GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Jalen Johnson 40.6m
21
pts
11
reb
5
ast
Impact
-5.5

High-volume inefficiency plagued his rating, as double-digit missed field goals generated long rebounds and opponent transition opportunities. He competed hard on the defensive end, but forced isolation attempts late in the shot clock severely damaged the team's offensive flow. A lack of secondary playmaking compounded the struggles when his primary moves were cut off.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.8%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +1.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.6m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.7
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 40.6m -19.9
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
36
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+19.4

Blistering perimeter shooting fueled a massive positive impact, punishing every defensive lapse with a barrage of made threes. He capitalized on poor closeouts all night, taking excellent care of the basketball while scoring well above his recent averages. This elite shot-making completely warped the opponent's defensive shell, opening up driving lanes for everyone else.

Shooting
FG 12/19 (63.2%)
3PT 7/11 (63.6%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.9%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg -6.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.0m
Offense +29.0
Hustle +8.1
Defense +1.5
Raw total +38.6
Avg player in 39.0m -19.2
Impact +19.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Dyson Daniels 37.9m
11
pts
12
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.0

Poor finishing around the basket dragged his overall impact slightly into the red despite strong rebounding numbers. He remained a disruptive force on the perimeter (+2.6 defense), but the empty offensive possessions stalled out crucial rallies. The inability to convert drives into points ultimately capped his ceiling.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.1%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +1.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.9m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +2.7
Defense +2.6
Raw total +17.6
Avg player in 37.9m -18.6
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Onyeka Okongwu 36.7m
12
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.2

Settling for low-percentage perimeter shots completely undermined his interior value. While he battled admirably on the glass to generate hustle points, the decision to float outside dragged down the unit's offensive efficiency. Opposing bigs were happy to let him fire away from deep rather than fight him in the paint.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.2%
USG% 16.3%
Net Rtg +11.6
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +6.3
Defense +1.6
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 36.7m -17.9
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S CJ McCollum 34.6m
17
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-1.6

A heavy diet of contested mid-range pull-ups resulted in a slew of missed shots, pulling his net rating into negative territory. He surprisingly held his own defensively (+4.7), but the offensive stagnation caused by his isolation-heavy approach disrupted the team's rhythm. The volume simply didn't match the efficiency required to win his minutes.

Shooting
FG 7/19 (36.8%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.7%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg -7.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.7
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 34.6m -17.0
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
5
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.7

Poor shot selection from beyond the arc severely limited his effectiveness and dragged down his impact score. He flashed his usual athletic upside on defense (+3.5), but the inability to convert on the offensive end allowed defenders to pack the paint. Forcing jumpers instead of attacking the rim played right into the opponent's scouting report.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 13.1%
Net Rtg -8.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.5
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 22.1m -10.9
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Gabe Vincent 10.3m
0
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.3

Invisible offensive production during his brief stint left the second unit struggling to generate quality looks. He failed to pressure the rim or create separation, allowing the defense to cheat off him entirely. A lack of disruptive defensive plays meant he couldn't make up for the scoring void.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.8%
Net Rtg +9.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.3m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.3
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 10.3m -5.1
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.0

Failed to make a tangible mark on the game, missing his only shot attempt while offering little resistance inside. He chased a few loose balls but was largely outmuscled in the paint by stronger opponents. The lack of offensive assertiveness made it easy for the defense to ignore him.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg -54.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.7m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.1
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 7.7m -3.7
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Rushed offensive decisions led to a string of missed jumpers, dampening his overall contribution in limited action. He managed to stay disciplined defensively, but the severe drop in scoring punch made him a net negative. The game seemed to move a bit too fast for him during half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 30.7%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -42.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.4m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.8
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 7.4m -3.6
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.2

A quick, ineffective shift was marred by missed bunnies inside and a failure to protect the rim. He looked a step slow navigating pick-and-roll coverages, giving up easy floaters in the lane. The inability to anchor the paint quickly forced the coaching staff to look elsewhere.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.6m
Offense -1.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total -2.4
Avg player in 3.6m -1.8
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
NYK New York Knicks
S Jalen Brunson 39.2m
30
pts
3
reb
13
ast
Impact
+10.3

Heavy offensive volume yielded mixed results, as a barrage of missed shots dragged down what could have been a monster impact score. However, his elite playmaking engine kept the offense humming, consistently collapsing the defense to create open looks for teammates. Timely defensive rotations surprisingly bolstered his overall rating during sluggish scoring stretches.

