Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

Every shot, every lead change, every rotation — visualized.

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
LAC lead TOR lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
TOR 2P — 3P —
LAC 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 178 attempts

TOR TOR Shot-making Δ

Barrett 5/19 -9.5
Ingram Hard 8/18 +1.8
Barnes 4/11 -2.0
Poeltl Open 5/9 -0.5
Shead Hard 3/9 -1.4
Mamukelashvili Hard 5/7 +5.9
Murray-Boyles Open 5/7 +1.2
Battle Hard 1/4 -0.8
Dick Hard 0/4 -3.6
Walter 2/3 +1.6

LAC LAC Shot-making Δ

Leonard Hard 9/19 +2.5
Garland Hard 9/16 +7.5
Mathurin 7/14 +0.3
Lopez Hard 5/10 +3.2
Jackson Open 6/6 +3.8
Batum Hard 3/4 +4.8
Sanders Hard 2/4 +2.1
Jones Jr. 1/4 -2.5
Pedulla Hard 0/2 -1.7
Collins 0/2 -2.5
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
TOR
LAC
40/96 Field Goals 42/82
41.7% Field Goal % 51.2%
10/29 3-Pointers 16/35
34.5% 3-Point % 45.7%
4/11 Free Throws 19/24
36.4% Free Throw % 79.2%
46.6% True Shooting % 64.3%
55 Total Rebounds 53
15 Offensive 10
31 Defensive 39
28 Assists 24
2.55 Assist/TO Ratio 2.18
11 Turnovers 10
8 Steals 7
4 Blocks 12
20 Fouls 14
56 Points in Paint 42
12 Fast Break Pts 16
16 Points off TOs 16
14 Second Chance Pts 10
37 Bench Points 52
2 Largest Lead 29
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Bennedict Mathurin
23 PTS · 4 REB · 6 AST · 27.0 MIN
+19.65
2
Isaiah Jackson
12 PTS · 6 REB · 3 AST · 22.7 MIN
+19.61
3
Darius Garland
24 PTS · 4 REB · 6 AST · 30.1 MIN
+18.17
4
Brook Lopez
14 PTS · 5 REB · 0 AST · 25.3 MIN
+16.96
5
Kawhi Leonard
27 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 30.3 MIN
+15.86
6
Scottie Barnes
9 PTS · 8 REB · 12 AST · 30.7 MIN
+15.76
7
Sandro Mamukelashvili
13 PTS · 7 REB · 0 AST · 15.1 MIN
+13.29
8
Brandon Ingram
18 PTS · 6 REB · 4 AST · 35.7 MIN
+11.43
9
Nicolas Batum
9 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 14.6 MIN
+10.34
10
Collin Murray-Boyles
10 PTS · 5 REB · 0 AST · 23.7 MIN
+8.91
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:15 LAC shot clock Team TURNOVER 94–119
Q4 0:39 T. Jackson-Davis running DUNK (2 PTS) (J. Mogbo 1 AST) 94–119
Q4 0:47 G. Temple REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 92–119
Q4 0:47 MISS S. Pedulla 15' pullup Shot 92–119
Q4 0:57 C. Christie REBOUND (Off:1 Def:3) 92–119
Q4 0:58 MISS G. Temple 25' running 3PT 92–119
Q4 1:02 J. Battle REBOUND (Off:2 Def:3) 92–119
Q4 1:03 MISS B. Mathurin driving bank Shot 92–119
Q4 1:16 J. Mogbo 6' driving floating Jump Shot (4 PTS) 92–119
Q4 1:16 J. Mogbo REBOUND (Off:1 Def:0) 90–119
Q4 1:20 MISS G. Dick 24' running 3PT 90–119
Q4 1:21 J. Battle REBOUND (Off:2 Def:2) 90–119
Q4 1:24 MISS S. Pedulla 29' running pullup 3PT 90–119
Q4 1:30 C. Christie REBOUND (Off:1 Def:2) 90–119
Q4 1:33 MISS G. Dick 17' step back Shot 90–119

GAME ANALYSIS

KEEP READING

Create a free account and follow your team to get the full analysis every morning.

