GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAC LA Clippers
S Kawhi Leonard 31.7m
24
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+16.7

Total domination driven by lethal perimeter shot-making and elite defensive disruption (+6.5). He systematically dismantled his primary matchups, using his strength to create separation while generating crucial hustle plays (+3.1) to extend possessions. The staggering box score impact (+23.2) accurately reflects a player operating at the peak of his powers.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -9.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +23.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.5
Raw total +32.8
Avg player in 31.7m -16.1
Impact +16.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Darius Garland 29.0m
11
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-11.2

A catastrophic shot selection profile single-handedly torpedoed the offense during his minutes. He repeatedly forced action into heavy traffic, wasting possessions and fueling transition opportunities for the opponent. Even solid defensive effort (+3.2) couldn't salvage a performance defined by offensive tunnel vision and bricked threes.

Shooting
FG 5/17 (29.4%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.8%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg -36.6
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense -1.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.2
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 29.0m -14.8
Impact -11.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S John Collins 24.8m
15
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.1

Bully-ball inside the paint punished undersized defenders and drove a massive positive impact. He combined highly efficient finishing with strong defensive positioning (+2.9) to control the interior. Serving as a reliable release valve whenever the perimeter offense bogged down, he extended his streak of dominant shooting performances.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.5%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.9
Raw total +19.7
Avg player in 24.8m -12.6
Impact +7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Brook Lopez 24.0m
6
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.7

A brutal shooting performance completely cratered his overall value despite decent defensive metrics. He settled for contested outside looks instead of leveraging his size inside, bailing out the defense repeatedly. The steady hustle (+3.0) couldn't mask the damage caused by his offensive inefficiency and poor shot selection.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -22.2
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +3.0
Defense +2.0
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 24.0m -12.2
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.9

Offensive ineptitude and a lack of meaningful hustle (+0.6) severely penalized his court time. While he provided some defensive resistance (+2.1), his inability to convert open looks crippled the team's spacing. The continuing trend of poor shooting allowed opponents to completely ignore him on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.1
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 23.8m -12.1
Impact -7.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
18
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+10.7

Relentless downhill attacking paired with spectacular defensive metrics (+6.4) created a massive two-way footprint. He generated constant pressure on the rim, drawing defensive attention and creating chaos through high-level hustle (+3.5). Avoiding the three-point line entirely, he played perfectly to his physical strengths.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -40.2
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense +6.4
Raw total +24.3
Avg player in 26.9m -13.6
Impact +10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
12
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.5

Despite converting efficiently from the floor, his total lack of peripheral stats dragged his impact into the negative. He operated with extreme tunnel vision, finishing plays but failing to keep the ball moving or secure the glass. The empty-calorie scoring masked a fundamentally disconnected performance.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg -37.7
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.2
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 25.7m -13.1
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Kris Dunn 20.9m
3
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.5

Elite point-of-attack defense (+5.8) was nearly entirely negated by an inability to score efficiently. He acted as a defensive specialist who generated turnovers and hustle plays (+2.8) but killed offensive flow with poor spacing. The ultimate mixed bag where half-court defensive brilliance met offensive stagnation.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.8%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -55.7
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.8
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 20.9m -10.6
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Kobe Sanders 13.2m
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.7

Poor perimeter execution and negative defensive value (-0.6) quickly eroded his impact. He struggled to stay in front of his assignments and forced contested jumpers when the offense stalled. A sharp regression from his recent highly efficient stretch, marked by rushed decision-making.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.7%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg +7.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +1.3
Defense -0.6
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 13.2m -6.8
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.2

Bricked his attempts and provided absolutely zero hustle value during a disastrous short stint. He looked completely out of rhythm, continuing a brutal stretch of abysmal shooting over his last few games. The lack of physical engagement made him an easy target for the opposing scheme.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +30.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.4m
Offense -3.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total -2.9
Avg player in 6.4m -3.3
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.8

A completely passive offensive shift limited his utility to minor defensive rotations (+1.2). He essentially functioned as a cardio participant, failing to bend the defense or create advantages. The veteran deferred entirely, making him a non-factor during his brief run.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -111.0
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.5m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.2
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 5.5m -2.8
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

Failed to register any positive impact across the board, posting negative defensive metrics (-0.5) and zero hustle. He was entirely invisible on offense, missing his lone shot and failing to initiate any sets. A continuation of a brutal shooting slump that has rendered him unplayable.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +25.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Offense -0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total -1.3
Avg player in 5.0m -2.5
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.0

