Sacramento Kings

Western Conference

Sacramento
Kings

22-60
L1

ROSTER — IMPACT RANKINGS

DeMar DeRozan
Guard-Forward Yr 16 77G (77S)
+9.0
18.4 pts
2.9 reb
4.1 ast
31.2 min

This late-season stretch for DeMar DeRozan was defined by whiplash-inducing swings between brutal shooting slumps and vintage mid-range masterclasses. Early on, his offense completely cratered. During the 02/09 vs NOP matchup, he forced contested jumpers and finished with just eight points on 3-of-11 shooting. That stagnant shot selection and inability to generate offensive flow dragged him down to a dismal -9.7 impact score. He flipped the script entirely a month later. Carving up the defense with surgical precision on 03/11 vs CHA, DeRozan poured in 39 points on a staggering 17-of-22 from the floor to earn a massive +33.8 impact score. He was just as lethal on 03/15 vs UTA, dropping 41 points and 11 assists for a +31.0 impact score because his brilliant playmaking actively punished defensive rotations.

Domantas Sabonis
Forward-Center Yr 9 19G (15S)
+8.4
15.8 pts
11.4 reb
4.1 ast
29.7 min
Keegan Murray
Forward Yr 3 23G (22S)
+5.5
14.0 pts
5.7 reb
1.7 ast
34.5 min

Maddening inconsistency and erratic shooting defined Keegan Murray's mid-season run. He hit his absolute peak on 01/03 vs PHX, pouring in 23 points and grabbing 9 rebounds to generate a massive +21.6 Impact score. That stellar rating stemmed from highly efficient 9-for-17 shot selection and aggressive rebounding that constantly extended possessions. However, his offensive rhythm completely vanished in earlier matchups like the 01/02 vs BOS game. Despite hustling for 6 rebounds and dishing 4 assists in 38 minutes, his miserable 3-for-13 shooting clip dragged his Impact down to -3.1 because those empty offensive trips actively killed the team's momentum. The rough patch culminated in a disastrous outing on 02/23 vs MEM, where a 2-for-10 shooting night yielded a brutal -7.9 Impact score. When his perimeter shot abandons him, Murray simply bleeds too much value on the floor.

Zach LaVine
Guard Yr 11 39G (37S)
+4.9
19.2 pts
2.8 reb
2.3 ast
31.4 min

This midseason stretch for Zach LaVine was defined by maddening inconsistency and a sudden, brief demotion to the second unit. The frustration peaked on 01/29 vs PHI, where he was relegated to the bench and posted a -3.7 impact score because his 17 points required a dismal 16 field goal attempts. He offered virtually zero playmaking or rebounding during that slump, leaving his overall value entirely dependent on whether his jumper was falling. You could see this glaring limitation a few nights earlier on 01/24 vs CLE. He managed just 10 points while recording zero rebounds and zero assists, dragging his night to an ugly -5.0 impact. Yet, just when you write him off as a one-dimensional liability, he erupts. He took over on 02/01 vs WAS, pouring in 35 points and grabbing six rebounds to generate a massive +25.0 impact score. In that matchup, his sheer scoring volume and aggressive shot creation completely overwhelmed the opponent, reminding everyone why teams still tolerate his empty-calorie nights.

Maxime Raynaud
Center Yr 0 74G (56S)
+4.6
12.5 pts
7.5 reb
1.4 ast
26.5 min

This late-season stretch marked Maxime Raynaud's true breakout as a hyper-efficient offensive anchor. Look at his dominant outing on 03/19 vs PHI, where he dropped 30 points on 11-of-17 shooting to generate a massive +21.0 impact score. He wasn't just racking up empty stats; his pristine shot selection and perimeter spacing punished the defense relentlessly. However, when he hesitated to hunt his own offense, his overall value plummeted. During a sluggish 03/11 vs CHA matchup, he attempted just three shots and finished with a dismal -12.7 impact score, as his passivity allowed the defense to crowd his teammates. Yet, Raynaud also figured out how to salvage his value when the scoring wasn't there. On 04/05 vs LAC, he managed a modest 11 points but still posted a +11.9 impact score by tearing down 15 rebounds and completely locking down the paint with relentless hustle.

