GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAC LA Clippers
S Darius Garland 32.1m
25
pts
2
reb
10
ast
Impact
-4.5

A staggering number of empty offensive possessions caused by forced, low-percentage jumpers heavily penalized his total rating. Even with solid hustle metrics and active hands on defense, his inability to efficiently orchestrate the half-court offense cratered his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 9/21 (42.9%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.0%
USG% 36.1%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +3.8
Defense +3.0
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 32.1m -17.1
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 8
S John Collins 25.5m
11
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.9

High-quality shot selection around the basket and strong positional rebounding anchored a solid positive rating. His ability to consistently finish through contact in the paint provided a reliable offensive anchor that stabilized the frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.9%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -36.1
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.4
Raw total +15.5
Avg player in 25.5m -13.6
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.9

Forcing contested shots early in the shot clock severely damaged his offensive efficiency and dragged his total impact into the negative. While his point-of-attack defense and disruption in the passing lanes were excellent, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.2%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -21.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.2
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 23.8m -12.7
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Brook Lopez 23.6m
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.2

A complete lack of offensive involvement nearly erased the value of his elite rim deterrence. He managed to stay slightly positive by anchoring the drop coverage and contesting everything in the paint, even as his scoring gravity vanished entirely.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 3.5%
Net Rtg -30.0
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +3.3
Defense +6.7
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 23.6m -12.5
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
S Kris Dunn 22.9m
9
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.1

Despite decent perimeter shooting and solid on-ball pressure, his overall impact slipped into the red due to negative margins elsewhere. A failure to control the tempo and occasional defensive over-rotations undercut what was otherwise an efficient scoring night.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.5%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -25.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +2.6
Defense +2.3
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 22.9m -12.2
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
16
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.3

Settling for contested mid-range pull-ups and failing to stretch the floor severely bogged down the team's spacing, leading to a heavily negative rating. His lack of off-ball movement allowed the defense to load up on the strong side, neutralizing his otherwise decent defensive effort.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.6%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -5.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.6
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 34.3m -18.2
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
22
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+15.1

Flawless shot selection and relentless off-ball cutting generated a massive offensive explosion that single-handedly drove his elite impact score. By consistently finding the soft spots in the defense and finishing with incredible efficiency, he completely overwhelmed his primary matchups.

Shooting
FG 10/13 (76.9%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.8%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +5.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +26.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.3
Raw total +29.1
Avg player in 26.3m -14.0
Impact +15.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Kobe Sanders 16.9m
5
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.4

A lack of assertiveness on the offensive end allowed the defense to ignore him, stalling out several possessions and dragging his impact into the negative. While his on-ball defense remained sturdy, his hesitancy to attack closeouts hurt the team's overall offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +56.0
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.0
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 16.9m -9.1
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.9

Operating strictly within his role as a lob threat and rim runner allowed him to post a highly efficient, positive rating. His vertical spacing forced the defense to collapse, opening up the perimeter while he maintained strong positional discipline on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.4%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg +34.8
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.3
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 16.6m -8.9
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.7

Complete offensive invisibility and a failure to impact the game physically resulted in a deeply negative stint. He was repeatedly targeted in isolation sequences, offering no resistance while providing zero spacing value on the other end.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.7%
Net Rtg -25.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.1
Raw total +1.5
Avg player in 11.6m -6.2
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.6

Excellent weak-side defensive rotations salvaged his impact rating during a brief, inefficient offensive shift. He managed to stay in the green purely by blowing up opponent actions and maintaining structural integrity on defense.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 29.4%
Net Rtg +80.8
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.5m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +3.8
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 6.5m -3.4
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
SAS San Antonio Spurs
S Stephon Castle 36.3m
23
pts
7
reb
8
ast
Impact
+3.7

Exceptional offensive initiation and rim pressure generated a massive box-score advantage, masking otherwise quiet defensive and hustle metrics. His ability to consistently break down the primary defender at the point of attack was the engine for his positive overall rating.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 53.1%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg +8.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.3m
Offense +20.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total +22.9
Avg player in 36.3m -19.2
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Devin Vassell 35.4m
20
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.6

A massive offensive surge anchored his positive rating, driven by aggressive perimeter shot creation that overwhelmed the defense. His ability to hit contested looks from deep fueled a massive box-score contribution, though average defensive metrics kept his overall impact grounded.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.4%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg +2.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.4m
Offense +18.1
Hustle +2.8
Defense +1.5
Raw total +22.4
Avg player in 35.4m -18.8
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
21
pts
13
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.3

Elite rim protection and defensive deterrence drove his positive impact, completely altering the opponent's shot profile in the paint. However, settling for heavily contested perimeter jumpers dragged down his offensive efficiency and prevented a dominant overall rating.

Shooting
FG 9/20 (45.0%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 49.2%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg +12.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +4.0
Defense +10.8
Raw total +21.3
Avg player in 33.9m -18.0
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 47.6%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 3
S De'Aaron Fox 29.5m
18
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+3.2

Relentless downhill attacks and transition playmaking generated high-value looks for the offense, leading to a strong positive rating. Even with his perimeter shot completely abandoning him, his ability to collapse the defense and generate hustle plays kept his overall impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -1.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.0
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 29.5m -15.6
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
7
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.9

Despite providing excellent defensive resistance and strong hustle metrics, his overall impact slipped into the negative due to an inability to convert open looks. The lack of perimeter spacing he usually provides allowed the defense to sag, neutralizing the value of his high-level perimeter containment.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.5%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg -9.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +3.4
Defense +7.2
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 28.8m -15.3
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
8
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.5

A severe lack of offensive rhythm and poor shot selection tanked his overall rating. While he offered some minor defensive resistance, his inability to generate efficient offense or contribute on the hustle margins left a glaring hole in the second unit's production.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +11.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.0
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 21.9m -11.7
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
10
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.4

Benefiting from a sudden scoring surge fueled by high-percentage looks at the rim, he managed a near-neutral impact despite offering virtually zero defensive resistance. His lack of hustle plays and poor weak-side rotations prevented his offensive breakout from translating into a positive overall rating.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 70.6%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg +29.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.4
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 20.7m -11.0
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.0

Defensive lapses and poor rotational awareness dragged his overall impact into the red. Although he managed to knock down a couple of timely perimeter shots, his inability to stay in front of his matchup negated any offensive value he provided.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +2.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense -1.6
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 17.8m -9.5
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.2

Steady ball security and a timely perimeter make allowed him to tread water during his rotation minutes. He executed the offensive sets without forcing the issue, resulting in a perfectly neutral, mistake-free shift.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg +56.2
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.7m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 9.7m -5.2
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.2

High-energy screen setting and offensive rebounding in a brief stint provided a quick jolt to the team's overall rating. He maximized his limited minutes by generating extra possessions, completely overshadowing his minor defensive shortcomings.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg -52.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.9m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +2.9
Defense -1.3
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 5.9m -3.2
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0