GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAC LA Clippers
S Kawhi Leonard 24.8m
28
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+15.8

Suffocating isolation defense (+9.6) and relentless physical drives defined a dominant two-way masterclass. He consistently disrupted passing lanes and turned deflections into early offense, completely neutralizing the opponent's primary creator. Even with a streaky perimeter jumper, his sheer gravitational pull and defensive dominance dictated the entire game.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.8%
USG% 43.6%
Net Rtg +62.7
+/- +32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +17.1
Hustle +2.3
Defense +9.6
Raw total +29.0
Avg player in 24.8m -13.2
Impact +15.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
7
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.9

High-flying transition finishes and disruptive length on the perimeter fueled a modestly positive impact. He excelled as a cutter, finding soft spots in the zone to generate easy looks at the rim. While his outside shot wasn't falling, his vertical spacing and defensive versatility (+3.1) kept the momentum firmly in his team's favor.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 9.8%
Net Rtg +61.0
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.1
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 23.1m -12.3
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Brook Lopez 21.8m
19
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+16.8

A lethal combination of elite rim deterrence and spectacular floor spacing resulted in a monstrous net positive rating. He masterfully executed the drop coverage scheme while simultaneously punishing the defense with trailing perimeter daggers. His ability to dominate the paint defensively (+5.1) while operating as a primary spacing valve broke the opponent's game plan.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 5/6 (83.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 105.6%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +66.5
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +17.8
Hustle +5.5
Defense +5.1
Raw total +28.4
Avg player in 21.8m -11.6
Impact +16.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
S Nicolas Batum 21.4m
3
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.0

Elite weak-side rim protection and veteran rotational awareness (+6.3 defense) were unfortunately offset by a complete lack of offensive rhythm. He bricked several wide-open corner looks that allowed the defense to aggressively pack the paint against drivers. A brilliant defensive shift was ultimately undone by his inability to punish defensive help.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg +68.1
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +3.6
Defense +6.3
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 21.4m -11.3
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Darius Garland 18.1m
15
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
+5.6

Surgical precision in the pick-and-roll allowed him to carve up the defense and generate a highly positive net rating. He manipulated screens brilliantly, never forcing the issue and taking exactly what the drop coverage conceded. This calculated shot selection, paired with surprisingly active hands on defense (+2.9), resulted in a hyper-efficient shift.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 95.2%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg +68.1
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.1m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.9
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 18.1m -9.7
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Kobe Sanders 25.5m
19
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.6

A breakout offensive performance was fueled by decisive drives and elite shot-making against tight coverage. He capitalized on every defensive lapse, utilizing relentless off-ball movement to find open pockets on the perimeter. Combined with high-energy loose ball recoveries (+3.7 hustle), his aggressive mentality completely shifted the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 8/10 (80.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 95.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +9.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +3.7
Defense +2.4
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 25.5m -13.7
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
10
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.1

Despite finding success slashing to the basket, defensive miscommunications in transition pulled his overall impact slightly into the negative. He was consistently late on closeouts during a pivotal second-quarter run, allowing easy perimeter looks. The offensive efficiency was solid, but giving up uncontested lanes on the other end negated his scoring.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +37.5
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.2
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 21.4m -11.4
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Kris Dunn 21.0m
7
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.0

Relentless point-of-attack pressure completely derailed the opposing offense, heavily driving his positive impact score. He fought over every screen and generated multiple deflections (+2.5 hustle) that ignited fast breaks. Playing within himself offensively allowed his elite defensive metrics (+5.1) to shine without giving value back through turnovers.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.2%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg +63.3
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.1
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 21.0m -11.2
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.1

Exceptional vertical spacing and disciplined rim protection anchored a highly effective rotation off the bench. He refused to bite on pump fakes, maintaining verticality to alter shots and secure a strong defensive rating (+4.8). By strictly operating as a lob threat and garbage man, he maximized his efficiency without demanding touches.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +42.6
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.8
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 17.4m -9.3
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Cam Christie 15.8m
8
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.8

Smothering perimeter defense against the opponent's secondary creators drove a surprisingly high positive impact. He utilized his length to disrupt passing angles (+5.5 defense) and sparked multiple transition opportunities. Smart, opportunistic cuts to the basket ensured he added offensive value without needing plays called for him.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg -33.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense +5.5
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 15.8m -8.4
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.9

Stagnant ball movement and forced floaters in the lane heavily suppressed his overall effectiveness. He struggled to turn the corner against drop coverage, often settling for contested mid-range looks that bailed out the defense. While his effort fighting through screens was notable (+2.1 defense), the inability to orchestrate clean half-court sets proved detrimental.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -46.2
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.1
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 13.4m -7.2
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.3

A complete absence of hustle plays and poor defensive positioning (-0.9) quickly negated his brief scoring burst. He was repeatedly targeted on switches, giving up straight-line drives that compromised the entire defensive shell. The lack of physical resistance made him a net negative despite knocking down a couple of open jumpers.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -66.5
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.8m
Offense +3.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.9
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 8.8m -4.7
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.2

