GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAC Sacramento Kings
S Nique Clifford 38.4m
12
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.2

Spacing issues on the perimeter severely hampered his offensive utility and tanked his net impact. Defenders blatantly ignored him spotting up, which clogged the driving lanes for the primary creators. While his defensive rotations remained crisp, his offensive limitations were too damaging to overcome.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +17.1
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.4m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.0
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 38.4m -19.2
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Maxime Raynaud 33.7m
18
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.1

Dominating the painted area on both ends of the floor drove a massive positive rating. He swallowed up drivers defensively and immediately transitioned into a bruising roll-man threat on the other end. This two-way interior control completely dictated the terms of engagement during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -0.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +15.9
Hustle +3.2
Defense +8.7
Raw total +27.8
Avg player in 33.7m -16.7
Impact +11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 29
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 44.8%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
16
pts
7
reb
9
ast
Impact
+3.3

Relentless downhill pressure and elite drive-and-kick playmaking kept his impact firmly in the green. He consistently collapsed the defense in semi-transition, creating a barrage of open looks for trailing shooters. This high-octane creation outweighed the occasional erratic possession that typically accompanies his high usage.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 63.3%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -16.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense +3.1
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 25.5m -12.7
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S DeMar DeRozan 23.8m
12
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.0

Uncharacteristic struggles from his preferred midrange spots suppressed his overall impact. Opposing wings effectively contested his pull-ups, turning his usually reliable isolation possessions into empty trips. Despite putting forth a highly engaged defensive effort, the offensive inefficiency ultimately tipped his net score negative.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.7%
USG% 30.4%
Net Rtg -15.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +1.7
Defense +4.1
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 23.8m -11.9
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
6
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.1

Fumbling away interior catches and struggling to finish through traffic defined a frustrating outing. His inability to convert high-value looks around the basket short-circuited several promising offensive sets. A stark drop-off from his recent finishing tear left him as a noticeable negative on the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg -20.2
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.4
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 19.5m -9.8
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
10
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.8

Cold perimeter shooting stalled the offense and resulted in a negative overall mark. He failed to punish defensive rotations, clanking multiple wide-open catch-and-shoot opportunities from the corners. This inability to space the floor effectively neutralized his otherwise solid weak-side defensive efforts.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 49.0%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +8.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.2
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 30.9m -15.4
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.9

Smothering point-of-attack defense defined his positive impact and masked his ongoing offensive limitations. He navigated screens flawlessly, hounding opposing ball-handlers and blowing up offensive sets before they could initiate. This elite perimeter disruption proved valuable enough to offset his lack of scoring gravity.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.7%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +27.1
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +7.5
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 22.9m -11.4
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
Devin Carter 16.2m
24
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+16.6

A scorching display of perimeter shot-making and decisive drives resulted in a team-high impact score. He ruthlessly punished defenders for going under screens, forcing them to press up and exposing them to his quick first step. This offensive explosion completely shattered his recent slump and single-handedly carried the scoring load.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 83.8%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg +54.4
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense +19.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.8
Raw total +24.6
Avg player in 16.2m -8.0
Impact +16.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Drew Eubanks 14.3m
4
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.4

Exceptional rim deterrence in drop coverage fueled a highly productive defensive shift. He perfectly timed his contests to alter shots without fouling, completely shutting off the restricted area. This defensive anchoring allowed the perimeter defenders to apply immense pressure without fear of getting beat backdoor.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg +6.2
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +2.7
Defense +7.8
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 14.3m -7.2
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
Malik Monk 10.8m
4
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.7

High-energy loose ball recoveries and active hands salvaged a brief, inefficient stint. He injected immediate pace into the game, using his quickness to disrupt passing lanes and generate transition opportunities. This chaotic energy managed to keep his head above water despite struggling to find his own shot.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -52.2
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.8m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.1
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 10.8m -5.4
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

Running empty cardio minutes without attempting a shot led to a slightly negative stint. He failed to leverage his typical movement shooting to create gravity, rendering him largely invisible in the half-court. The lack of offensive involvement made it impossible to generate any positive momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -83.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.0m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 4.0m -2.0
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
IND Indiana Pacers
S Jarace Walker 38.6m
8
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
-15.4