Create Free Account

Already have an account? Log in

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAC LA Clippers
S Kawhi Leonard 30.3m
27
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+17.3

Methodical isolation scoring and relentless physical defense drove a highly productive shift. He consistently punished mismatches in the mid-post, drawing double teams that compromised the opposing defensive shell. Active hands in the passing lanes further solidified his two-way dominance.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 59.9%
USG% 39.7%
Net Rtg +23.7
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Scoring +19.3
Creation +2.3
Shot Making +5.3
Hustle +4.7
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Darius Garland 30.1m
24
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+14.5

Sliced apart the defensive shell with lethal pull-up shooting and precise pick-and-roll orchestration. His ability to hit contested perimeter daggers consistently broke the opponent's momentum during critical runs. Careful ball security and elite shot-making fueled a highly efficient offensive engine.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.1%
USG% 31.3%
Net Rtg +21.7
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Scoring +18.1
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +7.0
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.3
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
2
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.1

Offensive invisibility severely handicapped the starting unit's spacing and flow. Defenders aggressively sagged off him on the perimeter, packing the paint and stifling his teammates' driving lanes. Even with solid on-ball defensive pressure, his offensive limitations proved too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg +21.0
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Scoring -0.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +7.9
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Brook Lopez 25.3m
14
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.7

Anchored the scheme with masterful drop coverage, completely deterring drives and forcing opponents into low-percentage floaters. His dual-threat ability to protect the rim and stretch the floor with deep trail threes warped the geometry of the game. This textbook two-way performance was the backbone of the team's success.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +15.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Scoring +10.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +1.5
Defense +5.3
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 2
BLK 5
TO 1
S John Collins 22.3m
0
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.5

An absolute void offensively, his inability to generate any scoring gravity allowed the defense to completely ignore him. Failing to capitalize on pick-and-pop actions bogged down the half-court spacing significantly. Despite decent effort on the defensive glass, the offensive dead weight dragged his rating into the abyss.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.1%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Scoring -1.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +6.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
23
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+17.8

Relentless downhill aggression constantly put the defense in rotation and generated high-value trips to the rim. He thrived in transition, punishing mismatched defenders before the half-court defense could set. This forceful scoring punch was the primary driver behind his stellar overall rating.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 8/11 (72.7%)
Advanced
TS% 61.0%
USG% 31.7%
Net Rtg +41.5
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Scoring +16.6
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +5.1
Defense +0.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Kris Dunn 24.4m
0
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.3

Completely abandoned scoring duties to focus entirely on suffocating point-of-attack defense. He hounded opposing ball-handlers relentlessly, blowing up handoffs and generating crucial deflections that disrupted the enemy's timing. This pure defensive specialization kept his impact firmly in the green despite zero offensive production.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.7%
Net Rtg +44.7
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +4.4
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
12
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+14.0

Dominated the interior with flawless finishing and explosive vertical spacing as a lob threat. His rim-running completely collapsed the opposing defense, while his weak-side shot alteration erased multiple scoring opportunities. Converting every single offensive look while anchoring the paint resulted in a monstrous net rating.

Shooting
FG 6/6 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg +29.7
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Scoring +12.0
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +6.7
Defense +1.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
9
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.4

Provided a masterclass in role-player efficiency by punishing defensive rotations with timely corner triples. His rapid ball-swinging kept the offense from stagnating, while his veteran positioning negated any athletic disadvantages on defense. A perfectly optimized low-usage, high-impact shift.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 112.5%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +5.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.6m
Scoring +8.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
6
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.0

Injected a quick burst of perimeter scoring during a short rotational stint. Hitting a pair of spot-up threes provided necessary spacing, though slight defensive misreads prevented his score from climbing higher. A functional, mildly positive cameo built entirely on shot-making.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +39.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.3m
Scoring +4.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-9.8

Rushed his offensive execution during garbage time, resulting in forced jumpers that failed to draw iron. The inability to organize the offense or create separation dragged down his brief appearance. A forgettable stretch defined by poor shot selection.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +45.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Scoring -1.5
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.5

Made his mark entirely through positional rebounding and smart ball movement without needing to look at the basket. Securing contested defensive boards instantly triggered transition opportunities for the second unit. A highly productive micro-shift driven purely by doing the dirty work.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +45.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +5.1
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
TOR Toronto Raptors
S Brandon Ingram 35.7m
18
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.0

Despite generating solid defensive metrics, his overall impact slipped into the red due to inefficient isolation possessions. A heavy volume of missed mid-range jumpers stalled the half-court offense during crucial stretches. The scoring output couldn't mask the negative value of his empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg -18.4
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Scoring +11.3
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +5.2
Hustle +4.7
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S RJ Barrett 31.9m
12
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.0

An abysmal shot profile completely cratered his overall value on the floor. Forcing contested looks early in the shot clock yielded a barrage of misses from beyond the arc, fueling the opponent's transition attack. The sheer volume of wasted possessions heavily outweighed any modest hustle contributions.