Precious Achiuwa
Forward Yr 5 73G (57S)
+3.9
10.1 pts
6.7 reb
1.4 ast
23.9 min

This late-season stretch was defined by Precious Achiuwa transforming from an erratic energy big into a highly efficient frontcourt engine. His offensive ceiling completely unlocked on 02/26 vs DAL. He poured in 29 points and 12 rebounds on 13-of-19 shooting, burying all three of his attempts from deep to generate a staggering +37.7 Impact score. Flawless shot selection and relentless activity on the glass made him an absolute nightmare for the Dallas defense. He delivered another masterpiece on 04/01 vs TOR, bullying his way to 28 points and a monstrous 19 rebounds. That +32.6 Impact score was the direct result of brute-force rebounding and high-percentage interior finishing rather than perimeter shooting. Conversely, he found ways to win the margins even when his scoring volume dipped. On 03/01 vs LAL, he managed only 8 points on 4-of-10 shooting but still posted a +7.4 Impact score because his rugged defensive effort and constant hustle created immense non-scoring value.

Russell Westbrook
Guard Yr 17 64G (58S)
+0.3
15.2 pts
5.4 reb
6.7 ast
28.9 min

This mid-season stretch was defined by a maddening tug-of-war between Westbrook's worst shot-chucking habits and his chaotic playmaking brilliance. During the 02/07 vs CLE matchup, he poured in 21 points and nine assists, yet still posted a -1.2 Impact score. His offensive production was entirely hollowed out by hidden defensive lapses and empty-calorie volume that dragged down his overall effectiveness. However, March brought a sudden, vintage resurgence. Even when his jumper abandoned him during the 03/14 vs LAC game, he generated a +6.7 Impact despite scoring just 12 points on abysmal 4-for-15 shooting. He salvaged his night through sheer willpower, vacuuming up 12 rebounds and dishing out 10 assists to create crucial non-scoring value and second-chance opportunities for his teammates. This relentless motor peaked during the 03/08 vs CHI contest, where he exploded for 23 points, 11 rebounds, and 12 assists to earn a massive +23.7 Impact. When he stops settling for contested jumpers and focuses on crashing the glass, he remains a uniquely disruptive force.

DaQuan Jeffries
Guard-Forward Yr 6 3G
-0.3
10.3 pts
1.7 reb
0.3 ast
20.0 min
Dylan Cardwell
Center Yr 0 44G (1S)
-1.0
5.4 pts
7.5 reb
1.4 ast
20.6 min

Dylan Cardwell spent most of this stretch as a walking liability off the bench before suddenly flipping a switch into a highly efficient rotational big in April. Even when he hit the glass hard, his hidden costs were staggering early on. Take his performance on 03/24 vs CHA, where he pulled down 11 rebounds but still dragged his team down to a dismal -6.1 impact score due to poor defensive rotations and empty offensive possessions. The absolute nadir arrived on 04/01 vs TOR, where he looked entirely lost on the floor, committing unseen errors and bleeding points to the tune of a catastrophic -12.2 impact score in just 14 minutes. Just when his rotation spot seemed completely doomed, Cardwell finally found his rhythm. He exploded for a near-perfect 7-for-8 shooting night on 04/05 vs LAC, pairing 15 points and eight rebounds with aggressive interior defense to post a stellar +7.2 impact. He followed that up with flawless 4-for-4 shooting and relentless hustle on 04/07 vs GSW, generating a +6.4 impact score and finally justifying his minutes.

