GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAC Sacramento Kings
S Nique Clifford 38.6m
23
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.2

High-level perimeter shot-making and relentless hustle plays kept his impact in the green despite some risky defensive gambles. He consistently beat defenders off the dribble, collapsing the defense to create high-quality looks. A crucial sequence of back-to-back deflections in the fourth quarter highlighted his energetic two-way contribution and offset any rotational mistakes.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.1%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.6m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +4.6
Defense +5.6
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 38.6m -21.1
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Devin Carter 31.7m
9
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-10.3

Severe offensive struggles, highlighted by forced shots and poor decision-making, cratered his overall impact. He tried to salvage his night with aggressive on-ball defense and high-energy hustle plays, but the empty offensive possessions were too costly. His inability to find a rhythm from deep allowed defenders to sag off and completely clog the driving lanes for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 39.8%
USG% 18.1%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +3.2
Defense +4.8
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 31.7m -17.4
Impact -10.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Maxime Raynaud 29.0m
28
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+17.8

Absolute dominance in the painted area fueled a massive box score impact and overall rating. He overwhelmed his primary defenders with elite footwork and soft touch, capitalizing on every post mismatch without forcing bad shots. Strong positional defense and disciplined rim deterrence further amplified this career-best offensive showcase.

Shooting
FG 11/14 (78.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg +5.2
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense +28.6
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.0
Raw total +33.6
Avg player in 29.0m -15.8
Impact +17.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.4

A mixed bag of solid interior finishing and frustrating defensive miscommunications resulted in a nearly neutral impact. While he converted efficiently around the basket to maintain his hot streak, poor closeouts on stretch bigs negated his offensive production. His inability to secure contested defensive rebounds allowed crucial second-chance points that dragged his score slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.5%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +8.9
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.3
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 24.9m -13.5
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S DeMar DeRozan 23.5m
14
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.1

Surgical operation in the midrange and excellent halfcourt playmaking drove a highly efficient offensive impact. He consistently collapsed the defense and made the right reads, avoiding costly turnovers that could ignite opponent fast breaks. His steadying veteran presence during a chaotic third-quarter run stabilized the offense and secured the positive rating.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg +2.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +13.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.7
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 23.5m -12.9
Impact +6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
17
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.4

Inefficient volume shooting from beyond the arc completely offset his otherwise solid defensive metrics. He forced several heavily contested jumpers late in the shot clock, effectively bailing out the opposing defense. Despite providing strong weak-side help and active hands, this poor shot selection kept his overall impact hovering just below neutral.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.9%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -0.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.8
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 30.9m -16.9
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.3

Flawless execution of his limited offensive role and high-energy screen-setting provided a slight positive bump to his rating. He excelled at doing the dirty work, sealing off defenders to create driving lanes and fighting for loose balls. His disciplined verticality at the rim deterred several drives without picking up the cheap fouls that often plague backup bigs.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg +8.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +3.6
Defense +2.9
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 23.6m -12.9
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 15.4%
STL 0
BLK 5
TO 2
5
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-6.6

Brick after brick from the perimeter destroyed offensive spacing and plummeted his net rating. While he managed the game decently as a facilitator, his primary defender essentially operated as a free safety due to his lack of scoring threat. The inability to punish drop coverage with a reliable jumper severely handicapped the half-court offense whenever he ran the point.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.2%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -15.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.9
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 19.6m -10.7
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.1

A complete inability to find the mark from deep rendered him a massive liability during his minutes on the floor. Without his usual gravity as a movement shooter, the offense bogged down, and he offered zero resistance on the defensive end. Opponents actively hunted him in pick-and-roll switches, repeatedly exposing his lack of lateral quickness to generate easy looks.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -5.7
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.6
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 18.2m -9.9
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Trey Murphy III 31.8m
13
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.7

A string of forced, early-clock triples derailed offensive momentum and tanked his overall impact score. He tried to compensate with active hands in passing lanes and high-energy closeouts that boosted his hustle metrics. Ultimately, those empty possessions from beyond the arc overshadowed his otherwise solid defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg -6.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +4.2
Defense +3.8
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 31.8m -17.4
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
S Saddiq Bey 29.2m
20
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.7

Solid offensive execution and shot quality fueled a positive overall impact, as he consistently found high-value looks within the halfcourt offense. Timely defensive rotations helped seal off the perimeter, limiting opponent penetration during crucial second-half stretches. Though his hustle metrics were muted, his reliable floor-spacing gravity opened up driving lanes for teammates.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -7.4
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +14.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.0
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 29.2m -15.9
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Zion Williamson 28.5m
13
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.7

Stagnant offensive possessions and an inability to generate downhill momentum severely dragged down his overall impact. Despite flashing strong weak-side rim protection that boosted his defensive metrics, he settled for contested attempts rather than attacking the paint. This passive approach against physical frontcourt matchups resulted in a stark drop-off from his usual offensive dominance.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg -6.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +5.2
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 28.5m -15.6
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Yves Missi 20.4m
6
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.0

Costly defensive lapses in pick-and-roll coverage completely erased the value of his opportunistic offensive putbacks. He struggled to anchor the paint against driving guards, repeatedly dropping too deep and conceding easy floaters. While his vertical spacing provided a minor offensive spark, the negative defensive anchor weighed heavily on his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 47.5%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg +7.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.8
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 20.4m -11.1
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Herbert Jones 12.8m
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.6

Complete offensive invisibility and an inability to leave his usual defensive imprint resulted in a negative net rating during his brief stint on the floor. He struggled uncharacteristically to navigate off-ball screens, allowing shooters to break free. Without his typical disruptive perimeter pressure to generate transition opportunities, his presence was essentially a non-factor.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +8.2
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +1.5
Defense +0.7
Raw total +2.4
Avg player in 12.8m -7.0
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
28
pts
8
reb
6
ast
Impact
+10.0

Total offensive mastery drove a massive impact score, characterized by lethal perimeter shot-making and pristine decision-making in the pick-and-roll. He relentlessly punished drop coverages by stepping into rhythm jumpers while maintaining excellent ball security. Active hands on the perimeter and consistent transition hustle rounded out a dominant, game-altering performance.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg -2.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Offense +21.4
Hustle +4.3
Defense +4.4
Raw total +30.1
Avg player in 37.0m -20.1
Impact +10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Micah Peavy 31.8m
8
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.4

Elite point-of-attack defense defined this performance, as he completely smothered opposing ball-handlers to generate a massive defensive rating. Timely baseline cuts and vastly improved shot selection maximized his offensive efficiency, breaking a recent slump. Relentless energy on 50/50 balls and loose-ball recoveries further cemented his role as a crucial two-way catalyst.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg +11.6
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +3.9
Defense +8.2
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 31.8m -17.4
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 0
Derik Queen 27.6m
8
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.5

A monstrous interior presence anchored his positive impact, as he deterred numerous attempts at the rim and completely controlled the paint. Despite struggling to finish through contact on the other end, his relentless motor generated crucial second-chance opportunities via offensive tip-outs. His ability to wall off the restricted area against physical bigs was the defining factor of his night.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.8%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -10.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +4.5
Defense +11.0
Raw total +20.6
Avg player in 27.6m -15.1
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 5
BLK 1
TO 2
14
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Blistering perimeter efficiency was ultimately undermined by defensive liabilities and a complete lack of secondary hustle contributions. Opponents repeatedly targeted him in isolation, bleeding points on one end while he provided elite spacing on the other. This one-dimensional nature of his performance, combined with zero impact on the glass, kept his overall rating slightly in the red.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +1.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.3
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 20.9m -11.4
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2