GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAC Sacramento Kings
13
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.2

Relentless energy on loose balls and excellent weak-side rim rotations kept his impact firmly in the green. He thrived in the muck, using his physicality to generate extra possessions despite an unpolished offensive game.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +21.5
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.0m
Offense +11.1
Hustle +5.7
Defense +5.8
Raw total +22.6
Avg player in 39.0m -21.4
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Maxime Raynaud 38.1m
26
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.0

Dominated the interior matchups by establishing deep post position early in the shot clock. His ability to anchor the drop coverage defensively while converting high-percentage looks offensively made him the focal point of the team's success.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.4%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg +19.7
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.1m
Offense +21.8
Hustle +2.2
Defense +7.7
Raw total +31.7
Avg player in 38.1m -20.7
Impact +11.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
S Daeqwon Plowden 34.8m
16
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.6

Defensive lapses heavily penalized his overall score, particularly a tendency to get caught ball-watching on back-door cuts. Whatever value he provided as a scorer was completely negated by the easy layups he surrendered on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 55.9%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +8.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.8
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 34.8m -18.9
Impact -8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
23
pts
11
reb
12
ast
Impact
+13.4

Downhill aggression collapsed the defense repeatedly, generating high-value kickout opportunities for shooters. Even with some erratic finishing, his sheer force of will in transition and active hands in passing lanes drove a massive positive outcome.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.6%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg +16.2
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +23.5
Hustle +3.4
Defense +5.5
Raw total +32.4
Avg player in 34.7m -19.0
Impact +13.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Nique Clifford 30.8m
8
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.7

A masterclass in doing the dirty work, highlighted by elite defensive metrics and constant off-ball movement. He perfectly executed the defensive game plan, blowing up dribble hand-offs and fighting through screens to disrupt the opponent's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg +17.1
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +5.0
Defense +8.2
Raw total +19.4
Avg player in 30.8m -16.7
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Malik Monk 30.8m
30
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+9.4

High-volume shot creation kept the offense afloat during stagnant stretches, even if his efficiency wavered. His ability to break down his primary defender in isolation forced defensive rotations that ultimately benefited the entire unit.

Shooting
FG 11/24 (45.8%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.3%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +23.9
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +22.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.8
Raw total +26.1
Avg player in 30.8m -16.7
Impact +9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.5

Hesitancy to attack the paint allowed the defense to sag off and clog passing lanes. Without the threat of his own scoring, his playmaking stalled out, leading to a highly negative stint off the bench.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +15.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.9
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 15.7m -8.5
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.5

Provided a sturdy physical presence in his limited minutes, setting bruising screens that freed up the guards. Solid verticality at the rim deterred a few key drives, maximizing his brief rotational stint.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg +10.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.9m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +1.8
Defense +2.1
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 9.9m -5.4
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
3
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.1

Immediate point-of-attack pressure disrupted the opposing backup point guard's rhythm. He missed a few rushed looks, but the defensive intensity he brought instantly tilted the floor in his team's favor.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg +28.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.1m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.8
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 6.1m -3.3
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
CHI Chicago Bulls
S Josh Giddey 33.6m
15
pts
12
reb
10
ast
Impact
+2.1

Superb defensive rebounding and passing vision drove a positive overall contribution. He consistently initiated early offense off misses, weaponizing his transition reads to keep the opposing defense scrambling in semi-transition.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.8%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +2.2
Defense +8.1
Raw total +20.4
Avg player in 33.6m -18.3
Impact +2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Tre Jones 31.6m
12
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.9

A negative total impact suggests hidden costs like poorly timed turnovers or getting stuck on screens, despite steady defensive positioning. His inability to stretch the floor allowed defenders to pack the paint and stifle driving lanes for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 53.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -22.9
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +2.4
Defense +3.7
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 31.6m -17.3
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Matas Buzelis 30.5m
20
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.0

High hustle metrics and solid defensive rotations kept his head above water despite a rough shooting night. His willingness to crash the glass and contest attempts at the rim salvaged a positive net impact.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 62.7%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +4.6
Defense +3.5
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 30.5m -16.7
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 3
S Isaac Okoro 23.7m
9
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.3

Poor defensive impact dragged down his overall score despite decent hustle metrics. Perimeter containment was a glaring issue, as he repeatedly allowed blow-bys that compromised the entire defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg -17.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense -3.5
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 23.7m -12.9
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.0

Offensive struggles severely limited his effectiveness, as clanked jumpers created long rebounds that fueled opponent transition opportunities. He managed to provide some physical resistance in the paint, but the empty offensive possessions ultimately tanked his net rating.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.7
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 22.0m -12.1
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
28
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+17.7

Elite shot-making from beyond the arc completely broke the opponent's defensive scheme and fueled a massive positive impact. His relentless downhill pressure forced over-helps, creating clean looks that he converted at a blistering clip.

Shooting
FG 9/12 (75.0%)
3PT 7/9 (77.8%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 101.7%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg -24.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense +26.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.2
Raw total +29.8
Avg player in 22.3m -12.1
Impact +17.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.7

Strong rim protection and vertical deterrence anchored his positive defensive score. However, fumbled catches in the pick-and-roll and missed bunnies around the rim dragged his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 45.1%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg +8.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.4
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 20.7m -11.2
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
Jalen Smith 19.9m
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.8

Settling for outside shots instead of utilizing his size inside resulted in a string of empty possessions that cratered his score. While he contested well around the basket defensively, the offensive black hole he created could not be overcome.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.8%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -14.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense -3.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.1
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 19.9m -10.8
Impact -9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.0

Passive offensive positioning and a failure to capitalize on closeouts made him a liability on the floor. He repeatedly let his man dictate the terms of engagement, leading to a disastrous net score during his rotational stint.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg -47.7
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Offense -4.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.1
Raw total -2.8
Avg player in 17.2m -9.2
Impact -12.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
3
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.2

Rushed decisions against set defenses led to poor shot selection and derailed the second unit's offensive flow. A lack of physical strength on the defensive end also allowed opposing guards to easily dislodge him and navigate to their preferred spots.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -53.1
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.3
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 14.7m -8.0
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Barely saw the floor, but a quick missed assignment in garbage time nudged his score negative. The sample size is simply too small to draw meaningful long-term conclusions about his rotational viability.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.3m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 1.3m -0.7
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.0

Logged a brief appearance at the end of the game with a minimal statistical footprint. A quick hustle play to secure a loose ball kept his overall impact perfectly neutral.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.3m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 1.3m -0.7
Impact -0.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Targeted immediately on defense during his brief stint, leading to a quick negative swing. Opponents recognized the size mismatch and exploited it with isolation sets before the final buzzer sounded.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.3m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 1.3m -0.6
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0