GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAC Sacramento Kings
S Nique Clifford 40.8m
18
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
+4.3

Relentless hustle and a surprising scoring punch fueled a highly productive two-way performance. He generated extra possessions by crashing the glass and diving for loose balls, perfectly complementing his aggressive drives to the rim. This breakout offensive showing elevated his usual gritty defensive profile.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 52.0%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -2.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.8m
Offense +15.4
Hustle +7.0
Defense +4.6
Raw total +27.0
Avg player in 40.8m -22.7
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S DeMar DeRozan 40.8m
39
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+17.9

An absolute masterclass in mid-range isolation efficiency decimated the opposing defense and drove an elite overall score. He systematically hunted favorable matchups, converting highly contested looks at an unsustainable, yet brilliant, rate. Exceptional defensive awareness and active hands added significant value to a career-defining offensive night.

Shooting
FG 17/22 (77.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.6%
USG% 31.1%
Net Rtg +6.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.8m
Offense +30.2
Hustle +3.5
Defense +6.8
Raw total +40.5
Avg player in 40.8m -22.6
Impact +17.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
S Killian Hayes 30.8m
11
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.5

Despite a rare uptick in scoring efficiency, poor game management and defensive lapses dragged his overall impact into the red. He struggled to organize the offense during critical stretches, leading to stagnant possessions and late-clock desperation heaves by teammates. The raw production was a mirage that hid foundational playmaking flaws.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -28.1
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.8
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 30.8m -17.1
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
14
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.5

Consistent interior finishing and strong positional defense kept his impact comfortably in the positive range. He capitalized on dump-off passes and offensive putbacks, maintaining his recent streak of high-percentage execution. His ability to anchor the paint without committing cheap fouls provided crucial stability.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.9%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -33.6
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +14.7
Hustle +1.8
Defense +3.4
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 29.5m -16.4
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Maxime Raynaud 24.9m
4
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.3

A massive drop-off in offensive aggression resulted in a negative score, completely neutralizing his otherwise spectacular defensive metrics. He was entirely passive on the block, failing to challenge smaller defenders and stalling the half-court sets. His elite rim protection simply couldn't offset the dead weight he carried on the offensive end.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -29.6
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense +10.1
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 24.9m -13.9
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 3
13
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

A slight dip in his usual offensive efficiency was compounded by a few ill-advised contested jumpers that stunted momentum. While his hustle and defensive metrics were strong, his inability to finish through contact at the rim limited his overall effectiveness. He provided energy, but lacked the polish needed to swing his impact positive.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +7.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +5.5
Defense +3.7
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 30.2m -16.8
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.6

Brick after brick from beyond the arc cratered his value, as he failed to provide his singular elite skill. Without his perimeter shots falling, his complete lack of defensive resistance and hustle plays became glaringly obvious. Opponents relentlessly targeted him in pick-and-roll actions, bleeding points on the other end.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +14.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +1.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.1
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 28.2m -15.6
Impact -13.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Drew Eubanks 14.7m
4
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.3

Limited minutes and a failure to establish a physical presence in the paint resulted in a mildly negative outing. He was frequently outmaneuvered for positioning on the glass, giving up valuable second-chance opportunities. A lack of offensive assertiveness made him a non-factor during his rotation stint.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +32.1
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.1
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 14.7m -8.2
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Kon Knueppel 34.3m
24
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.9

Elite perimeter efficiency drove a massive offensive rating, punishing drop coverages with deadly accuracy from deep. His scoring surge well above his recent baseline masked a relatively quiet defensive showing. The sheer volume of high-value outside shots kept his overall impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.9%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg +15.1
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Offense +19.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.4
Raw total +23.8
Avg player in 34.3m -18.9
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Moussa Diabaté 34.0m
2
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.2

Despite a sharp drop in scoring involvement, his defensive anchoring and elite rebounding rates kept his impact near neutral. He controlled the glass and disrupted passing lanes, compensating for a lack of offensive touches. A failure to generate second-chance points ultimately prevented a positive overall score.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 3.8%
Net Rtg +20.9
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +3.3
Defense +4.6
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 34.0m -18.9
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 59.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Brandon Miller 32.8m
20
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.8

Two-way versatility defined his night, combining steady scoring with excellent defensive disruption and hustle metrics. He consistently contested shots on the perimeter, generating transition opportunities through active hands. While his shooting efficiency dipped slightly from his recent hot streak, his off-ball activity secured a solid positive impact.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg +14.9
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +5.2
Defense +5.1
Raw total +21.0
Avg player in 32.8m -18.2
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Miles Bridges 31.3m
26
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+9.8

Relentless interior finishing and superb shot selection yielded an astronomical offensive output. He exploited mismatches in isolation, converting low-risk looks at a dominant clip to anchor the team's scoring. Active hustle plays further padded an already stellar overall contribution.

Shooting
FG 11/15 (73.3%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.2%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg +23.0
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Offense +22.9
Hustle +3.1
Defense +1.1
Raw total +27.1
Avg player in 31.3m -17.3
Impact +9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S LaMelo Ball 30.6m
30
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+9.0

A massive surge in perimeter aggression broke him out of a recent shooting slump, stretching the opposing defense to its breaking point. His willingness to pull up in transition generated high-leverage scoring runs that swung the momentum. Solid defensive positioning helped solidify a highly impactful performance.

Shooting
FG 10/22 (45.5%)
3PT 6/13 (46.2%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.1%
USG% 37.0%
Net Rtg +22.8
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +20.2
Hustle +1.5
Defense +4.2
Raw total +25.9
Avg player in 30.6m -16.9
Impact +9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Sion James 24.2m
4
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-10.2

A disastrous shooting night from the floor tanked his impact, as he repeatedly forced contested looks early in the shot clock. His offensive struggles allowed the defense to ignore him, clogging the driving lanes for his teammates. While he showed flashes of defensive competence, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions was too costly.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.4%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg -24.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.2
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 24.2m -13.4
Impact -10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Coby White 19.9m
9
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.2

Poor shot selection inside the arc and an inability to penetrate the paint severely limited his offensive value. He settled for contested mid-range jumpers, stalling the offense and bleeding value on empty possessions. A steep drop from his usual scoring production left a glaring hole in the second unit's attack.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.7%
USG% 24.5%
Net Rtg -15.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense -1.0
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.8
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 19.9m -11.0
Impact -9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
2
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.2

Minimal offensive involvement and a lack of defensive disruption resulted in a slightly negative outing. He struggled to establish deep post position, often getting pushed out of rebounding zones by stronger assignments. Without his usual physical edge, his minutes yielded little tangible advantage.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 8.1%
Net Rtg -29.7
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.0m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.0
Raw total +6.6
Avg player in 14.0m -7.8
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Josh Green 10.7m
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.1

Total offensive invisibility dragged down his overall rating despite commendable defensive effort. He passed up open looks and failed to pressure the rim, allowing his defender to freely roam and double-team others. His active rotations on the perimeter couldn't salvage the negative spacing he created.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg -52.6
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.7m
Offense -2.0
Hustle +1.7
Defense +4.2
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 10.7m -6.0
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.0

A brief, scoreless stint offered virtually no offensive value, as he failed to capitalize on his limited touches. He was late on a few closeouts, allowing clean looks that negated his otherwise acceptable hustle metrics. The lack of floor-stretching presence made him a net negative during his time on the court.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg +0.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.2m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.9
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 8.2m -4.4
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0