GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Cooper Flagg 38.5m
45
pts
8
reb
9
ast
Impact
+19.2

An absolute masterclass in two-way dominance, driven by relentless rim pressure and suffocating defensive versatility (+7.4). He dictated the terms of engagement on every possession, punishing mismatches offensively while completely blowing up opponent actions on the other end. This transcendent, high-volume scoring clinic cemented a staggering +20.5 net impact.

Shooting
FG 14/27 (51.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 15/17 (88.2%)
Advanced
TS% 65.3%
USG% 38.0%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Offense +30.5
Hustle +3.2
Defense +10.0
Raw total +43.7
Avg player in 38.5m -24.5
Impact +19.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Naji Marshall 31.6m
13
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
-3.0

A string of sloppy offensive fouls and transition turnovers completely erased the benefits of his rugged defensive effort (+5.6). Even though he finished well around the basket, his reckless decision-making in the open floor handed momentum right back to the opponent. His aggressive but undisciplined drives characterized a highly volatile performance.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.8%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -7.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +10.0
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 31.6m -20.1
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S P.J. Washington 29.6m
15
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.3

Costly live-ball turnovers and ill-timed fouls severely undercut what was otherwise a highly efficient shooting night. While his spot-up spacing and on-ball defense (+3.8) were commendable, the possessions he gave away in transition proved fatal to his net score. His inability to secure the ball in traffic defined the frustrating gap between his box stats and actual impact.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -3.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +5.0
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 29.6m -18.8
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Max Christie 25.2m
8
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.8

Clanking open catch-and-shoot opportunities neutralized the value of his stellar perimeter defense (+5.2). He consistently stayed in front of elite ball-handlers, but his offensive limitations allowed the opposition to completely ignore him on the perimeter. This one-way production resulted in a noticeable drag on the team's half-court spacing.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.1
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 25.2m -16.0
Impact -9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Daniel Gafford 19.9m
7
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.3

Elite rim deterrence and relentless activity on the glass drove a wildly positive impact despite a sharp drop in his usual scoring volume. He completely locked down the paint (+6.4 defensive rating), altering numerous shots and securing crucial extra possessions. His willingness to embrace a gritty, defense-first role anchored the second unit's success.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.8%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +48.0
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +4.2
Defense +5.8
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 19.9m -12.7
Impact +9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
13
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.7

Penetrating the defense with purpose allowed him to generate high-quality looks and elevate his overall offensive impact. He paired this efficient slashing with tenacious point-of-attack defense (+4.0) that disrupted the opponent's timing. His ability to control the tempo while avoiding costly mistakes defined a highly productive rotation stint.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 64.5%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg +25.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +5.0
Defense -0.9
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 24.6m -15.6
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
9
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.6

Disciplined positioning around the basket and timely closeouts fueled a quietly effective two-way performance. He didn't force his offense, instead capitalizing on dump-offs and offensive rebounds to maintain high efficiency. This steady, mistake-free execution in the frontcourt kept his net impact comfortably in the green.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -32.0
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +9.2
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 21.5m -13.7
Impact +8.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
11
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.2

While his perimeter stroke finally returned to form, an inability to generate secondary actions or hustle plays (+0.4) left his overall impact slightly negative. He operated strictly as a stationary floor spacer, offering very little resistance on the defensive end. The lack of off-ball movement and physical engagement limited his effectiveness beyond the arc.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +16.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.6
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 18.2m -11.5
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.7

Getting hunted in the pick-and-roll (-1.8 defensive impact) completely negated a highly efficient shooting night. His slow lateral movement allowed opponents to generate easy paint touches, bleeding points on the defensive end. Despite knocking down his perimeter looks, his inability to stay in front of quicker wings tanked his net score.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +23.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.2
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 17.6m -11.2
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.2

Missed rotations and late closeouts (-1.5 defensive impact) quickly turned his brief appearance into a net negative. He managed to hit a perimeter shot, but his overall lack of defensive awareness gave those points right back. Opponents actively targeted his side of the floor during his short time on the court.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -21.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.9m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.5
Raw total +2.2
Avg player in 6.9m -4.4
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.2

Failing to establish any interior presence offensively rendered his short stint largely ineffective. He struggled to anchor the drop coverage (-1.2 defensive impact), allowing guards to turn the corner too easily. A solid effort on the hustle margins prevented his score from completely bottoming out.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -22.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.4m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense -1.2
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 6.4m -4.1
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
LAL Los Angeles Lakers
S Luke Kennard 41.2m
15
pts
16
reb
11
ast
Impact
-18.4

A brutal shooting night completely tanked his net impact despite him logging massive counting stats across the board. Forcing contested looks and clanking perimeter attempts actively hurt the team's half-court rhythm, leading to a -9.0 total score. The sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions overshadowed his surprisingly robust rebounding effort.

