GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

SAS San Antonio Spurs
S De'Aaron Fox 27.5m
18
pts
1
reb
10
ast
Impact
-0.8

High-level orchestration of the pick-and-roll yielded strong box score metrics (+14.6), but his overall impact slipped to -1.0 due to defensive lapses in transition. He frequently lost his man while ball-watching, surrendering easy backdoor cuts that negated his offensive production. The scoring and playmaking volume simply couldn't outpace the points yielded on the other end.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg +16.8
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.5m
Offense +14.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +4.0
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 27.5m -20.3
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 21.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Devin Vassell 27.4m
5
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.4

An abysmal -15.5 net rating was fueled by passive offensive stretches and settling for heavily contested perimeter jumpers. He failed to pressure the rim, allowing the defense to easily switch and recover without penalty. This lack of aggression compounded his ongoing shooting slump, making him a severe liability during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg +0.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +0.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense -1.2
Raw total +0.0
Avg player in 27.4m -11.4
Impact -11.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
14
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+11.8

High-IQ off-ball movement and timely cuts to the basket drove a highly efficient scoring night and a strong +15.9 box impact. He paired this offensive opportunism with excellent weak-side rim rotations (+5.0 Def) to stifle opponent drives. His ability to capitalize on defensive breakdowns defined his highly positive two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +29.0
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.8m
Offense +16.4
Hustle +2.7
Defense +5.1
Raw total +24.2
Avg player in 26.8m -12.4
Impact +11.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
40
pts
13
reb
5
ast
Impact
+43.1

Absolute dominance in the painted area generated an astronomical +31.9 net impact, completely overwhelming the opposing frontcourt. He paired his unstoppable interior scoring with terrifying rim protection (+8.3 Def) that altered countless driving trajectories. This performance was a masterclass in utilizing generational length to dictate the terms of engagement on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 14/23 (60.9%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 10/11 (90.9%)
Advanced
TS% 71.8%
USG% 45.5%
Net Rtg +13.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +39.6
Hustle +3.8
Defense +7.1
Raw total +50.5
Avg player in 26.2m -7.4
Impact +43.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 55.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
S Dylan Harper 25.6m
13
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+0.3

While his playmaking vision was evident, a dip in his usually elite finishing efficiency dragged his overall impact into the red (-2.5). He struggled to navigate drop coverage, frequently getting caught in no-man's land and killing offensive momentum. Despite solid hustle metrics, his inability to consistently punish the defense off the dribble proved costly.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.0%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg +25.1
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +2.3
Defense +0.2
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 25.6m -11.8
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
15
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.1

A sharp uptick in shooting efficiency (+13.8 Box) was completely undermined by sluggish perimeter defense and a lack of rotational awareness. Opponents consistently targeted him in isolation, exploiting his flat-footed closeouts to generate open looks. The resulting -4.3 net score illustrates how his defensive bleed erased a highly efficient scoring night.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.4%
USG% 12.9%
Net Rtg +17.8
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +0.6
Defense -2.0
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 28.1m -9.2
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.9

Flawless perimeter execution provided a massive offensive boost, yet his overall net rating plummeted to -4.9 due to struggles navigating off-ball screens. He was repeatedly caught trailing shooters, forcing emergency rotations that compromised the defensive shell. The stark contrast between his shooting perfection and defensive positioning defined his stint.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 110.3%
USG% 11.5%
Net Rtg +26.4
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +10.6
Hustle +1.2
Defense -4.6
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 25.4m -10.1
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 76.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
17
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.8

Bully-ball drives and relentless energy plays (+3.0 Hustle) powered a strong +6.1 overall impact score. Even with his outside shot failing to fall, he consistently collapsed the defense by forcefully attacking the paint. His physical point-of-attack defense (+3.1 Def) further cemented a highly disruptive two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.6%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg +17.4
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +15.2
Hustle +3.0
Defense +6.4
Raw total +24.6
Avg player in 23.5m -16.8
Impact +7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Luke Kornet 18.2m
2
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.4

Verticality at the rim and disciplined drop coverage (+5.8 Def) kept his net impact positive despite a near-total absence of offensive production. He embraced a purely garbage-man role, securing extra possessions through relentless offensive rebounding (+2.9 Hustle). His willingness to do the dirty work perfectly complemented the high-usage stars around him.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg +22.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +2.9
Defense +6.2
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 18.2m -24.5
Impact -11.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.4

Maximized a brief cameo by applying intense, full-court ball pressure that completely disrupted the opponent's offensive initiation (+3.0 Def). His pesky on-ball defense forced rushed decisions and generated immediate transition opportunities. This high-energy spark plug shift resulted in a stellar +3.5 impact in under six minutes of action.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.6m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +0.7
Defense +3.0
Raw total +7.1
Avg player in 5.6m -12.5
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

