De'Aaron Fox 30.3m
19
pts
2
reb
9
ast
Impact
-1.0

Constant rim pressure and high-level drive-and-kick reads were undermined by a disastrous performance from beyond the arc. Defenses aggressively went under screens, daring him to shoot, which ultimately bogged down half-court execution. The playmaking volume was impressive, but the wasted perimeter possessions neutralized his overall effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 52.8%
USG% 28.2%
Net Rtg +17.8
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.9
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 30.3m -17.5
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
20
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.1

Blistering spot-up shooting from the perimeter kept the offense afloat, but defensive lapses severely capped his overall value. He repeatedly lost his man on back-door cuts, giving back almost everything he generated on the offensive end. The elite floor-spacing was essential, yet his struggles in isolation coverage prevented a breakout impact score.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +1.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +15.3
Hustle +1.8
Defense +1.0
Raw total +18.1
Avg player in 29.4m -17.0
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
27
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+25.4

Absolute terrorization of the paint on both ends of the floor fueled a monstrous positive rating in limited action. His sheer length blew up multiple pick-and-roll attempts, while his decisive finishing over smaller defenders created an unstoppable offensive loop. This was a masterclass in utilizing physical advantages to completely dictate the terms of engagement.

Shooting
FG 11/21 (52.4%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.7%
USG% 41.8%
Net Rtg +21.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +21.1
Hustle +5.0
Defense +11.7
Raw total +37.8
Avg player in 21.6m -12.4
Impact +25.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 1
Luke Kornet 24.2m
10
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.9

Setting bone-crushing screens and executing flawless dribble hand-offs opened up crucial driving lanes for the guards. He maintained excellent verticality around the basket, deterring drives without committing cheap fouls. This disciplined, mistake-free execution in the pick-and-roll game provided a steadying presence for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -11.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +2.6
Defense +2.0
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 24.2m -13.9
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
10
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.0

Extreme tunnel vision on drives into traffic short-circuited ball movement and led to empty, contested possessions. A notable lack of defensive resistance at the point of attack allowed straight-line drives to the rim. While he converted a few spot-up opportunities, the overall lack of connectivity dragged down the team's efficiency.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg -15.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 21.5m -12.3
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.2

High-octane defensive energy and perfect shot selection maximized his value as a low-usage connector. He constantly disrupted passing lanes and made timely rotations to protect the weak side of the paint. By staying entirely within his role and avoiding forced plays, he delivered a highly impactful two-way shift.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 4.2%
Net Rtg +29.3
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +4.5
Defense +5.0
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 20.6m -12.1
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Dylan Harper 20.2m
8
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.2

Getting hunted in pick-and-roll switches erased the value of his highly efficient offensive touches. He struggled to navigate through off-ball screens, routinely arriving late to contest perimeter shooters. The shot selection was pristine, but the defensive bleeding kept his overall impact slightly in the red.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 63.3%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -18.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.4
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 20.2m -11.7
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

A brief cameo appearance offered virtually no time to establish any rhythm or influence the game's outcome. He grabbed a single loose ball but was otherwise invisible during a quick rotational bridge. The slight negative score reflects a stagnant stretch of team play rather than individual mistakes.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.5m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 3.5m -2.1
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
LAC LA Clippers
S Kawhi Leonard 37.2m
30
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+13.0

Relentless isolation scoring inside the arc completely offset a cold night from the perimeter. His massive defensive rating reflects how he locked down the wing, disrupting passing lanes and contesting everything at the rim. This two-way dominance anchored the team's overall success during his heavy minutes.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 31.4%
Net Rtg -5.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Offense +21.1
Hustle +4.5
Defense +8.9
Raw total +34.5
Avg player in 37.2m -21.5
Impact +13.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Brook Lopez 34.0m
26
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+16.4

Dominating the paint with elite rim protection completely altered the opponent's driving angles. He paired this defensive masterclass with lethal pick-and-pop execution, punishing drop coverage from beyond the arc. The combination of high-level hustle and floor-spacing created a massive net positive.

Shooting
FG 11/19 (57.9%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.4%
USG% 26.6%
Net Rtg -3.2
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +18.3
Hustle +5.4
Defense +12.3
Raw total +36.0
Avg player in 34.0m -19.6
Impact +16.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 2
12
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.5

An uptick in scoring volume couldn't salvage a deeply negative overall impact fueled by erratic shot selection. Clanking multiple attempts from deep stalled offensive momentum and allowed the defense to sag into the paint. His defensive rotations were adequate, but the wasted possessions on offense dragged down his net value.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.6%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +4.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.5
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 33.6m -19.4
Impact -8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
S Kris Dunn 31.4m
4
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
-15.3

Offensive passivity and poor spacing absolutely cratered his overall impact during a heavy rotation shift. Opposing guards completely ignored him on the perimeter, packing the paint and blowing up the team's pick-and-roll sets. Despite decent rebounding effort, his inability to threaten the defense made him a severe liability.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -18.8
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 31.4m -18.1
Impact -15.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kobe Sanders 25.1m
10
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.1

Solid perimeter defense and timely spot-up shooting kept him viable, but a lack of playmaking aggression flattened his overall influence. He played within the flow of the offense perfectly, yet failed to tilt the floor when matched up against the second unit. Ultimately, his reliable but low-usage output resulted in a perfectly neutral net rating.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -11.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +2.1
Defense +5.6
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 25.1m -14.5
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
11
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
+4.4

High-IQ ball movement and opportunistic cutting drove a highly efficient stint on the floor. He consistently made the extra pass against rotating defenses, generating high-quality looks for teammates while capitalizing on his own limited touches. This steady, mistake-free execution provided a crucial stabilizing presence.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -1.9
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.5
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 25.1m -14.5
Impact +4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.3

Forcing contested looks early in the shot clock severely damaged the team's offensive rhythm. His inability to finish through contact or connect from deep resulted in empty possessions that fed opponent transition opportunities. A sharp regression from his usual scoring punch left a glaring hole in the second-unit offense.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 26.9%
Net Rtg -2.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +1.7
Defense +0.4
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 22.2m -12.8
Impact -10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.4

While he knocked down his open corner looks, a glaring lack of physical engagement on the glass limited his effectiveness. He struggled to contain dribble penetration during switch situations, forcing the defense into scramble mode too often. The efficient shooting simply couldn't mask his overall passive floor game.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg +8.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.3m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.8
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 17.3m -10.0
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.0

Vertical spacing and energetic rim runs defined a highly productive burst off the bench. He anchored the interior defense effectively during his short stint, altering multiple shots and securing contested rebounds in traffic. This high-motor interior presence perfectly complemented the perimeter-oriented second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -13.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.0m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.5
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 14.0m -8.1
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1