GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

DEN Denver Nuggets
S Jamal Murray 34.8m
26
pts
7
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.1

High-level shot-making from beyond the arc provided crucial offensive gravity. However, his net impact was surprisingly pedestrian, likely due to defensive lapses at the point of attack that allowed opposing guards to penetrate.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.7%
USG% 27.2%
Net Rtg +21.4
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +14.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.7
Raw total +20.3
Avg player in 34.8m -20.2
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Nikola Jokić 31.0m
14
pts
16
reb
10
ast
Impact
+16.6

Defensive dominance and elite rebounding completely overshadowed a rare low-scoring night. He controlled the game's tempo through brilliant facilitation and positional awareness, proving he doesn't need to score to dictate the outcome.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.6%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg +35.1
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +19.2
Hustle +4.3
Defense +11.0
Raw total +34.5
Avg player in 31.0m -17.9
Impact +16.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 26
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Cameron Johnson 29.7m
18
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.6

Surgical shot selection and continued offensive efficiency kept the floor spaced beautifully. However, his overall impact was muted by giving up ground on defensive switches, keeping his net rating modest.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +12.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.5
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 29.7m -17.4
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Christian Braun 26.6m
14
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.6

Despite excellent finishing on cuts and transition opportunities, hidden mistakes like defensive miscommunications or turnovers dragged him into the negative. His inability to stretch the floor from deep allowed defenders to pack the driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.0%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +33.8
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.2
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 26.6m -15.1
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Aaron Gordon 22.3m
6
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-5.7

A sharp drop in offensive aggression and poor finishing at the rim tanked his overall effectiveness. Without his usual downhill pressure, the offense stagnated during his minutes and allowed the defense to sag into the paint.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.6%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +33.7
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.4
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 22.3m -13.5
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Bruce Brown 26.1m
13
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.6

Relentless point-of-attack defense and highly efficient slashing defined a superb two-way performance. He thrived in the chaos of broken plays, turning loose balls into immediate transition offense.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.7%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +3.2
Defense +5.0
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 26.1m -18.0
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
13
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.4

Streaky perimeter shooting provided a temporary offensive spark but failed to move the needle overall. A lack of secondary playmaking and minimal defensive resistance kept his impact perfectly neutral.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.0%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +29.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.8
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 19.5m -11.9
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
10
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.3

A quick trigger and efficient spacing provided a much-needed jolt for the second unit. His value was strictly tied to his shooting, as he offered virtually zero resistance on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -19.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.2
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 14.8m -11.7
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
14
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.7

Absolute perfection around the basket punished smaller defenders in the post. He maximized a short stint by bullying his way to the rim, though his heavy feet in pick-and-roll coverage limited his total minutes.

Shooting
FG 6/6 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 95.6%
USG% 31.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.2
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 12.8m -9.0
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 3
Zeke Nnaji 6.9m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.6

Empty offensive possessions and a failure to protect the rim resulted in a bleeding net rating during a brief cameo. Opponents aggressively attacked his positioning, forcing quick substitutions.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -54.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.9m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 6.9m -5.7
Impact -6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.1

Capitalized on garbage-time minutes with confident, decisive shot-making. A quick burst of scoring provided a minor positive bump to close out the rotation.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.9m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.4
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 5.9m -5.2
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.5

Incredible per-minute production was driven by instant hustle and a willingness to crash the glass. He completely changed the energy of the floor during his extremely limited run.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.2m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 3.2m -1.9
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.4

Failed to make a positive mark during his short stint, missing his only look and struggling to find the flow of the offense. Defensive missteps compounded the negative impact of his brief appearance.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.2m
Offense -1.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.5
Avg player in 3.2m -1.9
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
KJ Simpson 3.2m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.2

A completely invisible offensive showing dragged down his metrics in limited action. He was unable to generate any separation, leading to stagnant possessions when he touched the ball.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.2m
Offense -2.7
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total -2.1
Avg player in 3.2m -2.1
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
MEM Memphis Grizzlies
S Toby Okani 32.8m
15
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.7

A massive scoring surge from the perimeter masked underlying flaws that kept his overall impact in the red. While his defensive metrics were strong, hidden costs like defensive breakdowns or live-ball turnovers likely eroded his breakout offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.8%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg -42.5
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.3
Raw total +15.9
Avg player in 32.8m -18.6
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 73.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jahmai Mashack 32.8m
9
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-14.1

Poor shooting efficiency and likely turnovers dragged his total impact into the deep negative despite solid hustle metrics. His inability to finish plays offensively negated any physical effort he provided on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.9%
USG% 18.7%
Net Rtg -42.5
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +2.8
Defense +0.4
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 32.8m -18.9
Impact -14.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 70.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+14.0

Elite shot selection and high-level hustle plays fueled a massive positive swing during his minutes. Capitalizing on defensive rotations, he converted his looks at a highly efficient clip to anchor the second unit's success.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.1%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg +32.0
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +16.4
Hustle +5.2
Defense +4.0
Raw total +25.6
Avg player in 21.9m -11.6
Impact +14.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
15
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.3

Steady offensive execution kept his impact slightly above water during his rotation minutes. He picked his spots well within the flow of the offense, though a lack of overwhelming defensive presence capped his overall ceiling.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.3%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +32.0
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.0
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 21.9m -13.0
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Cedric Coward 21.9m
27
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+16.7

Aggressive, high-volume attacking generated a massive box score footprint that translated directly to winning basketball. He consistently punished mismatches to double his usual scoring output, driving a dominant offensive stretch.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.3%
USG% 36.5%
Net Rtg +32.0
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +22.6
Hustle +2.3
Defense +2.6
Raw total +27.5
Avg player in 21.9m -10.8
Impact +16.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Adama Bal 38.8m
12
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.7

Excellent defensive metrics and strong hustle were ultimately undone by bricked shots and offensive inefficiency. Forcing looks against set defenses dragged down his net rating despite his heavy workload and off-ball effort.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg -22.5
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.8m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +3.4
Defense +6.9
Raw total +20.6
Avg player in 38.8m -23.3
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.1

Scoring volume completely masked a porous defensive performance that bled points on the other end. Opponents consistently targeted him in isolation, turning his offensive breakout into an empty-calorie showing.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.3%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg -24.7
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense -1.8
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 36.6m -21.2
Impact -11.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-17.9

A disastrous perimeter shooting night cratered his value, as he settled exclusively for heavily contested outside looks. The resulting long rebounds fueled opponent transition opportunities, compounding his negative defensive metrics.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 2/10 (20.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 32.2%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -48.4
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.6
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 28.3m -19.2
Impact -17.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Taj Gibson 5.0m
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

A brief, ineffective stint saw him struggle to anchor the paint against quicker bigs. Missed interior looks and a lack of defensive deterrence quickly relegated him back to the bench.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +18.9
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.0m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 5.0m -3.6
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0