GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIN Minnesota Timberwolves
S Ayo Dosunmu 34.5m
12
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.0

A significant drop in his usual scoring aggression combined with defensive struggles to pull his overall rating into the red. He failed to stretch the floor, allowing defenders to pack the paint and disrupt the offensive flow. The lack of perimeter threat severely capped his effectiveness.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.8%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -31.5
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.5m
Offense +8.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.4
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 34.5m -12.8
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Julius Randle 32.1m
26
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.3

Bullying his way to the rim sustained his streak of highly efficient shooting nights and kept his impact score positive. While his perimeter attempts failed to connect, his sheer physical dominance in the paint anchored the half-court offense. He successfully compensated for a cold outside stroke with relentless interior pressure.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 65.1%
USG% 34.7%
Net Rtg -25.8
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +14.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 32.1m -11.9
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S Rudy Gobert 29.8m
12
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.8

Elite rim protection and disciplined verticality drove a strong defensive rating that anchored his overall positive impact. He capitalized on dump-off passes with high-percentage finishes, playing perfectly within his offensive limitations. His presence alone altered multiple shot attempts in the paint.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -21.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +7.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense +5.0
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 29.8m -11.0
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
6
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.8

A frosty shooting performance completely derailed his overall value despite putting up solid resistance on the defensive end. Clanking a high volume of perimeter looks killed offensive momentum and led to empty possessions. His inability to find the bottom of the net overshadowed his hustle.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg -17.1
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense -2.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.6
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 27.0m -10.0
Impact -9.8
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Mike Conley 21.9m
11
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

Despite breaking out of a severe shooting slump with accurate perimeter execution, his overall impact surprisingly dipped into the negative. The underlying metrics suggest his minutes coincided with detrimental opponent runs, masking his personal offensive bounce-back. He hit his shots, but the team lost ground while he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -14.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +4.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.6
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 21.9m -8.2
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Bones Hyland 28.7m
18
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+8.7

A blistering perimeter barrage and surprisingly robust defensive rotations fueled a massive positive rating. He shattered his recent efficiency struggles by confidently stepping into rhythm triples. This two-way surge provided a critical spark that completely shifted the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.5%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +4.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +13.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense +6.0
Raw total +19.4
Avg player in 28.7m -10.7
Impact +8.7
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
Naz Reid 24.7m
6
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-10.0

Forcing low-quality shots resulted in a disastrously inefficient outing that cratered his impact score. He repeatedly stalled the offense by settling for contested jumpers rather than moving the ball. This high-volume, low-reward approach actively hurt the team's ability to score.

Shooting
FG 3/14 (21.4%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 21.4%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -21.1
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense -0.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.1
Raw total -0.7
Avg player in 24.7m -9.3
Impact -10.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.5

A passive offensive approach limited his utility, dragging his overall rating into negative territory. While he provided his usual heady defensive positioning, his reluctance to attack the basket allowed defenders to ignore him. He operated too much on the periphery to make a meaningful positive dent.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 7.5%
Net Rtg -30.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense +1.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.9
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 17.0m -6.3
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jaylen Clark 10.9m
9
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.0

Perfect execution from beyond the arc turned a short rotational stint into a highly impactful performance. He capitalized on every open look generated by the offense, punishing defensive breakdowns with immediate precision. This lethal spot-up shooting provided a massive boost to the second unit.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 112.5%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +9.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.9m
Offense +9.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.8
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 10.9m -4.0
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Failed to assert himself during a brief appearance, resulting in a slightly negative footprint. He essentially ran cardio without attempting a shot or generating any defensive disruption. The game completely bypassed him during his time on the hardwood.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +75.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 4.7m -1.7
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.8

Made the most of a tiny late-game window by aggressively attacking the rim for a quick score. His willingness to take the open look generated a positive rating in an otherwise inconsequential stretch. A solid, mistake-free cameo.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 106.4%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.2m
Offense +4.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 3.2m -1.2
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Secured a slightly positive rating by converting his lone offensive touch during mop-up duty. He stayed within the flow of the offense and avoided any sloppy turnovers. A quiet but effective use of garbage-time minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.2m
Offense +2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 3.2m -1.2
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.3

A brief, uneventful stint yielded a negative rating due to unfavorable lineup math. He failed to attempt a shot or make any tangible impact on the defensive end. Just a placeholder shift at the end of the rotation.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +80.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.3m
Offense -1.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 2.3m -0.9
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Brandon Miller 34.0m
7
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.2

