GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

PHX Phoenix Suns
S Devin Booker 38.5m
31
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
-0.1

Relentless foul-drawing masked a somewhat inefficient shooting night from the floor. A pattern of attacking the rim and living at the free-throw line drove his high scoring volume and positive overall impact. Though his defensive contributions were merely average, his ability to manufacture points out of broken plays kept the offense afloat.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 15/16 (93.8%)
Advanced
TS% 67.3%
USG% 28.9%
Net Rtg +5.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Offense +19.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense -2.1
Raw total +19.2
Avg player in 38.5m -19.3
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Dillon Brooks 32.9m
10
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.3

Offensive black-hole tendencies completely tanked his overall value despite solid defensive effort. A glaring pattern of forcing contested, early-clock jumpers derailed the team's offensive flow and fueled opponent transition attacks. The sheer volume of wasted, inefficient possessions heavily outweighed whatever resistance he provided on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg +6.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.9m
Offense -2.7
Hustle +5.3
Defense +2.6
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 32.9m -16.5
Impact -11.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jalen Green 31.5m
15
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.9

A severe lack of perimeter shot-making dragged his overall impact into the red. Missing all of his deep attempts allowed defenders to pack the paint, stalling the half-court offense. While his defensive engagement was surprisingly strong, a pattern of clanking open looks ultimately crippled his value.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 43.9%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg -7.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +2.1
Defense +7.8
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 31.5m -15.9
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 3
S Mark Williams 28.0m
19
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+32.0

Absolutely dominated the interior on both ends, resulting in a massive positive impact score. His staggering defensive rating was defined by a stretch of elite rim protection that completely deterred opponents from attacking the paint. Offensively, a pattern of strictly adhering to high-percentage looks allowed him to punish mismatches with ruthless efficiency.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 0/0
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 81.6%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +21.5
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +25.3
Hustle +6.7
Defense +14.1
Raw total +46.1
Avg player in 28.0m -14.1
Impact +32.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jordan Goodwin 25.0m
11
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.3

Aggressive point-of-attack defense and timely perimeter shot-making drove a highly positive rotation stint. His defensive impact was anchored by a pattern of fighting over screens to disrupt the opposing backcourt's rhythm. Punishing defenses for sagging off him perfectly complemented his high-motor hustle plays.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 13.1%
Net Rtg +7.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +5.0
Defense +9.3
Raw total +23.9
Avg player in 25.0m -12.6
Impact +11.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.1

Passivity on the offensive end severely limited his effectiveness, as he failed to provide his usual floor-spacing gravity. Passing up semi-open looks disrupted the offensive flow and allowed the defense to cheat off him. Despite solid hustle metrics, a pattern of reluctance to shoot turned him into an offensive liability.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.2%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg -38.2
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +2.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.7
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 25.6m -13.0
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
Oso Ighodaro 18.9m
8
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.6

Quietly effective minutes defined by excellent positioning and a refusal to force bad shots. His positive defensive impact stemmed from a pattern of executing flawless switches on the perimeter. He capitalized on his limited touches with high-percentage finishes, providing exactly what was needed from a role player.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -53.1
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.8
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 18.9m -9.5
Impact +6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.1

Failed to make a meaningful imprint on the game, struggling to find his rhythm from beyond the arc. A pattern of late defensive closeouts negated his usually reliable perimeter resistance. The combination of missed open threes and average defensive execution dragged his overall impact into negative territory.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -55.0
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense -2.2
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 17.1m -8.7
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.2

An inability to orchestrate the offense or pose any scoring threat resulted in a deeply negative stint. Despite surprisingly robust defensive metrics, his complete lack of offensive production created a 4-on-5 situation on the other end. A pattern of bogged-down half-court sets defined his minutes due to a severe lack of penetration and playmaking.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -40.7
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense -5.2
Hustle +2.6
Defense -1.0
Raw total -3.6
Avg player in 17.0m -8.6
Impact -12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

A rushed, missed shot during a fleeting garbage-time appearance dinged his overall impact score. Forcing a bad look in his only minute of action immediately registered as a negative event. The brief stint was entirely defined by that single unproductive possession.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.1m
Offense -1.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.0
Avg player in 1.1m -0.6
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Koby Brea 1.1m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Saw the floor only as the clock expired, preventing any real statistical accumulation. The negative fractional score reflects the opponent scoring during his brief time on the court. His performance was defined entirely by the final buzzer sounding.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.1m
Offense -0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.1m -0.6
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

A purely ceremonial appearance at the end of the game yielded a negligible impact score. He didn't have the opportunity to contest a shot or touch the ball. The resulting metric is just a byproduct of garbage-time math.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.1m -0.5
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

