GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAC Sacramento Kings
S Maxime Raynaud 36.6m
15
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.3

Consistent finishing around the basket maintained his streak of efficient shooting, but hidden mistakes nearly wiped out his positive contributions. Poor screen-setting and a few costly live-ball turnovers allowed the opposition to generate easy transition points. He salvaged a slightly positive rating solely through his sheer persistence on the offensive boards.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.0%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg -32.9
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +3.6
Defense +4.4
Raw total +20.4
Avg player in 36.6m -20.1
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 15
Opp FG% 78.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Nique Clifford 28.4m
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-24.7

Disastrous shot selection completely tanked his impact score, as he repeatedly forced contested looks from deep. Every clanked perimeter attempt seemed to ignite an opponent fast break, creating a massive negative swing in momentum. His inability to recognize when to defer to teammates made him an active detriment to the offense.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 12.5%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg -44.6
+/- -29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Offense -10.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.6
Raw total -9.1
Avg player in 28.4m -15.6
Impact -24.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Keegan Murray 27.5m
15
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.2

Elite weak-side rim protection and relentless closeouts drove a massive defensive rating that anchored his overall value. Even with his perimeter shot failing to fall, he found ways to contribute by attacking the offensive glass and securing extra possessions. His willingness to do the dirty work completely masked the off-night from beyond the arc.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.0%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -23.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +4.2
Defense +8.1
Raw total +21.3
Avg player in 27.5m -15.1
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 1
17
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.8

Reckless drives into heavy traffic generated offensive fouls and costly turnovers that eroded his overall value. While his aggressive downhill mentality resulted in a significant scoring bump, the erratic decision-making in the half-court disrupted the team's rhythm. The raw production was ultimately a mirage that hid how much he gave back on the other end.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.3%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg -34.5
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.5
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 26.7m -14.7
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S DeMar DeRozan 21.2m
11
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.9

A sharp reduction in shot volume did not prevent him from leaving a positive imprint on the game. By drawing multiple defenders on his mid-range isolations, he created secondary actions that kept the offense flowing smoothly. Timely defensive rotations further stabilized his minutes when his usual scoring punch was absent.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -64.9
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.4
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 21.2m -11.7
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Keon Ellis 31.4m
8
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.0

Suffocating perimeter defense and relentless hustle plays completely salvaged a night where his jump shot was broken. By fighting through screens and generating deflections, he disrupted the opponent's primary actions and forced late-clock isolations. His defensive tenacity proved that you can dominate a game's momentum without making a single shot from deep.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 38.8%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -25.1
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +7.7
Defense +10.6
Raw total +20.4
Avg player in 31.4m -17.4
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 1
Malik Monk 30.1m
18
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-4.3

Defensive gambles in the passing lanes routinely compromised the team's rotational integrity, driving his impact score into the red. Although he knocked down perimeter looks at a solid clip, his tendency to over-help left shooters wide open on the weak side. The resulting defensive breakdowns easily erased the value of his offensive output.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 66.0%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg -30.3
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.0
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 30.1m -16.5
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
Devin Carter 21.1m
15
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.1

Confident shot-making from beyond the arc punished defenders who attempted to go under screens. He recognized the coverage immediately, stepping into pull-up jumpers that kept the offense afloat during stagnant stretches. A few missed rotations on the defensive end slightly muted what was otherwise a highly effective shift.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.9%
USG% 23.2%
Net Rtg +2.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +3.0
Defense -0.4
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 21.1m -11.7
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
4
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.4

Early foul trouble completely derailed his rhythm and prevented him from establishing his usual physical dominance inside. Unable to play aggressively without risking another whistle, he became a non-factor in the rebounding battle. This lack of interior presence allowed the opposition to secure crucial second-chance opportunities.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.9m
Offense +4.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.9
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 9.9m -5.5
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.2

Blown coverages in the pick-and-roll quickly forced him off the floor and resulted in a negative rating during his brief stint. Opposing guards easily manipulated his drop coverage to generate uncontested floaters. A complete lack of offensive involvement meant he had no way to offset the defensive bleeding.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -150.0
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.9m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.1
Avg player in 3.9m -2.1
Impact -2.2
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
-3.4

Targeted relentlessly on defense the moment he checked in, his brief appearance resulted in a quick negative swing. Opponents immediately isolated him in space, bypassing the team's defensive schemes with ease. Without any clean looks materializing on offense, his stint was a pure liability.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.3m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -1.7
Avg player in 3.3m -1.7
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DEN Denver Nuggets
S Cameron Johnson 32.6m
16
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.6