Daeqwon Plowden
Guard-Forward Yr 1 32G (7S)
-1.3
10.8 pts
3.0 reb
1.3 ast
26.4 min

Daeqwon Plowden’s late-season stretch was defined by a jarring identity crisis as he toggled wildly between lethal bench sparkplug and overwhelmed starter. Operating as a reserve on 03/26 vs ORL, he torched the nets for 23 points on 6-of-10 shooting from beyond the arc. That blistering perimeter efficiency generated a robust +12.2 Impact score despite him logging zero assists. Yet, a promotion to the first five just three days later yielded disastrous results. During the 03/29 vs BKN matchup, Plowden forced terrible looks and bricked all seven of his three-point attempts, dragging his Impact down to a dismal -17.7 as his poor shot selection actively harmed the offense. He eventually found his footing in the opening lineup during the 04/10 vs GSW contest. Racking up 20 points and a season-high 9 rebounds, he earned a massive +17.0 Impact score because he finally supplemented his scoring with genuine grit on the glass.

Devin Carter
Guard Yr 1 38G (12S)
-1.8
8.9 pts
3.3 reb
2.7 ast
18.4 min

Devin Carter’s chaotic transition from an explosive bench sparkplug to a full-time starter defined this twelve-game stretch. He poured in 21 points on 04/05 vs LAC. Yet, his overall footprint remained a modest +3.8 Impact. That muted score stems directly from his erratic perimeter shot selection, as he clanked all five of his three-point attempts and stalled the half-court flow. Conversely, Carter found ways to contribute when his jumper completely abandoned him during the 04/12 vs POR matchup. Despite shooting a miserable 3-for-14 to finish with just 8 points, he salvaged a +1.0 Impact by distributing 8 assists, grabbing 6 rebounds, and flying around the court with relentless defensive energy. Everything finally clicked on 04/10 vs GSW. He torched the defense for 29 points and 9 rebounds while hitting 6 of 11 from deep, generating a monstrous +25.6 Impact to reveal his massive ceiling.

Dennis Schröder
Guard Yr 12 40G (14S)
-1.9
12.8 pts
3.0 reb
5.3 ast
26.4 min

Dennis Schröder’s late-season run was defined by a brutal regression into offensive irrelevance, interrupted only by fleeting bursts of competence when thrust into the starting lineup. Look no further than his start on 02/27 vs DET, where he tallied 12 points and 9 assists but posted a staggering -19.7 Impact score. Those counting stats were entirely empty calories. His dreadful 4-for-15 shooting stalled out possessions and handed Detroit easy transition opportunities. The wheels completely fell off during a bench stint on 03/11 vs ORL. He yielded a ghastly -21.9 Impact score in just 18 minutes by missing all five of his shots and failing to grab a single rebound. He occasionally found his rhythm when given the keys to the offense, highlighted by a spot-start on 04/06 vs MEM. Racking up 22 points and 11 assists on 8-for-12 shooting, he earned a +5.2 Impact score by replacing his usual erratic chucking with sharp, decisive playmaking.

Malik Monk
Guard Yr 8 62G (3S)
-2.3
12.5 pts
1.9 reb
3.0 ast
22.0 min

Extreme volatility defined Malik Monk's late-season stretch, as he swung wildly between flamethrower scoring outbursts and disastrous, momentum-killing slumps. When his jumper caught fire, he looked entirely unstoppable. He single-handedly torched the nets on 03/22 vs BKN, draining seven triples for 32 points to generate a stellar +12.0 impact score. Yet, a brief promotion to the starting lineup quickly exposed the severe limitations of his erratic game. Look no further than 03/24 vs CHA. Despite dishing out a staggering 14 assists, Monk still suffered a brutal -9.6 impact because his miserable 3-for-13 shooting and defensive apathy completely negated his playmaking. Similarly ugly brick-fests, like his 0-for-5 perimeter dud on 02/26 vs DAL that yielded a -13.1 impact, reveal a harsh truth about his game. If Monk isn't burying contested jumpers at a high volume, his forced offensive looks and hidden defensive costs make him a glaring net negative on the floor.