Shooting
FG 5/17 (29.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg +10.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 41.2m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +2.0
Defense -0.7
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 41.2m -26.1
Impact -18.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Rui Hachimura 39.0m
21
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.1

Elite shot selection and highly efficient perimeter execution fueled a massive spike in his offensive production. By capitalizing on defensive rotations, he generated a stellar +20.7 box score impact. His disciplined closeouts and steady positional defense ensured those offensive gains translated to a solid positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.8%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg +6.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.0m
Offense +17.1
Hustle +1.8
Defense +2.8
Raw total +21.7
Avg player in 39.0m -24.8
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S LeBron James 38.7m
30
pts
9
reb
15
ast
Impact
-5.9

Massive offensive creation drove a stellar box score, but his overall net impact barely broke even at +0.1 due to perimeter inefficiency. The heavy usage likely carried a steep turnover cost that negated much of his elite playmaking value. Still, his engaged point-of-attack defense (+4.2) kept him in the green during crucial isolation matchups.

Shooting
FG 12/22 (54.5%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 5/9 (55.6%)
Advanced
TS% 57.8%
USG% 30.6%
Net Rtg +2.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.7m
Offense +20.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense -2.8
Raw total +18.7
Avg player in 38.7m -24.6
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 81.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Jake LaRavia 35.7m
14
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.8

Relentless activity on the margins generated an elite +8.2 hustle rating, but it couldn't salvage a deeply negative overall impact. Poor shot selection and bricked perimeter looks severely damaged his offensive value. His tendency to force contested jumpers off the catch ultimately erased the benefits of his high-motor defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 48.2%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg -3.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +8.2
Defense +3.7
Raw total +20.9
Avg player in 35.7m -22.7
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Deandre Ayton 19.4m
13
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.5

Operating efficiently in the pick-and-roll, his interior finishing provided a steady offensive anchor during his limited minutes. He avoided forcing bad shots, which stabilized his overall impact score. A consistent effort to seal early in the paint defined this highly effective, low-maintenance stint.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.4%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +5.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.4m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.5
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 19.4m -12.4
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Jaxson Hayes 27.2m
23
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.5

Dominant interior finishing and excellent lob-catching fueled a massive offensive surge that kept his impact firmly in the green. However, poor rim protection and missed rotations (-1.7 defensive impact) prevented him from posting a monster overall rating. His ability to consistently punish mismatches in the dunker spot defined his highly productive night.

Shooting
FG 8/10 (80.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 85.1%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -16.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +24.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense -5.1
Raw total +21.8
Avg player in 27.2m -17.3
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Maxi Kleber 12.7m
2
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.7

Despite providing solid weak-side rim protection (+2.1 defensive impact), his offensive passivity dragged his net score into the red. He passed up open looks and failed to stretch the floor, allowing the defense to pack the paint. This hesitation to shoot effectively neutralized the value of his steady defensive rotations.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 5.4%
Net Rtg +9.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +1.0
Defense +4.0
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 12.7m -8.1
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.8

A complete lack of hustle plays (+0.0) and minimal defensive disruption limited his effectiveness in a short stint. Even with perfect shooting from the field, his inability to generate extra possessions or alter shots left him with a negative net impact. He essentially floated on the perimeter rather than imposing his usual physical presence.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -84.0
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Offense +6.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense -2.6
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 11.6m -7.4
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.9

Defensive breakdowns against quicker guards (-1.6 defensive impact) slightly outweighed his efficient offensive cameo. He showed improved shot selection by taking only high-quality looks, which boosted his box metrics. Still, late closeouts and missed assignments kept his overall net rating just below neutral.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -40.1
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.8m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense -5.2
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 8.8m -5.6
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.2

Failing to register any meaningful offensive production during a brief appearance resulted in a negative overall grade. He provided a slight bump in perimeter defense, but an errant shot attempt stalled the offense. His inability to quickly integrate into the flow of the second unit defined this forgettable stint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -175.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.3m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total -0.0
Avg player in 3.3m -2.2
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

A rushed perimeter jumper derailed his extremely brief time on the floor, instantly dropping his offensive impact. He managed to stay in front of his man defensively, but it wasn't enough to offset the wasted possession. The failure to let the game come to him characterized this quick, negative cameo.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -3.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Offense -1.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.5
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 2.4m -1.6
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0