An icy perimeter touch snapped a four-game hot streak and cratered his overall impact. Despite holding up well on the defensive end with switchable assignments, his inability to convert open looks stalled the half-court offense. The severe drop in scoring efficiency ultimately outweighed his positive defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.3%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg -12.6
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.6m
Offense -4.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +7.0
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 38.6m -19.1
Impact -15.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Aaron Nesmith 34.6m
29
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+15.4

Relentless downhill attacking and elite hustle metrics drove a massive positive impact. He consistently beat closeouts to collapse the paint, forcing defensive rotations that generated secondary scoring chances. This aggressive offensive pattern completely overwhelmed his primary matchup and dictated the flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 10/22 (45.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.8%
USG% 30.1%
Net Rtg +7.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Offense +23.5
Hustle +5.5
Defense +3.6
Raw total +32.6
Avg player in 34.6m -17.2
Impact +15.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jay Huff 31.9m
12
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.3

Settling for above-the-break triples severely limited his offensive ceiling and dragged his net score into the red. While he provided solid rim protection and rebounding in drop coverage, clanking deep attempts bailed out the opposing frontcourt. His shot selection ultimately negated a fundamentally sound defensive shift.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +7.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.5
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 31.9m -16.0
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kam Jones 26.6m
14
pts
4
reb
9
ast
Impact
+3.8

Elite pick-and-roll orchestration defined his highly effective offensive shift. He consistently manipulated drop coverages to create high-percentage looks for diving bigs, maximizing his floor time. A sharp uptick in scoring aggression kept defenders off-balance and amplified his playmaking gravity.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 77.8%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -9.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.9
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 26.6m -13.2
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Obi Toppin 14.7m
17
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.7

Capitalizing on transition leaks fueled a highly positive offensive rating during his short stint. His rim-running consistently punished the defense before they could set up, generating high-value possessions. Even with average defensive metrics, his vertical spacing dictated the tempo of the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 65.6%
USG% 32.4%
Net Rtg +8.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.9
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 14.7m -7.4
Impact +6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Ben Sheppard 23.3m
9
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.1

Getting repeatedly targeted on defensive switches resulted in a damaging overall impact. Opposing ball-handlers consistently isolated him on the perimeter, bleeding points and forcing the defense into scramble mode. Even a tidy offensive output couldn't salvage the damage done on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Offense +6.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense -2.4
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 23.3m -11.6
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Kobe Brown 20.6m
5
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.5

Extreme passivity on the offensive end resulted in a deeply negative net rating. By refusing to attack closeouts or look for his own shot, he allowed defenders to aggressively help off him and clog the driving lanes. This lack of offensive assertiveness completely stalled the team's spacing during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.8%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -23.9
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.6m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.5
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 20.6m -10.3
Impact -9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
4
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.6

Forcing heavily contested shots in the paint destroyed his offensive efficiency and led to a negative overall score. His inability to finish through contact sparked multiple opponent fast breaks, erasing the value of his solid point-of-attack defense. The poor shot selection at the rim was the defining flaw of his performance.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 22.5%
USG% 20.9%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.6
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 18.1m -9.0
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Micah Potter 16.1m
11
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.4

Imposing interior positioning anchored a highly successful defensive stint. He consistently walled off the restricted area and deterred drives, forcing opponents into low-percentage floaters. This stout rim protection provided a stable foundation that elevated the entire second unit.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg -16.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +6.0
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 16.1m -8.0
Impact +6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.9

Failing to register any offensive production left him as a net negative during his brief rotation. He struggled to find the rhythm of the game, missing his few looks and failing to bend the defense. His inability to capitalize on weak-side spacing limited the lineup's overall ceiling.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +63.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.8m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.4
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 10.8m -5.5
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

A completely invisible offensive stint dragged his impact score into the red. He failed to generate any gravity on the perimeter, allowing his defender to roam freely and disrupt passing lanes. The lack of assertiveness in his limited minutes actively hindered the half-court flow.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -82.1
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.8m
Offense -3.7
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.3
Raw total -0.7
Avg player in 4.8m -2.4
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1