Isaiah Stevens
Guard Yr 1 3G
-3.4
3.3 pts
1.0 reb
3.3 ast
14.3 min
Nique Clifford
Guard Yr 0 75G (28S)
-4.3
8.6 pts
3.8 reb
2.4 ast
25.1 min

This stretch was defined by a brutal shooting slump that temporarily cost Clifford his starting job before a vital late-season resurgence. The wheels completely fell off during a horrific 02/11 vs UTA performance where he bricked his way to 6 points on 1-of-15 shooting. That abysmal shot selection dragged him down to a -2.7 Impact score and soon earned him a demotion to the second unit. He quickly recalibrated his game, logging a massive +14.2 Impact on 02/23 vs MEM despite scoring just 12 points. In that contest, Clifford generated winning value through crisp playmaking and relentless defensive effort rather than forcing bad looks. Reinstated as a starter, he finally found his offensive rhythm on 03/01 vs LAL, pouring in 26 points on 11-of-18 shooting to post a dominant +18.0 Impact. By stripping away the forced perimeter jumpers and attacking the rim, Clifford transformed himself from an early-February liability back into an essential two-way engine.

Drew Eubanks
Forward-Center Yr 7 42G (11S)
-5.0
5.2 pts
3.0 reb
0.5 ast
13.1 min

Drew Eubanks spent this mid-season stretch fighting for scraps at the end of the rotation, largely failing to translate brief minutes into positive momentum. His lack of offensive rhythm was painfully obvious early on. A brutal 1-for-6 shooting performance on 01/12 vs HOU resulted in a dismal -10.9 Impact score, exposing his inability to anchor the second unit. Even when he managed to find the bottom of the net, his overall effectiveness often lagged behind his point totals. Take his outing on 03/01 vs LAL, where he tallied 10 points in 14 minutes but still posted a -4.4 Impact score because defensive lapses and minimal rebounding dragged down his net value. He did finally flash his ceiling as an energy big near the end of this stretch. Given an extended run on 03/05 vs NOP, Eubanks erupted for 15 points and 11 rebounds in 22 minutes, earning a massive +16.1 Impact score by dominating the glass and converting an ultra-efficient 7-of-9 from the floor.

Keon Ellis
Guard Yr 3 43G (5S)
-5.9
5.6 pts
1.3 reb
0.6 ast
17.6 min

This stretch of the season was a chaotic rollercoaster for Keon Ellis, defined by a fluctuating role and wild swings between lethal perimeter marksmanship and total offensive invisibility. When he found his rhythm, he was an absolute game-changer. Look at his performance on 03/09 vs PHI, where he poured in 19 points on 4-for-7 shooting from deep to earn a massive +14.9 Impact score by ruthlessly punishing defensive gaps. Remarkably, he could also tilt the floor positively without scoring, as seen on 03/01 vs BKN. Despite managing a meager 4 points in 32 minutes, he still posted a +3.4 Impact because his relentless defensive ball pressure and gritty hustle kept the second unit afloat. The downside was his tendency to stall out completely when his jumper abandoned him. During a spot start on 03/15 vs DAL, he registered a grim -9.6 Impact, dragged into the red by a brutal 1-for-5 night from beyond the arc and a total inability to create meaningful offense.

Doug McDermott
Forward Yr 11 29G
-6.3
5.7 pts
1.3 reb
0.8 ast
15.1 min

Doug McDermott’s late-season stretch was defined by a brutal shooting slump and alarmingly empty minutes off the bench. When a perimeter specialist cannot hit shots, the hidden costs of his one-dimensional game drag the entire second unit down. This was glaringly obvious on 04/10 vs GSW, where his jumper completely abandoned him as he missed all five of his field goal attempts. That offensive futility, combined with grabbing just one rebound in 14 minutes of action, resulted in a disastrous -17.1 impact score. He did find a brief rhythm just days earlier on 04/07 vs GSW, draining four three-pointers to rack up 16 points. His aggressive perimeter shooting and a rare willingness to crash the glass for four rebounds earned him a +6.3 impact score in that contest. But those fleeting flashes of offensive life were the exception to the rule. During his 04/03 vs NOP outing, he logged a dreadful 1-for-6 shooting night, generating a dismal -12.2 impact score because his poor shot selection and defensive limitations compounded the damage of his missed attempts.