Garbage-time deployment meant he barely had time to break a sweat before the final buzzer. His slightly negative score is a statistical artifact of being on the floor for a single empty possession. There wasn't enough time to establish any sort of meaningful pattern or impact.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.1m
Offense -0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 1.1m -0.6
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Ryan Dunn 1.1m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

Inserted strictly for mop-up duty, leaving no time to influence the game's outcome. The slightly negative impact is merely noise from a closing possession. He was essentially a spectator in uniform for his brief cameo.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.1m
Offense -0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.1m -0.6
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
HOU Houston Rockets
20
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.3

Shot selection was the primary culprit for his slightly negative impact, as a heavy diet of forced, contested threes stalled the half-court offense. His defensive versatility and strong hustle metrics kept him afloat on the margins. However, a glaring pattern of empty possessions from deep prevented him from being a positive difference-maker.

Shooting
FG 6/18 (33.3%)
3PT 5/13 (38.5%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.8%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +13.9
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.7m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +2.6
Defense -1.8
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 38.7m -19.4
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Kevin Durant 35.7m
24
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.5

A pattern of settling for contested mid-range jumpers tanked his overall efficiency and dragged his impact into the red. The negative score stems directly from a high volume of missed twos, which frequently fueled transition opportunities for the opponent. While his defensive positioning remained solid, the sheer number of empty offensive possessions outweighed his perimeter shot-making.

Shooting
FG 8/20 (40.0%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg -11.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +1.8
Defense +0.9
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 35.7m -18.0
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Amen Thompson 35.6m
22
pts
11
reb
8
ast
Impact
+16.7

Relentless rim pressure and elite defensive disruption defined a dominant two-way performance. His massive defensive impact score was fueled by a pattern of blowing up passing lanes and switching seamlessly across multiple positions. By converting highly efficient looks inside and dominating the hustle margins, he dictated the tempo whenever he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.2%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg +2.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +26.6
Hustle +5.9
Defense +2.2
Raw total +34.7
Avg player in 35.6m -18.0
Impact +16.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 4
S Alperen Sengun 28.0m
12
pts
14
reb
6
ast
Impact
-7.0

Struggled mightily to finish around the rim, breaking a long streak of highly efficient interior play. The defensive metrics were surprisingly robust due to excellent positional awareness in the paint, but missing a massive volume of shots as a primary hub cratered his offensive value. Opponents successfully collapsed on his post-ups, forcing a pattern of rushed, off-balance hooks that killed possessions.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.8%
USG% 28.2%
Net Rtg +5.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.3
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 28.0m -14.1
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 6
S Reed Sheppard 21.2m
12
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.1

Provided steady, efficient offensive execution without forcing the issue during his rotation minutes. A pattern of timely defensive rotations bolstered his value, though a lack of elite hustle plays kept his overall impact muted. He played within the flow of the offense, taking what the defense gave him rather than hunting contested looks.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -2.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.5
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 21.2m -10.7
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Tari Eason 31.1m
12
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.2

A masterclass in high-energy, low-usage efficiency that completely swung the game's momentum. His elite defensive rating was driven by a pattern of blowing up dribble hand-offs and creating havoc in the passing lanes. Capitalizing on broken plays and transition opportunities allowed him to maximize his offensive value without needing plays called for him.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 9.9%
Net Rtg +47.4
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +17.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +2.6
Raw total +22.9
Avg player in 31.1m -15.7
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.8

Despite a highly efficient scoring burst that far exceeded his recent averages, his overall impact remained slightly negative due to defensive limitations. A pattern of getting caught on screens allowed opponents to exploit his matchups on the perimeter. The scoring punch was largely offset by the costly defensive breakdowns he surrendered on the other end.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 87.2%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +60.7
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.3m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +9.0
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 21.3m -10.8
Impact +7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Josh Okogie 11.9m
1
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.1

Offensive invisibility and a complete lack of rhythm defined a brief, damaging stint on the floor. Missing all of his attempts created dead possessions, while his usually reliable point-of-attack defense failed to generate any disruptive events. The negative impact reflects a pattern of being entirely out of sync with the game's pace.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 12.9%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -21.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.9m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.8
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 11.9m -5.9
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.7

Failed to anchor the paint during a disastrous short shift, consistently looking a step slow on defensive rotations. The negative impact was compounded by blowing multiple high-percentage looks around the basket, killing offensive momentum. Opponents relentlessly exploited his drop coverage in the pick-and-roll, turning his minutes into a clear liability.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -4.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.9m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.5
Raw total -0.7
Avg player in 9.9m -5.0
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.2

A brief, low-impact stint defined by safe ball movement and minimal risk-taking. He failed to generate any meaningful defensive events, which neutralized the value of his perfect shooting clip. Ultimately, a pattern of passivity meant he just ate minutes without tilting the floor in either direction.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +84.6
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.6m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.3
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 6.6m -3.3
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1