GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

TOR Toronto Raptors
S Brandon Ingram 36.6m
38
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
+20.5

An absolute masterclass in offensive creation drove a sky-high impact score, doubling his usual production. He paired elite shot-making with stellar defensive metrics, completely overwhelming his primary matchups all night. This was a true apex performance where he dictated the terms of engagement on every single possession.

Shooting
FG 13/23 (56.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 10/11 (90.9%)
Advanced
TS% 68.2%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +20.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Offense +32.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.5
Raw total +40.1
Avg player in 36.6m -19.6
Impact +20.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S RJ Barrett 35.0m
22
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.8

Exceptional defensive metrics anchored his strong positive impact, compensating for a somewhat erratic shooting night from beyond the arc. He consistently generated extra possessions through sheer physical effort and transition pressure. The sheer volume of his two-way workload ultimately overwhelmed his inefficiency.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 25.3%
Net Rtg +18.5
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.0m
Offense +17.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.0
Raw total +25.3
Avg player in 35.0m -18.5
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 58.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Scottie Barnes 25.0m
13
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.8

A highly efficient shooting profile was strangely muted by a lack of overall volume and disruptive defensive plays. He deferred too often in half-court sets, keeping his net impact hovering barely above neutral despite strong percentages. The underlying metrics suggest he needed to be far more aggressive to truly tilt the game.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 83.8%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +8.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.6
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 25.0m -12.0
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 90.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
0.0

A massive bounce-back in scoring aggression fueled a positive rating, breaking him out of a severe recent slump. Strong hustle plays and engaged point-of-attack defense supplemented his offensive resurgence. He successfully changed the pace of the game whenever he had the ball in his hands.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.0%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +27.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +3.0
Defense +2.0
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 23.2m -13.4
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jakob Poeltl 17.4m
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.1

A sudden drop in offensive involvement snapped a dominant streak of interior efficiency, dragging his impact into the negative. While he still provided solid hustle and screen-setting, the lack of scoring pressure allowed the defense to key in on the perimeter. His inability to punish mismatches inside fundamentally altered the team's offensive geometry.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +16.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +2.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 17.4m -8.8
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
7
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.9

Poor shot selection and an inability to finish inside the arc severely depressed his net rating. Despite generating solid defensive metrics, his offensive possessions frequently stalled out or ended in empty trips. The defensive intensity simply couldn't cover for the momentum-killing misses.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg +39.0
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.7
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 24.8m -14.6
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
17
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+14.3

Flawless interior finishing and relentless physical play drove a spectacular overall impact score. He punished the defense on every touch while simultaneously anchoring the floor with elite defensive metrics. This was a breakout performance defined by absolute dominance in the painted area.

Shooting
FG 7/7 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.2%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +41.5
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Offense +20.8
Hustle +3.4
Defense +4.8
Raw total +29.0
Avg player in 22.2m -14.7
Impact +14.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Jamal Shead 21.7m
8
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.9

A lack of overall hustle and secondary stats left his impact score in the red despite decent shooting efficiency. He failed to disrupt the opponent's rhythm defensively, acting more as a passenger than a catalyst during his minutes. The performance lacked the physical edge required to swing the momentum.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg +31.3
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.7
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 21.7m -12.1
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
5
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.1

Elite defensive positioning and high-energy hustle plays kept him in the green despite a severe drop-off in his usual scoring output. He found ways to impact winning without the ball, crashing the glass and blowing up actions on the perimeter. It was a gritty, blue-collar shift that masked his offensive struggles.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +73.2
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.5m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +2.3
Defense +5.0
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 18.5m -10.2
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.5

Strong defensive rotations during a brief cameo allowed him to post a positive score despite missing his only shot. He stayed disciplined within the scheme, ensuring the opponent couldn't exploit the end-of-bench unit. His value came entirely from not making mistakes.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -157.1
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.3
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 3.1m -1.8
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.9

An empty offensive trip and zero peripheral stats resulted in a quick negative rating. He failed to register any hustle or defensive impact, essentially floating through his three minutes of action. The lack of engagement was glaring even in a microscopic sample size.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -157.1
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Offense -1.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.1
Avg player in 3.1m -1.8
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

A complete lack of statistical production across the board tanked his impact during garbage time. He failed to assert himself offensively, continuing a recent trend of severe passivity. The team derived absolutely no value from his minutes on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -157.1
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 3.1m -1.7
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

Missed opportunities on the perimeter dragged his score down despite commendable hustle and defensive effort. He brought the right energy to his brief shift but couldn't convert that effort into tangible offensive production. The erratic shooting ultimately outweighed his high motor.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 37.5%
Net Rtg -157.1
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.2
Raw total -0.1
Avg player in 3.1m -1.8
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.1

A completely invisible performance yielded a harsh negative rating, as he failed to record a single counting stat or hustle play. He was a non-factor on both ends of the floor, allowing the game to completely bypass him. It was a highly ineffective use of end-of-game minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -157.1
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Offense -2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -2.0
Avg player in 3.1m -3.1
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
MIA Miami Heat
S Bam Adebayo 37.5m
24
pts
11
reb
8
ast
Impact
+13.0