Generated a tiny bit of hustle (+0.7) but otherwise left no footprint on the game. He didn't look at the basket and failed to record any defensive statistics. A pure placeholder appearance at the end of the rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +9.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 3.1m -1.7
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
SAS San Antonio Spurs
S Stephon Castle 33.4m
20
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.6

Despite strong scoring volume and excellent hustle numbers (+4.3), his overall impact plummeted into the negative due to hidden costs. The damage likely stemmed from live-ball turnovers or poor defensive rotations (+0.5 Def) that gave back points on the other end. His aggressive offensive approach yielded buckets but failed to translate into winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.8%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg +9.5
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +4.3
Defense +0.5
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 33.4m -17.0
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S De'Aaron Fox 29.2m
22
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+9.3

An absolute two-way masterclass driven by surgical shot selection and suffocating defense (+6.7). He relentlessly attacked the paint, punishing his matchups while generating significant transition opportunities through elite hustle (+3.0). The massive scoring spike was just the byproduct of his total control over the game's tempo and spacing.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.5%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg +38.1
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +14.5
Hustle +3.0
Defense +6.7
Raw total +24.2
Avg player in 29.2m -14.9
Impact +9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
S Devin Vassell 28.9m
14
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.3

Missed perimeter looks and inefficient interior finishing dragged down his overall ceiling. His defensive metrics (+1.6) and positive hustle plays kept his head above water despite the clunky offensive execution. The shooting volume was there, but the lack of conversion inside the arc severely limited his net impact.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +10.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 28.9m -14.6
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.4

A massive defensive presence (+5.7) completely salvaged a rough outside shooting night. His activity level on the margins generated crucial hustle points to offset the bricked perimeter looks. He essentially traded offensive inefficiency for high-level defensive disruption against primary matchups.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 45.4%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg +30.8
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +2.4
Defense +5.7
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 27.6m -14.1
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Luke Kornet 25.1m
8
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.9

Hyper-efficient finishing around the rim paired beautifully with elite hustle metrics (+3.9) to drive a massive positive impact. He maximized his touches without forcing bad shots, continuing a strong trend of highly reliable interior execution. The combination of low usage and high defensive reliability perfectly anchored the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.0%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg +28.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +3.9
Defense +3.0
Raw total +19.7
Avg player in 25.1m -12.8
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.8

Solid hustle contributions (+3.4) and efficient mid-range execution kept his overall impact slightly positive. However, a lack of defensive playmaking (+0.8 Def) prevented him from taking over his minutes. He played a steady, low-mistake game that stabilized the rotation without shifting momentum.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +34.0
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +3.4
Defense +0.8
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 26.8m -13.7
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Dylan Harper 25.0m
19
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.0

Ruthless interior finishing fueled a massive box score impact (+15.6) as he consistently beat his primary defender off the dribble. He extended his streak of highly efficient shooting by refusing to settle for contested jumpers. While his defensive metrics were modest, his offensive gravity completely warped the opponent's coverage.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.4%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg +22.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +15.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.2
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 25.0m -12.7
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.1

Incredible hustle metrics (+4.3) and solid defensive positioning nearly erased the damage of a vanishing offensive act. Taking only two shots severely limited his spacing value, allowing defenders to sag off him and clog the paint. He essentially operated as a pure glue guy, doing all the dirty work while completely abandoning his scoring role.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 4.3%
Net Rtg +27.9
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +4.3
Defense +2.0
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 20.7m -10.5
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.5

Empty minutes defined by a complete lack of offensive rhythm and negative defensive value (-0.5). He failed to generate any meaningful hustle plays to justify his time on the floor. The inability to impact the game without the ball in his hands made him a liability during his brief stint.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.1m
Offense -0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 10.1m -5.2
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.7

Instant defensive energy (+2.3) in a micro-stint completely swung the momentum of his minutes. He pressured the ball effectively, disrupting the opponent's offensive initiation without needing to dominate touches. A perfect example of maximizing a short leash through sheer point-of-attack intensity.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.8m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.3
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 3.8m -2.0
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

A complete zero in the hustle department compounded an entirely scoreless outing. He failed to stretch the floor or create advantages, leaving the offense stagnant during his shift. The brief appearance was marred by a lack of physical engagement and poor shot selection.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -9.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 3.1m -1.6
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

Provided a slight defensive bump (+0.9) through rim deterrence but offered absolutely nothing else. His inability to command any offensive attention allowed the defense to play five-on-four. A purely situational appearance that yielded negligible results on the margins.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -9.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 3.1m -1.6
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

Converted his only look but generated zero peripheral value across hustle or defensive metrics. He essentially existed on the floor without altering the geometry of the game in either direction. The lack of off-ball activity dragged his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -9.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Offense +0.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 3.1m -1.6
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1