GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

LAC LA Clippers
S Kawhi Leonard 36.6m
21
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.1

Heavy isolation volume and poor perimeter efficiency neutralized what looked like a solid scoring night. Despite strong defensive metrics (+5.4 Def), the hidden costs of missed jumpers and stalled offensive flow kept him perfectly flat.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg -17.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.4
Raw total +20.0
Avg player in 36.6m -20.1
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ivica Zubac 33.1m
6
pts
13
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.5

A sharp drop in offensive aggression (-59% scoring vs average) severely limited his overall utility. While he anchored the defensive glass (+5.5 Def), his inability to punish mismatches in the post tanked his net impact.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -21.9
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +3.8
Defense +5.5
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 33.1m -18.2
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S James Harden 31.3m
13
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-2.4

Excellent defensive metrics (+6.3 Def) were completely undone by poor two-point efficiency and likely live-ball turnovers. Even with a hot hand from deep, the empty possessions generated by his drive-and-kick game dragged him into the red.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.3%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -6.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +3.6
Defense +6.3
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 31.3m -17.1
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kris Dunn 26.7m
17
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.3

A shocking offensive surge (+372% scoring vs average) masked some uncharacteristic perimeter defensive struggles (-0.6 Def). He capitalized on open catch-and-shoot opportunities to keep his rating above water despite getting beat off the dribble.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.1%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +1.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense -0.6
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 26.7m -14.6
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S John Collins 26.1m
10
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.7

Failing to stretch the floor or protect the rim (+2.8 Def) resulted in a deeply negative outing. His interior touches were fine, but a lack of high-leverage defensive plays allowed opponents to score too easily on his watch.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.8
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 26.1m -14.3
Impact -6.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Kobe Brown 25.4m
9
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.5

A brutal perimeter shooting night snapped a four-game hot streak and completely tanked his offensive value. Outstanding hustle metrics (+5.2) couldn't salvage a rating dragged down by so many wasted possessions from beyond the arc.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.3%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -55.3
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +5.2
Defense +1.4
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 25.4m -14.0
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
0.0

Efficient secondary scoring was perfectly offset by a lack of high-leverage defensive plays (+1.2 Def). He existed purely as a system player in this one, neither elevating the lineup nor actively hurting it.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -35.4
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.2
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 21.9m -11.9
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.7

Poor defensive positioning (-0.5 Def) and inefficient overall shooting outweighed a slight uptick in his scoring volume. He surrendered too many easy looks on the perimeter, negating any value he provided as a floor spacer.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -65.7
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.5
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 18.9m -10.4
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Kobe Sanders 12.6m
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.1

Passive offensive involvement and a lack of defensive playmaking (+0.9 Def) resulted in a steep negative score. He failed to assert himself during his shift, allowing the opposition to control the tempo while he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -24.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.6m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 12.6m -6.9
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.8

Making the most of a tiny window, he boosted his rating with perfect shooting and quick ball movement. He executed the offense flawlessly during his brief stint to post a highly efficient per-minute score.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.8%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +83.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.9
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 3.7m -1.9
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Barely moved the needle in a short stint, offering slight defensive resistance (+1.2 Def) but zero offensive gravity. He essentially ran cardio without impacting the flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 113.6%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +83.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.7m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.2
Raw total +1.9
Avg player in 3.7m -2.0
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
MEM Memphis Grizzlies
31
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+22.2

Elite two-way dominance defined this performance, highlighted by near-perfect perimeter execution and suffocating rim protection (+11.7 Def). His exceptional shot selection maximized offensive efficiency while his hustle plays (+4.1) completely neutralized the opposing frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 13/18 (72.2%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.1%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg +8.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +24.4
Hustle +4.1
Defense +11.7
Raw total +40.2
Avg player in 32.8m -18.0
Impact +22.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 47.4%
STL 2
BLK 5
TO 2
S Santi Aldama 30.8m
3
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.4

A complete inability to connect from beyond the arc cratered his offensive value. Even with solid defensive positioning (+4.4 Def) and active hustle (+3.5), the sheer volume of empty possessions and poor shot selection dragged his net score into the basement.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.5%
USG% 10.1%
Net Rtg +7.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense +4.4
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 30.8m -16.9
Impact -9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 43.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jaylen Wells 29.7m
16
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.6

A massive scoring spike (+113% vs average) fueled a strong positive rating, driven by aggressive drives to the rim. Despite poor perimeter efficiency, his active defensive rotations (+4.6 Def) kept his overall impact comfortably in the green.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.6%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -10.3
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +2.7
Defense +4.6
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 29.7m -16.3
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Cedric Coward 23.2m
12
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.1

Defensive lapses (-0.9 Def) and likely off-ball fouls erased the goodwill from his efficient interior finishing. While he crashed the glass hard (+4.5 Hustle), his inability to stay in front of his matchup proved too costly overall.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -36.7
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +4.5
Defense -0.9
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 23.2m -12.8
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Ja Morant 21.0m
12
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.2

Inefficient shot selection inside the arc severely limited his offensive ceiling. He barely broke even on the night, relying on steady defensive reads (+3.0 Def) to offset the damage from his missed floaters and contested layups.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 28.0%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.0
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 21.0m -11.4
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Cam Spencer 30.0m
27
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+15.0

An absolute perimeter explosion (+246% scoring vs average) shattered his usual output and carried the offense. His lethal catch-and-shoot execution punished drop coverage all night, resulting in a massive +26.2 box score metric.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 7/10 (70.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 97.3%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +48.8
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Offense +26.2
Hustle +4.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +31.6
Avg player in 30.0m -16.6
Impact +15.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jock Landale 27.5m
8
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.6

Anchoring the paint with excellent verticality (+5.9 Def) drove a highly effective shift. He didn't force his offense, capitalizing on high-percentage looks around the basket to maintain a steady positive impact.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +50.9
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.9
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 27.5m -15.0
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
7
reb
6
ast
Impact
+3.4

Low-usage offensive nights rarely yield positive scores, but relentless defensive ball pressure (+5.7 Def) flipped the script. He generated value entirely through disruptive hustle plays (+4.0) and smart passing rather than scoring volume.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +65.9
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +4.0
Defense +5.7
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 23.4m -12.9
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.0

Serviceable minutes were anchored by timely perimeter shooting, though his defensive impact (+1.9 Def) remained relatively muted. He managed the game well without committing glaring mistakes, resulting in a perfectly adequate rating.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 17.1%
Net Rtg +62.9
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.9
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 18.3m -10.1
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.0

A brief, empty cameo snapped his three-game streak of highly efficient shooting. Failing to record any positive hustle metrics in limited action left him with a slight negative grade.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.7m
Offense +0.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total -0.1
Avg player in 1.7m -0.9
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.7

Garbage time minutes yielded zero production and a quick negative box score rating. He failed to register any defensive or hustle stats, acting as a complete non-factor during his short stint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.7m
Offense -2.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -2.7
Avg player in 1.7m -1.0
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1