GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
S Jalen Williams 25.7m
15
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
+0.7

Steady, efficient shot selection kept his impact slightly positive without needing to dominate the ball. He picked his spots perfectly within the flow of the offense, maintaining his recent scoring averages while playing mistake-free basketball. Modest defensive contributions ensured his efficient scoring translated to a net positive.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.7%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +51.0
+/- +31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.4
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 25.7m -16.7
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
20
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
+5.8

Despite a significant drop in his usual scoring volume, surgical efficiency and sharp defensive reads kept his impact highly positive. He refused to force bad shots against tailored defensive coverages, instead dissecting the defense with high-percentage looks. His willingness to rely on hustle and defensive positioning (+3.9) compensated for the quieter offensive night.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg +49.1
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.9
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 23.6m -15.4
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Chet Holmgren 22.2m
21
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+12.8

Scorching efficiency from all three levels drove a massive surge in his overall impact. He punished defensive rotations with lethal perimeter shooting, vastly outperforming his recent scoring trends to break the game open. Combined with formidable rim protection (+5.7 def), this was a masterclass in two-way dominance.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.4%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg +57.7
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +18.3
Hustle +3.2
Defense +5.7
Raw total +27.2
Avg player in 22.2m -14.4
Impact +12.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 1
S Luguentz Dort 21.2m
13
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.9

High-level perimeter shot-making paired with his trademark defensive tenacity fueled a strong positive rating. He punished sagging defenders by knocking down timely outside looks, elevating his offensive value well beyond his usual output. Relentless hustle plays (+4.3) further cemented his status as a two-way difference-maker in this matchup.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 92.9%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg +50.9
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +4.3
Defense +4.0
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 21.2m -13.7
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
10
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.3

Elite finishing around the basket and physical interior defense anchored a highly effective rotational shift. He capitalized on virtually every touch near the rim, providing a noticeable scoring bump over his recent baseline. His ability to secure the paint (+3.6 def) amplified his highly efficient offensive output.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +42.9
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.6
Raw total +17.7
Avg player in 19.0m -12.4
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
16
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.6

Exceptional two-way execution defined this breakout performance, highlighted by lethal spot-up shooting. He capitalized on defensive breakdowns to bury outside looks, while simultaneously suffocating his matchups on the perimeter (+6.8 def). This combination of elite efficiency and point-of-attack defense made him one of the most impactful players on the floor.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +42.5
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +4.8
Defense +6.8
Raw total +24.9
Avg player in 22.0m -14.3
Impact +10.6
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
1
reb
7
ast
Impact
-8.4

Poor shot selection and a lack of hustle plays severely dragged down his offensive value. He forced too many contested looks, breaking his recent trend of efficient scoring and stalling out possessions. Even with passable defensive metrics, the wasted offensive trips were too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.9%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +36.8
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense +1.6
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.1
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 18.8m -12.1
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Jared McCain 15.1m
3
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.4

Continued struggles with perimeter efficiency sank his overall rating despite decent defensive effort. He couldn't find the range from outside, wasting valuable possessions and failing to provide necessary floor spacing. The inability to knock down open looks negated any positive momentum he generated on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +0.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.2
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 15.1m -9.7
Impact -6.4
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Isaiah Joe 14.4m
9
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.3

A quiet but efficient shooting night resulted in a nearly neutral impact score. He executed his floor-spacing role perfectly when called upon, but simply didn't generate enough volume to swing the game's momentum. Solid defensive positioning kept him from being a liability during his rotation.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.7%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg +34.0
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.4m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.1
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 14.4m -9.4
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Alex Caruso 13.3m
5
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Strong point-of-attack defense and steady hustle metrics were nearly undone by a lack of offensive assertiveness. He deferred too often on the perimeter, limiting his ability to stretch the floor or punish defensive rotations. Ultimately, his elite defensive instincts just barely failed to cover up his minimal offensive footprint.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +24.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.3m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.5
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 13.3m -8.7
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.2

Minor defensive lapses and a low-volume offensive role resulted in a slightly negative overall rating. While he knocked down a couple of outside looks to space the floor, he struggled to anchor the defense during his minutes. The inability to consistently deter drives or secure the paint offset his modest shooting contributions.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg +41.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.7
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 12.4m -8.0
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.3

A completely empty shooting line abruptly snapped a highly efficient four-game streak, tanking his impact score. He failed to connect on any of his attempts, offering zero offensive gravity during his brief stint. Without his usual scoring punch, his negligible defensive contributions left him as a clear net negative.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -14.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.1m
Offense -2.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.1
Raw total -1.1
Avg player in 8.1m -5.2
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
8
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.8