Shooting
FG 5/19 (26.3%)
3PT 0/7 (0.0%)
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.3%
USG% 30.1%
Net Rtg -38.3
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Scoring +0.6
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +5.7
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jamal Shead 31.4m
8
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.9

Tenacious point-of-attack defense (+6.6 Def) was completely overshadowed by erratic offensive decision-making. Stagnant half-court orchestration and forced drives into traffic resulted in empty trips that killed momentum. He gave back all his defensive value by failing to stabilize the second-unit offense.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -18.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Scoring +3.3
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +0.0
Defense +4.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Scottie Barnes 30.7m
9
pts
8
reb
12
ast
Impact
+10.7

Dictated the flow of the game as a primary hub, leveraging elite court vision to create high-quality looks for cutters. His exceptional defensive versatility (+8.2 Def) completely neutralized opposing wings on the perimeter. Constant activity on the margins firmly cemented his highly positive influence.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -9.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Scoring +3.7
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +2.2
Hustle +10.2
Defense +3.7
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jakob Poeltl 21.5m
10
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.8

Operated effectively as a screen-setter but struggled to anchor the paint against downhill drivers. Occasional defensive miscommunications in drop coverage allowed easy floaters, offsetting his reliable interior finishing. His overall footprint remained nearly neutral as the positive hustle plays balanced out the defensive leaks.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.6%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -27.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Scoring +5.8
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +6.7
Defense -2.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
10
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Delivered a perfectly neutral outing where highly efficient interior finishing was matched by subtle defensive lapses. He capitalized on dump-off passes effectively, yet struggled at times with his rotational timing on the weak side. The resulting balance of clean offensive execution and minor defensive mistakes left his overall footprint flat.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -45.2
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Scoring +8.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +5.4
Defense -1.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.7

Defensive struggles heavily weighed down his brief stint on the floor. Opposing guards routinely targeted him in space, exposing his slow lateral slides and generating easy blow-by opportunities. Even with a couple of clean looks falling on the other end, his inability to string together stops kept him in the negative.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg -51.4
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Scoring +4.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +0.3
Defense -3.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+10.1

Provided a massive spark off the bench by stretching the floor and punishing late closeouts. His pristine shot selection from the perimeter forced opposing bigs out of the paint, completely opening up the offense. This instant-offense stretch was the defining catalyst for his highly positive rating.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.4%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Scoring +10.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +7.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.6

Struggled to find a rhythm as a floor spacer, missing several wide-open catch-and-shoot opportunities that could have swung momentum. While he held up adequately on defensive switches, the lack of perimeter gravity hindered the unit's spacing. Ultimately, the empty offensive trips kept his overall value slightly below average.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +26.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.0m
Scoring +0.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +5.4
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.8

Failed to leave a meaningful imprint during his short rotation, largely operating as a passive offensive bystander. A lack of rim pressure allowed the defense to sag off and clog passing lanes for his teammates. The resulting offensive stagnation dragged his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.5%
Net Rtg -31.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.8m
Scoring -0.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.7

Maximized every second of his garbage-time minutes with high-energy rim runs and decisive passing. Quick decision-making in the short roll kept the offensive engine humming perfectly. This brief but flawless execution resulted in a disproportionately high positive rating.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -45.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +1.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.1

Logged a quiet handful of minutes that barely moved the needle in either direction. He executed his basic screening duties adequately but didn't assert himself on the glass or alter shots defensively. The resulting impact was a near-perfect flatline.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -45.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Scoring +1.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.7

Offered very little resistance or offensive utility during his brief appearance at the end of the rotation. A blown defensive assignment and a stagnant offensive possession highlighted a lackluster stint. The inability to inject any positive energy resulted in a quick dip in the overall metrics.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -45.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.7

A disastrous micro-shift was defined by a string of rushed, contested jumpers that short-circuited the offense. Firing blanks early in the shot clock handed immediate transition opportunities to the opposition. This reckless shot selection tanked his impact score in less than four minutes of action.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg -45.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Scoring -2.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0