GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAC LA Clippers
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.0

Despite providing his usual vertical spacing and active perimeter defense, his complete lack of offensive assertiveness crippled the team's half-court spacing. Defenders aggressively sagged off him, which clogged driving lanes and stalled out possessions. The resulting offensive stagnation caused his overall impact to plummet into double-digit negatives.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg -25.5
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.4
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 32.3m -17.6
Impact -12.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Darius Garland 30.2m
25
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+10.8

Lethal pull-up shooting from beyond the arc forced defenders to play up, which he masterfully exploited to create driving angles. Beyond the scoring punch, he remained highly engaged defensively, fighting through screens to post surprisingly strong defensive metrics. This dual-threat capability dictated the flow of the game and yielded an elite overall rating.

Shooting
FG 9/20 (45.0%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.9%
USG% 31.0%
Net Rtg +25.8
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +17.7
Hustle +4.2
Defense +5.2
Raw total +27.1
Avg player in 30.2m -16.3
Impact +10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kris Dunn 28.3m
5
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.3

Tenacious on-ball harassment and elite screen navigation completely disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm. While his own shot-making was erratic at best, his willingness to dive for loose balls and generate deflections more than compensated for the offensive clunkiness. He proved that sheer defensive willpower can forge a positive overall impact despite offensive limitations.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +5.8
Defense +8.4
Raw total +17.7
Avg player in 28.3m -15.4
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kawhi Leonard 25.7m
31
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.0

Surgical precision from the mid-range and physical drives to the basket overwhelmed primary defenders all night. He paired this elite offensive usage with disruptive hands in passing lanes, cementing a dominant two-way rating. This was a quintessential alpha performance, controlling the game's tempo whenever he touched the ball.

Shooting
FG 13/23 (56.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 43.1%
Net Rtg -28.1
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +16.5
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.7
Raw total +24.0
Avg player in 25.7m -14.0
Impact +10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Brook Lopez 21.8m
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.4

Elite rim deterrence and disciplined drop coverage kept his defensive metrics highly positive. However, his total inability to punish mismatches or stretch the floor offensively left the team playing four-on-five on that end. The stark offensive goose egg ultimately dragged a solid defensive shift into the red.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.8%
Net Rtg -32.8
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +2.2
Defense +6.3
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 21.8m -11.8
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 90.9%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
24
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.9

Aggressive downhill drives generated consistent rim pressure, though a broken perimeter stroke allowed defenders to pack the paint. His high-motor activity on the glass and in transition bolstered his hustle stats significantly. Still, the lack of outside spacing and likely hidden mistakes capped his overall net influence at a modest positive.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 10/11 (90.9%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg -18.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +4.8
Defense +4.9
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 35.3m -19.3
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
6
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.6

High-energy closeouts and constant off-ball movement padded his hustle metrics during a gritty rotation stint. Despite converting his few looks efficiently, his inability to scale up his usage left the offense stagnant during his minutes. The resulting lineup vulnerability ultimately pushed his overall impact into negative territory.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -28.1
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +4.8
Defense +3.4
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 23.0m -12.4
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
6
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.8

Elite rim protection and quick-twitch weakside rotations defined a highly disruptive defensive performance. He embraced a purely garbage-man role on offense, setting hard screens and staying out of the way of primary creators. This clear understanding of his role translated into a highly effective, defensively-driven positive impact.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +18.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +2.7
Defense +8.2
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 22.9m -12.4
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 1
John Collins 20.1m
10
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.5

Timely cuts and decisive rolls to the basket maximized his limited offensive touches. He anchored his positive impact with sturdy interior defense and disciplined verticality at the rim. A highly efficient, low-maintenance shift allowed him to be a strong net positive in a condensed role.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -11.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.3
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 20.1m -11.0
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

A brief cameo at the end of the game offered no statistical footprint. He merely occupied space on the floor as the clock expired.

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 -0.2
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAC Sacramento Kings
S DeMar DeRozan 36.8m
27
pts
0
reb
7
ast
Impact
+1.7

Elite shot-making efficiency fueled a massive offensive rating, capitalizing on mid-range isolation matchups to generate high-quality looks. However, his overall net impact was heavily suppressed by defensive lapses and off-ball passivity. The stark contrast between his raw scoring production and marginal total impact highlights a one-sided performance.

Shooting
FG 11/14 (78.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg +14.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Offense +21.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.3
Raw total +21.8
Avg player in 36.8m -20.1
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 81.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
12
pts
12
reb
10
ast
Impact
-3.4

Relentless point-of-attack pressure and high-motor rebounding generated elite defensive metrics that nearly salvaged his night. However, a steady diet of forced perimeter jumpers and inefficient rim attempts severely dragged down his offensive value. The sheer volume of wasted possessions ultimately outweighed his chaotic, high-energy defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 4/15 (26.7%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.8%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg +21.1
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +12.6
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 36.8m -20.1
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 4
25
pts
13
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.8

Floor-spacing from the frontcourt unlocked a dominant two-way showing, as he punished drop coverages with confident perimeter shooting. His sustained efficiency streak carried over into high-level rim protection and rebounding, driving an elite overall impact score. This was a masterclass in capitalizing on offensive mismatches while anchoring the defensive glass.

Shooting
FG 10/14 (71.4%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.0%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +25.1
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Offense +22.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +6.8
Raw total +31.8
Avg player in 36.6m -20.0
Impact +11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 41.2%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 2
S Nique Clifford 35.3m
11
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.0

Active hands and energetic rotations yielded strong defensive and hustle metrics, keeping him engaged on the margins. Unfortunately, erratic shot selection and offensive disjointedness completely tanked his overall value. The defensive effort could not salvage a deeply negative total impact driven by empty offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.3%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg -1.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +4.0
Defense +4.6
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 35.3m -19.3
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Maxime Raynaud 30.1m
23
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.2

Near-flawless execution around the basket generated a massive scoring surge without demanding high usage. Despite the surgical interior finishing, his overall impact remained relatively grounded due to a lack of secondary playmaking or disruptive defensive events. He operated strictly as a highly efficient play-finisher rather than a primary engine.

Shooting
FG 11/12 (91.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 86.3%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +15.0
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.5
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 30.1m -16.3
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 34.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
15
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.6

Opportunistic scoring within the flow of the offense allowed him to post highly efficient numbers without forcing the issue. He paired this clean offensive execution with disciplined closeouts, resulting in solid defensive metrics. A steady, mistake-free shift defined his positive contribution to the rotation.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +15.6
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +14.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.2
Raw total +21.5
Avg player in 31.0m -16.9
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.6

Failing to connect on his primary weapon—catch-and-shoot opportunities—rendered his floor time highly unproductive. Without off-ball gravity pulling defenders away, his lack of secondary skills became glaringly apparent. A completely empty hustle sheet further compounded his deeply negative overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Offense -1.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.0
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 13.8m -7.5
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.5

Operating strictly as a positional placeholder, he offered virtually zero offensive threat during his brief stint. While he managed to secure a few loose balls to keep his hustle metrics afloat, his inability to pressure the rim allowed the defense to ignore him. The lack of offensive gravity ultimately resulted in a net-negative shift.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.0%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.5m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 12.5m -6.8
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.2

A brief and ineffective stint highlighted his ongoing struggles to initiate productive offense. Hesitancy to attack the paint allowed the defense to dictate terms, stalling out multiple possessions. His inability to tilt the floor offensively drove a sharp negative impact in very limited action.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg -19.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.1m
Offense -3.7
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.7
Raw total -2.3
Avg player in 7.1m -3.9
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3