Shooting
FG 11/26 (42.3%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 51.6%
USG% 35.2%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.2m
Offense +16.7
Hustle +7.7
Defense +5.1
Raw total +29.5
Avg player in 39.2m -19.2
Impact +10.3
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S OG Anunoby 36.9m
22
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.9

Solid two-way contributions kept his overall impact in the black despite a relatively quiet scoring output compared to his recent surge. His defensive versatility anchored the perimeter, generating positive hustle metrics (+3.9) that offset any offensive lulls. The steady diet of catch-and-shoot corner spacing provided crucial breathing room during half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.8%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg +17.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.9m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +3.9
Defense +3.0
Raw total +20.1
Avg player in 36.9m -18.2
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
21
pts
12
reb
6
ast
Impact
+15.4

Supreme shot selection drove a massive positive impact, punishing mismatches inside while stretching the floor efficiently. His defensive engagement (+9.0) was the real separator, actively contesting shots at the rim rather than just trading baskets. Dominating the glass on both ends ensured the opposition rarely saw second-chance opportunities.

Shooting
FG 9/12 (75.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.4%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +1.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +17.8
Hustle +4.3
Defense +9.0
Raw total +31.1
Avg player in 32.0m -15.7
Impact +15.4
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Mikal Bridges 31.9m
15
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.8

Constant off-ball movement and high-percentage rim finishes compensated for a cold night from beyond the arc. He leveraged his length brilliantly on the defensive end (+5.0), disrupting passing lanes and forcing contested mid-range jumpers. This disciplined two-way execution kept his net rating comfortably positive despite the perimeter struggles.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.0%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +5.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +13.9
Hustle +2.6
Defense +5.0
Raw total +21.5
Avg player in 31.9m -15.7
Impact +5.8
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Josh Hart 30.6m
2
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-11.5

Offensive passivity completely derailed his overall value, as he barely looked at the rim and fell drastically below his recent scoring average. While he still generated typical energy plays in the hustle department, the lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to aggressively sag off him. This hesitation to attack the paint stalled multiple offensive possessions and cratered his net rating.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg -1.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.6m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +3.4
Defense -0.3
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 30.6m -15.0
Impact -11.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
1
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.0

A complete lack of offensive production cratered his impact, failing to register a single field goal in over 20 minutes of action. While he chased shooters adequately around screens, his inability to punish closeouts made him a liability on the other end. The offense essentially played 4-on-5 during his shifts due to his lack of scoring threat.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.4%
USG% 6.1%
Net Rtg -9.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +2.9
Defense +1.4
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 21.2m -10.4
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.9

Despite doubling his recent scoring average, inefficient perimeter shooting limited his ability to positively influence the game. He brought his trademark point-of-attack pressure, but the missed jumpers allowed the defense to leak out in transition. A failure to penetrate the paint relegated him to a strictly one-dimensional role.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg -0.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.0
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 19.7m -9.6
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
12
reb
1
ast
Impact
+17.5

Absolute dominance in the paint dictated this massive positive rating, driven by an elite +11.6 defensive score. He altered countless shots at the rim and secured crucial extra possessions without demanding the basketball. This low-usage, high-efficiency rim-running perfectly complemented the perimeter-heavy rotation.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +12.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +12.9
Hustle +2.7
Defense +11.6
Raw total +27.2
Avg player in 19.6m -9.7
Impact +17.5
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 0
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.5

Brief and ineffective minutes resulted in a steep negative score, primarily due to defensive lapses that bled points. He struggled to find any rhythm in a limited role, failing to provide the microwave scoring punch usually expected from him. Opponents aggressively targeted his side of the floor during his short stint.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg -27.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.8m
Offense -3.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.9
Raw total -4.2
Avg player in 8.8m -4.3
Impact -8.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3