GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAC LA Clippers
10
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.0

Relentless energy and elite point-of-attack coverage drove a massive +8.7 defensive rating. He completely shut down his primary assignment on the perimeter while generating crucial extra possessions via a +4.0 hustle score. Taking only high-value shots within the flow of the offense perfectly complemented his defensive masterclass.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.0%
USG% 7.5%
Net Rtg +13.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +4.0
Defense +8.7
Raw total +25.1
Avg player in 33.6m -19.1
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 0
S Kawhi Leonard 33.0m
28
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.0

Forcing up heavily contested mid-range jumpers severely depressed his overall efficiency. He clanked over a dozen field goal attempts, which prevented his otherwise solid +3.1 hustle rating from translating into a dominant net score. Only his sheer gravity as a primary scorer and timely weak-side digs kept his final impact marginally positive.

Shooting
FG 8/22 (36.4%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 10/12 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 51.3%
USG% 36.3%
Net Rtg +1.1
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +15.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense +1.4
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 33.0m -18.8
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Brook Lopez 31.1m
11
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.1

An absolute fortress in drop coverage, his towering +12.9 defensive metric single-handedly dictated the flow of the game. He deterred countless drives to the rim and actively contested every shot in the paint. That elite rim protection easily erased the minor negative impact of a few forced perimeter jumpers.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg +7.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +3.8
Defense +12.9
Raw total +24.8
Avg player in 31.1m -17.7
Impact +7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 5
TO 0
S Kris Dunn 28.9m
8
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+0.9

Smothering on-ball pressure and active hands in the passing lanes fueled a robust +7.2 defensive score. Unfortunately, his offensive execution was a glaring liability, as he bricked multiple outside looks and stalled half-court sets. His relentless hustle (+3.1) was the sole reason he managed to stay in the green by the final buzzer.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 36.4%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg +19.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +3.1
Defense +7.2
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 28.9m -16.4
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kobe Sanders 25.9m
11
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.8

Careless ball security and poorly timed fouls completely undermined a highly efficient shooting performance. His inability to stay in front of quicker guards forced him into rotation mistakes, dragging his net rating down to -3.8. The crisp perimeter stroke simply couldn't compensate for how much he gave away on the margins.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +3.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.4
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 25.9m -14.8
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
26
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.9

Phenomenal downhill aggression and a +4.6 hustle rating allowed him to constantly pressure the rim and generate high-value looks. He absorbed contact brilliantly, punishing mismatches in the paint to drive a stellar +8.9 net impact. Even a cold night from beyond the arc couldn't slow down his relentless interior attack.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 60.1%
USG% 35.3%
Net Rtg -5.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +4.5
Defense +4.0
Raw total +24.7
Avg player in 27.8m -15.8
Impact +8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
14
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.6

Disciplined defensive rotations and excellent positional awareness generated a sturdy +6.5 rating on that end of the floor. He consistently forced his man into contested midrange pull-ups, neutralizing their primary actions. While his finishing was slightly erratic, his defensive reliability kept his overall impact firmly positive.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.4%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg +19.6
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +1.8
Defense +6.5
Raw total +17.8
Avg player in 26.6m -15.2
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 57.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
8
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.3

Supreme vertical spacing and elite rim deterrence packed a massive +10.3 impact into a short burst of playing time. He anchored the second unit with a +7.0 defensive rating, consistently altering shots from the weak side. Never forcing his own offense allowed him to maximize every single possession he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +15.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +2.3
Defense +7.0
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 16.9m -9.6
Impact +10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
3
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.7

A passive approach on both ends of the floor resulted in a sluggish -2.7 net rating during his rotational minutes. He failed to make an imprint on the glass and registered a meager +0.8 hustle score. Being a step slow on closeouts allowed opposing shooters to find early rhythm against his coverage.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg +22.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.4
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 16.0m -9.1
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
CHI Chicago Bulls
S Josh Giddey 38.9m
20
pts
11
reb
10
ast
Impact
+2.4

Active hands in passing lanes and excellent rebounding positioning drove a stellar +7.7 defensive impact score. Although he wasted several possessions with erratic perimeter chucking, his relentless transition hustle (+3.3) mitigated the damage. Operating as the primary defensive communicator allowed him to maintain a positive overall rating despite the heavy volume of missed shots.