Despite providing solid resistance on the defensive end, his overall value plummeted due to an icy shooting performance. Forcing up contested looks from beyond the arc snapped a recent streak of highly efficient scoring. The sheer volume of wasted possessions outweighed his positive defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 3/15 (20.0%)
3PT 1/9 (11.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 23.3%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg +30.0
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +1.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.9
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 34.0m -12.6
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Miles Bridges 33.8m
25
pts
8
reb
7
ast
Impact
+14.1

Scorching shot-making efficiency drove a massive positive impact score. He punished defensive rotations by hitting every single one of his perimeter attempts, elevating the entire offense. This flawless shot selection created a massive statistical footprint that outpaced his usual production.

Shooting
FG 10/12 (83.3%)
3PT 4/4 (100.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 100.5%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +22.9
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +25.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.1
Raw total +26.7
Avg player in 33.8m -12.6
Impact +14.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kon Knueppel 31.4m
11
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-12.7

A brutal shooting night completely tanked his overall impact rating. Clanking the majority of his attempts from the field ruined offensive possessions and prevented him from finding any rhythm. His inability to convert on decent looks defined a highly inefficient outing.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 35.9%
USG% 23.4%
Net Rtg +9.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense -1.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.2
Raw total -1.0
Avg player in 31.4m -11.7
Impact -12.7
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S LaMelo Ball 31.4m
35
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
+13.5

An absolute offensive masterclass generated a towering positive impact score. He broke out of a recent shooting slump by hunting high-value perimeter looks and converting them at a lethal rate. The sheer gravity of his scoring barrage completely dictated the tempo of the game.

Shooting
FG 13/22 (59.1%)
3PT 7/14 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.5%
USG% 35.5%
Net Rtg +21.1
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +23.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.7
Raw total +25.2
Avg player in 31.4m -11.7
Impact +13.5
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Moussa Diabaté 24.1m
8
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.3

Kept the offensive machinery humming with excellent shot selection around the rim, continuing a reliable streak of high-percentage finishes. His defensive positioning added quiet value that kept his overall rating firmly in the green. He played his role perfectly without forcing bad looks.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +22.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +11.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.2
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 24.1m -9.0
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Sion James 22.4m
5
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.6

Strong defensive rotations kept him somewhat relevant, but his offensive limitations dragged his overall rating into the negative. Missing the vast majority of his perimeter attempts allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes. His ongoing struggles with shooting efficiency remain a glaring issue.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.8
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 22.4m -8.4
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Coby White 19.6m
17
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.8

Defensive lapses completely erased the value of his perimeter shot-making. Opponents consistently targeted him on the other end of the floor, turning his productive scoring bursts into a net negative. The inability to string together stops defined his frustrating stint.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 35.6%
Net Rtg -10.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +5.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense -2.2
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 19.6m -7.4
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
8
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.8

Exceptional defensive positioning and timely closeouts drove a highly productive shift. He maximized his limited touches by draining high-quality perimeter looks, breaking a recent trend of poor efficiency. This was a textbook example of a high-leverage role player performance.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 103.1%
USG% 8.2%
Net Rtg +28.6
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +8.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense +4.9
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 18.9m -7.0
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.2

A lack of offensive involvement and slight defensive missteps resulted in a mildly negative footprint. While he didn't waste possessions, his failure to establish a presence inside limited his overall utility. He essentially blended into the background during his minutes on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 2.6%
Net Rtg -3.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense +4.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.6
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 16.5m -6.1
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.3

Managed a slightly positive rating in a microscopic sample size by simply avoiding mistakes. He kept the ball moving and secured loose rebounds during his brief cameo. A purely transitional shift with zero offensive usage.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.2m
Offense +2.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 3.2m -1.2
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Josh Green 2.5m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

A rushed perimeter attempt marred an extremely brief appearance on the court. He failed to register any positive counting stats, leading to a quick hook and a negative rating. The stint was too short to establish any sort of rhythm.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -80.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.5m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 2.5m -0.9
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.5

Maximized every second of a tiny rotational window by finishing strong inside and playing stout defense. Converting both of his interior looks provided an immediate, unexpected jolt of energy. This hyper-efficient burst perfectly illustrates how to capitalize on garbage-time minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -80.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.3m
Offense +4.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.3
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 2.3m -0.8
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0