GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAC LA Clippers
S Darius Garland 37.2m
20
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-7.2

Over-dribbling into crowded paint areas resulted in low-quality floaters and derailed the offensive flow. Despite showing impressive defensive tenacity at the point of attack, his inability to manipulate the pick-and-roll effectively stalled out multiple possessions. The sheer volume of inefficient attempts overshadowed his solid hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.6%
USG% 30.3%
Net Rtg -8.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +3.6
Defense +4.2
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 37.2m -19.0
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 5
S Brook Lopez 35.8m
18
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.9

Anchoring the paint masterfully by dropping deep and swallowing up floaters drove his defensive value, but a trigger-happy approach from deep yielded diminishing returns. Firing away on contested trail threes resulted in several long rebounds and opponent fast breaks. His defensive deterrence was elite, yet the shot selection kept his overall impact grounded.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.3%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg -15.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Offense +14.8
Hustle +2.2
Defense +4.1
Raw total +21.1
Avg player in 35.8m -18.2
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 1
S Kawhi Leonard 35.5m
23
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.2

A brutal shooting night from the perimeter was salvaged by his trademark suffocating isolation defense. He consistently denied entry passes and disrupted the opponent's primary offensive hub. While the missed jumpers hurt the spacing, his sheer physical presence and mid-range gravity kept the offense afloat.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.3%
USG% 29.7%
Net Rtg -9.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +12.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense +6.9
Raw total +20.2
Avg player in 35.5m -18.0
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S John Collins 31.2m
17
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.5

Flawless execution as a pick-and-pop threat completely shattered the opponent's drop coverage scheme. He capitalized on every defensive mistake, finishing with authority at the rim while providing timely weak-side rim protection. This hyper-efficient scoring clinic was the driving force behind the team's half-court success.

Shooting
FG 7/8 (87.5%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 106.3%
USG% 12.7%
Net Rtg -11.2
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +20.5
Hustle +2.3
Defense +3.6
Raw total +26.4
Avg player in 31.2m -15.9
Impact +10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.7

Offensive invisibility severely hampered the starting unit's spacing, as defenders aggressively sagged off him to clog the driving lanes. He tried to compensate by crashing the glass and flying around in the passing lanes, generating a few extra possessions. Being a complete non-threat with the ball negated his high-energy defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.4%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg +9.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.4
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 23.4m -11.8
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
16
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.7

Slicing through defensive gaps with perfectly timed baseline cuts generated a series of highly efficient scoring opportunities. He paired this smart off-ball movement with disciplined closeouts, refusing to bite on pump fakes. A remarkably clean two-way performance provided a massive spark for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +3.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.7
Raw total +21.3
Avg player in 24.9m -12.6
Impact +8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-14.3

Forcing highly contested mid-range pull-ups derailed the offense and allowed the defense to easily reset. His tendency to ball-watch on the defensive end led to critical back-door cuts and blown assignments during a disastrous second-quarter stretch. The combination of tunnel vision and defensive lapses created a massive negative swing.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 28.6%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg -37.8
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense -3.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.6
Raw total -3.0
Avg player in 22.4m -11.3
Impact -14.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Kris Dunn 19.9m
3
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.5

Harassing opposing guards with relentless ball pressure completely disrupted their offensive timing. However, his hesitance to shoot open catch-and-shoot looks bogged down the half-court execution. The defensive intensity was palpable, but his offensive passivity allowed the defense to play five-on-four.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg -27.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.8
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 19.9m -10.2
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

Floating around the perimeter without making any decisive actions characterized his brief, unimpactful stint. He failed to execute basic swing passes quickly enough, allowing the defense to recover and reset. A completely passive stretch dragged down the lineup's offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.6m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.8
Avg player in 5.6m -2.8
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.9

Maximized a fleeting appearance by attacking a mismatch and finishing strongly through contact. He showed good awareness by staying attached to his man in transition defense. A quick, productive burst of energy at the end of the rotation.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 75.0%
Net Rtg +75.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.4m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.3
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 1.4m -0.7
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Barely broke a sweat during a garbage-time cameo. He failed to record any meaningful actions on either end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +75.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.4m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.4m -0.7
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.2

Managed to deliver a crisp hit-ahead pass to generate a transition look during his brief time on the court. Otherwise, he stayed out of the way and ran the clock down.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +75.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.4m
Offense +0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 1.4m -0.7
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Deni Avdija 34.1m
28
pts
11
reb
8
ast
Impact
+11.3