Strong rotational energy yielded excellent hustle metrics, but poor perimeter efficiency dragged his overall impact into the red. His inability to connect from deep allowed defenders to sag off and clog driving lanes for teammates. Hidden costs like ill-timed fouls or turnovers ultimately outweighed his otherwise solid defensive positioning.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +23.9
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +4.7
Defense +2.5
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 32.6m -18.1
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Nikola Jokić 29.1m
36
pts
12
reb
8
ast
Impact
+32.8

Total dominance in the painted area drove an astronomical overall impact score. He systematically dismantled single coverage with flawless shot selection, punishing the defense every time they failed to send a double-team. Elite defensive rebounding and quick outlet passes further amplified his value by constantly igniting the transition attack.

Shooting
FG 14/16 (87.5%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.2%
USG% 28.2%
Net Rtg +45.1
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +37.6
Hustle +3.2
Defense +8.1
Raw total +48.9
Avg player in 29.1m -16.1
Impact +32.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jamal Murray 25.7m
11
pts
3
reb
9
ast
Impact
+0.1

Forced attempts against set defenses resulted in a sharp drop in scoring efficiency compared to his recent tear. Rather than letting his missed jumpers dictate his night, he pivoted to a facilitator role and locked in defensively to salvage his value. High-effort closeouts and active hands in the passing lanes kept his net impact barely in the green.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 38.4%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +48.1
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +4.3
Defense +4.8
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 25.7m -14.2
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Peyton Watson 22.8m
21
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.2

A massive surge in offensive aggression fueled a highly efficient scoring night that anchored his positive impact. He capitalized on defensive breakdowns with decisive cuts and confident perimeter strokes, breaking out of his usual scoring role. However, occasional lapses in defensive awareness kept his overall rating from climbing even higher.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 77.7%
USG% 28.3%
Net Rtg +39.3
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +14.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 22.8m -12.6
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Spencer Jones 21.8m
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.3

Extreme passivity on offense cratered his value during his minutes on the floor. While he maintained solid defensive positioning, his reluctance to look for his own shot created a 4-on-5 scenario in the half-court. The lack of offensive gravity completely negated his positive contributions on the other end.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 1.9%
Net Rtg +55.6
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.1
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 21.8m -12.0
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Bruce Brown 26.2m
8
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
-4.0

Passing up open looks disrupted the team's offensive rhythm and led to a surprisingly negative impact score. Despite generating solid defensive metrics through active on-ball pressure, his hesitation to attack closeouts bogged down the half-court spacing. Turnovers generated from over-passing ultimately sank his rating.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +14.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.5
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 26.2m -14.4
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
6
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.9

Smothering point-of-attack defense generated an impressive positive rating on that end of the floor. Unfortunately, his inability to finish through contact in the paint resulted in empty possessions that dragged his total impact into the negative. The defensive intensity was commendable, but offensive limitations allowed his matchup to roam freely as a help defender.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +17.8
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +2.1
Defense +7.1
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 25.0m -13.8
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
11
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.1

Errant perimeter shooting severely damaged his overall effectiveness, as he repeatedly settled for contested looks early in the shot clock. The resulting long rebounds fueled opponent transition opportunities, compounding the damage of his wasted possessions. A lack of defensive resistance on the perimeter offered no compensation for the offensive struggles.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +48.0
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.3
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 24.7m -13.7
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
15
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.0

Absolute perfection around the rim maximized his value during a highly productive stint. He established deep post position early in the clock, converting every touch into high-percentage looks while punishing smaller defenders. This interior dominance forced the defense to collapse, opening up the perimeter for the entire unit.

Shooting
FG 7/7 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 95.2%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg +9.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.4
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 18.9m -10.6
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.3

Instant offense off the bench provided a quick jolt to the team's overall rating in limited action. He capitalized on defensive miscommunications to find wide-open spots on the perimeter, knocking down his looks with zero hesitation. This brief but flawless shooting display perfectly executed his role as a floor spacer.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +5.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.1m
Offense +7.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 7.1m -3.9
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Zeke Nnaji 6.2m
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.2

Active rim protection during a brief rotational stint kept his net impact in positive territory. He challenged everything in the paint without fouling, altering several drives that do not show up in standard box scores. A disciplined approach to his specific defensive assignment defined this short shift.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -21.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.2m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.1
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 6.2m -3.3
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0