GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ATL Atlanta Hawks
18
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+14.1

Relentless point-of-attack defense and timely perimeter shot-making drove a highly positive shift. He seamlessly navigated through screens to blow up pick-and-roll sets, generating a stellar defensive rating. Even though his recent scoring tear cooled off slightly, his shot selection remained pristine and kept the offense humming.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.0%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +39.6
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +15.1
Hustle +4.2
Defense +8.7
Raw total +28.0
Avg player in 31.9m -13.9
Impact +14.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Dyson Daniels 29.5m
13
pts
10
reb
12
ast
Impact
+18.0

Masterful orchestration of the offense and elite perimeter disruption fueled a dominant two-way performance. He consistently collapsed the defense with probing drives before spraying pinpoint passes to open shooters. Adding relentless hustle to the mix, his ability to generate deflections and secure long rebounds completely suffocated the opponent.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +55.5
+/- +36
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +24.1
Hustle +6.0
Defense +8.3
Raw total +38.4
Avg player in 29.5m -20.4
Impact +18.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Onyeka Okongwu 26.8m
2
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.6

An uncharacteristically timid offensive showing completely overshadowed his elite rim-protection numbers. He fumbled multiple interior catches and rushed his touch shots, bleeding value on the offensive end. While he anchored the paint beautifully with exceptional defensive metrics, his inability to finish easy dump-offs cratered his net score.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 7.8%
Net Rtg +43.9
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +2.9
Defense +10.8
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 26.8m -18.7
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 18.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jalen Johnson 25.1m
18
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.1

Despite finding a smooth rhythm from beyond the arc, his overall impact was dragged into the red by poor rotational awareness on the backline. He repeatedly lost his man on baseline cuts, surrendering easy layups that negated his offensive output. The scoring punch was evident, but the defensive lapses proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.4%
USG% 30.2%
Net Rtg +47.8
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +2.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 25.1m -7.0
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S CJ McCollum 24.1m
29
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+27.9

An absolute masterclass in shot-making torched the opposing drop coverage and skyrocketed his net rating. He hunted mismatches ruthlessly, using subtle hesitations to create separation for his lethal pull-up jumper. This offensive explosion was complemented by surprisingly active hands in the passing lanes, rounding out a dominant showing.

Shooting
FG 11/16 (68.8%)
3PT 6/8 (75.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.9%
USG% 31.1%
Net Rtg +43.2
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +24.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense +8.6
Raw total +36.0
Avg player in 24.1m -8.1
Impact +27.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
15
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.5

Bruising physicality and elite defensive switchability salvaged a night where his perimeter jumper was completely broken. He compensated for missing all of his three-point attempts by bullying his way to the foul line and crashing the offensive glass. His ability to lock down multiple positions in the half-court kept his overall impact firmly in the green.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 48.3%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg +22.4
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +3.9
Defense +5.8
Raw total +21.2
Avg player in 23.4m -10.7
Impact +10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.6

Forcing heavily contested shots early in the shot clock severely damaged the team's offensive rhythm. His inability to find the bottom of the net allowed defenders to aggressively pack the paint against his teammates. While he competed adequately on the defensive end, the sheer inefficiency of his offensive profile tanked his rating.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.4%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -34.9
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +2.2
Defense +1.0
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 18.7m -10.1
Impact -5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Gabe Vincent 14.3m
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.3

Getting hunted on defense completely unraveled his stint on the floor. Opposing guards repeatedly targeted him in isolation, easily blowing past his initial resistance to collapse the defense. Combined with a hesitant offensive approach where he passed up open looks, his presence severely handicapped the second unit.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg +26.7
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.3m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense -1.6
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 14.3m -9.2
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.3

Active rim deterrence and decisive offensive movements highlighted a highly productive rotational stint. He stretched the floor just enough to keep his defender honest, opening up crucial driving lanes for the guards. His disciplined verticality around the basket generated a strong defensive rating.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg +37.9
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.1m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.5
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 12.1m -12.1
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
7
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Capitalizing on every single touch around the basket resulted in a flawless offensive cameo. He set bruising screens to free up the ball-handlers and rolled with purpose, finishing powerfully through contact. This hyper-efficient burst of scoring provided a massive jolt of energy to the bench unit.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 116.7%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -70.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.1m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.3
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 9.1m -9.2
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.6

Defensive invisibility completely offset his floor-spacing value during his brief time on the court. While he knocked down a pair of crucial catch-and-shoot threes, he was repeatedly beaten on back-door cuts. The lack of secondary hustle plays left his overall impact slightly underwater.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -70.0
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.1m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.1
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 9.1m -3.5
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Asa Newell 8.0m
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.3

Suffocating ball pressure in a short burst of playing time proved to be highly effective. He completely disrupted the opponent's offensive sets by fighting over screens and denying entry passes. This defensive intensity easily outweighed his quiet offensive output to secure a positive net score.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -38.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.0m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +1.0
Defense +3.9
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 8.0m -8.8
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.8

A complete lack of offensive aggression rendered him a liability despite his commendable defensive efforts. He operated merely as a ball-swinging placeholder, allowing his defender to roam freely and double-team the primary scorers. The strong defensive rating couldn't salvage a stint where the team essentially played four-on-five offensively.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -38.2
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.9m
Offense -3.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.9
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 7.9m -13.4
Impact -10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S James Harden 25.0m
20
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.6