Dominant downhill aggression fueled a massive positive impact, consistently collapsing the defense to create high-value looks. His defensive versatility disrupted multiple actions on the perimeter, though a few forced passes in traffic slightly capped his ceiling. Overall, his ability to dictate the tempo in the half-court set the tone for the offense.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 11/12 (91.7%)
Advanced
TS% 69.0%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +24.1
Hustle +1.5
Defense +3.0
Raw total +28.6
Avg player in 34.1m -17.3
Impact +11.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Toumani Camara 32.6m
17
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.9

Relentless point-of-attack defense and active hands in the passing lanes drove his positive value. Settling for heavily contested perimeter jumpers rather than attacking closeouts dragged down his overall efficiency. His energy remained a constant disruptor, particularly during a crucial third-quarter stretch where he blew up consecutive dribble hand-offs.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.1%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +3.0
Defense +4.5
Raw total +20.6
Avg player in 32.6m -16.7
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jrue Holiday 31.8m
30
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+8.6

Elite shot-making from beyond the arc punished defensive drop coverages and stretched the floor beautifully. He paired this offensive explosion with suffocating perimeter defense, completely neutralizing his primary assignment in isolation. A few uncharacteristic live-ball turnovers in the second half were the only blemishes on a masterclass performance.

Shooting
FG 10/21 (47.6%)
3PT 7/15 (46.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.2%
USG% 31.6%
Net Rtg +5.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +17.6
Hustle +2.3
Defense +5.0
Raw total +24.9
Avg player in 31.8m -16.3
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Donovan Clingan 28.9m
4
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.8

Despite providing excellent rim deterrence, his offensive limitations severely cramped the floor. Failing to finish through contact on the interior resulted in empty possessions that allowed the opponent to leak out in transition. A lack of scoring gravity ultimately made him a liability on the other end, negating his solid screen-setting.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -24.1
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +3.7
Defense +3.0
Raw total +7.9
Avg player in 28.9m -14.7
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 43.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Scoot Henderson 28.8m
15
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.8

Poor shot selection and an inability to finish over length at the rim cratered his overall impact. While he managed to hit a few timely perimeter shots, his struggles to read weak-side rotations led to stagnant offensive possessions. Defensively, he frequently died on screens, forcing teammates into difficult scramble situations.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.4%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg -3.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.6
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 28.8m -14.6
Impact -9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
Kris Murray 31.1m
7
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
-2.3

Clanking multiple wide-open corner threes allowed the defense to completely ignore him and pack the paint. He mitigated some of the offensive damage by making smart extra passes and maintaining solid defensive positioning. The inability to capitalize on floor-spacing opportunities ultimately resulted in a net negative outing.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.1%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +32.8
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.7
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 31.1m -15.8
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.4

Spectacular off-ball defensive instincts generated critical deflections and blew up multiple backdoor actions. Unfortunately, his complete lack of offensive assertiveness allowed defenders to aggressively double-team the ball-handlers. He remains a situational weapon whose defensive brilliance is nearly offset by his offensive invisibility.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +2.4
Defense +7.5
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 23.9m -12.2
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
6
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.8

Vertical spacing and elite rim protection anchored the second unit during his highly efficient minutes. He executed his role flawlessly by finishing lobs and rotating perfectly as the low man to erase drives. Providing a steadying physical presence inside without demanding touches maximized his value.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.2%
Net Rtg +58.5
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.3
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 18.0m -9.1
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.6

Looking completely out of rhythm during his brief stint, he rushed a pair of contested attempts early in the shot clock. His defensive rotations were a half-step slow, leading to easy driving lanes for the opposition. He failed to leverage his athleticism to generate any meaningful advantages.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg +25.9
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.5m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.7
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 8.5m -4.2
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Caleb Love 1.1m
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.0

Making the most of a garbage-time cameo, he decisively attacked a closeout for a quick bucket. He stayed disciplined within the defensive scheme rather than gambling for steals. A brief but entirely positive sequence of execution defined his night.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.1m
Offense +2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 1.1m -0.6
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
0.0

Logging an empty minute of floor time, he did not register any meaningful statistics. He maintained proper spacing on offense and stayed attached to his man defensively. He simply blended into the background during the final possessions.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 1.1m -0.6
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0