GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

UTA Utah Jazz
26
pts
5
reb
10
ast
Impact
+2.2

Despite gaudy scoring and playmaking numbers, his overall floor impact slipped into the negative due to costly mistakes. Careless ball security in the half-court allowed the defense to generate easy transition points. The impressive offensive volume was ultimately undermined by ill-timed turnovers that killed crucial momentum swings.

Shooting
FG 11/20 (55.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/4 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 23.0%
Net Rtg +35.6
+/- +37
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.9m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +1.5
Defense +5.9
Raw total +18.1
Avg player in 40.9m -15.9
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Blake Hinson 34.9m
30
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+15.3

Scorching offensive efficiency propelled his net impact to an elite level. He consistently found the soft spots in the defense, punishing late rotations with decisive shot-making from the perimeter. This clinical approach to scoring maximized every possession without requiring him to dominate the ball.

Shooting
FG 12/19 (63.2%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.5%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +22.7
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +23.2
Hustle +2.0
Defense +8.7
Raw total +33.9
Avg player in 34.9m -18.6
Impact +15.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Cody Williams 33.5m
14
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-12.9

A lack of offensive rhythm and poor shot quality drove his impact score deep into negative territory. He struggled to finish through contact, missing 10 shots that frequently led to run-outs for the opposition. The inability to convert on high-leverage possessions overshadowed his modest defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 6/16 (37.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.5%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +43.5
+/- +37
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.2
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 33.5m -18.8
Impact -12.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ace Bailey 28.8m
23
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+15.4

A highly productive two-way showing was fueled by decisive, aggressive drives to the basket. He broke down his primary defender with ease, generating high-quality looks that kept the offense humming. His length and activity on the defensive end further compounded his positive influence on the game.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 27.2%
Net Rtg +38.0
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +3.0
Defense +10.3
Raw total +26.3
Avg player in 28.8m -10.9
Impact +15.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
S Oscar Tshiebwe 28.2m
16
pts
22
reb
3
ast
Impact
+25.8

Absolute dominance on the interior created a massive positive swing for the team. He controlled the paint by generating crucial second-chance opportunities and finishing efficiently around the rim. His physical presence dictated the terms of engagement, suffocating the opponent's frontcourt rotation.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.7%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +39.7
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense +16.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +14.1
Raw total +32.2
Avg player in 28.2m -6.4
Impact +25.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 36.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
Bez Mbeng 38.2m
27
pts
11
reb
11
ast
Impact
+26.7

An absolute masterclass in game management drove a spectacular positive impact score. He manipulated the pick-and-roll to perfection, simultaneously scoring with elite efficiency and spoon-feeding teammates. His relentless motor on both ends of the floor simply overwhelmed the opposing backcourt.

Shooting
FG 12/19 (63.2%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 66.4%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg +41.2
+/- +40
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.2m
Offense +28.6
Hustle +3.6
Defense +11.4
Raw total +43.6
Avg player in 38.2m -16.9
Impact +26.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 25
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
John Konchar 35.5m
11
pts
11
reb
10
ast
Impact
+6.0

Elite connective play and relentless hustle metrics defined this highly impactful performance. He didn't need to force shots to control the game, instead relying on timely rotations, deflections, and extra passes. By executing the dirty work flawlessly, he elevated the efficiency of every lineup he joined.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg +45.1
+/- +41
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.5m
Offense +11.8
Hustle +6.0
Defense +17.7
Raw total +35.5
Avg player in 35.5m -29.5
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 30
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 5
BLK 2
TO 3
MEM Memphis Grizzlies
S Jahmai Mashack 48.0m
13
pts
15
reb
14
ast
Impact
-19.5

Racking up a massive triple-double somehow resulted in a severely detrimental floor impact. The raw counting stats completely disguised a reckless style of play characterized by crippling turnovers and defensive gambles that compromised the team's shell. His high-usage facilitation often put teammates in terrible positions, bleeding points the other way.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.8%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -38.0
+/- -46
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 48.0m
Offense -5.8
Hustle +5.2
Defense +4.4
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 48.0m -23.3
Impact -19.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 33
FGM Against 19
Opp FG% 57.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 10
13
pts
13
reb
3
ast
Impact
+4.0

An abysmal shooting night from the perimeter anchored his overall impact firmly in the negative. Firing away to the tune of 11 missed three-pointers effectively acted as live-ball turnovers that killed offensive momentum. While his defensive rebounding and hustle metrics were elite, they couldn't salvage the damage done by his shot selection.

Shooting
FG 5/19 (26.3%)
3PT 2/13 (15.4%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.4%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg -38.0
+/- -46
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 48.0m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +4.2
Defense +12.3
Raw total +21.4
Avg player in 48.0m -17.4
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 26
FGM Against 14
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 1
S Toby Okani 42.0m
20
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.0

A massive scoring spike was completely undone by brutal inefficiency from the floor. He forced the issue offensively with 13 missed field goals, creating long rebounds that fueled transition opportunities for the opponent. The hollow volume masked a performance that actively hurt the team's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 9/22 (40.9%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg -40.7
+/- -44
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 42.0m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense -2.1
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 42.0m -13.8
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Adama Bal 38.5m
18
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-0.9

Solid shooting splits were offset by hidden negative plays that dragged his overall impact into the red. His tendency to stall the offense with poor decision-making sequences negated the value of his perimeter shot-making. Despite a strong defensive rating, his inability to protect the basketball at crucial moments proved costly.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg -44.6
+/- -42
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.2
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 38.5m -20.7
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Dariq Whitehead 23.6m
21
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.6

Hunting for his own shot led to a high-volume output but a net-negative influence on the game. He settled for contested looks from beyond the arc, clanking seven threes and short-circuiting the offensive rhythm. The scoring burst came at the direct expense of ball movement and overall team efficiency.

Shooting
FG 8/18 (44.4%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.6%
USG% 32.4%
Net Rtg -13.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.6m
Offense +8.7
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.4
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 23.6m -14.1
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Rayan Rupert 40.0m
16
pts
12
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.3

Extreme offensive inefficiency tanked what could have been a dominant two-way performance. He hijacked the offense with 18 missed field goals, repeatedly forcing heavily contested jumpers rather than moving the ball. The sheer volume of wasted possessions entirely erased the value of his excellent work on the defensive glass.

Shooting
FG 7/25 (28.0%)
3PT 1/11 (9.1%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.4%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -43.7
+/- -45
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.0m
Offense +2.5
Hustle +3.7
Defense +4.3
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 40.0m -11.8
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 26
FGM Against 15
Opp FG% 57.7%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3