GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAC LA Clippers
S Kawhi Leonard 31.5m
45
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+29.8

An absolute masterclass in shot-making and two-way dominance completely broke the opponent's defensive scheme. He hunted mismatches mercilessly, pairing a massive scoring surge with suffocating on-ball defense to generate a staggering positive impact score. This was a vintage, terminator-like performance where every touch seemed to yield a high-value outcome.

Shooting
FG 15/20 (75.0%)
3PT 6/9 (66.7%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.2%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +56.3
+/- +41
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +41.9
Hustle +3.4
Defense +6.2
Raw total +51.5
Avg player in 31.5m -21.7
Impact +29.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.6

Defensive havoc was the engine of his success, suffocating perimeter assignments and generating massive value on that end of the floor. He shattered his recent scoring averages by leaking out early and finishing emphatically in transition. The combination of elite hustle and timely cutting made him an indispensable glue guy in this matchup.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +26.5
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +5.3
Defense +10.5
Raw total +26.3
Avg player in 28.6m -19.7
Impact +6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 1
S Brook Lopez 24.1m
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.3

A drastic reduction in offensive involvement severely limited his utility, as he failed to establish deep post position or stretch the floor effectively. The brutal negative impact score suggests he was a step slow in drop coverage, allowing guards to walk into comfortable pull-up jumpers. His inability to punish switches rendered him a liability on both ends.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 5.4%
Net Rtg +32.1
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +2.9
Defense +1.3
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 24.1m -16.5
Impact -10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Kris Dunn 23.7m
5
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
+3.5

Relentless point-of-attack pressure completely disrupted the opposing backcourt's rhythm. His elite defensive metrics and high-level hustle stats prove he dictated the physical tone of the game. He didn't need to score to be highly impactful, acting as a defensive wrecking ball that generated extra possessions.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 5.7%
Net Rtg +35.4
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +5.3
Defense +7.2
Raw total +19.7
Avg player in 23.7m -16.2
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 0
S Darius Garland 23.5m
21
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
+3.7

Crisp decision-making and lethal perimeter shot-making punished defenders who dared to go under screens. He maintained his high-scoring baseline while surprisingly adding significant value as a disruptive force on the defensive end. The constant threat of his pull-up jumper compromised the defensive shell, opening up the floor for everyone else.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.8%
USG% 29.6%
Net Rtg +7.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +13.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.5
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 23.5m -16.1
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
14
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-5.4

Forcing the issue in isolation led to a volume-based scoring bump that masked a clunky, inefficient floor game. His negative impact rating was driven by stalled offensive sets and likely ill-timed turnovers when driving into traffic. Despite solid defensive metrics, his questionable shot selection short-circuited too many possessions.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.4%
USG% 21.9%
Net Rtg +11.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.5
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 29.4m -20.0
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
22
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.7

Drawing fouls and attacking the rim with reckless abandon fueled a strong scoring output, but defensive lapses kept his overall impact slightly negative. He struggled with off-ball awareness, frequently losing his man on backdoor cuts. The offensive aggression was necessary, but he gave too much of it back on the other side of the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 10/12 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 72.0%
USG% 29.0%
Net Rtg +28.2
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +15.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.3
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 25.4m -17.6
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.8

Vertical spacing and elite rim protection anchored a highly productive shift in the frontcourt. He extended his streak of highly efficient shooting by strictly hunting lobs and putbacks around the basket. His constant energy and rebounding presence provided a crucial stabilizing force for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 79.8%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +29.2
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +7.4
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.6
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 17.9m -12.3
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
6
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.5

Timely perimeter shooting punished defensive rotations and provided a swift, efficient scoring punch. He operated perfectly within his role, moving the ball quickly and capitalizing on the open space generated by the primary stars. It was a low-maintenance, high-IQ performance that kept the offense humming.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg +29.5
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.9m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense -0.2
Raw total +8.6
Avg player in 11.9m -8.1
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.3

A brief cameo yielded a slightly positive impact strictly through mistake-free basketball. He stayed out of the way offensively and maintained basic structural integrity on defense. The lack of hustle stats indicates he was merely a passenger during his short time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Offense +4.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 6.0m -4.2
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.1

Bullying his way to the rim resulted in a flawless shooting display during his garbage time minutes. He exploited softer interior defense with pure physicality, generating a strong positive impact in limited action. This quick burst of interior dominance highlighted his raw power around the basket.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.8
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 6.0m -4.2
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.7

Confident perimeter stroke provided an unexpected late-game spark that shattered his usual scoring averages. He navigated pick-and-rolls with surprising poise, punishing defenders who failed to fight over screens. The positive defensive metrics show he was engaged on both ends during his brief run.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.2
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 6.0m -4.1
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Passive offensive positioning led to a sharp decline from his recent scoring tear. He struggled to find the rhythm of the game in his short stint, resulting in a slightly negative overall impact. The offense simply bypassed him, rendering his minutes largely ineffective.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.3
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 6.0m -4.1
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Anthony Edwards 34.9m
36
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.9

