GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAC Sacramento Kings
S Maxime Raynaud 41.6m
32
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.7

Dominating the offensive glass and exploiting drop coverages fueled a massive offensive rating. Despite carrying a heavy workload, fatigue late in the game led to a few costly defensive miscommunications that slightly capped his ceiling.

Shooting
FG 13/25 (52.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.8%
USG% 30.2%
Net Rtg -29.3
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.6m
Offense +19.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense +5.6
Raw total +27.5
Avg player in 41.6m -22.8
Impact +4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Nique Clifford 36.7m
15
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
-2.7

Sloppy live-ball turnovers in transition repeatedly handed the opponent easy run-outs. The playmaking volume masked poor decision-making in traffic, which ultimately dragged his team into a negative differential.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.7%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +2.4
Defense +3.9
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 36.7m -20.2
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.3

Forcing heavily contested shots at the rim instead of kicking out to open shooters torpedoed his offensive value. While his defensive switchability was solid, the empty offensive trips and poor shot selection sank his overall impact.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.2%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -37.5
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.8
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 29.6m -16.3
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
10
ast
Impact
-6.0

Erratic shot selection early in the shot clock and gambling for steals on defense repeatedly compromised the team's half-court shell. The resulting chaotic pace played directly into the opponent's hands, negating the value of his high assist volume.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -56.6
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +6.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 24.6m -13.5
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S DeMar DeRozan 16.9m
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.3

Stagnant isolation possessions completely killed the team's ball movement and allowed the defense to set. Compounding the offensive struggles, he was repeatedly blown by on the perimeter, resulting in a disastrous net rating.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -83.2
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.8
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 16.9m -9.3
Impact -9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.1

Frequently driving into crowded gaps and coughing up the ball severely disrupted the offensive rhythm. Despite active hands on defense, those momentum-killing offensive possessions resulted in a heavy negative impact.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.9%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg -10.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.7
Raw total +7.3
Avg player in 28.0m -15.4
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
12
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.5

Elite off-ball movement warped the defense and created wide-open driving lanes for his teammates. However, his overall value was capped by being heavily targeted in isolation on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -20.1
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +1.0
Defense +3.5
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 24.7m -13.5
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.8

A complete lack of perimeter threat allowed defenders to pack the paint and ignore him entirely off the ball. Playing 4-on-5 offensively tanked his overall value, even though his point-of-attack defensive pressure remained solid.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +5.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense -0.7
Hustle +2.7
Defense +3.9
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 19.4m -10.7
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
7
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.1

Setting bruising screens freed up shooters and created valuable separation on the perimeter. Yet, a complete lack of offensive gravity allowed his defender to freely roam the paint, resulting in a perfectly neutral net impact.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -22.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.1
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 18.4m -10.0
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAS San Antonio Spurs
17
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.1

Perimeter gravity opened up driving lanes for teammates, heavily driving his positive offensive rating. However, late-game defensive miscommunications on switches kept his overall impact from matching his scoring efficiency.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 106.3%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +24.9
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.7
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 23.5m -13.0
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
18
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.9

Immense rim deterrence completely altered the opponent's shot profile, forcing them into contested mid-range pull-ups. Even on a quiet scoring night, his sheer defensive gravity dictated the flow of the half-court game.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 30.6%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.2
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 22.0m -12.1
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Harrison Barnes 21.7m
16
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.9

Punishing aggressive closeouts with decisive straight-line drives defined his highly efficient stint. His ability to hit timely corner jumpers stabilized the offense during a critical second-quarter run.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 114.3%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +46.9
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +14.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.8
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 21.7m -12.0
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S De'Aaron Fox 21.7m
15
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+8.0

Relentless downhill pressure compromised the opposing defensive shell right from the opening tip. Elite point-of-attack defense and disciplined screen navigation fueled a massive positive swing whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg +73.7
+/- +33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.8
Raw total +19.9
Avg player in 21.7m -11.9
Impact +8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Stephon Castle 21.5m
3
pts
1
reb
12
ast
Impact
-3.5

Defenders routinely went under screens and dared him to shoot, which severely bogged down the half-court spacing. While his passing vision was sharp, the resulting offensive stagnation and forced passes into traffic dragged his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 21.4%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg +24.4
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.2
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 21.5m -11.7
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
11
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.4

Opponents relentlessly targeted him on defensive switches, generating easy straight-line drives that bled points. This defensive bleeding completely negated the value of his perimeter shot-making.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +38.4
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.6
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 23.0m -12.6
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.3

High-motor closeouts and crisp weak-side rotations kept his defensive impact firmly in the green. Unfortunately, his offensive touch completely abandoned him, leading to empty possessions that neutralized his hustle.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +2.7
Defense +4.8
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 20.0m -11.0
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
18
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.5

Absorbing contact in the paint and finishing through traffic forced early defensive rotations all night. His bully-ball drives consistently generated high-quality looks for the perimeter unit.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.3%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg +28.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +14.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.5
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 19.8m -10.9
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Luke Kornet 19.5m
4
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.7

Flawless execution in drop coverage and verticality at the rim completely erased the opponent's interior attack. He compounded this defensive masterclass by keeping multiple possessions alive via crucial weak-side tip-outs.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg +20.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +2.7
Defense +6.7
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 19.5m -10.7
Impact +4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Dylan Harper 19.5m
15
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.0

Mature pick-and-roll pacing allowed him to systematically dismantle defensive switches. He rarely forced the issue, letting the game come to him and maintaining a highly efficient offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +2.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.0
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 19.5m -10.6
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Kelly Olynyk 14.2m
4
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.7

Brilliant connective passing from the high post unlocked backdoor cutting lanes that the defense never solved. His flawless positional awareness disrupted multiple offensive actions, proving that scoring isn't required to dominate a game's flow.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +26.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +6.1
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 14.2m -7.8
Impact +6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
1
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.5

Being a half-step slow on pick-and-roll coverages surrendered easy pocket passes and wide-open floaters. His inability to quickly recover effectively clogged the paint and stalled the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.4%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -47.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.5m
Offense -1.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.7
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 8.5m -4.6
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.8

Initiated offensive sets cleanly against second-unit pressure without forcing the issue during a brief rotation stint. Provided a stabilizing presence that kept the ball moving side-to-side.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +0.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense 0.0
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 5.0m -2.7
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0