GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DEN Denver Nuggets
S Nikola Jokić 43.2m
35
pts
14
reb
13
ast
Impact
+23.6

Total schematic dominance from the high post completely broke the opponent's defensive shell and yielded a monstrous net rating. Exceptional positioning and quick hands in the passing lanes fueled an unexpectedly dominant defensive performance. He systematically dismantled the opposing frontcourt through sheer processing speed and spatial awareness.

Shooting
FG 15/31 (48.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.4%
USG% 38.2%
Net Rtg +5.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 43.2m
Offense +27.2
Hustle +4.7
Defense +15.9
Raw total +47.8
Avg player in 43.2m -24.2
Impact +23.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 5
BLK 2
TO 6
S Christian Braun 39.9m
8
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.1

Elite point-of-attack harassment and relentless screen navigation were heavily offset by a complete lack of perimeter gravity. Refusing to take open catch-and-shoot looks allowed his defender to aggressively pack the paint. His defensive tenacity couldn't fully compensate for the offensive spacing issues he created.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 7.2%
Net Rtg +11.0
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.9m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +4.2
Defense +8.9
Raw total +20.2
Avg player in 39.9m -22.3
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jamal Murray 38.3m
20
pts
1
reb
7
ast
Impact
+1.9

Relentless off-ball movement and aggressive loose-ball recoveries kept his overall impact in the green despite a dip in scoring volume. Navigating heavy trapping schemes with poise prevented live-ball turnovers and maintained offensive rhythm. His willingness to do the dirty work compensated for an uneven shooting night.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.3%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +11.3
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.3m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +6.2
Defense +2.2
Raw total +23.3
Avg player in 38.3m -21.4
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Cameron Johnson 36.7m
17
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
-4.2

Giving up straight-line drives on the perimeter torpedoed his overall value despite a highly efficient shooting night. Slow lateral slides allowed opposing wings to collapse the defense and generate high-value looks. His offensive precision simply couldn't outpace the defensive bleed.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.9%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg +35.2
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Offense +15.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense -1.1
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 36.7m -20.6
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Aaron Gordon 31.1m
23
pts
9
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.5

Bullying smaller defenders in the dunker spot established a physical tone that drove a strong positive rating. Punishing sagging coverage by confidently stepping into perimeter jumpers forced the defense into impossible rotational binds. His sheer athletic force dictated the terms of engagement in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.0%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg +4.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +21.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +24.9
Avg player in 31.1m -17.4
Impact +7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Bruce Brown 24.2m
6
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.7

Struggling to finish through contact at the rim resulted in empty possessions and a steep negative rating. A lack of burst off the dribble allowed primary defenders to easily stay in front and contest his floaters. Unable to generate his usual chaotic energy, his minutes were largely a net negative.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.7%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -3.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +3.3
Defense +0.1
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 24.2m -13.5
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.0

Forcing heavily contested jumpers early in the shot clock completely short-circuited the second unit's offensive flow. Clanking wide-open looks allowed the opposition to leak out and generate easy transition points. This prolonged shooting slump severely damaged the team's momentum during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 21.4%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -42.0
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense -2.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.5
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 23.2m -13.1
Impact -13.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
11
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.3

Decisive attacking against closeouts provided a crucial offensive spark and drove a solid positive rating. Moving intelligently without the ball allowed him to find soft spots in the zone for high-percentage finishes. His crisp execution maximized his limited rotational minutes.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.5%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg -10.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.2
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 18.7m -10.4
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
14
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.8

Absolute bullying in the deep post overwhelmed the backup frontcourt and spiked his per-minute impact. Sealing his man early in the shot clock generated guaranteed buckets and forced immediate defensive adjustments. He maximized a short stint by playing with sheer physical dominance.

Shooting
FG 6/7 (85.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.8%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +9.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.8m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.6
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 9.8m -5.5
Impact +11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
POR Portland Trail Blazers
S Deni Avdija 39.5m
26
pts
4
reb
7
ast
Impact
-3.2

Inefficient perimeter shooting dragged his overall impact into the red despite a high offensive usage rate. Clanking the vast majority of his attempts from beyond the arc stalled out half-court possessions and generated long rebounds for the opposition. His active defensive rotations partially salvaged his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 13/14 (92.9%)
Advanced
TS% 61.4%
USG% 28.3%
Net Rtg -17.3
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.5m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.9
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 39.5m -22.2
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
S Jrue Holiday 38.9m
19
pts
6
reb
11
ast
Impact
-4.5

Forcing contested looks inside the arc severely suppressed his net impact. While his perimeter spacing was valuable, empty trips on drives allowed the opposing transition game to flourish. He struggled to generate clean separation against primary defenders, leading to a volume-heavy but inefficient outing.

Shooting
FG 7/19 (36.8%)
3PT 5/12 (41.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg -1.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.9m
Offense +14.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.8
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 38.9m -21.9
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Scoot Henderson 35.7m
18
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.8

Questionable decision-making in traffic negated a solid shooting night from the perimeter. Getting bogged down in drop coverage led to stalled possessions and empty offensive trips. His inability to consistently break down the first line of defense kept his overall impact firmly in the negative.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -19.8
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.1
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 35.7m -20.0
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Toumani Camara 34.9m
30
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+8.9

Blistering perimeter execution completely warped the opponent's defensive scheme and drove a massive positive rating. Catching fire from the corners forced aggressive closeouts, opening up the floor for the entire unit. A slight dip in defensive containment was easily overshadowed by his lethal spot-up gravity.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 8/13 (61.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 88.9%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +2.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +24.5
Hustle +4.4
Defense -0.3
Raw total +28.6
Avg player in 34.9m -19.7
Impact +8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Donovan Clingan 30.0m
18
pts
12
reb
0
ast
Impact
+9.9

Elite rim protection and active interior contests anchored a highly positive defensive rating. Stepping out to connect on pick-and-pop actions stretched the opposing frontcourt out of their comfort zone. His sheer physical presence in the paint dictated the terms of engagement all night.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Offense +17.2
Hustle +4.0
Defense +5.6
Raw total +26.8
Avg player in 30.0m -16.9
Impact +9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 26
FGM Against 16
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
14
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.1

Disruptive off-ball roaming and elite passing-lane anticipation fueled a massive defensive rating. Punishing defensive lapses with timely corner triples made him a devastating two-way presence. His ability to blow up dribble hand-offs completely derailed the opponent's primary offensive sets.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +17.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.2m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +10.4
Defense +12.3
Raw total +26.7
Avg player in 33.2m -18.6
Impact +8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 5
BLK 1
TO 5
6
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-6.0

Failing to establish deep post position limited his utility as a vertical threat. Opposing bigs easily pushed him off his spots, neutralizing his typical offensive rebounding advantage. A lack of forceful rim deterrence on defense compounded a highly ineffective shift.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 23.0m -12.8
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Kris Murray 21.8m
1
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-16.9

Complete offensive invisibility created a severe spacing handicap for the second unit. Refusing to look at the rim allowed his defender to freely roam and clog the driving lanes for primary creators. This extreme passivity, combined with late closeouts on the other end, resulted in a cratered net rating.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 5.7%
Net Rtg +8.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense -2.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense -2.1
Raw total -4.6
Avg player in 21.8m -12.3
Impact -16.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

A brief rotational cameo was marred by missed defensive assignments and a lack of offensive aggression. Floating on the perimeter without cutting with purpose allowed the defense to rest. He failed to generate any tangible momentum during his limited floor time.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.0%
Net Rtg -13.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.0m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense -0.2
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 8.0m -4.4
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0