Patrick Baldwin Jr.
Forward Yr 3 6G (1S)
-6.9
3.8 pts
3.5 reb
0.8 ast
14.7 min
Killian Hayes
Guard Yr 5 23G (3S)
-7.7
5.5 pts
2.3 reb
3.5 ast
17.6 min

This seven-game stretch was defined by brutal offensive inefficiency, punctuated by a single, bizarrely competent scoring outburst. During the 03/29 vs BKN matchup, Hayes posted a dismal -15.9 Impact score, dragging down the second unit with an abysmal 0-for-5 shooting night that completely negated his seven assists. The bricklaying continued on 04/03 vs NOP, where his erratic shot selection devolved into a 1-for-8 mess from the floor, resulting in a -10.4 Impact rating. Then, completely out of nowhere, he caught fire on 04/07 vs GSW. Logging 32 minutes off the bench, Hayes poured in 18 points on 6-of-13 shooting, generating a +9.5 Impact mark because he finally forced the defense to respect his perimeter stroke. Naturally, the regression was immediate. He failed to hit a single field goal on 04/10 vs GSW, reminding everyone exactly why his nightly role remains so fragile.

Isaac Jones
Forward Yr 1 3G (1S)
-9.7
1.0 pts
0.7 reb
0.3 ast
5.6 min
Dario Šarić
Forward-Center Yr 9 5G
-11.8
1.0 pts
1.2 reb
0.4 ast
8.3 min
L
@ POR POR
110 SAC POR 122
POR @ POR
110 122
Sun, Apr 12
Analysis
-12
W
vs GSW GSW
118 GSW SAC 124
GSW vs GSW
124 118
Fri, Apr 10
Analysis
+6
L
@ GSW GSW
105 SAC GSW 110
GSW @ GSW
105 110
Tue, Apr 7
Analysis
-5
L
vs LAC LAC
138 LAC SAC 109
LAC vs LAC
109 138
Sun, Apr 5
Analysis
-29
W
vs NOP NOP
113 NOP SAC 117
NOP vs NOP
117 113
Fri, Apr 3
Analysis
+4
W
@ TOR TOR
123 SAC TOR 115
TOR @ TOR
123 115
Wed, Apr 1
Analysis
+8
L
@ BKN BKN
99 SAC BKN 116
BKN @ BKN
99 116
Sun, Mar 29
Analysis
-17
L
@ ATL ATL
113 SAC ATL 123
ATL @ ATL
113 123
Sat, Mar 28
Analysis
-10
L
@ ORL ORL
117 SAC ORL 121
ORL @ ORL
117 121
Thu, Mar 26
Analysis
-4
L
@ CHA CHA
90 SAC CHA 134
CHA @ CHA
90 134
Tue, Mar 24
Analysis
-44
W
vs BKN BKN
122 BKN SAC 126
BKN vs BKN
126 122
Sun, Mar 22
Analysis
+4
L
vs PHI PHI
139 PHI SAC 118
PHI vs PHI
118 139
Thu, Mar 19
Analysis
-21
L
vs SAS SAS
132 SAS SAC 104
SAS vs SAS
104 132
Tue, Mar 17
Analysis
-28
W
vs UTA UTA
111 UTA SAC 116
UTA vs UTA
116 111
Sun, Mar 15
Analysis
+5
W
@ LAC LAC
118 SAC LAC 109
LAC @ LAC
118 109
Sat, Mar 14
Analysis
+9
L
vs CHA CHA
117 CHA SAC 109
CHA vs CHA
109 117
Wed, Mar 11
Analysis
-8
W
vs IND IND
