GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAC Sacramento Kings
S Maxime Raynaud 35.7m
30
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.1

Exploited mismatches in the post and stretched the floor beautifully, punishing the defense with a highly efficient shot selection. His ability to hit trail threes forced opposing bigs to step out, creating massive driving lanes during a pivotal fourth-quarter run. He maintained active hands on defense to secure deflections (+2.9 Hustle), rounding out a highly productive shift.

Shooting
FG 11/17 (64.7%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -34.0
+/- -29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Offense +28.1
Hustle +2.9
Defense +1.4
Raw total +32.4
Avg player in 35.7m -21.3
Impact +11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
12
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.7

Provided stellar rim protection and switchability (+8.4 Def), constantly blowing up plays before they reached the paint. However, his massive defensive contributions were undone by offensive fouls on moving screens and fumbled interior passes. The stark contrast between his defensive dominance and offensive clumsiness during the second half resulted in a negative net impact.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 6/10 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.8%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg -7.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +3.2
Defense +8.4
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 33.8m -20.0
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Daeqwon Plowden 31.5m
20
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.1

Caught fire from the perimeter, utilizing off-ball screens to find pockets of space for high-quality catch-and-shoot looks. Despite the scoring punch, his impact was neutralized by poor transition defense and a failure to secure defensive rebounds. He gave back almost every point he scored by losing track of his man in the half-court during the second half.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -31.9
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +14.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.5
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 31.5m -18.7
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 76.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
-9.1

Pushed the tempo relentlessly, but erratic decision-making in the open floor resulted in back-breaking live-ball turnovers that fueled opponent runs. His gambling on defense yielded some spectacular steals (+5.5 Def) but frequently compromised the team's shell. The chaotic style generated assists but ultimately derailed the offense's half-court rhythm down the stretch.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.8%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -40.5
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +5.5
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 26.7m -15.9
Impact -9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 4
S DeMar DeRozan 23.4m
13
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-5.1

Scoring efficiency was entirely negated by a tendency to hold the ball too long, stalling the offensive system and leading to late-clock turnovers. Was frequently targeted in the pick-and-roll, where his slow navigation over screens compromised the entire defensive rotation. A pattern of ball-stopping in the third quarter severely limited his overall game impact.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -48.7
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.9
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 23.4m -13.9
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
11
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

Constant off-ball motion provided necessary floor spacing, drawing defenders away from the primary actions. However, he was ruthlessly targeted in isolation on the other end, bleeding points via blow-by drives and costly shooting fouls. The defensive bleeding during a rough second-quarter stretch ultimately outweighed the gravity his shooting provided.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +3.2
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +1.0
Defense +4.6
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 30.9m -18.4
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 21.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.5

A barrage of missed floaters and heavily contested pull-ups destroyed his offensive value, acting as empty possessions. Opposing defenses completely sagged off him, which ruined the team's spacing and bogged down half-court execution. He salvaged minor value by fighting over screens defensively (+2.6 Def), but the atrocious shot selection dictated his negative impact.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.1%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg +11.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Offense -2.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.6
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 21.3m -12.6
Impact -10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
9
pts
13
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.8

Dominated the glass on both ends, consistently generating second-chance opportunities by out-muscling opponents for positioning (+3.5 Hustle). He set bone-crushing screens that freed up the guards and rolled with purpose to collapse the defense without committing offensive fouls. His sheer physical presence and relentless motor set the tone for the second unit's dominance.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.7%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -11.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +16.7
Hustle +3.5
Defense +1.2
Raw total +21.4
Avg player in 21.2m -12.6
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Malik Monk 15.5m
4
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.9

Attempted to playmake out of the pick-and-roll but forced too many tight-window passes that resulted in empty trips and transition points the other way. His shot selection was highly questionable, taking contested off-the-dribble jumpers early in the clock. While he scrambled well for loose balls (+3.3 Hustle), his inability to stay in front of his man defensively during a key third-quarter run proved costly.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg +8.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +3.3
Defense -0.3
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 15.5m -9.3
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S VJ Edgecombe 38.9m
38
pts
7
reb
11
ast
Impact
+23.0

Delivered a masterclass in offensive initiation, generating massive value through high-leverage assists and zero wasted possessions. His downhill pressure collapsed the defense repeatedly, leading to a barrage of wide-open corner looks for teammates. He paired this with elite passing-lane disruption (+4.7 Def) to completely dictate the game's tempo in the third quarter.

