GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAC Sacramento Kings
S Maxime Raynaud 36.4m
22
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.9

Pick-and-roll mastery defined this highly efficient outing, as he consistently punished drop coverages with decisive dives to the rim. He paired this offensive clinic with excellent verticality on defense, contributing to a robust defensive rating. His ability to seal deep in the paint forced multiple defensive collapses that opened up the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 10/13 (76.9%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.5%
USG% 20.2%
Net Rtg +4.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +18.1
Hustle +5.3
Defense +5.7
Raw total +29.1
Avg player in 36.4m -21.2
Impact +7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 29
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 41.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S DeMar DeRozan 31.9m
10
pts
0
reb
8
ast
Impact
-10.8

Uncharacteristic passivity as a scorer allowed the defense to stay home on shooters, completely short-circuiting the half-court offense. The severe plunge into a deep negative net impact suggests his playmaking attempts were heavily telegraphed, likely resulting in deflections and live-ball turnovers. He was repeatedly targeted in pick-and-roll switches, bleeding points that his low-volume scoring couldn't offset.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +1.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.8
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 31.9m -18.6
Impact -10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
14
pts
15
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.3

Dominated the painted area through sheer physicality, establishing a tone with an elite defensive impact score. His relentless work on the glass secured extra possessions and consistently denied second-chance opportunities for the opponent. This interior dominance perfectly neutralized the opposing frontcourt during a grind-it-out third quarter.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.4%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -1.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +3.6
Defense +7.1
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 28.4m -16.6
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Nique Clifford 26.6m
7
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.1

Despite logging solid defensive metrics, his overall impact sank due to an extreme reluctance to shoot the basketball. Opposing defenders blatantly ignored him on the perimeter, which completely disrupted the team's spacing and driving lanes. The negative net rating is a direct reflection of playing a man down offensively during his extended stretches on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg +9.4
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.1
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 26.6m -15.5
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Killian Hayes 12.4m
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.3

Offensive hesitation and poor shot selection from the mid-range severely damaged the second unit's rhythm. His inability to collapse the defense or create separation led to stagnant, late-clock situations that fueled opponent transition runs. Even a mildly positive defensive effort couldn't salvage a stint defined by offensive paralysis.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 12.4m -7.2
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Malik Monk 29.9m
32
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
+4.1

A blistering perimeter shooting display carried the offense, but his actual net impact was severely muted by defensive inattention. He frequently lost his man off the ball and gambled in passing lanes, allowing backdoor cuts that kept the opponent in the game. The sheer volume of his scoring masked a highly volatile two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 7/13 (53.8%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.3%
USG% 34.7%
Net Rtg +6.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +19.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.4
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 29.9m -17.5
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
Devin Carter 27.1m
16
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.7

Poor shot selection from beyond the arc routinely bailed out the defense and killed offensive momentum. While he battled defensively at the point of attack, his erratic decision-making in transition led to empty possessions. The heavy negative impact stems directly from forcing contested looks early in the shot clock.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg -1.8
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.4
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 27.1m -15.9
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
9
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.2

Capitalized on defensive miscommunications to find easy catch-and-shoot opportunities, maximizing his offensive touches. However, his heavy feet on the perimeter resulted in a negative defensive score as quicker forwards consistently beat him off the bounce. He managed to stay in the positive overall strictly because his offensive execution was flawlessly timed.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.7%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +3.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense -1.9
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 16.6m -9.7
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
9
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.7

Elite floor spacing and quick-trigger shooting provided a reliable release valve, but he gave those points right back on the other end. Opponents relentlessly hunted him in isolation, easily bypassing his closeouts to compromise the defensive shell. His specialized offensive role simply couldn't outpace the defensive bleeding he caused.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 112.5%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +17.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.2
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 16.2m -9.5
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.2

Provided a sturdy but unspectacular screening presence that kept the offense on schedule without demanding touches. He struggled slightly with the pace of the game, occasionally arriving late to weak-side rotations. Ultimately, his stint was a wash, defined by basic execution rather than game-changing plays.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg +33.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.1
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 14.6m -8.5
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
BKN Brooklyn Nets
S Drake Powell 27.7m
8
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.0