An aggressive downhill mentality fueled a massive bounce-back performance, completely erasing the struggles of his previous two outings. His ability to consistently puncture the first line of defense generated high-value looks and kept the opponent in constant rotation. Strong point-of-attack defensive engagement ensured his offensive explosion translated to winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 11/17 (64.7%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 11/12 (91.7%)
Advanced
TS% 80.8%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -33.8
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +22.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.3
Raw total +29.0
Avg player in 34.9m -24.1
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Jaden McDaniels 31.2m
11
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-11.6

Pristine shooting efficiency was completely undone by a catastrophic overall impact, pointing to severe off-ball mistakes and likely live-ball turnovers that fed transition attacks. A sharp drop in scoring volume from his recent offensive tear forced the unit to stagnate during his minutes. He ultimately gave back far more on the margins than he provided as a finisher.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -55.9
+/- -40
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +2.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 31.2m -21.4
Impact -11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Julius Randle 27.8m
11
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-10.9

Forced isolation possessions and clunky shot selection derailed his rhythm, snapping a three-game streak of highly efficient execution. The heavy negative impact stems directly from empty offensive trips and defensive lapses in transition after his misses. His inability to find clean looks bogged down the entire half-court operation.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 43.5%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -17.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +2.3
Defense +1.6
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 27.8m -19.1
Impact -10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Rudy Gobert 26.1m
9
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.8

While he converted his few rim-running opportunities, a negative overall impact suggests he was repeatedly pulled away from the paint and exploited in space. The lack of defensive rebounding dominance allowed second-chance points that chipped away at his value. Opponents successfully neutralized his interior presence by forcing him into uncomfortable perimeter switches.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.6%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -61.9
+/- -38
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.2
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 26.1m -17.9
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.1

Elite hustle metrics and disruptive perimeter defense couldn't salvage a deeply negative overall rating. He passed up open looks, causing a sharp drop in scoring production that cramped the floor for the primary creators. The relentless energy was admirable but ultimately offset by offensive passivity that stalled out possessions.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -22.2
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense -1.0
Hustle +8.4
Defense +3.4
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 24.6m -16.9
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Naz Reid 25.7m
18
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Frontcourt spacing and aggressive rolling yielded a strong scoring punch that easily exceeded his recent averages. However, his overall impact slipped into the red due to anchoring issues when forced to protect the rim without weakside help. The offensive surge was slightly undermined by giving up too many easy angles on the other end.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg -17.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +3.3
Defense +0.6
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 25.7m -17.7
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.5

Connective passing and high-IQ hustle plays were overshadowed by a complete reluctance to look at the rim. The defense entirely ignored him on the perimeter, which clogged driving lanes and stalled the half-court offense. His negative impact score reflects the structural damage caused by operating as a non-threat.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.6%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.5m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +3.5
Defense -0.5
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 17.5m -12.0
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Bones Hyland 15.6m
10
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.8

Quick-trigger perimeter creation provided a reliable spark, but defensive liabilities kept his overall impact underwater. Opposing guards consistently targeted him in pick-and-roll actions, bleeding points that negated his efficient scoring. He needs to offer more resistance at the point of attack to stay on the floor during crucial stretches.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -11.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.7
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 15.6m -10.6
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.7

Transition flashes were quickly erased by half-court struggles and likely poor rotational defense. He failed to make a dent in the hustle categories, allowing opponents to dictate the physical terms of his stint. A lack of off-ball awareness ultimately drove his negative rating during his brief time on the court.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -9.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.5m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 12.5m -8.6
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.2

Capitalized on a brief window of playing time by attacking closeouts with absolute ruthlessness. His sudden scoring burst completely blindsided the defense and provided a massive mathematical lift in just six minutes. This hyper-efficient cameo showcased exactly the kind of instant offense he can provide when his number is called.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 101.1%
USG% 38.5%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense 0.0
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 6.0m -4.1
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.8

Imposing rim protection and active hands defined a highly productive short shift. He completely walled off the paint during his minutes, deterring drivers and securing the defensive glass. The positive impact score is a direct result of his flawless execution of basic big-man duties.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.6
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 6.0m -4.1
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Joe Ingles 6.0m
2
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.6

Pacing the offense with veteran savvy wasn't enough to survive the athletic mismatch on the other end of the floor. Opponents easily bypassed him in isolation, leading to defensive breakdowns that tanked his brief appearance. The lack of hustle stats highlights his inability to impact the margins against faster matchups.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Offense +1.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 6.0m -4.2
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Floating on the perimeter resulted in a quiet, low-impact stint that failed to move the needle. He offered virtually no resistance or secondary efforts, as evidenced by his empty hustle metrics. A single perimeter make couldn't mask his overall lack of physical engagement.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Offense +2.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 6.0m -4.1
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0