Shooting
FG 16/28 (57.1%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.8%
USG% 29.4%
Net Rtg +51.1
+/- +44
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.9m
Offense +37.6
Hustle +3.8
Defense +4.7
Raw total +46.1
Avg player in 38.9m -23.1
Impact +23.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Dominick Barlow 34.3m
12
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.0

Impact was buoyed by high-value hustle plays (+3.5), particularly his knack for keeping possessions alive via offensive tip-outs. However, his overall net score was dragged down by poor pick-and-roll coverage that allowed easy pocket passes. A late-game stretch of blown defensive assignments prevented a much higher total.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 11.0%
Net Rtg +41.9
+/- +31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.3m
Offense +16.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.3
Raw total +22.4
Avg player in 34.3m -20.4
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
S Justin Edwards 33.2m
32
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
+14.5

Offensive impact skyrocketed due to impeccable shot selection, punishing late closeouts with highly efficient perimeter execution. His ability to hunt the switch and abuse smaller defenders in isolation defined the team's mid-game run. Defensively, he avoided cheap fouls while maintaining heavy ball pressure (+4.6 Def).

Shooting
FG 11/18 (61.1%)
3PT 7/11 (63.6%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.8%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg +63.8
+/- +47
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +28.1
Hustle +1.5
Defense +4.6
Raw total +34.2
Avg player in 33.2m -19.7
Impact +14.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Quentin Grimes 31.8m
27
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+2.8

Scoring volume masked a negative impact from several live-ball turnovers that fueled opponent fast breaks. His shot selection was stellar when spotting up, but forcing contested drives into traffic dragged down his efficiency. A pattern of getting caught on off-ball screens defensively limited his overall net positive.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 59.6%
USG% 29.3%
Net Rtg +14.2
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +18.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.1
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 31.8m -18.9
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Adem Bona 20.4m
8
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.9

Anchored the interior with flawless verticality, avoiding foul costs while completely deterring shots at the rim (+6.2 Def). His relentless pursuit of loose balls (+4.0 Hustle) generated crucial extra possessions during a gritty second-quarter stretch. The lack of turnovers and high-percentage finishing maximized his brief time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.0%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg +36.6
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +4.0
Defense +6.2
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 20.4m -12.0
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
13
pts
11
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.4

Shocked the defense by stepping out to hit trail threes, completely warping the opponent's drop coverage scheme. His massive defensive impact (+4.9) was driven by pristine positioning that eliminated second-chance points without drawing foul costs. A dominant third-quarter rebounding stretch essentially sealed the interior.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +25.5
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.9
Raw total +22.7
Avg player in 24.0m -14.3
Impact +8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
4
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.4

Faded into the background offensively by refusing to attack closeouts, which allowed the defense to comfortably pack the paint. His negative overall impact was driven by poor closeout angles that surrendered straight-line drives to the rim. A pattern of being late on weak-side rotations consistently put his teammates in foul trouble.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 7.0%
Net Rtg +52.8
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.3m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.7
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 16.3m -9.6
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.5

Offensive struggles from missed perimeter shots were entirely offset by his absolute menace as a point-of-attack defender (+6.4 Def). He blew up multiple dribble hand-offs and generated key deflections (+2.4 Hustle) to steal extra possessions. His relentless harassment of the opposing point guard defined his impactful, albeit scoreless, shift.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.7%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -67.5
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.6m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +2.4
Defense +6.4
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 12.6m -7.5
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.0

Severely damaged the offense by passing up open looks and driving into heavily congested paint areas, leading to costly turnovers. His defensive metrics plummeted (-2.0) after repeatedly biting on pump fakes and committing bad fouls. A stark departure from his recent efficiency, defined by hesitant and erratic decision-making in the first quarter.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -65.7
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.0m
Offense -4.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense -2.0
Raw total -5.0
Avg player in 10.0m -6.0
Impact -11.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Kyle Lowry 8.5m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.1

Struggled to generate any offensive advantage, stalling the offense with over-dribbling that resulted in late-clock violations. While he managed to draw a trademark charge to slightly boost his defensive score, his inability to navigate ball screens proved fatal. The unit's spacing and pace completely evaporated during his second-quarter minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg -105.0
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.5m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.4
Raw total -1.0
Avg player in 8.5m -5.1
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.7

Impact cratered immediately due to forced, low-quality shots early in the clock that functioned as live-ball turnovers. He failed to register a single hustle play, allowing opponents to win every 50/50 ball during his brief stint. Was completely exposed in isolation during a disastrous first-quarter rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -64.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Offense -1.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.9
Raw total -2.1
Avg player in 6.0m -3.6
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.0

Rushed his offensive attempts during a very short rotation, settling for contested mid-range pull-ups rather than moving the ball. Offered zero resistance at the point of attack, allowing opposing guards to easily turn the corner and collapse the paint. Failed to register a single hustle play to justify his time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.0m
Offense -1.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.7
Avg player in 4.0m -2.3
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0