Shooting
FG 8/20 (40.0%)
3PT 4/11 (36.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +0.2
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.9m
Offense +13.6
Hustle +3.3
Defense +7.7
Raw total +24.6
Avg player in 38.9m -22.2
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Leonard Miller 35.9m
14
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.9

Poor perimeter shot selection cratered his overall value, as he forced contested looks from beyond the arc. While his weak-side rotations provided a solid +5.8 defensive boost, the wasted offensive possessions ultimately dragged his net impact into the red. His inability to stretch the floor neutralized his otherwise active interior presence.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.0%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -15.7
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +2.6
Defense +5.8
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 35.9m -20.3
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 23.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Matas Buzelis 34.4m
18
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.2

A brutal volume-shooting night tanked his overall rating, as chucking heavily contested perimeter jumpers killed offensive momentum. He settled for outside looks rather than attacking the paint, resulting in a steep -7.2 net impact. The sheer number of empty possessions completely overshadowed his adequate weak-side defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 6/18 (33.3%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -13.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.0
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 34.4m -19.7
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Nick Richards 29.9m
10
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.5

Despite anchoring the paint with a robust +7.0 defensive rating, his inability to finish around the rim kept his net score negative. Whiffing on numerous high-percentage looks as a primary roll man stalled out several half-court sets. The defensive rim protection simply wasn't enough to offset those squandered scoring opportunities.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -3.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +7.0
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 29.9m -17.0
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
S Tre Jones 29.9m
21
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.8

Elite shot selection and near-perfect finishing inside the arc generated a massive +17.3 box metric. However, getting consistently blown by at the point of attack resulted in a -1.9 defensive score, nearly wiping out his offensive masterclass. His surgical execution in the pick-and-roll was the only thing keeping his final impact above water.

Shooting
FG 10/11 (90.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 91.8%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -34.8
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +17.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.9
Raw total +17.9
Avg player in 29.9m -17.1
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 76.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
12
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.6

Hidden mistakes completely derailed an otherwise highly efficient shooting performance. Costly defensive lapses and poorly timed fouls dragged his net rating down to -3.6 despite his crisp perimeter execution. He struggled to navigate screens at the point of attack, giving back every point he generated on the offensive end.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +3.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.1
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 24.4m -14.1
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.8

An absolute offensive black hole tonight, his inability to hit even a single shot resulted in a disastrous -11.8 net impact. He repeatedly stalled ball movement by bricking wide-open spot-up looks from the corner. While his on-ball defense remained stout (+4.8), playing essentially 4-on-5 offensively doomed the lineup's efficiency.

Shooting
FG 0/7 (0.0%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 12.7%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +5.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense -6.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.8
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 22.8m -12.9
Impact -11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 2
11
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

Flawless perimeter execution masked a severe lack of physical engagement on the margins. A meager +0.6 hustle rating reflects his failure to secure loose balls or box out effectively against heavier matchups. Those unforced errors in the possession battle ultimately dragged his total impact into the negative despite his hot hand.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -22.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.6
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 19.6m -11.2
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

A brief, ineffective stint at the end of the rotation yielded a quick -2.0 impact score. He failed to register any meaningful defensive resistance or hustle plays during his limited minutes. Getting targeted on switches immediately upon entering the game neutralized his floor time.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -37.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 3.6m -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
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.3

Logged less than a minute of floor time, resulting in a negligible -0.3 impact score. There simply wasn't enough run to evaluate his defensive positioning or offensive flow. He was essentially a placeholder for a single end-of-quarter possession.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.5m -0.3
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0