Empty scoring volume masked underlying defensive apathy and likely ball-security issues that dragged his overall rating down. He consistently allowed blow-bys on the perimeter, forcing the defense into scramble mode too often. The isolation-heavy approach yielded buckets but stagnated the broader offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.9%
USG% 35.0%
Net Rtg -61.6
+/- -34
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.2
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 25.0m -6.6
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S Jaylon Tyson 24.2m
15
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+14.2

Elite defensive metrics (+10.4) carried his overall impact despite a completely broken perimeter stroke. He compensated for the blank from beyond the arc by aggressively attacking the paint and generating consistent hustle plays. His point-of-attack pressure set the tone for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.2%
USG% 28.3%
Net Rtg -17.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense +13.7
Raw total +26.8
Avg player in 24.2m -12.6
Impact +14.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 1
S Max Strus 23.4m
2
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.0

Brick after brick from the perimeter completely collapsed his net impact on the floor. He short-circuited multiple offensive possessions with forced, out-of-rhythm jumpers that fueled opponent transition opportunities. Even a commendable effort in the hustle categories couldn't salvage this disastrous shooting performance.

Shooting
FG 1/9 (11.1%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 11.1%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -60.0
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense -2.5
Hustle +3.9
Defense -2.4
Raw total -1.0
Avg player in 23.4m -11.0
Impact -12.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Evan Mobley 21.8m
10
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.7

A sudden drop in finishing efficiency at the rim derailed his usually reliable interior impact. After a dominant five-game stretch of high-percentage scoring, he struggled to convert through contact and forced several contested looks. His defensive rotations remained solid, but the offensive regression dragged his net score into the red.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 28.1%
Net Rtg -31.4
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +3.2
Defense +5.4
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 21.8m -18.3
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 4
S Dean Wade 17.4m
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.5

Extreme offensive passivity tanked his overall rating, as he managed just a single field goal attempt in his extended action. While he chipped in with solid hustle plays, his reluctance to look for his own shot created severe spacing issues. The lack of defensive resistance further compounded his negative floor presence.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 2.3%
Net Rtg -53.4
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +3.4
Defense -2.5
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 17.4m -8.4
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.9

Strong rim-protection metrics were completely undone by his inability to generate any gravity on offense. Opposing bigs blatantly sagged off him, clogging the driving lanes for the primary creators. He altered shots well in drop coverage, but the offensive spacing issues he caused were too severe to overcome.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg +22.0
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense +6.2
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 19.0m -12.9
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Keon Ellis 18.6m
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.9

Fading completely into the background offensively, his inability to punish closeouts severely hindered the half-court spacing. He passed up several open catch-and-shoot opportunities, stalling out possessions and allowing the defense to reset. While his point-of-attack defense remained pesky, the sheer lack of offensive production made him a net negative.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -59.5
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense -2.0
Hustle +2.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 18.6m -10.1
Impact -10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.8

Taking exactly what the defense gave him resulted in a highly efficient, mistake-free stint. He capitalized on broken plays with smart cuts to the basket and maintained excellent positional discipline on defense. This steady, low-usage approach provided a stabilizing presence for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg +2.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.8
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 16.6m -12.0
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.8

Floating through his minutes without leaving a tangible imprint on the game resulted in a heavily negative rating. He failed to secure the defensive glass effectively, allowing costly second-chance opportunities that swung momentum. A few decent hustle plays couldn't mask his overall lack of aggression on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg -52.2
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +2.8
Defense -1.5
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 16.5m -11.8
Impact -9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
7
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+0.9

Gritty defensive pressure at the point of attack kept his overall impact positive despite a rough shooting night. He compensated for clanking several contested floaters by hounding opposing ball-handlers and blowing up dribble hand-offs. His ability to dictate the tempo in transition partially erased the half-court inefficiency.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg -23.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.6
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 15.7m -9.6
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.8

Maximizing a brief rotation stint, he provided an instant spark with decisive, hard-nosed drives to the rim. His defensive versatility shined during a crucial second-quarter stretch where he seamlessly switched across multiple positions. The sheer efficiency of his movement without the ball drove his positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +29.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.7
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 12.0m -9.2
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
15
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.6

Catching fire from the perimeter completely transformed the geometry of the court during his minutes. He aggressively hunted his shot against drop coverage, punishing defenders who dared to go under screens. This sudden burst of shot-making efficiency broke him out of a recent slump and drove a highly positive overall impact.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.5%
USG% 41.4%
Net Rtg +29.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +1.3
Defense +1.2
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 12.0m -8.7
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
3
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.6

Flawless shot selection and disciplined drop coverage made him a surprisingly effective spot-minute contributor. He stretched the floor with a timely pick-and-pop conversion that caught the defense sleeping. His ability to wall off the paint without fouling anchored a brief but successful defensive stand.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 4.3%
Net Rtg +52.4
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.8m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.9
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 9.8m -11.0
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
4
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.9

Barely moving the needle in either direction, his brief appearance was defined by cautious, low-risk decision making. He missed his lone perimeter look but managed to convert a transition opportunity to keep his offensive metrics afloat. Ultimately, his lack of defensive playmaking left his net impact hovering right around neutral.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +38.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.0m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.0
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 8.0m -9.3
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0