Forcing heavily contested jumpers early in the shot clock completely derailed the offensive rhythm during his short stint. His inability to create separation resulted in empty possessions that allowed the opposition to leak out in transition. Even with adequate defensive rotations, the offensive black hole he created tanked his net rating.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -71.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.6m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total -0.1
Avg player in 7.6m -4.1
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S Ryan Rollins 27.1m
13
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
-6.5

Elite point-of-attack defense and high-energy hustle plays (+3.2) were completely overshadowed by a brutal shooting performance. He dominated the ball but consistently forced contested mid-range jumpers, leading to empty possessions that ruined his net rating. The stark contrast between his defensive tenacity and offensive inefficiency defined his entire time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.6%
USG% 31.3%
Net Rtg -67.4
+/- -37
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +3.2
Defense +6.2
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 27.1m -14.5
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
S Ousmane Dieng 26.9m
7
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
-11.2

A sharp regression in scoring aggression severely limited his effectiveness, turning him into a non-threat on the wing. He passed up several open driving lanes, which bogged down the offensive flow and resulted in a staggering negative overall impact. Despite maintaining solid defensive fundamentals, his offensive hesitancy fundamentally broke the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -66.3
+/- -37
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.1
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 26.9m -14.4
Impact -11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Myles Turner 20.2m
7
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.8

Settling for low-percentage perimeter looks absolutely cratered his offensive value in this matchup. Although his rim protection and active rotations generated solid defensive metrics (+2.0), the inability to capitalize on pick-and-pop actions stalled the half-court offense. His tendency to drift outside rather than exploit mismatches inside defined a highly inefficient outing.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 42.1%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -54.0
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.0
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 20.2m -10.8
Impact -8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Taurean Prince 19.5m
5
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.2

Poor shot selection from beyond the arc heavily dragged down his overall impact metric. He repeatedly forced contested looks early in the shot clock, killing offensive momentum and fueling transition opportunities for the opponent. While he offered mild resistance on the wing defensively, the sheer volume of wasted possessions proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -58.3
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.3
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 19.5m -10.4
Impact -10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jericho Sims 19.4m
4
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.2

A complete lack of offensive aggression tanked his overall rating, as he floated on the perimeter instead of attacking the paint. His defensive positioning provided a slight positive (+2.7), but it couldn't salvage a highly passive stint. The sheer drop in scoring volume compared to his recent average left a massive void in the second unit's production.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg -57.6
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.7
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 19.4m -10.3
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Pete Nance 31.4m
11
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.3

A high volume of missed rotational assignments on the weak side ultimately dragged his net impact into the red. While he found a decent rhythm operating out of the high post, his inability to close out on perimeter shooters proved costly during a crucial third-quarter stretch. The offensive production was a mirage that masked significant defensive liabilities.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.8%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -24.4
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.7
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 31.4m -16.8
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
20
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.4

Scorching perimeter execution yielded a massive box score boost, yet his overall impact barely hovered below neutral. This discrepancy stems from defensive lapses off the ball, where he frequently lost his man on backdoor cuts. His elite catch-and-shoot rhythm kept the offense afloat, but defensive inattentiveness gave those points right back.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 76.9%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -19.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.8
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 31.1m -16.6
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
AJ Green 20.9m
15
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.6

Flawless shot selection and lethal floor spacing maximized his value in limited minutes. He capitalized on every defensive rotation by relocating perfectly along the perimeter, punishing the defense for trapping the ball handler. Added hustle plays to keep possessions alive cemented a highly efficient, high-impact outing.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 110.9%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +9.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +2.3
Defense +0.7
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 20.9m -11.1
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Bobby Portis 19.7m
11
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.0

Physical interior defense and active hands in the passing lanes drove a highly positive two-way performance. He anchored the second unit by aggressively challenging shots at the rim, which translated into a strong defensive rating (+3.5). Even with a few forced hooks in the post, his sheer energy and rotational awareness dictated the tempo.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.7%
USG% 27.7%
Net Rtg -60.0
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.5
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 19.7m -10.5
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-1.1

Extreme offensive passivity resulted in a negative overall rating, as he routinely deferred to teammates instead of attacking closeouts. His defensive lateral quickness and hustle (+1.9) were commendable, specifically when blowing up dribble hand-offs. However, playing essentially 4-on-5 on the offensive end neutralized his defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +35.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.0
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 16.2m -8.6
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.9

Erratic closeouts and over-aggressive fouling quickly derailed his brief stint on the floor. He brought his trademark chaotic energy (+1.3 hustle), but it manifested in blown coverages and out-of-control drives that stalled the offense. The lack of discipline on both ends made him a clear liability during his rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +71.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.6m
Offense -1.7
Hustle +1.3
Defense -0.5
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 7.6m -4.0
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1