Logged empty minutes where he failed to register a single positive statistical contribution across the board. His passive positioning allowed the opposition to dictate the tempo, resulting in a quick -3.7 net rating during his brief run. He was essentially invisible on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -20.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.6m
Offense -0.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.1
Avg player in 5.6m -3.7
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Cooper Flagg 32.1m
33
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+21.2

Elite shot creation drove a massive +24.2 box impact, capitalizing on his recent scoring tear with vastly improved efficiency. His ability to anchor the perimeter defense (+3.5 Def) kept the overall net rating firmly in the green. The sheer volume of high-quality looks he generated defined the offensive flow for Dallas.

Shooting
FG 13/25 (52.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.7%
USG% 35.0%
Net Rtg -5.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +20.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.3
Raw total +24.6
Avg player in 32.1m -3.4
Impact +21.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Max Christie 31.2m
16
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.2

Despite finding his stroke from beyond the arc to bust a recent slump, his overall impact plummeted to -7.5 due to struggles inside the perimeter. He forced several contested mid-range jumpers that fueled opponent transition opportunities. While his perimeter hustle (+2.3) was notable, he was consistently targeted on defensive switches.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.1%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -9.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +2.3
Defense +0.3
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 31.2m -13.3
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ryan Nembhard 30.8m
13
pts
1
reb
7
ast
Impact
-5.8

Playmaking volume couldn't mask the damage done by inefficient shot selection and a porous point-of-attack defense (-1.0 Def). Opposing guards consistently blew past him in isolation, forcing rotations that compromised the entire defensive shell. The resulting -9.8 impact score highlights how his offensive initiation was negated by defensive liabilities.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.8%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -7.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense -5.5
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 30.8m -10.7
Impact -5.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 68.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Khris Middleton 25.4m
14
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.8

Snapping out of a brutal shooting slump, his offensive efficiency spiked to generate a strong +13.5 box score impact. However, his overall net score slipped into the red (-1.9) due to defensive lapses and off-ball disengagement during transition sequences. He finally found his rhythm from deep, but the overall floor impact remained slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg -8.9
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.6
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 25.4m -11.9
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.7

A stark departure from his recent dominant interior finishing, missing multiple point-blank looks to drag down his offensive impact. His brief stint was marred by poor spacing and an inability to establish deep post position. The resulting -2.8 net score reflects how quickly the offense stagnated during his eight minutes on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg -47.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.2m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.2
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 8.2m -16.8
Impact -14.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

Operating almost exclusively as a catch-and-shoot threat, his one-dimensional offensive profile allowed defenders to aggressively run him off the line. While his defensive metrics (+4.6) and hustle were strong, his overall impact tanked to -6.2 due to an inability to create off the dribble. This lack of secondary playmaking frequently stalled half-court possessions.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg -33.9
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.9
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 29.6m -11.1
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 81.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
4
pts
11
reb
5
ast
Impact
-5.4

Exceptional screen-setting and defensive positioning (+6.2 Def) almost completely salvaged a near-zero scoring threat. He acted as a vital offensive hub at the top of the key, facilitating backdoor cuts while dominating the defensive glass. However, his total reluctance to look at the rim allowed the opposing center to permanently camp in the paint, resulting in a slightly negative overall impact.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg -8.4
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +2.6
Defense +4.2
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 24.8m -19.5
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 36.8%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
AJ Johnson 19.7m
13
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.9

Erasing a prolonged stretch of offensive futility, he provided a massive spark off the bench with decisive, aggressive drives to the rim. His two-way engagement was evident through strong hustle metrics (+2.2) and active hands in the passing lanes. This sudden scoring burst fundamentally shifted the momentum of the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.4%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg -27.4
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +2.2
Defense +2.6
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 19.7m -17.9
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Moussa Cisse 19.5m
7
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.2

Elite rim protection and relentless activity on the glass drove a stellar +6.3 defensive impact score. He completely deterred drivers during his shifts, functioning as a massive roadblock in the paint. This defensive anchoring, combined with high-level hustle plays (+3.1), easily offset a slight dip in his recent scoring volume.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/5 (20.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.6%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -27.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.5m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.3
Raw total +18.5
Avg player in 19.5m -17.3
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 3
TO 0
Tyler Smith 18.8m
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.9

Blanking from beyond the arc severely cramped the floor, dragging his overall impact into the negative despite solid defensive metrics (+3.5 Def). Opponents blatantly sagged off him on the perimeter to clog the driving lanes for others. His inability to punish drop coverage ultimately outweighed his reliable weak-side rotations.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg -38.7
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.1
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 18.8m -12.4
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0