Dominant two-way play drove a massive positive impact, fueled by a sharp spike in offensive assertiveness compared to his recent slump. High-level defensive anchoring combined with excellent facilitation from the high post created a massive statistical footprint. He completely controlled the paint on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.1%
USG% 21.0%
Net Rtg -13.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.5m
Offense +28.8
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.0
Raw total +34.7
Avg player in 37.5m -21.7
Impact +13.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Davion Mitchell 37.3m
15
pts
3
reb
11
ast
Impact
-10.8

Elite playmaking volume couldn't salvage a negative overall score, largely due to a complete lack of perimeter gravity. Opponents sagging off him clogged the driving lanes, neutralizing the value of his high-level facilitation. A slight defensive dip from his usual standard further suppressed his net impact.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.7%
USG% 17.7%
Net Rtg -25.3
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense -0.2
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 37.3m -23.8
Impact -10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Pelle Larsson 32.3m
10
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.6

Despite generating excellent hustle metrics, his overall impact plunged due to a significant regression in scoring volume. Inefficient perimeter execution negated the extra possessions he created through sheer effort. The inability to capitalize on open looks ultimately dragged down his net rating.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg -37.3
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +3.5
Defense -0.3
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 32.3m -17.5
Impact -10.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Tyler Herro 28.2m
15
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.5

Defensive liabilities severely undercut a decent offensive showing, bleeding points on the perimeter. While his shot creation provided a solid baseline, the negative defensive rating suggests he was consistently targeted in pick-and-roll coverage. The scoring output simply wasn't high enough to outpace what he surrendered on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -1.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense -2.0
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 28.2m -15.9
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Andrew Wiggins 21.6m
5
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-13.9

A massive drop-off in offensive aggression completely tanked his overall value, snapping a streak of highly efficient outings. Poor shot selection from the perimeter and negative defensive metrics compounded the lack of scoring punch. He faded into the background during crucial stretches when the team needed his usual wing creation.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +22.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +1.0
Defense -0.9
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 21.6m -14.2
Impact -13.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
15
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.4

A highly efficient shooting night was offset by a surprisingly muted overall impact score. He executed well within the flow of the offense, but a lack of disruptive defensive plays or secondary creation kept his ceiling capped. The performance was steady but lacked the high-leverage moments needed to swing the net rating positive.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -65.3
+/- -31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.1
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 24.1m -15.3
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.7

A sharp decline in offensive production completely derailed his value, as he struggled to find his rhythm off the bench. Without his usual scoring punch to stretch the floor, his negative defensive metrics were left glaringly exposed. He failed to provide the essential secondary scoring that typically defines his role.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.6%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg -72.2
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +1.3
Defense -0.8
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 16.6m -9.1
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Kel'el Ware 11.4m
7
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.0

Exceptional defensive metrics kept his impact near neutral during a brief stint on the floor. He provided strong rim protection, though a shaky shot profile prevented him from making a positive offensive dent. His minutes were defined by stabilizing the interior defense while the primary rotation rested.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 30.8%
Net Rtg -76.0
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.4m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.8
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 11.4m -6.7
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.7

Flawless execution on limited touches provided a surprising jolt of positive impact off the bench. He capitalized on every opportunity, showing a massive leap in offensive confidence compared to recent outings. Solid positional defense ensured his scoring burst translated directly to a net positive.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +43.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.8m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.8
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 10.8m -4.9
Impact +4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.8

A completely empty offensive shift combined with poor defensive positioning resulted in a steep negative rating over just seven minutes. He failed to register any hustle stats, indicating a lack of engagement or physical presence. The team bled points during his brief rotation due to missed assignments.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.6%
Net Rtg -53.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.5m
Offense -0.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.5
Raw total -2.3
Avg player in 7.5m -4.5
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.6

Invisible offensive involvement dragged down his score during a brief garbage-time appearance. While he didn't make any glaring mistakes defensively, the lack of tangible contributions left his impact slightly in the red. He essentially served as a warm body to close out the clock.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +157.1
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Offense -0.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.1
Raw total +0.0
Avg player in 3.1m -2.6
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.5

Immediate perimeter aggression off the bench drove a quick positive spike in his limited minutes. Firing confidently from deep stretched the defense and maximized his short stint on the floor. He provided exactly the kind of instant-offense spark required from a deep reserve.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg +157.1
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 3.1m -3.7
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.8

Perfect execution on his lone offensive touch kept his head just above water in a negligible sample size. Defensive lapses nearly wiped out the value of his scoring, showing vulnerability at the point of attack. Ultimately, his brief stint was a statistical wash.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +157.1
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.8
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 3.1m -2.4
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.6

A perfectly efficient, albeit microscopic, offensive showing nudged his impact into the green. He played within himself during his three minutes, avoiding mistakes and holding his own defensively. It was a textbook, low-variance closing shift.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +157.1
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.1m
Offense +2.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 3.1m -1.5
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0