Severe defensive breakdowns at the point of attack dragged his overall impact deep into the red despite decent offensive flow. Opposing guards repeatedly exploited his closeouts, negating any value he provided through secondary playmaking. The massive gap between his box metrics and actual net impact points directly to off-ball rotational errors and missed assignments.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -7.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense -2.1
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 27.7m -16.1
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Terance Mann 26.1m
5
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.9

Relentless energy on the margins yielded a massive positive hustle rating through loose ball recoveries and timely deflections. However, his overall impact plunged into the negative due to offensive stagnation and spacing issues when operating off the ball. His reluctance to attack closeouts allowed the defense to sag and clog the paint, stalling out multiple possessions.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg -10.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +6.9
Defense +0.4
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 26.1m -15.2
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Nolan Traore 26.1m
17
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.8

An aggressive downhill scoring mentality masked underlying inefficiencies in game management, resulting in a slightly negative net rating. While he found success attacking drop coverage, forced passes in traffic likely resulted in momentum-killing live-ball turnovers. The raw production was there, but situational awareness was lacking during crucial second-half stretches.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.8%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg +0.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.4
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 26.1m -15.2
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ziaire Williams 21.7m
18
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.8

A highly efficient scoring burst fueled a strong positive rating, but his perimeter length on the other end was just as vital. He consistently disrupted passing lanes to generate an elite defensive impact score. This two-way versatility perfectly capitalized on transition opportunities created by his own stops.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +2.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.0
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 21.7m -12.8
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Danny Wolf 12.4m
9
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.7

Anchored the interior during his brief stint, using his size to alter shots and secure a standout defensive rating. His decisive screening and quick rolling actions kept the offensive flow intact. The backup unit thrived specifically because he avoided foul trouble while contesting vertically at the rim.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 32.0%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.9
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 12.4m -7.3
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
18
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+16.2

Dominated the flow of the game by combining elite shot selection with suffocating point-of-attack defense. His massive defensive metric reflects a relentless pattern of blowing up dribble hand-offs and forcing opposing guards out of their sets. This was a masterclass in two-way efficiency that stabilized the entire perimeter rotation.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 95.3%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -9.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +19.6
Hustle +5.8
Defense +7.9
Raw total +33.3
Avg player in 29.3m -17.1
Impact +16.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
Ben Saraf 29.3m
22
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.4

High-volume rim pressure generated plenty of raw production, but a complete inability to connect from deep severely cramped the floor for his teammates. The massive drop-off from his box score metrics to his modest net impact suggests his misses often sparked opponent transition opportunities. He settled for contested floaters rather than keeping the ball moving against set defenses.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.7%
USG% 33.8%
Net Rtg -3.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense +2.3
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 29.3m -17.1
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
E.J. Liddell 28.5m
1
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-9.1

Completely cratered the team's offensive spacing by passing up open looks and failing to convert around the basket. Although he provided excellent weak-side rim protection, playing essentially four-on-five on the other end proved insurmountable. His inability to punish mismatches allowed the defense to freely double the primary ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 0/5 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 8.5%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg -1.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense -1.0
Hustle +2.0
Defense +6.5
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 28.5m -16.6
Impact -9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
7
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.2

Passive offensive positioning and a tendency to drift away from the action limited his overall effectiveness. He struggled to contain dribble penetration, leading to a negative defensive score that wiped out his modest hustle contributions. The performance was defined by a lack of assertiveness during a crucial second-quarter stint where the offense stalled.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg +7.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +2.3
Defense -1.4
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 16.5m -9.6
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
14
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.1

Provided an immediate offensive jolt by hunting catch-and-shoot opportunities in early offense. His flawless perimeter execution forced the defense to completely alter their weak-side rotations, opening up the paint for others. Even with slight defensive liabilities, his floor-spacing gravity made him a massive net positive in a short shift.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 4/4 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 116.7%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -2.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.8
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 13.2m -7.6
Impact +6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.6

Operated strictly as a low-usage floor spacer during his brief cameo, rarely factoring into the primary actions. He executed his basic defensive assignments without gambling, keeping his overall impact slightly above water. The stint was entirely defined by risk-averse, mistake-free basketball that neither helped nor hurt the overarching game plan.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 104.2%
USG% 4.8%
Net Rtg -25.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.3m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 9.3m -5.5
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0