109 IND SAC 114
IND vs IND
114 109
Tue, Mar 10
Analysis
+5
W
vs CHI CHI
110 CHI SAC 126
CHI vs CHI
126 110
Sun, Mar 8
Analysis
+16
L
vs NOP NOP
133 NOP SAC 123
NOP vs NOP
123 133
Thu, Mar 5
Analysis
-10
L
vs PHX PHX
114 PHX SAC 103
PHX vs PHX
103 114
Tue, Mar 3
Analysis
-11
L
@ LAL LAL
104 SAC LAL 128
LAL @ LAL
104 128
Sun, Mar 1
Analysis
-24
W
@ DAL DAL
130 SAC DAL 121
DAL @ DAL
130 121
Thu, Feb 26
Analysis
+9
L
@ HOU HOU
97 SAC HOU 128
HOU @ HOU
97 128
Wed, Feb 25
Analysis
-31
W
@ MEM MEM
123 SAC MEM 114
MEM @ MEM
123 114
Mon, Feb 23
Analysis
+9
L
@ SAS SAS
122 SAC SAS 139
SAS @ SAS
122 139
Sat, Feb 21
Analysis
-17
L
vs ORL ORL
131 ORL SAC 94
ORL vs ORL
94 131
Thu, Feb 19
Analysis
-37
L
@ UTA UTA
93 SAC UTA 121
UTA @ UTA
93 121
Wed, Feb 11
Analysis
-28
L
@ NOP NOP
94 SAC NOP 120
NOP @ NOP
94 120
Mon, Feb 9
Analysis
-26
L
vs CLE CLE
132 CLE SAC 126
CLE vs CLE
126 132
Sat, Feb 7
Analysis
-6
L
vs LAC LAC
114 LAC SAC 111
LAC vs LAC
111 114
Fri, Feb 6
Analysis
-3
L
vs MEM MEM
129 MEM SAC 125
MEM vs MEM
125 129
Wed, Feb 4
Analysis
-4
L
@ WAS WAS
112 SAC WAS 116
WAS @ WAS
112 116
Sun, Feb 1
Analysis
-4
L
@ BOS BOS
93 SAC BOS 112
BOS @ BOS
93 112
Fri, Jan 30
Analysis
-19
L
@ PHI PHI
111 SAC PHI 113
PHI @ PHI
111 113
Thu, Jan 29
Analysis
-2
L
@ NYK NYK
87 SAC NYK 103
NYK @ NYK
87 103
Wed, Jan 28
Analysis
-16
L
@ DET DET
116 SAC DET 139
DET @ DET
116 139
Sun, Jan 25
Analysis
-23
L
@ CLE CLE
118 SAC CLE 123
CLE @ CLE
118 123
Sat, Jan 24
Analysis
-5
L
vs TOR TOR
122 TOR SAC 109
TOR vs TOR
109 122
Thu, Jan 22
Analysis
-13
L
vs MIA MIA
130 MIA SAC 117
MIA vs MIA
117 130
Wed, Jan 21
Analysis
-13
L
vs POR POR
117 POR SAC 110
POR vs POR
110 117
Mon, Jan 19
Analysis
-7
W
vs WAS WAS
115 WAS SAC 128
WAS vs WAS
128 115
Sat, Jan 17
Analysis
+13
W
vs NYK NYK
101 NYK SAC 112
NYK vs NYK
112 101
Thu, Jan 15
Analysis
+11
W
vs LAL LAL
112 LAL SAC 124
LAL vs LAL
124 112
Tue, Jan 13
Analysis
+12
W
vs HOU HOU
98 HOU SAC 111
HOU vs HOU
111 98
Mon, Jan 12
Analysis
+13
L
@ GSW GSW
103 SAC GSW 137
GSW @ GSW
103 137
Sat, Jan 10
Analysis
-34
L
vs DAL DAL
100 DAL SAC 98
DAL vs DAL
98 100
Wed, Jan 7
Analysis
-2
L
vs MIL MIL
115 MIL SAC 98
MIL vs MIL
98 115
Mon, Jan 5
Analysis
-17
L
@ PHX PHX
102 SAC PHX 129
PHX @ PHX
102 129
Sat, Jan 3
Analysis
-27
L
vs BOS BOS
120 BOS SAC 106
BOS vs BOS
106 120
Fri, Jan 2
Analysis
-14
L