Flawless shooting efficiency provided a massive, unexpected boost to the second unit. He capitalized on every single touch, completely reversing his recent trend of offensive struggles to deliver a highly impactful scoring burst. This perfect offensive execution easily masked his slight defensive shortcomings.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 133.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -14.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.1m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.1
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 8.1m -5.2
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.0

An explosive, hyper-efficient scoring surge out of nowhere drove a stellar positive impact rating. He punished the defense inside and out, shattering his recent abysmal shooting trends with near-perfect execution. This sudden offensive outburst completely tilted the floor during his limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg -14.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.1m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 8.1m -5.3
Impact +9.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.7

A reluctance to look for his own shot resulted in a slightly negative overall impact. He operated purely as a passive distributor, failing to bend the defense or create his own scoring gravity. Minor defensive lapses further dragged down his rating during a quiet rotational shift.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 15.0%
Net Rtg -14.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.1m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.4
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 8.1m -5.3
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
UTA Utah Jazz
34
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+6.9

An absolute flamethrower performance from deep drove a massive spike in his offensive value. His elite shot-making efficiency completely overwhelmed the defense, capitalizing on every open look to shatter his recent scoring averages. Solid positional defense and hustle metrics ensured he gave none of that value back on the other end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 11/19 (57.9%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -28.2
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 43.2m
Offense +26.3
Hustle +5.0
Defense +3.8
Raw total +35.1
Avg player in 43.2m -28.2
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kyle Filipowski 37.6m
20
pts
14
reb
6
ast
Impact
-2.6

High-volume inefficiency doomed his net rating, as he wasted crucial possessions trying to find his rhythm and completely blanked from beyond the arc. This erratic shot selection broke a reliable five-game streak of highly efficient interior scoring. While his raw production looked robust, the sheer number of empty trips severely hampered the team's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 10/25 (40.0%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.3%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -22.6
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.6m
Offense +15.9
Hustle +3.5
Defense +2.4
Raw total +21.8
Avg player in 37.6m -24.4
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Cody Williams 36.4m
8
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-5.7

A severe drop-off in scoring efficiency cratered his overall impact despite excellent defensive metrics. A heavy volume of missed field goals and a total inability to connect from deep dragged down his offensive value, halting the momentum from his recent strong scoring stretch. His high-level perimeter defense (+8.1) was the only thing that prevented the negative rating from falling even further.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.7%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -33.8
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +3.3
Hustle +6.6
Defense +8.1
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 36.4m -23.7
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ace Bailey 33.5m
14
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.3

Clunky shot selection and misfires from the perimeter dragged his overall impact deeply into the red. Despite flashing some solid defensive instincts (+5.6) to disrupt opponent actions, the wasted offensive possessions outweighed his effort on the other end. He struggled to find the flow of the game, forcing contested looks rather than letting the offense come to him.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -60.3
+/- -47
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.6
Raw total +12.4
Avg player in 33.5m -21.7
Impact -9.3
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 3
S Oscar Tshiebwe 20.2m
4
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.9

Extremely limited offensive involvement snapped a streak of highly efficient outings, rendering him nearly invisible on that end of the floor. Without his usual finishing volume around the rim, his minimal defensive and hustle contributions weren't enough to keep his overall impact from plummeting. He simply couldn't impose his physical will or generate extra possessions in this matchup.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -88.6
+/- -39
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.1
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 20.2m -13.2
Impact -11.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
John Konchar 25.9m
9
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.6

Elite defensive execution (+14.1) and relentless hustle completely defined this highly impactful shift. He didn't need to dominate the ball to control the game, instead blowing up opponent actions and securing extra possessions through sheer effort. His low-usage, high-efficiency role-playing was the exact glue the rotation needed to thrive.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.4%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -22.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +8.3
Hustle +4.0
Defense +14.1
Raw total +26.4
Avg player in 25.9m -16.8
Impact +9.6
How is this calculated?
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 2
17
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.3

Settling for a heavy diet of contested three-pointers tanked his efficiency and overall impact rating. After a hyper-efficient previous outing, his shot selection regressed into predictable perimeter chucking that bailed out the defense. Even with respectable defensive metrics, the sheer volume of missed long-range looks stalled out offensive momentum.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 5/14 (35.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.1%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg -12.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +3.2
Defense +3.5
Raw total +11.0
Avg player in 23.5m -15.3
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
5
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
-8.4

A passive offensive approach neutralized his ability to influence the game, resulting in a steep drop from his usual scoring output. He deferred too often, attempting almost no shots and failing to pressure the rim to collapse the defense. Combined with slightly negative defensive metrics, his lack of aggression left a noticeable void in the backcourt rotation.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 8.9%
Net Rtg -11.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.4
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 19.8m -12.9
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1