@ LAC LAC
90 SAC LAC 131
LAC @ LAC
90 131
Wed, Dec 31
Analysis
-41
L
@ LAL LAL
101 SAC LAL 125
LAL @ LAL
101 125
Mon, Dec 29
Analysis
-24
W
vs DAL DAL
107 DAL SAC 113
DAL vs DAL
113 107
Sat, Dec 27
Analysis
+6
L
vs DET DET
136 DET SAC 127
DET vs DET
127 136
Wed, Dec 24
Analysis
-9
W
vs HOU HOU
124 HOU SAC 125
HOU vs HOU
125 124
Mon, Dec 22
Analysis
+1
L
vs POR POR
98 POR SAC 93
POR vs POR
93 98
Sun, Dec 21
Analysis
-5
L
@ POR POR
133 SAC POR 134
POR @ POR
133 134
Fri, Dec 19
Analysis
-1
L
@ MIN MIN
103 SAC MIN 117
MIN @ MIN
103 117
Mon, Dec 15
Analysis
-14
L
vs DEN DEN
136 DEN SAC 105
DEN vs DEN
105 136
Fri, Dec 12
Analysis
-31
L
@ IND IND
105 SAC IND 116
IND @ IND
105 116
Tue, Dec 9
Analysis
-11
W
@ MIA MIA
127 SAC MIA 111
MIA @ MIA
127 111
Sun, Dec 7
Analysis
+16
L
@ HOU HOU
95 SAC HOU 121
HOU @ HOU
95 121
Thu, Dec 4
Analysis
-26
L
vs MEM MEM
115 MEM SAC 107
MEM vs MEM
107 115
Mon, Dec 1
Analysis
-8
L
@ UTA UTA
119 SAC UTA 128
UTA @ UTA
119 128
Sat, Nov 29
Analysis
-9
L
vs PHX PHX
112 PHX SAC 100
PHX vs PHX
100 112
Thu, Nov 27
Analysis
-12
W
vs MIN MIN
112 MIN SAC 117
MIN vs MIN
117 112
Tue, Nov 25
Analysis
+5
W
@ DEN DEN
128 SAC DEN 123
DEN @ DEN
128 123
Sun, Nov 23
Analysis
+5
L
@ MEM MEM
96 SAC MEM 137
MEM @ MEM
96 137
Fri, Nov 21
Analysis
-41
L
@ OKC OKC
99 SAC OKC 113
OKC @ OKC
99 113
Thu, Nov 20
Analysis
-14
L
@ SAS SAS
110 SAC SAS 123
SAS @ SAS
110 123
Sun, Nov 16
Analysis
-13
L
@ MIN MIN
110 SAC MIN 124
MIN @ MIN
110 124
Sat, Nov 15
Analysis
-14
L
vs ATL ATL
133 ATL SAC 100
ATL vs ATL
100 133
Thu, Nov 13
Analysis
-33
L
vs DEN DEN
122 DEN SAC 108
DEN vs DEN
108 122
Wed, Nov 12
Analysis
-14
L
vs MIN MIN
144 MIN SAC 117
MIN vs MIN
117 144
Mon, Nov 10
Analysis
-27
L
vs OKC OKC
132 OKC SAC 101
OKC vs OKC
101 132
Sat, Nov 8
Analysis
-31
W
vs GSW GSW
116 GSW SAC 121
GSW vs GSW
121 116
Thu, Nov 6
Analysis
+5
L
@ DEN DEN
124 SAC DEN 130
DEN @ DEN
124 130
Tue, Nov 4
Analysis
-6
W
@ MIL MIL
135 SAC MIL 133
MIL @ MIL
135 133
Sat, Nov 1
Analysis
+2
L
@ CHI CHI
113 SAC CHI 126
CHI @ CHI
113 126
Thu, Oct 30
Analysis
-13
L
@ OKC OKC
101 SAC OKC 107
OKC @ OKC
101 107
Wed, Oct 29
Analysis
-6
L
vs LAL LAL
127 LAL SAC 120
LAL vs LAL
120 127
Sun, Oct 26
Analysis
-7
W
vs UTA UTA
104 UTA SAC 105
UTA vs UTA
105 104
Fri, Oct 24
Analysis
+1
L
@ PHX PHX
116 SAC PHX 120
PHX @ PHX
116 120
Wed, Oct 22
Analysis
-4